Regeneration Model of Taiwan Old Urban Centers - A Research Framework of a Performance Evaluation System for a Livable Urban District

Abstract

The researchers explore the current urban redevelopment problems in Taiwan old urban centers. Based on an indicator system framework, this study proposes a regeneration model-a performance evaluation method for a livable urban district, composed of four constructs, and 21 general indicators and 62 policy-making indicators. The four constructs are land use sustainability; transit oriented development (TOD) pattern, district composition, and architectural typology and estate. Considering this framework feasibility, the researchers recruited a panel of experts for judgment of priority for the indicator system in two phases of questionnaires. The first phase uses the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) for experts to decide each policy-making indicator and the degree of importance of that indicator. The second phase uses the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the priority of the four constructs and that of each general indicator. Since panel experts from various disciplines and regions evaluate this indicator system with priorities, the current study discusses the variance of priorities caused by different panel experts. This AHP framework serves as a guideline for local government to proceed with regeneration plans toward livable districts, or a framework to evaluate the performance of regenerated old urban districts.Keywords: urban village; a livable urban district; a framework of indicator system; analytic hierarchy process

An alternative model for measuring the sustainability of urban regeneration: the way forward

“…Building performance Energy efficiency of building layout and design Hemphill et al, 2004;Boyko et al, 2012;Siddall and Grey, 2013 Energy efficiency of building materials/construction methods Hemphill et al, 2004;Boyko et al, 2012;Siddall and Grey, 2013 Reclamation of building materials Hemphill et al, 2004;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Turcu, 2012 Residential density levels in relation to plot size Hemphill et al, 2004;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Turcu, 2012 Environmental development Waste disposaldpercentage household waste recycled Hemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Turcu, 2012;Siddall and Grey, 2013 Waste minimizationdpercentage firms undertaking waste audits Hemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Turcu, 2012;Siddall and Hemphill et al, 2004;Rydin, 2007;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Boyko et al, 2012;Laprise et al, 2015 Public transport linksdwalking distance to nearest facilities Hemphill et al, 2004;Rydin, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Siddall and Grey, 2013;Laprise et al, 2015 Economic development Number of jobs created per 1000 square meters Hemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Turcu, 2012 Net jobs createddpercentage of employees from local area Hemphill et al, 2004;…”

“…Grey, 2013 Average emission of noise a dayRydin, 2007;Laprise et al, 2015 Percent of site as green spaceWedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011 Social development Community group involvementHemphill et al, 2004;Boyko et al, 2012;Turcu, 2012;Siddall and Grey, 2013 Access to housingdaffordability and choiceHemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Boyko et al, 2012; Access to leisure facilitiesdaverage journey time by footHemphill et al, 2004;Rydin, 2007;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Laprise et al, 2015 Access to retail facilitiesdaverage journey time by foot toCBD Hemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Cheng and Lin, 2011;Laprise et al, 2015 Access to educational needsdaverage journey time by footHemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Turcu, 2012;Laprise et al, 2015 Access to medical facilitiesdaverage journey time by footHemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Laprise et al, 2015 Access to cultural facilitiesdaverage journey time by footHemphill et al, 2004;Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007;Laprise et al, 2015 Access to open spacedaverage journey time by foot…”

Evaluation of the Criteria for Designating Maintenance Districts in Low-Rise Residential Areas: Urban Renewal Projects in Seoul

“…Second, many studies have focused on aspects of the physical environment that define urban redevelopment as a method to repair aging buildings, prevent urban decline, and improve the quality of the built environment. Accordingly, they suggested structural safety and conditions, building deterioration, block size, parcel accessibility, land adjacent to roads, the ratio of new buildings, land use mix, density level, the ratio of open spaces, and occupancy levels as indicators to clarify the degree of deterioration of the sites and improve the quality of the site's amenities [24,[31][32][33][34].…”

Key Feasibility Indicators for the Remodeling Projects of Small-sized Public Welfare Facilities

“…To secure such value for public buildings, a phase-based project evaluation process is adopted and a project feasibility evaluation during the planning phase is emphasized (Cheng and Lin, 2011). In England, six decision-making stages are defined throughout the lifecycle of buildings, and an evaluation is carried out at every stage to emphasize public interests (OCG, 2007).…”

“…For this reason, it is necessary to consider reusing existing buildings instead of constructing new ones for urban rehabilitation. In other words, the efficient remodeling of vacant buildings requires the recycling of resources to enhance the urban environment (Cheng and Lin, 2011;Choi, 2013). An analysis of the scenario in Korea's metropolitan areas found that most local governmentowned facilities cost less than 30 billion won (Suwon city, 2013).…”