Sürdürülebilir Konut Satın Alımının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Metotlarıyla Değerlendirmesi ve Bir Uygulama

Year 2021, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 32 - 54, 18.01.2021

Deniz Yertutan Tahsin Çetinyokuş

https://doi.org/10.29137/umagd.677636

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Konut alımı sadece ekonomik parametrelerle değerlendirilemeyecek kadar karmaşık bir konudur. Yaşam kalitesini ve toplumun sürdürülebilirliğini arttırmak için konutun çevresel ve sosyal sürdürülebilirliği de dikkate alınmalıdır. Bu çalışma, hane halkı refah düzeyini etkileyen ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal kriterleri dikkate alarak farklı yerleşim yerlerinin alım gücünün sürdürülebilir bir şekilde değerlendirilmesinde bir metodolojinin uygulanmasını ele almaktadır. Konusunda uzman kişilere yapılan anketlerden elde edilen verilere dayanarak Türkiye’de seçilen 5 alternatif il, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Tekniklerinden (ÇKKV); düzeltilmiş AHP (Revised Analytic Hirarchy Process), TOPSİS (Technique for Order Preference by Similitarity to Ideal Solution), COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment) ve ELECTRE ((ELemination and Choice Translating Reality English) uygulamaları ile kıyaslanmıştır.

Keywords

Konut Alım Gücü, Sürdürülebilirlik, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV), AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS

An Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability using Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods and an Application

Abstract

Housing affordability, a very sophisticated issue, cannot be limited to the economic parameters. Environmental and social sustainability of housing also deserves importance so as to enhance life standarts and maintain sustainability of societies. This study, therefore, focuses on the evaluation of the affordability of different settlements by taking economic, environmental and social criteria affecting the welfare of household level. Upon debates with area specialists selected 5 alternative cities in Turkey and also criteria to be applied in the evaluation process of these alternatives have been determined. Based on the data collated from surveys among Multiple Critea Decision Making methods, the following methods namely Revised AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS and ELECTRE are utilised to make evaluation.

Keywords

Housing Affordability, Sustainability, Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), AHP, TOPSIS, COPRAS

