Developing a Landscape Sustainability Assessment Model Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process in Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- to establish an assessment model to objectively evaluate landscape sustainability;
- (2)
- to comparatively analyze the importance of assessment factors by landscape architects and non-landscape architects;
- (3)
- to test the applicability of the model developed in this study by applying it to G-SEED-certified projects.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Scope and Sampling
2.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
2.3. Research Framework
2.3.1. Phase I: Defining the Criteria and Factors
2.3.2. Phase II: Identifying the Weights of Criteria and Factors through the AHP Method
2.3.3. Phase III: Applying the Developed Assessment System
3. Results
3.1. The Relative Importance of Criteria and Factors
3.2. Comparison of Importance in Different Professions
3.3. Application of the Landscape Sustainability Model to G-SEED-Certified Projects
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Han, S.A.; Kim, S.W. A Study on the Application Characteristics of Environment-Friendly Design Guidelines at Outdoor Spaces in Apartment Complexes-Focused on Turn-Key Projects of Han River New Town Construction. J. Korea Inst. Ecol. Archit. Environ. 2011, 11, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.S.; Chu, B.A. Study on Comparative Analysis of the Green Building Certification Criteria for Schools in Remodeling. J. Korean Inst. Inter. Des. 2011, 20, 182–189. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, Y.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.D. Change of Ecological Environment Sector Based on the Comparative Analysis of Revision Green Building Certification Standards Apartment Housing. Seoul Inst. 2011, 12, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.S. A Study on Sustainable Outdoor Design Strategies and Assessment System through Analysis of SITES Certified Projects. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2016, 44, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green Business Certification. SITES V2 Rating System for Sustainable Land Design and Development; Sustainable Sites Initiative: Austin, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- BREEAM. Available online: www.breeam.com (accessed on 3 March 2019).
- SBTool. Available online: www.iisbe.org/sbmethod (accessed on 3 March 2019).
- CASBEE. Available online: www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE (accessed on 3 March 2019).
- Green Star. Available online: New.gbca.org.au/green-star (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- Green Mark. Available online: www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark (accessed on 20 April 2019).
- Lee, K.I.; Kim, M.S. A Study on the Preliminary Assessment Indicators for the Development of External Spaces of Ecological Housing Complexes through Practicing Architects’ Survey. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2008, 24, 193–202. [Google Scholar]
- Ajay, G. Sustainable by Design? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.S. Assessment Items of Outdoor Environment through Analysis of SITES-Focused on the Comparison with G-SEED and LEED. J. Korea Inst. Ecol. Archit. Environ. 2014, 14, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- G-SEED Certification Data. Available online: http://www.g-seed.or.kr (accessed on 22 February 2019).
- Park, C.H.; Oh, M.W.; Kim, B.S. A Comparative Analysis Study of Green Building Certification Criteria—Focusing on the Site and Environment. Korean Sol. Energy Soc. 2009, 09, 324–329. [Google Scholar]
