Next Article in Journal
Fresnel Lens Solar Pumping for Uniform and Stable Emission of Six Sustainable Laser Beams under Non-Continuous Solar Tracking
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Modern Architecture Criteria in the Context of Sustainability and Architectural Approach; Modern Period in North Nicosia
Previous Article in Journal
Determinant of M-Banking Usage and Adoption among Millennials
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Fractal Approach in the Biomimetic Urban Design: Le Corbusier and Patrick Schumacher
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108217
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sharjah Sustainable City: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Urban Planning Priorities

by
Chuloh Jung
1,2,* and
Jihad Awad
1,2
1
Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Ajman University, Ajman P.O. Box 346, United Arab Emirates
2
Healthy and Sustainable Buildings Research Center, Ajman University, Ajman P.O. Box 346, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8217; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108217
Submission received: 19 April 2023 / Revised: 7 May 2023 / Accepted: 16 May 2023 / Published: 18 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Climate Adaptability of Buildings: Theories, Methodologies and Cases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2020, the Sharjah Investment and Development Authority (SHUROOQ) initiated the Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) project, with an investment of 2 billion AED (approximately 545 million USD) covering an area of 668,900 km2. This pioneering residential community in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) provides its residents with access to renewable energy storage solutions while adhering to the highest standards of green economy and environmental sustainability. This paper aims to examine the urban planning components of SSC and establish suitable priorities for these elements. To achieve this, we first reviewed and extracted sustainable urban planning elements from existing research. These elements were then organized hierarchically for an expert survey, which was conducted via email. The results were subsequently analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Our findings revealed that the transportation system sector was deemed most important, with a score of 0.283, followed by the energy/building sectors at 0.263. Conversely, the park/green area held relatively lower importance, with a score of 0.092. Upon examining the relative importance of 15 specific planning elements (lower criteria), energy-efficient building design emerged as the most critical aspect (0.121). Other highly valued elements included public transportation-oriented development (0.115) and the use of renewable energy (0.102). In contrast, building greening (0.029), establishment of accessible greenway and green matrix in residential areas (0.029), and creation of hydrophilic features for the water circulation system (0.026) were perceived as less significant. This study is expected to serve as foundational data for the future implementation of the SSC master plan in Sharjah. Moreover, it offers valuable insights and a methodology for sustainable urban planning that can be adopted or adapted globally. The worldwide applicability of this research fosters knowledge transfer, international cooperation, and innovation, thereby promoting sustainable development, urban resilience, and progress towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically, SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

1. Introduction

In a bid to promote sustainable development and environmental conservation, the UAE government introduced the UAE Vision 2021 National Agenda. This agenda encompasses plans to enhance air quality, preserve water resources, transition to clean energy, and implement green growth strategies [1,2]. As part of this initiative, H.H. Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Muhammad Al Qasimi, Ruler of Sharjah, unveiled the Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) in 2020 (Figure 1) [3]. The SSC represents the first community in the region to offer its residents access to renewable energy storage solutions while adhering to the most stringent green economy and environmental sustainability standards [4].
Developed collaboratively by the Sharjah Investment and Development Authority (SHUROOQ) and Diamond Developers, this project boasts a budget of 2 billion AED (approximately 545 million USD) and spans across an area of 668,900 km2 (Figure 2) [5]. The mixed-use residential complex comprises 1120 villas, distributed over four phases. The commercial complex features retail and community facilities, such as restaurants, cafes, two mosques, green spaces, central sustainable domes for cultivating organic products, and educational institutions [6]. The first phase, completed in 2020, includes 280 townhouses, with options for 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms [7].
Sharjah’s proactive leadership in low-carbon green growth at the government level is complemented by the growing interest and discourse around low-carbon green cities, carbon-zero cities, or low-carbon energy-saving cities within academic circles, particularly in the fields of urban and regional planning [8,9,10]. The ‘low-carbon green cities’ concept focuses on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a primary contributor to global warming, while simultaneously enhancing sustainable urban functions [11,12]. Although this concept is somewhat abstract, the ideas of ‘zero-carbon cities’ and ‘energy-saving cities’ are more tangible [13]. A zero-carbon city aims to ultimately eliminate CO2 emissions, whereas an energy-saving city incorporates systems designed to conserve energy, even though a universally accepted definition for this concept is lacking [14,15].
As new urban planning concepts emerge and are discussed in the UAE, many Emirates endeavor to integrate these ideas into their cities [16]. Recently, several Emirates have proactively adopted low-carbon, energy-saving, or carbon-neutral cities, such as Masdar City [17]. Furthermore, various planning elements are being advocated to achieve urban objectives.
On the other hand, successfully implementing a new urban plan necessitates the establishment of the most suitable urban strategy (planning elements) tailored to the specific city or region, as urban conditions can differ significantly from one location to another. If the planning elements do not accurately reflect the urban conditions and identity, not only will it be difficult to achieve the intended goal, but it may also prove challenging to sustain continuous performance even if the goal is initially reached [18,19]. Thus, the selection of planning elements that align with the urban conditions and identity is of paramount importance [20].
This study seeks to investigate the urban planning elements and determine the appropriate priorities for Sharjah to become an energy-saving city, specifically identifying which planning elements should be prioritized. The findings of this research are anticipated to serve as primary data for implementing the SSC master plan (Figure 3) in Sharjah.
To accomplish the research objectives, a research process was devised, as depicted in Figure 4. The study began with a comprehensive review and organization of sustainable urban planning elements gleaned from previous research. These planning elements were then arranged hierarchically to facilitate priority-setting through a survey in Appendix A [21,22,23]. Urban planning experts, encompassing urban planners, architects, government officials, and researchers, were the target audience for the survey, which was conducted via email [24].
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to analyze the priority of the planning elements, as it is a decision-making methodology capable of determining the relative importance of each element [25,26,27]. The AHP methodology is an analytical technique that utilizes pairwise comparisons between elements constituting the hierarchical structure of decision-making to derive differences in significance [28].

2. Materials and Methods

Previous studies concentrating on planning elements for energy-saving or low-carbon green cities can be divided into two categories: early studies conducted between 2010 and 2015, and more recent studies carried out between 2015 and 2021 [29]. Early studies primarily focused on energy-saving urban spatial structures. For example, Khanna et al. (2014) [30], Kii et al. (2014) [31], and Wang et al. (2014) [32] investigated transport energy-saving urban structures, while Liu et al. (2012) [33], Manfren et al. (2011) [34], and Zhang and Lin (2012) [35] proposed energy-saving plans and policies at the urban planning level.
Since 2015, research on the derivation and importance of energy-saving planning elements has become more refined compared to earlier studies. Numerous researchers, such as Ying and Yue (2017) [36] and Deakin and Reid (2018) [37] have presented low-carbon, energy-saving urban planning elements and their significance. Furthermore, Topi et al. (2016) [38] sought to establish the concept of low-carbon, energy-saving urban planning and related planning standards, while Ruan et al. (2017) [39] conducted a survey of experts, similar to this study, and analyzed the results [40]. Additionally, Ghorbanzadeh et al. (2019) determined the importance of urban planning elements for experts using AHP [41], and Yildiz et al. (2019) carried out an AHP survey targeting urban planning experts to analyze the importance of low-carbon urban planning elements by city type [42]. Lee and Lim (2018) conducted an empirical examination of the relationship between compact cities and transportation energy consumption [43], and Fouad et al. (2020) performed a global study introducing significant zero-energy town policies [44].
While various planning elements have been proposed in recent research, selecting which elements should be applied at the local government level remains a challenging task [45,46,47]. This is because choosing appropriate planning elements is of paramount importance, requires substantial financial resources, and must account for the varying conditions of each local government [48]. Consequently, this study aims to utilize the hierarchical decision-making method (AHP), an analysis technique capable of deriving weights for each element, to identify the necessary planning elements for Sharjah using the SSC as a case study [49]. However, as previously noted, the importance of planning elements can vary depending on a city’s conditions. As such, this study assumes a case study character, where the approach takes into account Sharjah’s specific conditions.
To identify the major energy-saving urban planning elements from previous studies, Table 1 summarizes these planning elements as presented in earlier research. The most frequently proposed energy-saving urban planning elements in previous studies include green transportation-oriented urban management and nature-friendly park and green space creation (5 times each), followed by eco-friendly density management, waste and food waste reduction, and recycling system establishment, rainwater collection, and management system establishment, energy-efficient building plans, and greenway/green matrix establishment (4 times each).

2.1. Sustainable City Urban Planning Techniques

Table 2 showcases the consolidation of similar sustainable energy-saving urban planning elements derived from Table 1. The planning elements were divided into five categories, specifically, spatial system, transportation system, environment/conservation/recycle, energy/building, and parks/green areas.
Within the spatial system sector, eco-friendly density management, mixed-use development induction, and enhancing accessibility (ensuring the adequacy of the neighborhood area) were included [50,51]. The transportation system sector comprised planning elements such as public transportation-oriented urban development, green transportation-oriented urban planning, and the introduction of new transportation methods [52,53]. The environment/conservation/recycle sector encompassed planning elements related to reducing trash and food waste, establishing a recycling system, constructing a low-carbon water supply system, implementing a greywater management system, and creating hydrophilic spaces for the water circulation system [54]. In the energy/building sector, the planning elements consist of using renewable energy, expanding cogeneration, and energy-efficient building design [55]. Finally, the park/green area sector incorporated planning elements such as creating nature-friendly parks and green spaces, promoting building greening (green roofs, green walls, and green artificial ground), and establishing accessible greenways and green matrices in residential areas [56].

2.2. Hierarchical Structure of Evaluation Elements

This study utilizes the hierarchical decision-making method (AHP) to ascertain the priority of sustainable urban planning elements [57]. To apply the AHP, the hierarchical structure of evaluation elements must be established (Figure 5). In this study, the structure is composed of upper and lower criteria based on the types of sustainable urban planning elements presented in Table 2.
The upper criteria were divided into five sectors: spatial system, transportation system, environment/conservation/recycle, energy/building, and park/green area sectors. Each upper criterion was further divided into lower criteria. For instance, the spatial system sector comprises three lower criteria: eco-friendly density management, inducing mixed-use development, and enhancing accessibility (securing the adequacy of the neighborhood area). The transportation system sector is divided into public transportation-oriented development, urban planning on green transportation (bicycles and pedestrian roads), and the introduction of new transportation (monorail, electric vehicles, etc.). The environment/conservation/recycle sector consists of three sub-criteria: reduction of trash and food waste and establishment of a recycling system, establishment of greywater management system, and creation of hydrophilic spaces for the water circulation system. The energy/building sector includes sub-criteria such as the use of renewable energy (solar power, geothermal heat, and wind power), expansion of cogeneration (energy and cooling supply), and energy-efficient building design (insulation and natural light). Finally, the lower criterion of the park/green area sector consists of the creation of low-carbon natural parks and green spaces, building greening (green roof, green walls, and green artificial ground), and establishment of accessible greenways and green matrix in residential areas. Figure 5 illustrates the hierarchical structure of the evaluation elements.
Evaluation techniques can be classified into two categories: uncorrected models and corrected models, used to assess alternative options. Uncorrected models share a common limitation, where the relative importance of the criteria must remain fixed, rendering them unsuitable for objectively reflecting the opinions of diverse expert groups [58,59]. This leads to a lack of clarity when selecting the optimal alternative, particularly in situations involving complex data [60].
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a decision-making method that leverages mathematical and psychological principles to organize and evaluate complex decisions [61]. Developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s, AHP comprises three key components: the ultimate goal or problem to be solved, the possible alternatives, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives [62]. By quantifying the criteria and alternative options, AHP provides a rational framework for making critical decisions that align with the overall goal [63].
During the decision-making process, stakeholders conduct pairwise comparisons of the importance of each criterion. For example, they might evaluate whether job benefits or a short commute is more crucial and by how much. AHP then converts these evaluations into numerical values that can be compared against all possible criteria [64]. This unique capability to quantify criteria and options distinguishes AHP from other decision-making techniques [65].
In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each alternative option. These values reflect the most desirable solutions based on all stakeholders’ values [66].
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is especially useful for addressing complex problems with significant consequences. Its ability to quantify criteria and options that are typically difficult to measure using hard numbers sets it apart from other decision-making methods [67]. Instead of dictating the “correct” decision, AHP assists decision-makers in identifying the option that best aligns with their values and understanding of the issue at hand [68].
Involving all stakeholders in the decision-making process is crucial for achieving a comprehensive and well-rounded outcome. Different divisions or groups may prioritize criteria differently based on their unique perspectives and experiences [69]. By incorporating input from all relevant parties, AHP facilitates a more robust and inclusive decision-making process, leading to better overall results that take into account the diverse needs and preferences of the stakeholders involved.

2.3. Research Subject and Method

The objective of this study was to establish the relative importance of various planning factors in creating a sustainable city, utilizing an expert survey. A total of 118 urban planning experts in the UAE participated in the study, including urban planners, architects, city planning officers, and researchers from both the public and private sectors [70]. Table 3 displays the distribution of these professionals: 42 urban planners (35.6% of total participants), 32 architects (27.1% of total participants), 18 city planning officers (15.3% of total participants), and 26 researchers, including university professors (22.0% of total participants).
The survey was administered via email, with questionnaires sent to the 118 participants. Data collection took place over 30 days, from 20 February to 19 March 2021. In total, 96 responses were received, yielding a response rate of 81.4%. This high response rate suggests a strong level of engagement and interest from the expert community in addressing the issue of sustainable urban planning. The results of this survey can be used to better understand the priorities and preferences of urban planning experts in the UAE and to inform the development of future sustainable city initiatives.

2.4. AHP Analysis

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis was utilized to analyze the data collected from the expert survey. The AHP method consists of several steps, including:
  • Constructing a hierarchical structure: The planning elements, organized into five sectors (spatial system, transportation system, environment/conservation/recycle, energy/building, and parks/green areas), were structured hierarchically with upper and lower criteria based on the sustainable urban planning elements presented.
  • Pairwise comparison matrix: Participants conducted pairwise comparisons between elements (criteria) at each level of the hierarchy. They compared the relative importance of each pair of criteria within the same level of the hierarchy. Participants provided their judgment on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 indicates equal importance, and 9 indicates an extreme difference in importance.
  • Calculating the local priority: After obtaining the pairwise comparison matrix, the local priority or weight of each criterion was calculated using the Eigenvalue method. This calculation process involves normalizing the matrix and determining the average of each row, which represents the local priority or weight for each criterion.
  • Calculating the global priority: The global priority or weight of each criterion was calculated by multiplying the local priority of each criterion in the hierarchy by its parent criterion’s local priority. The results were then added up for each element at the same level of the hierarchy. This calculation helps in determining the overall importance of each planning element in the context of the final goal.
  • Consistency check: To ensure the reliability of the AHP analysis, a consistency check was performed by calculating the consistency ratio (CR). The CR is the ratio of the consistency index (CI) to the random consistency index (RI), where CI is calculated using the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix, and RI is the average consistency index of randomly generated pairwise comparison matrices for a given matrix size. A CR value less than or equal to 0.1 indicates an acceptable level of consistency in the pairwise comparisons.
The weighting criteria and calculations used in the AHP analysis provide a transparent and replicable approach to determining the relative importance of the planning elements. This process ensures that the decision-making is based on expert opinions and takes into account the various factors that contribute to the successful implementation of sustainable urban planning strategies. The AHP analysis results can be used to prioritize the planning elements that are most suitable for Sharjah in achieving its energy-saving city goals and can provide primary data for implementing the Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) master plan.

3. Results

The present study employed the AHP using expert survey data to calculate the importance of each of the five upper criteria and 15 lower criteria presented in Figure 5. The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 6, where the importance of each of the five upper criteria was assessed. The consistency index (CI) was 0.00533, indicating the reliability of the analysis [71]. A CI value of 0 in AHP analysis indicates complete consistency in pairwise comparison by the respondent [72,73,74], while a value of 0.1 or more indicates inconsistency, requiring a re-examination.
The analysis revealed that the transportation system sector had the highest importance score of 0.283, followed by the energy/building sector with 0.263 and the spatial system sector with 0.236. The environment/conservation/recycle sector scored relatively low at 0.129, while the park/green area sector was the least important with a score of 0.092. The findings suggest that, according to the experts, to achieve the goal of becoming an energy-saving city, the transportation system and energy/building sector should be given priority.
In summary, the experts prioritized the transportation system and energy/building sectors as the most crucial aspects in achieving the goal of an energy-saving city. These results can guide Sharjah’s policymakers and urban planners in implementing the Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) master plan, with a focus on promoting sustainable transportation systems and energy-efficient buildings. By prioritizing these sectors, Sharjah can effectively work towards its energy-saving objectives and ensure that it becomes a more sustainable city in the future.
In Figure 7, the results of calculating the importance of sustainable urban planning elements (lower criteria) for each sector are presented. The analysis yielded a consistency index (CI) of 0.00037 for the spatial system sector, 0.02 for the transportation system sector, 0.01 for the environment/conservation/recycle sector, 0.04 for the energy/building sector, and 0.02 for the park/green area sector, indicating reliable results for all lower criteria (CI less than 0.1).
Regarding the spatial system sector in Figure 7A, the inducing mixed-use development planning factor had the highest relative importance at 0.361, followed by enhancing accessibility (securing the adequacy of the neighborhood area) at 0.331. Meanwhile, eco-friendly density management had the lowest relative importance at 0.311.
In the transportation system sector in Figure 7B, the public transportation-oriented development planning factor had the highest importance at 0.407, followed by urban planning on green transportation (bicycles and pedestrian roads) at 0.365, and the introduction of new transportation (monorail, electric Vehicle, etc.) at 0.228.
For the environment/conservation/recycle sector in Figure 7C, the reduction of trash and food waste and the establishment of a recycling system had the highest relative importance at 0.531, whereas the establishment of the greywater management system was 0.263 and the creation of hydrophilic for the water circulation system was relatively low at 0.208.
In the energy/building sector in Figure 7D, energy-efficient building design (insulation and natural light) had the highest importance at 0.464, followed by use renewable energy (solar power, geothermal heat, and wind power) at 0.392, while the expansion of cogeneration (energy and cooling supply) had the lowest importance at 0.147.
Lastly, among the planning factors in the park/green area sector in Figure 7E, the creation of low-carbon natural parks and green spaces had the highest relative importance at 0.388, followed by building greening (green roof, green walls, and green artificial ground) at 0.316, and the establishment of accessible greenways and green matrix in residential areas at 0.296.
These results provide insight into which sustainable urban planning elements the experts deemed most important within each sector. Policymakers and urban planners can use this information to prioritize and focus their efforts on the most critical aspects of sustainable urban planning for each sector in Sharjah. By doing so, they can work more effectively towards achieving the city’s energy-saving and sustainability goals.
The results of the relative importance of individual planning elements for SSC, considering the importance of upper and lower criteria simultaneously, are shown in Figure 8. The CI for the analysis results was 0.01, indicating a reliable outcome.
According to the results, the planning factor with the highest importance is energy-efficient building design (insulation and natural light) at 0.121. The public transportation-oriented development planning factor was ranked second with 0.115, followed by urban planning on green transportation (bicycles and pedestrian roads) at 0.103, and use renewable energy (solar power, geothermal heat, and wind power) at 0.102.
Inducing mixed-use development planning factor ranks at 0.085 while enhancing accessibility (securing the adequacy of the neighborhood area) is 0.078, and eco-friendly density management is 0.073. The reduction of trash and food waste and the establishment of recycling system planning factor is 0.069, and the introduction of new transportation (monorail, electric vehicle, etc.) planning factor is 0.065.
The expansion of cogeneration (energy and cooling supply) planning factor is 0.038, and the establishment of a greywater management system and creation of low-carbon natural parks and green spaces both have a value of 0.035.
Building greening (green roof, green wall, and artificial ground) planning factor is 0.029, and the establishment of accessible greenway and green matrix in residential Area planning factor is 0.027. Lastly, the creation of hydrophilic for the water circulation system planning factor has the lowest importance with a value of 0.026.
To become an energy-saving city, SSC must prioritize energy-efficient building design (insulation and natural light) and public transportation-oriented development. This aligns with previous studies highlighting the importance of natural light and natural ventilation, public transport-oriented development, and high insulation and airtight materials. By focusing on these priorities, Sharjah can effectively work towards achieving its energy-saving and sustainability goals.
The relatively low importance of planning elements related to greenways and water-friendly spaces in this study, compared to previous studies, can indeed be attributed to the differences in the context of the SSC master plan. As the SSC master plan is more urbanized and has a larger area of greenery compared to the target sites in previous studies, the experts surveyed may believe that the existing park and green environment are already satisfactory.
In this case, the focus on other sustainability priorities, such as energy-efficient building design, public transportation-oriented development, and renewable energy use, may be more critical to achieving the overall goals of the SSC. However, it is essential to remember that the priorities identified in this study reflect the opinions of the experts surveyed and may not necessarily represent the best approach for all urban areas or contexts.
It is crucial to continually reassess and adapt the priorities and strategies for sustainable urban planning as the context, needs, and available resources change over time. As the SSC master plan progresses and evolves, the importance of greenways, water-friendly spaces, and other sustainability planning elements may change as well, warranting further investigation and analysis in the future.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the priorities for sustainable urban planning in the context of the Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) master plan. The study highlights the importance of focusing on the transportation system and energy/building sectors to achieve the goal of becoming an energy-saving city.
The results emphasize the critical role of mixed-use development in the spatial system sector and public transportation-oriented development in the transportation system sector. These planning factors align with sustainable urban planning principles, as they promote efficient land use, minimize urban sprawl, reduce private car dependency, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
In the environment/conservation/recycle sector, the focus on reducing trash and food waste, along with the establishment of recycling systems, demonstrates the need for effective waste management strategies in sustainable urban planning. In the energy/building sector, energy-efficient building design, incorporating insulation and natural light, is identified as the most important planning factor. This finding is consistent with previous studies and emphasizes the significance of energy efficiency in achieving an energy-saving city.
While the importance of greenways and water-friendly spaces was found to be relatively lower in the context of the SSC master plan, it is crucial not to overlook these aspects when implementing sustainable urban planning strategies. The existing park and green environment in the SSC may be relatively satisfactory, but there may still be opportunities to improve the overall sustainability of the city by enhancing greenways and water-friendly spaces.
The study offers valuable guidance for prioritizing planning factors in the SSC master plan to achieve the goal of becoming an energy-saving city. It also highlights the importance of continually reassessing and adapting priorities and strategies in sustainable urban planning as contexts, needs, and available resources change over time.
In summary, this study provides valuable insights into priority areas and planning elements for Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) to achieve its energy-saving goals. However, addressing the limitations and expanding the scope of research can provide even more comprehensive and actionable insights for sustainable urban development. The following recommendations can guide future research:
  • Broaden stakeholder input: Incorporate diverse perspectives from residents, policymakers, and other stakeholders, in addition to urban planning experts. This will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the priorities and needs of an energy-saving city.
  • Examine different urban contexts: Investigate the applicability of the identified planning factors across various urban settings with unique socio-economic, cultural, and environmental conditions. This will help identify context-specific priorities and strategies for different urban environments.
  • Employ qualitative methodologies: Utilize qualitative research methods, such as case studies or interviews, to capture the complexities and interdependencies of various planning elements. This will provide a deeper understanding of the underlying processes, challenges, and opportunities in implementing energy-saving urban planning initiatives.
  • Investigate the importance of greenways and water-friendly spaces: Explore factors contributing to the relatively low importance of these planning elements in the current study compared to previous research. Identify ways to better integrate these elements into the overall planning and development of energy-saving cities.
By addressing these limitations and expanding the research scope, future studies can offer more comprehensive insights to guide urban planners, policymakers, and stakeholders in their pursuit of sustainable urban development. This will ultimately contribute to the creation of energy-saving cities that are more resilient, sustainable, and adaptable to the evolving needs of their inhabitants and the environment.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to identify the priority areas and planning elements for Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC) to become an energy-saving city by deriving factors from previous studies and conducting an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis. The results indicated that the transportation system sector had the highest importance, followed by the energy/building sector. The park/green area sector had the lowest importance among the five sectors.
The analysis also revealed that the planning elements with the highest relative importance were energy-efficient building design (insulation and natural light), public transportation-oriented development, and use of renewable energy (solar power, geothermal heat, and wind power). Meanwhile, planning elements such as building greening (green roof, green walls, and green artificial ground), the establishment of accessible greenway and green matrix in residential areas, and the creation of hydrophilic for the water circulation system had relatively low importance.
These findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and urban planners in SSC to prioritize and implement strategies for achieving an energy-saving city. The study suggests the need for policies promoting energy-efficient housing, such as passive houses or green homes utilizing renewable energy, as well as the continued and active promotion of green building certification systems to encourage low-carbon green buildings. Furthermore, the construction of a city structure centered on public transportation, such as buses, is essential for achieving SSC’s energy-saving goals.
By prioritizing and pursuing these planning elements, SSC can make significant progress towards becoming an energy-saving city, contributing to a sustainable and environmentally responsible urban environment for its inhabitants. This study serves as a valuable reference for urban planners and policymakers seeking to develop and implement effective strategies for sustainable urban development in the context of energy-saving cities.
This study departs from previous research in several ways, particularly regarding its use of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) analysis and the examination of specific planning elements in urban planning and sustainability.
Unlike previous studies that focused on the importance of urban planning sectors or derived and compared planning elements using a 5-point Likert scale, this study delves into the relative significance of specific planning elements through AHP analysis. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of which factors should be prioritized to achieve the goal of becoming an energy-saving city, such as Sharjah Sustainable City (SSC).
In addition, the study contributes to the field by providing data for policy judgments on which planning elements should be prioritized and pursued by SSC in the future. This information can help decision-makers develop targeted strategies for fostering energy-saving cities while accounting for factors such as social, economic, and cultural conditions that might impact the effectiveness of these planning elements.
Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of the process of deriving results, not just the results themselves. By conducting similar studies in different contexts, researchers can better understand the appropriate planning elements for various city sizes and location types, thereby contributing to the broader knowledge base in urban planning and sustainability. This study’s use of AHP analysis to evaluate the relative importance of specific planning elements and its focus on the process of deriving results distinguishes it from previous research and provides valuable insights for the field of urban planning and sustainability.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to this study. C.J. and J.A. identified and secured the example buildings used in the study. The data acquisition system and sensors were designed and installed by C.J. and J.A. J.A. was responsible for data collection. Data analysis was performed by C.J. The manuscript was compiled by C.J. and reviewed by J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Ajman University (protocol code A-H-F-28-Oct and 28 October 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

New data were created or analyzed in this study. Data will be shared upon request and consideration of the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Ajman University for APC support and to the Healthy and Sustainable Buildings Research Center at Ajman University for providing an excellent research environment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. AHP Survey for Sustainable Urban Planning Priorities

How are you doing? First, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the experts who participated in this survey. Our Department of Architecture at Ajman University is researching “Sustainable Urban Planning Elements”.
We want to investigate the awareness of Sustainable Urban Planning Elements among experts who have made outstanding achievements in urban planning worldwide. Even if you are having difficulties during your busy schedule, please take some time to respond. Your identity and survey contents are processed statistically, and personal details are not revealed. Your research and case studies will significantly help our current research, and we ask you to answer each question honestly once again.
Thank you very much.
Table
Table A1. General Information.
Table A1. General Information.
GenderMale (  )
Female (  )
Age Group20–29 (  )
30–39 (  )
40–49 (  )
50–59 (  )
Above (  )
Period of work experienceLess than 3 years (  )
4–6 years (  )
7–9 years (  )
More than 10 years (  )
Occupation GroupArchitectural Design (  )
Construction (  )
Urban Design/Planning (  )
Landscape Design (  )
OccupationArchitecture/Urban Design Professor (  )
Construction/Real estate development and sales–related positions (  )
Research institutes and academic associations (  )

Appendix A.1. Upper Criteria for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Please refer to Table 1. Sustainable Urban Planning Elements for the survey process.
Please put a “V” mark where applicable.
Table
Table A2. Sustainable Urban Planning Elements.
Table A2. Sustainable Urban Planning Elements.
Criteria 1 (Sector) Criteria 2 (Planning Elements)
Spatial SystemSS01Eco-friendly Density Management
SS02Inducing Mixed-Use Development
SS03Enhancing Accessibility (Securing the Adequacy of the Neighborhood Area)
Transportation SystemTS01Public Transportation-Oriented Development
TS02Urban Planning on Green Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrian Roads)
TS03Introduction of New Transportation (Monorail, Electric Vehicle, etc.)
Environment/Conservation/RecycleEC01Reduction of Trash and Food Waste and Establishment of a Recycling System
EC02Establishment of a Greywater Management System
EC03Creation of Hydrophilic for the Water Circulation System
Energy/BuildingEB01Use Renewable Energy (Solar Power, Geothermal Heat, and Wind Power)
EB02Expansion of Cogeneration (Energy and Cooling supply)
EB03Energy-efficient Building Design (Insulation and Natural Light)
Park/Green AreaPG01Creation of Low-Carbon Natural Parks and Green Spaces
PG02Building Greening (Green Roof, Green Wall, and Green Artificial Ground)
PG03Establishment of Accessible Greenways and Green Matrix in residential Areas
Table
Table A3. Please indicate the relative importance of “Spatial System, Transportation System, Environment/Conservation/Recycle, Energy/Building, Park/Green Area” among the elements of Sustainable Urban Planning.
Table A3. Please indicate the relative importance of “Spatial System, Transportation System, Environment/Conservation/Recycle, Energy/Building, Park/Green Area” among the elements of Sustainable Urban Planning.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Spatial System④③②①②③④Transportation System
Spatial System④③②①②③④Environ-ment/Conservation/Recycle
Spatial System④③②①②③④Energy/Building
Spatial System④③②①②③④Park/Green Area
Transportation System④③②①②③④Environment/Conservation/Recycle
Transportation System④③②①②③④Energy/Building
Transportation System④③②①②③④Park/Green Area
Environment/Conservation/Recycle④③②①②③④Energy/Building
Environment/Conservation/Recycle④③②①②③④Park/Green Area
Energy/Building④③②①②③④Park/Green Area

Appendix A.2. Lower Criteria (Spatial System) for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Table
Table A4. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Spatial Systems”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
Table A4. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Spatial Systems”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Eco-friendly Density Management④③②①②③④Inducing Mixed-Use Development
Eco-friendly Density Management④③②①②③④Enhancing Accessibility (Securing the Adequacy of the Neighborhood Area)
Inducing Mixed-Use Development④③②①②③④Enhancing Accessibility (Securing the Adequacy of the Neighborhood Area)

Appendix A.3. Lower Criteria (Transportation System) for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Table
Table A5. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Transportation Systems”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
Table A5. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Transportation Systems”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Public Transportation-Oriented Development④③②①②③④Urban Planning on Green Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrian Roads)
Public Transportation-Oriented Development④③②①②③④Introduction of New Transportation (Monorail, Electric Vehicle, etc.)
Urban Planning on Green Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrian Roads)④③②①②③④Introduction of New Transportation (Monorail, Electric Vehicle, etc.)

Appendix A.4. Lower Criteria (Environment/Conservation/Recycle) for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Table
Table A6. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Environment/Conservation/Recycle”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
Table A6. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Environment/Conservation/Recycle”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Reduction of Trash and Food Waste and Establishment of a Recycling System④③②①②③④Establishment of a Greywater Management System
Reduction of Trash and Food Waste and Establishment of a Recycling System④③②①②③④Creation of Hydrophilic for the Water Circulation System
Establishment of a Greywater Management System④③②①②③④Creation of Hydrophilic for the Water Circulation System

Appendix A.5. Lower Criteria (Energy/Building) for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Table
Table A7. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Energy/Building”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
Table A7. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Energy/Building”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Use Renewable Energy (Solar Power, Geothermal Heat, and Wind Power)④③②①②③④Expansion of Cogeneration (Energy and Cooling supply)
Use Renewable Energy (Solar Power, Geothermal Heat, and Wind Power)④③②①②③④Energy-efficient Building Design (Insulation and Natural Light)
Expansion of Cogeneration (Energy and Cooling supply)④③②①②③④Energy-efficient Building Design (Insulation and Natural Light)

Appendix A.6. Lower Criteria (Park/Green Area) for Sustainable Urban Planning Elements

Table
Table A8. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Park/Green Area”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
Table A8. The following is to evaluate the relative importance of planning factors in the field of “Park/Green Area”. Please indicate the relative preference of each plan element in the appropriate box.
CriteriaVery ImportantImportantLittle ImportantEqualLittle ImportantImportantVery ImportantCriteria
Creation of Low-Carbon Natural Parks and Green Spaces④③②①②③④Building Greening (Green Roof, Green Wall, and Green Artificial Ground)
Creation of Low-Carbon Natural Parks and Green Spaces④③②①②③④Establishment of Accessible Greenways and Green Matrix in residential Areas
Building Greening (Green Roof, Green Wall, and Green Artificial Ground)④③②①②③④Establishment of Accessible Greenways and Green Matrix in residential Areas

References

  1. Vision 2021. Sustainable Environment and Infrastructure. Available online: https://www.vision2021.ae/en/national-agenda-2021/list/environment-circle (accessed on 21 June 2021).
  2. Jung, C.; Awad, J.; Mahmoud, N.S.A.; Salameh, M. An analysis of indoor environment evaluation for The Springs development in Dubai, UAE. Open House Int. 2021, 46, 651–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Khaleej Times. Sharjah Unveils Dh2 Billion Sustainable Project. Available online: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/sharjah-unveils-dh2-billion-sustainable-project (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  4. Khaleej Times. Sharjah Sustainable City Is the First Community to Demonstrate Energy Storage Solutions in the Region. Available online: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/energy/sharjah-sustainable-city-first-community-to-demonstrate-energy-storage-solutions-in-region (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  5. Sharjah Sustainable City. A Life More Suitable for the Future. Available online: https://www.sharjahsustainablecity.ae/en/sustainable-sharjah-a-life-more-suitable-for-the-future/ (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  6. Awad, J.; Jung, C. Evaluating the Indoor Air Quality after Renovation at the Greens in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Buildings 2021, 11, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gulf News. Sharjah’s First Self-Sustaining City Looks to Engage Residents More. Available online: https://gulfnews.com/business/property/sharjahs-first-self-sustaining-city-looks-to-engage-residents-more-1.66022482 (accessed on 14 August 2022).
  8. Nadali, P.; Thomas, R.M.; Taleb, H. Rethinking and redesigning sustainability in Dubai’s Sustainable City. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 193, 997–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yahya, N.; Hassanpour, B. A methodical framework for sustainable architectural design: Housing practice in the Middle East. Land 2022, 11, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, C.; Zhan, J.; Xin, Z. Comparative analysis of urban ecological management models incorporating low-carbon transformation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 159, 120190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jung, C.; Awad, J. Improving the IAQ for Learning Efficiency with Indoor Plants in University Classrooms in Ajman, United Arab Emirates. Buildings 2021, 11, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jung, C.; Awad, J. The Improvement of Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings in Dubai, UAE. Buildings 2021, 11, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pan, W.; Pan, M. Opportunities and risks of implementing zero-carbon building policy for cities: Hong Kong case. Appl. Energy 2019, 256, 113835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M.; Wood, C.J.; Riffat, S.B. Optimizing insulation thickness and analyzing environmental impacts of aerogel-based thermal superinsulation in buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 77, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jung, C.; Al Qassimi, N. Investigating the emission of hazardous chemical substances from mashrabiya used for indoor air quality in hot desert climate. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Griffiths, S.; Sovacool, B.K. Rethinking the future low-carbon city: Carbon neutrality, green design, and sustainability tensions in the making of Masdar City. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 62, 101368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cugurullo, F. Urban eco-modernisation and the policy context of new eco-city projects: Where Masdar City fails and why. Urban Stud. 2016, 53, 2417–2433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, Y.; Chan, R.C. Planning discourses, local state commitment, and the making of a new state space (NSS) for China: Evidence from regional strategic development plans in the Pearl River Delta. Urban Stud. 2017, 54, 3281–3298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jung, C.; Awad, J.; Al Qassimi, N. Analyzing the Users’ Satisfaction Levels and Perceptions of the Dubai Water Canal for Future Waterfront Development in UAE. Future Cities Environ. 2021, 7, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hersperger, A.M.; Oliveira, E.; Pagliarin, S.; Palka, G.; Verburg, P.; Bolliger, J.; Grădinaru, S. Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 51, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, P.; Ahmed, F.; Singh, R.K.; Sinha, P. Determination of hierarchical relationships among sustainable development goals using interpretive structural modeling. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 2119–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kahila-Tani, M.; Kytta, M.; Geertman, S. Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 186, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tahri, M.; Hakdaoui, M.; Maanan, M. The evaluation of solar farm locations applying Geographic Information System and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods: Case study in southern Morocco. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1354–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pissourios, I.A. Survey methodologies of urban land uses: An oddment of the past, or a gap in contemporary planning theory? Land Use Policy 2019, 83, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Islam, M.; Kashem, S.; Morshed, S. Integrating spatial information technologies and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP) approach for landfill siting. City Environ. Interact. 2020, 7, 100045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Skilodimou, H.D.; Bathrellos, G.D. Natural and technological hazards in urban areas: Assessment, planning and solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, J.; Jiskani, I.M.; Lin, A.; Zhao, C.; Jing, P.; Liu, F.; Lu, M. A hybrid decision model and case study for comprehensive evaluation of green mine construction level. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 3823–3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Awad, J.; Jung, C. Extracting the Planning Elements for Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Dubai with AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 76, 103496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, Y.; Fang, X.; Yin, S.; Chen, W. Low-carbon development quality of cities in China: Evaluation and obstacle analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 64, 102553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khanna, N.; Fridley, D.; Hong, L. China’s pilot low-carbon city initiative: A comparative assessment of national goals and local plans. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014, 12, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kii, M.; Akimoto, K.; Doi, K. Measuring the impact of urban policies on transportation energy saving using a land use-transport model. IATSS Res. 2014, 37, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.F.; Li, K.P.; Xu, X.M.; Zhang, Y.R. Transport energy consumption and saving in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 641–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Z.; Liang, S.; Geng, Y.; Xue, B.; Xi, F.; Pan, Y.; Fujita, T. Features, trajectories and driving forces for energy-related GHG emissions from Chinese mega cites: The case of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing. Energy 2012, 37, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Manfren, M.; Caputo, P.; Costa, G. Paradigm shift in urban energy systems through distributed generation: Methods and models. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 1032–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, C.; Lin, Y. Panel estimation for urbanization, energy consumption and CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in China. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ying, Q.U.; Yue, L.I.U. Evaluating the low-carbon development of urban China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 939–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Deakin, M.; Reid, A. Smart cities: Under-gridding the sustainability of city-districts as energy efficient-low carbon zones. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Topi, C.; Esposto, E.; Govigli, V.M. The economics of green transition strategies for cities: Can low carbon, energy efficient development approaches be adapted to demand side urban water efficiency? Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 58, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gao, S.; Zhang, H. Urban planning for low-carbon sustainable development. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2020, 28, 100398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ruan, Y.; Cao, J.; Feng, F.; Li, Z. The role of occupant behavior in low carbon oriented residential community planning: A case study in Qingdao. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Moslem, S.; Blaschke, T.; Duleba, S. Sustainable urban transport planning considering different stakeholder groups by an interval-AHP decision support model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yildiz, S.; Kivrak, S.; Arslan, G. Contribution of built environment design elements to the sustainability of urban renewal projects: Model proposal. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 145, 04018045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, J.H.; Lim, S. The selection of compact city policy instruments and their effects on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector: The case of South Korea. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fouad, M.M.; Iskander, J.; Shihata, L.A. Energy, carbon and cost analysis for an innovative zero energy community design. Sol. Energy 2020, 206, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Peng, B.; Du, H.; Ma, S.; Fan, Y.; Broadstock, D.C. Urban passenger transport energy saving and emission reduction potential: A case study for Tianjin, China. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 102, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Birkmann, J.; Garschagen, M.; Kraas, F.; Quang, N. Adaptive urban governance: New challenges for the second generation of urban adaptation strategies to climate change. Sustain. Sci. 2010, 5, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pearsall, H.; Pierce, J. Urban sustainability and environmental justice: Evaluating the linkages in public planning/policy discourse. Local Environ. 2010, 15, 569–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rezaei, A.; Tahsili, S. Urban vulnerability assessment using AHP. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2018601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mueller, C.; Klein, U.; Hof, A. An easy-to-use spatial simulation for urban planning in smaller municipalities. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2018, 71, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, Y.; Zou, Z. Spatial decision support system for urban planning: Case study of Harbin City in China. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2010, 136, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wey, W.M.; Hsu, J. New urbanism and smart growth: Toward achieving a smart National Taipei University District. Habitat Int. 2014, 42, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zadeh, A.S.M.; Rajabi, M.A. Analyzing the effect of the street network configuration on the efficiency of an urban transportation system. Cities 2013, 31, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wakeyo, D.B.; Singh, A.P.; Avvari, M. Influence of abattoir waste management practices on natural environment conservation. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2019, 10, 1010–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Okeil, A. A holistic approach to energy efficient building forms. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1437–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, Z.; Wei, H.; Wu, Y.; Su, S.; Wang, W.; Qu, C. Impact of community deprivation on urban park access over time: Understanding the relative role of contributors for urban planning. Habitat Int. 2019, 92, 102031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, J.H.; Lim, S. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for sustainable assessment of economy-based and community-based urban regeneration: The case of South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Darko, A.; Chan, A.P.C.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Owusu, E.K.; Pärn, E.; Edwards, D.J. Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 19, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huang, I.B.; Keisler, J.; Linkov, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 3578–3594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aragonés-Beltrán, P.; Chaparro-González, F.; Pastor-Ferrando, J.P.; Pla-Rubio, A. An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects. Energy 2014, 66, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vidal, L.A.; Marle, F.; Bocquet, J.C. Measuring project complexity using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 718–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumar, A.; Sah, B.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 596–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Şahin, T.; Ocak, S.; Top, M. Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection. Health Policy Technol. 2019, 8, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nosal, K.; Solecka, K. Application of AHP method for multi-criteria evaluation of variants of the integration of urban public transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meesariganda, B.R.; Ishizaka, A. Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 53, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M.; Antosz, K.; Wyczółkowski, R.; Mazurkiewicz, D.; Sun, B.; Qian, C.; Ren, Y. Application of MICMAC, Fuzzy AHP, and Fuzzy TOPSIS for Evaluation of the Maintenance Factors Affecting Sustainable Manufacturing. Energies 2021, 14, 1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Anastasiadou, K.; Gavanas, N.; Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, M.; Bekiaris, E. Infrastructure Planning for Autonomous Electric Vehicles, Integrating Safety and Sustainability Aspects: A Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach. Energies 2021, 14, 5269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Franek, J.; Kresta, A. Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 12, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Polat, G.; Damci, A.; Gurgun, A.P.; Demirli, I. Urban renewal project selection using the integration of AHP and PROMETHEE approaches. Procedia Eng. 2016, 164, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pant, S.; Kumar, A.; Ram, M.; Klochkov, Y.; Sharma, H.K. Consistency indices in analytic hierarchy process: A review. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bulut, E.; Duru, O.; Keçeci, T.; Yoshida, S. Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 1911–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kułakowski, K. Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 245, 333–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mushtaha, E.; Alsyouf, I.; Al Labadi, L.; Hamad, R.; Khatib, N.; Al Mutawa, M. Application of AHP and a mathematical index to estimate livability in tourist districts: The case of Al Qasba in Sharjah. Front. Archit. Res. 2020, 9, 872–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Işik, Z.; Aladağ, H. A fuzzy AHP model to assess sustainable performance of the construction industry from urban regeneration perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Larimian, T.; Zarabadi, Z.S.S.; Sadeghi, A. Developing a fuzzy AHP model to evaluate environmental sustainability from the perspective of Secured by Design scheme—A case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013, 7, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08217 g001 550
Figure 1. Sharjah Sustainable City.
Figure 1. Sharjah Sustainable City.
Sustainability 15 08217 g001
Sustainability 15 08217 g002 550
Figure 2. Sharjah map with the location of Sharjah Sustainable City.
Figure 2. Sharjah map with the location of Sharjah Sustainable City.
Sustainability 15 08217 g002
Sustainability 15 08217 g003 550
Figure 3. Sharjah Sustainable City Master Plan.
Figure 3. Sharjah Sustainable City Master Plan.
Sustainability 15 08217 g003
Sustainability 15 08217 g004 550
Figure 4. Research process.
Figure 4. Research process.
Sustainability 15 08217 g004
Sustainability 15 08217 g005 550
Figure 5. Hierarchical structure of planning elements for applying AHP.
Figure 5. Hierarchical structure of planning elements for applying AHP.
Sustainability 15 08217 g005
Sustainability 15 08217 g006 550
Figure 6. The results of the importance of 5 upper criteria.
Figure 6. The results of the importance of 5 upper criteria.
Sustainability 15 08217 g006
Sustainability 15 08217 g007a 550Sustainability 15 08217 g007b 550
Figure 7. The result of the importance of 15 lower criteria.
Figure 7. The result of the importance of 15 lower criteria.
Sustainability 15 08217 g007aSustainability 15 08217 g007b
Sustainability 15 08217 g008 550
Figure 8. The relative importance of individual planning elements.
Figure 8. The relative importance of individual planning elements.
Sustainability 15 08217 g008
Table
Table 1. Sustainable urban planning elements in previous studies.
Table 1. Sustainable urban planning elements in previous studies.
Planning ElementsPrevious Studies
Wang et al. (2014) [32]Liu et al. (2012) [33]Ying and Yue (2017) [36]Topi et al. (2016) [38]Yildiz et al. (2019) [42]Frequency
Eco-friendly Density Management○ ○○○4
Inducing Mixed-Use Development○ ○2
Enhancing Accessibility (Securing the Adequacy of the Neighborhood Area)○ ○ 2
Arrangement of Houses/Facilities in Consideration of Sun Orientation ○1
Public Transportation-Oriented Development○ ○ ○3
Urban Planning on Green Transportation
(Bicycles and Pedestrian Roads)		○○○○○5
Introduction of New Transportation (Monorail, Electric Vehicle, etc.) ○ ○2
Promotion of Traffic Calming Techniques around Residential Areas and Schools ○ 1
Reduction in Trash and Food Waste and Establishment of a Recycling System○○○○ 4
Building a Low-Carbon Water Supply System○ 1
Establishment of a Greywater Management System○○○ ○4
Creation of Hydrophilic for the Water Circulation System ○○ ○3
Use Renewable Energy (Solar Power, Geothermal Heat, and Wind Power)○ ○ 2
Expansion of Cogeneration (Energy and Cooling supply) ○ 1
Energy-efficient Building Design (Insulation and Natural Light)○○○○ 4
Creation of Low-Carbon Natural Parks and Green Spaces○○○○○5
Prevention of Heat Islands by Expanding Wind Paths○○○ 3
Building Greening (Green Roof, Green Wall, and Green Artificial Ground) ○○ ○3
Establishment of Accessible Greenways and Green Matrix in residential Areas○○○ ○4
Table
Table 2. Criteria of sustainable urban planning elements.
Table 2. Criteria of sustainable urban planning elements.
Criterion 1 (Sector) Criterion 2 (Planning Elements)
Spatial SystemSS01Eco-friendly Density Management
SS02Inducing Mixed-Use Development
SS03Enhancing Accessibility (Securing the Adequacy of the Neighborhood Area)
Transportation SystemTS01Public Transportation-Oriented Development
TS02Urban Planning on Green Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrian Roads)
TS03Introduction of New Transportation (Monorail, Electric Vehicle, etc.)
Environment/Conservation/RecycleEC01Reduction of Trash and Food Waste and Establishment of a Recycling System
EC02Establishment of a Greywater Management System
EC03Creation of Hydrophilic for the Water Circulation System
Energy/BuildingEB01Use Renewable Energy (Solar Power, Geothermal Heat, and Wind Power)
EB02Expansion of Cogeneration (Energy and Cooling supply)
EB03Energy-efficient Building Design (Insulation and Natural Light)
Park/Green AreaPG01Creation of Low-Carbon Natural Parks and Green Spaces
PG02Building Greening (Green Roof, Green Wall, and Green Artificial Ground)
PG03Establishment of Accessible Greenways and Green Matrix in residential Areas
Table
Table 3. Composition of surveyed urban planning experts.
Table 3. Composition of surveyed urban planning experts.
ClassificationUrban PlannerArchitectsOfficersResearchersTotal
Survey Participants42321826118
Percentage (%)35.627.115.322.0100
Responded Participants3426152196
Percentage (%)35.427.115.621.9100
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jung, C.; Awad, J. Sharjah Sustainable City: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Urban Planning Priorities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108217

AMA Style

Jung C, Awad J. Sharjah Sustainable City: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Urban Planning Priorities. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108217

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jung, Chuloh, and Jihad Awad. 2023. "Sharjah Sustainable City: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach to Urban Planning Priorities" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108217

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop