An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of Art
- Numerous studies investigating their theoretical aspects, by mainly comparing differences and similarities in terms of dimensions of sustainability considered, parameters used and weights assigned [7,20,21,22,23,24]. This kind of study chiefly allowed for the identification of the bias and weakness of criteria and parameters, prevalence of one sustainability dimension (generally environmental [20,25,26]), and the lack of transparency of the assessment methodology [7,27].
- A young but growing body of research is related to the ease and flexibility of use of these procedures in different contesxs, by emphasizing the need of mutual links and public participation [28,29,30,31] and the fact that some criteria were used more frequently than others. This variation in what is prioritized and what is not underlines that a broad set of parameters does not guarantee the sustainability goal of a project [32,33].
- Studies recommending a system of parameters and/or indicators to assess urban sustainability at the neighborhood scale, by collecting them from several sources [34,35,36,37], setting out a reliable selection methodology [12,38,39]. Actually, this last field of research is quite new at the neighborhood scale, while it is discussed in more detail in the scientific literature related to urban sustainability as a whole [40,41,42].
3. Methodology
3.1. Most Widespread NSA Procedures Analysed
3.2. Classification System
3.3. Linear Optimization Model
- I is the set of the procedures 1, …, 5
- J is the set of the procedure parameters
- K is the set of the sustainability dimensions 1, …, 3
- Ji ⊂ J is the set of the parameters of the procedure j belonging to J
- Jk ⊂ J is the set of the parameters of the dimension k of the procedure j belonging to J
- aij ∀ I ∈ I and ∀ j ∈ J
- wj ∀ j ∈ J
- xj = {1,144} ∀ j ∈ J
- ki is the bound certification value ∀ i ∈ I
- lk = {19,2,5} ∀ k ∈ K
3.4. Solution of the Linear Optimization Model
4. Results
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- the proposed parameter set is the output of an analytical procedure that shows more elements of rigor and reliability than the “opaque” choices made by the certifying bodies;
- the set of output parameters of the model guarantees the maximum information content as, thanks to the identified constraints, all three dimensions of sustainability are analyzed and the achievement of the minimum sustainability threshold is ensured;
- the parameters implemented by the model belong to the most widespread urban sustainability assessment procedures; this suggests that their use is shared more widely, at least, by users of such practices.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Drexhage, J.; Murphy, D. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background Paper Prepared for Consideration by the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability at Its First Meeting, 19 September 2010. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/document/149351285/Sustainable-Development-From-Brundtland-to-Rio-2012 (accessed on 19 September 2018).
- Gupta, J.; Vegelin, C. Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2016, 16, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Desa, U. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision; Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pingali, P.L. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12302–12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Basiago, A.D. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 1998, 19, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajaonson, J.; Tanguay, G.A. A sensitivity analysis to methodological variation in indicator-based urban sustainability assessment: A Quebec case study. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elgert, L. Rating the sustainable city: ‘Measurementality’, transparency, and unexpected outcomes at the knowledge-policy interface. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 79, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dizdaroglu, D. The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in Policy and the Decision-Making Process: A Review and Outlook. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappai, F.; Forgues, D.; Glaus, M. The Integration of Socio-Economic Indicators in the CASBEE-UD Evaluation System: A Case Study. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, T.; Cashmore, M. Power, knowledge and environmental assessment: The world bank’s pursuit of ‘good governance’. J. Political Power 2011, 4, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1573–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castanheira, G.; Bragança, L. The evolution of the sustainability assessment tool: From buildings to the built environment. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 491791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Komeily, A.; Srinivasan, R.S. A need for balanced approach to neighborhood sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marique, A.-F.; Reiter, S. Towards more sustainable neighbourhoods: Are good practices reproducible and extensible. In Proceedings of the International Conference PLEA, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 13–15 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sharifi, A. Sustainability at the Neighborhood Level: Assessment Tools and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lützkendorf, T.; Balouktsi, M. Assessing a sustainable urban development: Typology of indicators and sources of information. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 546–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karol, E.; Brunner, J. Tools for Measuring Progress towards Sustainable Neighborhood Environments. Sustainability 2009, 1, 612–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coplák, J.; Raksanyi, P. Planning Sustainable Settlements; Slavak University of Technology: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orova, M.; Reith, A. Comparison and evaluation of neighbourhood sustainability assessment systems. In Proceedings of the PLEA2013—29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future, Munich, Germany, 10–12 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ameen, R.F.M.; Li, H.; Mourshed, M. Sustainability assessment methods of urban design: A review. In Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop: Intelligent Computing in Engineering, Cardiff, UK, 16–18 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Haapio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gil, J.; Duarte, J.P. Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: A review. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2013, 166, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Retzlaff, R.C. Green buildings and building assessment systems: A new area of interest for planners. J. Plan. Lit. 2009, 24, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garde, A. Sustainable by design? Insights from US LEED-ND pilot projects. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2009, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyrkou, D.; Karthaus, R. Urban sustainability standards: Predetermined checklists or adaptable frameworks? Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.-Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators—A comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reith, A.; Orova, M. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability? Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 660–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawodu, A.; Akinwolemiwa, B.; Cheshmehzangi, A. A conceptual re-visualization of the adoption and utilization of the pillars of sustainability in the development of neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 28, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, J.A.; Bertiller, R.; Schwick, C.; Kienast, F. Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moussiopoulos, N.; Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Spyridi, D.; Nikolaou, K. Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 2010, 27, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosbie, T.; Crilly, N.; Dawood, N.; Oliveras, J.; Niwaz, N. Visualising the ‘Big Picture’: Key Performance Indicators and Sustainable Urban Design. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Organised by the EEB Data Models Community ICT for Sustainable Places, Nice, France, 9–11 September 2013; pp. 11–26. [Google Scholar]
- Braulio-Gonzalo, M.; Bovea, M.D.; Ruá, M.J. Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 53, 16–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Repetti, A.; Desthieux, G. A relational indicatorset model for urban land-use planning and management: Methodological approach and application in two case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munier, N. Methodology to select a set of urban sustainability indicators to measure the state of the city, and performance assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 1020–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Fraser, E.D.; Dougill, A.J. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scipioni, A.; Mazzi, A.; Mason, M.; Manzardo, A. The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: The case study of Padua Municipality. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.-F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgenstern, O.; Von Neumann, J. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Zucaro, F. A critical review of parameters within urban sustainability models: How much do soil and natural resources weight? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Innovation in Urban and Regional Planning, Titled Smart City: Planning for Energy, Transportation and Sustainability of the Urban System, Turin, Italy, 14–15 September 2016; pp. 214–219. [Google Scholar]
- Sieber, S.; Amjath-Babu, T.; Reidsma, P.; Koenig, H.; Piorr, A.; Bezlepkina, I.; Mueller, K. Sustainability impact assessment tools for land use policy advice: A comparative analysis of five research approaches. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyle, L.; Michell, K.; Viruly, F. A critique of the application of neighborhood sustainability assessment tools in urban regeneration. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BREEAM. Homepage of BREEAM. 2011. Available online: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=117 (accessed on 20 May 2018).
