Determining People's Design Priorities for Neighbourhood Units: A Study in Liverpool, Merseyside
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2022.192Keywords:
Neighbourhood planning, design principles, participatory planning, AHP, LiverpoolAbstract
Local planning authorities and developers aim at designing and regenerating neighbourhoods in which people want to live. However, this aim is difficult to achieve if participation is conducted poorly. As a result, people may live in places that are created according to the ideas of designers and the priorities of market conditions and not according to their own. Therefore, determining people's preferences is essential for livable and sustainable neighbourhood design. This paper introduces and tests a method for determining people's design preferences, namely an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. The method is based on making pairwise comparisons of key design principles and structural factors of neighbourhood units. The testing was conducted in Liverpool city centre. Here, it was established that participants' priorities in neighbourhood design are safety, affordable housing and accessibility, respectively. Also, participants prefer to live in non-gated detached and semi-detached housing communities. This article offers an empirical contribution to the participatory neighbourhood planning literature.
Metrics
References
Al-Kodmany, K. (2000). Using web-based technologies and geographic information systems in community planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 7(1), 1-30.
Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post‐political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89-103.
American Planning Association. (2007). Planning and urban design standards. (F. R. Steiner, & K. Butler, Dü) New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Ananda, J. (2007). Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning. Environmental Management, 534-544.
Archon, F. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration review, 66-75.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35, 216-224.
Ataöv, A. (2007). Democracy to become reality: Participatory planning through action research. Habitat international, 31, 333-344.
Baeten, G. (2012a). Normalising Neoliberal Planning: The Case of Malmö, Sweden. T. Taşan-Kok, & G. Baeten içinde, Contradictions of Neoliberal (s. 21-42). Dordrecht: Springer.
Baeten, G. (2012b). Neoliberal Planning: Does It Really Exist? T. Taşan-Kok, & G. Baeten içinde, Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning (s. 205-211). Dordrecht: Springer.
Banerjee, T., & Baer, W. C. (2013). Beyond the neighborhood unit: Residential environments and public policy. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Barton, H., Grant, M., & Guise, R. (2006). Shaping neighbourhoods: for local health and global sustainability. London: Routledge.
Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2007). Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. London: Springer.
Blundell, C. (2014). How would you deliver a new Garden City which is visionary, economically viable, and popular?
Bradley, Q. (2015). The political identities of neighbourhood planning in England. Space and Polity, 19(2), 97-109.
Brookfield, K. (2017). Getting involved in plan-making: Participation in neighbourhood planning in England. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(3), 397-416.
Brower, S. (2017). Neighbors and neighborhoods: Elements of successful community design. London and New York: Routledge.
Brown, G., & Chin, S. Y. (2013). Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Neighbourhood Planning. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 563-588.
Bruns, B. (2003). Water tenure reform: Developing an extended ladder of participation. Politics of the commons: Articulating development and strengthening local practices. Chiang Mai: RCSD Conference.
de FSM Russo, R., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature. Procedia Computer Science, 1123-1132.
DEFRA. (2013). Neighbourhood Planning. London: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. www.gov.uk/defra
Design Council & Cabe. (2016). Design in Neighbourhood Planning. My Community. 05 05, 2019 tarihinde https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/Design-in-Neighbourhood-Planning_FINAL220216-1.pdf
DETR, & CABE. (2000). By design, Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
El Din, H., Shalaby, A., Farouh, H., & Elariane, S. (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. HBRC Journal, 9(1), 86-92.
EPA. (2018, 06 01). About Smart Growth. United States Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about-smart-growth#smartgrowth
Filipović, M. (2007). The analytic hierarchy process as a support for decision making. Spatium, 44-59.
Galster, G. C. (2019). Making our neighborhoods, making our selves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Habitat, U. (2014). A new strategy of sustainable neighbourhood planning: Five principles. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
IAP. (2014, 10 10). IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. 10 10, 2018 tarihinde International Association of Public Participation : https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathon Cope.
Jones, M., & Ward, K. (2002). Excavating the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the “crisis of crisis–management”. Antipode, 34(3), 473-494.
Jones, P., & Evans, J. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK: Theory and Practice. Sage.
Karakurt Tosun, E. (2017). Sürdürülebilirlik Bağlamında Ekolojik Kent Söylemi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1-21.
Kleinhans, R. (2006). Residents’ social capital after neighbourhood transformation. V. Gruis, H. Visscher, & R. Johannes içinde, Sustainable neighbourhood transformation (s. 67-92). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Koschinsky, J., & Talen, E. (2015). Affordable housing and walkable neighborhoods: A national urban analysis. Cityscape, 17(2), 13-56.
Köken, K. (2017). Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Tasarım Kriterleri Açısından Kentsel Dönüşüm Projelerinin İncelenmesi. Ankara: İller Bankası Anonim Şirketi.
Liverpool City Council. (2019a, 07 21). Why Invest in Liverpool? Regenerating Liverpool: http://regeneratingliverpool.com/why-invest-in-liverpool/
Liverpool City Council. (2019b). Liverpool’s Investment Opportunities March 2019 Prospectus. Liverpool: Mayor of Liverpool. 07 21, 2019 tarihinde www.regeneratingliverpool.com
Liverpool City Council. (2019c, 07 21). Housing. Regenerating Liverpool: http://regeneratingliverpool.com/housing/
Liverpool City Council. (2019d, 07 30). Population. liverpool.gov.uk: https://liverpool.gov.uk/council/key-statistics-and-data/data/population/
Liverpool Housing Partnership. (2019, 07 21). Home. Liverpool Housing Partnership: http://liverpoolhousingpartnership.co.uk/
Lombardi, R. D., Porter, L., Barber, A., & Rogers, C. D. (2011). Conceptualising sustainability in UK urban regeneration: a discursive formation. Urban Studies, 48(2), 273-296.
Luederitz, C., Lang, D., & Wehrden, H. (2013). A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 118, 40-52.
Madanipour, A. (2001). How relevant is ‘planning by neighbourhoods’ today? Town Planning Review, 72(2), 171-193.
Medved, P. (2017). Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes. Urbani izziv, 28(1), 107-121.
Mehaffy, M. W. (2015). The “neighborhood unit” on trial: a case study in the impacts of urban morphology. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(2), 199-217.
Monfared, N., Hashemnejad, H., & Yazdanfar, S. (2015). Design principles in sustainable local community with security and socialisation approach (Case study: Chizar). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62-70.
Morris, E. (2011). Down with Eco-towns! Up with Eco-communities. Or Is There a Need for Model Eco-towns? A Review of the 2009-2010 Eco-town Proposals in Britain. Eco City Planning-Policies, Practice and Design, 113-130.
Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017). Practical Decision Making An Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Using Super Decisions v2. Pittsburgh: Springer.
Mumford, L. (1954). The neighborhood and the neighborhood unit. The Town Planning Review, 24(4), 256-270.
Nasar, J. (2003). Does neotraditional development build community? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(1), 58-68.
National Research Council. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. (T. Dietz, & P. Stern, Dü) Washington: National Academies Press.
New Urbanism. (2018, 05 15). Principle of New Urbanism. New Urbanism: http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism/principles.html
ODPM, UK. (2005). Planning Policy Statement 1: delivering sustainable development. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK.
Özdinç, H. K. (2007). Neoliberal politikalar ve bölge yönetimi sorunu: Türkiye deneyimi. Ankara: Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi SBE.
Park, Y., & Rogers, G. O. (2015). Neighborhood planning theory, guidelines, and research: Can area, population, and boundary guide conceptual framing? Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 18-36.
Parker, G. (2015). The Take-up of Neighbourhood Planning in England 2011-2015. Reading: Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading.
Parker, G., Lynn, T., & Wargent, M. (2015). Sticking to the script? The co-production of neighbourhood planning in England. Town Planning Review, 86(5), 519-536.
Parker, G., Street, E., & Wargent, M. (2018). The Rise of the Private Sector in Fragmentary Planning in England. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(5), 734-750.
