The Nexus of Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form Parameters as a Common Basis for Evaluating Sustainability in Urban Forms
Abstract
1. Introduction
- How can the evaluation of sustainable urban forms be carried out through urban morphology?
- To what extent can a typo-morphological approach contribute to assessing sustainability in urban forms?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Urban Morphology
2.2. Typo-Morphology
2.3. Classification and Basic Units of Typo-Morphological Description
2.4. Sustainable Urban Form and Its Parameters
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
2.4.1. Efficiency
2.4.2. Integrity
2.4.3. Responsibility
2.4.4. Acceptability
- -
- Pride or sense of place: This considers the community’s sense and is linked to social order, participatory norms, and the culture of the community, including interactions with neighboring areas [47]. It involves a shared belief among members that their needs will be met through their commitment to community cohesiveness [48]. This aspect strongly correlates with the physical aspects of the built environment and structures, influencing social interactions with these physical elements and thereby enhancing social sustainability through its impact on people’s satisfaction.
- -
- Social interaction within the community: The established connections between urban structure and social communication and systems are crucial for improving social sustainability. This involves social associations, including trust and the strength of connections within systems and commitments to shared aspirations [49].
- -
- Safety: This parameter is a fundamental element in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [50] and is integral to social sustainability [51]. It relates to improving building materials, stable structures, and safe design [52]. Feeling secure and safe contributes to social sustainability. Living in a safe neighborhood, where there are no fears from neighbors, has been identified as a preference [53]. The sense of safety enhances trust, reciprocity between neighbors, and fosters a strong sense of place in a community.
- -
- Satisfaction: Satisfaction addresses basic needs and resource access. On an individual level, it aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, encompassing physiological needs like health, water, food, and safety. On a social level, it involves relationships, reciprocal respect, and confidence, while on the self-actualization level for both individuals and society, it includes morality and creativity [54].
2.4.5. Liveliness
2.4.6. Equity
3. Representative Instance
3.1. Methodology
3.2. Analytical Tools
4. Analysis and Findings
- -
- The degrees of freedom (DF), both between the groups and within the groups, were calculated to determine the ‘F-critical’ value. The DF between the groups was found to be 31, and the DF within the groups was 192, resulting in a total DF of 223. Utilizing these key values, the ‘F-critical’ value was determined to be 1.511, obtained either from tables or through calculation.
- -
- The sum of squares (SS) was computed, encompassing SS total, SS within, and SS between, yielding values of 4727.35, 4584.64, and 141.71, respectively.
- -
- Variance between and within the groups was determined by calculating the mean square (MS) between and within. The mean squares were derived from the sum of squares and the degrees of freedom between and within the groups. Consequently, the MS between groups was calculated to be 4.57, while the MS within groups was determined to be 23.88.
- -
- Based on the foregoing results, the F-value was calculated using MS between and MS within, resulting in an F-value of 0.192.
- -
- Comparing the ‘F critical’ value of 1.511 with the calculated F-value of 0.192, it is evident that the assessment results and the answers from the 32 participants are similar and not in the critical region. This is because the F-critical value (1.511) exceeds the calculated F-value (0.192). Therefore, the one-way ANOVA results indicate the failure to reject the hypothesis of similarity in the answers or assessments of the academicians regarding the influence of each unit in the typo-morphological classification on sustainability in urban form.
- -
- The degrees of freedom (DF) between the groups was 31 and within the groups was 160, resulting in a total DF of 191. The ‘F-critical’ value was determined to be 1.52. The sum of squares (SS) total, SS within, and SS between were found to be 2732.03, 2580.54, and 151.49, respectively. Additionally, the MS between was calculated as 4.89, and the MS within was 16.13. Consequently, the calculated F-value based on the above results was 0.30.
