contextualising site factors for feasibility analysis

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 14 November 2014, At: 10:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Contextualising site factors forfeasibility analysisRussell R. Curriea, Franz Wesleyb & Gurupdesh Pandherc

a Thompson Rivers University, IB 2031B, 900 McGill Road,Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 0C8, Canadab McGill University, 4276 A Saint Urbain Street, Montreal, QC, H2W1V5, Canadac University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B3P4, CanadaPublished online: 26 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Russell R. Currie, Franz Wesley & Gurupdesh Pandher (2014) Contextualisingsite factors for feasibility analysis, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57:10,1484-1496, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Contextualising site factors for feasibility analysis

Russell R. Curriea*, Franz Wesleyb and Gurupdesh Pandherc

aThompson Rivers University, IB 2031B, 900 McGill Road, Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 0C8,Canada; bMcGill University, 4276 A Saint Urbain Street, Montreal, QC, H2W 1V5, Canada;

cUniversity of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada

(Received 27 September 2012; final version received 11 June 2013)

This paper explores the utility of site analysis as one factor in determining the feasibilityof a proposed development in relation to organisational objectives. Feasibility analysismodels frequently include site analysis as one factor in the broader study. However, siteanalysis for site planning and design is generally presented under the assumptions of amore advanced stage of planning than can be admitted by the constraints imposed bya feasibility analysis in the pre-start up phase of a proposed development. Site analysisin the context of feasibility analysis requires a model that emphasises its capacity formaking a ‘go/no go’ decision on a proposed development programme based onuncertainty, limited resources and multiple stakeholder interests. From the multiplecriteria decision-making literature a method is developed and applied to determine thefitness of a site for supporting a proposed tourism development. Moreover, the proposedsite analysis matrix and coding scheme provides practitioners with parameters that caninform subsequent site planning actions. While application of the concept bearslimitations in quantitative measurement and spatial representation, the results suggestthe proposed method for site analysis is beneficial and useful in the context of feasibilityanalysis.

Keywords: land use site planning; feasibility analysis; site analysis; businessdevelopment

1. Introduction

Feasibility analysis frameworks generally include site analysis as one factor among many

in making a ‘go/no go’ decision in the pre-start up phase of a proposed development

(Currie and Wesley 2010). Much of the literature on conducting a site analysis –

specifically handbooks and manuals that outline the steps and various factors that apply to

a comprehensive site analysis – are found in the domain of land use site planning and

design (e.g. Caminos and Goethert 1980; White 1983; Lynch and Hack 1984; Rubenstein

1996; Lagro 2008; Russ 2009). These texts are a valuable resource to the student and

practitioner. Most of these texts explicitly mention the decision-making utility of the site

analysis for site selection, stating that factors should be arranged comparatively based on

quality and importance then choices made between alternatives (Caminos and Goethert

1980; Lynch and Hack 1984; Rubenstein 1996; Lagro 2008; Russ 2009). However, the site

analysis manuals do not necessarily emphasise decision making in the pre-start-up phase of

a development, focusing rather on the “more detailed site investigation that is usually

undertaken after some degree of preliminary site planning” (Russ 2009, 47). For example,

site analysis could be considered to consist of several phases, proceeding from establishing

*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

� 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014

Vol. 57, No. 10, 1484–1496, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.815606

the site’s advantages and limitations, to determining its suitability for the proposed use, to

planning and designing project elements (De Chiara and Koppelman 1978). The latter

stages require the collection and spatial representation of the site’s physical information,

which is the focus of the site analysis manuals. However, in the preliminary phase of

establishing the site’s advantages and limitations, collecting physical information may be

problematic due to limited resources, so other sources of information are required (Russ

2009). In terms of decision making, the site analysis manuals are not explicit about how

preliminary information related to the quality and importance of site factors can be

obtained from various stakeholders and subsequently analysed.

Considering the purpose of feasibility analysis is to inform a ‘go/no go’ decision, a

model for site analysis that both incorporates theory-based decision-making processes and

adheres to the requirements and constraints of feasibility analysis for a given site is

required to complement the guidelines and checklists provided in the site planning and

design manuals. Models applicable to the decision-making aspect of a preliminary site

analysis can be found in the literature on land use/site suitability analysis, which lends

itself to empirical testing of various multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques.

However, one of the problems of comparison between site analysis in the domain of site

planning and design versus land use/site suitability analysis is the issue of scope. The

objective of MCDM is selecting the best or most appropriate site or land use pattern from

a number of possible alternatives, evaluating each one on the basis of a set of criteria and

diverse priorities (Jankowski 1995; Malczewski et al. 1997; Malczewski 2004). In other

words, the challenge of MCDM is to identify alternatives that satisfy the objectives of all

parties involved and then to reduce or order the set of alternatives to determine the most

preferred option (Jankowski 1995). Site analysis for site planning and design can be

applicable for site selection between alternatives, but it is most commonly used to analyse

a given site for a given purpose (Lynch and Hack 1984; Russ 2009). This utility places it

within the context of feasibility analysis, where it forms but one factor in the larger

feasibility study (Rubenstein 1996; Currie and Wesley 2010). For this reason, the methods

of MCDM as it relates to land use/site suitability analysis are not completely transferable

to the purpose, requirements and constraints of site analysis. Nevertheless, there are

enough similarities that aspects of it can be borrowed for a process specific to site analysis.

Applying the conceptual frameworks found in the MCDM and land use/site suitability

literature, this paper offers a methodology for conducting a preliminary site analysis in the

context of a theory-based feasibility analysis model. Site analysis here is treated as a single

lens within the broader scope of feasibility analysis. The methodology offered recognises

that the context of feasibility analysis subjects the site analysis to various constraints

related to pre-development activities, namely, the time and cost constraints are usually

significant at this stage in the course of a development (Russ 2009; Currie and Wesley

2010). Furthermore, the information gathered must be relevant, easily communicated to

management, planners and various stakeholders, and yet comprehensive enough to

contribute to decision making related to feasibility (Lynch and Hack 1984; Leung 2003;

Russ 2009; Currie and Wesley 2010). Especially in the context of tourism development,

where economic objectives must align with social/cultural and environmental objectives,

integrating local concerns should influence the level of comprehensiveness and objectivity

(Tiwari, Loof, and Paudyal 1999). In addition, the theories that underpin the feasibility

analysis model must also apply to the site analysis.

The researchers applied the proposed site analysis model to a small craft harbour

(SCH) in Northern British Columbia, Canada, as part of a study to determine the

feasibility of developing marine tourism on the site. This particular setting offers a highly

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

relevant context for a site analysis due to the competing resources and demands of

stakeholders associated with the SCH. Representatives from the various SCH user groups

were involved in the process of ranking the quality and attributing the importance weight

for each site analysis factor.

2. Literature review

As a document used to aid organisational decision making, feasibility analysis requires

the means for classifying and evaluating data, often with large numbers of criteria and

different dimensions. Multicriteria analysis techniques are appropriate for this type of

problem. In multicriteria analysis for site analysis, descriptive characteristics of the site –

factors such as soil type, slope, views – can be attributed value or weight according to

one or more criteria that determine their relative importance in assessing the fitness of a

site to a specific usage (Steiner, McSherry, and Cohen 2000). MCDM is appealing and

practically useful for this type of problem: “it takes explicit account of multiple,

conflicting criteria, structures problems, provides a model that can be a focus for

discussion, and offers a process that can lead to rational, justifiable and explainable

decisions” (Mendoza and Martins 2006, 1). There exists a diversity of models and

methods for MCDM available in the literature and they have been classified in a variety

of ways. One common method is to distinguish between multiple objective decision-

making (MODM) and multiple attribute decision making (MADM) (Jankowski 1995;

Malczewski et al. 1997). Malczewski et al. (1997) summarised a more detailed account

of this dichotomy found in Hwang and Masud (1981, 350):

MADM methods are for selecting an alternative from a relatively small, explicit list ofalternatives, while MODM usually involves choice among a large set of alternativesimplicitly defined by a set of constraints. The procedures for MADM focus on a choiceproblem, while MODM methods address a designing problem. In a MADM problem we arefaced with a choice between a number of discrete alternatives. A MODM problem is one inwhich the solution space is continuous and defined by constraints; that is, there are an infinitenumber of feasible solutions.

