sustainability

Article
Smart and Sustainable Cities: The Main Guidelines
of City Statute for Increasing the Intelligence of
Brazilian Cities
Evandro Gonzalez Lima 1 , Christine Kowal Chinelli 1 , Andre Luis Azevedo Guedes 1 ,
Elaine Garrido Vazquez 2 , Ahmed W. A. Hammad 3 , Assed Naked Haddad 4 and
Carlos Alberto Pereira Soares 1, *
1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de
Janeiro 24210-240, Brazil; evandrogl@id.uff.br (E.G.L.); cchinelli@id.uff.br (C.K.C.);
andre.gueves@gmail.com (A.L.A.G.)
2 Departamento de Construção Civil, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil;
elainevazquez@poli.ufrj.br
3 Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, 24210-240 Sidney, Australia;
a.hammad@unsw.edu.au
4 Programa de Engenharia Ambiental, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909,
Brazil; assed@poli.ufrj.br
* Correspondence: capsoares@id.uff.br; Tel.: +55-21-2629-5410




Received: 2 January 2020; Accepted: 28 January 2020; Published: 31 January 2020


Abstract: The regulation of urban property use is a fundamental instrument for the development
of cities. However, most of the norms that set general guidelines for urban policy predate the
transformations that the smart city concept has brought about in the way cities are appropriated and
perceived by society, and even today, studies on how these regulations collaborate to make cities
smarter and more sustainable. This work contributes to filling this gap by investigating the main
guidelines of the Brazilian City Statute that have the greatest potential to contribute to having smarter
and more sustainable Brazilian cities. To prioritize the sixteen guidelines of the City Statute, the
methodology used consisted of a survey carried out with professionals working in the concerned field.
The results show that the sixteen guidelines were evaluated as important for increasing the intelligence
of cities, of which five were evaluated as having the most priority, these five were related to the
governance of cities. Considering the scarcity of resources in Brazilian cities, these five guidelines
contribute so that municipal governments can direct their efforts towards what has the most priority.

Keywords: smart city; sustainable city; city statute; urban policy; urban planning

1. Introduction
Regulation of urban property use has been a fundamental instrument for cities to develop
considering the collective good, the welfare of citizens and sustainable development. As the ties
between continents tightened, researchers devoted more attention to describing and evaluating
land-use systems in different countries [1] and to study the similarities and differences between legal
systems, the results of which showed patterns of change in the legal regimes of an evolving world [2].
The catastrophic London fire of 1666 transformed society’s understanding of why individual property
rights should, to some degree, be subject to the greatest public interest when common challenges are
faced [3]. Episodes such as this have triggered important discussions about the extent to which private
rights and the private sector should be regulated, the government’s competence to direct market forces,

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025; doi:10.3390/su12031025 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 2 of 26

the appropriate role of municipal, state and federal agencies in land use and on appropriate legal
regulatory techniques that government should employ to protect the public interest [2].
Main international urban legislation that has inspired other countries include: (a) England: Town
and Country Planning Act, 1947, recast in 1990; (b) Spain: Law of the Urban Regiment and Ordinance
of 1956, reformulated in 1975 and 1992; (c) Italy: Legge Urbanistica, 1942, reformulated in 1967 and
1977; (d) France: Code de l’Urbanisme et de l’Habitation, 1954, reformulated in 1973; (e) Germany:
Bundesbaugesetz (Federal Law on Urban Planning) of 1960 [4]. Although each of these laws have
particularities arising from each country’s institutional system, there is a striking similarity between
them. They all establish a hierarchical system of territorial ordering, whereby the smaller scale plans
detail the larger ones. Each of these plans are thoroughly described in terms of their content, approval
and updating, degree of detail and legal effectiveness [5].
In Latin America, urban planning legislation was strongly influenced by the uneven urban
development experienced by municipal and national governments. This form of development was
characterized by occupations and land uses formalized by governmental plans and actions coexisting
with informal urban conditions produced by a poor, marginalized and dispossessed civil, social, political
system and economic rights [6]. From the 1970s onwards, the growing awareness of environmental
problems led to the emergence of the concept of sustainable development [7], intensifying the demands
for more sustainable cities. Initiatives focused on improving urban services and cities’ infrastructure
took place around the world [8,9], based on the perception that the balanced relationship between
environmental, economic and social conditions leads to sustainable development cities [10]. In this
context, sustainable urban planning is an important instrument for the government and citizens
to contribute to urban sustainability, by controlling urbanization zones and land uses [11], being a
fundamental instrument for the operationalization of land use and occupation laws. Various social
movements, under the banner "Right to the City", have promoted discussions and actions aimed
at guaranteeing more sustainable, fair and democratic cities, focusing mainly on the policies and
actions of municipal governments, since they are responsible for regulation of land-use and occupation,
defining patterns of urban density, infrastructure, among other issues directly related to the territorial
development of cities [5]. However, it was only from the 1980s that in Latin America these movements,
mainly represented by community movements, social activists and urban reform forums, intensified,
leading to the creation of new laws [12] that limited private property rights from the social function
of property [13], consolidating the understanding of protection of the right to property subordinated
to social or collective interests [14]. They also consolidated the rights to decent housing and a
more sustainable environment [13] and incorporated ecological functions into the social function of
property [15].
Land use and occupation laws vary in aspiration, ambition and complexity due to cultural,
historical, political and geographical differences, and have enabled local governments to act or show
awareness of their critical role in achieving sustainable development by addressing the emerging
problems of each society, providing appropriate strategies for the culture and place of its origin and
involving citizens in the planning and formulation of these policies [16,17]. Thus, land use planning
and control aims to organize and control the pattern of urban occupation and expansion in order to
ensure that social functions develop in harmony with the urban fabric and that city development
occurs in a balanced and sustainable manner [18]. In this context, the principle of the social function of
property seeks to guarantee urban justice through the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of
the urbanization process [19].
It was in this scenario of uneven urban development and the emergence of new laws due to the
growing demand for more sustainable, fair and democratic cities, that the City Statute [20], the main
instrument of Brazilian urban policy, was drafted the constitutional measures on urban policy [21].
Its objective is to order the development of the social functions of the city and urban property, in favor
of the collective good, security, citizens’ welfare and environmental balance, through 16 guidelines that
converge towards a consensus between the agendas urban reform and sustainable development.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 3 of 26

Worldwide, the City Statute is highly regarded as being a milestone in the history of urban law,
policy and planning for urban land use, the control of development and the enhancement of the social
function of property [12,22,23] inspiring instrument for action by national governments [24] and an
example of how a large number of stakeholders from different sectors of society have, in adverse
circumstances, succeeded in realizing a high quality legal and technical instrument [12,21]. It reflects
the view of a company, public managers and legislators from the time of its creation, on the role that the
city should play in reducing social inequality, promoting well-being and more democratic management
of the city [21,25]. In addition, it was also innovative by explicitly recognizing the right to a sustainable
city in Brazil [21].
More recently, the challenges posed by the increasing urbanization experienced by most countries
have increased societal demands for more efficient and sustainable urban services, which, in a digital
revolution environment, originated and enhanced the concept of the smart and sustainable city [26].
Although discussions about smart cities are not recent, there is no consensus on what a smart city is.
Different conceptualizations have been attributed to the term smart city by researchers (Table 1) and
governments (Table 2).

Table 1. Definitions of smart city by researchers.

Definitions of Smart City Authors

A city where the Information and Communications Technology strengthens the freedom of
[27]
speech and the accessibility to public information and services.
A city well performing in a forward-looking way in economy, people, governance,
mobility, environment and living, built on the smart combination of endowments and [28]
activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens.
A city connecting the physical infrastructure, the IT infrastructure, the social
infrastructure and the business infrastructure to leverage the collective [29]
intelligence of the city.
The use of smart technologies lo make the critical infrastructure components and services
of a city—which include city administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real [30]
estate, transportation and utilities—more intelligent, interconnected and efficient.
A city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport)
and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a
[31]
high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory
governance.
Smart cities should be regarded as systems of people interacting with and using flows of
energy, materials, services and financing to catalyze sustainable economic development,
resilience and high quality of life; these flows and interactions become smart through
[32]
making strategic use of information and communication infrastructure and services in a
process of transparent urban planning and management that is responsive to the social and
economic needs of society.
Communication technologies into urban management, and use these elements as tools to
stimulate the design of an effective government that includes collaborative planning and
[33]
citizen participation. By promoting integrated and sustainable development, smart cities
become more innovative, competitive, attractive and resilient, thus improving lives.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 4 of 26

Table 2. Definitions of smart city by governments (based on [34]).

Definitions of Smart City Countries

Initially, the concept was only used in a narrow and governmental context especially in
relation to environmental, energy and infrastructure issues in terms of how information
and communication technologies can improve urban functionality. Subsequently, virtually
Denmark
all other areas of welfare started working with smart city, for example in business
development, innovation, citizen involvement, culture, healthcare and social services,
where the use of data and digital platforms helps smart new solutions.
Makes use of opportunities from digitalization, clean energy and technologies, as well as
innovative transport technologies, thus providing options for inhabitants to make more
Korea
environmentally friendly choices and boost sustainable economic growth and enabling
cities to improve their service delivery.
City which implements a strategic package of measures to address the most pressing
challenges and boost the competitiveness of the area, providing solutions for citizens and
entrepreneurs, inter alia such measures which i) do not require substantial maintenance in
the long term (save resources); ii) provide more efficient public services (faster, more
comfortable, cheaper, e-services, one-stop shop principle); iii) improve overall well-being
of society, security and public order; iv) allow timely anticipation and prevention of
Latvia
potential challenges (flood hazards, energy shortages, heat losses, sewer leaks, etc.); iv) do
not affect, reduce or eliminate impact on environment; and v) is based on smart
development planning, which responds flexibly to the most pressing challenges and
development opportunities in the area, identifying existing and potential competitive
sectors and promoting their development, as well as providing cooperation between
different stakeholders (public administration, entrepreneurs, academics, NGOs, citizens).
The smart city concept is a holistic approach to cities that uses ICT to improve inhabitants’
quality of life and accessibility and ensures consistently improving sustainable economic,
social and environmental development. It enables cross-cutting interaction between Spain
citizens and cities, and real-time, quality-efficient and cost-effective adaptation to their
needs, providing open data and solutions and services geared towards citizens as people.
The concept [of smart city] is not static: there is no absolute definition of a smart city, no
United
end-point, but rather a process, or series of steps, by which cities become more “live able”
Kingdom
and resilient and, hence, able to respond quickly to new challenges.

Smart cities have been discussed under different approaches, mainly related to understanding
the dimensions that characterize them, the drivers that enhance their intelligence and identifying
how smart a city is [26], usually through indicators. Aiming to understand the dimensions and
characteristics of smart cities, [35] established four main themes: society, economy, environment and
governance, which are addressed considering four attributes: sustainability, quality of life, urban aspects
and intelligence. [36] proposed a set of factors to understanding smart city initiatives and projects:
management and organization, technology, governance, policy, people and communities, economy,
built infrastructure and natural environment. [37] identified four key dimensions: economic (GDP,
sector strength, international transactions, foreign investment); human (talent, innovation, creativity,
education); social (traditions, habits, religions, families); environmental (energy policies, waste and
water management, landscape); institutional (civic engagement, administrative authority, elections).
[38] established ten main areas: health, effective use of resources, Information and Communications
Technology literacy, public administration, regional economics, education, innovative services, culture
and recreation, public safety.
Some researchers have sought to establish common sense about the dimensions and characteristics
of smart cities from the various interpretations found in the literature [39], summarize these
interpretations in three types of approaches: techno centered approach, emphasizing hardware,
new technologies and infrastructure; human-centered approach emphasizing social and human capital;
and integrated approach that combines both the foregoing qualities. [40] concluded by a set of common
multidimensional components, which were categorized into three dimensions: technology, which
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 5 of 26

encompasses the aspects of hardware and software infrastructures related to the themes physical
infrastructure, smart technologies, mobile technologies, virtual technologies and digital networks;
people, which encompasses aspects of creativity, diversity and education; and Institutions, which
encompasses the aspects of governance, policy, regulations and directives.
In order to identify the main drivers for increasing the intelligence of cities, [26] carried out
extensive and detailed bibliographic research, concluding that seven drivers (urban planning, cities
infrastructure, sustainability, mobility, public safety, health and public policies) have greater potential
for the development of more intelligent and sustainable cities. [41] identified three key elements in the
literature: information and communication technologies and smart citizens.
Assuming that every city needs indexes to measure its performance, sets of indicators have also
been developed for this purpose. [28] established a set of 74 indicators grouped in 31 factors and six
characteristics aiming at the classification of cities in relation to competitiveness, social and human
capital, governance, mobility, environment and quality of life. Following the principles set out in
ISO 37101, the ISO-37120 established a set of 100 city performance indices grouped in 17 themes
(economy, education, energy, environment, finance, fire and emergency, response, governance, health,
recreation, safety, shelter, solid waste, telecommunications and innovation, transportation, urban
planning, wastewater, water and sanitation) that can be used to monitor the evolution of a city’s
sustainable development. In the report produced for the European Commission DG Environment by
the Science Communication Unit [42], a list of 14 indicator frameworks scalable and easy to implement
and 13 tools that may not be as scalable and easy to implement are presented. [43], using a tool for
assessing the sustainability of regions, the Ecological Footprint (EF), developed a local approach for
using EF to assess the environmental carrying capacity of cities, aiming at more sustainable spatial
management. The EF represents the ecological space needed to sustain a given economic system,
by accounting for the inflows and outflows of matter and energy from this system, translating them
into an equivalent area on land or productive water. All these tools, depending on the results they
provide, have an explanatory character, by highlighting good practices to promote them, or simply
aim at performance evaluation.
Over time, the engagement of cities with the concept of smart cities has produced three
distinct generations depending on how they adopted technology and development [44]: Smart
Cities 1.0—technology-driven, in which local managers are persuaded by technology companies to
use their solutions in cities that were not prepared to understand how they could affect the quality
of life of citizens; Smart Cities 2.0—technology-enabled, city-led, in which the deployment of smart
technologies and other innovations happens from the point of view city managers on how it should
evolve to improve the quality of life; and Smart Cities 3.0—citizen co-creation, in which citizens have a
more active presence in the process of transforming cities.
Reference [45] identified five ways to increase public participation in municipal decision-making
and standard-setting: embrace smart cities: encourage the population, the private sector and
government organizations to use digital technologies and devices for civic participation and the
construction of local public values; cultivate local innovation ecosystems: cities must use the talent
and knowledge existing in the local community to implement technologies that meet the needs
of these communities; invite public influence: reinvention of the means of public involvement in
the decision-making process through new approaches to participatory action and the absorption
of new technologies; question data: discuss how and why data is collected and how it is used,
in order to prevent violations of people’s privacy and civil rights; and design for play and civic
imagination: incorporate creativity, experimentation and involvement of the range of actors involved
in the conception, design and construction of the smart city, encouraging the inclusion of local values
and priorities.
The development of new information technologies has collaborated to improve governmental
actions and to engage citizens in the process of building smart cities. In this context, concepts such
as e-government, e-participation and e-planning have emerged. E-government can be understood
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 6 of 26

as the use of technology by the government, mainly web-based applications, to improve access and
provision of government information and services to city stakeholders, as well as to bring governments
and citizens closer together [46]. According to [47], e-participation is the process of engaging
citizens through ICT in policy and decision-making in order to make it participatory, inclusive and
deliberative. An e-participation maturity model was presented by [48], based on three-stage approach:
e-decision-making, evolving citizens directly in decision processes; e-consultation, organizing public
consultations online; and e-information, provision of information via the Internet. Participatory
e-planning can be understood as the use of technology to integrate spatial planning approaches,
audience participation and visualization techniques [49].
Since the creation of the smart city concept, numerous studies have been developed to understand
its characteristics and enhance its evolution. However, when considering the standards that set general
guidelines for urban policy, we find that most of them predate the transformations that the concept of
smart city provoked the way cities are appropriated and perceived by society. We also find that studies
on how these regulations on urban property collaborate to make cities more intelligent and sustainable
are scarce.
This work contributes to filling this gap by investigating the main guidelines of the Brazilian
City Statute with the potential to contribute to having smarter and more sustainable Brazilian cities,
based on the vision of 160 Brazilian professionals who have expertise in the topics addressed by
these guidelines.

2. City Statute Guidelines

The City Statute is the main instrument of Brazil’s urban policy. It is a Brazilian federal
law (Law 10,257 of 10 July 2001) that contains sixteen guidelines that guide the actions of the
municipalities regarding the development of the social functions of the city and urban property, aiming
at environmental balance, the collective good, security and the well-being of citizens. The construction
process was participatory, but time-consuming, due to the large number of stakeholders from different
sectors of society who participated in its elaboration [50].
Table 3 presents the sixteen guidelines and authors that reference them in works whose themes are
related to the guarantee of the right to sustainable cities; democratic management; cooperation between
segments of society; city planning; provision of urban and community equipment, transportation
and public services; land use ordering and control; integration and complementarity between urban
and rural activities; adoption of production and consumption patterns; equity in the distribution of
benefits and burdens to the community; adequacy of instruments and public spending; recovery of
government investments; protection, preservation and restoration of the natural and built environment;
audience between municipal government and population; land regularization and urbanization of
areas occupied by low-income population; simplification of urban and environmental legislation;
equity of conditions for public and private agents.
These guidelines create a new scenario of new opportunities and obligations for city development
management and financing. Among the main advances that these guidelines provide for the evolution
of Brazilian cities, we highlight: they regulate the social function when establishing the use of property
as of public interest; make the distribution of benefits and burdens arising from the urbanization
process more balanced; promote collective well-being and social justice as one of the main obligations
to meet the needs of citizens by the government; establish the democratic management of the city
through the participation of the population in decisions of public interest; ensure that the population
has democratic access to public services and urban facilities; promote the dimensions of sustainability
as a fundamental element of spatial planning, guaranteeing the right to sustainable cities; and promote
the protection, preservation and recovery of natural and built heritage.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025
Themes
Guarantee the right to sustainable
cities
Democratic management
Cooperation between segments of
society
City planning
Provision of urban and community
equipment, transportation and public
services
Land use ordering and control
Integration and complementarity
between urban and rural activities
Adoption of production and
consumption patterns
Equity in the distribution of benefits
and burdens to the community
Adequacy of instruments and public
spending
Recovery of government investments
Protection, preservation, and
restoration of the natural and built
environment
Audience between municipal
government and population
Land regularization and urbanization
of areas occupied by the low-income
population
Simplification of urban and
environmental legislation
Equity of conditions for public and
private agents
7 of 26
Table 3. City Statute guidelines.
Guidelines References
I – to guarantee the right to sustainable cities, understood as the
right to urban land, housing, environmental sanitation, urban
[51–53]
infrastructure, transportation and public services, employment
and leisure, for current and future generations.
II – democratic administration by means of participation by the
population and the representative associations of the various
sectors of the community in the formulation, execution and [54–56]
monitoring of urban development projects, plans and
programmers.
III – cooperation between governments, the private sector and
other sectors of society in the urbanization process, to satisfy the [57–59]
social interest.
IV – planning of the development of cities, of spatial distribution
of the population and of the economic activities of the
municipality and of the territory under its area of influence, in [51,57,60]
order to avoid and correct distortions caused by urban growth
and its negative effects on the environment.
V – provision of urban and community equipment, transportation
and public services that are appropriate to the interests and needs [61–63]
of the population as well as reflecting local circumstances.
VI – ordering and control of land use, in order to avoid: a) the
improper use of urban real estate; b) the proximity of incompatible
or inconvenient uses; c) the parceling of land, construction or
excessive or improper use with regard to urban infrastructure; d)
the installation of developments or activities that could become
[22,64,65]
hubs that generate traffic, with no prevision for corresponding
infrastructure; e) the speculative retention of urban real estate,
resulting in its underutilization or no utilization; f) the
deterioration of urbanized areas; g) pollution and environmental
degradation.
VII – integration and complementarity between urban and rural
activities, taking account of the social-economic development of [66–68]
the municipality and the territory under its area of influence.
VIII – the adoption of production and consumption patterns
related to goods and services and of standards of urban expansion
compatible with the limits of environmental, social and economic [69–71]
sustainability of the municipality and of the territory under its
area of influence.
IX – the fair distribution of the costs and benefits resulting from
[19,72,73]
the urbanization process.
X – the adaptation of economic, taxation and financial policy
instruments and public expenditure to suit the goals of urban
development, in order to give priority to investments that [74–76]
generate general well-being and enjoyment of the assets by
different social segments.
XI – recovery of government investments that have led to
[19,77,78]
appreciation in the value of the urban property.
XII – protection, preservation and recovery of the natural and built
environment, and of the cultural, historic, artistic, landscape and [52,79,80]
archaeological heritage.
XIII – public hearings involving municipal governments and
members of the population interested in the processes of
execution of developments or activities with potentially negative [56,81,82]
effects on the natural or built environment, the comfort or safety of
the population.
XIV – tenure regularization and urbanization of areas occupied by
low-income populations through the establishment of special
urbanization, land use, land occupation and building norms, [83–85]
taking due account of the socio-economic situation of the
population and environmental norms.
XV – simplification of the legislation concerning subdivision, land
use, occupation and building regulations, in order to permit cost [78,86,87]
reductions and increase the supply of lots and housing units.
XVI – equality of conditions for public and private agents in the
promotion of developments and activities related to the [88–90]
urbanization process, serving the social interest.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 8 of 26

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 27

3. Materials and Methods

3. Materials and Methods
The main research question of this study was “what are the main guidelines of the City Statute
The main research question of this study was “what are the main guidelines of the City Statute
with the potential to contribute to having smarter and more sustainable cities in Brazil?” To answer this
with the potential to contribute to having smarter and more sustainable cities in Brazil?” To answer
question, we designed an approach in three steps: bibliographic research, survey of expert’s opinions
this question, we designed an approach in three steps: bibliographic research, survey of expert’s
and data analysis (Figure 1).
opinions and data analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Synthesis of the adopted methodology.