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vinczeová, Z.; Tóth, A. Urban Green Spaces and Collective Housing: Spatial Patterns and Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Residential Development. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, M. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobaraki, B.; Pascual, F.J.C.; Lozano-galant, F.; Lozano-galant, J.A.; Porras, R. In situ U-value measurement of building envelopes through continuous low-cost monitoring. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2023, 43, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadon, S. Basic concepts of urban design—A research review. ITPI J. 2007, 4, 70–72. [Google Scholar]
- Mobaraki, B.; Castilla, F.J.P.; Martínez, A.; Alonso, C.; Mascaraque, M.B.F.V. Studying the impacts of test condition and nonoptimal positioning of the sensors on the accuracy of the in-situ U-value measurement. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moudon, A.V. Getting to Know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology; Franck, K.A., Schneekloth, L.H., Eds.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Nikoofam, M.; Hoşkara, Ş. Assessing the Consolidation of Equity in the Urban Environment: Proposing Design Strategies by Using a Systematic Process. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2022, 148, 04022042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soriano, R.P.; Mobaraki, B.; Lozano-Galant, J.A.; Sanchez-Cambronero, S.; Muñoz, F.P.; Gutierrez, J.J. New Image Recognition Technique for Intuitive Understanding in Class of the Dynamic Response of High-Rise Buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conzen, M.R.G. Thinking About Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932-1998/M.R.G. Conzen; Conzen, M.P., Ed.; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kropf, K. Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban Morphol. 2014, 18, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliyar, A.K.; Major, M.D.; Tannous, H.O.; Al-Esmail, F.R.A. Urban form and real estate value in Msheireb Downtown Doha, Qatar. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2023, 7, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osmond, P. An Enquiry into New Methodologies for Evaluating Sustainable Urban. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2008. Available online: https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/bitstreams/07f73aaf-6008-4f5f-b264-b53eeafbf1fb/download (accessed on 9 August 2020).
- Jacoby, S. Oswald Mathias Ungers: Dialectical principles of design. J. Archit. 2018, 23, 1230–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Güney, Y.Đ. Type and Typology in Architectural Discourse. BAÜ FBE Derg. 2007, 9, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
- Rossi, A.; Ghirardo, D.Y.; Ockman, J.; Eisenman, P. The Architecture of the City; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, S.A.; Harun, N.Z.; Abdullah, A. TYPO-MORPHOLOGY AS AN APPROACH FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE EARLY MALAY TOWNS (TIPO-MORFOLOGI SEBAGAI SATU PENDEKATAN DALAM ASPEK PEMELIHARAAN BANDAR MELAYU AWAL). ASIAN J. Environ. Hist. Herit. 2017, 1, 143–154. Available online: https://spaj.ukm.my/ajehh/index.php/ajehh/article/view/39 (accessed on 14 March 2025).
- Oliveira, V. The History of ISUF and Urban Morphology. Urban B Ser. Part F 2024, 3149, 3–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palazzo, P.P. The Death and Life of ‘Operative’ History: Dialogues between the Historiography and Theory of Architecture and Urbanism in Contemporary Italy. In Proceedings of the EAHN 6th International Meeting, Edinburgh, UK, 2–5 June 2021; p. 335. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/69260988/The_Death_and_Life_of_Operative_History_Dialogues_between_the_Historiography_and_Theory_of_Architecture_and_Urbanism_in_Contemporary_Italy (accessed on 4 April 2024).
- Cataldi, G.; Maffei, G.L.; Vaccaro, P. Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphol. 2002, 6, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caniggia, G.; Maffei, G.L. Architectural Composition and Building Typology: Interpreting Basic Building; Alinea Editrice: Firenze, Italy, 2001; p. 252. Available online: https://books.google.com/books/about/Architectural_Composition_and_Building_T.html?id=d0ggTlYc4rwC (accessed on 4 March 2024).
- Stojanovski, T.; Östen, A. TYPO-MORPHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION OF URBAN SPACE, ISUF2018. 2019. Available online: https://elib.sfu-kras.ru/handle/2311/111758 (accessed on 14 November 2024).
- Batty, M. A Research Programme for Urban Morphology. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1999, 26, 475–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kropf, K. Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphol. 2009, 13, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowther, P. Morphological analysis of the city for achieving design for disassembly. In Proceedings of theSustainable City 2025, Ancona, Italy, 16–18 September; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moudon, A.V. Urban Morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol. 1997, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osmond, P. The urban structural unit: Towards a descriptive framework to support urban analysis and planning. Urban Morphol. 2010, 14, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, P.S.; Woodward, S.A. Morphogenetic analysis of architectural elements within the townscape. Urban Morphol. 2015, 19, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durmisevic, E.; Yeang, K. Designing for disassembly (DfD). Archit. Des. 2009, 79, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; De Paola, P. Rethinking Design and Urban Planning for the Cities of the Future. Buildings 2017, 7, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rickaby, P.A. Energy and urban development in an archetypal English town. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1991, 18, 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richert, E.D.; Lapping, M.B. Ebenezer Howard and the garden city. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1998, 64, 125–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruggerio, C.A. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leitman, J. Sustaining Cities: Environmental Planning and Management in Urban Design; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Girardet, H. The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Urban Living; Gaia Books Ltd.: London, UK, 1993; p. 191. [Google Scholar]
- Biswas, M.H.A.; Dey, P.R.; Islam, M.S.; Mandal, S. Mathematical model applied to green building concept for sustainable cities under climate change. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2022, 6, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moughtin, C.; Shirley, P. Urban Design: Green Dimensions; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 1–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenks, M.; Burgess, R.; Williams, K. The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? E. & F.N. Spon: Oxford, UK, 1996; Available online: https://scispace.com/pdf/the-compact-city-a-sustainable-urban-form-33t42o1qsp.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2024).
- Guy, S.; Marvin, S. Models and Pathways: The Diversity of Sustainable Urban Futures; Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breheny, M.J. Sustainable Development and Urban Form; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pifko, H. Parameters of the Sustainability of Settlement Development. J. Archit. Town Plan. Theory 1998, XXXII, 91–101. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, F. Indicating ecosystem and landscape organisation. Ecol. Indic. 2005, 5, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shathy, S.T.; Reza, M.I.H. Sustainable cities: A proposed environmental integrity index (EII) for decision making. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 226238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortelezzi, A.; Barranquero, R.S.; Marinelli, C.B.; Juan, M.R.F.S.; Cepeda, R.E. Environmental diagnosis of an urban basin from a social–ecological perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerario, A.; Di Turi, S. Sustainable Urban Tourism: Reflections on the Need for Building-Related Indicators. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zoabi, A.Y.; Jarrar, O.M. A Sustainable City Paradigm: Criteria and Indicators of Efficiency. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 204, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzoni, I.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 2007, 17, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kearns, A.; Forrest, R. Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 995–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMillan, D.; Chavis, D. Sense of community: A definition and theory. J. Community Psychol. 1986, 14, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobaraki, A.; Vehbi, B.O. A Conceptual Model for Assessing the Relationship between Urban Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maslow, A.H. The Instinctoid Nature of Basic Needs1. J. Pers. 1954, 22, 326–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burton, E. The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 1969–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nalewaik, A.; Venters, V. Cost benefits of building green. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2010, 38, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaftoe, H.; Turksen, U.; Lever, J.; Williams, S.J. Dealing with terrorist threats through a crime prevention and community safety approach. Crime Prev. Community Saf. 2007, 9, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Åhman, H. Social sustainability—Society at the intersection of development and maintenance. Local Environ. 2013, 18, 1153–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valipoor, N.; Dehkordi, K.S. Prioritizing Effective Factors on Liveliness and Improvement of the Urban Life Caused by the Development of Green Spaces with the Attraction-Repulsion Pattern. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2016, 10, p90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minnery, J.R. Urban Form and Development Strategies: Equity, Environmental and Economic Implications; Australian Government Pub. Service: Canberra, Australia, 1992; p. 125. [Google Scholar]
- Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies; models; concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, P. Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikoofam, M.; Mobaraki, A. Assessment of quality of life in the urban environment; case study: Famagusta, N. Cyprus. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2020, 8, 860–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, G.; Yao, X.; Fan, Q. Agglomeration centrality examination of cities: An urban transport perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, B.; Claramunt, C. Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crucitti, P.; Latora, V.; Porta, S. Centrality measures in spatial networks of urban streets. Phys. Rev. E—Stat. Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys. 2006, 73, 036125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, S.M. Planning for metropolitan sustainability. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2000, 20, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seto, K.C.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L.R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16083–16088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacione, M. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing: A social geographical perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samaniego, H.; Moses, M.E. Cities as organisms: Allometric scaling of urban road networks. J. Transp. Land Use 2008, 1, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, B.; Liu, C. Street-based topological representations and analyses for predicting traffic flow in GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 23, 1119–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeing, G. Urban Spatial Order: Street Network Orientation, Configuration, and Entropy. Appl. Netw. Sci. 2019, 4, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manesh, V.; Zanni, F. Integrated Sustainable Urban Design: Neighbourhood design proceeded by sustainable urban morphology emergence. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 155, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhagwat, J.M. Planning for a sustainable compact city: A way forward. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 241, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
- Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahbarianyazd, R. Typo-morphological analysis as a method for physical revitalization: The case of Famagusta’s residential district. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism—ICCAUA 2020, Alanya, Turkey, 6–8 May 2020; Volume 3, pp. 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, S. An area structure approach to morphological representation and analysis. Urban Morphol. 2015, 19, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dieleman, F.; Wegener, M. Compact City and Urban Sprawl. Built Environ. 2004, 30, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobaraki, B.; Ma, H.; Galant, J.A.L.; Turmo, J. Structural Health Monitoring of 2D Plane Structures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delice, A. The Sampling Issues in Quantitative Research. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2002, 10, 2001–2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mobaraki, B.; Vaghefi, M. Effect of the soil type on the dynamic response of a tunnel under surface detonation. Combust. Explos. Shock Waves 2016, 52, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Y.; van Nes Nes, A. Quantitative Tools in Urban Morphology: Combining Space Syntax, Spacematrix and Mixed-Use Index in a GIS Framework. Urban Morphol. 2014, 18, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dibble, J.L. Urban Morphometrics: Towards a Quantitative Science of Urban Form. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaghefi, M.; Mobaraki, B. Evaluation of the Effect of Explosion on the Concrete Bridge Deck Using LS-DYNA. Int. Rev. Civ. Eng. 2021, 12, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobaraki, B.; Vaghefi, M. The Effect of Protective Barriers on the Dynamic Response of Underground Structures. Buildings 2024, 14, 3764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepratto, F.; Zanotto, F. Towards Biodiverse Urban Public Spaces: A Morphological Study in Milan. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2024, 8, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mobaraki, B.; Komarizadehasl, S.; Pascual, F.J.C.; Lozano-Galant, J.-A. Application of Low-Cost Sensors for Accurate Ambient Temperature Monitoring. Buildings 2022, 12, 1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseinzadehfard, E.; Mobaraki, B. Investigating concrete durability: The impact of natural pozzolan as a partial substitute for microsilica in concrete mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 419, 135491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Material | Bricks, slabs, beams, concrete, construction materials. | Micro |
Structure | Masonry walls, timber walls, assembly of roofs. | |
Room | Encompassing lift walls, corridors, and stairway. | |
Building | Raw house, semi-detached, detached buildings, commercial buildings, etc. | |
Plot | Cadastral zone with one or more than one building. | |
Street | Involving groups of plats, squares, and city blocks. | |
City | Town or city. | Macro |
Typo-Morphology Framework | Material | Structure | Room | Building | Plot | Street | City | Scores of Each Indicator | Scores for Each Parameter | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainable Urban Form Parameters | ||||||||||
Efficiency | Building Material | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 19 |
Building Design | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 6 | ||
Transportation System | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.5 | ||
Building Maintenance | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 3.5 | ||
Integrity | Visual Integrity | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 16 |
Structural Integrity | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
Functional Integrity | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
Responsibility | Technical | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 13 |
Social | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.5 | ||
Institutional | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | ||
Acceptability | Pride/sense of Place | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 | 19.5 |
Interaction with Group | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3.5 | ||
Safety | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 | ||
Satisfaction and Stability | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
Liveliness | Ecological | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5.5 | 10 |
Social | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.5 | ||
Equity | Public Transport | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 13 |
Job Opportunities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 2 | ||
Affordable Housing | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | ||
Access to Services | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
TOTAL SCORES | 7 | 7.5 | 8 | 15.5 | 16.5 | 17 | 19 |
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
Mobaraki, A.; Nikoofam, M.; Mobaraki, B. The Nexus of Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form Parameters as a Common Basis for Evaluating Sustainability in Urban Forms. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093967
Mobaraki A, Nikoofam M, Mobaraki B. The Nexus of Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form Parameters as a Common Basis for Evaluating Sustainability in Urban Forms. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):3967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093967
Chicago/Turabian StyleMobaraki, Abdollah, Mojdeh Nikoofam, and Behnam Mobaraki. 2025. "The Nexus of Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form Parameters as a Common Basis for Evaluating Sustainability in Urban Forms" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 3967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093967
APA StyleMobaraki, A., Nikoofam, M., & Mobaraki, B. (2025). The Nexus of Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form Parameters as a Common Basis for Evaluating Sustainability in Urban Forms. Sustainability, 17(9), 3967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093967