MADM can be further classified to compensatory and non-compensatory approaches

according to the cognitive process required from the decision maker: a compensatory

approach, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), is cognitively demanding,

whereas a non-compensatory approach is less demanding and can include qualitative

evaluation criteria (Jankowski 1995; Malczewski et al. 1997). Prioritising criteria based

on their importance in the decision-making process is a vital and often complicated

action in any MCDM analysis (Tiwari, Loof, and Paudyal 1999; Parrieras et al. 2010).

Mendoza and Martins (2006) conducted a review of MCDM methods in the context of

natural resource management and noted some criticisms and limitations associated with

MCDM. These criticisms (adapted from Rosenhead 1989, 17) included:

(1) ‘comprehensive rationality’, which unrealistically presumes or aspires to substituteanalytical results and computations for judgement; (2) the creative generation of alternativesis de-emphasized in favour of presumably objective feasible and optimal alternatives; (3)misunderstanding and misrepresenting the reasons and motivations for public involvement;(4) a lack of value framework beyond the typical ‘utilitarian precepts’.

According to this line of criticism, MCDM methods are characterised as rigid and highly

algorithmic, making them unsuitable for decision-making scenarios involving multiple

1486 R.R. Currie et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

stakeholders with potentially competing interests, objectives and values (Mendoza and

Martins 2006).

Despite these criticisms, multicriteria techniques can accommodate a more flexible

approach (Carsjens and Van der Knaap 2002). It has been argued that multicriteria

techniques can be suitable when social, environmental and ecological considerations are

important to decision makers, and can also allow criteria to be included in the analysis

that does not easily lend itself to quantitative measures (Tiwari, Loof, and Paudyal 1999;

Brown et al. 2001). In addition, it does not need to impose a single value framework, but

allows stakeholders to contribute based on their own value system (Brown et al. 2001).

Based on the previous work of Belton and Stewart (2002), Mendoza and Martins (2006)

suggested an integrated, or ‘soft systems’, paradigm for MCDM. This approach combines

the qualitative aspects of problem structuring that emphasises social contexts with the

more analytical, objective and systematic aspects of MCDM approaches. When faced

with unclear or contentious objectives, unpredictability and ill-defined problems, soft

systems approaches prioritise the decision process, defining the most important issues

and designing strategies to better understand the problem and guide the process

(Mendoza and Martins 2006).

A recent model for feasibility analysis can be considered as a ‘soft’, integrated

approach to pre-start up planning in the context of tourism development. Addressing a

gap in the feasibility analysis literature, Currie and Wesley (2010) proposed a theory-

based model for feasibility analysis, which merges theoretical aspects of decision making

and planning. The model itself prescribes 14 feasibility factors, of which site analysis is

one, and a process by which the proposal-specific initial and emerging organisational

objectives are integrated in the decision-making process. The purpose of the model is to

provide the necessary information to make a ‘go/no go’ decision on a proposed Idea – the

proposed development programme – based on initial and emerging organisational

objectives. By combining the main tenets of decision making and planning theories,

Currie and Wesley (2010) developed six principles to govern a feasibility analysis model.

As site analysis is one factor, it should also adhere to these principles and attend to the

constraints of feasibility analysis – namely time, cost and format suited to a broad array

of stakeholders, not all of whom will be experts. In accordance with the feasibility

analysis principles, site analysis should be: dynamic; preserve flexibility, learning and

creativity; accommodate multiple objectives; and collect the appropriate information and

communicate it effectively (Currie and Wesley 2010).

With respect to collecting and communicating appropriate information in the pre-

planning stage of a development, evaluating the importance as well as the quality of the

site analysis factors is complicated by the presence of considerable uncertainty, as well as

constraints on time, cost and level of detail. The MCDM literature calls attention to the

presence of imprecise, incomplete or partial importance weights which occurs when the

decision maker is “unwilling or unable to provide exact estimations of weights” due to

time pressures, lack of knowledge, or an excessively high cognitive demand (Park and

Shin 2011, 201). Mistakes can be made when evaluation techniques require too precise a

judgement than the decision maker is capable of providing (Parreiras et al. 2010). In

some cases, the importance weight of the criteria factor can only be said to fall within

prescribed bounds and not be given a precise numerical value (Park and Shin 2011).

Added to these reasons is the difficulty that arises from the fact that a group of experts

will have differing preferences (Parreiras et al. 2010). A number of formal methods –

such as integer programming, GIS and artificial intelligence systems – exist for assessing

the precise values for the alternatives and criterion weights, but these are often


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

prohibitively time-consuming, costly and sophisticated (Malczewski et al. 1997; Collins,

Steiner, and Rushman 2001; Park and Shin 2011). On the basis of time and cost

constraints then, many of the formal and highly technical MCDM methods for assigning

importance values must be rejected for site analysis in the context of feasibility analysis.

This paper suggests an appropriate lens for site analysis in this context.

In addition to collecting appropriate data, the site analysis must accommodate

multiple objectives and preserve flexibility and learning. The presence of multiple

objectives can alter the way in which planners view a site: “one land unit that is suitable

with respect to one objective may not be suitable with respect to another objective. For

example, the attainment of an economic return may result in the sacrifice of the habitat

preservation objective” (Yin and Xu 1991, 352). As Currie and Wesley’s (2010)

feasibility analysis model allows, objectives might shift and change according to new

information and the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The presence of multiple

stakeholders demands flexibility in the site analysis process. Some MCDM researchers

assume that the decision maker or analysts determine the importance of the criteria

without stakeholder input (e.g. Banai-Kashani 1989; Jankowski 1995); however, a

number of scholars include multiple stakeholders in the process (Joubert et al. 1997;

Malczewski et al. 1997). For example, Malczewski et al. (1997) identified seven interest

groups and each one determined the relative importance of the attributes based on their

interests. However, one risk of accommodating multiple stakeholders is the increased

complexity this entails for the model (Banai-Kashani 1989). Considering the aim to

develop schemes that can be communicated effectively to all stakeholders, this

complexity might be considered undesirable. A model for site analysis in the context of

feasibility analysis must be able to collect the importance weightings from several

stakeholders and communicate in a simple manner the complexity of the information

sought.

Related to the issue of complexity, a major difference between MCDM techniques for

site analysis in land use/site suitability analysis versus site analysis in the context of

feasibility analysis is the number of factors. In the domain of site suitability analysis,

Malczewski (2006) analysed alternatives based on five criteria, Jankowski (1995) used

nine, and Banai-Kashani (1989) used three site analysis criteria – slope, price and views.

Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the number of elements in AHP should be seven

plus or minus two (Saaty and Vargas 1982). In the context of site planning and design,

however, a site analysis can involve many criteria. Table 1 illustrates the wide range of

factors for site analysis found in the site planning and design literature. Given this broad

range of available factors, the new model for site analysis must be able to handle a

ranking of numerous factors based on their quality as well as importance.

With these requirements and constraints in mind, the researchers developed a

multicriteria analysis for use as a preliminary site analysis. Site analysis factors were

coded on a two-dimensional matrix: one axis being the quality of a particular site factor

and the other axis the level of importance of that factor to the proposed Idea (Figure 1).

Quality refers to the condition of the site feature as it relates to the proposed Idea, and

importance refers to the weight given to that factor in determining the site’s fit to the

Idea. Those factors that fall in the upper two quadrants of the matrix, representing high

importance, are those that could have the greatest impact on the decision. The factors in

the upper right quadrant have a high quality with respect to the Idea and are also

considered to have high importance weighting. These are the most beneficial factors to

the Idea, and the quadrant is labelled Desirable. Those factors that fall in the upper left

quadrant are high importance, but low quality, and thus often pose the most constraints


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table1.

