A Study of the Built Environment Design Elements Embedded into the Multiple Criteria Strategic Planning Model for an Urban Renewal
Authors: Wann-Ming Wey
The link between urban planning and design principles and the built environment of an urban renewal area is of interest to the field of urban studies. During the past decade, there has also been increasing interest in urban planning and design; this interest is motivated by the possibility that design policies associated with the built environment can be used to control, manage, and shape individual activity and behavior. However, direct assessments and design techniques of the links between how urban planning design policies influence individuals are still rare in the field. Recent research efforts in urban design have focused on the idea that land use and design policies can be used to increase the quality of design projects for an urban renewal area-s built environment. The development of appropriate design techniques for the built environment is an essential element of this research. Quality function deployment (QFD) is a powerful tool for improving alternative urban design and quality for urban renewal areas, and for procuring a citizen-driven quality system. In this research, we propose an integrated framework based on QFD and an Analytic Network Process (ANP) approach to determine the Alternative Technical Requirements (ATRs) to be considered in designing an urban renewal planning and design alternative. We also identify the research designs and methodologies that can be used to evaluate the performance of urban built environment projects. An application in an urban renewal built environment planning and design project evaluation is presented to illustrate the proposed framework.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1055871Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1634
 Akao Y, 1997 "QFD: Past, present, and future." Proceedings of the International Symposium on QFD-97ÔÇöLinköping, http://stat.haifa.ac.il/~quality-study/4306/ReadingMaterial/QFD_History .pdf.
 American Planning Association, 2002. Growing SmartÔÇöLegislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press.
 Armacost, R. L., Componation, P. J., Mullens, M. A., & Swart, W. W. (1994). An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: An industrialized housing application. IIE Transactions, 26(4), 72-79.
 Badri, M. A. (1999). Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 237-248.
 Berke, P R., Godschalk, D R., Kaiser, E J., Rodriguez, D A., 2006, Urban Land Use Planning, 5th ed., University of Illinois Press, 391pp.
 Chan, L. K., Kao, H. P., Ng, A., & Wu, M. L. (1999). Rating the importance of customer needs in quality function deployment by fuzzy and entropy methods. International Journal of Production Research, 37(11), 2499-2518.
 Cohen, L. (1995). Quality function deployment: How to make QFD work for you. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 El-Gayar, O. F., & Leung, P. S. (2001). A multiple criteria decision making framework for regional aquaculture development. European Journal of Operational Research, 133, 462-482.
 Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1-27.
 Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66, 63-73.
 Khoo, L. P., & Ho, N. C. (1996). Framework of a fuzzy quality function deployment system. International Journal of Production Research, 34(2), 299-311.
 Klostermann, R. E., 1999. The "what if?" collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning. B, Planning and Design 26, 393-408.
 Kogure, M., & Akao, Y. (1983). Quality function deployment and company wide quality control in Japan: A strategy for assuring that quality is built into products. Quality Progress, pp. 25-29.
 Lee, J. W., & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Computers and Operations Research, 27, 367-382.
 Longley, P. A., Barnsley, M. J., Donnay, J. P., 2001. Remote sensing and urban analysis: a research agenda. In: Donnay, J. P., Barnsley, M. J., Longley, P. A. (Eds.), Remote Sensing and Urban Analysis. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 245-258.
 Lu, M., Madu, C. N., Kuei, C., & Winokur, D. (1994). Integrating QFD, AHP, and benchmarking in strategic marketing. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 9(1), 41-50.
 O-Meara, M., 1999. Reinventing cities for people and the planet.
[Published as Worldwatch Paper 147.] Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute, 68 pp.
 Park, T., & Kim, K. (1998). Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 569-581.
 Prasad, B. (1998). Review of QFD and related deployment techniques. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 17(3), 221-234.
 Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
 Saaty, T. L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 229-237.
 Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1998). Diagnosis with dependent symptoms: Bayes theorem and the analytic hierarchy process. Operations Research, 46(4), 491-502.
 Schniederjans, M. J. (1995). Goal programming: Methodology and applications. Norwell: Kluwer.
 Schniederjans, M. J., & Garvin, T. (1997). Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing. European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 72-80.
 Wasserman, G. S. (1993). On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Transactions, 25(3), 59-65.
 Weber R, Werners B, Zimmerman H, 1990, "Planning models for research and development" European Journal of Operational Research 48 175-188.