An Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Development: The Challenge for Planners and Development

Main Article Content

Pawinee Iamtrakul
Chompoonut Kongphunphin
Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura


The continued urbanizing with rapid development has induced the changes of several urban environmentalaspects both positive and negative impacts. Although urban development has brought high technology improvementto support the demand of population, the transformations in term of replacement of natural resources andsocial value has become sustainability challenges, especially in the nonphysical terms. These changes has beenan evidence of influences of revolutionize on urban physical terms create on the structure of urban morphologyกรอบการประเมินการพัฒนาอย่างยั่งยืน:ความท้าทายของนักวางแผนต่อการพัฒนาเมืองAn Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Development:The Challenge for Planners and Developmentภาวิณี เอี่ยมตระกูล1 ชมพูนุท คงพุนพิน2 และ วิมลสิทธิ์ หรยางกูร3Pawinee Iamtrakul1, Chompoonut Kongphunphin2 and Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura3คณะสถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร์และการผังเมือง มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ จังหวัดปทุมธานี 12121Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, 12121, ThailandE-mail: [email protected] JARS 10(1). 2013which has been essential for meeting this challenge to improve efficient urban development and planningphase. The conceptual and analytical framework covering different aspects both physical and nonphysicalcharacteristics with rational land use structure plays an essential role for objectively evaluating thesustainability of urban land use. Thus, to explore the association of those characteristics, this study identifiedthe potential neighborhood structure by applying a geographical analysis tool to quantify the spatial interactionof social space of the adjacent area. Consequently, social features could be determined in terms of socialcapital of different locations in dissimilar neighborhoods of Thakhlong municipality, Pathumthani province. Basedon the application of Potential Surface Analysis (PSA) and Urban Network Analysis (UNA), the major factors forevaluating the sustainability of urban land use could be used to explain. It was found that public spaces of thetraditional communities within the study area demonstrated poor urban potential. On the other hand, with goodlocal accessibility and low traffic volume, these areas have been important places of the community in term ofpublic spaces such as space in temple, market, etc. The more social capital could be induced within this typeof spaces rather than the community near by the industrial area which is represented of new development areaof good accessibility with higher hierarchy of roads. This finding could be applied for further suggestionsand recommendations for concerned government to design relevant policy in achieving the sustainabledevelopment of urban land use and planning. Also the framework of this study could be appropriate for anassessment of the sustainability of urban land use and planning.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Author Biographies

Pawinee Iamtrakul, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University

Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University

Chompoonut Kongphunphin, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University

Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University

Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University

Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University


Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163-177.

Breheny, M. J. (1992). Sustainable development and urban form. London: Pion.

Brownson, R. C., Hoehner, C. M., Day, K., Forsyth, A. & Sallis, J. F. (2000). Measuring the built environment for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), 1-53.

City form Lab. (2011). Urban network analysis: A toolbox for ArcGIS 10. Singapore: Singapore University of Technology & Design.

Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73-76.

Hilberseimer, L. (1955). The nature of cities: Origin, growth, and decline; pattern and form; planning problems. Chicago: Paul Theobald.

Hillier, B. (1999). Space is the machine: A configurationally theory of architecture. UK.: Cambridge University Press.

Horayangkura, V. (2011). การสร้างสรรค์สภาพแวดล้อมชุมชนเมืองที่น่าอยู่อาศัย: ปัญหาที่มองไม่เห็นและแนวทางการแก้ไข [Creating a livable urban environment: Unseen problems and possible solutions]. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies, 8(2), 9-26.

Kang, B. (2006). Effects of open spaces on the interpersonal level of resident social capital: A comparative case study of urban neighborhoods in Guangzhou, China. Texas, USA: A & M University.

Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am J Public Health, 93(9), 1546-1551.

Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301-312.

Lund, H. (2003). Testing the claims of new urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 414-428.

Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (2000). New Dimensions Sustainable Urban Form: The Big Picture. In K. Williams, E. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds.). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (pp. 109-120). New York, London: Oxford Brookes University.

Openshaw, S. & Veneris, Y. (2003). Numerical experiments with central place theory and spatial interaction modeling. Environment and Planning A, 35(8), 1389-1403.

Páez, A. & Scott, D. M. (2005). Spatial statistics for urban analysis: A review of techniques with examples. Geo Journal, 61(1), 53-67.

Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K. & Donovan, R. (2003). Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Social Science Medicine, 56(8), 1693-1703.

Ramirez, L. K. B., Hoehner, C. M., Brownson, R. C., Cook, R., Orleans, C. T., Hollander, M. & Barker, D. C., et al., (2006). Indicators of activity-friendly communities : An evidence-based consensus process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(6), 515-524.

Roo, G. d. & Miller, D. (Eds.). (2000). Compact cities and sustainable urban development: A critical assessment of policies and plans from an international perspective. Hampshire, UK.: Ashgate Publishing.

Sattayakorn, S. (2012). Space as a place for social interaction: A case study of Tai-Lao communities. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies, 9(1), 13-25.

Sevtsuk, A. (2010). Path and place : a study of urban geometry and retail activity in Cambridge and Somerville, MA. PhD dissertation in Urban Design and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Williams, K., Burton, E. & Jenks, M. (Eds.). (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form. London: E&FN Spon.

Wood, L., Shanmon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G. & Giles-Corti, B. (2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: An exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents’ perceptions of safety. Health & Place, 14(1), 15-31.