Siteanalysisfactors.

Internalsiteanalysisfactors

Externalsiteanalysisfactors

Author

Historic

Hydrologyanddrainage

Wildlife(habitats)

Landuse

Size/zoning/legal

Naturalphysicalfeatures

Man-madestructures

Circulation

Utilities

Sensory

Views

Climate

Topographyandslope

Geologyandsoils

Vegetation

Location

Neighbourhoodcontext

Zoningandlegal

Naturalfeatures

Man-madestructures

Utilities

Circulation

Humanandcultural

Landuse

Cam

inosandGoethert(1980)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

IntegratedPublishing(n.d.)

pp

pp

pp

pp

Lagro

(2008)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pLeung(2003)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pLowIm

pactDevelopment(n.d.)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pLynch

andHack(1984)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pMcB

ride(1999)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

Rubenstein(1996)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

Russ

(2009)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pWhite(1983)

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp

pp


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and challenges to implementing the Idea. Compensating for these low quality features,

because of their importance to the development, is necessary. This quadrant is labelled

Hindrance as the factors could obstruct or prevent the Idea. The lower two quadrants

represent factors with low importance weights with respect to the decision. Those site

analysis factors that are coded in the lower left quadrant, low quality and low importance,

are considered of little value to the proposed Idea. This quadrant is labelled Detractor due

to the low quality of the factors, but their impact might only be to diminish at some level

the fitness of the site for the proposed Idea. Those site analysis factors that fall into the

high quality and low level of importance quadrant are labelled Bonus. These site features,

while not contributing greatly to or influencing the original Idea, are often incorporated in

the Idea because of their high quality.

Once all factors have been placed on the matrix, a representation of the site emerges.

Interpretation of the matrix allows for analysis of the site in relation to the feasibility

analysis. While the matrix might indicate particular advantages and limitations, it is not

until the analysis is put into the context of the broader feasibility analysis that a decision

can be made on the site. For example, the matrix from the site analysis may indicate

significant limitations by the current zoning, yet the Legal and Policy Analysis portion of

the feasibility analysis indicates a willingness of the local government to change the

zoning by-laws due to the Idea of development.

3. Study methods

In this study, the site analysis concept is applied to a potential SCH tourism development

located on the Northwest Coast of British Columbia, Canada. Consultants have

documented the different economic activities related to the SCH facilities to be significant

Figure 1. Site analysis matrix.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to the local and regional economies, but varying in its make up. Traditionally, the SCH was

one of many harbours that serviced the west coast fishing fleet. Changing technologies, fish

resources and the growing importance of tourism has brought about a reassessment of the

use of the SCH facilities. Management is asking the question about whether a marine

based tourism development in the area would be feasible. However, to realign the primary

and secondary functions of the SCH would have immediate social and economic impacts.

Therefore, before investing millions of dollars into the redevelopment of the SCH that can

affect the local community and industries, a feasibility analysis was required in order to

determine sustainable viability. This study outlines the site analysis factor of the feasibility

analysis conducted at the Cow Bay SCH (Figure 2).

The researchers acted as consultants to determine with management the objectives of

the proposed development, the relevant site analysis factors and the key informants; they

collected data from the various stakeholders through key-informant interviews, and in an

iterative process with management and key informants assigned quality and importance

rankings on the matrix for each site analysis factor. The management of the SCH in

consultation with the researchers set the initial objectives of the Idea for the feasibility

analysis: the Idea is to develop a small craft harbour that will serve the growing tourism

industry, while continuing to serve the diminishing fishing fleet and the local community

in which it acts as a focal point for the exchange of news, recreation and business.

Benefits sought from management are both immediate and long-term: creating revenues,

sustainable development and economic diversification.

Given the time-cost constraints of a feasibility analysis, the inventory and analysis

must be conducted quickly. For the empirical study that follows, the data collection

involved consultations between researchers, key informants and managers. During these

Figure 2. Map of study area. Source: Government of British Columbia.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

consultations, the researcher and management determined which factors were necessary

for the site analysis and they also obtained the required data. The in-person key informant

interviews were conducted with representatives from all major harbour user groups.

