Fuzzy Logic: a Rule-Based Approach, in Search of a Justified Decision-Making Process in Urban Planning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FUZZY LOGIC: A RULE-BASED APPROACH, IN SEARCH OF A JUSTIFIED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN URBAN PLANNING vorgelegt von Dipl.-Ing. REZA PIROOZFAR Von der Fakultät VI - Planen Bauen Umwelt der Technischen Universität Berlin zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften Dr.-Ing. genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzende: Prof. Dipl. Ing. Regine Leibinger Berichter: Prof. Dipl. Ing. Klaus Zillich Prof. Dr. Ali Modarres Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 24. Juni 2010 Berlin 2012 D 83 FUZZY LOGIC: A RULE-BASED APPROACH, IN SEARCH OF A JUSTIFIED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN URBAN PLANNING REZA PIROOZFAR A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN STUDIES INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN STUDIES FACULTY VI (PLANNING · BUILDING · ENVIRONMENT) BERLIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY (TU-BERLIN) BERLIN, 2012 … In memory of my uncle Maestro Manouchehr Ehterami … To my mom and dad Abstract The decision-making theory and process within planning is involved with people’s daily lives and involves many interest groups. In most cases, it determines people’s destinies and misfortunes. Any, even small, changes or discretions in a plan may cause big changes and problems in individuals’ lives and private sectors’ successes. The logic of using a single method, idea, truth, and so on for decision making therefore comes under serious question. Now, some other disciplines, this question is asked in a multiobjective environment and activity like planning and, clearly, the question has greater meanings, implications, and applications for the whole discipline. This thesis sets out to answer two major questions. With regard to the nature of planning, is the preceding logic of decision making in (urban) planning justified to be applied to the discipline and its subdisciplines? Is it possible and basically necessary to formulate a new logic which is capable of orchestrating a justified decision making theory, and improving performance of decision making process when applied to planning? To answer the questions, the research begins with reviewing the history and nature of planning and decision making theory. Based on historical analysis, it reveals that three different conceptualizations of planning and decision making have been coined and conceptually advanced since 1945: design-based view, system-based view, and person-based view. Analytical scrutiny and epistemological studies, along with the study of the logic of decision making show that the theory of decision making suffers from the development of binary, reductionist and iconic models of reality and decide based on these types of models, and illuminate the nature of planning. The study explains that planning is a multidimension, multiobjective, multijudgment, and multiparties activity with which it is necessary to deal accordingly. Otherwise, the process would face serious problems in gaining justification. In other words, the process should follow “justification necessities of the decision-making process,” which needs to be formed and developed by a “justified” or “justifiable” method of decision making. With consideration of the decision-making process in such an atmosphere, the current research discusses binary logic (as the logic of the precedent decision-making methods) and its limitations and studies the alternatives. The renowned multivalued logic (infinite-valued logic), namely, fuzzy logic, along with its school of thought (i.e., fuzzy thinking) and its application tool (i.e., the fuzzy set), are explained, and through this window, the decision making aspects are explained. Then a comparison between these two logics is made, their benefits and limitations are highlighted, and the research argues that those theories that are based on or benefit from merely a bivalued evaluation method entail arbitrariness and selectiveness that result in unjustified means of decision making. Then, the research argues that the three aforementioned conceptualizations of planning are vital to decision-making theory, but each of these aspects acting individually will not be able to resolve the decision-making problems in a justified way, and they should be utilized simultaneously. It deduces that some other conceptualizations should yet be added to these preceding views of planning. The research concludes that understanding the interactions between fuzzy systems (and fuzziness in systems) and urban planning lays a solid foundation for better applications of the decision-making theory and processes, and that their integration offers a great number of interesting possibilities in their interplay and future developments. i Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................ i Preface ......................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgment ......................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Research Background ................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Research Focus and Scope ......................................................................................... 9 1.5 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Summary of Contents .............................................................................................. 11 2 Planning, Planning Sphere and Planning Theory .................................................. 13 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Problem Definition .................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Definitions, Expansions, and Relations ..................................................................... 14 2.3.1 American Planning Association Definition of Planning _____________________________ 15 2.3.2 Extremes of Planning Tasks, Responsibilities, and Definitions _______________________ 16 2.4 Planning Definition: Distinctions and Values ............................................................ 16 2.4.1 Bargaining with Other Specializations: Other Values ______________________________ 17 2.5 Major Planning Approaches and Milestones; Matter of Practicality ......................... 21 2.5.1 Ongoing Process and Comprehensiveness ______________________________________ 21 2.5.2 Justification; Modernism to Postmodernism ____________________________________ 22 2.6 Planning Account ..................................................................................................... 23 2.7 Planning Theory, Modifications, and Patterns .......................................................... 24 2.7.1 Types and Categories _______________________________________________________ 27 2.7.2 Mode of Thoughts and Patterns: Induction, Deduction, and Intuition in Planning Theory _ 29 2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 30 3 Concentration, Theoretical Framework, and Methodology .................................. 33 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 33 3.2 Methodologies in Planning ...................................................................................... 34 3.2.1 About the Term ___________________________________________________________ 34 3.2.2 Knowledge in Planning: Know‐What and Know‐How ______________________________ 34 3.2.3 Diversity of Methodologies in Planning ________________________________________ 36 3.2.4 Different Paths or a Single Path Morphing ______________________________________ 37 3.3 Methodology of the Current Research ..................................................................... 37 3.3.1 General Vision of the Research’s Path: Setting the Scene, Development, and Analysis ___ 38 3.3.2 Type of Framework: Theoretical and/or Practical ________________________________ 39 3.4 Possible Criticism ..................................................................................................... 40 3.4.1 Study of Logics ____________________________________________________________ 40 3.5 The Necessity of the Research and Its Contribution to the Knowledge Pool ............. 41 3.5.1 Current Contradictions and Needs ____________________________________________ 42 3.6 Premises .................................................................................................................. 43 3.6.1 Geographical Premises and Politico‐Economic Atmosphere ________________________ 43 ii 3.6.2 Lacks and Faults (Data, Time, Corruption, Institutions’ Structure and Relation) _________ 43 3.6.3 Philosophical Premises _____________________________________________________ 44 3.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 45