SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
DAHP Expected Utility Based Evaluation Model for Management Performance on Interior Environmental Decoration – An Example in Taiwan
Yu-Lung Chen 1
,  
Ai-Chih Cheng 2
,  
Danji Qu 2  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, TAIWAN
2
Graduate Institute of Cultural and Creative Design, TungFang Design University, TAIWAN
Online publish date: 2017-11-24
Publish date: 2017-11-24
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(12):8257–8265
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
This article belongs to the special issue "Problems of Application Analysis in Knowledge Management and Science-Mathematics-Education".
ABSTRACT
Construction industry has been criticized as the industry producing high pollution. Especially, a newly built house is often torn down and renovated the walls in the interior space at the life cycle stage of a housing project when buyers are using and maintaining, due to distinct customer demand and preference. Structural walls and beam columns are even randomly drilled for the piping requirement of air conditioner pipelines to result in public danger. It could be attributed to the regulation of interior environmental decoration without safety check in Taiwan and some interior designers, in order to strive for cases in the high competition, corresponding to customers’ demands for changing interior patterns. In addition to newly built houses, the sale and transfer of second-hand houses is another thought for the renovation work of interior space environmental decoration to disturb the life of neighbors and seriously damage the environment. Accordingly, Delphi method, Analytical hierarchy process, and Utility theory are applied in this study to establish an AHP expected utility based evaluation model for management performance on interior environmental decoration, aiming to provide the safety management for interior environmental decoration and reduce the management review for energy consumption and environmental protection.
 
REFERENCES (33)
1.
Akasaka, H., Nimiya, H., & Soga, K. (2002). Influence of heat island phenomenon on build heat load. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol., 23(4), 269–278.
 
2.
Battistoni, E., Colladon, A. F., Scarabotti, L., & Schiraldi, M. M. (2013). Analytic hierarchy process for new product development. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag., 5, 1–8.
 
3.
Bluyssen, P. M., de Richemont, S., Crump, D., Maupetit, F., Witterseh, T., & Gadjos, P. (2010) Actions to reduce the impact of construction products on interior air: Outcomes of the European project healthy air. Interior Built Environ., 19(3), 327–339.
 
4.
Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods, 14(5), 1–6.
 
5.
Chen, C. F. (2006) Applying the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to convention site selection. J. Travel Res., 45(2), 167–174.
 
6.
Cohen, B. C. (1996). Is expected utility theory normative for medical decision making? Med. Decis. Mak., 16(1), 1–6.
 
7.
David, P., & Pierson, M. M. (1998). Public affairs decision making in the U.S. air force: An application of multiattribute utility theory. J. Mass Communicat. Quart., 75(3), 606–626.
 
8.
De Urioste-Stone, S., McLaughlin, W. J., & Sanyal, N. (2006). Using the Delphi technique to identify topics for a protected area co-management capacity building programme. Int. J. Rural Manage., 2(2), 191–211.
 
9.
Escaron, A. L., Chang Weir, R., Stanton, P., Vangala, S., Grogan, T. R., & Clarke, R. M. (2016). Testing an adapted modified Delphi method synthesizing multiple stakeholder ratings of health care service effectiveness. Health Promo. Prac., 17(2), 217–225.
 
10.
Farmer, T. A. (1993). Testing the effect of risk attitude on auditor judgments using multiattribute utility theory. J. Accoun. Audit. Finan., 8(1), 91–110.
 
11.
Fokaides, P. A., Kylili, A., Nicolaou, L., & Ioannou, B. (2016). The effect of soil sealing on the urban heat island phenomenon. Interior Built Environ., 25(7), 1136–1147.
 
12.
Gerber, J. K., & Yacoubian, G. S. (2002). An assessment of drug testing within the construction industry. J. Drug Educ., 32(1), 53–68.
 
13.
Hsueh, S. L. (2012). A fuzzy utility-based multi-criteria model for evaluating households’ energy conservation performance: A Taiwanese case study. Energies, 5(8), 2818–2834.
 
14.
Hsueh, S. L. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of community-promoted environmental protection policy by using a Delphi-fuzzy method: A case study on solar power and plain afforestation in Taiwan. Renew. Sust. Ener. Rev., 49, 1286–1295.
 
15.
Jacobs, J. M., & Cairns, S. (2008). The modern touch: Interior design and modernisation in post-independence Singapore. Environ. Plan. A, 40, 572–595.
 
16.
Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manage. Res., 32(6), 500–508.
 
17.
Lakshmana, C. M. (2014). Dynamics of urban growth, resource degradation and environmental pollution in million plus cities of India. Environ. Urban. ASIA, 5(1), 49–61.
 
18.
Lee, S. E., & Levermore, G. J. (2012). Simulating urban heat island effect with climate change on a Manchester house. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol., 34(2), 203–221.
 
19.
Levermore, G. J., & Parkinson, J. B. (2016). An empirical model for the urban heat island intensity for a site in Manchester. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol., 38(1), 21–31.
 
20.
Li, L., Tang, D., Kong, Y., Yang, Y., & Liu, D. (2016). Spatial analysis of haze–fog pollution in China. Ener. Environ., 27(6-7), 726–740.
 
21.
Liefner, I., & Jessberger, S. (2016). The use of the analytic hierarchy process as a method of comparing innovation across regions: The examples of the equipment manufacturing industries of Shanghai and Xiamen, China. Environ. Plan. A, 48(6), 1188–1208.
 
22.
Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, 4, 178–191.
 
23.
Novakowski, N., & Wellar, B. (2009). Using the Delphi technique in normative planning research: Methodological design considerations. Environ. Plan. A, 40(6), 1485–1500.
 
24.
Ojeda-Benítez, S., Aguilar-Virgen, Q., Taboada-González, P., & Cruz-Sotelo, S. E. (2013). Household hazardous wastes as a potential source of pollution: A generation study. Waste Manage. Res., 31(12), 1279–1284.
 
25.
Plassmann, F., & Khanna, N. (2006). Household income and pollution-implications for the debate about the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. J. Environ. Dev., 15(1), 22–41.
 
26.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environment concern, and environment behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav., 36(1), 70–93.
 
27.
Sellappan, E., & Janakiraman, K. (2014). Environmental noise from construction site power systems and its mitigation. Noise Vibrat. World., 45(3), 14–20.
 
28.
Smith, T. R., & Clark, W. A. V. (1982). Housing market search behavior and expected utility theory: 1. measuring preferences for housing. Environ. Plan. A, 14(5), 681–698.
 
29.
Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration. (2017). Statistics of total greenhouse gas emission. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov.tw/ct.asp?x....
 
30.
White, W. C., & Kuehl, M. H. (2002). The role of contamination textiles in interior environment pollution. J. Indus. Text., 32(1), 23–43.
 
31.
Wu, W. C., & Perng, Y. H. (2017). AHP–utility based model for evaluating the comfort of housing: A case study of Taiwan. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res., 15(2), 133–144.
 
32.
Yun, J. S. (2004). Model for measuring Korean administrative corruption: Focusing on the application of the AHP method. Int. Area Stud. Rev., 7(1), 221–245.
 
33.
Zheng, Q., Lee, D., Lee, S., Kim, J. T., & Kim, S. (2011). A health performance evaluation model of apartment building interior air quality. Interior Built Environ., 20(1), 26–35.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215