SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tasarım+Kuram / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 27

Türkiye’de Alt Gelir Grubunun Konut Sorunu ve Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi (YDMA) Tabanlı Çözüm Önerisi

Şeyda EMEKCİ
Ali Murat TANYER
Pages
55–63
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)

This study aims to propose a conceptual model based on Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a solution to the housing problem which is one of people’s most basic needs to meet the sheltering for lower income groups through the ambiguity of low-cost housing and affordable housing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Rising housing costs have negative effects on low-income households.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the future, it is necessary to improve the sustainability and lifetime affordability performance in the housing to avoid the unwanted social, economic and environmental impacts that arise from the housing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study aims to propose a conceptual model based on Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a solution to the housing problem which is one of people’s most basic needs to meet the sheltering for lower income groups through the ambiguity of low-cost housing and affordable housing.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Rising housing costs have negative effects on low-income households. In addition, inefficient use/consumption of resources poses a risk to the environment. In the future, it is necessary to improve the sustainability and lifetime affordability performance in the housing to avoid the unwanted social, economic and environmental impacts that arise from the housing. This study aims to propose a conceptual model based on Life Cycle Costing (LCC) as a solution to the housing problem which is one of people’s most basic needs to meet the sheltering for lower income groups through the ambiguity of low-cost housing and affordable housing.

Özet

Yüksek konut fiyatları dar gelirli hane halkları üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yaratmaktadır. Buna ek olarak verimsiz kaynak kullanımı/tüketimiyle de çevre üzerinde bir risk oluşturmaktadır. Gelecekte konutun yaratacağı istenmeyen sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel etkilerinden kaçınmak için konutta sürdürülebilirlik ve yaşam boyu ödenebilirlik performansının iyileştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, düşük maliyetli konut ile ödenebilir konut arasındaki anlam ayrımı üzerinden alt gelir gruplarının insanın en temel ihtiyaçlarından biri olan barınma ihtiyacını karşılayan konut sorununa çözüm olarak Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi (YDMA) tabanlı kavramsal bir model önerisinde bulunmaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

EMEKCİ, Ş., TANYER, A. M. (2019). Türkiye’de Alt Gelir Grubunun Konut Sorunu ve Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi (YDMA) Tabanlı Çözüm Önerisi. Tasarım+Kuram, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 27, 55–63. https://ajindex.com/articles/403107

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Bird, B. (1986). Costs-in-use, 5(14), 281–285.
  2. Bogdon, A., & Can, A. (1997). Indicators of local housing affordability: Comparative and spatial approaches. Real Estate Economics, 25(1), 43–80.
  3. Davis, J. E. (1994). Reviews: The Affordable City: Toward a Third Sector Housing Policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(4), 300–301.
  4. Erdurmuş, S. B. (2005). Benefit-Cost Analysis for Retrofitting of Selected Residential Buildings in Istanbul. Master Thesis, ODTÜ FBE. Fankhauser, S., & Tepic, S. (2007). Can poor consumers pay for energy and water? An affordability analysis for transition countries. Energy Policy, 35(2), 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2006.02.003 Flanagan, R., Kendell, A., Norman, G., & Robinson, G. D. (1987). Life cycle costing and risk management. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), S53–S71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.1987. 10462093
  5. Glick, S., & Guggemos, A. A. (2010). Life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost as collaborative tools in residential heating system selection. Journal of Green Building, 5(3), 107–115.
  6. Godwin, J. (1998). The House in Nigeria. An Exploration. In, Amole B. (Ed.) Habitat Studies in Nigeria. Some qualitative dimensions. Nigeria: Shaneson Publishers.
  7. HABITAT. (2015). Advocacy focus: Solid Ground [çevrimiçi]. Erişim yeri: http://www.habitat.org/getinv/ events/world-habitat-day/advocacy-focus-solid-ground [Erişim tarihi: Ağustos 2016] IMO. (n.d.). “Türkiye’de Konut Sorunu ve Konut İhtiyacı” Raporu [çevrimiçi]. Erişim yeri: http://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/ 9ca6617c167713d_ek.pdf [Erişim tarihi: Ağustos 2016]
  8. Korpi, E., & Ala-Risku, T. (2008). Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(3), 240–261.
  9. Linneman, P., & Megbolugbe, I. (1992). Housing affordability: myth or reality?. Urban studies, 29(3-4), 369-392.
  10. Listokin, D., & Burchill, R. (2007). Housing (shelter). Microsoft student (DVD) Redmond. WA Microsoft Corporation. Marshall, H. E. (1987). Building economics in the United States. Construction Management and Economics, 5(4), S43–S52. https://doi.org/10.1080 /01446193.1987.10462092
  11. Meng, F., Wong, F., Hui, E. C. M., & Feng, C. (2004). Economical housing provision in China (1998– 2002) ‐ a case study of Beijing. International Journal of strategic property management, 8(2), 87-104.
  12. Milligan, V., Phibbs, P., Fagan, K., & Gurran, N. (2004). A practical framework for expanding affordable housing services in Australia: learning from e