- Papa, R. Il Governo delle Trasformazioni Urbane e Territoriali; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rees, W.; Wackernagel, M. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996, 16, 223–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, R.; Bai, X.; Smith, M.S.; Costanza, R.; Griggs, D.; Moglia, M.; Neuman, M.; Newman, P.; Newton, P.; Norman, B. Sustainable urban systems: Co-design and framing for transformation. Ambio 2018, 47, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Icaza, L.E.; Van der Hoeven, F.; Van den Dobbelsteen, A. Surface thermal analysis of North Brabant cities and neighbourhoods during heat waves. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2016, 9, 63–87. [Google Scholar]
- Gargiulo, C.; Tulisi, A.; Zucaro, F. Climate change-oriented urban green network design: A decision support tool. In Network Design and Optimization for Smart Cities; World Scientific: Singapore, 2017; pp. 255–278. [Google Scholar]
- Zucaro, F.; Morosini, R. Sustainable land use and climate adaptation: A review of European local plans. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2018, 11, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
- Du, P.; Wood, A.; Ditchman, N.; Stephens, B. Life Satisfaction of Downtown High-Rise vs. Suburban Low-Rise Living: A Chicago Case Study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, P.A.; Kloos, B. Housing environment and mental health outcomes: A levels of analysis perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bond, A.J.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasparatos, A.; Scolobig, A. Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 80, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, M.; Li, C.; Molina, A. The emergence and spread of ecourban neighbourhoods around the world. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11418–11437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leone, A.; Gobattoni, F.; Pelorosso, R. Sustainability and planning. Thinking and acting according to thermodinamics laws. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, R. Editorial Preface. Cities, Energy and Built Environment. TEMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2015, 8, 129–130. [Google Scholar]
- Choguill, C.L. Developing sustainable neighborhoods. Habitat Int. 2008, 32, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Yung, E.H.K.; Chan, E.H.W. Towards Sustainable Neighborhoods: Challenges and Opportunities for Neighborhood Planning in Transitional Urban China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability Assessment Tool | First Version Year | Last Version Year | Developers | N° Items | N° Parameters | Certification Rating | Verification Fee | Period Validity of Certification | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building Scale | Neighborhood Scale | Building Scale | Neighborhood Scale | |||||||
BREEAM—Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method | 1990 | 2008 | 2018 | 2012 | BRE Global Ltd. | 5 | 40 | 5 pass good very good excellent outstanding | ~€750 (minimum) | Until 5 years |
CASBEE (urban development)—Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency | 2002 | 2006 | 2014 | 2014 | JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium), Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC) | 3 | 30 | 4 B− fairly poor B+ good A very good S excellent | ~€5400–14,300 | 3 years |
DGNB—Deutsche Gesellschaft für achhaltiges Bauen | 2008 | 2008 | 2018 | 2012 | German Sustainable Building Council | 5 | 36 | 3 bronze silver gold | ~€4200 (minimum) | ~3 years |
LEED (ND)—Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design | 1998 | 2007 | 2018 | 2016 | United States Green Building Council | 5 | 56 | 4 certified silver gold platinum | ~€25,000 (minimum) | 5 years |
STAR (community rating system)—Sustainability Tool for Assessing and Rating communities | - | - | 2012 | 2015 | Star Communities nonprofit organization | 7 | 48 | 3 Certified 3-STAR Certified 4-STAR Certified 5-STAR | ~€2550 | 3 years |
Environment | Economy | Society | Tot. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
BREEAM | 25 | 2 | 14 | 41 |
CASBEE | 29 | 4 | 14 | 47 |
DGNB | 19 | 3 | 10 | 32 |
LEED | 36 | 3 | 5 | 44 |
STAR | 20 | 6 | 27 | 53 |
Tot. | 129 | 18 | 70 | 217 |
83 | 17 | 44 | 144 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gargiulo, C.; Sforza, A.; Sterle, C.; Zucaro, F. An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103365
Gargiulo C, Sforza A, Sterle C, Zucaro F. An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103365
Chicago/Turabian StyleGargiulo, Carmela, Antonio Sforza, Claudio Sterle, and Floriana Zucaro. 2018. "An Optimization Model Fitting the Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103365