Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Content Analysis
2.2. Procedures for Literature Analysis
3. Framework Development: City-Assessment-Tool Post COVID-19 Development
3.1. Assessment of Sustainable Cities
3.2. SDGs and the Pandemic
3.2.1. The SDGs for Creating Sustainable Cities
3.2.2. Impact of COVID-19 on the SDGs
3.3. Health, Resilience, and the Pandemic
3.3.1. A Health-Resilient City
3.3.2. Impact of COVID-19 on Health-Resilience of Cities
3.4. Human Psychology and the Pandemic
3.4.1. People’s Perceptions of the Pandemic
3.4.2. Impact of COVID-19 on Human Psychology
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Reproducing Guidelines for Assessing Sustainable Cities Post COVID-19
4.1.1. Stage One: Triangulating the Goals of a Future City
- The physical goals should promote the following environmental actions: managing waste extraction, consumption, and disposal; managing waste production to prevent environmental damage; preserving or boosting the size of the biophysical environment, biodiversity, and productivity; reducing the amount of time spent using or encouraging resource-extraction and processing methods that damage the environment; and managing the biophysical environment. They should also promote the following economic actions: supporting increased employment; promoting self-employment and the expansion of small businesses; creating and managing in an effective and efficient manner; achieving maximum productivity with minimal resources and little waste and pollution; relying on local knowledge and technology, where appropriate; and basing development on a scientific methodology that takes into account, and is driven by, environmental, economic, and social factors.
- The psychological goals should ensure the following social and health actions: supporting improved levels of education and awareness, including awareness of sustainable development, inclusive development processes, and benefits; taking into account human rights; supporting improved health, safety, and security; supporting interpersonal differences; and supporting increased access to land, adequate housing, public services, finances, information, technology, and communications.
4.1.2. Stage Two: Developing Indicators of the Assessment Framework
- Step 1 defining the context;
- Step 2 establishing the indicators;
- Step 3 evaluating the indicators.
Step 1 Defining the Context
Step 2 Establishing the Indicators
- 1.
- Environmental indicators. Environmental indicators cover broadly a wide range of city sectors. The major aims of a sustainable city are to prevent the ecosystem of its region from being depleted, and to ensure its viability for future generations. Sustainable cities strive to reinvent themselves to maintain a high standard of living for current and future generations, and to create a more hospitable environment for human life. Environmental sustainability protects basic needs for natural-resource preservation and improvement, as well as environmental and habitat conservation and restoration [37,78]. The proposed indicators in this section are concerned with water, mobility and transportation, waste, energy efficiency, land use, and climate change. These indicators are associated with various SDGs: the water, mobility, and transportation and waste indicators are largely related to SDG 11, the energy-efficiency indicator is related to SDG 7, the land-use indicator is related to SDG 15, while climate change is at the core of SDG 13 [59,95,96]
- 2.
- Social indicators. Social indicators are concerned with quality of life and level of wellbeing, as well as the protection of social and human rights [78]. They are a measure of how each system is affecting its local community and contributing to a more equal, diversified future [37]. Social indicators focus on an understanding of population density and social equity, and the promotion of social welfare through access to housing, health services, affordable energy, assistance from municipal services, and community projects, as well as other social concerns relevant to the pandemic [78]. Seven indicators are proposed in this research: education; built environment; health, safety, and security; equity; infrastructure; green areas; and public spaces. A key driver of sustainable development is education. The education indicator concerns the transmission, acquisition, creation, and adaptation of information, knowledge, skills, and values [97]. SDG 4 addresses the provision of high-quality education and the support for lifelong learning. The indicators of safety and security are addressed in SDG 3 and SDG 11 [59,95]. The health indicator is related to the city’s investments, values, and access to medical services [98,99]. Today, cities are home to more than half of the world’s population. The promotion of health and quality of life should therefore be a priority for cities, especially in the post-COVID-19 era [78]. SDG 3 addresses health and wellbeing, which has a direct bearing on SDGs 11 and 6 [96].
- 3.
- Economic indicators. The economic indicator concerns the city’s economic growth and development [78,98,99]. One potential economic indicator involves the use of economic statistics (e.g., the unemployment rate, poverty levels, GDP, and inflation rates). These indicators reveal the state of the economy, and enable predictions about its future course. They can be used as a yardstick for determining wealth creation and the capacity to finance sustainability-promoting tasks and actions [37,78]. Economic indicators have been negatively impacted by the pandemic [78], with lockdowns having a negative effect on the local economy. The implications are numerous and widespread, including the societal problems already mentioned [100]. The pandemic also had an impact on small and medium-sized businesses, the food supply-chain, migrant workers, social and geographic inequality, and municipal tax revenues [78]. The economic indicators proposed in this research are economic growth and employment. The targets and sub-targets of SDG 8 directly address these indicators. Employment is essential for people to meet their basic needs and to access education and healthcare services, and it plays a significant role in the economic growth of the nation [95,96].
Step 3 Evaluating the Indicators
4.1.3. Stage Three: Establishing Policies and Laws of Implementation
5. Conclusions
5.1. The Contributions: Framework for the Assessment of Future Cities Post COVID-19
- 1.
- Environmental sustainability: robust, lively, fruitful, and diverse biophysical systems that are continuously and steadily providing resources and protecting the conditions for current and future populations.
- 2.
- Economic sustainability: flexible systems, infrastructure, and technology able to provide for the needs of present and future populations, while ensuring that limited resources are used and maintained as effectively and efficiently as possible, without harming the biophysical environment.
- 3.
- Social sustainability: societies that are safe, secure, healthy, cohesive, content, and educated, with organizational frameworks and a creative capacity that allow limited resources to be shared equitably and in ways that ensure the needs of the present and future populations.
- 1.
- Environmental priorities include energy, transportation, land use, water, and waste systems.
- 2.
- In the context of social exclusion, an analysis of the social state is important for understanding people’s various needs. Participation is another important consideration, because sustainability involves networks of actors and institutions; thus, analyses of local actors’ interactions modes are required. Local actors participate in both the regulation and the simulation of sustainable development, as well as participating in and influencing government regulations.
- 3.
- Economic priorities and financial resources should be taken into account, as the creation of an assessment tool for green building necessitates a financial budget. Financial resources are occasionally a significant barrier to growth. As there can be long delays for approval, the need for financing must be considered from the start of the proposal. Some of the areas covered by subsidies include planning, technical support, research (pilot studies, etc.), construction costs, actions advancing regional goals that are not locally cost-effective, and pay-for-performance incentives. However, operational and maintenance costs are not covered by subsidies.
- 4.
- It is important to lessen the potential effects of future pandemics on people’s health and wellbeing, including effects on mental health and the promotion of psychological distress due to isolation and reduced social-networks. The needs of various age groups and demographics should be taken into account at the planning stages, emphasizing social and inclusive policies that could mitigate any effects of a pandemic and lockdown. In essence, it is necessary to attend to people’s psychological, educational, social, health, and wellbeing needs.
5.2. The Conclusions, Recommendations, and Directions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- UN-Habitat—United Nations Human Settlements Programme. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)—Annual Report 2021; UN-Habitat: 2022. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/annual-report-2021 (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Patel, Z. Of questionable value: The role of practitioners in building sustainable cities. Geoforum 2006, 37, 682–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Droege, P. The Renewable City: Dawn of an Urban Revolution. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2006, 26, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, E.; Norland, I. Three Challenges for the Compact City as a Sustainable Urban Form: Household Consumption of Energy and Transport in Eight Residential Areas in the Greater Oslo Region. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 2145–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinke, G.W. The Challenge of Urban Growth and Sustainable Development for Asian Cities in the 21st Century. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1997, 44, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, P.; Costa, L.; Rybski, D.; Lucht, W.; Kropp, J.P. A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 Redefines the Concept of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-Habitat—United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Report of the Secretary-General. 2020. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26158Final_SG_SDG_Progress_Report_14052020.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Ellin, N. Postmodern Urbanism; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Megahed, N.A.; Ghoneim, E.M. Antivirus-built environment: Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allam, Z.; Jones, D.S. On the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak and the Smart City Network: Universal Data Sharing Standards Coupled with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Benefit Urban Health Monitoring and Management. Healthcare 2020, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Vaishya, R. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic in daily life. Curr. Med. Res. Pract. 2020, 10, 78–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saadat, S.; Rawtani, D.; Hussain, C.M. Environmental perspective of COVID-19. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Worpole, K.; Knox, K.; Foundation, J.R. The Social Value of Public Spaces; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Alnusairat, S.; Al-Shatnawi, Z.; Ayyad, Y.; Alwaked, A.; Abuanzeh, N. Rethinking Outdoor Courtyard Spaces on University Campuses to Enhance Health and Wellbeing: The Anti-Virus Built Environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN-Habitat—United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Cities and Pandemics: Towards a More Just; UN-Habitat: 2021. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/cities-and-pandemics-towards-a-more-just-green-and-healthy-future-0 (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Ali, H.H.; Al Nsairat, S.F. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries—Case of Jordan. Build Environ. 2009, 44, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libovich, A. Assessing green building for sustainable cities. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference (SB05Tokyo), Tokyo, Japan, 27–29 September 2005; pp. 1968–1971. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbard, S.; Caldeira, K.; Bala, G.; Phillips, T.J.; Wickett, M. Climate effects of global land cover change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, S.W.; Lee, D.K. The development of the evaluation model of climate changes and air pollution for sustainability of cities in Korea. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assefa, G.; Frostell, B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council, U.S.A. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability; Athens Center of Ekistics: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; Volume 66, pp. 82–101. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43623329 (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- UNCHS—United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements; Routledge: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Whitehead, M. (Re)Analysing the Sustainable City: Nature, Urbanisation and the Regulation of Socio-environmental Relations in the UK. Urban Stud. 2003, 40, 1183–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentin, A.; Spangenberg, J.H. A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 381–392. [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]
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 183–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, F.; Patrão, C.; Moura, P.; de Almeida, A.T. A Review of Energy Modeling Tools for Energy Efficiency in Smart Cities. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 1420–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schraven, D.; Joss, S.; de Jong, M. Past, present, future: Engagement with sustainable urban development through 35 city labels in the scientific literature 1990–2019. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höjer, M.; Wangel, J. Smart Sustainable Cities: Definition and Challenges. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Schiller, S.; Martin Evans, J. Sustainable urban development: Design guidelines for warm humid cities. URBAN Des. Int. 1998, 3, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innes, J.; Booher, D. Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence. Plan. Theory Pract. 2000, 1, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Wu, T. Sustainability indicators and indices: An overview. In Handbook of Sustainability Management; World Scientific Publishing Co.: Singapore, 2012; pp. 65–86. [Google Scholar]
