Which Minimum Indicator Set of Sustainability May Be Utilized in Urban Assessments? Meta-Evidence Gained Through a Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Analysis Algorithm
2.1. Materials
2.2. Analysis Alghoritm
2.2.1. Acquisition of National and International Literature
Guiding Questions
Identification of Scientific Studies
Analysis and Selection of Scientific Studies
Definition of Criteria
- Publication Quality:
- -
- Preview: Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals are considered.
- -
- Impact Factor: Preference is given to journals with a high impact factor (Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) greater than 1).
- Publication Type:
- -
- Original Research Articles: Empirical and experimental studies.
- -
- Review Articles: Literature reviews.
- -
- Book Chapters and Monographs: Included if they are relevant to the research topic (e.g., environmental, sustainability, indicators, urban planning).
- Language:
- -
- Specific Languages: Only articles published in languages understood by the reviewers, typically English and other relevant languages.
- -
- Publication Year: A defined timeframe, such as studies published within 2013–2022.
2.2.2. Creation of a Dataset
Selection of Variables for Dataset Elaboration
- ID: Unique identifier for the scientific study (e.g., #27);
- Year: Year of publication;
- Authors: Authors of the publication;
- Title: Title of the study;
- Main Objectives: Summary of the study’s objectives;
- Categories: Categories to which the indicators belong (e.g., Environmental);
- Thematic Categories: Specific theme associated with the category of the indicators (e.g., Pollution);
- Criteria/Indicator/Index: Sustainability indicator;
- Quantitative: Indicator of a quantitative nature;
- Qualitative: Indicator of a qualitative nature;
- Metrics (Elementary Data—ED);
- Targets (T);
- Measurement Scale and Unit: Measurement unit;
- Data Source: Specific research data;
- Analysis—Scale: Analysis scale (e.g., neighborhood, city, national, international);
- Territorial Context: Geographical area relevant to the study (e.g., Rome);
- Services/Disservices for Sustainable Achievement: Each identified indicator has been assigned a relevance metric regarding its use for sustainable development. This analysis metric is characterized by a positive impact scale (+++, ++, +) or a negative impact scale (−) for each identified indicator.
Drive–Pressure–State–Impact–Response Model (DPSIR)
2.2.3. Summary of Indicators
Data-Driven Individualization
K-Means Clustering Method
Interpretation and Validation of Clusters
Application of Results
- Economic: Indicators related to economic growth, investments, employment, and project profitability.
- Sociality: Indicators that measure the well-being and quality of life of the population.
- Environmental: Indicators that assess the environmental impact of projects.
- Energy: Indicators related to the energy consumption caused by a project and the use of renewable energy.
- Transport Indicators: Addressing urban mobility, accessibility, public transportation efficiency, and related environmental impacts.
- Urban Planning Indicators: Assessing land use, infrastructure development, zoning regulations, and urban density.
- Waste Management Indicators: Measuring waste production, recycling rates, landfill use, and sustainability of waste disposal systems.
3. Results
3.1. Acquisition of National and International Literature
- Only opened access available papers;
- Studies not yet underway;
- Studies not awaiting classification (e.g., in a systematic review, they may have been assigned to a specific topic);
- Only papers published in English;
- Papers published within 2013–2022.
- Related to urban regeneration issues;
- Related to the topic of sustainability;
- Presence of indicator sets;
- Urban-scale ducts.