Figure 1. Synthesis of the adopted methodology.
3.1. Bibliographic Research
3.1. Bibliographic Research
Comprehensive and detailed bibliographic research was carried out on the Web of Science, Scopus,
ScieloComprehensive
and on the websitesand detailed
of the mainbibliographic
scientific research
publishers,wascovering
carried works
out onpublished
the Web of Science,
from 2001,
Scopus, Scielo and on the websites
the year of the creation of the City Statute.of the main scientific publishers, covering works published from
2001,For
the the
yearsearch
of the for
creation of the City Statute.
articles in the English language, we decided to consider all articles that
Forthe
contain thekeyword
search for
Cityarticles
Statute.inConsidering
the Englisha language,
large number we ofdecided
works on to the
consider
subjectallin articles that
Portuguese,
contain the keyword City Statute. Considering a large number of works
the search for articles in Portuguese was more selective, combining the keyword City Statute with on the subject in
Portuguese, the search for articles in Portuguese was more selective, combining
keywords that were chosen in order to consider the topics covered in the Statute guidelines. We use the keyword City
Statute
the “and”with keywords
connector that the
so that were chosen
works in order
identified to consider
always addressedthe the
topics covered
topics relatingin them
the Statute
to the
guidelines. We use the “and” connector so that the works identified always
Statute. The keywords used were: guarantee of the right to sustainable cities; cooperation between addressed the topics
relating
the themoftosociety;
segments the Statute. The keywords
cooperation used were: process;
in the urbanization guarantee of the right
provision to sustainable
of urban cities;
and community
cooperation between the segments of society; cooperation in the urbanization
equipment; public services appropriate to the population; demographic management; sustainable process; provision of
urban and community equipment; public services appropriate to the population;
cities; urbanization process; town development planning; master plan; land use ordering and control; demographic
management;
urban and rural sustainable cities; urbanization
activities; environmental process; town
sustainability; development
production planning; of
and consumption master
goodsplan;
and
land use ordering and control; urban and rural activities; environmental sustainability;
services; benefit and burden distribution; economic, tax, financial and public expenditure policy production
and consumption
instruments; publicofspending;
goods and services;
recovery benefitinvestment;
of public and burdenrealdistribution; economic,
estate valuation; tax, and
natural financial
built
and public expenditure
environment; environmental policy instruments;
preservation, public and
protection spending; recovery
recovery; ambientalof public investment;
degradation; real
municipal
estate valuation; natural and built environment; environmental preservation, protection and
recovery; ambiental degradation; municipal hearing, population, enterprise, security; municipal
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 9 of 26
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 27

public hearing; land reclamation and urbanization of occupied areas; special urbanization norms;
hearing, population, enterprise, security; municipal public hearing; land reclamation and urbanization
simplification of land parceling legislation.
of occupied areas; special urbanization norms; simplification of land parceling legislation.
The bibliographic search was carried out taking into consideration mainly the
The bibliographic search was carried out taking into consideration mainly the recommendations
recommendations of Webster and Watson (2002) [26,91], and the Preferred Reporting Items for
of Webster and Watson (2002) [26,91], and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyzes—PRISMA [92]. Initially, we performed exploratory reading
Meta Analyzes—PRISMA [92]. Initially, we performed exploratory reading based on titles, abstracts
based on titles, abstracts and keywords, to select the works that correlated with the researched
and keywords, to select the works that correlated with the researched theme. Then we performed
theme. Then we performed selective reading of the selected works, and those that did not contain
selective reading of the selected works, and those that did not contain information relevant to the
information relevant to the research questions were excluded.
research questions were excluded.
As a result, we obtained 2617 articles of which 590 were excluded because they appeared
As a result, we obtained 2617 articles of which 590 were excluded because they appeared duplicate.
duplicate. In the remaining 2027 articles, we performed an exploratory reading of titles and
In the remaining 2027 articles, we performed an exploratory reading of titles and abstracts, and 1782
abstracts, and 1782 papers were discarded due to the following exclusion criteria: abstracts that were
papers were discarded due to the following exclusion criteria: abstracts that were not relevant to the
not relevant to the researched theme, articles published in journals without peer review system and
researched theme, articles published in journals without peer review system and articles that were not
articles that were not available in their journal completeness.
available in their journal completeness.
Then, we performed selective reading in the remaining 245 works aiming at proving our
Then, we performed selective reading in the remaining 245 works aiming at proving our perception
perception when reading the abstracts, and 86 articles were excluded due to the following exclusion
when reading the abstracts, and 86 articles were excluded due to the following exclusion criteria:
criteria: articles that were not original, results that did not contribute to the researched theme,
articles that were not original, results that did not contribute to the researched theme, methodology
methodology that was not sufficiently presented and results that were not sufficiently supported by
that was not sufficiently presented and results that were not sufficiently supported by the methodology.
the methodology.
Finally, we made a detailed reading of the 159 remaining works and prepared a spreadsheet
Finally, we made a detailed reading of the 159 remaining works and prepared a spreadsheet
containing the most relevant excerpts for the researched theme, having effectively taken advantage of
containing the most relevant excerpts for the researched theme, having effectively taken advantage
a total of 136 works. Figure 2 summarizes the literature search through the PRISMA flowchart.
of a total of 136 works. Figure 2 summarizes the literature search through the PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 2. Literature search from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta
Figure 2. Literature search from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta
Analyzes (PRISMA) flowchart.
Analyzes (PRISMA) flowchart.
3.2. Survey of Experts’ Opinions
3.2. Survey of Experts’ Opinions
The survey was conducted through a questionnaire developed on an online platform, containing
The survey
two sections: was conducted
demographic data andthrough
questionsaaddressing
questionnaire developedof on
the importance city an online
statute platform,
guidelines for
containing twointelligence.
increasing city sections: demographic
Respondentsdata and questions
expressed addressing
their opinion the importance
according of Likert
to a five-point city statute
scale,
guidelines
ranging from forextremely
increasing city intelligence.
important Respondents
to minimally important,expressed their opinion
with guidelines presented according
at random to so
a
five-point Likert
that the order scale, ranging
in which from extremely
they appeared important
did not influence to minimally important, with guidelines
responses.
presented at random so
The professionals thatselected
were the order in which the
considering theyfollowing
appeared did not criteria:
inclusion influence responses.
have expertise or work
in areas related to the researched theme and have a degree in one of the following areas ofexpertise
The professionals were selected considering the following inclusion criteria: have knowledge: or
work in areas related to the researched theme and have a degree in one of the following areas of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 10 of 26

Applied Social Sciences, Engineering, Exact and Earth Science and Human Sciences. In Brazil,
the structuring of these knowledge areas is carried out by the Coordination for the Improvement of
Higher Education Personnel, based on the affinity of objects, cognitive methods and instrumental
resources of the training areas, as follows [26]:
Applied social sciences: It is formed by areas of interdisciplinary training that deal with aspects
related to public and private administration, architecture, urbanism and design, accounting and
tourism, communication and information, law, economics, urban and regional planning/demography
and social work.
Human Sciences: Focuses mainly on the relationships of human beings with history, their beliefs
and the local/temporal space that connect them, encompassing the following areas of formation:
anthropology, archeology, political science and international relations, the sciences of religion and
theology, education, philosophy, geography, history, psychology and sociology.
Engineering: Focuses on the various branches of technology that through methods, techniques
and scientific vision, make it possible to solve problems and materialize ideas in reality, satisfying
human needs. They encompass all engineering degrees.
Exact and Earth Sciences: It is formed by areas of formation based on physical-mathematical
calculations, such as astronomy, computer science, statistics, physics, geosciences, mathematics
and chemistry.
For the pre-test, we used a printed questionnaire to give professionals an opinion about the overall
conception, clarity and relevance of the sentences and layout.
We used email and social networks to invite 536 professionals to participate in the survey, of
which 157 participated in expressing their opinions from 05/24/2019 to 06/08/2019. To access the experts,
we used four strategies:

• To invite participants from the Industry 4.0—Smart city group of 226 experts and scholars on
the subject;
• To invite the participants of the group “UFF Engenharia”, composed of 35 engineers graduated
from UFF in 1984, with vast experience in projects and urban intervention;
• To invite participants to the “poscivil@googlegroups.com” group of 220 engineers, architects and
administrators working in the area;
• To use the authors’ personal relationships to invite fifty-five professionals (engineers, architects,
lawyers, teachers, administrators, public and private managers), all with proven expertise in the
researched subject.

3.3. Data Analysis

The reliability of the questionnaire and respondents was assessed by measuring the variance of the
responses of each item and the variance of the responses of each respondent (Martins et al., 2011) [93]
was performed using Cronbach’s alpha. [93] because it takes into account the variance attributed to the
subjects and the variance attributed to the interaction between subjects and items, in order to evaluate
the average of correlations between items that are part of the questionnaire and the measure by which
the measured factor is present in each item [26,94].
The guidelines were prioritized through the concept of relative median [26], which allowed driver
hierarchy in each semantic of the Likert scale. Taking as an example in Figure 3, the median (equal to
four) of the first line is much closer to the frequency represented by the number three. In the second
row, the median shifts to the right as you add cells at the frequency represented by the number five.
Although in both lines we have a median of four, the guideline represented by the second line can be
interpreted as more important, as it received five more ratings and maintained the other frequencies.
driver hierarchy in each semantic of the Likert scale. Taking as an example in Figure 3, the median
(equal to four) of the first line is much closer to the frequency represented by the number three. In
the second row, the median shifts to the right as you add cells at the frequency represented by the
number five. Although in both lines we have a median of four, the guideline represented by the
second line2020,
Sustainability can12,
be1025
interpreted as more important, as it received five more ratings and maintained
11 ofthe
26
other frequencies.

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 27

Figure 3. Example of the median position.

Figure 3. Example of the median position.
For the calculation of the relative median we generalize the original formula, allowing the
For theofcalculation
calculation of median
the relative the relativefor any median wescale,
Likert generalize
any ofthetheoriginal formula,
intervals allowing
of this scale and the
for
calculation of the
fractional medians: relative median for any Likert scale, any of the intervals of this scale and for
fractional medians:
1 + 𝑃𝑟 Pr 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚 = 1 


 1+𝑗1 j1 f or m = 1 


 Pm−1 
 Pr− ( j + 1 ) 
i = 1 i
<
 
 m+
 f or 2 ≤ m N and m = integer 
Rm== 
Rm 𝑚 + 𝑚−1jm
,

𝑃𝑟−( ∑ 𝑖=1 𝑖 𝑗 +1)
𝑓𝑜𝑟 2 ≤ 𝑚 < 𝑁 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚 = 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑟

<
 



 m + 0.5 𝑗𝑚 f or 1 ≤ m N and m = Fractional number 



𝑚 N

+ 0.5f or𝑓𝑜𝑟m =1N≤ 𝑚 < 𝑁 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚 = 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟


{ 𝑁 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚 = 𝑁 }
where: Rm is the relative median, m is the median, Pr is the relative position of the median, ji is the
where: Rm
number is the relativewho
of respondents median,
werem is the median,
assigned Pr isclassification
a semantic the relative position of the
of “i”, and median,
N is ji is the
the maximum
number
value of respondents
of the who were assigned a semantic classification of “i”, and N is the maximum
Likert scale used.
value of the Likert scale used.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
Initially, we calculated the Cronbach’s alpha, whose value equal to 0.89 confirmed the reliability
of theInitially, we calculated
questionnaire the Cronbach's
and the data. alpha, whose
Then, we identified value of
the profile equal to 0.89 confirmed
respondents the reliability
from the demographic
of the
data questionnaire
of the first section ofand
the the data. Then,
questionnaire we identified
considering theof profile
their area trainingofandrespondents from the
length of professional
demographic data of the first section of the questionnaire considering their area of
experience (Figure 4). For the four training areas, at least 66% of respondents had more than ten years training and
length of professional
of experience. experience (Figure 4). For the four training areas, at least 66% of respondents
had more than ten years of experience.

Figure4.4. Demographic
Figure Demographic data.
data.

Based on the judgment of the specialists from each training area, the guidelines were classified by
Based on the judgment of the specialists from each training area, the guidelines were classified
the relative median (Figure 5). Figure 6 presents the same classification for all respondents.
by the relative median (Figure 5). Figure 6 presents the same classification for all respondents.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 12 of 26
Sustainability 2019,
Sustainability 2019, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12 of
12 of 27
27

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Guidelines
Guidelines ranked
ranked by
by the
the relative
relative median
median for
for the
the four
four areas
areas of
of knowledge.
knowledge.

Figure 6. Guidelines
Figure 6.
6. Guidelines ranked
ranked by
by the relative median
the relative
relative median based
median based on
based on the
on the total
the total respondents.
total respondents.
respondents.

Figures
Figures 555 and
Figures and 666 show
and show that
show that all
all guidelines
guidelines were
were considered
were considered important
considered important by
important by the
by the experts
the experts since
since relative
relative
relative
medians were
medians were
medians greater
were greater than
greater than 3.0.
than 3.0.
3.0.
Table
Table 4 lists the guidelines that
Table 4
4 lists
lists the
the guidelines
guidelines that were
that were rated
were rated by
rated by experts
by experts as
experts as “extremely
as “extremely important”
“extremely important” from
important” from the
the
relative
relative median.
median.
relative median.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 13 of 26
Sustainability 2019, 11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11, x FOR PEER
13 REVIEW
of 27 13 of 27 13 of 27 13 o
Sustainability 2019, 11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
11, x FOR PEER
13 REVIEW
of 27 13 of 27 13 of 27 13 o
Table 4. Guidelines ranked Tableas 4.“extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Tableas 4.“extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Tableas 4.“extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Tableas 4.“extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked as “extremely important”.
Sustainability 2019, 11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019, REVIEW
Table
11,Sustainability
x4.FOR
Guidelines
4.PEER 2019,
REVIEW
ranked
11,Sustainability
x4.FOR PEER2019,
as 11,
REVIEW
“extremely
Sustainability
x4.FOR PEER2019,
important”.
REVIEW 11,asx4.FOR PEER 13 REVIEW
of 27 as 13 important”.
of 27 as “extremely 13 important”.
of 27 13 o
Table Guidelines ranked
Table as “extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Table as “extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Table “extremely
Guidelines important”.
ranked
Table 4.“extremely
Guidelines ranked
Applied Applied Exact andApplied Exact andApplied Exact andApplied Exact and Exact and
Applied Social Exact Human
and EntireHumanHuman Entire Human Entire Human Enti
Guidelines Guidelines Social
AppliedGuidelines Engineering Social
AppliedGuidelines Earth
Exact Engineering Social
andimportant”.
AppliedGuidelines Earth
Exact EngineeringSocialas
andimportant”.
Applied Earth
ExactEngineering
and Social
Applied Earth
ExactEngineering
andimportant”.Exact Earth
and
Sustainability 2019,Guidelines
11,Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019, Table
REVIEW Guidelines
x4.FOR
11,Sustainability
PEER2019, ranked
Table
REVIEW as “extremely
Guidelines
x4.FOR
11,Sustainability
PEER Engineering
important”.
ranked
2019,Table
REVIEW as “extremely
Guidelines
x4.FOR
11,Sustainability
PEER ranked
2019,Table
REVIEW 11,as
Human “extremely
Guidelines
x4.FOR
Sciences Sample
PEER ranked
Entire Table 4.“extremely
Sciences
13Sciences
REVIEW
of Human
27 Entire
Guidelines
Sample Sample
13 important”.
ranked as “extremely
of Sciences
Entire Human
27 Sample
13 of Sciences
Entire Human
27 Sam
Enti
13 o
Guidelines Guidelines Sciences Sciences
Social
Guidelines Sciences
Engineering Social
GuidelinesSciences
Earth Earth
Engineering Sciences
Sciences
Social
Guidelines Sciences
Earth Sciences
EngineeringSocial Sciences Earth Sciences
Social Sciences
Engineering Engineering Sciences
Earth Earth
Sciences Sample Sciences Sample Sciences Sample Sciences Sam
Guarantee
Guarantee the11,
the right
right Guarantee
to sustainable
to sustainable the11,
cities
right
cities Guarantee
to sustainable the
Applied
Sciencescities
right Guarantee
to sustainable the
Applied
Sciences cities
right Exact 
Guarantee
to and
sustainable
Sciences the
Applied
Sciences 
cities
right Exact
to  13
and
sustainable
Sciences  
Applied  Sciences
cities
Sciences Exact 13
and    Sciences
Applied
Sciences Exact 13
and of 27  Sciences
Exact 13o
and
Sustainability 2019, Sustainability
x FOR PEER2019,
REVIEW
Table Sustainability
x4.FOR PEER2019,
Guidelines REVIEW
ranked
Table11,Sustainability
x4.FOR
as PEER2019,
“extremely
Guidelines REVIEW 11,Sustainability
important”.
ranked
Table x4.FOR
as PEER2019,
“extremely
Guidelines REVIEW Human
11,as
important”.
ranked
Table x4.FOR PEER
“extremely
Guidelines Entire
REVIEW
of Human
27
important”.
ranked
Table as
4.“extremely
GuidelinesEntire Human
of 27
important”.
ranked as “extremely Entire Human
important”. Enti
Guarantee the Guidelines
City
City planning
right Guarantee
to sustainable
planning the Guidelines
City
cities
rightplanning
Guarantee
to sustainable Social
theGuidelines
City
cities
rightplanningEngineering
Guarantee
to sustainableSocial
theGuidelines
City
cities
right toEarth
planningEngineering
Guarantee
sustainableSocial
theGuidelines
City
cities
right toEarth
planning Engineering

sustainableSocial  Earth
cities Engineering
 Social
  Earth Engineering
   Earth
 Sciences Sam 
Sciences Sample Sciences Sample Sciences Sample
Sustainability
Provision 2019,
of urban 11,
ofCity x
and FOR
Provision PEER
community
planning REVIEW
of urban equipment,
Cityand
Provision
community Sciences
of urban Sustainability
 and
equipment,
Provision
community 2019,

Sciences
of urban 11,
 and x
equipment,FOR PEER
and
Sciences
Provision
community REVIEW
  and
Sciences
of urban 
equipment, and
Sciences
community 13  of 27
 
Sciences
equipment, and
Sciences   
Sciences and
Sciences   Exact and
Sciences13o
Provision urban and community Table 4.planning
Guidelines rankedCity
Applied
Table planning
 Sustainability 2019,
as4.“extremely
Guidelines  
City
Applied
important”.
ranked
Table as planning
4. Exact 
“extremely
Guidelines City
Applied

important”.
ranked
Table
Human
as planning
4. Exact  Entire
“extremely
Guidelines  Applied
of 
important”.
ranked
Table as
Human4. Exact Entire
“extremely
Guidelines  Applied
  
important”.
ranked as
Human
Exact Entire
“extremely  Human 
important”.  Enti
Sustainability
of2019,
Guarantee the
transportation
equipment,
Provision urban 11, xand
rightFOR
transportation
and
Provision PEER
Guarantee
topublic REVIEW
sustainable the
transportation
community
Guidelines services
ofand
urban cities
right
public and
equipment,
and Guarantee
topublic
Provision
Guidelines sustainable
transportation
community theGuidelines
services
of urban cities
rightand
equipment,
Social and Guarantee
topublic
ProvisionsustainableSocial
transportation
community the
services
of urban
Engineering 11, xand
cities
right
equipment,
and FOR 
PEER
Guarantee
toEarth
Provision sustainable
public 
REVIEW
transportation
community of urban the
services and
cities
right
equipment,
and 
toEarth 13
sustainable
public
community Social

27
services  Earth
cities
equipment,  Social
     Earth  13o
Table 4. Guidelines ranked as “extremely  Guidelines
important”. Engineering Social
Table Guidelines

Sciences
4. Engineering
Guidelines 
Sample   
Sciences
ranked as
Engineering
 
Sample
“extremely    Earth
Sciences
important”.
Engineering
  Sciences
Sample  Sam 
Adequacy of services
City
instruments
transportation planning
11,Adequacy
xand and
FORpublic public
ofservicesCity
instruments
transportation planning
spending
Adequacy and
and public public 
City
Applied
ofservices
instruments
transportation planning
spending
Sciences Adequacy and
and public 
public
ofservices
City
Applied
instruments
transportation
Sciences planning
spending Exact
Adequacy
and 
and
publicand 
public
ofservices
City
Applied 
instruments
transportation
Sciences Sciences planning
spending Exact  and
and public
and public   
Applied
13services 
spending Exact and  
Applied  Exact and  Exact and
Sustainability 2019, PEER REVIEW HumanSciences Sciences
Entire HumanSciences
of 27 Sciences
Entire HumanSciences Entire HumanSciences Enti
Adequacy
Provision
Protection,
Adequacy ofof
Guarantee
of
urban instruments
and
Provision
instruments community
theGuidelines
preservationProtection,
toand
Adequacy
right and
Guaranteeofand
urban
restoration
public
of
sustainable
public
Table
instruments
the of Guidelines
4.
equipment,
and
Provision
Guidelines
preservation
spending community
Protection,
the
toand
Adequacy
cities
right and
Guarantee of ranked
urban
public
of
sustainable Social
restoration  as
equipment,
and
instruments
the spending“extremely
Provision
community
Guidelines
preservation Protection,
of the
and
Adequacy
cities
right and
Guarantee
to of important”.
urban
Engineering

public
of
sustainable equipment,
Social
restoration  and
Provision
instruments
the spending community
Guidelines
preservation the
Adequacy
cities
right Earth
Protection,
of and
and of Table
urban
Engineering
restoration
Guarantee
to preservation

public
of
sustainable  
instruments
the 4.
equipment,
Social andof
spending
cities
right Guidelines
community
Guidelines
the Earth
and
to 
and ranked
Engineering
restoration
 
public
sustainable  as
of“extremely
equipment,
Social
spending
cities the Earth
 important”.
Engineering
 Social
  Earth
Engineering
   Earth
 
Sustainability 2019, 11,spending
xand
FORpublic
PEER services
REVIEWand public 
Applied   Exactand Sciences   Sample
13  
27  Sciences
Applied
of Sciences Sample Sciences
  Exact Sample
and Sciences
 Sam 
transportation
natural
Protection, and
preservation
City built transportation
environment
Protection,
and
planning natural
restorationand
preservation built
CityProtection,
of the transportation
environment
and
planning naturalservices
Sciences
restoration and

preservation
City and
built public
transportation
environment
Protection,
of the
and
planning naturalservices
Sciences

restoration and

preservation
City and
built public
transportation
Sciences
environment
Protection,
of theand
planning naturalservices

restoration Human
Sciences
and

preservation
City  and
built
of the public
Sciences
and
planning  Entire
environment
services
Sciences

restoration   of the  Sciences
   Sciences
  Human
 Sciences
 Enti

Protection, Guidelines
preservation and Table
restoration 4. Guidelines
of ranked
Social
Applied as “extremely
 Sustainability 2019, important”.
Engineering
  Guidelines Earth
Exact  and   Sample  Social
  
Applied Engineering
     Earth
Exact and  Sciences
 Sam o
Adequacy   11, x FOR PEER
 REVIEW
  
Sciences
Human  Entire  equipment,
          Human  13
 Enti
Provision ofofurban
Guarantee
Land
natural instruments
the
use and Adequacy
right
ordering
built
and
Provision
Guidelines
and
Guarantee public
of
toenvironment
sustainable
and
Land
natural
community of instruments
the
control
use
urban spending
and Adequacy
cities
right
ordering
built
equipment,
and
Provision and
Guarantee
community public
ofof
toenvironment
sustainable
and
Land instruments
the
control
natural use
urban spending
and Adequacy
cities
right
ordering
built
equipment,
Sciences
Social and
Provisionand
Guarantee
and
Land
community public
ofof
toenvironment
sustainable instruments
the
control
natural use
urban
Engineering
spending
and Adequacy
cities
right
ordering
built
equipment,
and
Provisionand
Guarantee
and
Land
community
GuidelinesSciences
Earth
public
ofof
toenvironment
sustainable instruments
the
control
natural use
urban spending
andcities
right
ordering
built
equipment,
and and
and
community public
toenvironment
sustainable
control spending
cities
Sciences
Social Engineering Sciences
Earth
the natural
Protection,
Cooperation
and
preservation
City
built environment
Protection,
between and
planning Table
restoration
Cooperation
segments preservation
of City 4. Guidelines
Protection,
between of
society theand
planning ranked
restoration
Cooperation
segments 

Applied
preservation
of City as “extremely
Protection,
between of
society the
and
planning 

restoration
Cooperation
segments 
important”.

preservation
of City Exact
Protection,
between of
society theand
planning
 and 

restoration
Cooperation
segments 

preservation
of City 

Sciences
between of
society theand
planning 
 

Sample 

restoration
segments of
 
 of
society the 
 

 
 
 
 

 

Sciences 
 Sam 

Land
Guarantee use
transportation ordering
and
theordering
right and
Land
topublic control
sustainable use
transportation
services ordering
cities and
and public Land control
use
transportation
services ordering
 and and
Land
public
Guarantee control
transportationuse
services
the ordering
right andto and
Land
public control
transportation
 services
sustainable use
Table  ordering
Human
cities and
and public
 control
services

Entire           
Land use and control Sciences Sciences 4. Guidelines Sciences
ranked as “extremely important”. Sciences
Provision
Land natural
ofofurban
regularization
Cooperation
Adequacy Guidelines
and
between
instrumentsbuilt
and
Land
and environment
Provision natural
community of
Cooperation
segments
Adequacy and urban
urbanization
regularization
public
of ofand of
betweenbuilt
equipment,
and
Provision
Land
and
society
instruments areas
spending environment
natural
community
Cooperation
Adequacy segments
and of
urbanization
public
of Social
urban
regularizationofand
 of
betweenbuilt
equipment,
and
Provision
Land
and
society
instruments
spending Engineering
environment
natural
community
areas of
Cooperation
segments
Adequacy and urban
urbanization
regularization

public
of ofand

betweenbuilt
equipment,
and
ofProvision
Land
and
society
instruments
spending Earth
environment
 natural
community
areas
Cooperation
segments
Adequacy and of
urbanizationurban
regularization

public
of ofand
 
betweenbuilt
equipment,
and
of and
society
instruments areas
spending environment
community
urbanization

segments
and  
public equipment,
of ofareas  
society
spending        
Guarantee between
Cooperation theCity planning
right to sustainable
segments cities
of society Applied
 Guarantee the right
City Exact
planning and
  
to sustainable 
Sciences
cities  
Sample            
Land
Landoccupied
Protection, use
transportation ordering
andand
byGuidelines
regularization low-income
Land
and and
Land
public
occupied control
use
by ordering
transportation
services
population
urbanization
regularization and
low-income and
Land
public
transportation
occupied
ofProtection,
Land
and
areas byordering
Sciences
control
use
services
population
urbanization
regularization and
low-income and
Land
public
occupied
ofProvision
Land
and
areas byordering
control
transportationuse
services
population
urbanization
regularization andSciences
low-income
ofLand
and
areas and
Land
public
transportation
occupied
urbanization by
control
use
services
population
regularization of
Human
ordering
and
low-income
and
areas and
public Entire
control
urbanization of
services
population areas   
Provision ofpreservation
urban
Land regularization City Protection,
and community
planning
and restoration
preservation
urbanization of
equipment, the
of and restoration
preservation
Social


Protection,
of the
and restoration
of preservation
Engineering

urban
 
City Protection,
andof theand
Earth

community
planning
restoration
preservation
   of
equipment,

theand

restoration

  
Applied
 
of the
 
   Exact
 and 
  

Guarantee
Cooperation
Adequacy of the right
between
instruments
Democratic to
Adequacy sustainable
Cooperation
segments
and
management public
of of cities
between
society
instruments
Democratic spending Cooperation
Adequacy segments
and
management public
of of 
between
society
instruments
Democraticspending Cooperation
segments
Adequacy and
management 
public
of of 
between
society
instruments
Democratic spending 
Cooperation
segments
Adequacy and
management 
public
of of  
Sciences
between
society
instruments
Democratic spending 
segments
and
management 
Sample 
public of 
society
spending       
Human  
Enti
areasoccupied
natural by
transportation
occupied
Provision of urban
low-income
and
by built
and occupied
public
low-income
and community
population
environment
natural byand
services low-income
population built
equipment,
occupied population
environment
natural byand
Scienceslow-income
built occupied
Provision
population
environment
natural
transportation
of urban
byandlow-income
built
Guidelines
and and occupied population
environment
natural
Sciences
public
community
byand
services low-income
built
equipment,
population
environment Social Engineering Earth
Land regularization
Protection,
Recovery of City
preservation
Democratic planning
Land
and
government urbanization
regularization
Protection,
and restoration
Recovery
management preservation
investments
of
Democratic ofLand
and
areas
government urbanization
Protection,
of the regularization
and restoration
Recovery
management investments
of 

Democratic of
preservation Land
and
areasurbanization
Protection,
of the
government and use
regularization
restoration
Recovery
management preservation
investments
of
Democratic ofLand
and
areas
Protection,
of the
government and
urbanization
regularization
restoration
Recovery
management preservation
investments
of
Democratic of and
areas
of the
government
 and
management  
urbanization
restoration
investments
 
of
 areas
of the   
  
Sciences
 Sam 
Land
Guarantee
Adequacy use ordering
the right
Democratic
of instruments
transportation and
Land
topublic control
sustainable
management
and and publicuse
services ordering
cities
spending and
Land control
use ordering
 Adequacy and
Land of
control
 ordering
 and public
instruments
transportation 
and
Land
 public
and control
 use
services ordering

spending  
and control
  
Sciences
      Sciences      
Provision of urban
occupied
natural
Recovery by
of and and community
low-income
built
government occupied
environment
natural
Recovery equipment,
population
byand
investments
of low-income
built
government occupied population
environment
natural
Recovery byand
investments
of low-income
built
government occupiedpopulation
environment
natural
Recovery by
investments
of and
 low-income
built
government occupied population
environment
natural
Recovery by
investments
of and
 
low-income
builtsegments
government population
environment 
investments    
Cooperation
Protection,
Recovery
Adequacy of of between
City
preservation Cooperation
segments
planning
government
instruments and
and restorationbetween
investments
public society
of
spending Cooperation
thesegments 
between
society Cooperation
segments
Guarantee
Protection,
Adequacy of 
 between
the society
preservationright
instruments to 
Cooperation
segments

sustainable
and
and restoration
public of 
between
society

cities
of
spending the 
 ofsociety    
Ten guidelines were
Ten guidelines
considered were
“extremely
Ten guidelines
considered important”
useordering were
“extremely
Ten guidelines
considered
by
use theimportant”
experts
were
“extremely
Ten  guidelines
considered
(Table
by theimportant”
4),experts
and
were
“extremely
only
considered
(Table
byfivethe
important”
4),experts
and
“extremely
only(Table
by
fivethe
important”
4),
experts
andonly (Table
byfive
the4),
experts
and only (Ta
Land transportation
Provision ofDemocratic
Land
regularization
natural
Protection, urban and and
preservation
and
use ordering
Land
and public
management
and
Land
community
built
services
Democratic
control
urbanization
environment
and
use
regularization
restoration
ordering
ofLand
andmanagement
areas
equipment,
of the
and
Land Democratic
control
urbanization
regularization ofLand
andmanagement
areas and
Land Democratic
control
urbanization
regularization
Protection, natural
ordering
ofLand
City
and
preservation andmanagement
areas and
Land
urbanization
regularization
planning
built environment
and
use
Democratic
control
restoration of
ordering
andmanagement
areas
of the
and 
control
urbanization 
ofareas    


were Ten
Adequacy guidelines
considered
Recovery
Cooperation were
of instruments
of were
government
between Ten
“extremely guidelines
considered
considered important”
andinvestments
Recovery
Cooperation
segmentspublicof were
spending
government
between
society were
“extremely
Ten
“extremely
Recovery
Cooperation
segmentsguidelines
considered
considered
forinvestments
of 
 important”
allimportant”
areas were
government
between
society were
“extremely
Ten
“extremely
of training
considered
Recovery
Cooperation
segments 
guidelines
considered
by
forinvestments
all
 of 
the
 important”
important”
areas
and experts
were
government
between
society were
“extremely
for
of the
“extremely
Ten
trainingguidelines
considered
(Table
considered
for
Recovery by
entire
Cooperation
segments all 
the
important”
areas
investments
of
ofand
 
important”
4),experts
sample, and
were
“extremely
“extremely
forof
government
between
society the only
training
which
for
segments 
considered
(Table
by
entire
all
 
five
the
important”
4),
important”
we
areas
and

investments
of experts
sample,
for
society and
of “extremely
the only(Table
training
which
for by
five
entire
all we
the
important”
areas
and
 4),experts
sample,
forand
of the only
(Table
training
which
 byfive
entire the
we
and 4),
experts
sample,
forandtheonly
(Ta
which
enti

occupied
Land
natural by
transportation
use low-income
and and
ordering
built occupied
andpopulation
public by
services
control
environment low-income occupied population
by low-income occupied
Provision population
of
Land
naturalurbanby
useandlow-income
and
ordering occupied
andpopulation
community
built by
control
environment low-income

equipment, population
 
were
will considered
call
Protection,Top 5 were
“extremely
Guidelines:
will
preservation
Land regularization Land
and considered
call
and Top important”
guarantee
5
restoration
urbanization
regularization were
“extremely
Guidelines:
will
of
ofLand
and the
areas considered
call
of for
the
Topallimportant”
areas
guarantee
urbanization right
regularization 5 were
“extremely
of
Guidelines:
will
to
ofLand
and training
considered
for
sustainable
call
areasof the
Topall important”
areas
and
guarantee
urbanization right
regularization 5  were
“extremely
for
of
Guidelines:
cities;
will
of to
Land
and the
training
considered
forentire
sustainable
call
areas of
citythe
Topall important”
areas
and
planning;
urbanizationguarantee
right
regularization 5 sample,
“extremely
for
of
Guidelines:
cities;
of to
and the
training
which
forentire
sustainable
provision
areas of
citythe all 
important”
we
areas
and
planning;
urbanization sample,
guarantee
right
of
 for
of
cities;
of to the
training
which
for
sustainable
provision
areas of
city
the 
entire
all we
areas
and
sample,
planning;
right
of
 for
of
cities;
to the
training
which
entire
sustainable
provision
city we
and
planning;
of 
sample,
for
cities; the
which
provisio
city 
enti
pl
Adequacy
Ten
Ten Democratic
Cooperation
Land of instruments
guidelines
usebetween
guidelines management
orderingwere
Tenand
were
segments
and Democratic
public
guidelines
considered spending
ofconsidered
control management
societywere“extremely
Ten guidelines
considered
Democratic
“extremely management
important”
Cooperation
were Land
“extremely
Ten 
Democratic
transportation
guidelines
considered
by 
important”
usebetween
the and
ordering
important”
experts
were 
management
public
segments Democratic
by services
andguidelines
“extremely
Ten the
of
control
considered
(Table
by 
the 
society management
experts
important”
4),experts
and
were
“extremely
only 
considered
(Table
by 
(Table
five
the 4),
important”
4), experts
and and
“extremely
only(Table
by 
only
five
the five
important”
4),experts
and only
(Table
by five
the experts
4), and only
(Ta
will
urban call Top
natural
and
occupied
Recovery
Protection, 5
by
of Guidelines:
and
community will
built
urban call
low-income
government
preservation Top
occupied
Recovery
and guarantee
environment
and
equipment, 5
community
population
by
investments
of
restoration Guidelines:
will
urban
low-income
government
of call
of the
transportation
and
occupied
Recovery
the Top guarantee
equipment, right
5
community
population
by
investments
of Guidelines:
will
to
urban
and sustainable
low-income
government call
of
public
andthe
Top
transportation guarantee
equipment,
occupied
Recovery right
5
community
services;
population
by
investments
of Guidelines:
cities;
will
to
urban
and sustainable
call
of
citythe
Top
transportation
adequacy
low-income
government public
and planning;
guarantee
equipment,
occupied
Recovery right
5
community
services;
population
by
investments
of of Guidelines:
cities;
to
and sustainable
provision
instrumentsof
citythe
transportation
low-income

government adequacy
public planning;
guarantee
equipment, right
ofcities;
services;
andof
population
investments
 andto sustainable
provision
of
instruments
 city
the
transportation
adequacy
public planning;
right
ofcities;
services;
 and
of to
and sustainable
provision
city
instruments
 adequacy
public

planning;
of cities;
services;
andof provisio
city
instruments

 adequacy pl

Land
were regularization
Cooperation
considered between andsegments
were urbanization
“extremely
considered of
of society
important”
wereareas
“extremely considered
for all 
important”
areas Adequacy
Land
were
“extremely
of training of
considered
for all instruments
regularization
Cooperation between
important”
areas
and and
were
“extremely
for
of and
segments
the
training public
urbanization
considered
forentire
all of of
important”
areas
and 
spending
society
sample,areas
“extremely
for
of the
training
which
forentire
allimportant”
we
areas
and
sample,
for
ofadequacy
the
training
which
forentire
all we
areas
and
sample,
for
ofwethe
training
which
were
urban
public
Land
considered
Land
and
spending;
natural
occupied
use ordering
community
Democratic
by
regularization and urban “extremely
andDemocratic
and
management
public
protection,
built
low-income
control
equipment,
community
spending;
environment
andcall preservation
population
urbanization
important”
urban
transportation
public
of
and
equipment,
management
protection,
areas

for
community
Democratic
spending;
and urban
and
preservation
restoration
public all areas
transportation
public
and
equipment,
management
protection,
Protection,
Land of
and
occupied

Democratic
spending;
the 
communityof
services;
preservation
restoration
natural
preservation
regularization by
training
urban
and
public 
transportation
adequacy
public
and
equipment,
management
protection,
low-income and
and
and
Democratic
spending;
ofand
built
the 
community
services;
of for
and
instruments
preservation
restoration
restoration
andsustainable population
urbanization natural of
the
transportation
adequacy
public
management
environment
ofprotection,
the
areasand ofand 
entire
equipment,
built
the 
services;
andof andsample,
instruments
transportation
preservation
restoration
natural
environment public
and ofand
built
thewhich

services;
and
of and
instruments
restoration
natural
environmentand ofentire
adequacy
public built
the we
and
sample,
services;
andof
naturalforadequacy
environment the
andwhich
instruments enti
bui
will call
Ten Top 5
guidelines Guidelines:
will were
Ten Top guarantee
5
guidelines
considered Guidelines:
will call
wereof the
“extremely
Ten Top
guidelines
considered
guarantee
right
5 Guidelines:
will
to sustainable
call
important”of
were the
Top
“extremely
Ten guarantee
right
guidelines5
considered
by Guidelines:
thecities;
will
to call
important”
expertsof
werecitythe
Top
“extremely
Ten planning;
guarantee
right
guidelines5
considered
(Table
by the experts
Guidelines:
cities;
to sustainable
provision
important”
4), and
wereof
citythe
“extremely
only
considered
(Table
by 
planning;
guarantee
right
of
five cities;
the to sustainable
provision
important”
4),
experts
and of
city
the
“extremely
only restoration
planning;
right
(Table
by of
five cities;
the to 
sustainable
provision
important”
4),
experts
and city
onlyplanning;
(Table of
byfive
the experts
cities;
4), provisio
and city 
pl
will Cooperation
publicRecovery
spending;
call
This Top
Landset ofbetween
of
use
Democratic
occupied
government
by5fivepublic segments
Recovery
protection,
Guidelines:
guidelines
ordering Thisand
management
low-income
investments
spending;
set ofwas
of
control
population
society
government
preservation
public
guarantee
five Recovery
protection,
considered
guidelines
This investments
spending;
andsetof of
of
to government
preservation
restoration
the

was public
five
be Recovery
protection,
right
considered
the
guidelines
This
most investments
spending;
of
and
to the
set
natural
occupied
of
important
of
to government
preservation
restoration
natural
sustainable
was public
five
and
Democratic
by be Recovery
protection,
considered
the
guidelines
built
low-incomeThis
and
most investments
spending;
ofand
built
the
should
set
environment
management
of
important
of
to
population
government
preservation
cities;restoration
natural
environment
was
five
be protection,
city
be the of
prioritized
guidelines
and
most investments
and
built
planning;
considered the
shouldpreservation
restoration
natural
environment
important
to
was
by
 be
be provision of
considered
the and
built
prioritized
and
most the
should natural
environment
of
important
to
by urban
be
be the of built
prioritized
and
most the
shouldnatural
environment
important
by be andonly(Ta
bui
prioritized
sho
urban andset
Landconsidered
were This community
regularization
of urban
five and
equipment,
guidelines
This community
and urbanization
were
“extremely
considered
set of was urban
of
important”
were
five transportation
consideredand
equipment,
areasconsidered
“extremely for
guidelines
This setcommunity
all of
to 
was urban
and
important”
areas were
five
be transportation
public
“extremely
of and
equipment,
training
considered
for
considered
the
guidelines
This
most setcommunity
services;
all
important
of
towas urban
and
important”
areas
and were
five
be transportation
adequacy
public
“extremely
for
of theand
equipment,
training
considered
considered
the for
guidelines
This
and
most community
entireservices;
all
should
set ofsample,
important
of
towas and
instruments
important”
areas
and
five
be 
be transportation
adequacy
public
“extremely
for
of the
considered
the equipment,
training
which
for
prioritized
guidelines
and
most entireservices;
all
should andof

and
instruments
important”
we
areas
and transportation
sample,
important
to
was
bybe
be for
of adequacy
public
the
training
which
for
considered
the services;
entire
prioritized
and
most all
shouldand
ofsample,
we
areas
and
important
to
by and
instruments
be
be for
of
the adequacy
public
the
training
which services;
and
entire
prioritized
and
most should ofsample,
we
and
important
by instruments

befor adequacy
the
which
enti
prioritized
and sho
stakeholders
and Cooperation
Recovery
community
Ten for
of
Democratic
guidelines stakeholders
decision
between
government making.
segments
management
equipment,
were
Ten for
of
investments
guidelines
considered stakeholders
decision
society
transportation
were making.
“extremely
Ten for
guidelines
considered stakeholders
decision
important”
were making.
Land
Recovery
and public
“extremely
Ten for
use
of
Democratic
guidelines
considered
by the stakeholders
decision
ordering
government
important”
experts
were and
management
services; making.
“extremely
Ten for
control
investments
adequacy
guidelines
considered
(Table
by the decision
important”
4),experts
and
were making.
of
“extremely
only instruments
considered
(Table
by five
the
important”
4), experts
and
“extremely
only and
(Table
byfive public
the
important”
4),experts
and only
(Table
byfive
the 4),experts
and only
(Ta
public
will occupied
spending;
call Top by
5andlow-income
public
protection,
Guidelines:
will call population
spending; preservation
public
protection,
ofspending;
and preservation
restoration
public
protection,
ofspending;
of
and the preservation
restoration
natural
public
protection,
andspending;
of
andbuilt
the preservation
restoration
natural
environment
protection,
and of
and
built
the preservation
restoration
natural
environment and of
and
built
the restoration
natural
environmentand of built
the natural
environmentand bui
Land
were
regularization
stakeholders
Figure
Recovery
considered for
6of and
Figure
government
were
“extremely 7Top guarantee
urbanization
stakeholders
decision
Figure making.
show 5and
for
investments
considered
Guidelines:
will
of
6important”
the
were
areascall
stakeholders
decision
Figure
behavior
Figure
“extremely
the
7Top
considered
for
guarantee
making.
all
right
show 5and
for Guidelines:
areas

will
to
were
sustainable
call
stakeholders
decision
6important”
of the
the the
7Top
Recovery
“extremely
of training
considered
for
guarantee
making.
Cooperation
Figure
guidelines
behavior
Figure show
all
right
5and
for Guidelines:
cities;
will
6important”
of
of when
the
areas
and
to
the sustainable
call
Figure
were
of
city
stakeholders
decision
between the
segments
guidelines
governmentbehavior 7Top
evaluations
Figure
“extremely
for
of the
training
considered
for
planning;
guarantee
making.
show
entire
all
right
5and
for
of Guidelines:
cities;
6important”
of
investments when
the
areas
and byto
decision
society
the sustainable
provision
Figure
sample,
of
city
training
guidelines
behavior the
7 planning;
evaluations
“extremely
for
of the
training
which
for
guarantee
making.right
show
entireareas
all ofofthe
 cities;
when
by
the
important”
we
areas
and
to
sample,
sustainable
provision
of
city
training the
guidelines
for
ofbehavior
evaluations
the
training
which
for
planning;
right
areas
entire
all ofofthe
cities;
byto
when
we
areas
and
sustainable
provision
city
training
sample,guidelines
for
of
planning;
evaluations
the
training
which
ofcities;
areas
entire when
we
and by
sample,
for
provisio
city
 training
evaluatio
the
which
pla
enti
spending;
urban Ten
This
and Democratic
set protection,
guidelines
of five
community urbanmanagement
were
guidelines
Thisand preservation
considered
set
equipment, of was
communityfive
urban “extremely
considered
guidelines
This
transportation
and and
set
equipment, of
to restoration
was
community important”
five
beurban
and Ten
considered
the
guidelines
This
most set
transportation
public
and
equipment, of
guidelines
by
important
of
to
communitythe
the
was
five
services;beurban
and natural
experts
were
considered
the
guidelines
This
and
most
transportation
adequacy
public
and should
set
equipment, and
considered
(Table
important
of
towas
community
services;
of 4),
five
bebe
and built
and
considered
the environment.
“extremely
only
prioritized
guidelines
and
instrumentsmost
transportation
adequacy
public should five important”
important
equipment, to
was
bybe
be
services;
andof and considered
the
prioritized
and
most
instruments by
should
transportation
adequacy
public the
important
to
by be
be
services;
and
of andexperts
the (Table
prioritized
and
most
instruments
adequacy
public should
important
by 4),
be
services;
andof and only
prioritized
and
instruments
adequacysho
occupied
Figure 6 byandlow-income
Figure
Figure 7 population
show
6 and theFigure
behavior
Figure 7 show
6 ofandtheLand
theFigure regularization
guidelines
behavior
Figure 7 show
6 ofand
when
the
theand
Figureurbanization
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
Figure 7 show
6 ofand of
when
the
by
the areas
Figure
training
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
7 show
areas
ofwhen
the
by
the training
guidelines
behavior
evaluations areas
of
when
the
by training
guidelines
evaluations areas
when
by training
evaluatio
are compared
will
were
publiccall Top
Recovery
Ten
considered
stakeholders
spending; of5with
guidelines
for
areevaluations
compared
Guidelines:
will
governmentcall
were
“extremely
stakeholders
decision
public
protection, Top
making.
spending; 5with
investments
considered
performed
guarantee areevaluations
important”
for
compared
Guidelines:
will call
“extremely
stakeholders
decision
preservation
public
protection, for
and
forguarantee
ofspending;
the
Top the
5with
rightperformed
are
entire
will
allpreservation
making. areas
for were
evaluations
toofcompared
Guidelines: sample.
stakeholders
decision
restoration
public
protection,
forguarantee
sustainable
call
important”of
Ten the
Top the
guidelines
training
considered
spending;
of
and by
making.
the
with
right
for
performed
5and
the
are
entire
evaluations
compared
Guidelines:
cities;
will
to
experts
for were
“extremely
sample.
sustainable
call
of
city
the
stakeholders
decision
preservation
restoration
natural
public
protection,
and thefor
Top the
considered
(Table
entire
making.
spending;
of
andbuilt
the
with
planning;
for
performed
guarantee
right entire

5naturaltoevaluations
Guidelines:
cities;
4),
important”
sample, and
decision
preservation
restoration
environment
sample.
“extremely
protection,
and
for
sustainable
provision
of
citythe
only
which
for
of all
making.
and
built
the
the
planning;
five
we
performed
guarantee
right
of entire
cities;
important”
areas
preservation
restoration
natural
environment
sample.
for
toofsustainable
provision
of
city
the
training
and of
and by
built
the
the
planning;
right
the
and
entire
ofcities;
to
experts
for
restoration
natural
environment
sample.
sustainable
provision
city
the
and planning;
(Table
ofentire
built
the of cities;provisio
4), and
sample,
natural
environment city
and only
whichpla
bui
are This
compared
In Democratic
Figuresset of
with
7are management
five
and In guidelines
evaluations
compared
8,
Figures
the with
performed
are
guidelines
7 and was
evaluations
compared
In 8, considered
for
Figures the
considered
the with
performed
are
entire
guidelines
7 and to
occupied
evaluations
compared
sample.
important
In 8, be
for
Figures
considered
the by
thethe
with
guidelines
were
7 most
low-income
performed
are
entire
evaluations
andcompared
important
those
In 8, important
sample.population
for
Figures
considered
the
that thewith
performed
entire
guidelines
were
had
7 andtheirand
evaluations
sample.
important
those 8, forshould
the
considered
relative
the
that guidelines
were
had be
performed
entiretheir prioritized
sample.
important
those for the
considered
relative
that entire
were
had by
theirsample.
important
those relative
that were
had their
those rela
tha
urban
were and community
considered urban
“extremely and
equipment,
community urban
6important” transportation
ofand
equipment,
for community
all areas urban
and
weretransportation
of public
and
equipment,
training
considered community
services; urban
and transportation
adequacy
public
“extremely
for theand
equipment,
community
entireservices;
of and
instruments
6important” transportation
Figure
sample, adequacy
public
equipment,
which
for services;
all and
weof
areasand
instruments
transportation
of adequacy
public
training services;
and
of
and and
instruments
adequacy
public services;
andof instruments
adequacy
will call
This
Ten Top
Recovery
Figure set6of 5and
guidelines
Inspending;
Figures Guidelines:
government
five Figure
Figure
guidelines
This
were
7medians
and In4.01
8, setguarantee
7investments
showof
considered
Figures
the and
was the
five Figure
guidelines
7medians
and behavior
Figure
considered
guidelines
This the
7the
“extremely
In 8, set
Figures 6right
show
consideredof
of
toand
was 7will
the
five
be to
the sustainable
call
Figure
considered
the
important”
guidelines
andimportant
In 8, 7Top
guidelines
behavior
Figure
guidelines
This
most show
set 6of 5and
of
important
towas
Democratic
Figuresby
considered
the Guidelines:
cities;
when
the
be
the the
five Figure city
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
Figure
considered
guidelines
were the
guidelines
7medians
and This
and
most
management
experts
important
those
In 8, planning;
set
Figuresguarantee
7should
show ofand
when
important
(Table
considered
the
that of
towasthe
by
the
five
bebe
74), provision
of
training
guidelines
behavior
considered
guidelines
were
had the
and the
evaluations
prioritized
guidelines
andand
theirmost
important
those 8, 7relative
show
areas
should
only of
right
of
when
the
important
considered
the
that to
was
by
five by
the
be
be to sustainable
training
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
considered
the
guidelines
were
had prioritized
and
most
their
important
those areas
should of
when
important
to
considered
relative
that by befor
cities;
the
by
be
were
had the the
cityentire
training
guidelines
evaluations
prioritized
and
most
their
important
those areas
should sample,
planning;
when
by
important
relative
that by
were
hadbe land which
provisio
training
evaluatio
prioritized
and
their
those a
sho
rela
tha
stakeholders
medians
public
will
urban call
and
ranging
Top 5
community
forfromdecision
public
protection,
Guidelines:
ranging
spending; making.
topreservation
4.99,
guarantee
equipment,
from
which
public
protection,
of
4.01 in
ranging
spending;
and
the
transportation
to
descending
4.99,
right
medians
from
preservation
restoration
will
to
which
public
urban
and
4.01
order
protection, in
ranging
spending;
of
and
sustainable
call
public
and
RecoveryTop
to
thedescending
were:
4.99,
5
community
services;
of
from
preservation
restoration
natural which
land
public 4.01
protection,
Guidelines:
cities;
government andorder
usein
ranging
spending;
of
city
adequacyand to
descending
ordering
built
the were:
4.99, from
preservation
restoration
natural
planning;
which
land
environment
guarantee
equipment,
investmentsof
and
protection,
and4.01
order
use
ofin
control;
and
provision
instrumentsof
to
built
the
transportation thedescending
ordering
were:
4.99,
preservation
restoration
natural which
land
environment
right
andof andto
and
andorder
use
ofin
control;
and descending
ordering
built
the
sustainable
public
were: land
restoration
natural and
environment
cities;
services; andorder
use
of
city
control;
adequacy
ordering
built
the were:
natural
environment
planning;
of 
and
andusecon
provisio
instruments buio
are compared
stakeholders
were
mediansconsidered
ranging forwithare evaluations
compared
stakeholders
decision
“extremely making. with
forperformed
are evaluations
compared
stakeholders
decision
important” for for
allthe
making. with
forperformed
areas are
entire
evaluations
compared
sample.
stakeholders
decision
of for the
making.
training with
forperformed
and are
entire
evaluations
compared
sample.
stakeholders
decision
for the for the
making.
entire with
forperformed
entire
evaluations
decision
sample, sample.
for the
making.
which we performed
entire sample. for the entire sample.
democratic
urban
Ten
This
public
In and
Figure
guidelines
Figures
set ofand67medians
community
spending;
Figures
from
management;
fiveand
6management;
were
and
4.01
democratic
guidelines
This ranging
tomanagement;
Inequipment,
protection,
Figure 8,
Figure 7the
show
4.99,
recovery
considered
7Figures
show
set of
was
and
medians
from
the
which
democratic
the
five of 4.01 in
ranging
public
“extremely
behavior
considered
guidelines
This set
transportation
6preservation
guidelines
7democratic
and In
Figure of8,
behavior
Figure and
to
Figures
descending
showof
6of
4.99,
recovery
to
was
of
and
medians
from
management; which
investment;
democratic
7urban
and
restoration
considered
7the public
guidelines
the
the
ofthe
important”
five
be ofand
4.01
order
considered
the
guidelines
This
most
public
Figure and
in
ranging
publicset
spending;
of
important
In 8,
guidelines
behavior
Figure
to
descending
by were:
4.99,
recovery
cooperation
guidelinesthe
important
of
to
was
community
the
Figures services;
considered
the
medians
management;
five
be
natural
7guidelines
show
6ofof
and
whenthe
from
the
which
land
investment;
democratic
ofThis
experts 4.01
considered
the order
adequacy
protection,
guidelines
were Figureand
7democratic
and
use
public
when
guidelines
and
most in
ranging
between
equipment,
important
those
In 8,
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
Figure
to
descending
ordering
(Table
7should
set
built
Figures
the
that
show
were:
4.99,
recovery
cooperation
management;
important
of
to
was
of
from
4),
five
be
be which
investment;
the land
of
and
evaluations and
instruments
6preservation
considered guidelines
of were
and had
when7the
the
by
the
4.01
order
use
segments
considered
the
transportation
environment
andtheir
important
those
Figure
training8,
guidelines
behavior
in
control;
public
between
only
prioritized
guidelines
and
most and
to
descending
ordering
were:
4.99,
recovery
cooperation
should
important
to
considered
7relative
evaluationsthe
that
show was
andby be
and
restoration
guidelines
areas
of were
had
whenthe
by
the
which
investment;
fiveofbe
by the land
of and
considered
the order
prioritized
and
theirmost
public
use
segments
training of
important
those
training
guidelines
behavior
in
control;
public
between descending
ordering
shouldwere:
cooperation
investment;
areasofbe
important
the to
considered
evaluationsrelative
that
areas
ofby
services;
the
natural
were
had
when bethe
the
by
landand order
use
segments
are
prioritized
and
theirmost
adequacy
and
important
those
training
guidelines
control;
betweenordering
shouldwere:
cooperation
ofthe
important
built by
of
relative
evaluationsthat were
areas be
had
when
land
and use
con
segment
betwe
prioritized
environment and
instruments
their
those sho
rela
tha
o
will
were call
democratic
society; Top
land
considered
stakeholders
5 Guidelines:
for democratic
regularization
society;
“extremely
stakeholders
decision land guarantee
recovery
management;
and
important”
making.for of
regularization
urbanization
society;
stakeholders
decision
the
public
land
for allright
recovery
management;
and
making. areas
for
to
investment;
regularization
areas sustainable
democratic
ofof
urbanization
society; Tenpublic
occupied
land
training
stakeholders
decision recovery
cooperation
and
making. by cities;
management;
investment;
areas
and
for forof
regularization
urbanization
low-income
society; city
public
between
occupied
were
the
stakeholders
decision land planning;
recovery
cooperation
management;
and
entire
making.of investment;
population;
regularization
by
considered
forareas of
urbanization
low-income
sample,
decision
provision
segments
public
between
occupied recovery
cooperation
equity
“extremely
which and
of investment;
of the
population;
making. by
we in
areas of
urbanization
low-incomesegments
public
between
occupied
important” cooperation
equity of investment;
of the
population;
by by in
areas
the segments
low-income between
occupied
experts equity inby4), training
cooperation
of the
population;
by
(Table evaluatio
segment
low-income
and betweap
equit
only
compared
public
are This
medians
the compared
set
Sustainability
urban
society;and
land with
spending;of
ranging five
with
2019,
community areevaluations
protection,
guidelines
medians
from 4.01 ranging
evaluations
11,compared
x FOR
regularization
society; land to
PEER
equipment,
and was
4.99,
with performed
preservation
considered
medians
from
which
performed
are 4.01and
evaluations
compared
REVIEW in
ranging
for
transportation
regularization
urbanization
society; to to
thefor
restoration
be
descending
4.99,
with the
public
the
medians
from
which
performed
are
entire
and entire
spending;
This
mostofin
4.01
order
evaluations
compared
sample.
public the
set
ranging
for to the sample.
natural
important
of
descending
were:
4.99,
with protection,
five
performed
services; are
entireguidelines
medians
from
which
landand4.01
order
use
evaluations
compared
sample.
adequacy built
in
for preservation
should
ranging
to the environment
was
descending
ordering
were:
4.99,
with
of be considered
from
performed
entireprioritized
which
landand and
4.01
order
use
evaluations
instruments in restoration
control;
sample.
forto toby be
descending
ordering
were:
4.99,
the
and the
which
performed
entireland most
and of
order
use
inthe
control;
sample.
for natural
important
descending
ordering
were:
the entireland
14low-income
of and
and
27 built
should
order
use environment
control;
sample. be land
ordering
were: prioritized
and use
con o
will distribution
call
FigureTop 5and the
of benefits
distribution
Guidelines: and
guaranteethe
of
burdensof land
benefits
distribution
the and
to6ofregularization
and
rightareas
theurbanization
society;
the
of
were
to occupied
burdens
community; land
benefits
distribution
considered
sustainable and
to6of
regularization
by
and areas
the urbanization
low-income
society;
audiences
the
of occupied
burdens
community;
benefitsland
distribution
“extremely
cities; city and
of
population;
7between
to regularization
by
and areas
the urbanization
low-income
audiences
6important”
planning; of occupied
burdens
community;
thebenefitsequityand
municipal
for
provision of
population;
between
to
all by
and in
areas
the urbanization
low-income
audiences
areas
of occupied
burdens
community;
the
of equity
municipal of
population;
between
training by
toareas in
areas
the
andaudiences occupied
community;
the
for the equitypopulation;
municipalby
between
entire in low-income
audiences
the
sample, equit
munic ap
betw
which
This
stakeholders
democratic
In
public set6management;
Figures
spending;of
for five
7 Figure
andFigure
In 8, 7the
guidelines
decision
democratic show
Figures
protection,
6management;
making. and
was
recovery the
Figure
guidelines
7 and
preservation
behavior
Figure
considered
democratic
ofIn 8, 7the
public show
Figures of
considered
and
and
to
recovery the
the
be Figure
guidelines
7
restoration
guidelines
the
andbehavior
Figure
This
most
stakeholders
management;
investment;
democratic
of 7the
public
important
In 8, show
set of
and
recoverywhen
important
of
for
cooperation
Figures the
the
five
management;
considered
of the
Figure
investment;guidelines
behavior
evaluations
Figure
guidelines
decision and
democratic
guidelines
were
7
natural andof public
between
important
those
In
and8, show
should
making. of
and
when
was
recovery
cooperation
Figures the
by
the
beFigure
management;
considered
the
that
built investment;
the
guidelines
were
had
7 training
and
environment
guidelines
behavior
evaluations
considered
prioritized
of segments
their 7relative
public
between
important
those 8, show
areas
of
towhen
by
recovery
cooperation
considered
the
that the
by
the
be
investment;
of the
guidelines
were
had training
theguidelines
behavior
evaluations
of most
segments
their public
between
important
those ofwhen
important
cooperation
considered
relative
that the
by
investment;
of
werethe
had training
guidelines
evaluations
and
segments
their between
important
those areas
should when
by
be training
cooperation
of
relative
that werethe
had evaluatio
prioritized
segment
theirbetwe
those rela
tha
the
urbandistribution
government and
and community
are compared withthe
of
are benefits
distribution
government
the population;
equipment,
evaluations
compared and
withthe
of
burdens
benefits
distribution
government
simplification
the population;
transportation
performed
are evaluations
compared to and
for the
thewiththe
of
burdens
andcommunity;
ofwill
performed
are
entire benefits
distribution
government
simplification
the
urban population;
call and
public
evaluations
compared Top
sample.
fortoservices;
and
theaudiences
5with
the the
of
burdens
community;
environmental
of benefits
distribution
government
simplification
the
urban
Guidelines:
performed
are
entire adequacy
evaluations
compared
sample.between
population;
and to
for and
theaudiences
legislation;
guarantee
theof
with of
burdens
community;
environmental the
ofentire benefits
municipal
simplification
the
urban between
to
population;
instruments
performed fairness
of and
evaluationsthe
sample.
for theaudiences
legislation; burdens
community;
environmental
right
and
the of the
ofentire municipal
simplification
urban
to
performed between
fairness
and
sustainable
sample. to
for theaudiences
legislation; community;
environmental
the of the city
ofcities;
urban
entire municipal
between
fairness
and
sample. audiences
legislation;theprovisio
environmental
of
planning; munic
betw
fairnes
le
stakeholders
Figure
society;
medians
This land for
6of
ranging
set and decision
Figure
regularization
society;
medians
from
five 4.01making.
7ranging
land
guidelines show
and
to 4.99,
was the behavior
regularization
urbanization
society;
medians
from
which land
4.01
considered in and
of
ranging
to of stakeholders
the
descending
4.99,
to guidelines
regularization
areas
medians
be from
which
the Figure
urbanization
society;
occupied
land
4.01
order
most in and
ranging
to for
6of and
when
descending
were:
4.99,
important decision
Figure
regularization
by areas
urbanization
low-income
society;
medians
from occupied
which
landand4.01 making.
evaluations
7in
land
order
use show
and
of
ranging
to by
descending
ordering
should were:
4.99, the
population;
befromtraining
regularization
by areas behavior
urbanization
low-income
occupied
which
landand equity
4.01
order
use
prioritized in areas
and
of
control;
to of the
population;
by in
areas
descending
ordering
were:
4.99,
by guidelines
urbanization
low-income
occupied
which
landand equity
order
use
in of
control; when
population;
by in
areas
descending
ordering
were: evaluations
low-income
occupied
landand equity
order
use inby
population;
by
control; training
low-income
ordering
were: land
and aop
equit
use
con
government
conditions
public
In forand
spending;
Figures 7government
the
public population;
conditions
and
protection,
andIn 8,Figures
the and
private
for government
simplification
the
public
preservation
guidelines
7 and population;
conditions
agents;and
In 8, and
Figures and
integration
private
for ofgovernment
simplification
publicthe
urban
urban
restoration
considered
the guidelines
7 and population;
conditions
agents;
and and and
and
of
important
In 8,Figures environmental
and
complementarity
integration
private
for
community
the
considered
the ofgovernment
public
naturalsimplification
the
urban
guidelines
were
7 and population;
conditions
agents;
and and
and and
equipment,
important
those
In 8, legislation;
built
Figures environmental
and
complementarity
integration
between
private
for
considered
the
that of
publicsimplification
the
urban
agents;
urban
guidelines
were
had
7 and population;
fairness
and and
and
transportation
environment
andtheir
important
those 8, legislation;
environmental
considered
relative
the
that of
complementarity
integration
between
private
rural of simplification
urban
agents;
urban
and
guidelines
were
had and fairness
public
their
important
those and
and legislation;
betweenenvironmental
rural of
complementarity
integration of
services;
considered
relative
that were
had urban
urban
and
their fairness
and
and legislation;
environmental
of
complementarity
between
adequacy
important
those rural
of
relative
that were
had urban fairnes
theirand
instruments
thosebetwle
relar
tha
are
the Figure
compared
democratic
stakeholders 6
distribution and
with Figure
the
of
management;
for benefits
democratic
decision 7
evaluations show
distribution performed
and
recovery the
of
management;
making. behavior
burdens
benefits
democratic
of for
distribution
public to of
the
and
the
recovery the
are
entire
the
of
management; guidelines
burdens
investment; Figure
compared
democratic
of sample.
community;
benefits
distribution
public to6 and
and
recoverywhen
with
the
cooperation
management; Figure
investment; evaluations
evaluations
audiences
the
of
burdens
community;
benefits
democratic
of 7
distribution
public
between show
between
to and
the
recovery by
the
performed
audiences
cooperation
management;of training
behavior
burdens
community;
the
investment;
the benefits
of for
municipal
segments areas
between
public
betweento of
the
and
the
recovery the
entire
audiences
cooperation guidelines
burdens
community;
the
investment;
of the of sample.
municipal
segments between
public
betweento when
theaudiences
cooperation evaluations
community;
the
investment;
of the municipal
segmentsbetween
between by
audiences
cooperation
of the training
the munic
segment a
betw
betwe
conditions
activities.
This
medians for
The
set of
ranging public
conditions
guideline
five and
activities.
guidelinesprivate
for
“ordering
The public
was conditions
agents;
guideline and
activities.
and
consideredintegration
private
control for
“ordering
The topublic
of conditions
agents;
and
guideline
public
be the and
activities.
land
and complementarity
use”integration
private
control
spending;
most for
“ordering
The public
obtained
of conditions
agents;
guideline
important and and
activities.
land
and
a complementarity
integration
between
relative
use”
protection,
and private
control for
“ordering
The public
obtained
median
of agents;
urban
guideline
land
preservation
should be and
anda and
of and
complementarity
integration
between
private
relative
use”
control
4.88 rural
“ordering
prioritizedand obtained
and
median
of agents;
urban
land
restoration
by and
anda of and
complementarity
integration
between
relative
use”
control
4.88
of rural
obtained
the and
median
of
natural urban
land and
a ofand
complementarity
between
relative
use”
and 4.88 rural
obtained
and
builtmedian urban
a
environment ofand
betw
relative
4.88 r
are compared
In Figures
government
society; land
Figure 6andand 7medians
with from
the 4.01 ranging
evaluations
and 8,land
government 7the
population;
regularization
society;
Figure
to
and
show
4.99,
and medians
from
which
performed
guidelines
government4.01
simplification
the
the
in
ranging
for
population;
regularization
urbanization
society; land
behavior
to
descending
and 4.99,
the
considered
and
of ofmedians
from
are which
entire
government 4.01
order
compared
simplification
the
urban
regularization
areas
ofof
in
ranging
Insample.
important
Figures
population;
urbanization
society;
the and
occupied
land
guidelines
to
descending
were:
4.99,
with
weremedians
from
environmental
andand
of of which
land
government 4.01
order
simplification
the
urban
regularization
by areas use
evaluations
7low-income
and those8, in
ranging
the
population;
urbanization
when society;
occupiedand
land
evaluations
to
descending
ordering
that were:
4.99,
legislation; from
environmental
andand
of of which
performed
guidelines
had landand
their 4.01
order
simplification
population;the
urban
regularization
by areas
urbanization
low-income
by
use
in
control;
for
population;
fairness
occupied
training and
equityto
descending
ordering
were:
4.99,
the
considered
relative
legislation;
environmental
and
of ofof which
entirelandand
simplification
population;
by
areas in
areas urban
urbanization
low-income order
use
in
control;
sample.
important
fairness
occupied and
equity descending
ordering
were:
were
legislation;
environmental
of of land
oflow-income
population;
by in
areas urban and
those order
use
control;
fairness
occupiedand ordering
thatwere:
had
legislation;
equity land
environmental
of
population;
by
in and
their
low-income use
conleop
rela
fairnes
equit
activities.
can be
stakeholders
democratic The
considered
for guideline
activities.
can
decision
management; “ordering
borderline,
be The
considered
making. guideline
activities.
and
standing
can control
“ordering
borderline,
be The
considered
out as guideline
activities.
land
and
standing
a can
guideline use”
control
“ordering
borderline,
be
This The
obtained
considered
out of
guideline
“extremely
set asof activities.
land
standing
a can and
a
guideline
five relative
use”
control
“ordering
borderline,
beimportant”The
obtained
considered
out
guidelines median
of
guideline
“extremely
as land
standing
a
was anda
guideline
for of
relative
use”
control
4.88
“ordering
borderline,
the
important”
considered out obtained
appliedand
median
of
“extremely
as to land
standing
a be anda
guideline
for
the of
relative
use”
the control
4.88 obtained
important”
mostoutappliedand
median
of
“extremely
as a
important land a
guideline
for of
relative
use”
the 4.88obtained
important”
and and
median
applied
“extremely
should be fora of
relative
the 4.88
import
app
prioritized
In Figures
medians
conditions
the ranging
for
distribution 7democratic
public and
from
conditions
the
of and
benefits recovery
8, private
4.01 thetomanagement;
for
distribution democratic
guidelines
4.99,
public
and of
which
conditions
agents;
the
of and
burdens public recovery
management;
considered
in
integration
benefits private
distributionfor
to andinvestment;
democratic
descending
public
the of
conditions
agents;
the
of and
burdensandpublic
important
medians Insample.
community; recovery
cooperation
Figures
order management;
ranging investment;
complementarity
integration
benefits private
distribution for
to and 7democratic
were
were:
public
the and
fromof
those
land
conditions
agents;
and andpublic
between
8,
4.01
use recovery
cooperation
the management;
that
to
complementarity
integration
between
private
for investment;
the
guidelines
orderinghad
4.99,
public of
which
agents;
urban
and segments
their
and
andpublic
between
andin recovery
cooperation
considered
relative
control; investment;
of
todescending
complementarity
integration
between
private
rural the of
agents;
urban
and segments
public
between
important
order
and cooperation
investment;
of
were
were:
complementarity
integration
between
torural the segments
those
land
urban
and between
use
and cooperation
that of the
had
ordering
complementarity
between
rural urbansegment
their
andbetwe
rela
con
and
betw r
are
can compared
be
social considered
sciences
Figure
society; land
withcan evaluations
borderline,
6regularization
and be
knowledge
social
Figure
society; considered
sciences
7 groups
landshow
and
performed
standing
can
the borderline,
knowledge
social
and be for
behavior
regularization
urbanization
society;
for
considered
out
sciences
landtheas
and
the
groupshuman
of entire
standing
aknowledge
can
guideline
borderline,
social
and be
stakeholders
the
ofregularization
areas
urbanization
society; considered
out
sciences
for
sciences
guidelines
occupied
landthe
groups
and
of aaudiences
“extremely
as human
group.
for the
of
burdens
community;
standing
can
knowledge
when social
and benefits
decision
regularization
by areas
distribution
guideline
borderline,
be between
important”
Conversely,
sciences
for
sciences
evaluations
urbanization
low-income
society;
occupiedland
to
considered
out the and
groups
making.
and
of
the
aaudiences
“extremely
as human
group. of
burdens
community;
standing the
knowledge
by
population;toand benefits
guideline
for the municipal
borderline,
the between
important”
out
applied
Conversely,
sciences
for
training
regularization
by areas
urbanization
low-income guideline
occupied the and
groups
equity
the
aaudiences
“extremely
as human
group.
areas
and
of
burdens
to
population;
by in
areas
community;
standing the
guideline
for
andthe
urbanization
low-income themunicipal
between
important”
outapplied
Conversely,
sciences
for
occupiedguideline
the
equity of
the
aaudiences
“extremely
as human
group. to
population;
by in
areas
community;
the
guideline
for the
low-income themunicipal
between
important”
applied
Conversely,
sciences
guideline
occupiedequity
audiences
“extremely
group. tothe
for
population;
by
inthe the munic
the betw
import
app
Convers
low-income guide
equit p
medians
democratic
activities.
government ranging
The
Insciences
Figuresand from
management;
guideline 4.01
activities.
government
the
7social
andpopulation;
8, the to
“ordering
The 4.99,
recovery
and which
guidelineof
activities.
and
government
simplification
the
guidelines in
public
control
population; descending
“ordering
The and
considered ofofmedians
investment;
democratic
guideline
activities.
land
and
government order
use”
simplification
the
urban ranging
control
“ordering
The
population;
and
important were:
cooperation
management;
obtained
of from
guideline
environmental
and of
were land
activities.
land
and
a
government 4.01
simplification
the
urban use
between
relative
use”
control
population;
those and to
ordering
“ordering
The 4.99,
recovery
obtained
median
of the
legislation;
environmental
thatand of
had which
guideline
land
andof
a and
segments
of
simplification
the
urban in
control;
public
relative
use”
control
4.88
population;
their fairness
and descending
“ordering investment;
of
obtained
and
median
of
legislation;land
environmental
relative of anda of order
relative
use”
simplification
urban control
4.88
fairness
and were:
cooperation
obtained
and
median
of
legislation;land
environmental
ofof land
urbana of use
between
relative
use”4.88 ordering
obtained
fairness
and and
median
legislation; a
environmental
of and
of con
segment
relative
4.88
fairnes
le
social
“isonomy
are
the compared of
distribution knowledge
conditions
with“isonomy
the
of sciences
evaluations
benefits groups
for
of
distribution knowledge
social
publicand
conditions
“isonomy
performed
and the
of
burdens for
sciences
and
benefits the
groups
for
for
distribution
to human
private
of the
and
theknowledge
social
public and
conditions
“isonomy
entire
the
of
burdenssciences
for
agents”sciences
and
Figure
sample.
community;
benefits the
groups
for
distributionto6 human
group.
private
of
and and
and
the knowledge
social
public and
conditions
“isonomy
the
Figure
audiences
the
of
burdensConversely,
sciences
for
agents”sciences
guideline
and
community;
benefits 7
distributionthe
groups
for
show
between
to human
group.
private
of
and
and
the knowledge
public to
the and
conditions
audiences
of the
“integration
the Conversely,
sciences
agents”for
guideline
guideline
and
behavior
burdens
community;
thebenefits the
groups
for
municipalandhuman
group.
private
and
between
to of
andpublic
the to andthe
“integration
the
the
audiences Conversely,
sciences
agents”
burdens for
guideline
guideline
and
guidelines
community;
the the human
group.
private
municipal and
and
between
to when
the to the
“integration
the
audiences Conversely,
sciences
agents” guideline
guideline
evaluations
community;
the group.
and
and
municipal
between to the
Convers
“integration
bythe
audiences
the guide
guidelin
training
munic a
betw
democratic
society;
can
conditionsland management;
forregularization
be considered can
public borderline,
be
conditions
and recovery
and
considered
private
for standing
can
public of
urbanization
conditions
agents;and public
borderline,
be of investment;
considered
out as
integration
private
for a democratic
areas
society;
standing
can
public occupied
guideline
conditions
agents;
and and land
borderline,
be cooperation
considered
out management;
asregularization
by
complementarity
integration
private
for a low-income
“extremely
standing
can
publicguideline between
borderline,
beimportant” recovery
and
considered
out “extremely
as the
population;
standing of
aurbanization
guideline
for segments
public
equity
borderline,
the
important”
out of investment;
applied of
in
areas
“extremely
as standing occupied
a“integration
guideline
for the cooperation
important”
outapplied by
“extremely
asand low-income
a“integration
guideline
for thebetween
important”
applied the
“extremely forsegment
population; the equit
import
app
medians
“isonomy ranging
ofand
complementarity
In Figures
government
from
conditions
7“isonomy 4.01
complementarity
between
andpopulation;
8, the
government
the
to
for
urban4.99,
ofandpublic which
conditions
“isonomy
guidelines and
complementarity
and
between
rural
government
infordescending
private
of
urban public
conditions
“isonomy
activities”
considered
simplification
the population; and of agents”
andorder
complementarity
and
arebetweenobtained
rural
compared
important
government
simplification
the
urban for
population;
and
were:
private
of
and
urban aofconditions
public
activities”
with
were
agents;
and
land
conditions
“isonomy
the and
agents” complementarity
complementarity
relative
and
between
environmental
and the
urban
integration
between
use
guideline
and
obtained
rural
evaluations
those
government
simplification
private
median
population;
and
for
for
private
of
and
urban public
ordering
public
activities”
that aof
had
legislation;
agents;
urban
conditionsand
“integration
the
relative
of
and
between
performed
environmental
and 4.13and
and
agents”
their
and
complementarity
integration
between
private
guideline
and
obtained
rural
simplification
the
urban and for
medianrural
control;
private
and
and
urban
for public
activities”
4.11
the
relative
population;
fairness
and
agents;
urban
the
aofentire
legislation;
and
agents”
relative
of
and
environmental
of 4.13 and
complementarity
integration
between
guideline
and
obtained
rural
simplification
urban and
median
sample.
fairness
and
rural
private
and
activities”
4.11 urban
the and
agents”
aofrelative
legislation;of
environmental
of urban4.13 and
complementarity
between
guideline
obtained
and rural
and
and
median
fairness
and 4.11 urban
a“integration
the
relative
of
legislation; 4.13
environmental
of
and
betw
guidelin
and
med
fairnes
r
le
society;
the
social land
distribution
sciences
activities.
democratic The regularization
of benefits
knowledge
social
guideline sciences
activities.
management; andand
groups
“ordering
The urbanization
burdens
knowledge
social
and
guideline
recovery for
sciences
activities.
and
of controltoof
the
groups
“ordering
publicThe areas
the
human
of society;
the
knowledge
social
and
guideline occupied
community;
activities.
land
and
investment; use”land
distribution
sciences
for
sciences
the
control
“ordering
The regularization
groupsby
human
group.
obtained
of low-income
audiences
of
knowledge
social
and
guideline
cooperation benefits
Conversely,
sciences
activities.
land
and
a for
sciences
relative
use”
control and
the
“ordering
betweenThe population;
betweenand
groups
obtained urbanization
human
group.
median
of burdens
guideline
land
the the
knowledge
toand
andthe
a of equity
municipal
relative
use”
control
4.88 to
Conversely,
sciences
for
guideline
the of
groups
“ordering
segments in
areas
the
human
group.
obtained
and
median
of
of to and
land
andaoccupied
community;
the Conversely,
sciences
offor
guideline
relative
use” the
control
4.88 by
human
group.
obtained
and
median
of low-income
audiences
to
land the
a Conversely,
sciences
of population;
between
guideline
relative
use”4.88 group.
obtained
and
median tothe
the
a equit
munic
Convers
ofguide
relative
4.88
complementarity
respectively,
medians
conditions were
ranging
for complementarity
between
respectively,
considered
from
public 4.01
conditions
and urban
to were
private
for of
4.99,complementarity
and
low
publicbetween
whichrural
respectively,
considered
priority
conditions
agents;and in urban
activities”
bywere
of complementarity
two
descending
integration
private
for and
low
public betweenobtained
rural
respectively,
considered
ofpriority
In
conditions
agents;
and the
and urban
Figures
order activities”
four by
were
of
were:
complementarity
integration
private
for atwo
complementarity
relative
and
between
knowledge
low
7conditions
public and
land
agents;
and obtained
rural
respectively,
considered
ofpriority
the
and median
urban
activities”
groups
four by
were
of
8,complementarity
use the
integration
between
private
for atworelative
of
and
between
knowledge
low
guidelines
ordering
public 4.13
consulted.
agents;
urban
and obtained
rural
considered
of and
and and
median
priority
the
and urban
activities”
4.11
groups
four
Only
by
considered
control; of atworelative
of
and
knowledge
complementarity
integration
between
private
rural low 4.13
consulted.
of
agents;
urban
and obtained
ruraland
priority
the
important median
and activities”
4.11
groups
fourOnly
by atworelative
of
knowledge
were
complementarity
integration
between
rural 4.13
consulted.
urbanof obtained
those
and theand
andmedian
4.11
groups
four
Only
that ahadrelative
of
knowledge
complementarity
between
rural 4.13
consulted.and
med
theirand
urban gro
rela
betw O
r
the distribution
government
“isonomy ofand of
the benefits
population;
conditions
“isonomy ofand
for publicburdens
simplification
conditions
“isonomy and to
for the
private
of aofthe
public community;
conditions
“isonomydistribution
government
urban
agents”
and and for
private
of
and aaudiences
publicof
environmental
and the
conditions benefits
“isonomy
the agents”
guideline
and between
population;for and
legislation;
private
of
and public burdens
the
conditions
“integration
the agents” municipal
simplification
fairness
guideline
and to
for the
private
and
and of
aof
public community;
urban and aaudiences
environmental between
legislation;theguidelin
munic
fairnes
can
the be considered
society; land
respectively,
guideline
democratic
activities. The were can
“adoption
the
management;
borderline,
be
regularization considered
respectively,
considered
guideline
guideline
activities.of and standing
were
of
production
“ordering
The
can
“adoption
recovery the borderline,
guideline
be
urbanization
low considered
respectively,
consideredout
priority
guideline
of and
activities.
and of as
of
by standing
consumption
public
controlproduction
“ordering
The
can
guideline
areas
were
of two
low
“adoption
the borderline,
be considered
out
occupied
respectively,
considered
ofpriority
the
guideline
medians
investment;
of
guideline and
activities.
land
and
“extremely
four
patterns”
use”of as
byby
were
ofstanding
consumption
controlproduction
ranging can
guideline
“adoption
cooperation
“ordering
The
obtained
of had
the borderline,
from
guideline
be
low-income
knowledge
two
low important”
respectively,
considered
of considered
out
priority
the
guideline
its
and
activities.
land
and
a patterns”
relative
of
4.01 “extremely
as standing
amedian
consumption
between
relative
use”
control production
to
“ordering
The
guideline
population;
groups
four by
were
of
“adoption
4.99,
obtained
median
of had
the
for
knowledge
two
low borderline,
which
guideline
land
anda
the
consulted.important”
considered
of its
and out
applied
“extremely
equity
priority
the
patterns”
between
relative
of
segments
of in
relative
use”
as
groups
four
Only
by ofin
consumption
control
4.88 production
“ordering of
obtained
and 3“integration
the
standing
knowledge
two
low
median
descending
median
of had
land
agents”
guideline
for
anda
guideline
consulted.
of and
the
priority
itsthe
and
of
private
important”
out
patterns”
between
relative
order
relative
use”
and
and
applied
“extremely
as
groups
fourOnly
by
consumption
control
4.88 were:
obtained
and 3“integration
the
knowledge
two
median
median
of had
land
agents”
guideline
forland
a
guideline
the
consulted.
of itsthe
of
and
important”and
applied
groups
four
Only
patterns”
between
relative
use
relative
use”4.88 3“integration
“extremelythe
for
knowledge
median
obtained
and had
ordering
median a
the
import
consulted.
its
and
of
app
gro
betwe O
relativ
con
relative
4.88
government
conditions
social forand
complementarity the
public population;
andofprivate
complementarity
between urban simplification
agents; integration
complementarity
and
between
rural urban ofgovernment
activities” urban
conditions
and and
complementarity
and
betweenobtained
rural environmental
and
complementarity
for
urban public
activities” the
aknowledge population;
and
complementarity
relative
and
betweenobtained
rural medianlegislation;
between
private
urban
activities” simplification
agents;
urban
aknowledge
relative
of
and
between
4.13 fairness
and
integration
obtained
rural
and
medianrural
urban of
aof
activities”
4.11 urban
and
relative
of
and 4.13 and
obtained
rural median environmental
complementarity
activities”
4.11 a3had
relative
of
to 4.13 obtained
and legislation;
between
median
4.11 urban
amedian
relative
of 4.13fairnes
and
and
med r
the
and 4, sciences
distribution
guideline
society;
can be that
land itknowledge
social
of
“adoption
the 4, sciences
benefits
guideline
is,regularization
considered was
and
can evaluated
borderline,
be
groups
is,
andand
thatproduction
it
asknowledge
social
was and
burdens
“adoption
the
and for
sciences
guideline
4,and
“important” of
evaluated
urbanization that the
groups
to
is, human
the
consumption
but
of it
as knowledge
production social
was
andand sciences
“important”
not for
sciences
community;
“adoption
the guideline
and
evaluated
abe
4,
democratic
areas
the
groups
patterns”
priority.
that
occupied is, human
group.
ofconsumption
production
but
it
as social
was
andand
audiences
“adoption
had
the Conversely,
sciences
“important”
not
management;
by
for
sciences
guideline
aits
and
evaluated
4,
low-incomepriority.
that the
groups
between
patterns”
relative
of is, human
group.
consumption
production
but
it
as
recovery wasto
“adoption
amedian
had andthe
the Conversely,
sciences
aits
“important”
not
population;
for
andguideline
the
groups
municipal
patterns”
between
relative
of
evaluated
of human
group.
consumption
priority.
public production
equity but
as to
amedian
3had andthe Conversely,
sciences
aits
“important”
not
investment;
in
for
and guideline
the
patterns”
between
relative human
group.
consumption
priority. but amedian
cooperation not the Conversely,
sciences
aits guideline
patterns”
between
relative
priority.
between group.
3theto
had the
Convers
its guide
betwe
relativ
forsegment
conditions
activities.
respectively,
“isonomy
government for
The
of andpublic
wereguidelineandconsidered
conditions
“isonomy
the private
“ordering
respectively,
considered for
population;of
standing
were
of can
low
public
borderline,
agents;
and
conditions
be
“isonomy and
considered
out
control
respectively,
considered
priority
simplification for
as
integration
by
private
of
standing
atwo
of
were
of can
guideline
low
public
borderline,
conditions
and
activities.
land
respectively,
of
conditions
of“isonomy
considered
out
priority
the
agents”
urban and and
“extremely
four
for
as
complementarity
use”
considered for
The by
were
of
private
of
and
standing
atwocan
public
obtained guideline
guideline
knowledge
low borderline,
a beimportant”
and
respectively,
public considered
conditionsof
“isonomy
the
environmental
considered
out
priority
the
agents”
guideline
and
“extremely
between
relative as
private
“ordering
groups
four
for by standing
median
were
of
private
of
and
guideline
for
knowledge
two
low
public
borderline,
agents;
urban
and the
consulted.important”
of
considered
conditions of out
and
priority
“integration
legislation;the agents”the applied
guideline
and
“extremely
as
integration
control
4.88 rural
groups
four
for
fairness Only
by of
private
and
and
standing
of guideline
for
land
knowledge
two
low
public
of and the
consulted.
of important”
use”out
priority
“integration
the agents”the applied
guideline
and
“extremely
as
complementarity
obtained
groups
fourOnly
by
private
and
and
guideline
forof
knowledge
two a the
consulted.
“integration
the
important”
agents”the applied
“extremely
between
relative median
groups
four
guideline Only
and urban
knowledge
and
the
import
of
consulted.
“integration
the
app
and
4.88
gro
guidelin r
O
and
the 4, sciences
that is, itknowledge
distribution
social was
and
of evaluated
4, sciences
thatgroups
benefits
social is,and
it
asknowledge
was
and
“important”
evaluated
4, for
burdens
social
and thatthe
sciences is,but
to
groupsit
asknowledge
the was
humanand
“important”
not evaluated
a4,
society; priority.
that
community;
social
and land
sciences
for
sciences
theis,but
groups it
as was
and
“important”
not
regularization
audiences
human
group.
knowledge
social
and evaluated
a4,priority.
that is,
and
between
Conversely,
sciences
for
sciencesthe but
groupsit
asknowledge
humanwas
group.“important”
not
to the
and evaluated
aConversely,
urbanization
the priority.
municipal
sciences
for
guideline
the but
of
groupsas
human
group.“important”
areasnot
toand aConversely,
the priority.
occupied
sciences
for
guideline
the but
by
human
group. not aConversely,
low-income
to the priority.
sciences population;
guidelinegroup. to the equit
Convers
guide
activities.
can
the be
guidelineThe
considered
complementarity
conditions guideline
“adoption
the “ordering
borderline,
guideline
of
complementarity
between production and
standing
“adoption
the
urbancomplementarity
and
between control
ruralout
guideline
and of as
urban of
a
consumption
production activities.
activities”land
can
guideline
“adoption
the beuse”
guideline
and
complementarity
and
betweenobtained
rural The
obtained
considered
patterns”
of urban guideline
“extremely
consumption
production
“adoption
activities”had
the a relative
guideline
its
and
a complementarity
relative
and
between “ordering
borderline,
important”
patterns”
relative
of
obtained
rural median
urban median
standing
consumption
production
“adoption
median
activities”had and
for
a relative
of
and
between of
the
its
4.13 control
and 4.88
out
applied
patterns”
between
relative
of
obtained
rural
and asandof
a
consumption
production
median
urban land
guideline
median
3
activities”
4.11 had
relative
of
and use”
its
4.13 and obtained
“extremely
patterns”
between
relative
obtained
ruralandconsumption
median median
3
activities”
4.11 had
a relativea
of 4.13 relative
important”
its patterns”
between
relative
obtained
and
medianmedian
4.11 for
median
3 had
a relative
ofthe of
the
its 4.88
app
betwe
relativ
4.13munic
and
med
governmentfor
“isonomy ofand
public and private
the population; agents; integration
simplification ofthe and
urban complementarity
distribution
and of
environmental benefits between and
legislation; urban
burdens and
fairnesstorural
the community;
of“integration audiences between
can be
social
and considered
4, sciences
that
respectively,
activities. is,
The itconditions
were “isonomy
was
and borderline,
knowledge
evaluated
4, that
respectively,
considered
guideline
for
ofwere
groups
is,
“ordering
public
conditions
of “isonomy
standing
it
as was
lowand
andand 4,and
for
“important”
evaluated
that
respectively,
considered
priority for
control
private
outtheof
as
is,but
by public
it
asconditions
were
of
of
“isonomy
atwo
humancan
was
and agents”
guideline
social beand
“important”
not
low
land evaluated
apriority
4, for
priority.
that
respectively,
considered
of the
use”
private
of
and
considered
sciences is,
four but
by public
itconditions
“extremely
sciences group.
as
were
of
obtained
“isonomy
the
was
and agents”
guideline
and
borderline,
knowledge important”
Conversely,
“important”
not
knowledge
two
low aevaluated
apriority
4,priority. for
private
thatgroups
respectively,
considered
of the
relative
of
and
groups
is,
four but
by public
it
asconditions
were
of “integration
the
standing
was for
to agents”
andthe
“important”
not
knowledge
two
low
median
guideline
and
the
forout
evaluated
apriority
consulted. for
priority.
considered
of the
of 4.88
private
and
applied
as
guideline
the and
but
groups
four
Only
by public
as
of
and atwo
human the agents”
guideline
“important”
not
knowledge
low guideline
and
sciences
apriority
consulted.
of priority.
the private
and
and
“extremely
groups
four but
Only
by “integration
group. the
not
knowledge
two agents”
guideline
consulted.
of priority.and
important”
aConversely, and
the groups
four
Only “integration
the
knowledge guidelin
forthe
to theguide
consulted. app
groO
conditions for
complementarity public and private
complementarity
between urban agents; integration
complementarity
and
between
rural urban government
activities” and and
complementarity
complementarity
and
betweenobtained
rural urban
activities” the
aknowledge population;
complementarity
relative
and
between between
obtained
rural median
urban
activities” simplification
urban
amedian
relative
of
and
between
4.13 and
obtained
rural
and
medianrural
urban of
activities”
4.11 urban
amedian
relative
of
and 4.13 and
obtained
ruraland
median environmental
activities”
4.11 amedian
relative
of legislation; fairnes
social
“isonomy
can be sciences
the guideline
considered knowledge
of “adoption
conditions
the borderline, groups
of for
guideline public
production and
“adoption
the
standing for
guideline
and the human
private
ofconsumption
out production
as social
“isonomy
“adoption
a the sciences
agents”sciences
guideline
guideline and
patterns”
of of
and group.
conditions
consumption
production the
“adoption
“extremely had
the Conversely,
guideline
guideline
its
and
patterns”
relative
of groups
for public
consumption
important” production to
“adoption
had and
for the
“integration
itsfor
and
the guideline
the
patterns”
between
relative
of human
private
and
consumption
production
applied 3 had sciences
agents”
its
andpatterns”
between
relative and group.
consumption 3 the4.13
had obtained
its and
median
Conversely,
guideline 4.11
patterns”
between
relative amedian
3 relative
of
to 4.13
had the
“integration
its and
med
guide
betwe
relativ
activities.
respectively,Thewere guideline “ordering
respectively,
considered and control conditions
oflowland use” for public
obtained and
apriority
relativeprivate median agents; of integration
4.88 and and complementarity thebetween urban and r
“isonomy of itconditions
complementarity
and 4, sciences
social that is, was
and 4, thatfor
between
evaluated
knowledge is,were
urbanof
it
as
groups
low
respectively,
public
was
andconsidered
and priority
and
4,rural
“important”
and evaluated
thatthe
for
bywere
of
astwo
private respectively,
activities”
is,but
it
human
considered
of
apriority
“isonomy the
agents”thatfour
complementarity
was
and obtained
“important”
not evaluated
4, priority.
sciences
activities.
ofby
is,
The
were
and of
but
itknowledge
asatwo
low
group.
respectively,
considered
conditions
the of
relative
was
andbetween
“important”
not
guideline
the
guideline
evaluated
a4, groups
four
median
priority.
that
Conversely, is,by
for
urban
“ordering
were
of
butknowledge
it
as two
low
public consulted.
of
was considered
and ofapriority
“integration
4.13
“important”
not
toand
the
and
rural
and
evaluated
the
groups
four
priority. Only
by of
private
andknowledge
two
low
activities”
guideline
control
4.11
but
as
of
consulted.
of priority
agents”
“important”
not
landaits
the
obtainedgroups
four
priority.
use”
Only
by
and
butknowledge
obtained
atwo consulted.
the of
relative
not groups
four
guideline Only
median
aaitsrelative
priority. knowledge
median
consulted.
“integration
of 4.13 andgro
ofbetwe
4.88
O
can guideline
the be considered“adoption
the borderline,
guideline
of standing
production
“adoption
the out
guideline
and of as“adoption
a the
consumption
production guideline
guideline
and “extremely
patterns”
of consumption
production
“adoption
had
the important”
guideline
its
and
patterns”
relative
of consumption
production
“adoptionfor
median
had the
its
and applied
patterns”
between
relative
of consumption
productionmedian
3 had andpatterns”
between
relative
consumption median
3 had patterns”
between
relative median
3 had its relativ
complementarity
respectively,
“isonomy ofwere between
considered
conditions urban
for of andpriority
low
public rural
and activities”
by two
private complementarity
ofobtained
respectively,
the four
agents” were
and a relative
between
knowledge
theconsidered median
guideline urban
groups of
and 4.13
of “integration
lowconsulted.rural
andactivities”
priority 4.11two ofobtained
Only
by the four knowledgea relative median groups of 4.13 andO
consulted.
social
and 4, sciences itknowledge
that is,were was
and evaluated
4, that groups
is, of
it
aswas and
and for
“important”
evaluated
4,and the human
thatconsumption
is,by
but
it
astwocan
was
and abe
“important”
notof considered
sciences
evaluated
4, priority.
that group.
is,but
it
as was
and borderline,
Conversely,
“important”
not evaluated
aits
4,priority.
that is,but
it
asstanding
wasto the
“important”
not out asand
guideline
evaluated
apriority
priority. but
asa “important”
guideline “extremely important” for the app
respectively,
the guideline
complementarity “adoptionconsidered
between of production
urban low
and priority
rural respectively,
the
activities” the
guideline four
patterns”
obtained wereknowledge
“adoption
a had considered
relative groups
relative
ofmedian of
production lowconsulted.
median
of 4.13 and
between
and Only
by
consumption
4.11 3 notof
two a priority.
the fourbut
patterns” not aitspriority.
knowledge
had groups
relative consulted.
median betweO
“isonomy of conditions for public and private social
agents”sciences andknowledge
the guideline groups and for theand
“integration human sciences group. Conversely, to the guide
the
and guideline “adoption
4, that is,were
respectively, it wasconsideredof production
evaluated as low
of and consumption
“important”
priority buttwo
by the
and
notof guideline
patterns”
a4,priority.
thatfour
the is, “adoption
had evaluated
itknowledge
was its relative
ofgroups
production
asmedian
“important”
consulted.and
between
consumption
but3 not a priority.
Only patterns” had its relative median betwe
complementarity between urban and rural activities” “isonomy obtained of conditions
a relative median for public of 4.13 and andprivate
4.11 agents” and the guideline “integration
and
the 4, that is, “adoption
guideline it was evaluated as “important”
of production but and
and consumption not a4,priority.
that is, it was
patterns” had evaluated
its relative asmedian
“important” between but not a priority.
respectively, were considered of low priority by two complementarity
of the four knowledge between urban
groups and
consulted.rural Only3
activities” obtained a relative median of 4.13 and
and 4, that is, it was evaluated as “important”
the guideline “adoption of production and consumption but not a priority.
respectively,
patterns” were had considered
its relativeofmedian low priority between by two 3 of the four knowledge groups consulted. O
and 4, that is, it was evaluated as “important” but the not guideline
a priority.“adoption of production and consumption patterns” had its relative median betwe
and 4, that is, it was evaluated as “important” but not a priority.

Figure 7. Guidelines’ behavior by training areas, related to the whole sample.

Figure 7. Guidelines’ behavior by training areas, related to the whole sample.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 14 of 26

In Figures 7 and 8, the guidelines considered important were those that had their relative
medians ranging from 4.01 to 4.99, which in descending order were: land use ordering and control;
democratic management; recovery of public investment; cooperation between the segments of society;
land regularization and urbanization of areas occupied by low-income population; equity in the
distribution of benefits and burdens to the community; audiences between the municipal government
and the population; simplification of urban and environmental legislation; fairness of conditions for
public and private agents; integration and complementarity between urban and rural activities. The
guideline “ordering and control of land use” obtained a relative median of 4.88 and can be considered
borderline, standing out as a guideline “extremely important” for the applied social sciences knowledge
groups and for the human sciences group. Conversely, to the guideline “isonomy of conditions for
public and private agents” and the guideline “integration and complementarity between urban and
rural activities” obtained a relative median of 4.13 and 4.11 respectively, were considered of low priority
by two of the four knowledge groups consulted. Only the guideline “adoption of production and
consumption patterns” had its relative median between 3 and 4, that is, it was evaluated as “important”
but not a priority. Figure 7. Guidelines’ behavior by training areas, related to the whole sample.

Drivers’
Figure8.8.Drivers’
Figure behavior.
behavior.

With With regard

regard to guideline
to guideline citycity planning,
planning, it must
it must be considered
be considered in the
in the context
context thatthat Brazil,
Brazil, in
in addition
addition to being the largest urbanized nation in Latin America [95], has also experienced
to being the largest urbanized nation in Latin America [95], has also experienced rapid growth in its rapid
growth
cities, whichinhas
its led
cities,
to which has such
problems led toasproblems
reduced such as of
quality reduced quality
life caused byoftraffic
life caused by traffic
congestion, increased
congestion, increased pollution and increased social inequality [96].
pollution and increased social inequality [96].
Discussions about how new approaches to urban planning can enable prosperity and
Discussions about how new approaches to urban planning can enable prosperity and intelligence
intelligence in metropolitan areas, which has occurred in several countries [96,97] in Brazil, have
in metropolitan areas, which has occurred in several countries [96,97] in Brazil, have focused
mainly on capitals and large urban centers, which are the main ones more likely to become smarter.
This phenomenon has been identified by some researchers [96,98] in relation to large cities, since,
on the one hand, these cities, due to their high demographic density, facilitate the flow of knowledge
and social interactions, which enhances the emergence of new ideas and innovation, and have also
solved local public transport and infrastructure systems more effectively, making them better suited to
the implementation of smart city concepts; on the other hand, disorderly growth produces problems
related to mobility, security, energy consumption and infrastructure deficiencies, which while making
them less intelligent, also potentially make them more interested in implementing smart city concepts
as a way to address these problems.
When considering city planning in a smart city context, it involves the management of territories
by defining the priorities that operationalize public policies, aiming at urban environmental quality
and well-being in a manner connected with all areas of the city. [26] shows the convergence between
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 15 of 26

these concepts and those of the guideline. Several authors [91,99–108] cite these characteristics as
important for increasing the intelligence of cities.
With regard to the “guarantee of the right to sustainable cities” and “provision of urban and
community equipment, transportation and public services” guidelines, it is important to keep in mind
that the right to the city is diffusive, collective and indivisible in nature and should be considered
from the point of view of guaranteeing and promoting human rights, which implies fair, inclusive,
democratic and sustainable cities in which every citizen is given the right to live, use and participate in
their production [109].
In the Statute, this means the right to urban land, housing, environmental sanitation,
urban infrastructure, transportation and public services, work and leisure, appropriate to the interests
and needs of the population and local characteristics, for those present and future generations. Several
authors [100,108,110–115] cite these characteristics as important for increasing the intelligence of cities.
Regarding the adequacy of instruments and public spending guideline, considering that public
spending is the means by which public administration finances its policies and provides public goods
and services, a significant portion of public managers in Brazil do not seem to worry about whether
the funds raised, mainly through taxes, actually achieve the goal of providing the well-being of society
by meeting their demands and needs [116], since indicators are not usually used to measure how
public expenditure has achieved results [117], even considering that public expenditures serve several
purposes and that part of the results of public service actions are intangible, which makes cost/benefit
analysis difficult.
However, by providing for the possibility for the population to participate in the process of setting
investment priorities for the municipality, the City Statute contributes to improving the efficiency and
transparency of the use of public resources.
This guideline enhances investments that generate general welfare and the enjoyment of assets
by different social segments, through economic, tax and financial policy instruments and public
spending. Several authors [108,111,114,115] cite such characteristics as being important for increasing
the intelligence of cities.
With regard to the guideline on the protection, preservation and restoration of the natural and
built environment, including cultural, historical, artistic, scenic and archaeological heritage, to consider
public heritage is that which consists of the movable and immovable property of persons governed by
public law [118]. But the public adjective can refer to what belongs to the state as well as to everything
that belongs to the community, but which is in the custody and supervision of the state. On the other
hand, the idea of equity is not limited to economically valued assets, but also extends to other assets,
even if they are devoid of economic value.
In this context, with regard to the environment, it is important to note that the actions and
strategies that are part of the urban policy are inextricably linked to environmental protection. If the
objective of urban policy, as a result of the urbanization process, is to organize urban spaces, it could
not ignore that the ecologically balanced environment is one of the most important ways of enabling a
better quality of life for the city’s inhabitants and users.
With regard to cultural, historical, artistic, landscape and archaeological heritage, the main
objective is to prevent real estate speculation and other private interests from damaging such values,
especially as destruction often seems irreversible. Heritage preserved in the past can serve as inspiration
for future urban development, as the present, past and future are connected by the smart city [101].
Conservation and preservation of these heritage sites have been considered an important theme
in several areas related to smart cities, such as public planning, urban development, sustainable
development [119–121]. Several authors [106,122–125], in different approaches and contexts, have
considered the themes present in this guideline to be important for increasing the intelligence of cities.
An example is the work of [126], which establishes the nexus between smart technologies, heritage
conservation and progress towards inclusive and sustainable cities and communities.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 16 of 26

In the work of [26], seven drivers were identified as being the most important for increasing city
intelligence, of which four of these drives coincided with the five most important guidelines identified
in the survey. From this result, we relate the City Statute guidelines classified as “extremely important”
to the smart and sustainable city drivers (Table 5).

Table 5. Comparison between major smart cities drivers and the guidelines.

Main Drivers [26] Main Guidelines

Sustainability: Efficient management of natural resources
contributes to raising citizens’ quality of life for current and
future generations. Social, economic and environmental
sustainability are strategic vectors for smart cities.
Urban planning: Territorial management through tools and
indexes, including urban environmental quality, air quality
and well-being. This connects with all areas of the city because,
for developing cities, planning is a key tool in defining the
priorities that operationalize public policies, enabling cities to
become smarter and more sustainable.
City Infrastructure: Management of basic storm water
networks, sanitation and water and sewage services. These
should be managed as living systems, with efficient operation
and management, requiring large-scale management to
provide at least minimal finite resource sustainability.
Public policies: The planning and development of public
policies in favor of an intelligent city, because municipal
administrations are the entities that rely heavily on local
policies to manage projects, actions and services that, by
involving several actors, can sometimes seem conflicting.
Guaranteeing the right to sustainable cities: Guaranteeing the right to
urban land, housing, environmental sanitation, urban infrastructure,
transportation, public services, work and leisure for present and future
generations.
Protection, preservation and restoration of the natural and built
environment, cultural, historical, artistic, landscape and
archaeological heritage: Guaranteed for the protection, preservation
and restoration of the natural and built environment and material and
non-material works that reflect creativity and values. Society and urban
history, including through the spatial distribution of the population and
economic activities, thus avoiding the distortions and negative effects of
urban growth and real estate speculation.
City planning: The planning must contain guidelines and norms that
regulate the development of cities, the spatial distribution of the
population and the economic activities of the municipality and the
territory under its area of influence, being the basic instrument of the
urban development and expansion policy. It should also consider the
development of strategies based on environmental sustainability, thus
fulfilling its social and environmental function.
Supply of urban and community equipment, transport and public
services: Guarantee of the existence of urban and community
equipment, consisting of a set of goods, physical spaces and buildings of
public utility that provide the material support and provision of basic
health services, education, recreation, sports and other needs of society
related to health, welfare and exercise of citizenship.
Adequacy of instruments and public expenditures: Adequacy of
economic, tax and financial policy instruments and public expenditures
to the objectives of urban development, so as to privilege investments
that generate general welfare and the enjoyment of assets by different
social segments. It also includes the city’s democratic management with
popular participation through communities, movements and societal
entities, aiming at the definition of public policies and the approval of
legislation authorizing public spending.

By comparing smart city drivers with the main guidelines, we can state that the City Statute is
an instrument that seeks: the sustainability of cities by “guaranteeing the right of sustainable cities”
and “protecting, preserving and restoring the natural environment and built"; urban planning in
determining “city planning”; the improvement of the city’s infrastructure by providing for “provision of
urban and community facilities, transportation, and public services” and public policies for “adequacy
of public instruments and expenditures”.
The results show that the group of the five most important guidelines is related to city governance.
We consider that governance is a management tool that enhances the sustainable development
of cities by articulating stakeholder interests, transparency and equity in order to resolve conflicts
throughout the territory and to implement smart solutions within the participatory process of citizens.
In this sense, it is a theme related to the capacity of articulation and cooperation between different
actors of a company, for the discussion of issues of common interest. Some researchers [127–129] have
this same view.
The way the City Statute contributes by defining guidelines that regulate urban policy with
participatory planning and outlines the social function of property is closely intertwined with
governance processes.
However, we consider that the results obtained may have been influenced by the Brazilian reality,
political and financial crises that periodically intensify and deteriorate public services and infrastructure
of cities, leading to the perception of the absence of planning and management.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 17 of 26

From the promulgation of the law that instituted the City Statute, there was a movement of
municipal governments aiming at its operationalization [130]. In this sense, there was, for example, the
adoption of inclusive democratic management initiatives in territorial planning [130], the expansion
of society’s participation in important decisions on municipal policies and actions, such as public
consultations for approval of plans, projects and standards [131]; the use of instruments aimed at the
fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of urbanization [19]; the dissemination of master plans
containing the instruments provided for in the Statute [132].
Although the five main guidelines contribute to having smarter and more sustainable cities in
Brazil, when considering the 5568 Brazilian municipalities, it appears that there is still much to be done,
as several factors hinder the evolution of a significant portion of Brazilian cities, among the which we
highlight:

(a) The great disparity of resources and infrastructure between cities means that a significant portion
does not have the capacity to implement the concepts of smart cities, and those that started this
process are in the situation highlighted by [45], to coexist, each in its own evolution phase (Smart
City 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0).
(b) Even today conditions persist that some researchers [95,133] have found, that the urban expansion
planning of the emerging metropolises of Latin America and, consequently of Brazil, was strongly
influenced by the models and philosophies of existing urbanism in Europe and North America,
which influenced generations of architects and city planners, whose ways of thinking and
producing the design of Brazilian cities, allowed barriers, especially invisible ones, to continue
separating the richest areas from the most poor, often without basic infrastructure and services.
(c) Several researchers [23,25,130,134–136] have found that in Brazil, as in most of the cities
in developing countries, informal housing with uneven spaces, insecure land tenure, poor
infrastructure and mobility and situations of social and political vulnerability still persist.
(d) In many municipalities the situation identified by [130] is present, that the active participation of
citizens in decision-making processes is hampered by the lack of knowledge on how to claim,
dialogue, appeal and expose local needs, and by collusion city halls with dominant class interests;
(e) Some municipalities have considered the guidelines superficially, without interpreting them
considering the reality of the municipality [130];
(f) Some cities are managed without planning that has development goals compatible with the
instruments of economic, tax and financial policy;
(g) The disparity between the municipalities regarding access to technology hinders transparency
and dissemination of information, as well as communication, access and participation of citizens.

These structural problems make it difficult to increase the intelligence of Brazilian cities. This is
not to say that the City Statute has not made significant progress in the way public management
operationalizes the city’s functions since prior to the City Statute policies aimed at access to basic
services and inequality reductions were sporadic.
In this context, the results of the research are fully justifiable, since the five guidelines evaluated
as most important are responsible for: stimulating the development of cities, spatial distribution of
the population and the economic activities of the municipality and the territory, in order to avoid and
correct distortions caused by urban growth and its negative effects on the environment; to guarantee
the right to sustainable cities, understood as the right to urban land, housing, environmental sanitation,
urban infrastructure, transportation and public services, employment and leisure, for current and
future generations; to protect, preserve and recover the natural and built environment, and cultural,
historic, artistic, landscape and archeological heritage; to provide urban and community equipment,
transportation and public services that are appropriate to the interests and needs of the population as
well as reflecting local circumstances; to adapt economic, taxation and financial policy instruments and
public expenditure to suit the goals of urban development, in order to give priority to investments
which generate general well-being and enjoyment of the assets by different social segments.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 18 of 26

However, some important aspects related to the participation of the main stakeholders in the
operationalization process of the five main Statute Guidelines need to be considered from the reality of
Brazilian cities, in order for this process to be more effective:

(a) Managers and public servants involved in the administrative and operational management of the
city: We envision four fundamental actions: the first and perhaps most important is to understand
and address the concepts, benefits and difficulties of implementing smart cities considering the
local reality; the second is to incorporate this knowledge into urban planning and territorial
management and public services; the third is to bring citizens closer to the decision-making
process, not only to comply with the requirements of Brazilian laws; and, finally, to increase the
use of technology as a facilitator of these actions;
(b) Technology supply companies: The functioning of the city requires a series of public services
that can benefit from technology to improve its performance and capacity to meet the demands
and needs of citizens. A significant portion of the existing technology can be used without the
need for adaptations, this situation is the one that normally presents the best cost-benefit ratio for
companies. However, the commitment of these companies to the development of solutions that
are more appropriate to local realities is also fundamental. Another important issue refers to the
expansion of the role played by these companies, from simply providing technology to a partner
and engaged in the process of transforming the city;
(c) Educational and research institutions: when playing the role of building and disseminating
knowledge and practices, they are fundamental for the identification and systematization of
the local reality and the development of new approaches that enable the expansion of existing
knowledge and practices about smart cities and the adaptation of this knowledge and practices
to the local reality. Another important action concerns the formation of local culture on the
concepts and benefits of smart cities based on the dissemination of knowledge and the training of
professionals. It is also essential to participate in the citizen engagement process, through actions
that make it possible to increase their awareness of their rights and responsibilities;
(d) Citizens and organizations representing citizens: Community participation is essential for
compliance with the guidelines to be more effective and meet their needs. In this sense, it must be
better able to demand compliance with the rights established in the guidelines, more participatory
when demanded by the public power, such as, for example, during the public consultations
required by Brazilian law, and more proactive, when demanding and presenting contributions to
public power.

5. Conclusions
Regulation of urban property use has been a fundamental instrument for cities to develop,
considering the collective good, the welfare of citizens and sustainable development.
Although issues intrinsically related to the regulation of urban property use have been the subject
of studies related to smart and sustainable cities, the vast majority of the norms that establish general
guidelines for urban policy predate the transformations that the smart city concept has caused in the
way that cities are appropriated and perceived by society, which justifies the scarcity of studies on how
these urban property regulations collaborate to make cities smarter and more sustainable.
This work contributes to filling this gap by investigating the main guidelines of the City Statute,
the main instrument of Brazilian urban policy, which have the greatest potential to contribute to having
smarter and more sustainable cities.
The results show that the 16 guidelines were evaluated as important for increasing city intelligence,
of which five were considered to have the most priority, and these five were related to city governance.
However, we emphasize that these guidelines must be considered within the reality of each
municipality because the priorities of society are influenced by the context in which they are
inserted. Brazilian cities have their own characteristics, such as government profile, financing
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 19 of 26

capacity, socio-environmental culture, citizen participation, etc. Thus, the perception of problems and
the search for solutions will be different from municipality to municipality.
Given that cities in various countries are experiencing similar situations, especially those in Latin
America, these five guidelines also have the potential to contribute to the increase in intelligence of
these cities, provided their specificities are considered.
Considering the scenario of resource scarcity in Brazilian cities, these five guidelines help governors
to direct their efforts to the highest priority, since for cities to evolve to become smarter, structural
problems are fundamental to be solved.
The present study has some limitations. The first is inherent in all bibliographical research, from
which some important contribution has escaped our analysis. The second is that for the prioritization
of the guidelines, the research was based only on the evaluations of Brazilian experts, which may have
been influenced by the Brazilian reality. In this context, generalizations must consider local realities.
However, it is important to emphasize that the realities experienced in Brazilian cities are present in
most underdeveloped and developing countries.
The City Statute points and regulates the way, but it is innovative and regionalized solutions that
will make the statute fully contribute to smarter cities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualized the study, C.A.P.S., E.G.L. and A.L.A.G.; C.A.P.S., E.G.L., Contributed to
the methodology, C.K.C. and A.N.H.; Contributed the software C.A.P.S., E.G.L., E.G.V. and A.W.A.H.; Formal
analysis was performed by C.A.P.S., E.G.L., C.K.C., A.N.H. and A.W.A.H.; Data curation was performed by
C.A.P.S., E.G.L., A.W.A.H. and A.N.H.; Validation was done by C.A.P.S., E.G.L., C.K.C., A.L.A.G. and A.N.H.; The
original draft was written by C.A.P.S. and E.G.L.; Review and editing were done by C.A.P.S., E.G.L., C.K.C., E.G.V.,
A.L.A.G., A.W.A.H. and A.N.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Fluminense Federal University, Brasil, for funding the
research reported in this paper. The authors would like to thank all the experts who answered the survey. The
authors also express their gratitude to the editor and anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Haar, C.M. Cities, Law, and Social Policy: Learning from the British; Lexington Books: Lexington, KY, USA, 1984;
p. 265.
2. Nolon, J.R. Comparative Land Use Law: Patterns of Sustainability. Pace Environ. Law Rev. 2005, 23, 855.
3. LaGro, J.; Rutherford, H. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Landsc. Ecol.
2007, 22, 633–634. [CrossRef]
4. Jcandido. Do Estatuto da Cidade ao Código de Urbanismo—Publicações Portal. Available
online: https://www12.senado.leg.br/publicacoes/estudos-legislativos/tipos-de-estudos/outras-publicacoes/
agenda-legislativa/capitulo-7-do-estatuto-da-cidade-ao-codigo-de-urbanismo/view (accessed on 8
December 2019).
5. Senado Federal do Brasil. Available online: https://www12.senado.leg.br/publicacoes/estudos-legislativos/
tipos-de-estudos/outras-publicacoes/agenda-legislativa/capitulo-7-do-estatuto-da-cidade-ao-codigo-de-
urbanismo/view (accessed on 19 June 2019).
6. Irazábal, C.; Angotti, T. Planning Latin American Cities: Housing and Citizenship. Lat. Am. Perspect. 2017,
44, 4–8. [CrossRef]
7. Van Bellen, H.M. Indicadores de Sustentabilidade: Uma Análise Comparativa. Ph.D.Thesis, Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil, 2002.
8. De Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D.; Zhan, C.; Weijnen, M. Sustainable–smart–resilient–low
carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization.
J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [CrossRef]
9. Trindade, E.P.; Hinnig, M.P.F.; Moreira da Costa, E.; Marques, J.S.; Bastos, R.C.; Yigitcanlar, T. Sustainable
Development of Smart Cities: A systematic review of the literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complex.
2017, 3, 11. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 20 of 26

10. Mangi, M.Y.; Yue, Z.; Kalwar, S.; Ali Lashari, Z. Comparative Analysis of Urban Development Trends of
Beijing and Karachi Metropolitan Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 451. [CrossRef]
11. Anthopoulos, L.G.; Vakali, A. Urban Planning and Smart Cities: Interrelations and Reciprocities. In The
Future Internet Assembly, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web Engineering, ICWE 2012,
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 23–27 July 2012; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2012; pp. 178–189.
12. Holston, J. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil; Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009; p. 416.
13. Foster, S.; Bonilla, D. The social function of property: A comparative law perspective. Fordham Law Rev. 2011,
80, 101.
14. dos Santos Cunha, A. The social function of property in Brazilian law. Fordham Law Rev. 2011, 80, 1171.
15. Ankersen, T.T.; Ruppert, T. Tierra y Libertad: The social function doctrine and land reform in Latin America.
Tulane Envrion. Law J. 2006, 19, 69.
16. Verchick, R.R. Why the global environment needs local government: Lessons from the Johannesburg Summit.
Urban Law 2003, 35, 471.
17. Nolon, J.R. Compendium of Land Use Laws for Sustainable Development; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2006.
18. KIRZNER, V. Plano Diretor de Desenvolvimento Urbano (Estatuto da Cidade Lei 10.257/01). Available online:
http://www1.jus.com.br/doutrina/texto (accessed on 3 May 2019).
19. de Fátima Pereira, G.; Wutrich, F. 15 Anos de Estatuto da Cidade: Contribuição de melhoria ea recuperação
da valorização/15 Years of City Statute: Improvement Contribution and Recovery of Valorization. Rev.
Parana. de Desenvolv. 2016, 37, 21–36.
20. Estatuto da Cidade—Lei Federal 10.257/2001. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/
LEIS_2001/L10257.html (accessed on 10 December 2019).
21. Barros, A.M.; Barbosa, B.R.; Montandon, D.T.; Fernandes, E.; Maricato, E.; Rodrigues, E.; Bassul, J.R.; Reali, M.;
Alli, S. The City Statute of Brazil: A Commentary. 2010. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/pt/781901468014398230/pdf/832530WP0CityS00Box382107B00PUBLIC0.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2019).
22. Friendly, A. The right to the city: Theory and practice in Brazil. Plan. Theory Pract. 2013, 14, 158–179.
[CrossRef]
23. Contractor, A.; Greenlee, A.J. Up-“Routing” Communities: Subaltern Voices Challenge Sustainable Urban
Renewal in Fortaleza, Brazil. Hous. Theory Soc. 2018, 35, 57–93. [CrossRef]
24. Fernandes, E. Constructing the Right to the City’ in Brazil. Soc. Legal Stud. 2007, 16, 201–219. [CrossRef]
25. Walker, A.P.P. Self-help or public housing? Lessons from co-managed slum upgrading via participatory
budget. Habitat Int. 2016, 55, 58–66. [CrossRef]
26. Guedes, A.L.A.; Alvarenga, J.C.; Goulart, M.S.S.; Rodriguez, M.V.R.; Soares, C.A.P. Smart cities: The main
drivers for increasing the intelligence of cities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3121. [CrossRef]
27. Partridge, H.L. Developing a human perspective to the digital divide in the ‘smart city’. In Proceedings
of the Biennial Conference of Australian Library and information Association, Gold Coast, Australia,
21–24 September 2004.
28. Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Pichler-Milanović, N.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities: Ranking of
European Medium-Sized Cities; Centre of Regional Science (SRF), Vienna University of Technology: Vienna,
Austria, 2007; Available online: http://www.smartcities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (accessed
on 14 August 2019).
29. Harrison, C.; Eckman, B.; Hamilton, R.; Hartswick, P.; Kalagnanam, J.; Paraszczak, J.; Williams, P. Foundations
for smarter cities. IBM J. Res. Dev. 2010, 54, 1–16. [CrossRef]
30. Washburn, D.; Sindhu, U.; Balaouras, S.; Dines, R.A.; Hayes, N.M.; Nelson, L.E. Helping CIOs understand
“smart city” initiatives: Defining the smart city, its drivers, and the role of the CIO. Cambridge, MA: Forrester
Research. Growth 2009, 17, 1–17.
31. Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82. [CrossRef]
32. European Innovation Partnership (EIP). Smart Cities and Communities: Strategic Implementation Plan.
2013. Available online: https://smartcities.at/assets/Uploads/sip-final-en.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2020).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 21 of 26

33. Bouskela, M.; Casseb, M.; Bassi, S.; Facchina, M. The Road toward Smart Cities: Migrating from Traditional City
Management to the Smart City; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–148.
Available online: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/The-Road-toward-Smart-
Cities-Migrating-from-Traditional-City-Management-to-the-Smart-City.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2020).
34. OCDE. Enhancing the Contribution of Digitalisation to the Smart Cities of the Future. Available online:
http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/Smart-Cities-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2020).
35. Dhingra, M.; Chattopadhyay, S. Advancing smartness of traditional settlements-case analysis of Indian and
Arab old cities. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 549–563. [CrossRef]
36. Chourabi, H.; Nam, T.; Walker, S.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Mellouli, S.; Nahon, K.; Scholl, H.J. Understanding smart
cities: An integrative framework. In Proceedings of the IEEE 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Science (HICSS 2012), Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; pp. 2289–2297.
37. Barrionuevo, J.M.; Berrone, P.; Ricart, J.E. Smart cities, sustainable progress. IESE Insight 2012, 14, 50–57.
[CrossRef]
38. Mandelson, H.L.; Bradshaw, H.B. Digital Britain; Department of Culture, Media and Sport and Department
of Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK, 2009.
39. Greco, I.; Cresta, A. A smart planning for smart city: The concept of smart city as an opportunity to re-think
the planning models of the contemporary city. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its
Applications; Gervasi, O., Ed.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015;
Volume 9156.
40. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions.
In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital
Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291.
41. Siuryte, A.; Davidaviciene, V. An analysis of key factors in developing a smart city/Pagrindiniu faktoriu
kuriant ismanu Miesta analize. Sci. Future Lithuania 2016, 8, 254. Available online: http://link.galegroup.com/
apps/doc/A458261463/AONE?u=capes&sid=AONE&xid=731fceb2 (accessed on 13 January 2020). [CrossRef]
42. Science for Environment Policy. Indicators for Sustainable Cities; In-Depth Report 12; Produced for the
European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit; UWE: Bristol, UK, 2018;
Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy (accessed on 14 January 2020).
43. Świader,
˛ M.; Lin, D.; Szewrański, S.; Kazak, J.K.; Iha, K.; van Hoof, J.; Belčáková, I.; Altiok, S. The application
of ecological footprint and biocapacity for environmental carrying capacity assessment: A new approach for
European cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 105, 56–74. [CrossRef]
44. Cohen, B. The 3 Generations of Smart Cities. 2015. Available online: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3047795/
the-3-generationsof-smart-cities (accessed on 15 January 2020).
45. Gordon, E.; Coleman, B.; Harlow, J.; Teng, M.; Meaning, L. Making a Civic Smart City Designing for Public
Value and Civic Participation. 2018. Available online: https://elabhome.blob.core.windows.net/smartcity/
smartcity_single.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2020).
46. Layne, K.; Lee, J. Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model. Gov. Inf. Q. 2001, 18,
122–136. [CrossRef]
47. Cherkasov, V.; Hohlov, W. e-Participation: From e-Government to e-Governance. In Proceedings of the WSIS
Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, 25–29 May 2015; Available online: http://www.iis.ru/en/docs/ALFM_C1_C7_
eGov_C11_Cherkasov_Hohlov_2015-05-28.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2020).
48. Gramberger, M. Citizens as Partners. In Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in
Policy-Making; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2001; Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195578-
en (accessed on 15 January 2020).
49. Stratigea, A.; Kyriakides, E.; Nicolaides, C. Smart Cities in the Mediterranean: Coping with Sustainability
Objectives in Small and Medium-Sized Cities and Island Communities; Springer International Publishing: New
York, NY, USA, 2017.
50. Bassul, J.R. City Statute: Building a Law. The City Statute of Brazil: A Commentary. 2010, pp. 5–70. Available
online: https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/CA_Images/CityStatuteofBrazil_English_Ch5.pdf
(accessed on 18 November 2019).
51. Lopes, W.G.R.; de Lima, A.J.; da Silva Viana, B.A.; Neto, E.X.R.; Nogueira, R.H.N. Reflexões sobre o
Plano Diretor como instrumento de gestão em Municípios Brasileiros./Reflections on the Master Plan as a
management instrument in Brazilian Municipalities. Geo UERJ 2017, 30, 145–168. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 22 of 26