- Chao, A.L.; Lopez, A.; Gallego, A.C.; Alvarellos, A. Indicators Framework for Sustainable Urban Design. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipošćak, M.; Afgan, N.H.; Duić, N.; da Graça Carvalho, M. Sustainability assessment of cogeneration sector development in Croatia. Energy 2006, 31, 2276–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterthwaite, D. Sustainable Cities or Cities that Contribute to Sustainable Development? Urban Stud. 1997, 34, 1667–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiek, A.; Binder, C. Solution spaces for decision-making—A sustainability assessment tool for city-regions. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25, 589–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, S.; Evans, D. Use of life cycle assessment in environmental management. Environ. Manag. 2002, 29, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardi, P.; Zdan, T.J. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice; Hardi, P., Ed.; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Devuyst, D. Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the local level: The introduction of sustainability assessment systems. Sustain. Dev. 2000, 8, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haughton, G. Searching for the Sustainable City: Competing Philosophical Rationales and Processes of ‘Ideological Capture’ in Adelaide, South Australia. Urban Stud. 1999, 36, 1891–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability Indicators Past and Present: What Next? Sustainability 2018, 10, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, M. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, L.; Wu, J.; Yan, L. Defining and measuring urban sustainability: A review of indicators. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1175–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalina, D.; Mederly, P.; Diefenbacher, H.; Held, B. Sustainable Urban Development: A Review of Urban Sustainability Indicator Frameworks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 2017, 60, 234–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spangenberg, J.H. Scenarios and Indicators for Sustainable Development: Towards a Critical Assessment of Achievements and Challenges. Sustainability 2019, 11, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Huang, C.-M. Sustainability index for Taipei. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choon, S.-W.; Siwar, C.; Pereira, J.J.; Jemain, A.A.; Hashim, H.S.; Hadi, A.S. A sustainable city index for Malaysia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2011, 18, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, C.; Xue, B.; Lu, C.; Wang, T.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, W. Sustainability Investigation of Resource-Based Cities in Northeastern China. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yin, Y.; Xu, W.; Zhou, S. Linking carbon sequestration science with local sustainability: An integrated assessment approach. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85, 711–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, T.; Kenawy, E.; Abdrabo, K.I.; Shaw, D.; Alshamndy, A.; Elsharif, M.; Salem, M.; Alwetaishi, M.; Aly, R.M.; Elboshy, B. Voluntary Local Review Framework to Monitor and Evaluate the Progress towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals at a City Level: Buraidah City, KSA and SDG11 as A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siragusa, A.; Vizcaino, P.; Corbane, C.; Politis, P. SDG 11 Synthesis Report to the High Level Political Forum 2018. Tracking Progress Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements; United Nations Publications, Ed.; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. The Future of Cities, Opportunities, Challenges and the Way Forward. 2019. Available online: https://urban.jrc.ec.europa.eu/thefutureofcities/the-resilien-city#the-chapter (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Ramirez-Rubio, O.; Daher, C.; Fanjul, G.; Gascon, M.; Mueller, N.; Pajín, L.; Plasencia, A.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Thondoo, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Urban health: An example of a “health in all policies” approach in the context of SDGs implementation. Glob. Health 2019, 15, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salem, M.; Tsurusaki, N.; Divigalpitiya, P.; Kenawy, E. An Effective Framework for Monitoring and Measuring the Progress towards Sustainable Development in the Peri-Urban Areas of the Greater Cairo Region, Egypt. World 2020, 1, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Beyond COVID-19: Applying “SDG logics” for resilient transformations. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2020, 3, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alibegovic, M.; Cavalli, L.; Lizzi, G.; Romani, I.; Vergalli, S. COVID-19 & SDGs: Does the Current Pandemic have an Impact on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? A Qualitative Analysis 2020, FEEM Policy Brief No. 07-2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3711326 (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Naidoo, R.; Fisher, B. Reset Sustainable Development Goals for a pandemic world. Nature 2020, 583, 198–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Building Resilience: New Strategies for Strengthening Infrastructure Resilience and Maintenance; OECD Public Governance Policy Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatley, T.; Newman, P. Biophilic Cities Are Sustainable, Resilient Cities. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3328–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grafakos, S.; Gianoli, A.; Tsatsou, A. Towards the Development of an Integrated Sustainability and Resilience Benefits Assessment Framework of Urban Green Growth Interventions. Sustainability 2016, 8, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daudey, L.; Matsumoto, T. Integrating urban resilience and resource efficiency into local green growth strategies: The case of fast-growing cities in Southeast Asia. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2017, 9, 226–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, N.; Jayakody, C.; Amaratunga, P.; Abenayake, C.; Jayasinghe, A. Health resilient cities in a post COVID world. In COVID 19: Impact, Mitigation, Opportunities and Building Resilience; National Science Foundation: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2021; pp. 621–635. [Google Scholar]