3.2. Creation Dataset
3.3. MIS Definition
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- OECD/European Commission. Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanization; OECD Urban Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 1–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agenzia Per La Coesione Territoriale. The UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.agenziacoesione.gov.it/comunicazione/agenda-2030-per-lo-sviluppo-sostenibile/?lang=en (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- European Commission. European Green Deal Investment Plan. COM(2020) 21 Final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0021 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 11: Make Cities Inclusive, Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- UN-Habitat. Habitat III: New Urban Agenda. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development: Quito, Ecuador. 2016. Available online: https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- Eurostat. Principal European Economic Indicators (PEEIs). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/euro-indicators/database (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- World Bank. World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2021 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- ISTAT. Gli Indicatori Del BES. Available online: https://www.istat.it/statistiche-per-temi/focus/benessere-e-sostenibilita/la-misurazione-del-benessere-bes/gli-indicatori-del-bes/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- ISTAT. Noi Italia: 100 Statistiche Per Capire Il Paese in Cui Viviamo. Available online: https://noi-italia.istat.it/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- Couch, C.; Fraser, C. Urban Regeneration in Europe; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2003; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Shamaee, S.; Hossein, A.U.Y.; Zahedi, R. Assessing urban development indicators for environmental sustainability. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Council. European Green Deal. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/it/topics/climate-neutrality/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- European Commission. EU Taxonomy Navigator. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-taxonomy/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- Regulation (EU) 2020/852. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852&qid=1725191129583 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
- Angel, S.; Sheppard, S.C.; Civco, D.L. The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Rodrigues, H.; Fukuda, T.; Bibri, S.E. Resilient and Responsible Smart Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–400. [Google Scholar]
- Miranda, M.N.; Silva, A.M.T.; Pereira, M.F.R. Microplastics in the Environment: A DPSIR Analysis with Focus on the Responses. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 134968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, S.; Ding, P.; Xue, B.; Zhu, H.; Gao, J. Urban Sustainability Evaluation Based on the DPSIR Dynamic Model: A Case Study in Shaanxi Province, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, P. The DPSIR framework. In Paper Presented at the 27–29 September 2004 Workshop on a Comprehensive/Detailed Assessment of the Vulnerability of Water Resources to Environmental Change in Africa Using River Basin Approach; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004; pp. 1–10. Available online: http://fis.freshwatertools.eu/files/MARS_resources/Info_lib/Kristensen(2004)DPSIR%20Framework.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
- Malmir, M.; Javadi, S.; Moridi, A.; Neshat, A. A New Combined Framework for Sustainable Development Using the DPSIR Approach and Numerical Modeling. Geosci. Front. 2021, 12, 101169. [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]
- European Environment Agency. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical Report No. 25; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, S.U.; Cui, Y.; Khan, A.A.; Ali, M.; Khan, A.; Xia, X.; Liu, G.; Tracking, M.Z. Sustainable development efficiency with human-environmental system relationship: An application of DPSIR and super efficiency SBM model. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everitt, B.S.; Landau, S.; Leese, M.; Stahl, D. Cluster Analysis, 5th ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2011; pp. 1–346. [Google Scholar]
- Govender, P.; Sivakumar, V. Application of k-means and hierarchical clustering techniques for analysis of air pollution. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2020, 11, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miraftabzadeh, S.M.; Colombo, C.G.; Longo, M.; Foiadelli, F. K-Means and Alternative Clustering Methods in Modern Power Systems. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 119596–119633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giampaoletti, M.; Amadei, F.; Pani, M.M. Qualitative-quantitative indicators to regenerate public spaces through Nature-based Solutions. TECHNE—J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2024, 28, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, V.H.; Beyeler, S.C. Challenges in the Development and Use of Ecological Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2001, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obringer, C.; Jochem, P.E.P. Measuring the Immeasurable—A Survey of Sustainability Indices. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of Sustainability Indices and Indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. (EIA Rev.) 2012, 32, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamana, A.A.; Radoine, H.; Chimango Nyasulu, C. Urban challenges and strategies in African cities—A systematic literature review. City Environ. Interact. 