Article Sidebar
Views
1412
Downloads
254
Development of a Key Performance Indicators System in Urban Planning by Utilizing the Logic Model
and
1Faculty of Land Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 131000, Vietnam
2Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 615-8530, Japan
Received: Aug 20, 2018 /
Revised: Jul 12, 2021 /
Published: Aug 20, 2018
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study proposes the methodology and process to develop a Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) system in urban planning by utilizing the logic model. Firstly, the study introduces the role of KPIs in urban planning for measuring the performance of the whole planning process, and the logic model as a powerful tool for selecting KPIs, as well as the ability to apply it in urban planning issues. Secondly, methodologies are given, including: building a KPIs system from the logic model’s components, data collection for KPIs, and data analysis. Thirdly, the case of the Hanoi master plan is presented, to investigate how the logic model works for KPIs development. The process of the logic model application includes: identification of planning policies; zoning Hanoi for the simulation of the policies’ effects; utilizing the logic model for selecting KPIs; analysis of logical linkage between the logic model’s components; and Hanoi urban data availability for KPIs.
Keywords:
Urban Planning, Logic model, KPIs, Hanoi
Article Details
How to Cite
Phuong, Q., & Kakuya, M. (2018). Development of a Key Performance Indicators System in Urban Planning by Utilizing the Logic Model. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2018.1.1.03
Download Citation
References
-
1. Bertuglia C. S., Clarke G. P. and Wilson A. G. (Eds.) (1994). Modelling the City: Performance, Policy and Planning. Routledge, New York.
2. Breuer D. (1999). European Sustainable Development and Health Series: 3. Towards a new planning process - A guide to reorienting urban planning towards Local Agenda 21. World Health Organization.
3. Candiello A. and Cortesi A. (2011). KPI-Supported PDCA Model for Innovation Policy Management in Local Government. M. Janssen et al. (Eds.): EGOV 2011, LNCS 6846. pp. 320-331.
4. Chen H. (1990). Theory driven evaluation: A comprehensive perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Decision No. 1259/QD-TTg (2011). Approving The Hanoi capital construction master plan to 2030 and vision to 2050. Prime Minister. Retrieved on November 15, 2017 at https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Xay-dung-Do-thi/Quyet-dinh-1259-QD-TTg-phe-duyet-Quy-hoach-chung-xay-dung-Thu-do-Ha-Noi-127064.aspx (in Vietnamese).
6. Dung D. (2009). Planning is that. Science and Development. Hanoi National University. Vol 219. pp. 41-43 (in Vietnamese).
7. European Commission (2014). EEBuilding Key Performance Indicators. ICT for a Low Carbon Economy. Proceedings of the first Workshop organized by the Data Models Community ICT for Sustainable Places.
8. Hai N. V. (2013). Urban planning issues in the present implementation of urban planning. Agenda Policy dialogue session 1 – ANMC21.
9. Hameed R. and Nadeem O. (2008). Challenges of Implementing Urban Master Plans: The Lahore Experience. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering. Vol 2 (12). pp. 1297-1304.
10. Hanoi Statistical Office (HSO) (2016). Hanoi Statistical Yearbook 2015. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi.
11. Henning T., Essakali D. M. and Oh E. J. (2011). A framework for urban transport benchmarking. Transport research support. Department for International Development (DFID).
12. Jody Z. K. and Ray C. R. (2004). Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation. System: A Handbook for Development Practitioners. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
13. Kaplan A. S. and Garrett E. K. (2005). The use of logic models by community-based initiatives. Evaluation and Program Planning. Vol 28. pp. 167-172.
14. Mega V. and Pedersen J. (1998). Urban Sustainability Indicators. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.
15. McLaughlin J. A. and Jordan G. B. (1999). Logic Models: A Tool for Telling Your Program’s Performance Story. Evaluation and Program Planning. Vol 22. pp. 65-72.
16. MOC (2009). Hanoi Capital Construction Master Plan to 2030 and vision to 2050. Ministry of Construction, Hanoi (in Vietnamese).
17. NAMS Ltd. (2007). Developing levels of services and performance measures guidelines. Wellington, NZ: NAMS Ltd.
18. Person Trip Survey (PT Survey) (2011). TEDI (Transport Engineering Design Inc).
19. Pinson G. (2007). Urban and Regional Planning. Encyclopedia of governance. Vol 2. Sage Publications. pp. 1005-1007.
20. Pradoto W. (2012). Development Patterns and Socioeconomic Transformation in Peri-Urban Area. Universitatsbibliothex, Technische Universitat Berlin, Berlin.
21. Wapwera S. D., Mallo D. M. and Jiriko G. J. (2015). Institutional framework and constraints in the urban and regional planning system in Jos Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Geography and regional Planning. Vol 8 (10). pp. 244-260.
22. Zhang K., Wen Z., Du W. and Song G. (2008). Study of indicators of urban environmentally sustainable development in China”. International Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol 6 (2). pp. 170-182.