- Nutbeam, D. Health Promotion Glossary. Health Promot. Int. 1998, 13, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dannenberg, A.L.; Jackson, R.J.; Frumkin, H.; Schieber, R.A.; Pratt, M.; Kochtitzky, C.; Tilson, H.H. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: A scientific research agenda. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1500–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dora, C.; Haines, A.; Balbus, J.; Fletcher, E.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Alabaster, G.; Hossain, R.; de Onis, M.; Branca, F.; Neira, M. Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda. Lancet 2015, 385, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancock, T. It’s the environment, stupid! Declining ecosystem health is THE threat to health in the 21st century. Health Promot. Int. 2011, 26 (Suppl. 2), ii168–ii172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crane, M.; Lloyd, S.; Haines, A.; Ding, D.; Hutchinson, E.; Belesova, K.; Davies, M.; Osrin, D.; Zimmermann, N.; Capon, A.; et al. Transforming cities for sustainability: A health perspective. Environ. Int. 2021, 147, 106366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulff, K.; Donato, D.; Lurie, N. What is health resilience and how can we build it? Annu. Rev. Public Health 2015, 36, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elgheznawy, D.; Eltarabily, S. Post-Pandemic Cities—The Impact of COVID-19 on Cities and Urban Design. Archit. Res. 2020, 10, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes, R.; Ahn, R.; Thurber, K.; Burke, T.F. Urbanization and Infectious Diseases: General Principles, Historical Perspectives, and Contemporary Challenges. In Challenges in Infectious Diseases; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 123–146. [Google Scholar]
- Grijalba Castro, A.I.; Ramírez López, L.J. Sustainability and Resilience of Emerging Cities in Times of COVID-19. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santa, S.L.B.; Cremonezi, G.O.G.; Soares, T.C.; Deggau, A.B.; de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O. Healthy Sustainable Cities and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Sustainable Development Goals Perspective. In COVID-19: Environmental Sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals; Muthu, S.S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 141–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suriyankietkaew, S.; Nimsai, S. COVID-19 Impacts and Sustainability Strategies for Regional Recovery in Southeast Asia: Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Urban and transport planning, environmental exposures and health-new concepts, methods and tools to improve health in cities. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2016, 15 (Suppl. 1), 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wernli, D.; Antulov-Fantulin, N.; Berezowksi, J.; Biller-Andorno, N. Governance in the Age of Complexity: Building Resilience to COVID-19 and Future Pandemics; Geneva Science Policy Interface: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Lak, A.; Hakimian, P.; Sharifi, A. An evaluative model for assessing pandemic resilience at the neighborhood level: The case of Tehran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alnusairat, S.; Ayyad, Y.; Al-Shatnawi, Z. Towards Meaningful University Space: Perceptions of the Quality of Open Spaces for Students. Buildings 2021, 11, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idoiaga, N.; Berasategi, N.; Eiguren, A.; Picaza, M. Exploring Children’s Social and Emotional Representations of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez-Rey, R.; Garrido-Hernansaiz, H.; Collado, S. Psychological Impact and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among the General Population in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simione, L.; Gnagnarella, C. Differences Between Health Workers and General Population in Risk Perception, Behaviors, and Psychological Distress Related to COVID-19 Spread in Italy. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnell, T.; Krampe, H. Meaning in Life and Self-Control Buffer Stress in Times of COVID-19: Moderating and Mediating Effects with Regard to Mental Distress. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 582352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roychowdhury, D. 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease, Crisis, and Isolation. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Sanguino, C.; Ausín, B.; Castellanos, M.; Saiz, J.; López-Gómez, A.; Ugidos, C.; Muñoz, M. Mental Health Consequences of the Coronavirus 2020 Pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. A Longitudinal Study. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 565474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghiretti, F.; Gildoni, G.; Grassi, G.M.; Torricelli, L.; Benassi, E.; Bonaretti, E.; Bonazzi, F.; Borelli, S.; Cagnolati, F.; Covati, K.; et al. Psychological Support to the Community During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Field Experience in Reggio Emilia, Northern Italy. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 561742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Tammemi, A.a.B.; Akour, A.; Alfalah, L. Is It Just About Physical Health? An Online Cross-Sectional Study Exploring the Psychological Distress Among University Students in Jordan in the Midst of COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 562213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Provenzi, L.; Baroffio, E.; Ligabue, S.; Borgatti, R. The Little Professor and the Virus: Scaffolding Children’s Meaning Making During the COVID-19 Emergency. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rijsberman, M.A.; van de Ven, F.H.M. Different approaches to assessment of design and management of sustainable urban water systems. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Fraser, E.D.G.; 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]
- Henzler, K.; Maier, S.D.; Jäger, M.; Horn, R. SDG-Based Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Innovations in the Field of Urban Surfaces. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier, S.D.; Beck, T.; Francisco Vallejo, J.; Horn, R.; Söhlemann, J.-H.; Nguyen, T.T. Methodological Approach for the Sustainability Assessment of Development Cooperation Projects for Built Innovations Based on the SDGs and Life Cycle Thinking. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muench, S.; Anderson, J.; Bevan, T. Greenroads: A Sustainability Rating System for Roadways. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2010, 3, 270–279. [Google Scholar]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Lowe, M.; Arundel, J. Achieving the SDGs: Evaluating indicators to be used to benchmark and monitor progress towards creating healthy and sustainable cities. Health Policy 2020, 124, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, A.; Winfred Rufuss, D.D.; Rajkumar, V.; Suganthi, L. Evaluation of Sustainability Indicators in Smart Cities for India Using MCDM Approach. Energy Procedia 2017, 141, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boltze, M.; Tuan, V.A. Approaches to Achieve Sustainability in Traffic Management. Procedia Eng. 2016, 142, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García López, J.; Sisto, R.; Benayas, J.; de Juanes, Á.; Lumbreras, J.; Mataix, C. Assessment of the Results and Methodology of the Sustainable Development Index for Spanish Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillén-Mena, V.; Martin, K.; Irulegi, O. Review of indicators for the definition of sustainable cities. Action criteria. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Architecture and Planning, Bilbao, Spain, 29–30 September 2021; pp. 75–88. [Google Scholar]
- Fawzy, N.; Ammer, S.; Abdalmoity, E. Requirements for Reaching the Sustainable Goals of Development to Plan New Areas in Arab Republic of Egypt. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salem, M.; Tsurusaki, N.; Divigalpitiya, P.; Osman, T.; Hamdy, O.; Kenawy, E. Assessing Progress Towards Sustainable Development in the Urban Periphery: A Case of Greater Cairo, Egypt. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 15, 971–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1269–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, H.; Garg, P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, S.; Kweon, I.; Lee, B.-H.; Kim, H. Indicators and Assessment System for Sustainability of Municipalities: A Case Study of South Korea’s Assessment of Sustainability of Cities (ASC). Sustainability 2019, 11, 6611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qahtany, A.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. A consensus-based framework for the sustainable urban planning development: ‘As an approach for Saudi Arabian cities’. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2014, 5, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Breckenridge, R.P.; Kepner, W.G.; Mouat, D.A. A process for selecting indicators for monitoring conditions of rangeland health. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1995, 36, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNCCD—United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Elaboration of an International Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa: Final Text of the Convention—Note by the Secretariat; United Nations: 1994. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/27569 (accessed on 6 December 2022).
- Abbot, J.; Guijt, I. Changing Views on Change: Participatory Approaches to Monitoring the Environment; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Rubio, J.L.; Bochet, E. Desertification indicators as diagnosis criteria for desertification risk assessment in Europe. J. Arid Environ. 1998, 39, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freebairn, D.M.; King, C.A. Reflections on collectively working toward sustainability: Indicators for indicators! Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2003, 43, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swart, R.; Raskin, P.; Robinson, J. Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 2002, 297, 1994–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhen, L.; Routray, J.K. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environ. Manag. 2003, 32, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Krugman, P. Urban Concentration: The Role of Increasing Returns and Transport Costs. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 1996, 19, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Changing Consumption Patterns: Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Sustainable Development Acting as the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Pieri, C.; Dumanski, J.; Hamblin, A.; Young, A. Land Quality Indicators; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, R.B.; Hassan, S.; Holtz, S.; Tansey, J.; Whitelaw, G. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, G.; May, A.; McDonald, A. PICABUE: A methodological framework for the development of indicators of sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1995, 2, 104–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balachandra, P.; Sudhakara Reddy, B. Benchmarking Bangalore City for Sustainability—An Indicator-Based Approach; The Center for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning Indian Institute of Science: Bangalore, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Main indicators | Sub Indicators/Measures | Relevant to SDGs |
