Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision Models in Smart Urban Planning: A Case Study of Architectural and Urban Design Competitions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Advocate for qualitative MCDM methods in A & UD competitions;
- Implement the DEX method within CAD software used by architects (e.g., Rhinoceros) [10];
- Demonstrate the benefits of this approach through a case study.
1.1. Background and Related Work
1.2. International Experience with Architectural and Urban Design Competitions
1.3. A & UD Competitions as an (Interdisciplinary) Research Topic
1.4. A & UD Competition Decision Making with the Help of Technology
1.5. Integrating the DEX Model in Smart City Urban Design: Enhancing Decision Making for Sustainable and Livable Environments
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Multi-Criteria Decision-Modeling Methods
2.2. DEX: A Qualitative MCDM Method
- HOUSE: unacceptable, acceptable, good, excellent.
- FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA: fulfilled, unfulfilled.
- DESIGN CRITERIA: appealing, average, poor.
- INVESTMENT CRITERIA: acceptable, adequate, poor, unacceptable.
2.4. Using DEX in the CAD Environment
- Two-thirds of the apartments shall be subsidized rentals.
- One-third of the apartments shall be intended for disabled people.
- An underground garage is to be provided for the housing program of the building complex. The solutions must also provide the following number of parking spaces:
- Two residential parking spaces, including visitor parking (i.e., one parking space in the garage + one parking space on the ground floor).
3. Results
3.1. Aggregation of Two Criteria
3.2. Aggregation of Three Criteria
3.3. Evaluation of Project Alternatives
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Spiridonov, V.Y.; Shabiev, S.G. November. Smart urban planning: Modern technologies for ensuring sustainable territorial development. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 962, p. 032034. [Google Scholar]
- Milton, R.; Roumpani, F. Accelerating urban modelling algorithms with artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management, Heraklion, Greece, 3–5 May 2019; INSTICC: Heraklion, Greece, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 105–116. [Google Scholar]
- Son, T.H.; Weedon, Z.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Sanchez, T.; Corchado, J.M.; Mehmood, R. Algorithmic urban planning for smart and sustainable development: Systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 94, 104562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, T.; Mills, G.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Liu, Z. Combining multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): A review. Autom. Constr. 2021, 121, 103451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collyer, G.S.; Berk, M. Competing Globally in Architecture Competitions; Wiley-Academy: Chichester, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Chupin, J.P. Judgement by design: Towards a model for studying and improving the competition process in architecture and urban design. Scand. J. Manag. 2011, 27, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qaysi, N.; Piroozfar, P.; Southall, R.; Farr, E.R. Judgment in architectural competitions as communicative deliberative practice. In The Competition Mesh: The Sixth International Conference on Competitions-Experimenting with and within Architecture Competitions; Leeds Beckett University: Leeds, UK, 2016; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, R.A.; Abbas, A.E. Foundations of Decision Analysis; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 13 978-1-292-07969-1. [Google Scholar]
- MacNeal R & Associates. Rhinoceros 3D. Available online: https://www.rhino3d.com/ (accessed on 9 September 2022).
- Lipstadt, H. The Competition in the Region’s Past, the Region in the Competition’s Future. Politics Des. Compet. Public Proj. 2006, 7–27. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=cf8113dd6504dc05390c296ccbc86da07108954f (accessed on 1 December 2023).
- Spreiregen, P.D. Design Competitions; McGraw-Hill Companies: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Rönn, M. Architectural quality in competitions. A dialogue-based assessment of design proposals. FormAkademisk-Forskningstidsskrift Des. Og Des. 2011, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, M.S. Architectural competitions as discursive events. Theory Soc. 1994, 23, 469–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouwresearch, S. Architectuurwedstrijden Nader Bekeken [A closer look at Architectural Design Competitions]; Expert Report; Kluwer Technische Boeken BV: Deventer, The Netherlands, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Strong, J. Winning by Design: Architectural Competitions; Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Heynen, H. Architecture and Modernity: A Critique; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Volker, L. Deciding about Design Quality: Value Judgements and Decision Making in the Selection of Architects by Public Clients under European Tendering Regulations; Sidestone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2010; p. 340. [Google Scholar]
- Kreiner, K. September. Paradoxes of architectural competitions: The competition between efficiency, justice and creativity. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK, 6–8 September 2010; pp. 6–8. [Google Scholar]
- Rönn, M.; Andersson, J.E.; Bloxham Zettersten, G. Architectural Competitions–Histories and Practice; KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bridgeman, B.; Bejar, I.I.; Friedman, D. Fairness issues in a computer-based architectural licensure examination. Comput. Hum. Behav. 1999, 15, 419–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, R.T.; Preskill, H. Ethical dimensions of stakeholder participation and evaluation use. New Dir. Eval. 1999, 1999, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froncek, B.; Rohmann, A. “You get the great feeling that you’re being heard but in the end you realize that things will be done differently and in others’ favor”: An experimental investigation of negative effects of participation in evaluation. Am. J. Eval. 2019, 40, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simons, H. Ethics in evaluation. In Handbook of Evaluation: Policies, Programs and Practices; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 243–265. [Google Scholar]
- Bamberger, M. Ethical issues in conducting evaluation in international settings. New Dir. Eval. 1999, 1999, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemian, R.; Rönn, M. Finnish architectural competitions: Structure, criteria, and judgement process. Build. Res. Inf. 2009, 37, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Architectuur Lokaal. Arch-lokaal.nl, Architectuur Lokaal. 2017. Available online: https://arch-lokaal.nl/ (accessed on 17 May 2020).