References

• Alkay, E. ve Övenç, G. (2019). Farklı Gelir Gruplarının Konut Satın Alabilirliğinde Bölgesel Farklılıkların İncelenmesi. Uluslararası Siyaset Bilimi ve Kentsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(1), 259-284.
• Atıcı, K. B. ve Ulucan, A. (2009). Enerji Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesi Sürecinde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yaklaşımları ve Türkiye Uygulamaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 161-186.
• Bakır, M. ve Akan, Ş. (2018). Havaalanlarında Hizmet Kalitesinin Entropi ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi: Avrupa’nın En Yoğun Havaalanları Üzerine bir Uygulama. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(66), 632-651.
• Belsky, E. S., Goodman, J. and Drew, R. (2005). Measuring the Nation’s Rental Housing Affordability Problems. Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University, Boston, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/rental/rd05-1_measuring_ rental_affordability05.pdf, (son erişim: 01.05.2019).
• Belton, V. and Steward, T. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (First edition). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 5-12.
• Belton, V. and Gear, T. (1983). On a Short-Coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 228-230.
• Bozbura, F. T., Beskese, A. and Kahraman, C. (2007). Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1100-1112.
• Bramley, G. (1994). An Affordability Crisis in British Housing: Dimensions, Causes and Policy Impact. Housing Studies, 9(1), 103-124.
• Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V.M. and Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials Selection Using Complex Proportional Assessment and Evaluation of Mixed Data Methods. Materials and Design, 32(2011), 851–860
• Communities and Local Government. (2007). Strategic housing market assessments practice guidance version 2; CLG. London, 1-63.
• Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. (2005). What home buyers want: Attitudes and decision making among consumers; CABE. London. 1-28.
• Dacquisto, D. J. and Rodda, D.T. (2006). Housing Impact Analysis. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, 3, 1-20.
• Emlak Haber (2018). Bedelsiz kiracı sayısı yüzde 220 arttı, 2018, https://emlak.haber7.com/emlak/haber/2678739-bedelsiz-kiraci-sayisi-yuzde-220-artti/?detay=1 (erişim tarihi: 01.05.2020).
• Ertuğrul, İ. ve Karakaşoğlu, N. (2010). Electre ve Bulanık AHP Yöntemleri ile Bir İşletme için Bilgisayar Seçimi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 23-41.
• Fisher, L. M., Pollakowski, H. O. and Zabel, J. (2009). Amenity-Based Housing Affordability Indexes. Real Estate Economics, 37(4), 705-746.
• Gabriel, M., Jacobs, K., Arthurson, K., Burke, T. and Yates, J. (2005). Conceptualising and Measuring the Housing Affordability Problem. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Research Paper I, 2, 1-71.
• Guitouni, A. and Martel, J. M. (1998). Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2), 501-521.
• Hajkowicz, S. and Higgins, A. (2008). A Comparison of Multiple Criteria Analysis Techniques for Water Resource Management. European Journal of Operational Research, 184, 255–265.
• Hancock, K.E. (1993). Can pay? Won't pay? or Economic Principles of Affordability. Urban Studies, 30(1), 127-145.
• Housing New Zealand Corporation. (2005). Building the Future: New Zealand Housing Strategy. Wellington, April 2004. Wellington: Housing New Zealand Corporation, 1-86.
• Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Naimavicienė, J., Krutinis, M., Plakys, V. and Venskus, D. (2010). Model for a Complex Analysis of Intelligent Built Environment. Automation in Construction, 19(3), 326–340.
• Karaatlı, M., Ömürbek, N., Budak, İ. ve Dağ, O. (2015). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Yaşanabilir İllerin Sıralanması. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33, 215-228.
• Linneman, P. D. and Megbolugbe, I. F. (1992). Housing Affordability: Myth or Reality? Urban Studies, 29 (3-4), 369-392.
• McCord, M., McGreal, S., Berry, J., Haran, M. and Davis, P. (2011). The Implications of Mortgage Finance on Housing Market Affordability. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 4(4), 394 - 417.
• Millet, I. and Schoner, B. (2005). Incorporating Negative Values in to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Computers and Operations Research, 32(12), 3163-3173.
• Mulliner E. (2012). A Model for the Complex Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability. Master's thesis, John Moores University, Liverpool, 1-164.
• Mulliner, E., Malys, N. and Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability. Omega, 59, 146-156.
• Mulliner, E. and Maliene, V. (2013). Affordable Housing Policy and Practice in England. In: Hepperle E, Dixon-Gough R, Maliene V, Mansberger R, Paulsson J and Pödör A (Eds). Land management: Potential, Problems and Stumbling blocks . Eth Zürich, Switzerland: Vdf Hochschulverlag, 71(4), 267–277.
• Mulliner, E. and Maliene, V. (2015). An Analysis of Professional Perceptions of Criteria Contributing to Sustainable Housing Affordability. Sustainability, 7, 248–270.
• Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K. and Maliene V. (2012). An Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability Using a Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method, Omega, 41, 270-279.
• National Housing and Planning Advice Unit. (2010). Housing Affordability: A Fuller Picture, 10, 1-28.
