Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2

Measuring the environmental performance of urban regeneration projects using AHP methodology

Pages
123–142
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Study results indicate that “Energy” criteria has the highest priority level for determining the environmental performance of urban transformation projects.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As the world continues to urbanize, integrated policies to improve the lives of both urban and rural dwellers are needed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the literature review, the number of publications and identified key performance indicators are found as insufficient.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Study results indicate that “Energy” criteria has the highest priority level for determining the environmental performance of urban transformation projects.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

As the world continues to urbanize, integrated policies to improve the lives of both urban and rural dwellers are needed. It could be claimed that the best way to address such problems in major cities is through sustainable urban regeneration where economical, ecological and social impacts of urbanization are examined and practiced thoroughly. In the literature review, the number of publications and identified key performance indicators are found as insufficient. Also, the key performance indicators identified in publications are insufficient for projectspecific performance measurement. Most of them do not include validation and verification of the models. In this study, specific focus is on the environmental performance dimension of sustainable project performance. Thus, this study aims to provide a source for these problems and to systematically measure the environmental performance of urban regeneration projects. It also provides the formulation of the environmental performance measurement model and defines key performance indicators. The data obtained from the literature review and field studies. The proposed AHP model incorporates 9 performance criteria, and 55 related KPIs. After determining the hierarchical structure of KPIs, they are rated using a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire to identify their priority. Next, AHP process have been conducted by participation of 25 experts. Finally, the environmental performance measurement model for urban regeneration projects has been developed. Study results indicate that “Energy” criteria has the highest priority level for determining the environmental performance of urban transformation projects. Consecutively, “Water” criteria comes after followed by “Land Use” and “Ecology”.

🔖

Cite This Article

ILICALI, E., GİRİTLİ, F. H. (2020). Measuring the environmental performance of urban regeneration projects using AHP methodology. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2, 123–142. https://ajindex.com/articles/141596

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Aczél, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93–102.
  2. Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008a). Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 675–687. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.006 Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008b). Model for predicting the performance of project managers at the construction phase of mass house building projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(8), 618–629.
  3. Akkoyun, I., & Dikbas, A. (2008). Performance in construction: A literature review of research in construction management journals. Project Management Centre, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. Aladağ, H., & Işık, Z. (2016). Sustainable Key Performance Indicators for Urban Regeneration Projects. Sigma: Journal of Engineering & Natural Sciences/Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 34(1). Ali, H. A. E. M., Al-Sulaihi, I. A., & Al-Gahtani, K. S. (2013). Indicators for measuring performance of building construction companies in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, 25(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues. 2012.03.002 Arditi, D. (1985). Construction productivity improvement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(1), 1–14.
  4. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–342.
  5. Audit Commission. (2002). Suggested Key Indicators for Economic Regeneration. London: HMSO. Aull-Hyde, R., Erdogan, S., & Duke, J. M. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 290–295.
  6. Babcicky, P. (2013). Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measurement: the limitations of the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 133– 157. Barkley, B., & Saylor, J. H. (1994). Customer-driven project management: A new paradigm in total quality implementation. McGraw-Hill Companies. Bassioni, H. A., Price, A. D. F., & Hassan, T. M. (2004). Performance measurement in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(2), 45–50.
  7. Bassioni, H. A., Price, A. D., & Hassan, T. M. (2005). Building a conceptual framework for measuring