- Menteth, W.; van’t Klooster, I.; Jansen, C.; de Jager, M.; Kristo, S.; Isopp, A.; Juric, E.T.; Vasileva, A.; Okamura, O.; Nurmi, T.; et al. Competition Culture in Europe: 2013–2016; Architectuur Lokaal: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Van Wezemael, J.E. The complexity of competitions: The quest for an adequate research design. In Proceedings of the Conference Architectural Competitions, Stockholm, Sweden, 16–18 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, P. Architectural Judgement; Faber & Faber: London, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Glusberg, J. (Ed.) A Decade of RIBA Student Competitions; St Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992; Volume 51. [Google Scholar]
- Nasar, J.L. Design by Competition: Making Design Competition Work; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Nasar, J.L.; Kang, J. A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a centre for the visual arts. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 464–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreiregen, P.D. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Design Competition. In Proceedings of the Architectural Competitions Nordic Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 16–18 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Svensson, C. Inside the Jury Room. In Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Architectural Inquiries Theories, Methods, and Strategies in Contemporary Nordic Architectural Research, Nordic-Baltic Conference, Gøteborg, Sweden, 24–26 April 2008; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
- Svensson, C. Inside the Jury Room–Strategies of Quality Assessment in Architectural Competitions. Andersson, J., Zettersten, G., Rönn, M., Eds.; 2013, pp. 245–262. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/99643614/Architectural_Competitions_Histories_and_Practice (accessed on 1 December 2023).
- Bryde, D.; Broquetas, M.; Volm, J.M. The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM). Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 971–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, N.L.; Frandsen, A.K.; Øien, T.B. Architectural competitions and BIM. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 21, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 17, 397–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, K.E.; Antucheviciene, J.; Adeli, H.; Turskis, Z. Hybrid multiple criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications in engineering. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.C.; Lien, H.P.; Tzeng, G.H. Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 926–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chithambaranathan, P.; Subramanian, N.; Gunasekaran, A.; Palaniappan, P.K. Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 166, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pujadas, P.; Pardo-Bosch, F.; Aguado-Renter, A.; Aguado, A. MIVES multi-criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, B.; Aguado, A.; Manga, R.; Josa, A. A value function for assessing sustainability: Application to industrial buildings. Sustainability 2010, 3, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ormazabal, G.; Viñolas, B.; Aguado, A. Enhancing value in crucial decisions: Line 9 of the Barcelona subway. J. Manag. Eng. 2008, 24, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De la Fuente, A.; Armengou, J.; Pons, O.; Aguado, A. Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: Application to a new precast concrete alternative. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De la Fuente, A.; Pons, O.; Josa, A.; Aguado, A. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4762–4770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini SM, A.; Pons Valladares, O. Multicriteria decision-making method for sustainable site location of post-disaster temporary housing in urban areas. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. (ASCE) 2016, 142, 04016036-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pons, O.; Aguado, A. Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Build. Environ. 2012, 53, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kontić, B.; Bohanec, M. Izbor Lokacije za Odlagališče NSRAO-Prikaz Uporabe Odločitvenega Pristopa DECMAK in Računalniškega Programa DEX: Preliminarno Poročilo. Expert Report. 1998. Available online: https://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/si/sl/bib/13308455#full. (accessed on 1 December 2023).