- Eom, S.Y.; Song, O.H.; Lee, M.H. A Study on the Green Building Certification Criteria for Sustainable Urban Development. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2012, 47, 19–31. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, C.J. A Study on the Structure and Application of Environmental Performance Assessment System for Urban Development Project through the Analysis of CASBEE-UD in JAPAN. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2009, 25, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, J.M.; Kim, D.Y.; Kim, M. Comparison of the Foreign Environmental Communities Certification System-Focused on CASBEE CITY, CASBEE UD, BREEAM C, LEED ND. J. Korean Inst. Archit. Sustain. Environ. Build. Syst. 2012, 6, 99–105. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.U.; Kim, H.B. Study on the Improvement of Korea Green Building Certification System by the Comparison with BREEAM and LEED. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2010, 26, 271–278. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.C.; Jeon, B.K.; Rhee, D.J. A Study on Comparing and Analyzing for Green Building Certification Criteria. J. Korean Inst. Archit. Sustain. Environ. Build. Syst. 2009, 3, 104–115. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.K.; Lee, S.H. A Case Study on the Outdoor Space of Apartment Housing in Cheongju City by Using Green Building Certification. J. Inst. Constr. Technol. 2007, 26, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, S.H.; Chang, S.Y.; Kim, S.K.; Lee, K.I. A Study of the Assessment of Environment-Friendly Outdoor Spaces in Housing Estates. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2004, 20, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, C.G.; Byun, K.H.; Cho, S.J. Defining a Village-Focused Green Index and Evaluating Value Structures using AHP-Focused on Rural Area. J. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2014, 16, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
- Bae, S.W. A Study of Planning Indicators for the Creation of Environment-friendly External Space in Apartment House Regeneration Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bae, S.H.; Song, O.H. A Study on the Actual Condition and the Effect of KGBCC—Based on Apartment Houses. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2010, 26, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, S.N.; Lee, J.H. A Study on Development of the Friendly Environment Valuation Indicator for the Exterior Space of Complex. Hous. Stud. Rev. 2006, 14, 195–220. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, Y.J.; Lee, S.C. Analyzing the Weight of Assessment Criteria in Korea Green Building Certification System. J. KIEAE 2012, 12, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, Y.; Song, B.H.; Yang, B.E. A Study on the Improvement and Application of Environmentally-Friendly Factors at Outdoor Spaces in Apartment Complexes. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2007, 35, 37–49. [Google Scholar]
- Ryu, J.W.; Jung, E.H.; Kim, D.W. A Study on the Design Elements Comparison of Environmental-Friendly Apartment Housing. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2005, 16, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, T.G.; Kim, K.H.; Kwon, Y.S. Complementary measures for Environmental Performance Evaluation Index of External Space of Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design for Apartment Complex. J. Archit. Inst. Korea Plan. Des. 2018, 34, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lepetu, J.P. The Use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Stakeholder Preference Analysis: A Case Study from Kasane Forest Reserve, Botswana. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 2012, 3, 237–251. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.R. A Study on the Eco-friendly Evaluation of Traditional Hanok—Based on the G-SEED 2016 Certification Criteria. J. Korean Rural Archit. Assoc. 2018, 20, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
- Chun, C.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, H.J. Analysis on Consumers’ Value about Environmental-Friendly Interior Finishing Material by Analytic Hierarchy Process. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2005, 16, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- USGBC. LEED for New Construction; v2.2; US Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- USGBC. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations; US Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- USGBC. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development; US Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Seattle.gov. Available online: www.seattle.gov (accessed on 25 July 2019).
