Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Evaluating the Achievement Level of Objectives of Urban Development Plan
Planning evaluation can be a systematic assessment of plans, planning processes, objectives and outcomes compared with explicit standards or indicators. Evaluating the achievement level of objectives of development plan has been ignored in the field of planning due to lack of proper method. But in practice, these evaluations are complicated because objectives are not always clear and measurable. Therefore this study is supposed to evaluate the level of achievement of objectives of the development plan by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) when objectives are not measurable. Public perception on achievement of objectives criteria of related action projects considering overall benefits of each project were judged as ex post facto evaluation. Field surveys and questionnaire surveys were carried out to identify different views of different stakeholders. This application can be used as an objective evaluation tool for planners and policy makers to improve planning practices and provide necessary knowledge for revising plans.
Alexander,E.R.(2006) Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects. Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants.
Baehler,K.(2003) Evaluation and the policy cycle.In Lunt,N,Davidson,C&Kegg (Eds), Evaluating Policy and Practice. Section 1.4,A New Zealand Reader, Pearson Prentice Hall, Auckland.
Bagwat,R.,& Sharma,M.K.(2007) Performance measurement of supply chain management a balanced scorecard approach. Computers and industrial Engineering (pp43-62)
Barclay,C.,&Osei,K.M.(2010) Project performance development framework an approach for developing performance criteria & measures for information system project. International Journal of Production Economics, 124,(pp272-292).
Baum,H.(2001) How should we evaluate community initiatives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67, 147 -158
Berke,P.(2006) What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 581 -600
Braglia,M., Carmignani, G., Frosolini, M. and Grasi, A.(2006) AHP- based evaluation of CMMS software. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(5), pp.585-602
Brown,J.D. (2011) Likert items and scales of measurement. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter.15, 1.
Bruton,M.,& Nicholson.(1987) Local Planning in Practice. London, University of whales, Institute of Science and technology in Cardiff.
Burby,R.J.(2003) Making better plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 33 – 44.
Carmona, M.(2007) Monitoring outcome quality in planning: challenges and possibilities. Town and Country Planning Tomorrow , 8
Carmona,M.,& Sieh,L.(2008) Performance measurement in planning towards a holistic view. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26 ,428 – 454.
Carol,H.W.(1998) Evaluation: methods for studying programs and policies. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River.
Chan, A.H.S. Kwok, W.Y. and Duffy, V.G. (2004) Using AHP for determining priority in safety management system. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(5), pp. 430-445
Cheng, E.W.L.,& Li,H.(2001) Information priority setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP).Information Management & Computer Security, 9(2),pp.61-70
Davidson,J.E.(2000) Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. In P. J. Rogers (Eds) Program Theory Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities New Directions in Evaluation series.
Ericksen,N.,Berke,P.,Crawford,J.,& Dixon,J.(2004) Plan-making for Sustainability: The New Zealand Experience. Ashgate: Aldershot Hants.
Geopel, K.(2012) AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process (Multiple inputs). Retrieved from http//:bpmsg.com
Glasson.J.(1982) Regional Planning. England.
Government of Sri Lanka.(1982) Urban Development Authority Law No 4(Amendment). Colombo, Parliament of Socialist republic of Sri Lanka
Hoch,C.J.(2002) Evaluating plans pragmatically. Planning Theory, 1, 53 -75.
Houghton, M.(1997) Performance indicators in town planning: much ado about nothing?. Local Government Studies, 23(2) ,1 – 13.
Intelligent measurement.(2007) Likert Scale and Best Practices. Retrieved from http ://www.intelligentmesurement.wordpress.com
Islam,R and Rasad,S.B.M.(2005) .Employee performance evaluation by AHP: a case study, international symposium on the analytic Hierarchy process. 8-10 July 2005. Hawaii: University of Hawaii, USA
Joost,C.F.D.,& Dodo,D.(2010) Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation,15,11.
Kaiser,E.J.,Godschalk,D.R.,&Chapin,F.S.(1995) Urban Land Use Planning 4th edition. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Kraemer,L.K.(2002) Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. Working paper on graduation of management of school, University of California, California.
Laurian.L.(2004) What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. University of Auckland, Newzealand
Laurian,L.,Crawford,J.,Day,M.,Kouwenhoven,P.,Mason,G.,Ericksen,N.,&Beattie,L.,(2010) Evaluating the outcomes of plans: theory, practice, and methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 37, 740 -757.
Liang,W.Y.(2003) The analytic hierarchy process in project evaluation an R& D case study in Taiwan, Benchmarking. An international Journal,10(5),pp.445-456
Lichfield,N.(1996) Community Impact Evaluation. UCL Press, London
Marques,G.,Gourc,D.,&Lauras,M.(2010) Multi-criteria performance analysis for decision making in project management. Department of Industrial Organization, Logistics and Technology: Boulevard Las crosses, France.
Mastop,H.,&Faludi,A.(1997)Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 815-832
Mayne,J.(2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16, 1 -24
Michael,Q.P.(2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Morrison,N.,& Pearce,B.(2000) Developing indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of the UK land use planning system. Town Planning Review, 71, 191- 211.
Norton,R.K.(2008) Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use Policy, 25, 432 -435.
Patton, M.Q.(1989) A context and boundaries for a theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 375 -377
Preston,C.C., & Colman,A.M.(2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychological, 104, 1–15.
Rhoda,I.(1982) Urban & regional Analysis for Development planning. Colorade, Western press, Boulder.
Sager,T.(2003) Rationality Types in Evaluation Techniques -The Planning Balance Sheet and the Goals Achievement Matrix. European Journal of Spatial Development. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nordregio.se
Saaty,T.L.(1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), pp. 19-43
Scriven, M.(1996) Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. American Journal of Evaluation ,17, 151-161.
Seasons, M.(2003) Monitoring and evaluation in municipal planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 431-440
Snyder,B.L.,& Coglianese,C.(2005) Measuring progress: program evaluation of environmental policies. Environment, 47(2), 22-39
Talen,E.(1997) Success, failure, and conformance: an alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 573- 587.
Vedung,E.(1997) Public Policy and Program Evaluation.Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick,NJ.
Weiss,C.(1997) How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?. Evaluation Review ,21, 501- 524.
Wu.S.,Lee,A.,Tah,J.H.M.,&Aouad,G.(2007) The use of multi attribute tool for evaluating accessibility in buildings: The AHP approach. Facilities, 25(9), pp.375-389
How to Cite
Copyright of articles that appear in International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions or any other reproductions of similar nature.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- This Journal applies Creative Commons Licenses of CC-BY-NC-SA
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).