- Hafner, M.; Rajšter, D.; Žibert, M.; Zorin, U.; Ženko, B.; Tušar, T. New optimization and decision support technologies in tunnel design, operation, and traffic management. In Proceedings of the Zbornik Referatov 12 Mednarodna Konferenca o Predorih in Podzemnih Objektih (12th International Tunnelling and Underground Structures Conference); Ljubljana, Slovenia, 21–22 November 2019, Žigon, A.V., Ed.; Slovensko Društvo za Podzemne Gradnje (Slovenian Society for Underground Structures): Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2019; pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar]
- ZAPS. Luka Koper–ZAPS. 2022. Available online: https://zaps.si/natecaji/luka-koper/ (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- Berčič, T. Vrednotenje Prostorskih Rešitev z Večparametrskimi Modeli. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Bercic, T.; Bohanec, M.; Azman Momirski, L. Role of decision models in the evaluation of spatial design solutions. Ann.-Anal. Za Istrske Mediter. Stud.-Ser. Hist. Et Sociol. 2018, 28, 621–636. [Google Scholar]
- Greco, S.; Ehrgott, M.; Figueira, J. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys; International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 233. [Google Scholar]
- Ishizaka, A.; Nemery, P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kulkarni, A.J. (Ed.) Multiple Criteria Decision Making; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 407; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, H.L.; Saarsar, P. PMI (Plus-Minus-Interesting): A creative thinking strategy to foster critical thinking. Int. J. Acad. Res. Dev. 2017, 2, 974–977. [Google Scholar]
- Hawgood, J. The ABACON Chart—A visual aid to benefit assessment. Soc. Sci. Inf. Stud. 1980, 1, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kepner, C.H.; Tregoe, B.B. The Rational Manager: A Systematic Approach to Problem Solving and Decision-Making; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1965; ISBN 13 978-0070341753. [Google Scholar]
- Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Bohanec, M. Odločanje in Modeli; DMFA Založništvo: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bohanec, M. DEX (Decision EXpert): A qualitative hierarchical multi-criteria method. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making; Kulkarni, A.J., Ed.; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 407; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 39–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of the Environment, Space and Energy. Decree on the Spatial Order of Slovenia; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Bohanec, M. DE**: Program for Multi-Attribute Decision Making, User’s Manual, Version 5.04; IJS Report DP-13100; Jožef Stefan Institute: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bansal, V.K. Use of GIS and topology in the identification and resolution of space conflicts. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2011, 25, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ZAPS. Competition for Polje III. ZAPS. 2018. Available online: https://zaps.si/natecaji/vecstanovanjske-stavbe-z-zunanjo-ureditvijo-v-soseski-polje-iii/ (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- Myeong, S.; Kim, Y.; Ahn, M.J. Smart city strategies—Technology push or culture pull? A case study exploration of Gimpo and Namyangju, South Korea. Smart Cities 2020, 4, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthopoulos, L.G. Understanding Smart Cities: A Tool for Smart Government or an Industrial Trick? Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 22, p. 293. [Google Scholar]
- Willis, K.; Aurigi, A. Digital and Smart Cities; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Shahat Osman, A.M.; Elragal, A. Smart cities and big data analytics: A data-driven decision-making use case. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 286–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Functional Criteria | Design Criteria | Investment Criteria | House |
---|---|---|---|
Fulfilled | Appealing | Adequate | Excellent |
Fulfilled | Average | Adequate | Excellent |
Fulfilled | Poor | Adequate | Acceptable |
Fulfilled | Appealing | Poor | Good |
Fulfilled | Average | Poor | Acceptable |
Fulfilled | Poor | Poor | Acceptable |
Unfulfilled | Appealing | Acceptable | Unacceptable |
Unfulfilled | Average | Acceptable | Unacceptable |
Unfulfilled | Poor | Acceptable | Unacceptable |
Unfulfilled | Appealing | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
Unfulfilled | Average | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
Unfulfilled | Poor | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Berčič, T.; Bohanec, M.; Ažman Momirski, L. Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision Models in Smart Urban Planning: A Case Study of Architectural and Urban Design Competitions. Smart Cities 2024, 7, 786-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020033
Berčič T, Bohanec M, Ažman Momirski L. Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision Models in Smart Urban Planning: A Case Study of Architectural and Urban Design Competitions. Smart Cities. 2024; 7(2):786-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020033
Chicago/Turabian StyleBerčič, Tomaž, Marko Bohanec, and Lucija Ažman Momirski. 2024. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Decision Models in Smart Urban Planning: A Case Study of Architectural and Urban Design Competitions" Smart Cities 7, no. 2: 786-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020033