- Developing a Green Factor Tool for City of Helsinki. Available online: https://ilmastotyokalut.fi/developing-a-green-factor-tool-for-city-of-helsinki (accessed on 27 July 2019).
- Dolan, J.G. Shared Decision-making—Transferring Research into Practice: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ. Counc. 2008, 73, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.S. Research on Development Scheme for Sustainable Habitat. Master’s Thesis, Hongik University, Seoul, Korea, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Seong, S.T.; Yu, S.E.; Yang, S.W. Open space design for certificated green apartment housing. Urban Des. Inst. Korea 2012, 13, 83–92. [Google Scholar]
Criteria | Items of Existing Rating Systems and Assessment Subject | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
G-SEED | LEED-NC/ND | SITES | Seattle Green Factor | Helsinki Green Factor | |
Building | Neighborhood Development | Landscape | Greenery | Greenery | |
Site context |
|
|
|
| |
Soil/vegetation |
|
|
|
|
|
Water |
|
|
|
|
|
Materials |
|
|
| ||
Health/wellbeing |
|
|
|
| |
Maintenance |
|
|
Intensity of Relative Importance | Definition |
---|---|
1 | Equal importance |
3 | Weak importance |
5 | Essential or strong importance |
7 | Demonstrated importance |
9 | Absolute importance |
2,4,6, and 8 | Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments |
Landscape Architects (n = 70) | Engineers/Architects (n = 71) | Total (n = 141) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 47(33.3%) | 63(44.7%) | 110(78%) |
Female | 23(16.3%) | 8(5.7%) | 31(22%) | |
Age | 20 s | 20(14.2%) | 8(5.7%) | 28(19.8%) |
30 s | 36(25.5%) | 26(18.4%) | 62(44.0%) | |
40–60 s | 14(10%) | 37(26.2%) | 51(36.2%) | |
Practitioner experience (average years) | 7.67 | 13.2 | 10.45 |
LH-HQ | Renaissance | Sejong | |
---|---|---|---|
Project type | Company building | Hotel and business district | Housing complex |
Total area | 97,165.70 m2 | 18,489.70 m2 | 7,261,643 m2 |
Location | Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do | Gangnam-gu, Seoul | Dajeong-dong, Sejong |
Landscape area | 30,690 m2 (31.59%) | 2954 m2 (15.98%) | 33,891 m2 (46.67%) |
Landscape characteristics | Wide open space Multiple layers of planting in high density Multi-purpose playground, ecological pond with aquatic plants, rooftop garden | Redevelopment project in urban center Emphasis on historicity and symbolism Terrestrial and aquatic biotopes | Dry stream using LID technique Wind path, central open space plaza, courtyard, complex circulation community streets |
Site plan | | | |
View of overall site | | | |
G-SEED rating and landscape item scores | 5 Stars (Total 81.85 points) - Green space ratio (1.5/2 points) - Ecological area (3/6 points) - Biotope creation (4/4 points) - Ecological value of site (0/2 points) | 5 Stars (Total 80.30 points) - Green space ratio (0.5/2 points) - Ecological area (3/6 points) - Biotope creation (4/4 points) - Ecological value of site (2/2 points) | 4 Stars (Total 67.55 points) - Green space ratio (0.5/2 points) - Ecological area (3/6 points) - Biotope creation (4/4 points) - Ecological value of site (0/2 points) |
Criteria. | Factors | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | Local Rank | Local Weight | Content | Local Rank | Local Weight | Global Rank | Global Weight |
Site context | 1 | 0.210 | Conserve and restore habitats | 1 | 0.32 | 5 | 0.067 |
Integrated design process | 2 | 0.301 | 6 | 0.063 | |||
Eco-friendly layout planning | 3 | 0.243 | 9 | 0.051 | |||
Brownfield project | 4 | 0.136 | 18 | 0.029 | |||
Soil & vegetation | 2 | 0.197 | Protect plant communities | 1 | 0.283 | 8 | 0.056 |
Optimize biomass | 2 | 0.237 | 10 | 0.047 | |||
Reuse/recycle topsoil | 3 | 0.190 | 12 | 0.036 | |||
Use native plants | 4 | 0.168 | 16 | 0.033 | |||
Green wall/green roof | 5 | 0.131 | 19 | 0.026 | |||
Maintenance | 3 | 0.179 | Monitoring plan | 1 | 0.582 | 1 | 0.104 |
Long-term management plan | 2 | 0.418 | 3 | 0.075 | |||
Water | 4 | 0.167 | Restore aquatic ecosystems | 1 | 0.431 | 4 | 0.072 |
Natural/permeable areas | 2 | 0.359 | 7 | 0.06 | |||