---|---|---|
Social-Dimension Indicators | ||
Education | Enrolment rate in higher education +15 literacy rate Health and safety within educational environment | SDG 4 (Quality of Education) |
Built Environment/ | City density Occupancy rate Access to housing | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Health | Physician density Under-five mortality rate Responsive health-systems Percentage of population with access to health-care services | SDG 3 (Good Health) SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Safety and security | Amount of natural disaster damage/population Perceptions of safety and rates of crimes against property and person | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) SDG 3 (Good Health) |
Equity (social, economic) | Share of women and ethnic minorities in local government Equitable distribution of services | SDG 5 (Gender Equality) |
Infrastructure | Households connected to the water network Households connected to the sanitation network Households connected to the electricity network | SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) |
Green and public spaces | Percentage of preserved areas/reservoirs/waterways/parks in relation to total land area Percentage of trees in the city in relation to city area and/or population size | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Environmental-Dimension Indicators | ||
Water quality/Availability | Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) Domestic water consumption | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Mobility and transportation | Satisfaction with public transport (%) Transportation-mode split (percentage of each mode of transportation, i.e., private, public, bicycles, pedestrians) Average commute time and cost | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Waste | Recycling rate (percentage diverted from waste stream) Volume of solid waste generated | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Air quality | Annual mean concentrations of air pollutants | SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities) |
Energy efficiency | Percentage of total energy consumed in the city that comes from renewable sources Total consumption of electricity in kWh per capita | SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) |
Land use | Shares of built-up area, forest, water, agricultural land, and other areas of the total city area (%) Annual loss of agricultural lands | SDG 15 (Life on Land) |
Climate change | Total amount of GHG emissions per city and per capita | SDG 13 (Climate Action) |
Economic-Dimension Indicators | ||
Economic growth | GDP per capita Poverty rate | SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) SDG 1 (No Poverty) |
Employment (unemployment) | Unemployment rate | SDG 8 (Decent Work) |
Evaluating Indicators | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
Accurate | Be accurate and bias-free | [109,110] |
Measurable | Be easily measured | [37,109,110,111,112,113] |
Reliable | Be reliable and consistent over space and time | [109,111,112] |
Usable | Make use of available data | [37,109,112] |
Dynamic | Assess trends over time | [109,110,112,114] |
Social appeal | Have social appeal and resonance | [111,112] |
Predictable | Provide early warning of detrimental change | [112,114,115] |
Cost-effective | Be cost-effective to measure | [109,112,114,116] |
Systematic | Be representative of system variability | [37,109,114] |
Rapid | Be rapid to measure | [111,116] |
Time-related | Provide timely information | [109,111] |
Clear | Be clear and unambiguous, easy to understand and interpret | [111,112,114,117] |
Scientific | Be scientifically robust and credible | [112,114] |
Simplicity | Simplify complex phenomena and facilitate communication of information | [52,53,118] |
Replicable | Be verifiable and replicable | [110,111] |
Limited | Be limited in number | [117] |
Significance to system/Relevant | Be relevant to the current and future local system/environment | [52,119,120] |
Available | Use existing data | [114,115,117] |
Sensitive | Be sensitive to system stresses or the changes the system is supposed to indicate | [37,52,114,115] |
Usable | Measure what is important to stakeholders | [111] |
Targetable | Have a target level, baseline or threshold against which to measure criteria | [114,115] |
Accessible/Easy | Be easily accessible to decision-makers | [111] |
Diverse | Be diverse, to meet the requirements of different users | [113] |
Practical | Be linked to practical action | [110] |
Be developed by the end-users | [111,113] | |
Extensive | Provide a comprehensive understanding of the city’s social, economic, and environmental health | [121] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alnusairat, S.; Abu Qadourah, J.; Khattab, R. Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact. Sustainability 2023, 15, 811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010811
Alnusairat S, Abu Qadourah J, Khattab R. Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010811
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlnusairat, Saba, Jenan Abu Qadourah, and Rawan Khattab. 2023. "Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010811