A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design

1

Cite this article as:

Raed Fawzi Mohammed Ameen, Monjur Mourshed, Haijiang Li, A critical review

of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design, Environmental

Impact Assessment Review, Volume 55, 2015, Pages 110-125, ISSN 0195-9255,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006

A critical review of environmental assessment tools

for sustainable urban design

Raed Fawzi Mohammed Ameena,b,*, Monjur Moursheda,1, Haijiang Lia,2

a BRE Centre of Sustainable Construction, School of Engineering, The parade, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA,

United Kingdom. b Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Karbala, Iraq

* Corresponding author at: 14-17 the parade, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected]

Abstract:

Cities are responsible for the depletion of natural resources and agricultural lands, and

70% of global CO2 emissions. There are significant risks to cities from the impacts of

climate change in addition to existing vulnerabilities, primarily because of rapid

urbanization. Urban design and development are generally considered as the instrument

to shape the future of the city and they determine the pattern of a city’s resource usage

and resilience to change, from climate or otherwise. Cities are inherently dynamic and

require the participation and engagement of their diverse stakeholders for the effective

management of change, which enables wider stakeholder involvement and buy-in at

various stages of the development process. Sustainability assessment of urban design and

development is increasingly being seen as indispensable for informed decision-making. A

sustainability assessment tool also acts as a driver for the uptake of sustainable pathways

by recognizing excellence through their rating system and by creating a market demand

for sustainable products and processes. This research reviews six widely used

sustainability assessment tools for urban design and development: BREEAM

Communities, LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, SBToolPT–UP, Pearl Community Rating System

(PCRS) and GSAS/QSAS, to identify, compare and contrast the aim, structure,

assessment methodology, scoring, weighting and suitability for application in different

Ameen et al. (2015) A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006 2

geographical contexts. Strengths and weaknesses of each tool are critically discussed.

The study highlights the disparity in local and international contexts for global sustainability

assessment tools. Despite their similarities in aim on environmental aspects, differences

exist in the relative importance and share of mandatory vs optional indicators in both

environmental and social dimensions. PCRS and GSAS/QSAS are new incarnations, but

have widely varying shares of mandatory indicators, at 45.4% and 11.36% respectively,

compared to 30% in BREEAM Community. Considerations of economic and cultural

aspects are only marginal in the reviewed sustainability assessment tools. However, the

newly developed sustainability assessment tools such as GSAS/QSAS and PCRS diverge

from their predecessors in their consideration of cultural aspects.

Keywords: Urban design; Sustainability assessment tools; Environmental assessment method

1. Introduction

Due to rapid urbanization, more than 50% of the world's population now live in cities (Tartaglia et

al. 2014) and by the year 2050 the figure will increase to 69% of the global population (Shen et al.

2011; UN 2014) as shown in Figure 1. Existing cities are responsible for the depletion of natural

resources and agricultural lands, as well as contributes to more than 70% of global CO2 emissions

(FAO 2011). Cities of all sizes are drivers of economic growth for their respective regions and

countries. They continue to influence the demand for natural resources and energy derived from

fossil fuels. The intrinsic inertia in global energy infrastructures implies that the dependency on

fossil fuels is set to rise in the short term, before the policies for phase-out start to have a real

impact. The majority of the increase in energy demand is estimated to come from the emerging

economies, particularly India, China and the Middle East (IEA 2013), coinciding with increasing in

urbanization rate and population density in developing countries. Figure 2 illustrates the trend in

urbanization in developing countries, projected to rise from 46% in 2010 to 63% in 2050, with

corresponding increases in population density, which is expected to double over the next three

decades (Huang 2010) as shown in Figure 3. Urbanization and population density are suggested

as the key determinants that will shape the future of 21st century cities (Suzuki et al. 2010). There

is, therefore, an urgent need to find effective solutions for new and existing urban areas to mitigate

the impacts of climate change, and to achieve a balance between various dimensions of

sustainability (Siemens 2012; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).

1.1 Need for urban sustainability

Since its inception, sustainability has primarily been an ecological concept (Drexhage and Murphy

2010). However, during the course of its evolution, the scope of urban sustainable development

has widened to incorporate economic and social dimensions, primarily due to the increasing body




of knowledge on the impact of urban form (e.g. density, land- use, urban layouts) on a range of

sustainability indicators (Cooper and Boyko 2010), as well as to address societal urban practices

linked with sustainability dimensions that result in undesirable urban trends (Basiago 1998).

Figure 1: Historical and projected urban and rural population percentage of the world 1960- 2050. Data source: (Worldbank 2014)

Figure 2: Historical and projected rate of urbanization in developed and developing countries. Data source: (UN 2014)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

Urban Rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Urb

an

pop

ula

tion

Developed Developing




Figure 3: Historical and projected population density in developed and developing countries 1950- 2050. Data source: (UN 2014)

The impact of built cultural heritage on the social wellbeing of different population groups living

within increasingly cosmopolitan towns and cities has also been recognised as an important

dimension of sustainability (Tweed and Sutherland 2007), bringing the constituent dimensions to

four: environmental, economic, social and cultural.

The dimensions of urban sustainability are characterised by a large number of indicators. Xing et

al. (2007) ) identified over 600 relevant indicators of urban sustainability. Similar conclusions have

been reached by Zhou et al. (2012) to build a framework comprising 141 urban indicators for

sustainability assessment of Chinese cities. In addition to the challenges of having to consider the

large number of indicators for urban sustainability, the inter-dependence of the indicators brings

about further challenges for implementation, in particular when the increase in performance in one

indicator results in a corresponding decrease in performance in another. The method of

reconciliation of inter-dependent indicators from different dimensions is, therefore, the key in

achieving urban sustainability. As a result, the need for a comprehensive and integrated framework

for urban sustainability assessment has been emphasized by researchers, as opposed to the

stand-alone considerations of the influence of the cities variables on urban sustainability and its

constituent dimensions (Adinyira et al. 2007; Ameen et al. 2014; Castanheira and Braganca 2014).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

De

nsity (

pers

on k

m2)

Developed Developing




The building of sustainability assessment tools has been launched and used over two decades

globally and characterized to assess sustainability for building components such as: energy, water,

waste, infrastructure, etc. (Bragança et al. 2010). Despite its importance and role in environmental

assessment, the sustainability assessment process for building without the environment that they

contain don’t represent an inclusive option.

Therefore, urban sustainability assessment methods (USAM) have the potential to assist in

achieving a balance between the needs of human and the environment, thus, improving the quality

of life and the economic competitiveness of the urban area. The success of (USAM) depends on

urban design elements being part of the sustainable development process (Pucci et al. 2011) and

the prospects of dealing with urban problems in the long term. In addition, sustainability assessment

methods promote sustainable urbanization and enable governments and international institutions

to achieve an optimum value of urban sustainability (Shen et al. 2011). Moreover, it encourages

active participation and engagement among diverse stakeholders in an urban area for effective

change management and stakeholder buy–in at various stages of the development process. Due

to the formalised nature of sustainability assessment tools they offer a defined set of objectives

and has the potential to contribute to evidence based decision–- making (Turcu 2013).

1.2 Development of urban sustainability assessment methods

Sustainability is a multi-interpretations and definitions concept (Bond et al. 2012a). Despite the

multiple definitions of sustainability, the Brundtland’s definition “The development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs” (UN 1987) remains the most inclusive (CIDA 2012), and has enabled politicians, decision-

makers, stakeholders, sociologists, economists, urban planners and architects to understand

environmental impacts together with the social and economic effects of projects (Poveda and

Lipsett 2011). Despite its apparent breadth, the Brundtland’s definition of sustainability can be seen

as very succinct in its scope, as it encompasses the human need together with environmental,

social and economic issues. Hence, the definition serves as the basis for emerging urban

sustainability assessment methods.

Despite a relatively short history, building sustainability assessment methods have attracted the

attention and interest of the academia (Haapio 2012) and industry (Jose et al. 2006). One of the

criticisms levelled against building assessment methods is that they are not particularly suitable for

assessing sustainability of an urban area/neighbourhood or even a group of buildings (Carmen and

Bruno 2014). The reason being that individual assessment of buildings and later synthesis does

not adequately reflect the complex interaction between the city and its various components such

as population, neighbourhoods, mobility and transportation, open spaces, water management,

energy consumption, diversity of geography, air quality, waste management, etc. The integration




of these component parts represents the foundations of the sustainability assessment of urban

development (CIDA 2012; Gil and Duarte 2013; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).

A myriad of assessment methods are available; e.g. life-cycle assessment (LCA), sustainable-cities

indices, sustainability-assessment projects, assessment frameworks, rating-system methods and

certification systems (Paranagamage et al. 2010; Joss 2012; Gil and Duarte 2013), all with varying

resolution, scope and application areas. During the last decade, a number of well-known

international assessment tools have been developed and some have expanded the scale of

assessment from buildings to urban development (Sharifi and Murayama 2013, 2014). For

example, Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment (CASBEE) for buildings was

developed in 2001, which was later expanded for urban development in 2007. Similar

developments can also be seen in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for

neighborhood development (LEED-- ND in 2009), Estiadma Pearl Community Rating System

(Pearl Community in 2010), BRE Environmental assessment methods for communities (BREEAM

Communities in 2011), and Sustainable Building Tool in Portugal for urban projects (SBToolPT –

UP in 2014). The Global/Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS/ QSAS), on the other

hand, emerged in 2010 as a suite of assessment tools for buildings, as well as, for urban

development since its inception.

1.3 Pluralism in sustainability assessment

Trends in the development of urban sustainability assessment tools and methods have mostly been

context specific; i.e. rooted to the location and contexts they were originally developed for. Contexts

are more important for assessing sustainability of urban designs than standalone buildings,

primarily due to their interrelationships with wider urban social, technical and environmental factors.

Despite being anchored to specific contexts, most tools allow for some levels of pluralistic

interpretations of urban sustainability at both local and global (Bond et al. 2012b). Some of the

widely acknowledged assessment tools have been used in regional and international contexts with

mixed results. Concerns have been raised as to their effectiveness in considering: (a) the variations

in the impact of sustainability indicators between regions and countries, and (b) local variations in

the decision-making process (Shen et al. 2011; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).

1.4 Convergence vs divergence

Sustainability assessment is an interdisciplinary concept, as it deals with a wide range of indicators

that determine how successful proposed/implemented strategies and policies are in achieving

urban sustainability goals (Dawson et al. 2014). Urban sustainability is characterised by increasing

mutual interactions between local and global processes (Munda 2001), which is reflected in the

selection and relative importance of indicators. The indicators in most assessment tools, therefore,

can be grouped into two: common and local urban indicators, that reflect local and international

priorities for urban sustainability.




However, there is no specific list of indicators exists that suits all countries, regions and

communities (Ugwu and Haupt 2007). Figure 4 illustrates convergence vs divergence in four

selected urban sustainability assessment tools: BREEAM Co., LEED- ND, Pearl Community and

GSAS/QSAS. Some indicators such as: energy, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions

have international importance and are still used as common indicators in all assessment methods.

These common aspects are essential for monitoring the process of sustainable urbanization in

order that it does not remain as an abstract concept (Shen et al. 2011; CIDA 2012), while providing

the means to benchmark and compare urban development from different contexts. Comparable

indicators are also important because they allow cities to share a common goal, replicate

successful measures and to reflect the convergence among sustainability assessment tools. On

the other hand, the local issues can be significant for specific contexts. For example: water

(availability and quality) is considered as a significant measure in the Middle East, due to its rarity,

and because of the prevalence of drought (ADUPC 2010b). Consequently, both Pearl Community

and GSAS/QSAS have placed significant importance on water in contrast to the other indicators.

Similarly, natural hazards can be of significance in some coastal countries and regions. The

inclusion of most important local urban challenges in sustainability assessment; i.e. divergence

from the global is as important as the convergence of common indicators.

Figure 4: Convergence vs divergence of urban indicators for selected sustainability assessment

tools

1.5 Study aim and structure

0

5

10

15

20

25

BREEAM Co. LEED- ND PEARLS CO. QSAS

We

igh

tin

g r

ate

of in

dic

ato

rs

Ecology Resources and energy

Water quality Natural hazards

Urban space Community involvement

Business and investment Sustainable Buildings




Emerging divergence and pluralism in the inclusion and weighting of sustainability indicators in the

recently developed assessment tools prompted this investigation with the aim of identifying the

areas and magnitude of divergence. Internationally acknowledged assessment tools are critically

reviewed in terms of structure, general characteristics, criteria, strengths, weaknesses, weighting,

scoring, and certification. Contextual assessment regarding the similarities and differences is

conducted to draw up a list of common criteria under the heading of key sustainability dimensions:

environmental, economic, social and cultural. The critical review of convergence vs divergence in

sustainability indicators and pluralism presented in this research is anticipated to provide directions

for future development.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, the methodology adopted in this study is

discussed, followed by a comparison of selected assessment tools according to: key

characteristics, organizational structure, assessment scope, rating methods and inclusion of

indicators. The discussion focuses on the similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses of

each tool. The following section investigates the relationship between the elements of urban design

and the dimensions of sustainability, while assessing the effectiveness of the tools in assessing

urban design elements. Concluding remarks focussing on the directions for future development, in

light of the research findings are presented in the end.

2 Methodology

The study presents a comparative analysis of methodology among different practices and purposes

for six global sustainability assessment tools of urban development to allow for better

understanding of the drivers and goals of each practice. The study also highlights the special

circumstances in which various assessment tools selected their list of indicators and categorized

them according to the following sustainability dimensions: environmental, economic, social and

cultural. Also, the comparative analysis of methodology aims to select different practices that have

used different types of criteria and indicators that can lead to knowledge sharing among many

practices to develop new plans and policies of urban sustainability. This will also help to improve

the process of decision- making by selecting a list of comprehensive urban indicators that are

transferable developing new plans of urban development, and as a part of improving the effective

communication between the global assessment tools.

The study explains how to select of list of indicators and reveals the selection process according

to the importance of indicators based on qualitative analysis and the benchmarks gained from

sustainability assessment tools. The information gained to describe individual tools and their

complete criteria and indicators list propose to monitor the strength and weak points of each

assessment tool and the demands that can be achieved for urban sustainability assessment.




The study is conducted in three states: sustainability assessment methods overview, selection of

sustainability assessment tools and an analytical comparison of the methodology of sustainability

assessment tools.

2.1 Overview

Despite the short history of their appearance, there are different types of sustainability assessment

methods of urban development, such as, projects, indices, frameworks and tools as shown in Table

1, this refers to the importance of urban sustainability in decision-making processes in planning

and urban design for cities (Bond et al. 2012a). Many methods have been developed for specific

regions and indicators are adopted for assessing in different terms, e.g., categories, criteria and

indicators and according to the spatial- temporal variables. Also, they give a clear perception of

urban elements and important considerations in general policies for different countries

(Moussiopoulos et al. 2010; Tanguay et al. 2010). In the beginning, there was a number of holistic

projects in the urban sustainability assessment domain. These projects were mainly international

initiatives used by several countries and focused on pressing issues internationally (especially

climate change) and encompassed the environment, society and economy aspects of sustainability

(CIDA 2012). For example, The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

emerged in 1990 and provided training, consulting information and props to national governments

in the application of local-sustainable development (Lindseth 2004); Agenda 21, a holistic

voluntarily– implemented action plan on international, national and local levels, presented a global

sustainability of cities and was produced by the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) in 1992 (UN 1992); Aalborg Commitments, which emerged in 1994 in

European cities and towns after Agenda 21, provided a general framework of sustainable

development (Zilans and Abolina 2007); The SUE- MoT project appeared in 2003 as a web-enabled

framework to encourage key decision-makers to assess the urban development systematically by

focusing on different values e.g.: life cycle, scale, project location, context and spatial values

(Edum-Fotwe and Price 2009); DPSIR framework details (Driving forces, Pressures, State of the

Environment, Impacts and Response) were provided for the first time in 1995, and adopted by the

European Environment Agency (Svarstad et al. 2008); The Building Environmental Quality

Evaluation for Sustainability through Time (BEQUEST) was established in three year (1998– 2001)

and was updated in 2001 and provided a general organization map of the toolkit and the

classification for six urban criteria (waste, energy, water, transport, green areas and land use)

(Bentivegna et al. 2002); Creating Innovative Sustainability Pathways (CRISP), a project aimed to

identify potential pathways that will assist the European Union towards the transmission to a

sustainable urban trend and low carbon emissions (Huovila and Jasuja 2005; Emmert et al. 2014);

and Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability (PETUS) aimed to identify evaluation tools




for the sustainability of urban environment in European cities, and emerged in 2003 (Jensen and

Elle 2007).

In recent years, sustainability assessment methods of urban development have become a very

popular research field, especially, CASBEE-- UD, BREEAM and LEED-- ND. Indeed, they have

attracted attention and predated other tools when they expanded their assessment scope of the

individual building to an urban development scale. This made many other tools follow suit such as:

PERALS Community, GSAS/QSAS Neighbourhoods, Earth Craft Communities, DGNB for Urban

Development, Green Star Communities, Green Mark for Districts and SBTool PT- UP (Rahardjati et

al. 2010; Ameen et al. 2014; Castanheira and Braganca 2014; Sharifi and Murayama 2014). The

main reason, according to the analytical study of these tools, reveal its emphasis on environmental

aspects such as consistent energy efficiency, renewable resources and the reduction of carbon

emissions, which attracts the world's attention at the moment.

A number of studies compared urban sustainability assessment tools. Gil and Duarte (2013),

reviewed sustainable urban development evaluation tools focussing on their format, structure,

content and output. Their findings suggest that no tool covered all of the aspects required for urban

design practice and concluded that there was scope for both to develop new tools and further

improve existing ones. Shen et al. (2011), tested different practices and suggested a comparative

basis to understand the drivers and targets for selecting indicators according to the benchmarks

acquired from preferable practices. Sharifi and Murayama (2014), on the other hand, assumed that

sustainability assessment tools have the capability to evolve through learning from their successes

and failures.

Other researchers such as: Jaeger et al. (2010), Moussiopoulos et al. (2010) and Crosbie et al.

(2014) have collected urban sustainability indicators from disparate sources and analysed for

specific countries and regions. Their aim was to understand the drivers behind and targets for the

indicators, as well as the circumstances under which the set of indicators were identified. to develop

and employ a system of indicators as a effective tool for the management of the three main

dimensions: environmental, social and economy in order to assess urban sustainability. Several

attempts have been made the sustainability of four dimensions instead of three. A concept of

institutional sustainable development was introduced as an additional dimension of sustainability

in 1995 by the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and the indicators for institutional

sustainability were suggested by the UN, which focussed on several titles aspects such as: a

participatory political system, non-discriminatory education, social security systems, gender equity

etc. (Spangenberg 2002). Besides, ADUPC (2010a) has added the culture as the fourth dimension

and , considered it as vital to understand the nature of the Middle Eastern countries. Whilst, Shen

et al. (2011) postulated that governance was is critical to ensuring that the benefits of development

by creating opportunities for public participation in decision making; hence should be considered




as the fourth dimension. Nevertheless, the overlap in the dimensions of sustainability often makes

it difficult to segregate their scope and role, and justify their inclusion in a sustainability assessment

scheme/method.

The previous studies did not refer to the specificity and disparities of different assessment tools

dealing with urban sustainability dimensions that affect urban sustainability assessment tools within

different countries and regions, and diversity in indicators that led to the difference of the evaluation

results. The study of the various assessment tools draws attention to different results of examining

different environments, social, economics, cultures and climates.

2.2 Selection of sustainability assessment tools

The six tools are selected for review primarily because they are globally well-known and have

evolved in scope from an individual building to neighbourhood and urban developments, as well as

the public availability of technical documents and guidance, which is a proxy for the level of maturity

these tools has achieved. The selected tools have also been widely adopted in their respective

jurisdictions and in varying contexts. A body of knowledge exists on their usability, applicability and

flexibility. Research projects that does not have an organisational presence in the industry were

excluded as they may not be constrained by the issues related to practical implementation, which

may introduce bias in the findings. Voluntary international initiatives covering sustainability

assessment for a large geographical area such as regions, countries or continents were eliminated

as they seldom deal with physical building forms. Moreover, the selected tools have been a positive

force in pushing the limits of market recognition for sustainability through assessment and

certification. Their potential for impact makes it imperative that these tools are critiqued.

2.2.1 BREEAM Communities

BREEAM was launched in 1990 and has a long track record in the UK by the Building Research

Establishment (BRE). At first, it was concerned with the assessment of buildings (BRE 2013b), and

as the first green buildings assessment method. Then, the scope was extended in 2009 towards

community assessment and sustainable assessment of urban community and called BREEAM

Community. And now, BREEAM have a family of assessment tools versions in respect of region

such as BREEAM Hong Kong, BREEAM Canada and BREEAM International (BRE 2011).

According to the technical manual for BRE (2013b), this version is for local projects in the UK, and

it is not a global assessment tool.

2.2.2 LEED– ND (for neighbourhood development)

In the year 1993, USGBC (United State Green Building Council) designed the first version of LEED,

in order to transform the market for green buildings and then expanded quickly to urban

development assessment. In 2007, the pilot version was launched and developed to include




neighbourhood development (ND) in 2009-2010. It represented the specific version for assessing

sustainability of urban design (USGBC 2011b).

Table 1: Selected urban sustainability assessment projects, indices, frameworks and tools

Type Examples Organization Country/ Region

Context Date*

Projects ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

Europe Global 1990

Agenda 21 United Nation Conference on Environment and Development

UNCED† Global 1992

BEQUEST European Commission (EC) Europe 2001

SUE- Mot SUE- Mot consortium UK Global 2003

Sustainability A- Test EU and national sustainable development partners

Europe Global 2006

Green Cities Programme

The OECD Green Cities Programme

OECD§ Global 2010

Indices Environmental Sustainability Index

Yale University & Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)

Switzerland and Italy

Global 2005

Environmental Performance Index

European Commission Europe Global 2006

ICLEI Star Community Index

Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI)¶

USA Global 2008

Green City Index Siemens ------- Global 2009

Eco- city Development Index System

Chinese Society for Urban Studies China Local 2011

Frameworks Aalborg Commitments European Commission (EC) Europe Global 2003

DPSIR\\ European Environmental Agency (EEA)

Europe Global 2007

Caofeidian Eco- City Tangshan municipality China Local 2008

Eco2 Cities The world bank USA Global 2009

RFSC** European Union Europe Global 2013

Tools PETUS European Commission Europe Global 2003

CASBEE- UD (JaGBC) and (JSBC) †† Japan Local 2007

LEED- ND US Green Building Council USA Local 2009

BREEAM Community BRE/UK UK Local 2009

Smart cities challenge IBM USA Global 2010

GSAS/QSAS Gulf Organization for Research Qatar Local 2010

Green Star Sustainable Communities

Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA)

Australia Local 2012

Notes: * Date of public release. † The agenda was adopted by 178 countries. § 34 OECD member countries. ¶ ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability- USA. \\ DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, State of the Environment, Impacts and Response). ** The Reference Framework for sustainable cities. †† Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) and the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC).




LEED- ND deals with overall urban-design elements commenced from smart-growth principles of

cities, site selection, individual and clusters of buildings, infrastructure and land uses, as well as

interest in the landscape of neighbourhood units (USGBC 2011a). Also, it was used to assess the

sustainability for many urban projects in the United States, and as a global-assessment tool outside

the United States, where it has worked as a guide for developers in England and Germany and

some other countries, as shown in Table 2 (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). Many studies agreed that

BREEAM and LEED as the basis for most assessment rating tools around the world (Reed et al.

2011).

2.2.3 CASBEE- UD (for urban development)

The Japanese Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) is the developer of the environmental

assessment tool for CASBEE as an environmental performance of buildings, after its appearance

in 2001 as a sustainable assessment tool for office buildings. CASBEE-- UD was launched in 2007

as a joint product between the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium and the Japan Green

Building to cover urban development (town and city development) (Reed et al. 2011). Several

generations were represented in CASBEE, e.g. CASBEE new construction, CASBEE existing

buildings, CASBEE renovation projects, and urban development that deals with entire cities,

building components and clusters, multiple functions, in addition to urban spaces and ancillary

spaces. It was designed for external spaces only instead of inside buildings (IBEC 2008).

2.2.4 SBToolPT – UP (for urban development)

SBTool emerged in 1996 under the name GBTool, as an assessment method for individual and

green buildings established by the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment

(iiSBE) in 2005, and the name became SBTool (Ding 2008; Larsson 2012).

Stool PT is one of the important products of SBTool specifically to assess the building sector in

Portugal and started as a building assessment tool to develop local design methods and

construction methodologies.

The sustainability assessment of building is more important than evaluating the groups of buildings.

Hence, the scope was expanded in the development and the assessment scale of sustainability

toward sustainability of urban planning and design. SBToolPT- UP (The Portuguese sustainability

assessment method) appeared as the latest method in the sustainability assessment of cities

(Castanheira and Braganca 2014). The technical manual of SBToolPT- UP or the user guide is not

issued yet.

2.2.5 The Pearl community rating system (PCRS) for Estidama- UAE

Estidama in the Arabic language means ‘’Sustainability’’. The Pearl community rating system was

developed by the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (ADUPC) in 2010 as the first sustainability

assessment tool in the Middle East and linked with Abu Dhabi’s plans for 2030 due to the need of




sustainability assessment for buildings and urban planning and design in the UAE, and specifically,

at a local scale (Madden 2011). PCRS launched the culture as a fourth dimension of sustainability

to give speciality and spatial effect to the assessment process (ADUPC 2010b).

PCRS has been developed from BREEAM and LEED as a method to determine the similarities,

differences, and deficiencies between the two methods and takes in to account the United Arab

Emirates spatial and cultural dimensions. PCRS consist of a unified document for three standards

varying with rating size, including villas, the sustainability assessment of buildings and

communities. It represents a compulsory standard for all buildings and urban planning and design

projects in UAE as a first step to achieve urban sustainability (Elgendy 2014).

2.2.6 GSAS/QSAS Qatar Sustainability Assessment System

The method was developed in 2009 by the Gulf Organization for Research & Development

(GORD), as a collaboration work with T. C. Chen (Centre for Energy Studies and Building

Simulation) at Pennsylvania University in the (USA). Firstly, it emerged under the name QSAS

(Qatar Sustainability Assessment System) and changed to be GSAS (Global Sustainability

Assessment System) (Writer 2009 ).

The oil boom, and a huge expansion in the building and construction sector in the Gulf, created a

need for a classification system and assessment of the buildings and urban development to

decrease negative effects on the environment, and to meet the national and local needs of Qatar.

GSAS/QSAS was developed depending on wide international practices and global assessment of

the sustainability of buildings and the urban environment, by taking into account spatial

characteristics and national considerations (Horr 2013). GSAS/QSAS is taught in Qatar universities

as part of the curriculum to achieve the urban sustainability targets of the city in the future (Ayoubi

2010). Also, it represented a mandatory standard for buildings projects and urban planning

depending on the QCS (Qatar Construction Specification). GSAS also issued the technical manual

for 2013, in addition to a set of assessment manuals for 2013, which included: GSAS Districts,

GSAS Parks, and typologies GSAS Design assessment, GSAS Railways, GSAS Health Care,

Construction Assessment, Technology GSAS Operation Assessment and Commercial &

Residential (Horr 2013).

3 Comparison of sustainability assessment tools

The analytical comparison methodology of six sustainability assessment tools that have been used

different types of criteria and indicators can lead to knowledge sharing among many practices, as

well as help to understand the demands of assessment tools. The sustainability assessment tools

of urban development were compared according to two aspects:




3.1 The key characteristics of the urban assessment tools

The key characteristics of urban tools are presented in Table 2 and aim to highlight the

organizational structure of each tool and its assessment scope, local or global, as well as its

certification patterns. They have been organized by five major categories, namely: the version date,

size and nature of the development that can be assessed, national and global scope, rating system

and rating classification. The comparison clarified the following:

3.1.1 Convergence timeline to emerge

All tools have been developed in close intervals between the year 2007 for a CASBEE-UD up to

2014 for SBTool PT- UP, which is still in the development stage, and this confirms that the subject

of urban sustainability assessment is relatively recent at the global level. Additionally, assessment

tools have received a great amount of attention by the scientific community due to the increasing

number of assessment methods within a short period. (Sharifi and Murayama 2014).

3.1.2 The size of projects that can be assessed

According to Table 2: there are no preconditions to determine the size of the city that wants to

assess its sustainability. The assessment tools deal with small and large cities, whether they have

multiple sectors, or ones with small neighbourhoods with some buildings.

3.1.3 The national or local scope

According to Table 2: all sustainability assessment tools of urban development have been

designed to assess the sustainability of local urban projects.

3.1.4 The international scope

The tools are not implemented at a global level, except for LEED-ND, which has been used to

assess the sustainability of many urban projects outside of the United States, where it has worked

as a guide for developers in Canada, Malaysia, China and South Korea as well as some other

countries. Also, CASBEE- UD was used in Sweden, as shown in Table 2 (Sharifi and Murayama

2015). These tools were applied by their local standards in other countries, and there has been no

mention to make any changes in the indicators, or the assessment patterns, when they have been

used on a global level.

Only BREEAM Communities issued BREEAM Communities Bespoke International (BRE 2013a),

to make the sustainability assessment tools correspond with the global context. Thus, it requires

determining the characteristics of the project and make the required adjustments in accordance

with the local conditions of the project such as, climatic conditions; development and planning

standards; land use pressures across the local area, etc.

BREEAM Communities Bespoke International is a specific version of the assessment projects

outside of the United Kingdom, which represents a contract to study local indicators of the region




to make the necessary adjustment to BREEAM Communities according to the local standards of

the project region. This process has to be repeated for any other kind of project, so it may cause a

waste of time, as well as the high costs that are connected with the assessment of any project.

3.1.5 Rating classification

The rating classification varies between tools, so as to give each tool its own specificity in a way

that is adopted in the assessment as shown in Table 2.

3.2 The structure of the selected assessment tools

Although sustainability assessment tools of urban development have been developed to serve the

same goal, they vary widely in terms of shape, potential, borders, and the application context (Gil

and Duarte 2013). Therefore, the selection of the six tools was based on the similarity in their

organization, components, processes and procedures findings to fulfil the objective comparison

according to common foundations. The general structure of the tools as shown Table 3, comprising

three levels.

3.2.1 Sustainability dimensions

All assessment tools emphasize three interrelated and interconnected dimensions of sustainability:

environment, social and economic, with differing visions of the emphasis on sustainability issues,

according to the specific circumstances and these reflect the nature and quality of indicators that

are expressed for the sustainability dimensions for each tool. It can be seen that some assessment

tools adopted overlap in sustainability dimensions and their indicators to serve multiple purposes

at the same time, e.g., social and economic wellbeing in BREEAM Co., neighborhood patterns and

design & Green infrastructure in LEED-- ND. And also, customizing and minimizing the overlap

refer to strength and importance the dimension and its indicators, e.g.; (Environmental conditions;

Resources and energy; and land used and ecology in BREEAM Communities), (Urban form;

Ecology and biodiversity; energy and water in SPTool PT- UP), (Natural system, Livable

Communities and Precious Water in Pearl community).

Economic, social, or environmental issues are not the only challenges that the world is facing. The

duty of communities promotes the continuity of indigenous local cultures around the world as a

contribution to preserve the identity of different communities. Also, the three- dimensions alone

cannot reflect current society’s complexities. Many voices, such as, Agenda 21, UNESCO, the

World Summit on Sustainable Development, experts and researchers are calling for the inclusion

of culture as one of the sustainable development dimensions, because culture ultimately expresses

and forms the meaning of development and determines how the people behave in different regions

of the world (UCLG 2013).




Culture dimension refers to the issue of community identity and preservation of traditions and to

develop local belief systems and common values of different communities. This issue is implicit in

many of the assessment tools with varying ratios of importance. Several studies attempt to add a

fourth dimension of sustainability to focus on an important issue in a specific region, like the Pearl

community’s attempt to add the culture as a fourth dimension of sustainability (ADUPC 2010b).

The research seeks to support the addition of culture as another dimension of urban sustainability,

provided that it should be reflected clearly in the urban indicators and covered comprehensively

within the assessment tool. This will be examined later in the paper.

3.2.2 Identifying criteria and indicators assessment

Numerous methodological approaches have been taken to assess sustainability of urban

development. Sets of urban indicators have been used as tools for generating relevant and usable

information to increase the database size that is gained from a wide range of sources (Singh et al.

2012). Indicators can be defined as parameters which describe conditions or circumstances of

specific region not directly able to be ascertained. Indicators are also used as a synopsis and can

be synthesized to assess the success and the performing of the evaluation systems. They can

estimate qualitative data and assess quantitative data for different aims, also, used in different

contexts. Therefore, the name of indicators varied (Categories, Main indicators and indicators) as

well as various types of indicators in different urban development fields e.g. energy, water ,waste,

and ecology (Weiland 2006).

Each sustainability assessment tool consists of a list of criteria or indicators associated with aspects

of urban development which need to be evaluated. The criteria generally, have one or several

indicators (Gil and Duarte 2013) as shown in the assessment tools that have been selected in

Table 3. Also, there is a need for a sub-indicator (s) to illustrate the multiple aspects of criteria.

Urban Indicators and sub- indicator(s) are variables related with sustainability elements of urban

development, as well as having specific values and role in the measurement of performance design

(Shen et al. 2011), e.g. :distance of walking between common spaces (open spaces) and

neighbourhood components; the reduction in the impact of noise and the distance between the

home, the work place; etc. Also, they deal with the issues and problems of urban development

within specific regions, e.g., CO2 emissions of transport, natural ventilation, and the use of local

materials. Therefore, two categories of indicators can be distinguished: common indicators for all

assessment tools and particular indicators for specific areas, e.g., Plan 2030 in PEARL Co., flood

risk assessment and floodplain avoidance in BREAM Communities and LEED- ND, and

desertification in GSAS/QSAS. Additionally, there are differences of weighting points and ratios

depending on the importance of indicators in different assessment tools according to the

circumstances of the specific region, e.g. the precious water in Pearl community and QSAS, and

Economic categories in Pearl Community


18

Table 2: Key characteristics of the selected urban design sustainability assessment tools

Categories Sustainability assessment tools of urban design

BREEAM Community LEED- ND CASBEE- UD SBTool PT-UP Pearl community GSAS/QSAS

Version year 2012 2009 2007 2014* 2010 2010†

Size and nature of the development that can be assessed

No limits to the size or nature of the development

No limits, but emphasis on neighbourhoods or parts of neighbourhoods

Minimum: A group of buildings on two or three adjoined plots. Maximum: A combination of tens, hundreds, or thousands of building plots and non-built land such as roads and parks.

No limits, but emphasis on urban scale

No limits, but emphasis on city and enterprises projects

Minimum: A wide range of building typologies. Maximum: city built environment.

Scope

National and local Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Global‡ No§ Yes¶ Yes\\ No No No

Rating method

The final rating is the sum of weighted percentage of credits achieved under each BREEAM section, provided that minimum standards are met for the rating level.

The sum of points gained under different credits, provided that the pre-requisites are met.

Based on the ratio between building environmental quality (Q) and building environmental loadings (L), known as building environmental efficiency (BEE = Q/L).

Not issued All mandatory credits (AMC) need to be met for 1 pearl rating. The subsequent ratings are based on AMC plus the cumulative credit points (TCPP) of the optional indicators.

The credits gathered from the collection points every individual indicator during the assessment process for the project.

Rating classification Unclassified (<30%) Pass (≥30%) Good (≥45%) Very good (≥ 55%) Excellent (≥70%) Outstanding (≥85%)

Certified (40-49) Silver (50-59) Gold (60-79) Platinum (≥80)

Poor (<0.5), ☆

Fairly poor (0.5-1), ☆☆

Good (1-1.5), ☆☆☆

Very good (1.5–3), ☆☆☆☆

Excellent (≥3), ☆☆☆☆☆

Not issued AMC ** = 1 Pearl AMC+ 60 cp = 2 Pearl AMC+ 85 cp = 3 Pearl AMC+ 115 cp = 4 Pearl AMC+ 140 cp = 5 Pearl

X< 0.0††

0.0≤x≤ 0.5, ☆

0.5<x≤1,- ☆☆

1<x≤1.5,- ☆☆☆

1.5<x≤ 2,- ☆☆☆☆

2<x≤2.5,- ☆☆☆☆☆

2.5<x≤ 3,- ☆☆☆☆☆☆

Notes: * No technical manual is available for SBTool PT- UP as of yet. † Updated in 2013. ‡ Represents the claim made by the assessment tools, not the author's assertions. § Guidance for international implementation has been issued in the Bespoke version 2012. ¶ Has been implemented in Canada, Malaysia, China and South Korea. \\ Has been implemented in Sweden. ** All mandatory credits. ††

Certification denied.

19

3.2.3 Rating method

The primary aim of designing and implementing rating systems is to manage environmental, social

and economic impacts of development, as well as to manage stakeholder’s expectations. The other

aim is to provide market recognition of buildings and urban areas with a low environmental impact

(Poveda and Lipsett 2011). Indicators of urban development are evaluated individually and as a

group, to achieve a level of quality for urban region under assessment. The final evaluation provides

flexible values and not fixed numbers (Gil and Duarte 2013). Moreover, the indicators that have been

adopted by assessment tools are resilient according to many variables like, geographical location,

the type of the project, indicators types and according to the topics covered (Trusty 2008).

The weighting ratios or weighting points are shown in Table 3: and are designated depending on the

international and local databases that are available and by using a quantitative multi-criteria analysis

(MCA) to allocate weight to each indicator and then to obtain a final weighted summation. Also, an

analytical hierarchy process (AHP) can be used with some tools like: LEED – ND, and BREEAM

Communites to determine the weights of each category of indicators (IBEC 2008; USGBC 2011a;

BRE 2013b). The process is conducted with the participation of a panel of experts to identify

indicators and to combine the local conditions with global expertise, in addition to a wide involvement

of community through many stages to determine the final findings (Poveda and Lipsett 2011; Shen

et al. 2011; Sharifi and Murayama 2013). It is one of the main differences among the global

sustainability assessment tools because they reflect the local condition to assess sustainability.

4 Discussion and results

The study was focused on the discussion of three main points as follows:

4.1 Indicators list selection

There is unanimity that there is no unified definition of sustainable urban development (Tanguay et

al. 2010). It is difficult to determine a standard number and type of indicators and the application

possibilities. It is a struggle to achieve the target as expressed by Levett (1998). In spite of that,

indicators occupy great significance as contributing to the decision-making process for urban

sustainability projects, starting from the designing concept of the project and through the multiple

phases of the design, construction, implementation, and until the end of the project (Wedding and

Crawford-Brown 2007). Indicators should, therefore, be relevant to sustainable urban design, as well

as being clear, workable, as measurable as possible and show the priorities and objectives of the

local urban environment (Ugwu and Haupt 2007; Behzadfar and Abdi 2013).

The indicators of sustainability assessment tool start from a foundation and be aligned with the main

dimensions of sustainability: economy, environment and society (Moussiopoulos et al. 2010). Table

3 highlights the indicators of the assessment tools that have been selected and that have been widely



used in the local urban sustainability projects, as well as showing the types, varieties and priorities

of indicators, which obviously appear through the weighting points or weighting ratios according to

each tool. Table 3 focused on six aspects:

4.1.1 Global or common indicators

Several indicators were repeated in all global assessment tools explicitly or implicitly, although they

have different weight or points weighting depending on conditions of the local region e.g. energy,

water, waste, transport, sustainable buildings, etc. This indicators represent as main indicators as

shown in Table 3 and for instance, in BREEAM Co.; resources and energy; transport and movement;

in LEED- ND: green infrastructure and buildings, in CASBEE- UD: natural environment, social

infrastructure, in SBTool PT-UP, land use and infrastructure, energy, water, material and wastes and

transport and mobility, in Pearl community, liveable buildings, precious water and resourceful energy,

and in GSAS/QSAS: energy, water and materials. Also, they may represent as sub-indicators, for

instance, in BREEAM Community: green infrastructure under social well-being, water strategy under

resources and energy, and in LEED- ND: transportation demand management under neighbourhood

pattern and design, building energy efficiency under green infrastructure and buildings, etc. Hence,

the term ‘global’ or ‘common’ indicators can be used to denote these indicators.

4.1.2 Pluralism and reductionism

The main dimensions of sustainability allowed for overlaps over a wide range and multiple-

interpretations. Hence, the pluralism of urban indicators could observe the overlap by giving the

indicators more specificity clearly and to determine values of the weighting percentages and point

(Behzadfar and Abdi 2013).

Therefore, the numbers of indicators varies among the global assessment tools; for example,

BREEAM Community and LEED- ND contain five main indicators each, while SBTool PT- UP have

thirteen, in spite of the relative compatibility for all tools as being concerned with sustainability

assessment of urban development. This suggests that the optimal number of indicators is still

controversial and not yet agreed upon (Tanguay et al. 2010).

Several researchers (Briassoulis (2001); Seabrooke et al. (2004); Shen et al. (2011); Castanheira

and Braganca (2014)) have concluded that anomalies in the classification of indicators constitutes

an undesirable factor in conducting urban design sustainability assessment, due to the lack of clarity

in the hierarchy of indicators within the main criteria on the one hand, and to the sustainability

dimensions on the other hand.

4.1.3 Changing or renewed indicators

The indicators set cannot be classified as a final form because it may affect all sustainability

dimensions. They remain subject to change and renewal. Furthermore, they should be subject to

periodic review to determine the efficiency of their quantity, quality and content.




Addition and development may be affected by external factors, including the emergence of variables

and calls for global change, or it often susceptible to local variables. Perhaps the most striking

example is BREEAM Community, as when the technical manual was put on the market in 2011, the

list included nine main indicators (categories with 39 sub-indicators as follows: climate, energy and

resources, place of formation, transport and movement, the community, ecology and biodiversity,

business and economy, buildings, and credits innovation). These indicators were different from the

list in the technical manual for 2012 , which included five main indicators (see Table 3), where some

of them were combined into other indicator, in addition to the 40 sub-indices (ADUPC 2010b; BRE

2013b). Therefore, the numbers of indicators within the assessment tools are subject to change and

do not represent fixed numbers.

4.1.4 Analysis of indicators

Some indications received high attention by having the highest rates and points weighting in

assessment of urban sustainability. Unlike others that receive low attention according to their priority

in local urban challenges. This requires inclusiveness for all types of indicators. Nevertheless, the

indicators importance varies in accordance to the sustainability assessment tools. It is noticeable

that some indicators are received attention more than others and have the highest points or rates

weighting (Häkkinen 2007). It is significant to give precise information about indicators, their

importance, and extent of success in evaluation. As well as determining compliance within specified

context through analysis of sub-indicators that shows indicators total content (Shen et al. 2011). The

analysis of indicators confirms the strength of the connection and the linkage between all indicators

(main and sub-indicators). Therefore, that will contribute to deliver correct information to community

experts and decision makers (Wedding and Crawford-Brown 2007). This highlights about the

quantitative and qualitative indicators and their importance to number of tools and illustrates the

consistency and differences among them. It also raises questions about whether the degree of

importance of indicators at the same level in all assessment tools, or it is different?

Table 3 gives a clear answer to this question by identifying the priority of indicators and shows clearly

that change in the six assessment tools regardless of partial matching for some pointers. There are

differences between the indicators priorities among different assessment tools, and these

differences give an obvious sign that the geographic, demographic, environmental, social, and

economic factors, moreover the nature of the local community, represents a main determinant of the

types, numbers and priorities of indicators. Thus, it is not feasible to use one of the global

assessment tools as a ready recipe fit for all and applied anywhere.

4.1.5 Mandatory and optional indicators

According to Sharifi and Murayama (2013), some designers and planners do not respond to the

application of the comprehensive indicators for urban sustainability projects, which may negatively

affect the achievement of the indicators of urban sustainability. Therefore, it was necessary to apply




preventive measures to get the minimum requirements through the application of the mandatory

indicators, to ensure that the minimum requirements of points are a condition to gain a certification

as a sustainable project.

All assessment tools included mandatory indicators, except, CASBEE- ND, that appeared as

optional indicators only without any mandatory limitations as shown in Table 3. CASBEE-ND has a

good market and are recognized in the urban environmental assessment field and can provide

certification, therefore, it does not require mandatory determinants (Sharifi and Murayama 2014).

The adoption of mandatory indicators may differ between tools. The BREEAM Community

mandatory indicators are placed across its five criteria and they have a weighting percentage. Also,

it is necessary to achieve the mandatory indicators within two phases to ensure compliance and to

achieve the minimum requirements of urban sustainability for the project (BRE 2013b). It is worth

noting that LEED- ND and GSAS/QSAS have adopted mandatory indicators, but without weighting

points. As for Pearl community, it has taken a different approach in dealing with the mandatory

indicators, it has allocated the first rating stage to assess the mandatory indicators and given a score

of one pearl for each project that achieves the minimum requirements for urban sustainability issues.

Also, weighting points have been collected from the optional indicators, which are added to the

credits of the mandatory indicators, to identify a four-level rating, which determines the final

certification of the project (ADUPC 2010b).

Table 4 shows the distribution of mandatory indicators for four global sustainability assessment tools

that have mandatory determinants. Despite the similarities of few of the indicators, the assessment

tools have been developed according to the local conditions, climatic conditions, social and cultural

dimensions, urban problems, economic situations and priorities of the regions. Therefore, they are

allocated according to the spatial specificity.




Table 3: Indicators in urban sustainability assessment tools Criteria or Indicators No. of sub-

Indicators Mandator

y Optional Weight

Points %

BREEAM

Community (2012)

Governance 4 2 2 09.3

Social and economic wellbeing 17 4 13 42.7

Resources and energy 7 3 4 21.6

Land use and ecology 6 2 6 12.6

Transport and movement 6 1 6 13.8

Total 5 40 12(30%) 28(70%) 100

LEED- ND (2009)

Smart Location and Linkage 9 5 9 27 24.54

Neighbourhood Pattern and Design 15 3 15 44 40.00

Green Infrastructure and Buildings( 21 4 21 29 26.34

Innovation and Design Process 2 2 6 5.46

Regional Priority Credit 1 1 4 3.63

Total 5 56 12(21%) 88(79%) 110 100

CASBEE- UD (2007)

Natural Environment (microclimates and cosystems).

17 17 N/A

Service functions for the designated area

15 15 N/A

Contribution to the local community (history, culture, scenery and revitalization)

7 7 N/A

Environmental impact on microclimats, Façade and landscape

14 14 N/A

Social infrastructure 14 14 N/A

Management of the local environment. 13 13 N/A

Total 6 80 0% 80(100%)

SBToolPT-UP (2014)

Urban form 3 N/A

Land use and infrastructure 5 N/A

Ecology and biodiversity 4 N/A

Energy 3 N/A

Water 3 N/A

Material and wastes 3 N/A

Comfort of outdoor area 4 N/A

Safety 2 N/A

Amenities 3 N/A

Mobility 3 N/A

Local and culture identify 3 N/A

Employment promotion and investment

3 N/A

Extra 2 N/A

Total 13 41 0% 41(100%) N/A

Pearl community

(2010)

Integrated Development Process (IDP)

4 3 4 10 6.29

Natural Systems (NS) 5 3 5 14 8.80

Livable Buildings (LB) 12 5 12 35 22.01

Precious Water (PW) 5 3 5 37 23.27

Stewarding Materials (SM) 8 3 8 18 11.33

Resourceful Energy (RE) 8 3 8 42 26.41

Innovating Practice (IP) 2 2 3 1.89

Total 7 44 20(45.45%) 24(54.55) 159 100

GSAS/QSAS (2010)

Urban Connectivity 9 9 8.00

Site 8 8 9

Energy 5 5 24

Water 1 1 16

Materials 5 2 5 8

Indoor Environment 10 1 10 14

Cultural & Economic Value 2 2 13

Management & Operations 4 2 4 8

Total 8 44 5(11.16%) 39(88.64%) 100




Table 4: Distribution of mandatory indicators under three sustainability dimensions

Criteria Scope of indicators BREEAM Co. LEED- ND Pearl Co. GSAS/QSAS

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Environment

Energy Strategy and energy efficiency

1 2.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 0

Water Strategy and water efficiency

1 2.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 0

Materials Life cycle material and reuse materials

0 0 1 2.27 1 2.27

Transportation Walkable streets and transport assessment

1 2.5 1 1.75 0 1 2.27

Ecosystem Agricultural and natural system and strategy

1 2.5 1 1.75 1 2.27 0

Waste Construction and operational waste management, recycle management

0 0 2 4.54 1 2.27

Pollution and hazard Noise, flood avoidance and pollution prevention

1 2.5 2 3.5 0 0

Conversation Water body conservation 0 1 1.75 0 0

Social

Design process, and land use

Consultation, smart location, integrated strategy & natural design

3 7.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 1 2.27

Community Demographic needs, ecological & connected community, urban system, amenity provision

1 2.5 2 3.5 4 9.08 0

Culture Compact development 0 1 1.75 0 0

Infrastructure 1 2.5 0 0 0

Building Existing and green building

0 1 1.75 2 4.54 1 2.27

Safety Risk assessment and protection

1 2.5 0 1 2.27 0

Economic

Economic impact 1 2.5 0 0 0

Total number of mandatory indicators [a] 12 12 20 5

Total number of indicators in the tool [b] 40 56 44 44

Share of mandatory indicators [S=a/b*100] 30 21 45.4 11.36

4.1.6 The spatial correlation for indicator

The standard tools are mainly designed for the local context (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). So, urban

indicators are different in their importance depending on the strength of spatial correlation and the

determinants of regions, such as the geographical nature, economic wealth, population growth,

cultural heritage and civilization, in addition to laws and regulations and structural determinants.




4.2 Indicators of urban design sustainability

The paper highlights the relationship between direct and indirect indicators with the elements of

urban design or what is expressed in urban form (Jenks and Jones 2010) and its impact on

sustainability. The urban form consists of a number of physical characteristics and non-material, in

spite of the overlap between the elements, it works as a single unit, and in accordance to Dempsey

et al. (2008) and Jenks and Jones (2010), it can be classified into six elements (after separation the

transportation for lay out) as follows:

4.2.1 Density

Density is a multi-faceted concept associated with the number of people who occupy a certain living

area, work or entertainment, and relates to the concepts of pedestrian movement, transport and

street width, as well as open and closed spaces, and the amount of interdependence, which can

have an effect on other aspects of urban forms, like land use indicators.

4.2.2 Housing and building types

Housing and building types are elements that have a significant impact on the daily life of the people

living in the urban environment and are related with high or low density, the availability of open

spaces or the density of buildings, building types, buildings form, the materials, the height, the

orientation of buildings and its relationship with natural light and natural ventilation, in addition to the

types of housing, their size and relationship with the efficiency of the building of how the building

operates and the amount of energy consumption.

4.2.3 Land use

It is used to describe the different functions of the urban environment such as housing, industry,

commerce, retail, office and other, and the relationship of these functions with each other, including

that one of them does not affect negatively on the other, in addition to providing accessibility between

the multiple functions.

4.2.4 Accessibility & transportation

It refers to the mobility between the different functions, which are not required to be horizontal as a

signal to the multiplicity of layers, and not just proximity and distance, as well as transportation

systems and their relationship with the environment. The main relationships are determined at a

distance between the house and the city centre, workplace or school and so on, and the distances

as walking distance or movement using different modes of transport.

4.2.5 Infrastructure

Infrastructure is the connecting of building on one hand, and mobility and accessibility on the other

hand. This in addition to the distribution of buildings, movement axes, services and open spaces

within residential neighbourhoods and city.




4.2.6 Urban layout

This represents the description of the spatial arrangement of urban design elements and the

connection between the parts. It is a sign of mass buildings and open spaces with street networks

for the various sectors in the city.

Through the brief definitions of the elements of urban form, it is possible to distinguish the robust

interdependence between the urban design elements and urban sustainability indicators for

assessment tools that have been selected, as well as to note the magnitude of synergy between the

elements of urban form and the dimensions of sustainability and the extent fulfils the requirements

for the major indicators or sub-indicators for this side. Also, the disparity in the urban assessment

tools toward the urban design element means that some of the tools might be designed for a specific

range within the city such as a neighbourhood, for example, and not designed for the city.

4.3 Categorization and description the common indicators

The indicators are instruments to direct the sustainable development and select appropriate policies

to success in urban sustainability. Therefore, urban indicators should be multiple and specific as

much as possible, in order to interpret the notions of sustainable development and reduce

overlapping among dimensions. Depending on the three fundamental dimensions of sustainability

(economy, environment and society), and through the review of all criteria, the main indicators and

sub-indicators for the six assessment methods were numbered as 44 main indicators and 305 sub-

indicators. A list has been devised of common indicators as shown in Figure 5. They have been

elected and characterized by clarity and pluralism and inclusiveness, with an attempt to reduce the

overlapping between sustainability dimensions. Also, this has been done with an effort to introduce

the culture as an extra dimension to determine its importance for assessment tools besides adding

new indicators, such as community involvement, innovation and flexibility for periodic review and

sustainability assessment through various stages of urban design projects. It constitutes a common

set of indicators to assess the sustainability of urban design, which represents one of the aims of

this study. As well as, for the purpose of the definition of sub-indices in Table 5, and determine the

ranges that have been described accurately and in detail, this includes the scope and limits of

indicators and its contents. This list can be subjected to the test through databases and expert teams

and public participation to be the first nucleus in terms of common standards between global

sustainability assessment methods to develop a framework of local sustainability assessment is

through the addition of local indicators to give the characteristics of the local region. Thus, this can

lead to knowledge sharing among different practices and improve the effective communication of the

status of practices, as well as being used to select a common indicators list of sustainable urban

development from the aggregation of the experiences for each practice and use it to develop new

urban development plans and improve the decision-making process in sustainability assessment of

urban design.




5 Conclusion

Sustainability cannot be achieved on its own in urban areas and cities without considering local

conditions, environmental and urban policies (Rees and Wackernagei 1996). Therefore, many

methods and assessment tools for urban sustainability are a result of the expansion from building

assessment toward the planning and design elements of the city (Haapio 2012).

Six well-known international assessment tools have been selected for a critical review of their

characteristics, organization, components, processes and procedures. All reviewed tools are widely

used for assessing the sustainability of urban development in different regions of the world. The aim

of the review was to clarify ambiguities that exist in this area and to highlight the exchange of

experiences among the reviewed assessment tools, in terms of organizational structure and

assessment methods.

The assessment tools show a wide coverage of issues, but without considering all. The study

concluded that there are disparity in scope of topics that have been covered by the indicators and

sub- indicators included in global sustainability assessment tools. They focus on the themes of

energy, water, recycling and environmental aspects without threads of social and economic effects,

which sometimes represent an essential part of communities’ lives in addition to the disparity in the

coverage of themes related to urban development indicators between the assessment tool and

another. All assessment tools demand a single target, in different forms with disparity in the emphasis

on the dimensions of urban sustainability as shown in Figure 6. The study findings identified that

urban sustainability assessment tools focus on environmental sustainability performance issue; and

some extent on social issues of sustainable urban design, while there are concerns about the

economic and cultural dimensions that are not emphasized in any of the tools, which made these

dimensions marginal in the development of sustainability assessment tools (Haapio and Viitaniemi

2007). Therefore, all sustainability dimensions are important and should be developed, particularly

in developing countries, as the tools can make substantial contributions to local sustainable

development. The indicators represented a set of referencing standards and guidelines reflecting

the urban sustainability issues. Despite the lack of consensus about the ideal number of indicators

and types, as well as disparities in the importance of the different tools (Wedding and Crawford-

Brown 2007; Moussiopoulos et al. 2010), all indicators are of great importance as they constitute a

clear picture that are adopted in the decision-making process (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). Besides,

the provision of mandatory indicators for design often enhances the acceptance of the tool, as well

as stimulating designers and developers to adopt social aspects, local economies, housing,

etc.(Sharifi and Murayama 2013). As shown in Table 5, the urban tools in general offer local

experiences based on the circumstances of the region, political decisions and local construction

regulations (Haapio 2012).


28

Figure 5: Common indicators and sub- indicators for sustainable urban design dimensions

Environmental Social Economic

Water Quality Air Quality and

emissions

Waste Management

Natural Hazards

Urban Space

ServicesSafety

Local community

Cultural & Heritage

Comfort outdoor

areas

Governess &Commu-

nity involvementFlexibility and

Innovation

Business, Investment

and Employment

Operation, Conservation

Long term

• Water quality

consideration

• Building Water

Efficiency

• drinking water

Consumption

• Water pollution

• recirculation &

treatment

• Rainwater

management

• Water bodies’

• Good air quality

• Acoustic and

vibration

environments

• Ventilation

• Urban Heat

Reduction

• Carbon, CO2

emissions

• Heat exhaust

• Waste

Management

classification,

treatment &

recycling

• Solid, Organic

waste

• Wastewater

management

• Hazardous waste

management

• Hazards assessment

& management

• Flood risk

• Wind hazard

• Earthquake

• Sand dunes

• Avalanche and

collapse

• The risks of natural

hazards & protection

• Services delivery

• Services

information

systems

• Usability

• Proximity to

services

• Entertainment

equipment

• Local community &

Social inclusion

• Historical & Identity

of cultural & heritage

• Cultural and natural

assets use

• Conservation

• Social infrastructure

formation

• Cultural practices

• Light and noise

pollution

• Reduction of

vibration impacts

• Smell impacts

reduction

• Outdoor thermal

comfort Strategies

• Economic impacts

• Economic viability

Economic Impact

• Personal skills

• Local industries

• Employability

• Life cycle costing

• Consultation and

engagement

• Community manag-

ement of facilities

• Outreach and

commu nity

participation

• Awareness of

sustainability and

Design review

• Conservation

management for

long-term

• Preservation of

historical

resources

• Urban

preservation

• Intelligent

Buildings

• Innovation and

effective

performance

• Flexibility of

changing demand

Ecology Recourses and

Energy

• Demography

• Microclimate

• Ecology strategy

and monitoring

• Landscape and

Distribution of

green spaces

• Heat Island

reduction

• Desertification and

Shading treatment

• Energy strategies &

management

• Energy of building

• Infrastructure energy

• Natural & renewable

resources, Solar,

Wind & others

• Electrical power

• Saving energy

• Monitoring energy &

performance

• City public Spaces

• Open & enclosure

spaces

• Utilities and facilities

• Activities & distances

• Community involvem-

ent opportunities

• Amenities provision

• Encourage health

activities

• Securing buildings

• Open spaces and

street

• Safety of pedestrian

areas

• Providing rapid and

safe evacuation

• Crime prevention

• Secure & safe

Communities

Cultural

Land Used&

Infrastructure

Materials

management

Sustainable

Buildings

Local community

Cultural & Heritage Environmentally

compatible design

Transportation /

Mobility

• Mixed Use

• Functions

relationship

• Remediation Land

• Land use scheme

• Built environment

• Rehabilitation of

urban areas

• Infrastructures

network

• Sustainable materials

• Local materials

• Materials selection

according to the

global environment

consideration & health

• Reused and recycle

materials

• Low-emitting

materials

• Comprehensive

design & urban

network

• Smart and preferred

location

• Different facilities

distances

• Universal design

consideration

• Buildings environme-

ntally compatible

• Transport assessment

• Public transport

• Private Transportation

• Street Networks

• Pedestrian walkways

• Cars parking

• Cycling facilities

• Ecosystem networks

• Transportation syste-

ms capacity& demand

• Sustainable buildings

• Reuse of existing

buildings

• Construction products

reduction

• Natural & mechanical

ventilation

• Thermal comfort in

buildings

• Acoustic Quality and

daylight

Hazards

29

However, the study found that some of the tools are heading towards international assessment

projects outside its local scope. The assessment results of such projects remain questionable and

because the decisions have been taken through the use of local indicators that are not related with

the place (Sharifi and Murayama 2015).

The weights and benchmarks reflect the performance indicators against the basic dimensions of

sustainability. It should be an expression of spatial characteristics, and, in accordance to Sharifi and

Murayama (2013), the experts and specialists who have a basic role to determine the indicators,

need to consider the local standards as well as the ways to increase the community participation, in

addition to the need to revise the weighting ratios or weighting points periodically to ensure that local

requirements are met. The study highlighted that the new urban assessment tools focus on pluralism

of indicators instead of reducing their number, that makes indicators clearer and more specialized

and are helping to reduce the overlap between the sustainability dimensions, making it easy to

deliver accurate information to the specialists, designers, stockholders, local community and

decision-makers (Castanheira and Braganca 2014). Furthermore, it is important to encourage the

use of indicators during the early lifecycle stages of the project and not after the end of the project.

Hence, the list of indicators in Figure 5 shows the common list of indicators, as well as the indicators

that are not covered in the assessment tools. For example, the technology indicator and its impact

on the sustainability of urban design did not have a clear presence or was implicit in the comparison.

This encourages the possibility of a future study to cover the subject and to analyse its effects. This

list can form a database for planners and developers to develop the framework for local urban

sustainability while providing an important role for professionals, designers, stakeholders and

decision-makers to nominate a list of local indicators. Through a combination of the two lists, it can

achieve a national project and local sustainability assessment framework of urban design and can

be used particularly in developing countries.

The assessment tools, despite being in their early years, provide a model in the process of collecting

community awareness towards the environment in which we live, in addition to its role in

strengthening the participation between community groups.



Table 5: The topics range covered by indicators and sub- indicators included in global sustainability

assessment tools

Dimensions Tools

Indicator Sub-indicator BREEAM Co.

LEED-ND

CASBEE Co.

SBToolPT

- UP

Pearl Co.

GSAS/ QSAS

Environmental Ecology Arid/ Desert climate

Cold/ Snow Tropical/ Equatorial Not- specified climate Specific topography Not- specified topography Ecological survey Ecological network Projects location

Recourses and energy

Solar energy Wind Tidal

Nuclear Geo- thermal

Not- specified Eneconservati Building performance

Water Water Quality Drinking water consumption Water pollution Water recycle Rainwater harvesting

Microclimat Air quality CO2 emissions GHG emissions

Waste Management

Solid waste Organic waste Waste recycling

Hazards Flood risk Earthquake Wind hazard Sand dunes Avalanche and collapse

Land Use Land Use Land remediation Green infrastructure Network infrastructure Infrastructure and expansion

Buildings Sustainable buildings Natural ventilation Daylighting Thermal Comfort

Materials management

Sustainable materials Recycled materials

Social

Environment compatible design

Urban context Comprehensive design Universal design

consideration




Connectivity Accessibility

Transportation Transport assessment Public Transportation Private Transportation Cycling network Local parking

Urban space Multi- functional spaces Public spaces Mixed use

Services Amenities provision Delivery of services

Safety Safe and Secure Comfort in outdoor areas

Noise pollution Lighting pollution

Reduction smell impacts Vibrations

Community involvement Long term Operation Flexibility and Innovation

Economic Economic impacts Local resources Business Investments Employments

Cultural Historical Identity Social infrastructure Cultural practices Cultural and natural assessment Conservation Inclusion percentage of indicators

48.0% 33.8% 15.6% 36.4% 36.4% 44.15%

2.6 % 10.4% 11.7% 9.1% 11.7% 11.7%

49.4% 55.8% 72.7% 54.5% 51.9% 44.15%

Key: Not- applicable Semi- applicable Fully- applicable


32

Figure 6: Disparities in the affective dimension of urban sustainability according to indicators analysis


33

References Adinyira, E.,Oteng-Seifah, S. and Adjei-Kumi, T. 2007. A Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies. In: International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow, UK. Caledonian University,

ADUPC. 2010a. Estidama Pearls Rating System-Community Rating System. Abu Dhabi Urban planning council, UAE:

ADUPC. 2010b. Estidama: Pearls Rating System- Version 1.0. Community, Building and Villa Rating System Construction Version 1.0. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Abo Dubi Urban Planning Council.

Ameen, R. F. M.,Li, H. and Mourshed, M. 2014. Sustainability assessment methods of urban design: a review. In: The 21st International Workshop: Intelligent Computing in Engineering 2014 (ISBN: 978-0-9930807-0-8). Cardiff, UK. European Group for Intelligent

Computing in Engineering (EG- ICE),

Ayoubi, S. A. 2010. QSAS to be adopted in the curriculum of the Environmental Design Faculty at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. Emirates Week [Online]. Available at: www.emiratesweek.com/2010/12/5520

Basiago, A. D. 1998. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist 19(2), pp. 145-161.

Behzadfar, M. and Abdi, F. 2013. Urban Sustainability Indicators Assessment with the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A comparison between different examples. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities 1(3), pp. 137-147.

Bentivegna, V.,Curwell, S.,Deakin, M.,Lombardi, P.,Mitchell, G. and Nijkamp, P. 2002. A vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST. Building Research & Information 30(2), pp. 83-94.

Bond, A.,Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J. 2012a. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1), pp. 53-62.

Bond, A.,Saunders, A. M. and Stoeglehner, G. 2012b. Designing an effective sustainability assessment process. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Bragança, L.,Mateus, R. and Koukkari, H. 2010. Building Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2(7).

BRE. 2011. BREEAM for Communities: Stage 2. UK: BREEAM

BRE. 2013a. BREEAM Communities Bespoke International UK: BREEAM.

http://www.emiratesweek.com/2010/12/5520


34

BRE. 2013b. BREEAM Communities Code for a Sustainable Built Environment. Technical Manual SD202- 0.1: 2012 UK.

Briassoulis, H. 2001. Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Through a (Planner's) Glass Darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(3), pp. 409-427.

Carmen, G. and Bruno, D. 2014. A Multi-scale Method to Optimize the Sustainability in Construction works. In: The World Sustainable Building Conference, World SB14 Barcelona. Madrid, Spain.

Castanheira, G. and Braganca, L. 2014. The Evolution of the Sustainability Assessment Tool: From Buildings to the Built Environment. Hindawi Publishing Corporation: The Scientific World Journal 2014(Article ID 491791), pp. 1-10.

CIDA. 2012. Indicators for Sustainability: How cities are monitoring and evaluating their success. Ottawa, Canada: The Canadian International Development Agency

Cooper, R. and Boyko, C. 2010. How to design a city in five easy steps: exploring VivaCity2020’s process and tools for urban design decision-making? Journal of Urbanism

3(3), pp. 253-273.

Crosbie, T.,Crilly, M.,Dawood, N.,Oliveras, J. and Niwaz, N. 2014. 'Visualising the ‘Big Picture’: key Performance Indicators and sustainable urban Design'. Nice, France: EEB Data Models Community ICT for Sustainable Places.

Dawson, R.,Wychmans, A.,Heidrich, O.,Koler, J.,Dobson, S. and Feliu, E. 2014. Understanding Cities: Advances in integrated assessment of urban sustainability. Newcastle, UK: The Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research (CESER), Newcastle University.

Dempsey, N.,Brown, C.,Raman, S.,Porta, S.,Jenks, M.,Jones, C. and Bramley, G. 2008. Elements of Urban Form.Dimensions of the sustainable city. Netherlands: Springer pp. 21-51.

Ding, G. K. 2008. Sustainable construction- The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management 86(3), pp. 451-464.

Drexhage, J. and Murphy, D. 2010. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. New York, USA: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Edum-Fotwe, F. T. and Price, A. D. F. 2009. A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction projects and developments. International Journal of Project Management 27(4), pp. 313-322.


35

Elgendy, K. 2014. Comparing Estidama’s Pearls Rating System to LEED and BREEAM [Online] (www.carboun.com/sustainable-urbanism/comparing-estidama%E2%80%99s-pearls-rating-method-to-leed-and-breeam ). Available at.

Emmert, S.,Luiten, H. and Lindt, M. v. d. 2014. Synthesis of three sustainable pathways: Final Report. Netherlands: Creating Innovative Sustainable Pathways (CRISP).

FAO. 2011. The State of the World's Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture- Managing systems at risk. New York, USA: FAO.

Gil, J. and Duarte, J. P. 2013. Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review. Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning 166(6), pp. 311-325.

Haapio, A. 2012. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32(1), pp. 165-169.

Haapio, A. and Viitaniemi, P. 2007. Environmental Criteria and Indicators used in the Environmental Assessment of Buildings. CIB World Building Congress CIB2007-241, pp. 2406- 2416.

Häkkinen, T. 2007. Assessment of indicators for sustainable urban construction. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 24(4), pp. 247-259.

Horr, Y. A. 2013. GSAS Technical Guide: V 2.1. Doha, Qatar: Gulf Organisation for Research and Development (GORD).

Huang, Y. 2010. Urbanization, Hukou System and Government Land Ownership: Effects on Rural Migrant Work and on Rural and Urban Hukou Residents. France: OECD Development Center.

Huovila, P. and Jasuja, M. 2005. CRISP Indicators analysis. Netherlands: Performance Based Building Network (PeBBu)

IBEC. 2008. CASBEE for Urban Development. Technical Manual 2007 Edition Tool- 21. Japan: Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)

IEA. 2013. Would energy outlook. International Energy Agency, France.

Jaeger, J. A. G.,Bertiller, R.,Schwick, C. and Kienast, F. 2010. Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecological Indicators 10(2), pp. 397-406.

http://www.carboun.com/sustainable-urbanism/comparing-estidama%E2%80%99s-pearls-rating-method-to-leed-and-breeam

http://www.carboun.com/sustainable-urbanism/comparing-estidama%E2%80%99s-pearls-rating-method-to-leed-and-breeam


36

Jenks, M. and Jones, C. 2010. Chapter 1: Issues and Concepts.Dimensions of the Sustainable City. UK: Springer.

Jensen, J. O. and Elle, M. 2007. Exploring the Use of Tools for Urban Sustainability in European Cities. Indoor and Built Environment 16(3), pp. 235-247.

Jose, J.-T. S.,Garrucho, I. and Cuadrado, J. s. 2006. The first sustainable industrial building projects. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) 159(ME3), pp. 147–153.

Joss, S. ed. 2012. Tomorrow's City Today Eco- City Indicators, Standards & Frameworks. UK. University of Westminster.

Larsson, N. 2012. SB Method and SBTool for 2012 - overview [Online]. IISBE. Available at: [Accessed.

Levett, R. 1998. Sustainability indicators - integrating quality of life and environmental protection. Royal Statistical Society 161(Part 3), pp. 291-302.

Lindseth, G. 2004. The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of Local Climate Policy. Local Environment 9(4), pp. 325-336.

Madden, J. 2011. Estidama Program: Moving Abu Dhabi Toward a Sustainable Future. UAE: Abo Duabi Urban Planning Council (ADUPC).

Moussiopoulos, N.,Achillas, C.,Vlachokostas, C.,Spyridi, D. and Nikolaou, K. 2010. Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 27(5), pp. 377-384.

Munda, G. 2001. Indicators and Evaluation Tools for the Assessment of Urban. Working Paper, University of Barcelona, Barcelona.

Paranagamage, P.,Khandokar, F. and Price, A. 2010. Briefing: Holistic assessment of sustainable urban development. Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning 163(3), pp. 101-104.

Poveda, C. A. and Lipsett, M. 2011. A Review of Sustainability Assessment and Sustainability/ Environmental Rating Systems and Credit Weighting Tools. Journal of Sustainable Development 4(6), pp. 36-55.

Pucci, S.,Pantosti, D.,De Martini, P. M.,Smedile, A.,Munzi, M.,Cirelli, E.,Pentiricci, M. and Musso, L. 2011. Environment–human relationships in historical times: The balance between urban development and natural forces at Leptis Magna (Libya). Quaternary International 242(1), pp. 171-184.


37

Rahardjati, R.,Khamidi, M. F. and Idrus, A. 2010. The Level of Importance of Criteria and Sub Criteria in Green building Indux Malaysia. In: International Conference on Sustainable Building and Infrastructure (ICSBI 2010). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, pp. 15-17.

Reed, R.,Wilkinson, S.,Bilos, A. and Schulte, K.-W. 2011. A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools– An Update. In: The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast pp. 16-19.

Rees, W. and Wackernagei, M. 1996. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities cannot be Sustainable and why they are a key to Sustainability. Elsevier Science Inc. 16(223), pp. 223-248.

Seabrooke, W.,Yeung, S. C. W.,Ma, F. M. F. and Li, Y. 2004. Implementing sustainable urban development at the operational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International 28(3), pp. 443-466.

Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38, pp. 73-87.

Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2014. Neighbourhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment 72(2014), pp. 243-258.

Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2015. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood sustainability assessment: insights from a comparative case study. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58(1), pp. 1-23.

Shen, L.-Y.,Jorge Ochoa, J.,Shah, M. N. and Zhang, X. 2011. The application of urban sustainability indicators – A comparison between various practices. Habitat International 35(1), pp. 17-29.

Siemens. 2012. The Green City Index- A summary of the Green City Index research series. Germany: Economist Intelligence Unit.

Singh, R. K.,Murty, H. R.,Gupta, S. K. and Dikshit, A. K. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 15(1), pp. 281-299.

Spangenberg, J. H. 2002. Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological indicators 2(3), pp. 295-309.

Suzuki, H.,Dastur, A.,Moffatt, S.,Yabuki, N. and Maruyama, H. 2010. Eco2Cities_Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. The World bank Publications, USA.


38

Svarstad, H.,Petersen, L. K.,Rothman, D.,Siepel, H. and Wätzold, F. 2008. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25(1), pp. 116-125.

Tanguay, G. A.,Rajaonson, J.,Lefebvre, J.-F. and Lanoie, P. 2010. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological Indicators 10(2), pp. 407-418.

Tartaglia, A.,Mele, C.,Mele, C. and Ruggiero, M. L. 2014. Urban Issues and Sustainability. In: E3S Web of Conferences. p. 03004.

TCPP. 2010. National Development Plan 2010-2014. Baghdad- Iraq: Technical Committee for Plan Preparation- Iraqi Ministry of Planning.

Trusty, W. 2008. Standards versus recommended practice: separating process and prescriptive measures from building performance. Journal of ASTM International 5(2).

Turcu, C. 2013. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(5), pp. 695-719.

Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. 2007. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 83(1), pp. 62-69.

UCLG. 2013. Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. Barcelona, Spain: United Cities and Local Governments & Ajuntament De Barcelona- Institute de Culture.

Ugwu, O. O. and Haupt, T. C. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment 42(2), pp. 665-680.

UN. 1987. Our Common Future- Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. England: United Nations Documents.

UN. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development- AGENDA 21. Brazil: United Nations Sustainable Development.

UN. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. New York, USA: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

USGBC. 2011a. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). USA: U.S. Green Building Council.


39

USGBC. 2011b. LEEE 2009 for Neighbourhooh Development. USA: U.S. Geen Building Council & CaGBC.

Wedding, G. C. and Crawford-Brown, D. 2007. Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building. J Environ Manage 85(2), pp. 483-495.

Weiland, U. 2006. Sustainability Indicators and Sustainable Development. Global Change, Urbanization and Health (China Meteorological Press, Beijing), pp. 241 – 250.

Worldbank. 2014. The World Bank Data [Online]. The World Bank Organization, Washington, USA: Available at: www.worldbank.org [Accessed.

Writer, S. 2009 Barwa, Qatari Diar, TC Chan sign deal. [Online]. Available at: http://www.emirates247.com/eb247/companies-markets/construction/barwa-qatari-diar-tc-chan-sign-deal-2009-04-09-1.96653.

Xing, Y.,Malcolm, R.,Horner, W.,El-Haram, M. A. and Bebbington, J. 2007. A Framework Model for Assessing Sustainability Impacts of a Built Environment. In: International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow, UK.

Zhou, N.,He, G. and Williams, C. 2012. China’s Development of Low- Carbon Eco- Cities and Assosated Indicators Systems. China: Ernest Orlando Lawrence & Berkeley National Laboratory.

Zilans, A. and Abolina, K. 2007. A methodology for assessing urban sustainability: Aalborg commitments baseline review for Riga, Latvia. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11(1), pp. 85-114.

http://www.worldbank.org/

http://www.emirates247.com/eb247/companies-markets/construction/barwa-qatari-diar-tc-chan-sign-deal-2009-04-09-1.96653

http://www.emirates247.com/eb247/companies-markets/construction/barwa-qatari-diar-tc-chan-sign-deal-2009-04-09-1.96653