52. Bento, S.C.; de Melo Conti, D.; Baptista, R.M.; Ghobril, C.N. As Novas Diretrizes e a Importância
Do Planejamento Urbano Para o Desenvolvimento de Cidades Sustentáveis (The New Guidelines and
the Importance of Urban Planning for the Development of Sustainable Cities). Rev. Gestão Ambient.
Sustentabilidade 2018, 7, 469–488.
53. Boeira, S.L.; dos Santos, A.C.B.; dos Santos, A.G. Estatuto da Cidade: Aspectos Epistemológicos, Sociopolíticos
e Jurídicos/City Statute: Epistemological, Sociopolitical and Legal Aspects. Rev. de Adm. Pública 2009, 43,
695–712. [CrossRef]
54. De Marco, C.M.; Bester, G.M. A Participação Democrática Direta na Elaboração de Planos Diretores como
Caminho para a Sustentabilidade no Brasil: Um Estudo de Caso1 (Direct Democratic Participation in the
Preparation of Director Plans as Way to Sustainability in Brazil: A Case Study). Espaço Jurídico J. Law 2016,
17, 237–256. [CrossRef]
55. Mendoça, M.L.C.D.A.; Holanda, M.M.A. Administração Pública Municipal como Fomentadora do
Desenvolvimento Social e Econômico (Municipal Public Administration as Foster of Social and Economic
Development). Sequência Estud. Jurídicos Políticos 2016, 74, 207–232. [CrossRef]
56. Santin, J.R.; Toazza, V.F. O paradigma da linguagem, as audiências públicas e a participação por consensos
linguístico (Language paradigm, public hearing and participation in consensus language). Rev. Quaestio
Iuris 2016, 9, 1344–1362. [CrossRef]
57. de Lima, L.A.; Calili, S.A. Uma Análise Sobre o Princípio 15 da Declaração de Estocolmo: Abordagem da
Sua Incorporação Pelos Diplomas Nacionais e Internacionais e Sua Aplicação Prática. Rev. Thesis Juris 2014,
3, 380–416. [CrossRef]
58. Minichiello, A.L.O.; de Fátima Ribeiro, M. A Proteção Do Meio Ambiente No Âmbito Municipal: Reflexões
Sobre a Tributação Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Environmental Protection at the Municipal
Level: Reflections on Environmental Taxation and Sustainable Development). In Proceedings of the 14th
National Congress of CONPEDI, Fortaleza, Brasil, 3–5 November 2005.
59. Ruffato-Ferreira, V.J.; Beser, L.; de Berrêdo-Viana, D.; França, C.; Nascimento, J.; Freitas, M.;
Ruffato-Ferreira, V.J.; Beser, L.; de Berrêdo-Viana, D.; França, C.; et al. Zoneamento Ecológico Econômico
Como Ferramenta Para a Gestão Territorial Integrada e Sustentável No Município Do Rio de Janeiro (Economic
Ecological Zoning as a Tool for Integrated and Sustainable Territorial Management in the Municipality of
Rio de Janeiro). EURE 2018, 44, 239–260. [CrossRef]
60. da Silva Fregonezi, L.H.A.; de Lima Bezerra, M.; Borges, S.F. A Consideração Da Dimensão Ambiental Na
Prática de Elaboração Dos Planos Diretores (The Consideration of the Environmental Dimension in the
Practice of Preparation of Master Plans). Front. J. Soc. Technol. Environ. Sci. 2013, 1, 72–85.
61. Neves, F.H. Planejamento de Equipamentos Urbanos Comunitários de Educação: Algumas Reflexões
(Planning Community Urban Education Equipment: Some Reflections). Cad. Metrópole 2015, 17, 503–516.
[CrossRef]
62. Goudard, B.; Moraes, F.M.; de Oliveira, R. Reflexões sobre Cidade, seus Equipamentos Urbanos e a Influência
destes na Qualidade de Vida da População (Reflections on the City, its Urban Equipment and their Influence
on the Quality of Life of the Population). INTER Thesis Rev. Int. Interdiscip. 2008, 5, 93–103.
63. Vaz, J.C.; Lotta, G.S. A contribuição da logística integrada às decisões de gestão das políticas públicas no
Brasil (The contribution of integrated logistics to public policy management). Rev. Adm. Públics 2011, 45,
107–139. [CrossRef]
64. Kirzner, V. Plano diretor de desenvolvimento urbano: Estatuto da cidade Lei 10.257/01 (Master plan for
urban development: City statute Law 10.257/01). Available online: http://jus.com.br/artigos/3899/plano-
diretor-de-desenvolvimentourbano (accessed on 18 November 2019).
65. Honda, S.C.D.A.L.; do Carmo Vieira, M.; Albano, M.P.; Maria, Y.R. Planejamento ambiental e ocupação do
solo urbano em Presidente Prudente (SP) (Environmental planning and urban land occupation in Presidente
Prudente (SP)). Bras. Gest. Urbana 2015, 7, 62–73. [CrossRef]
66. Moraes, A.D.S. A gestão democrática das cidades, o estatuto das cidades e o plano diretor no município de itapetininga;
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná: Curitiba, Brazil, 2013; pp. 1–66.
67. Grechi, F.P. Direito Urbanístico: O Modelo da Cidade-Média como Técnica Urbanística de Integração e de
Sustentabilidade entre os Espaços Urbano e Rural na Efetivação da Função Social da Cidade (Urban Law:
The Model City Urban Middle as Technique Integration and ...). Rev. de Direito da Cid. 2012, 4, 156–179.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 23 of 26

68. de Menezes Niebuhr, P. A cidade e o alimento: Fundamentos para a compreensão da integração dos meios
urbano e rural enquanto diretriz da política urbana (The city and the food: Grounds for understanding
the interaction of urban and rural media as a guideline to urban policy). Rev. de Direito da Cid. 2018, 10,
1713–1736. [CrossRef]
69. Silva, S.R.M.; do Nascimento Teixeira, B.A. O Estatuto da Cidade: A abordagem ambiental em lei federal de
orientação básica aos Planos Diretores Municipais (The City Statute: The environmental approach in federal
law of basic orientation to the Municipal Master Plans). In Proceedings of the Congresso de Meio Ambiente
da Associação de Universidades do Grupo De Montevidéu, São Carlos, Brazil, 5–8 October 2009; Volume 6,
pp. 1–9.
70. Teodoro, P.H.M. Sustentabilidade, espaço urbano e complexidade (Sustainability, urban space and complexity).
Bol. Gaúcho Geogr. 2015, 42, 24–43.
71. Albuquerque, M.C.B. Gestão Social de Bens Comuns Urbanos no Contexto da Cidade Justa, Democrática e Sustentável:
O caso da orla do Portal da Amazônia, em Belém (PA) (Social Management of Urban Commons in the Context of a Just,
Democratic and Sustainable City: The Case of the Amazon Portal Border in Belém (PA)); 1 CD-ROM; Universidade
Federal do Pará: Pará, Brasil, 2016.
72. Namur, M. A questão da localização no processo de produção pública habitacional da CDHU no espaço
urbano (The question of the location in the CDHU public housing production process in the urban space).
Ambiente Construído 2004, 4, 55–66.
73. Santin, J.R.; Marangon, E.G. O estatuto da cidade e os instrumentos de política urbana para proteção do
patrimônio histórico: Outorga onerosa e transferência do direito de construer (The city statute and the urban
policy instruments for the protection of the historical heritage: Onerous grant and transfer of the right to
build). História 2008, 27, 89–109.
74. de Souza, M.L. A cidade, o seu Estatuto e a sua gestão “democrática.” (The city, its Statute and its
“democratic” management). Available online: https://dokumen.tips/download/link/a-cidade-o-seu-estatuto-
e-a-sua-gestao-democratica (accessed on 18 November 2019).
75. Araújo, M.M.; Feres, A.L.A.; Silva, B.G. Gestão orçamentária participativa: O Papel do Estatuto da Cidade na
construção do paradigma de justiça urbano-ambiental intergeracional. (Participatory budget management:
The role of City Statute in construction of the intergerational urban-environmental justice paradigm). In
Proceedings of the Anais do XV Encontro do CONPEDI, Recife, Brazil, 15–17 July 2006; Volume 21.
76. de Costa Moura, E.A. As políticas públicas urbanas brasileiras e a gestão democrática: O controle social na
efetivação do direito à cidade (Brazilian public urban policies and democratic management: Social control
on effectiveness of the right to the city). Rev. de Direito da Cid. 2016, 8, 1064–1095. [CrossRef]
77. Galvão, O. Externalidades e desenvolvimento urbano: Reflexões a partir do Estatuto da Cidade (Externalities
and urban development: Reflections from the City Statute). Rev. Bras. Estud. Urbanos Reg. 2005, 7, 27.
[CrossRef]
78. Pereira, G. Das fintas ao tributo: A trajetória da Contribuição de Melhoria no Brasil./From feints to tribute:
The trajectory of the Improvement Contribution in Brazil. Rev. Bras. Gestão Urbana 2017, 4, 207–213.
[CrossRef]
79. Vanin, F.S. Instrumentos Jurídicos de Planejamento da Ocupação Urbana como Garantia de um Município
Ambientalmente Sustentável (Legal Instruments for Urban Occupation Planning as a Guarantee of an Environmentally
Sustainable Municipality; Universidade de Caxias do Sul: Caxias do Sul, Brasil, 2014.
80. Maluf, C.A.D.; Maluf, A.C.D.R.F.D. Comentários ao Estatuto da Cidade: Lei n. 10.257, de 10 de julho de 2011
(Comments on the City Statute: Law no. 10,257, of July 10, 2011); Atlas: São Paulo, Brasil, 2011.
81. Sá, L.K. Participação Democrática na Construção do Espaço Urbano (Democratic Participation in the Construction of
Urban Space); Universidade Federal do Paraná: Paraná, Brasil, 2012.
82. Santin, J.R. Princípio da participação no código do procedimento administrativo português: Inovações
do Decreto-lei n. 4/2015. (Principle of participation in the Portuguese administrative procedure code:
Innovations of Decree-Law no. 4/2015). Rev. Direito GV 2016, 12, 846–868. [CrossRef]
83. Wolff, S. Estatuto da Cidade: A Construção da Sustentabilidade ... (City Statute: Building Sustainability ...).
Rev. Jurídica da Presidência 2003, 4, 1–9.
84. Rolnik, R. Estatuto da Cidade: Instrumento para as cidades que sonham crescer com justiça e beleza (City
Statute: Instrument for cities that dream to grow with justice and beauty). Estatuto da Cid. Novas Perspect.
Para a Reforma Urbana 2001, 1, 5–9.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 24 of 26

85. Lira, R.P. Direito Urbanístico, Estatuto da Cidade e Regularização Fundiária (Urban Law, City’s Statute and
Agrarian Regularization. Rev. de Direito da Cid. 2006, 1, 261–276.
86. Braga, R. The City Statute as an instrument of sustainable development for Brazilian cities: Possibilities
and limits. In Proceedings of the Luso Brazilian Congress for Urban, Regional, Integrated and Sustainable
Development (PLURIS 2012), Brasilia, Brazil, 7 October 2012; pp. 1–11.
87. CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS. Comissão de Desenvolvimento Urbano e Interior. Secretaria Especial de
Desenvolvimento Urbano da Presidência da República, Caixa CÂMARA DOS DEPUTADOS. Estatuto da
Cidade – Guia para Implementação pelos Municípios e Cidadãos. Brasília. 2ª ed. 2002, p. 273. Available
online: http://www.urbanismo.mppr.mp.br/arquivos/File/Guia_estatuto.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2019).
88. Moreira, A.L.N.; Araújo, M.M. Operações urbanas consorciadas no Estatuto da cidade./Urban operations
consorted in the City Statute. Acesso em 2016, 10, 17.
89. Gonçalves, F.M. Operação urbana consorciada Vila Sônia e a possibilidade de diálogo (Consortium urban
operation and the possibility of dialogue). Estud. Av. 2011, 25, 205–218. [CrossRef]
90. Maricato, E.; Ferreira, J.S.W. Operação uUrbana Consorciada: Diversificação urbanística participativa ou
aprofundamento da desigualdade? (Consorted Urban Operation: Participatory urban diversification or deepening
inequality?) In Estatuto da Cidade e Reforma Urbana, novas Perspectivas para as Cidades Brasileiras; Sergio Fabris
Editora: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2002; p. 18.
91. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q.
2002, 26, xiii–xxiii.
92. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Almeida, D.; Santos, M.A.R.D.; Costa, A.F.B. Aplicação do coeficiente alfa de Crombach nos resultados de
um questionário para avaliação de desempenho da saúde pública (Crombach alpha coefficient applied to the
results of a questionnaire for evaluation of public health performance). Anais do XXX Encontro Nacional de
Engenharia de Produção/Ann. XXX Natl. Meet. Prod. Eng. 2010, 15, 1–12.
94. Martins, L.R.B.; de Pereira, L.S.; de Almeida, L.M.; da Hora, H.R.M.; Costa, H.G. Study on the most
appropriate scale for use in questionnaires: An experiment with Kano’s model. Rev. Vértices 2011, 13, 73–100.
[CrossRef]
95. Angotti, T. The Metropolis in the Twenty-First Century: Problem or Solution? Available online: https:
//www.taylorfrancis.com (accessed on 11 December 2019).
96. Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current Trends in Smart City Initiatives:
Some Stylised Facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. [CrossRef]
97. Nijaki, L.K.; Worrel, G. Procurement for Sustainable Local Economic Development. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag.
2012, 25, 133–153. [CrossRef]
98. Glaeser, E.L.; Gottlieb, J.D. Ressurgimento Urbano e Cidade Consumidora. Urban Stud. 2006, 43, 1275–1299.
[CrossRef]
99. Laurini, R. Toward Smart Urban Planning through Knowledge Infrastructure. Diamond 2017, 75–80.
100. Kobayashi, A.R.K.; Kniess, C.T.; Serra, F.A.R.; Ferraz, R.R.N.; Ruiz, M.S. Smart Sustainable Cities: Bibliometric
Study and Patent Information. Int. J. Innov. 2017, 5, 77. [CrossRef]
101. Greco, I.; Cresta, A. A Smart Planning for Smart City: The Concept of Smart City as an Opportunity to
Re-Think the Planning Models of the Contemporary City. In International Conference on Computational Science
and Its Applications—ICCSA 2015; Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Misra, S., Gavrilova, M.L., Rocha, A.M.A.C.,
Torre, C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Eds.; Sobre Notas de aula em Ciência da Computação; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 563–576. [CrossRef]
102. Datta, A. Novas Utopias Urbanas Da Índia Pós-Colonial: “Urbanização Empreendedora” Na Cidade
Inteligente de Dholera, Gujarat (New Urban Utopias From Post-Colonial India: “Entrepreneurial
Urbanization” in the Smart City of Dholera, Gujarat). Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015, 5, 3–22. [CrossRef]
103. Firmino, R.; Duarte, F. Monitoramento de Vídeo Privado de Espaços Públicos: A Construção de Novos
Territórios Invisíveis (Private Video Monitoring of Public Spaces: The Construction of New Invisible
Territories). Urban Stud. 2016, 53, 741–754. [CrossRef]
104. New, J.; Castro, D. Why Countries Need National Strategies for the Internet of Things. Cent. Data Innov.
2015, 16, 14.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 25 of 26

105. Prado, A.L. Desenvolvimento urbano sustentável: De paradigma a mito (Sustainable urban development:
From paradigm to myth). Oculum Ens. 2015, 12, 83–97. [CrossRef]
106. Hajduk, S. The Concept of a Smart City in Urban Management. Bus. Manag. Educ. 2016, 14, 34–49. [CrossRef]
107. Sperandio, A.M.G.; Francisco Filho, L.L.; Mattos, T.P. Política de promoção da saúde e planejamento urbano:
Articulações para o desenvolvimento da cidade saudável (Health promotion policy and urban planning:
Articulations for healthy city development). Ciênc. Saúde Coletiva 2016, 21, 1931–1938. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Finger, M.; Razaghi, M. Conceptualizing Smart Cities. Available online: https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/
222945 (accessed on 11 December 2019).
109. Amanajás, R.; Klug, L.B. Direito à Cidade, Cidades Para Todos e Estrutura Sociocultural Urbana. Right to
the City Cities for All and Urban Socio-Cultural Structure. 2018. Available online: http://www.ipea.gov.br
(accessed on 10 December 2019).
110. Hayat, P. Cidades Inteligentes: Uma Perspectiva Global./Smart Cities: A Global Perspective. India Q. 2016,
72, 177–191. [CrossRef]
111. Koop, S.H.A.; van Leeuwen, C.J. The Challenges of Water, Waste and Climate Change in Cities. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 2017, 19, 385–418. [CrossRef]
112. Morello, R.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C.; Liu, Z.; Slomovitz, D.; Samantaray, S.R. Advances on Sensing Technologies
for Smart Cities and Power Grids: A Review. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 7596–7610. [CrossRef]
113. Chen, Y.; Ardila-Gomez, A.; Frame, G. Achieving Energy Savings by Intelligent Transportation Systems
Investments in the Context of Smart Cities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 381–396. [CrossRef]
114. New, J.; Castro, D.; Beckwith, M. How National Governments Can Help Smart Cities Succeed. Wash. Inf.
Technol. Innov. Found. 2017, 27.
115. Melo, S.; Macedo, J.; Baptista, P. Guiding Cities to Travel to Smart Mobility Paradigm: An Example from
Vehicle Routing Guidance and Its Traffic and Operational Effects. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 65, 24–33.
[CrossRef]
116. Busatto, L.M. Analise da Efetividade das Despesas Publicas dos Municípios do Rio Grande do Sul; Lume, Universidade
federal do Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brasil, 2009; p. 87.
117. Bergue, S.T. Sistemas de Planejamento e Controle Interno e a Análise de Desempenho Baseada em Indicadores de
Eficácia; Lume, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brasil, 2005; p. 25.
118. Carvalho Filho, J.D.S. Comentários ao Estatuto da Cidade (Comments on the City Statute); Lei nº 10.257, de
10.07.2001 e Medida Provisória nº 2.220, de 04.09.2001 (Law No. 10,257, of July 10, 2001 and Provisional
Measure No. 2220 of September 4, 2001); Lumen Juris: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005.
119. Opoku, A. The Role of Culture in a Sustainable Built Environment. In Sustainable Operations Management;
Advances in Strategy and Methodology; Chiarini, A., Ed.; Measuring Operations Performance; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 37–52. [CrossRef]
120. Wu, S.R.; Fan, P.; Chen, J. Incorporating Culture into Sustainable Development: A Cultural Sustainability
Index Framework for Green Buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 64–76. [CrossRef]
121. Errichiello, L.; Micera, R. Leveraging Smart Open Innovation for Achieving Cultural Sustainability: Learning
from a New City Museum Project. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1964. [CrossRef]
122. Garau, C.; Pavan, V. Evaluating Urban Quality: Indicators and Assessment Tools for Smart Sustainable Cities.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 575. [CrossRef]
123. Lytras, M.D.; Visvizi, A. Who Uses Smart City Services and What to Make of It: Toward Interdisciplinary
Smart Cities Research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1998. [CrossRef]
124. Bătăgan, L. Smart Cities and Sustainability Models. Econ. Inf. 2011, 15, 8.
125. Tompson, T. Understanding the Contextual Development of Smart City Initiatives: A Pragmatist Methodology.
She Ji J. Design Econ. Innov. 2017, 3, 210–228. [CrossRef]
126. Riganti, P.; Nijkamp, P. The Value of Urban Cultural Heritage: An Intelligent Environment Approach. Reg.
Sci. 2006, 36, 451–469. [CrossRef]
127. Ronconi, L. Governança pública: Um desafio à democracia (Public governance: A chanllege to Democracy).
Emancipação 2011, 11. [CrossRef]
128. Smith, R.; Wiek, A. Realizações e Oportunidades no Início da Governança Para a Sustentabilidade Urbana
(Achievements and Opportunities at the Beginning of Governance for Urban Sustainability). Environ. Plan.
C Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 429–447. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1025 26 of 26

129. van Stigt, R.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Spit, T.J.M. A Window on Urban Sustainability: Integration of Environmental
Interests in Urban Planning through ‘Decision Windows’. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 42, 18–24.
[CrossRef]
130. de Godoy Rosin, J.A.R.; de Oliveira, C.M. Estatuto da Cidade. avanços e desafios; ANAP – Associação Amigos
da Natureza da Alta Paulista: Tupã (SP), Brasil, 2017; p. 218. ISBN 978-85-68242-48-3.
131. Ítalo, I.C.S.; Reis, L.F. Quinze Anos do Estatuto da Cidade: Uma Avaliação de Oito Planos Diretores.
In Estatuto da Cidade: Avanços e Desafios; Rosin, J.A.R.G., Oliveira, C.M., Eds.; ANAP: Tupã, Brazil, 2017.
Available online: https://www.amigosdanatureza.org.br/biblioteca/livros/bd82cec7bb5801f49c7206a8a0892c/
2d5278b057566a696ccff8d31ae5895b/MTUx (accessed on 15 December 2019).
132. Marguti, B.O.; Costa, M.A.; Galindo, E.P.A. Trajetória Brasileira em Busca do Direito à Cidade: Os Quinze
Anos de Estatuto da Cidade e as Novas Perspectivas à Luz da Nova Agenda Urbana. In O Estatuto da Cidade
e a Habitat III: Um Balanço de Quinze Anos da Política Urbana no Brasil e a Nova Agenda Urbana; Costa, M.A., Ed.;
IPEA: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil, 2016. Available online: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/
7121/1/O%20Estatuto%20da%20Cidade%20e%20a%20Habitat%20III.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2019).
133. Almandoz, A. Modernization, Urbanization and Development in Latin America, 1900s–2000s; Routledge: London,
UK, 2015; p. 233.
134. Fernandes, E. The Challenges of Reforming the Urban Legal Framework: A Critical Assessment of Brazil?
City Statute Ten Years Later. In The World Bank Legal Review, Volume 5: Fostering Development through
Opportunity, Inclusion, and Equity; Law, Justice, and Development; The e-library World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013; pp. 279–291. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0037-5_ch14 (accessed on 15
December 2019).
135. Lara, F.L. Favela Upgrade in Brazil: A Reverse of Participatory Processes. J. Urban Des. 2013, 18, 553–564.
[CrossRef]
136. Ezeh, A.; Oyebode, O.; Satterthwaite, D.; Chen, Y.-F.; Ndugwa, R.; Sartori, J.; Mberu, B.; Melendez-Torres, G.J.;
Haregu, T.; Watson, S.I.; et al. The History, Geography, and Sociology of Slums and the Health Problems of
People Who Live in Slums. Lancet 2017, 389, 547–558. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).