Rainwater management | 3 | 0.210 | 15 | 0.035 | |||
Health & wellbeing | 5 | 0.144 | Protect cultural heritage | 1 | 0.520 | 2 | 0.075 |
Support physical activity | 2 | 0.251 | 14 | 0.036 | |||
Support resting and socializing | 3 | 0.230 | 17 | 0.033 | |||
Materials | 6 | 0.103 | Use green-certified facilities | 1 | 0.431 | 11 | 0.044 |
Use recycled materials | 2 | 0.353 | 13 | 0.036 | |||
Use regional materials | 3 | 0.217 | 20 | 0.022 |
Rank | Total (n = 141) | Landscape Architects (n = 70) | Engineers/Architects (n = 71) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Weighting | Category | Weighting | Category | Weighting | |
1 | Site context | 0.210 | Soil/vegetation | 0.235 | Site context | 0.211 |
2 | Soil/vegetation | 0.197 | Site context | 0.206 | Maintenance | 0.185 |
3 | Maintenance | 0.179 | Water | 0.171 | Health/wellbeing | 0.165 |
4 | Water | 0.167 | Maintenance | 0.171 | Soil/vegetation | 0.164 |
5 | Health/wellbeing | 0.144 | Health/wellbeing | 0.123 | Water | 0.162 |
6 | Materials | 0.103 | Materials | 0.094 | Materials | 0.112 |
Criteria | Index | Weight | LH-HQ | Renaissance | Sejong | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Point | Weigh-Ted Point | % | Point | Weigh-Ted Point | % | Point | Weigh-Ted Point | % | |||
Site context | Conserve and restore habitats | 0.067 | 2.11 | 0.14 | 4.1% | 2.22 | 0.15 | 5.9% | 1.89 | 0.13 | 4.9% |
Integrated design process | 0.063 | 4.22 | 0.27 | 7.7% | 3 | 0.19 | 7.5% | 3.22 | 0.20 | 7.9% | |
Eco-friendly layout planning | 0.051 | 4 | 0.20 | 5.9% | 2.11 | 0.11 | 4.3% | 3.11 | 0.16 | 6.2% | |
Brownfield project | 0.029 | 3.67 | 0.11 | 3.1% | 2.33 | 0.07 | 2.7% | 2.56 | 0.07 | 2.9% | |
Soil/vege- tation | Protect plant communities | 0.056 | 2.33 | 0.13 | 3.8% | 2.78 | 0.16 | 6.2% | 2.11 | 0.12 | 4.6% |
Optimize biomass | 0.047 | 4.22 | 0.20 | 5.8% | 3 | 0.14 | 5.6% | 3.67 | 0.17 | 6.7% | |
Manage healthy soils | 0.036 | 2.44 | 0.09 | 2.6% | 1.78 | 0.06 | 2.5% | 1.89 | 0.07 | 2.7% | |
Use native plants | 0.033 | 3.67 | 0.12 | 3.5% | 2.89 | 0.10 | 3.8% | 3.22 | 0.11 | 4.1% | |
Green wall/green roof | 0.026 | 4.11 | 0.11 | 3.1% | 3.11 | 0.08 | 3.2% | 3.22 | 0.08 | 3.3% | |
Mainte- nance | Monitoring plan | 0.104 | 4.44 | 0.46 | 13.5% | 3.11 | 0.32 | 12.8% | 3 | 0.31 | 12.2% |
Long-term management plan | 0.075 | 4.22 | 0.32 | 9.2% | 2.78 | 0.21 | 8.3% | 2.67 | 0.20 | 7.8% | |
Water | Restore aquatic ecosystems | 0.072 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |
Natural/permeable areas | 0.06 | 5 | 0.30 | 8.7% | 3 | 0.18 | 7.1% | 3 | 0.18 | 7.0% | |
Rainwater management | 0.035 | 3.11 | 0.11 | 3.2% | 2.44 | 0.09 | 3.4% | 2.89 | 0.10 | 3.9% | |
Health/wellbeing | Protection of cultural heritage | 0.075 | 2.67 | 0.20 | 5.8% | 3.11 | 0.23 | 9.2% | 1.22 | 0.09 | 3.6% |
Support physical activity | 0.036 | 4.78 | 0.17 | 5.0% | 2.33 | 0.08 | 3.3% | 3.89 | 0.14 | 5.5% | |
Support resting and socializing | 0.033 | 4.67 | 0.15 | 4.5% | 3 | 0.10 | 3.9% | 4 | 0.13 | 5.2% | |
Materials | Use green-certified facilities | 0.044 | 4 | 0.18 | 5.1% | 2.78 | 0.12 | 4.9% | 3.33 | 0.15 | 5.7% |
Use recycled materials | 0.036 | 3 | 0.11 | 3.1% | 2.22 | 0.08 | 3.2% | 2.33 | 0.08 | 3.3% | |
Use regional materials | 0.022 | 3.22 | 0.07 | 2.1% | 2.56 | 0.06 | 2.2% | 2.89 | 0.06 | 2.5% | |
Total | 1 | 68.61 | 3.43 | 100.0% | 50.55 | 2.52 | 100.0% | 54.11 | 2.56 | 100.0% |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, H.-S.; Park, E.-Y. Developing a Landscape Sustainability Assessment Model Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process in Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010301
Lee H-S, Park E-Y. Developing a Landscape Sustainability Assessment Model Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process in Korea. Sustainability. 2020; 12(1):301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010301
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Hyung-Sook, and Eun-Yeong Park. 2020. "Developing a Landscape Sustainability Assessment Model Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process in Korea" Sustainability 12, no. 1: 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010301