Considering the potential for competing stakeholder objectives, the researchers and

management selected seven representatives from varying user groups to act as key

informants in an attempt to minimise bias and ensure a wide representation of interests

and concerns. The researchers conducted interviews with representatives from the SCH,

tourism industry, sport fishing industry, commercial fishing industry, local community

representatives and government officials. The Site Analysis concept coding scheme was

presented during the interviews. Representatives were asked to rate each land use site

analysis factor, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being low and 10 being high), by two dimensions.

First, representatives determined the quality of a site factor in relation to the Idea (to

develop a small craft harbour that will serve the growing tourism industry, while still

serving the diminishing fishing fleet and not take away from the local community use).

Following that rating the representatives rated the importance of that site analysis factor

to the Idea.

Because of the limited number of representatives and other constraints imposed by the

feasibility analysis process, statistical analysis of responses to the site analysis factor

values were not part of the study. The process of assigning site analysis factor values to

the matrix became iterative and subjective in keeping with the values and priorities of

each stakeholder group. To account for discrepancies between representatives of site

analysis factors values, which were minimal, the researcher returned to previous data

acquired and any new supporting materials before a site analysis factor value was

determined and assigned. The researcher, based on experience and knowledge of tourism

development, feasibility analysis, and social, political, economic and environmental

issues, felt confident in this approach. While not ideal or stringently rigorous, it is

practical in keeping with the constraints imposed upon the feasibility analysis process;

using a variation of a formal consensus scheme such as the one proposed by Parreiras

et al. (2010) might be more rigorous but any such scheme would prove unwieldy and

time-consuming considering the large number of criteria.

4. Results and discussion

The list of site analysis factors was agreed upon by management and the researcher. It

was determined that each of the factors compiled from the various site planning and

design manuals would be included, categorised by internal and external factors. Internal

factors are generally related to the site’s natural, man-made, legal, sensory and utility

features. External Factors are similar features to Internal but influence the site by its

proximal relationship. Once site factors’ values for quality and importance were assigned

they were placed on the matrix, with ‘I’ denoting internal site factors and ‘E’ denoting

external factors. The result is a visual representation (Figure 3) of the site for the

proposed development.

Of the site factors listed in the Desirable quadrant, high quality and high importance,

five are external and five are internal. Site factors in the Hindrance quadrant, low quality

and high level of importance, include two external and four internal factors. Those site

factors that fall into low quality and low level of importance quadrant, Detractor, include

one external and three internal factors. The last quadrant, Bonus, has one external and

three internal factors. The majority of the site factors that the various stakeholders

considered important to the decision were also considered to be high quality with respect


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to the Idea. For example, natural physical features were considered important for

developing tourism at the site, and both internal and external features were determined to

be of high quality. On the other hand, circulation was deemed important as well, but was

found to be of low quality. The decision-making process will probably require

consideration of potential alterations to either the Idea or the circulation patterns in and

around the site.

The matrix offers an easy visual for communicating the results, as well as a flexible

means of scoring and evaluating the suitability of the site in the context of the feasibility

analysis. Site characteristics are classified as Hindrance, Desirable, Detractor or Bonus

and offer a practical means of identifying advantages and limitations of a site in relation

to the proposed Idea. Moreover, the method provides a means of including the

importance measurement in the site analysis based on the perspectives of multiple

stakeholders. One advantage of this model is that it highlights which characteristics of the

site, as determined by all relevant stakeholders, will require greater attention and analysis

as the pre-development phase advances. This can inform allocation of resources in

subsequent planning and design analyses. In this regard, the site analysis matrix is a

potentially powerful framework for assessment at an early stage of a development.

