Human Settlements Review - Parliamentary Monitoring Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ij ij max j Human Settlements Review, Volume 1, Number 1, 2010 4.3 The proposed assessment method The proposed framework presents a multicriteria optimisation problem. There are many techniques for multi-criteria optimisation, such as simple multi-attribute rating techniques, the analytical hierarchy process, order preference by similarity to ideal solution (Engelbrecht, 2007: 113-177). The simple additive weighting (SAW), one of the simplest and probably the best known and most widely used technique, is recommended in this study. The model is used to aggregate the scores into one score based on the criteria weights. At first the scores are normalised (converted) by the formulas: 1. x ij a = a ij max j ij 2. xij = max a j Where aij xij = = the score for the criterion. max a j When the criteria are maximised, Formula 1 has to be used, and Formula 2 when the criteria are minimised. The scores are aggregated into one score using the formula: 3. aij xij = max a j a Where x = a is the total score, is the number aij xij = max of criterion, a j s the weight of each criterion, and is the normalised score of the criterion. In the event that the criteria are not measurable, it is proposed to approach several stakeholders, including academics and industry players to rate the technology. However, it is important a to note that such score rating is subjective and based on the perceptions of the respondents. Yet, statistically the information can be used to draw objective conclusions. Alternatively, it is proposed that such criteria be defined in terms that can be quantified and systems developed to capture data which can then be presented and analysed accordingly. It is also necessary to compute the weighting of the three pillars of sustainability (socioeconomic, technical and environmental). Such computation can be based on a field survey where the targeted community participates to establish the most pressing issues, which can then be weighted using social science techniques. The score rating for each criterion and category (technical, socio-economic and environmental) can be averaged, normalised and aggregated into one score. The grand total score rating can then be calculated as the sum of the three total scores. 6 Conclusions and recommendations The concept of sustainable development is now well defined and it can be applied to any sphere of development and decision making, including the built environment. The proposed framework defines building technologies responsive to the urban poor in terms of technical, socio-economic and environmental sustainability objectives in the regional context. Building construction technologies can be analysed, evaluated and finally compared in order to select the optimal variant according to the given set of criteria. The outcome of such an evaluation can enhance the understanding of the potentials of the technologies, 78
Human Settlements Review, Volume 1, Number 1, 2010 which in turn can demonstrate how to empower the urban poor to make their own contribution to the process of improving their housing conditions. Such outcomes can also be useful for policy formulation and decision making. However, it should be noted that the framework is not universal, especially with regard to the criteria, it is regional specific. References ABRAMS, C. 1964. Man’s Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ADINYIRA, E., OTENG-SEIFA, S. and ADJEI-KUMI, T. 2007. A review of urban sustainability assessment methodologies. International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow, UK. BALBO, M. 2001. Shelter: Emerging trends and policies. Habitat Debate. Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2001. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org. Accessed on 06/07/2004. BALLARD, G., HARPER, N., and ZABELLE, T. 2003. Learning to see work flow: an application of lean concepts to precast concrete fabrication. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol. 10, No. pp. 6-14. BECKER, R. 2001. Implementation of the performance approach in the investigation of innovative building systems. Building and Environment. Vol. 37, Issue 10, pp. 923-931. Available at: http://www. sciencedirect.com. BOLTON, M. and BURROUGHS, S. 2001. A guide for upgrading traditional building methods using handmade earth blocks. Pretoria: CSIR, Building and Construction Technology. BOWEN, P. A. and HILL, R.C. 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 15, pp. 223-239. CHOGUILL, M.B.G. 1995. Building Materials for Low-income Housing: Evidence of Need for Popular Initiatives in Brazil. Habitat International. Vol. 19, No.4, pp. 583-597. COLE, R. J. 2000. Building environmental assessment methods: assessing construction practices. Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 18, pp. 949-957. Available at: http://www.tandf. co.uk/journals. 79 CRAWLEY, D., AHO, I. 1999. Building environmental assessment methods application and development trends. Building Research and Information. Vol. 27, No. (4/5), pp 300-308. Available at: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals.
Page 1 and 2:
Human Settlements Review VOLUME 1,
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENT Page FOREWORD i Design inst
Page 5 and 6:
Human Settlements Review, Volume 1,
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: Human Settlements Review, Volume 1,
Page 35 and 36: Dictionary.com. 2010. alternative t
Page 79 and 80: Table 4: Building technology - Soci
Page 81: Human Settlements Review, Volume 1,
Page 105 and 106: ABSTRACT Human Settlements Review,
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
UNDP, 2005. Investing in Developmen
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Abstract Human Settlements Review,
Page 223 and 224:
Figure 1 Per Capita energy use and
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Figure 3 Model validation and resul
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
show all

Human Settlements Review - Parliamentary Monitoring Group

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?