2024, 21, 100132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboulnaga, M.; Ashour, F.; Elsharkawy, M.; Lucchi, E.; Gamal, S.; Elmarakby, A.; Haggagy, S.; Karar, N.; Khashaba, N.H.; Abouaiana, A. Urbanization and Drivers for Dual Capital City: Assessment of Urban Planning Principles and Indicators for a ‘15-Minute City’. Land 2025, 14, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Cundy, A.; Chen, W.; Lyu, A. Systematic and bibliographic review of sustainability indicators for contaminated site remediation: Comparison between China and western nations. Environ. Res. 2021, 200, 111490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dacey, J. Using big data to measure environmental inclusivity in cities. Eos 2021, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falah, N.; Falah, N.; Solis-Guzman, J.; Marrero, M. An indicator-based framework of circular cities focused on sustainability dimensions and sustainable development goal 11 obtained using machine learning and text analytics. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2025, 121, 106219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, A.; Kissinger, M. A multi-perspective framework for assessing urban well-being, development, and sustainability. Habitat Int. 2025, 156, 103269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewison, R.L.; Rudd, M.A.; Al-Hayek, W.; Baldwin, C.; Beger, M.; Lieske, S.N.; Jones, C.; Satumanatpan, S.; Junchompoo, C.; Hines, E. How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 56, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, J.; Scholtens, J.; Perch, L.; Dankelman, I.; Seager, J.; Sánder, F.; Stanley-Jones, M.; Kempf, I. Re-imagining the Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response Framework from an Equity and Inclusive Development Perspective. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazuva, E. The DPSIR Model for Environmental Risk Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Razzaghi Asl, S.; Pearsall, H. How Do Different Modes of Governance Support Ecosystem Services/Disservices in Small-Scale Urban Green Infrastructure? Land 2022, 11, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarini, M.R.; Morano, P.; Sica, F. Historical school buildings. A multi-criteria approach for urban sustainable projects. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarini, M.R.; Chiovitti, A.; Battisti, F.; Morano, P. An integrated approach for the assessment of urban transformation proposals in historic and consolidated tissues. In Proceedings of the Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2017, Trieste, Italy, 3–6 July 2017; Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Misra, S., Borruso, G., Torre, C.M., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Stankova, E., Cuzzocrea, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 10406, pp. 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristiadi, Y.; Sari, R.F.; Herdiansyah, H.; Hasibuan, H.S.; Lim, T.H. Developing DPSIR Framework for Managing Climate Change in Urban Areas: A Case Study in Jakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, E.; Fonseca, F.; Santiago, A.; Rodrigues, D. Sustainability Indicators Model Applied to Waste Management in Brazil Using the DPSIR Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, X.; Lv, T.; Xu, J.; Deng, X.; Liu, F.; Lam, J.S.L.; Zhang, Z.; Han, X. Evaluation of urban public transport sustainability in China based on the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework—A case study of 36 major cities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 103, 107263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
ID | Year | Title | Main Objectives/ Research Questions | Categories | Criteria (C)/ Indicator (I) | Quantitive | Qualitative | Metrics (Elementaty-Data (ED); Targets (T)) | Measurment Scale and Unit | Services/Disservices for Sustainable Achievement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
#27 | 2021 | An Integrated SWOT-PESTLE-AHP Model Assessing Sustainability in Adaptive Reuse Projects | Weighing key sustainability factors influencing the reuse and transformation of the built environment | Political | (C) Blocking Neglect Policy | x | (+) | |||
(C) Political Support Level | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C) Urban Re-Development Strategies/Incentives | x | (+++) | ||||||||
(C) Political Inertia | x | (−) | ||||||||
Economic | (C) Economic Growth Boost | x | (ED) Spaces for economic, social and cultural activities | (+++) | ||||||
(C) Inability to Estimate Economic Viability | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C) Capitalization of Cultural Value | x | (++) | ||||||||
(C/I) Investment Returns | x | (ED) Based on rent or commercial value (ED) Maintenance costs | (−) | |||||||
Socio-cultural | (C) Cultural Values Preservation | x | (++) | |||||||
(C) Facadism | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C/I) Quality of Life Improvement | x | (++) | ||||||||
(C) Gentrification | x | (−) | ||||||||
Technological–Technical | (C) Technological Innovation | x | Use of innovative durable techniques, systems, and components | [1-0] | (+++) | |||||
(C) Asset Condition | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C) Cooperation in a wide range of scientific fields | x | (++) | ||||||||
(C) Technical Difficulties | x | (−) | ||||||||
Legal | (C) Legislative Context | x | (+) | |||||||
(C/I) Building Standards | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C) Land Use Plan and Zoning | x | (+) | ||||||||
(C) Ownership Status | x | (−) | ||||||||
Environmental | (I) Reduced Environmental Footprint | x | (++) | |||||||
(C) Achieving Net-Zero Energy Goals | x | (−) | ||||||||
(C) Eco-Building | x | (++) | ||||||||
(C/I) Indoor Environmental Quality | x | (−) |
Category | Minimun Indicators Set per Category | D | P | S |
---|---|---|---|---|
Economy | Economic development | |||
Economic growth | ||||
Access to backup energy source | ||||
Aquatic ecosystem preservation | ||||
Arable and permanent crop land area per capita (Agriculture) | ||||
Average household income | ||||
Business facilities | ||||
Climate change | ||||
Climate emissions | ||||
Cost efficiency | ||||
Creation of local jobs | ||||
Diversity and preservation | ||||
Durability of structures | ||||
Ecology innovation | ||||
Economic activities | ||||
Eco-system enhancement | ||||
Efficient pricing | ||||
GDP per capita (GDP) | ||||