Another advantage of this model is that it is useful when standards are not known;

relative measurements are used that allow for flexibility and, by eliminating precise

weights in favour of descriptive classification, do not demand excessive precision (Banai-

Kashani 1989). In this way, the views and values of stakeholders who are not necessarily

experts can be included in the evaluation. Furthermore, by allowing measurement of the

relative weight of the criterion and not assuming the same weight for each criterion, it

meets an essential property of a site suitability method (Banai-Kashani 1989). In

Figure 3. Site analysis matrix for Cow Bay SCH.Note: �I denotes internal site factors; �E denotes external site factors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

addition, the method allows for uncertainties; new information can be easily incorporated

into the scheme if a criterion’s quality or importance value changes according to shifting

values or objectives.

Limitation in terms of measurement and site representation is an issue, but this does not

bear strongly on the utility of the site analysis concept at the pre-start-up phase. The site

analysis concept does not provide a method to quantify the level of importance of the

characteristic to the Idea and the quality of that characteristic, nor does it offer a spatial

representation of the site factors. The concept provides a general overview of site analysis

for feasibility analysis with four classifications. The value of the concept is the ability to

determine among important attributes of development which site characteristics have the

capacity to influence the feasibility of the development. At this stage in planning,

quantifying, beyond a rudimentary scale the level of quality or importance is not as

important as identifying site characteristics and their relationship to the feasibility analysis

Idea. In other words, the decision-makers’ preferences, in the form of minimum or

maximum threshold values or desired levels do not need to be clearly defined at this point

(Jankowski 1995). In addition, the matrix provides a visual of the relationship among the

site factors, which as Banai-Kashani (1989) noted, allows for greater flexibility. In

accordance with the definition of soft systems approaches (Mendoza and Martins 2006),

the matrix helps to define the perspectives and issues that have to be taken into account on

the basis of multiple stakeholders. The result of applying the concept is a site characteristic

configuration that management can use to recognise site characteristics status and broadly

evaluate those characteristics within the parameters of the feasibility study.

5. Conclusion

The site analysis for feasibility analyses creates an opportunity for key stakeholders,

management and planners to be able to identify the leading factors to the cause and effect

of their proposed Idea. It is within the scope of feasibility analysis for various factors to

be weighed for their importance in contingency to the proposed development plans. This

preparatory step to development synthesises the preliminary economic and social

challenges to development, such as the SCH and other examples of pre-development that

may embody a variation in development objectives. The value of this analysis can be

assessed in its ability to identify and categorise potential challenges and constraints. It is

through this feasibility analysis that development plans can be created and implemented

using the most efficient methodology that incorporates the needs and concerns of the

community and other stakeholders.

The characteristics allocated to the site analysis provide a visual tool illustrating each

characteristic’s weight in importance and quality. By providing such a comprehensive

analysis, the site analysis aims to portray the feasibility of every component that a start-

up phase of development may entail. The use of such analysis provides an opportunity to

modify and execute the development plan in such a way that the physical and non-

physical parameters are not radically modified or ignored in lieu of development. This

ultimately provides the framework towards achieving success and longevity in all

contexts of development plans.

References

Banai-Kashani, R. 1989. “A New Method for Site Suitability Analysis: The Analytic HierarchyProcess.” Environmental Management 13: 685–693. doi: 10.1007/BF01868308.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Belton, V., and T. S. Stewart. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach.Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Brown, K., W. N. Adger, E. Tompkins, P. Bacon, D. Shim, and K. Young. 2001. “Trade-offAnalysis for Marine Protected Area Management.” Ecological Economics 37: 417–434. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00293-7.

Caminos, H., and R. Goethert. 1980. Urbanization Primer: Project Assessment, Site Analysis,Design Criteria for Site and Services or Similar Dwelling Environments in Developing Areas,with a Documentary Collection of Photographs on Urbanization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carsjens, G., and W. Van der Knaap. 2002. “Strategic Land-Use Allocation: Dealing With SpatialRelationships and Fragmentation of Agriculture.” Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 171–179. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00219-5.

Collins, M., F. Steiner, and M. Rushman. 2001. “Land Use Suitability Analysis in the United States:Historical Developments and Promising Technological Achievements.” EnvironmentalManagement 28: 611–621. doi: 10.1007/s002670010247.

Currie, R. R., and F. Wesley. 2010. “Is it Feasible? Positioning Feasibility Analysis as a ValuableTool for Assessing a Potential Tourism Development.” Tourism and Hospitality Planning &Development 7: 379–394. doi: 10.1080/1479053X.2010.520465.

De Chiara, J., and L. E. Koppelman. 1978. Site Planning Standards. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hwang, C.-L., and A. S. M. Masud. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and

Applications. New York: Springer Verlag.Integrated Publishing. n.d. “Conduct a Site Inventory and Analysis.” Children’s Outdoor Play Areas.

Accessed 8 May 2011. http://www.tpub.com/content/UFC1/ufc_3_210_04/ufc_3_210_040018.htm

Jankowski, P. 1995. “Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Multiple CriteriaDecision-Making Methods.” International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9:251–273. doi: 10.1080/02693799508902036.

Joubert, A. R., A. Leiman, H. M. de Klerk, S. Katua, and J. C. Aggenbach. 1997. “Fynbos (FineBush) Vegetation and the Supply of Water: A Comparison of Multi-criteria Decision Analysisand Cost-benefit Analysis.” Ecological Economics 22: 123–140. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00573-9.

Lagro, J. A. 2008. Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and SiteDesign. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Leung, H.-L. 2003. Land Use Planning Made Plain. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Low Impact Development Center. n.d. “Site Inventory.” Rain Garden Design Templates. Accessed

8 May 2011. http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/raingarden_design/site_inventory.htmLynch, K., and G. Hack. 1984. Site Planning. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Malczewski, J. 2004. “GIS-Based Land-use Suitability Analysis: A Critical Overview.” Progress in

Planning 62: 3–65. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2003.09.002.Malczewski, J. 2006. “Ordered Weighted Averaging with Fuzzy Quantifiers: GIS-Based

Multicriteria Evaluation for Land-use Suitability Analysis.” International Journal of AppliedEarth Observation and Geoinformation 8: 270–277. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2006.01.003.

Malczewski, J., R. Moreno-Sanchez, L. A. Bojorquez-Tapia, and E. Ogay-Delhumeau. 1997.“Multicriteria Group Decision-making Model for Environmental Conflict Analysis in the CapeRegion, Mexico.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40: 349–374. doi:10.1080/09640569712137.

McBride, S. B. 1999. “Site Planning and Design.” The Web Book of Regional Science. http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/McBride/main.html

Mendoza, G., and H. Martins. 2006. “Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Natural ResourceManagement: A Critical Review of Methods and New Modelling Paradigms.” Forest Ecologyand Management 230: 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023.

Park, K. S., and D. E. Shin. 2011. “How to Deal with Imprecise Weights in Multiple CriteriaDecision Making.” Global Business and Management Research 3: 200–214.

Parreiras, R. O., P. Ya. Ekel, J. S. C. Martini, and R. M. Palhares. 2010. “A Flexible ConsensusScheme for Multicriteria Group Decision Making Under Linguistic Assessments.” InformationSciences 180: 1075–1089. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2009.11.046.

Rosenhead, J. 1989. Rational Analysis of a Problematic World. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Rubenstein, H. 1996. A Guide to Site Planning and Landscape Construction. 4th ed. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Russ, T. H. 2009. Site Planning and Design Handbook. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Saaty, T. L., and L. G. Vargas. 1982. The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy,

Health, Transportation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Steiner, F., L. McSherry, and J. Cohen. 2000. “Land Suitability Analysis for the Upper Gila River

Watershed.” Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 199–214. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00093-1.

Tiwari, D. N., R. Loof, and G. N. Paudyal. 1999. “Environmental–Economic Decision-Making inLowland Irrigated Agriculture Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Techniques” Agricultural Systems60: 99–112. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(99)00021-9.

White, E. 1983. Site Analysis: Diagramming Information for Architectural Design. Tucson:Architectural Media.

Yin, Y., and X. Xu. 1991. “Applying Neural Net Technology for Multiple Objective Land UsePlanning.” Journal of Environmental Management 32: 349–356. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80071-4.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

0:02

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

contextualising site factors for feasibility analysis

Documents