This research aims to identify and prioritize key planning elements for the redevelopment of such housing complexes by incorporating perspectives from both experts (supply-side) and residents (demand-side). To achieve this, a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework was developed by integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). A total of 25 planning elements were identified through Focus Group Interviews and organized into five domains: legal and institutional reforms, project feasibility, residential conditions, social integration, and complex design. The AHP was used to assess the relative importance of each element based on responses from 30 experts and 130 residents. The analysis revealed a clear divergence in priorities: experts emphasized feasibility and regulatory considerations, while residents prioritized livability and spatial quality. Subsequently, the TOPSIS method was applied to evaluate four real-world redevelopment cases. From the supply-side perspective, Seoul A District received the highest score (0.58), whereas from the demand-side perspective, Gyeonggi D District ranked highest (0.69), illustrating the differing priorities of stakeholders. Overall, Gyeonggi D District emerged as the most favorable option in the combined evaluation. This research contributes a structured and inclusive decision-making framework for the regeneration of public housing. By explicitly comparing and quantifying the contrasting preferences of key stakeholders, it underscores the critical need to balance technical feasibility with resident-centered values in future redevelopment initiatives.
Park et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: