IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6020-d390305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitive Advantage Evaluation Model of Sustainable Housing Design

Author

Listed:
  • Pen-Kai Wang

    (Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), No.43, Sec. 4, Keelung Road, Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan)

  • Shen-Guan Shih

    (Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), No.43, Sec. 4, Keelung Road, Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan)

  • Yeng-Horng Perng

    (Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST), No.43, Sec. 4, Keelung Road, Da’an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan)

Abstract

Owing to the housing design’s booming development and fierce competition among industry players, there have been many sensational designs that have not met the requirements of sustainable living, resulting in a serious waste of resources. Therefore, finding the critical factors of sustainable housing design with competitive advantages, and establishing an effective evaluation model along with helping operators make adequate decisions is the imperative topic at present. This study aimed to develop an evaluative model of such competitive advantages focusing on sustainable housing design, with 15 evaluation factors found through literature analysis, delivering 500 questionnaires of the Analytical Hierarchy Process development for housing design customers. A total of 390 were retrieved for a response rate of 78% and 327 are valid questionnaires. The factors listed in sequence are Cost Effectiveness, Tender Reputation and Word of Mouth, Green Materials, Culture and Folk Beliefs, Energy Saving, Energy Recovery, Easy Maintenance, Service Accessibility, Optimal Housing for Preserving Health, Customer Participating Experience, Schedule Control for Design and Engineering, Regulation Compliance, Core Competencies, Identity Representation, Low Operation Cost. Utility theory was then employed to develop a customer-oriented assessment model. Finally, four case studies of housing design were examined with different locations, environments, human qualities, and budgets. The results found that the benefit of the location in a favorable environment was the highest, while the location near the river and the tomb area was the lowest. As mentioned above, the designer needs to create a solution for the influences of Culture and Folk Beliefs, as well as the uneasy maintenance problems caused by the high humidity near the river. Accordingly, there are different responses made for different conditions of houses from designers. Furthermore, the evaluation model can serve as a tool, supporting decision-making related to sustainable housing designers.

Suggested Citation

  • Pen-Kai Wang & Shen-Guan Shih & Yeng-Horng Perng, 2020. "Competitive Advantage Evaluation Model of Sustainable Housing Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6020-:d:390305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6020/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6020/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmitt, Bernd, 2011. "Experience Marketing: Concepts, Frameworks and Consumer Insights," Foundations and Trends(R) in Marketing, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 55-112, May.
    2. Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman & Suharto Teriman, 2015. "Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-33, March.
    3. Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2015. "Planning, Development and Management of Sustainable Cities: A Commentary from the Guest Editors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Sung-Lin Hsueh, 2012. "A Fuzzy Utility-Based Multi-Criteria Model for Evaluating Households’ Energy Conservation Performance: A Taiwanese Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Delia D’Agostino & Ilaria Zacà & Cristina Baglivo & Paolo Maria Congedo, 2017. "Economic and Thermal Evaluation of Different Uses of an Existing Structure in a Warm Climate," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    6. Mendelsohn, Robert, 1977. "Empirical evidence on home improvements," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 459-468, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leonardo Sierra & Maximiliano Lizana & Catalina Pino & Amilkar Ilaya-Ayza & Briguitte Neculman, 2023. "Structural Model for Socially Sustainable Public Housing Decision-Making in Chile," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Meijiao Song & Jun Cai & Yisi Xue, 2023. "From Technological Sustainability to Social Sustainability: An Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Residential Design Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-19, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yun Luo & Pengcheng Xiang & Yiming Wang, 2020. "Investigate the Relationship between Urbanization and Industrialization using a Coordination Model: A Case Study of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Mayere, Severine, 2020. "What is the most suitable methodological approach to demarcate peri-urban areas? A systematic review of the literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Giovanni Santi & Emanuele Leporelli & Michele Di Sivo, 2019. "Improving Sustainability in Architectural Research: Biopsychosocial Requirements in the Design of Urban Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Takeyasu Suzuki, 2020. "Building Up a Common Recognition of City Development in the Southern Part of Kofu Basin under the Initiative of Knowledge Brokers with the Cooperation of Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Yahya Sheikhnejad & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2020. "Scientific Landscape of Sustainable Urban and Rural Areas Research: A Systematic Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Se Ran Yoo & Suk Won Lee & Hyeon Mo Jeon, 2020. "The Role of Customer Experience, Food Healthiness, and Value for Revisit Intention in GROCERANT," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Palmyra Repette & Jamile Sabatini-Marques & Tan Yigitcanlar & Denilson Sell & Eduardo Costa, 2021. "The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective Knowledge-Based Platform Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Manuel Hernandez & Danilo Trupkin, 2021. "Asset maintenance as hidden investment among the poor and rich: Application to housing," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 40, pages 128-145, April.
    9. Gyourko, Joseph & Saiz, Albert, 2004. "Reinvestment in the housing stock: the role of construction costs and the supply side," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 238-256, March.
    10. Tan Yigitcanlar & Rashid Mehmood & Juan M. Corchado, 2021. "Green Artificial Intelligence: Towards an Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Technology for Smart Cities and Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Hui Zheng & Baohong He & Mingwei He & Jinghui Guo, 2022. "Impact of Urban Spatial Transformation on the Mobility of Commuters with Different Transportation Modes in China: Evidence from Kunming 2011–2016," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Zehua Wang & Fachao Liang & Sheng-Hau Lin, 2023. "Can socially sustainable development be achieved through homestead withdrawal? A hybrid multiple-attributes decision analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    14. Herhausen, Dennis & Kleinlercher, Kristina & Verhoef, Peter C. & Emrich, Oliver & Rudolph, Thomas, 2019. "Loyalty Formation for Different Customer Journey Segments," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 9-29.
    15. Seham S. Al-Alola & Haya M. Alogayell & Ibtesam I. Alkadi & Soha A. Mohamed & Ismail Y. Ismail, 2021. "Recognition and Prediction of Land Dynamics and Its Associated Impacts in Al-Qurayyat City and along Al-Shamal Train Pathway in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-25, September.
    16. Mirko Guaralda & Greg Hearn & Marcus Foth & Tan Yigitcanlar & Severine Mayere & Lisa Law, 2020. "Towards Australian Regional Turnaround: Insights into Sustainably Accommodating Post-Pandemic Urban Growth in Regional Towns and Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Baglivo, Cristina & Congedo, Paolo Maria & Murrone, Graziano & Lezzi, Dalila, 2022. "Long-term predictive energy analysis of a high-performance building in a mediterranean climate under climate change," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PA).
    18. Bookhagen, Andrea, 2016. "Die Touchpoint-Analyse als Kontroll- und Steuerungsinstrument bei der Markenführung," PraxisWISSEN Marketing: German Journal of Marketing, AfM – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Marketing, vol. 1(01/2016), pages 35-50.
    19. Melita Rozman Cafuta, 2015. "Open Space Evaluation Methodology and Three Dimensional Evaluation Model as a Base for Sustainable Development Tracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Magdalena Mucowska, 2021. "Trends of Environmentally Sustainable Solutions of Urban Last-Mile Deliveries on the E-Commerce Market—A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6020-:d:390305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.