• Neufville, R. (1995). Management of Multi-Airport Systems: A Development Strategy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2(2), 99-110.
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity. London, January 2005. The Stationery Office, 1-62.
• Özdağoğlu, A. (2013). İmalat İşletmeleri için Eksantrik Pres Alternatiflerinin Copras Yöntemi ile Karşılaştırılması. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik Dergisi, 8, 1-22.
• Phua, M. and Minowa, M. (2005). A GIS Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach to Forest Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale: A Case Study in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 207–222.
• Pollard, T. (2010). Jobs, Transportation, and Affordable Housing: Connecting Home and Work. Southern Enivronmental Law Center, 3(1), 1-19
• Pomerol, J. C. and Romero, S. (2000). Multicriterion Decision in Management: Principles and Practice (First edition). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11, 17.
• Robinson, M., Scobie, G. M. and Halinan, B. (2006). Affordability of Housing: Concepts, Measurement and Evidence. Working Paper, 6(3), 1-46.
• Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks (Third edition). Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 5-9.
• Sarıçalı, G. ve Kundakçı N. (2016). AHP ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Otel Alternatiflerinin Değerlendirilmesi. International Review of Economics and Management, 4(1), 45–66.
• Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N. and Jovanovic, R. (2013). A Multi Attribute Decision Making Model Based on Distance from Decision Maker’s Preferences. Informatica, Vilnius University, 24(1), 103-118.
• Stone, M. E. (2006). Housing Affordability: One-Third of a Nation Shelter Poor. In: Bratt, R., Stone, M.E. and Hartman, C.A. Right To Housing: Foundation For A New Social Agenda. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 38-60
• Stone, M., Burke, T. and Ralston, L. (2011). The Residual Income Approach to Housing Affordability: The Theory and the Practice. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Swinburne Monash Research Centre, 139, 1-90.
• Şahin, C. ve Öztel, A. (2017). Ülkelerin Yaşanabilirlik Düzeylerinin Copras Yöntemiyle Karşılaştırmalı Analizi: BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye. Uluslararası Batı Karadeniz Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 75-84.
• The Brookings Institution. (2006). The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice. Washington, January 2006. Washington: The Brookings Institution: Urban Markets Initiative, 1-22.
• Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study (44th edition). Boston: Springer, 5-21.
• Tscheikner-Gratl, F., Egger, P., Rauch, W. and Kleidorfer, M. (2017). Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated Rehabilitation Prioritization. MDPI Journal Water, 9, 1-68.
• Tüik. (2018). Nüfus Projeksiyonları, 2018-2080. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30567 (erişim tarihi: 01.05.2020).
• Tüik. (2018). Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması, 2018. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30755 (erişim tarihi: 30.05.2020). Tzeng, G. H. and Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods And Application (First edition). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, 69-93.
• Unesco. (2015). Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma 2030 Hedefleri, 108-219. http://www.unesco.org.tr/Pages/108/219/S%C3%BCrd%C3%BCr%C3%BClebilir-Kalk%C4%B1nma-2030-Hedefleri-%C4%B0htisas-Komites (erişim tarihi: 30.05.2020).
• United Nations. (2016). World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development Emerging Futures; UN Habitat. Nairobi. 1-247.
• Whitehead, C. (1991). From Need to Affordability: Analysis of UK Housing Objectives. Urban Studies, 28(6), 871-887.
• Whitehead, C. (2007). Planning Policies and Affordable Housing: England as a Successful Case Study? Housing Studies, 22(1), 25-44.
• Whitehead, C., Monk, S., Clarke, A., Holmans, A. and Markkanen, S. (2009). Measuring Housing Affordability: A Review of Data Sources. Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research, 1, 1-97.
• Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for Sustainable Communities? Barriers to Implementing Sustainable Housing in Urban Areas. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 319-330.
• World Health Organisation. (2004, June). Review of Evidence on Housing and Health. Paper presented at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on Housing and Health, Budapest, Hungary.
• Yaldır, A. ve Özgür-Polat, L. (2016). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleri İle Elektronik Belge Yönetim Sistemi Seçimi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(14), 88-108.
• Yates, J. and Milligan, V. (2007). Housing Affordability: A 21st Century Problem. Final report, Melbourne, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 5(2), 1-57.
• Zavadskas, E.K, Kaklauskas, A. and Sarka, V. (1994). The New Method of Multicriteria Complex Proportional Assessment of Projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy , 1(3),131-139.
• Zavadskas, E. K. and Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Systemotechnical Evaluation of Buildings (Pastatų Sistemotechninis Įvertinimas). Vilnius: Technika, 280.
• Zhu, X., Liu, S. and Yeow, M. C. A. (2006). A GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach to Accessibility Analysis for Housing Development in Singapore. Applied GIS, Monash University Epress, 2(2), 1-13.