Perry, C. A. (1929). The Neighborhood Unit: A Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life Community Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs (Cilt 3). New York: Routledge.
Punter, J. (2007). Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management. Journal of Urban Design, 12(2), 167-202.
Raco, M. (2007). Securing sustainable communities: citizenship, safety and sustainability in the new urban planning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(4), 305-320.
Rahnama, M., Roshani, P., Hassani, A., & Hossienpour, S. (2012). Use principles of new urbanism approach in designing sustainable urban spaces. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(7), 195-203.
Roy, P. (2015). Collaborative planning–A neoliberal strategy? A study of the Atlanta BeltLine. Cities, 43, 59-68.
Saaty, R. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 161-176.
Saaty, T. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. T. Saaty içinde, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (s. 59-67). Berlin: Springer.
Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9-26.
Saaty, T. (2008). Decision Making With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Schubert, D. (2014). Transatlantic Crossings of Planning Ideas: The Neighborhood Unit in the USA, UK, and Germany. E. Weitz, & J. Zipes içinde, Transnationalism and the German City (s. 141-158). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sharifi, A. (2016). From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 1-16.
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014). Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment, 72, 243-258.
Sınmaz, S. (2013). Yeni Gelişen Planlama Yaklaşımları Çerçevesinde Akıllı Yerleşme Kavramı ve Temel İlkeleri. Megaron, 76-86.
Smart Growth America. (2018, 05 06). What is smart growth? Smart Growth America: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/our-vision/what-is-smart-growth/
Stangl, P., & Guinn, J. (2011). Neighborhood design, connectivity assessment and obstruction. Urban Design International, 16(4), 285-296.
Surveymonkey. (2019, 06 12). Survey Sample Size. SurveyMonkey: https://tr.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size/
Şengül, H. T. (2009). Kentsel Çelişki ve Siyaset: Kapitalist kentleşme süreçlerinin eleştirisi. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Talen, E. (2010). Affordability in new urbanist development: Principle, practice, and strategy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(4), 489-510.
Talen, E. (2019). Neighborhood. New York: Oxford University Press.
Talen, E., & Koschinsky, J. (2013). The walkable neighborhood: A literature review. International Journal of Sustainable Land Use and Urban Planning, 1(1), 42-63.
Talen, E., & Koschinsky, J. (2014). Compact, Walkable, Diverse Neighborhoods:Assessing Effects on Residents. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), 717-750.
Taşan-Kok, T. (2012). Introduction: Contradictions of Neoliberal Urban Planning. T. Taşan-Kok, & G. Baeten içinde, Contradictions of Neoliberal (s. 1-19). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tekkanat, S. S., & Türkmen, S. N. (2018). Tarih boyunca kent formlarının biçimlenişi üzerine bir inceleme. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(4), 107-124.
Tezcan, M., & Penbecioğlu, M. (2010). Neoliberal Kentleşme Süreci ve Kıyı Kentlerinde Mutenalaştırma; İzmir Alaçatı Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Kentleri Korumak/Savunmak (s. 6-8). Antalya: TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası Dokuzuncu Türkiye Şehircilik Kongresi.
The Congress for the New Urbanism. (2018, 05 15). What is New Urbanism? 06 01, 2018 tarihinde The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU): https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/charter_in_turkish.pdf
Transit Oriented Development. (2018, 05 05). Home. Transit Oriented Development Institue: http://www.tod.org/
Wargent, M., & Parker, G. (2018). Re-imagining neighbourhood governance: the future of neighbourhood planning in England. Town Planning Review, 89(4), 379-402.
Wargent, M., & Talen, E. (2021). Rethinking neighbourhoods. Town Planning Review, 92(1), 89-95.
Wheeler, S. (2013). Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological communities. London: Routledge.
World Commission on Environment and Development, & Brundtland, G. (1987). Presentation of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development to UNEP's 14th Governing Council Session... Nairobi, Kenya: World Commission on Environment and Development.
Zheng, H. W., Shen, G. Q., Song, Y., Sun, B., & Hong, J. (2017). Neighborhood sustainability in urban renewal: An assessment framework. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(5), 903-924.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 