Local economy | ||||
New investment | ||||
Unemployment rate | ||||
Environmental | Air quality enhancement | |||
Biodiversity | ||||
Biophilia | ||||
Efficient resources use | ||||
Erosion control | ||||
Evapotranspiration | ||||
Flood risk mitigation | ||||
Global average surface temperature | ||||
Global warming | ||||
Housing demand | ||||
Income/spending | ||||
Land area | ||||
Land conservation | ||||
Land tenure ratio | ||||
Local contex | ||||
Local renewable materials | ||||
Long-term finance schemes | ||||
Minimizing ecological impact | ||||
Natural environment | ||||
Natural growth rate | ||||
Percentage of households with public water supply coverage | ||||
Politics | ||||
Pollution innovation | ||||
Proportion of green spaces housing | ||||
Quality | ||||
Recycling and innovation | ||||
Reduce light pollution | ||||
Reduced environmental footprint | ||||
Reuse of materials | ||||
Site waste management | ||||
Solar radiation | ||||
Total CO2 emissions | ||||
Use of biodegradable materials | ||||
Use of natural topography | ||||
Ventilation and moisture control systems | ||||
Water pollution and noise pollution prevention | ||||
Annual rainfall | ||||
Rainwater and maximization of green areas | ||||
Air quality monitoring | ||||
Air quality and mechanical ventilation | ||||
Temperature during summer season | ||||
Water quality | ||||
Planning | Distance to basic services | |||
Quality of urban landscape | ||||
Innovation in different aspects of the urban context | ||||
Proximity to land use destinations | ||||
Design and quality of public space | ||||
Distance between home and daily activities (business, schools, health centers) | ||||
Percentage of city population living in slums | ||||
Green area (hectares) per 100,000 population | ||||
People | ||||
Encourage use of local resources | ||||
Proportion of buildings certified by an environmental quality sign | ||||
Participation/inclusiveness | ||||
Influence airflow | ||||
Energy use | ||||
Anthropogenic heat emissions | ||||
Pollution | ||||
Consideration of weather conditions to design the city | ||||
Exceedance of air quality standards in urban areas | ||||
Energy | Infrastructure energy efficiency | |||
Percentage of total end-use energy generated on-site | ||||
Centralized energy management | ||||
Percentage of total primary energy | ||||
Primary energy demand for heating | ||||
Residential/individual energy consumption | ||||
Energy consumption of public buildings per year | ||||
Solar shading | ||||
Materials shading | ||||
Sociality | Sustainable behaviors | |||
Involvement demographics | ||||
Social inclusive communities | ||||
Connected communities | ||||
Community cohesion | ||||
Local social vitality | ||||
Local lifestyle | ||||
Education/empowerment | ||||
Schools | ||||
Health and safety courses | ||||
Awareness schemes | ||||
Medical facilities | ||||
Public participation | ||||
Equity/fairness | ||||
Neighborhood safety | ||||
Crime prevention | ||||
Police stations | ||||
Availability and proximity of key local public services | ||||
Access to recreation facilities | ||||
Availability of local food production | ||||
Early childhood education level | ||||
Cultural Values Preservation | ||||
Structural optimization | ||||
Trend reduction in population exposure to flood risk | ||||
Availability of green areas | ||||
Percentage of open/green public areas 29 Number of trees/Kilometer urban road | ||||
Distance to basic services | ||||
Aging index | ||||
Housing area per capita | ||||
Residential area | ||||
Quality of urban landscape | ||||
Lighting and security control | ||||
Unemployment rate (the registered urban unemployment rate) (Poverty) | ||||
Proportion of green spaces housing | ||||
Total population | ||||
Working age population/elderly population | ||||
Population growth and migration | ||||
Citizens’ satisfaction with public services | ||||
Mobilize civil society to communicate and raise awareness about SDGs goals | ||||
Energy payback time (EPBT) | ||||
Trend reduction in population exposure to flood risk | ||||
Trasport | Access to public transport (PT) stops | |||
Distance between home and daily activities (business, schools, health centers) | ||||
Traffic accessibility | ||||
Kilometers of high capacity public transport system per 100,000 population | ||||
Travel time | ||||
The detour factor | ||||
Public | ||||
Specific emphasis on household-level ICT infrastructure access | ||||
Use of smart/innovative air-quality control technologies | ||||
Distance to basic services | ||||
Waste | Proportion of construction and demolition waste (CDW) treated by an authorized waste manager | |||
Ratio of waste emergy outputs to renewable natural resources emergy input | ||||
Waste management | ||||
Percentage of the city’s solid waste that is disposed of in a sanitary landfill | ||||
Use of systems to reuse/treat wastewater |
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. |
© 2025 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
Guarini, M.R.; Ghiani, G.; Sica, F.; Tajani, F. Which Minimum Indicator Set of Sustainability May Be Utilized in Urban Assessments? Meta-Evidence Gained Through a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073221
Guarini MR, Ghiani G, Sica F, Tajani F. Which Minimum Indicator Set of Sustainability May Be Utilized in Urban Assessments? Meta-Evidence Gained Through a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7):3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073221
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuarini, Maria Rosaria, Giulia Ghiani, Francesco Sica, and Francesco Tajani. 2025. "Which Minimum Indicator Set of Sustainability May Be Utilized in Urban Assessments? Meta-Evidence Gained Through a Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 17, no. 7: 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073221
APA StyleGuarini, M. R., Ghiani, G., Sica, F., & Tajani, F. (2025). Which Minimum Indicator Set of Sustainability May Be Utilized in Urban Assessments? Meta-Evidence Gained Through a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(7), 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073221