A Critical Review of Environmental Asses

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280933995
A critical review of environmental assessment

tools for sustainable urban design
ARTICLE in ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW · AUGUST 2015

Impact Factor: 2.6 · DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006
DOWNLOADS VIEWS
8 33
3 AUTHORS:
Raed Ameen Monjur Mourshed

Cardiff University Cardiff University
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 51 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Haijiang Li
Cardiff University
38 PUBLICATIONS 132 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Monjur Mourshed

Retrieved on: 06 September 2015
Cite this article as:
Raed Fawzi Mohammed Ameen, Monjur Mourshed, Haijiang Li, A critical review
of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, Volume 55, 2015, Pages 110-125, ISSN 0195-9255,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006
A critical review of environmental assessment tools

for sustainable urban design
Raed Fawzi Mohammed Ameena,b,*, Monjur Moursheda,1, Haijiang Lia,2
a BRE Centre of Sustainable Construction, School of Engineering, The parade, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA,
United Kingdom.
b Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Karbala, Iraq
* Corresponding author at: 14-17 the parade, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom.
E-mail addresses: MohammedAmeenRF@cardiff.ac.uk, raedf.ameen@yahoo.com
1 MourshedM@cardiff.ac.uk
2 LiH@cardiff.ac.uk
Abstract:
Cities are responsible for the depletion of natural resources and agricultural lands, and
70% of global CO2 emissions. There are significant risks to cities from the impacts of
climate change in addition to existing vulnerabilities, primarily because of rapid
urbanization. Urban design and development are generally considered as the instrument
to shape the future of the city and they determine the pattern of a city’s resource usage
and resilience to change, from climate or otherwise. Cities are inherently dynamic and
require the participation and engagement of their diverse stakeholders for the effective
management of change, which enables wider stakeholder involvement and buy-in at
various stages of the development process. Sustainability assessment of urban design and
development is increasingly being seen as indispensable for informed decision-making. A
sustainability assessment tool also acts as a driver for the uptake of sustainable pathways
by recognizing excellence through their rating system and by creating a market demand
for sustainable products and processes. This research reviews six widely used
sustainability assessment tools for urban design and development: BREEAM
Communities, LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, SBToolPT–UP, Pearl Community Rating System
(PCRS) and GSAS/QSAS, to identify, compare and contrast the aim, structure,
assessment methodology, scoring, weighting and suitability for application in different
1
Ameen et al. (2015) A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design.
geographical contexts. Strengths and weaknesses of each tool are critically discussed.
The study highlights the disparity in local and international contexts for global sustainability
assessment tools. Despite their similarities in aim on environmental aspects, differences
exist in the relative importance and share of mandatory vs optional indicators in both
environmental and social dimensions. PCRS and GSAS/QSAS are new incarnations, but
have widely varying shares of mandatory indicators, at 45.4% and 11.36% respectively,
compared to 30% in BREEAM Community. Considerations of economic and cultural
aspects are only marginal in the reviewed sustainability assessment tools. However, the
newly developed sustainability assessment tools such as GSAS/QSAS and PCRS diverge
from their predecessors in their consideration of cultural aspects.
Keywords: Urban design; Sustainability assessment tools; Environmental assessment method
1. Introduction
Due to rapid urbanization, more than 50% of the world's population now live in cities (Tartaglia et
al. 2014) and by the year 2050 the figure will increase to 69% of the global population (Shen et al.
2011; UN 2014) as shown in Figure 1. Existing cities are responsible for the depletion of natural
resources and agricultural lands, as well as contributes to more than 70% of global CO2 emissions
(FAO 2011). Cities of all sizes are drivers of economic growth for their respective regions and
countries. They continue to influence the demand for natural resources and energy derived from
fossil fuels. The intrinsic inertia in global energy infrastructures implies that the dependency on
fossil fuels is set to rise in the short term, before the policies for phase-out start to have a real
impact. The majority of the increase in energy demand is estimated to come from the emerging
economies, particularly India, China and the Middle East (IEA 2013), coinciding with increasing in
urbanization rate and population density in developing countries. Figure 2 illustrates the trend in
urbanization in developing countries, projected to rise from 46% in 2010 to 63% in 2050, with
corresponding increases in population density, which is expected to double over the next three
decades (Huang 2010) as shown in Figure 3. Urbanization and population density are suggested
as the key determinants that will shape the future of 21st century cities (Suzuki et al. 2010). There
is, therefore, an urgent need to find effective solutions for new and existing urban areas to mitigate
the impacts of climate change, and to achieve a balance between various dimensions of
sustainability (Siemens 2012; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
1.1 Need for urban sustainability

Since its inception, sustainability has primarily been an ecological concept (Drexhage and Murphy
2010). However, during the course of its evolution, the scope of urban sustainable development
has widened to incorporate economic and social dimensions, primarily due to the increasing body
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006 2
of knowledge on the impact of urban form (e.g. density, land- use, urban layouts) on a range of
sustainability indicators (Cooper and Boyko 2010), as well as to address societal urban practices
linked with sustainability dimensions that result in undesirable urban trends (Basiago 1998).
80
70
60
Percentage (%)
50
40
30
20
10 Urban Rural
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 1: Historical and projected urban and rural population percentage

of the world 1960- 2050. Data source: (Worldbank 2014)
90%
80%
70%
Urban population
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Developed Developing
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 2: Historical and projected rate of urbanization in developed

and developing countries. Data source: (UN 2014)
120
100
Density (person km2)
80
60
40
20
Developed Developing
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 3: Historical and projected population density in developed and

developing countries 1950- 2050. Data source: (UN 2014)
The impact of built cultural heritage on the social wellbeing of different population groups living
within increasingly cosmopolitan towns and cities has also been recognised as an important
dimension of sustainability (Tweed and Sutherland 2007), bringing the constituent dimensions to
four: environmental, economic, social and cultural.
The dimensions of urban sustainability are characterised by a large number of indicators. Xing et
al. (2007) ) identified over 600 relevant indicators of urban sustainability. Similar conclusions have
been reached by Zhou et al. (2012) to build a framework comprising 141 urban indicators for
sustainability assessment of Chinese cities. In addition to the challenges of having to consider the
large number of indicators for urban sustainability, the inter-dependence of the indicators brings
about further challenges for implementation, in particular when the increase in performance in one
indicator results in a corresponding decrease in performance in another. The method of
reconciliation of inter-dependent indicators from different dimensions is, therefore, the key in
achieving urban sustainability. As a result, the need for a comprehensive and integrated framework
for urban sustainability assessment has been emphasized by researchers, as opposed to the
stand-alone considerations of the influence of the cities variables on urban sustainability and its
constituent dimensions (Adinyira et al. 2007; Ameen et al. 2014; Castanheira and Braganca 2014).
The building of sustainability assessment tools has been launched and used over two decades
globally and characterized to assess sustainability for building components such as: energy, water,
waste, infrastructure, etc. (Bragança et al. 2010). Despite its importance and role in environmental
assessment, the sustainability assessment process for building without the environment that they
contain don’t represent an inclusive option.
Therefore, urban sustainability assessment methods (USAM) have the potential to assist in
achieving a balance between the needs of human and the environment, thus, improving the quality
of life and the economic competitiveness of the urban area. The success of (USAM) depends on
urban design elements being part of the sustainable development process (Pucci et al. 2011) and
the prospects of dealing with urban problems in the long term. In addition, sustainability assessment
methods promote sustainable urbanization and enable governments and international institutions
to achieve an optimum value of urban sustainability (Shen et al. 2011). Moreover, it encourages
active participation and engagement among diverse stakeholders in an urban area for effective
change management and stakeholder buy–in at various stages of the development process. Due
to the formalised nature of sustainability assessment tools they offer a defined set of objectives
and has the potential to contribute to evidence based decision–- making (Turcu 2013).
1.2 Development of urban sustainability assessment methods
Sustainability is a multi-interpretations and definitions concept (Bond et al. 2012a). Despite the
multiple definitions of sustainability, the Brundtland’s definition “The development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (UN 1987) remains the most inclusive (CIDA 2012), and has enabled politicians, decision-
makers, stakeholders, sociologists, economists, urban planners and architects to understand
environmental impacts together with the social and economic effects of projects (Poveda and
Lipsett 2011). Despite its apparent breadth, the Brundtland’s definition of sustainability can be seen
as very succinct in its scope, as it encompasses the human need together with environmental,
social and economic issues. Hence, the definition serves as the basis for emerging urban
sustainability assessment methods.
Despite a relatively short history, building sustainability assessment methods have attracted the
attention and interest of the academia (Haapio 2012) and industry (Jose et al. 2006). One of the
criticisms levelled against building assessment methods is that they are not particularly suitable for
assessing sustainability of an urban area/neighbourhood or even a group of buildings (Carmen and
Bruno 2014). The reason being that individual assessment of buildings and later synthesis does
not adequately reflect the complex interaction between the city and its various components such
as population, neighbourhoods, mobility and transportation, open spaces, water management,
energy consumption, diversity of geography, air quality, waste management, etc. The integration
of these component parts represents the foundations of the sustainability assessment of urban
development (CIDA 2012; Gil and Duarte 2013; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
A myriad of assessment methods are available; e.g. life-cycle assessment (LCA), sustainable-cities
indices, sustainability-assessment projects, assessment frameworks, rating-system methods and
certification systems (Paranagamage et al. 2010; Joss 2012; Gil and Duarte 2013), all with varying
resolution, scope and application areas. During the last decade, a number of well-known
international assessment tools have been developed and some have expanded the scale of
assessment from buildings to urban development (Sharifi and Murayama 2013, 2014). For
example, Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment (CASBEE) for buildings was
developed in 2001, which was later expanded for urban development in 2007. Similar
developments can also be seen in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
neighborhood development (LEED-- ND in 2009), Estiadma Pearl Community Rating System
(Pearl Community in 2010), BRE Environmental assessment methods for communities (BREEAM
Communities in 2011), and Sustainable Building Tool in Portugal for urban projects (SBToolPT –
UP in 2014). The Global/Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS/ QSAS), on the other
hand, emerged in 2010 as a suite of assessment tools for buildings, as well as, for urban
development since its inception.
1.3 Pluralism in sustainability assessment
Trends in the development of urban sustainability assessment tools and methods have mostly been
context specific; i.e. rooted to the location and contexts they were originally developed for. Contexts
are more important for assessing sustainability of urban designs than standalone buildings,
primarily due to their interrelationships with wider urban social, technical and environmental factors.
Despite being anchored to specific contexts, most tools allow for some levels of pluralistic
interpretations of urban sustainability at both local and global (Bond et al. 2012b). Some of the
widely acknowledged assessment tools have been used in regional and international contexts with
mixed results. Concerns have been raised as to their effectiveness in considering: (a) the variations
in the impact of sustainability indicators between regions and countries, and (b) local variations in
the decision-making process (Shen et al. 2011; Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
1.4 Convergence vs divergence
Sustainability assessment is an interdisciplinary concept, as it deals with a wide range of indicators

that determine how successful proposed/implemented strategies and policies are in achieving
urban sustainability goals (Dawson et al. 2014). Urban sustainability is characterised by increasing
mutual interactions between local and global processes (Munda 2001), which is reflected in the
selection and relative importance of indicators. The indicators in most assessment tools, therefore,
can be grouped into two: common and local urban indicators, that reflect local and international
priorities for urban sustainability.
However, there is no specific list of indicators exists that suits all countries, regions and
communities (Ugwu and Haupt 2007). Figure 4 illustrates convergence vs divergence in four
selected urban sustainability assessment tools: BREEAM Co., LEED- ND, Pearl Community and
GSAS/QSAS. Some indicators such as: energy, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions
have international importance and are still used as common indicators in all assessment methods.
These common aspects are essential for monitoring the process of sustainable urbanization in
order that it does not remain as an abstract concept (Shen et al. 2011; CIDA 2012), while providing
the means to benchmark and compare urban development from different contexts. Comparable
indicators are also important because they allow cities to share a common goal, replicate
successful measures and to reflect the convergence among sustainability assessment tools. On
the other hand, the local issues can be significant for specific contexts. For example: water
(availability and quality) is considered as a significant measure in the Middle East, due to its rarity,
and because of the prevalence of drought (ADUPC 2010b). Consequently, both Pearl Community
and GSAS/QSAS have placed significant importance on water in contrast to the other indicators.
Similarly, natural hazards can be of significance in some coastal countries and regions. The
inclusion of most important local urban challenges in sustainability assessment; i.e. divergence
from the global is as important as the convergence of common indicators.
25
20
Weighting rate of indicators
15
10
0
BREEAM Co. LEED- ND PEARLS CO. QSAS
Ecology Resources and energy

Water quality Natural hazards
Urban space Community involvement
Business and investment Sustainable Buildings
Figure 4: Convergence vs divergence of urban indicators for selected sustainability assessment

tools
1.5 Study aim and structure
Emerging divergence and pluralism in the inclusion and weighting of sustainability indicators in the
recently developed assessment tools prompted this investigation with the aim of identifying the
areas and magnitude of divergence. Internationally acknowledged assessment tools are critically
reviewed in terms of structure, general characteristics, criteria, strengths, weaknesses, weighting,
scoring, and certification. Contextual assessment regarding the similarities and differences is
conducted to draw up a list of common criteria under the heading of key sustainability dimensions:
environmental, economic, social and cultural. The critical review of convergence vs divergence in
sustainability indicators and pluralism presented in this research is anticipated to provide directions
for future development.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, the methodology adopted in this study is
discussed, followed by a comparison of selected assessment tools according to: key
characteristics, organizational structure, assessment scope, rating methods and inclusion of
indicators. The discussion focuses on the similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses of
each tool. The following section investigates the relationship between the elements of urban design
and the dimensions of sustainability, while assessing the effectiveness of the tools in assessing
urban design elements. Concluding remarks focussing on the directions for future development, in
light of the research findings are presented in the end.
2 Methodology
The study presents a comparative analysis of methodology among different practices and purposes
for six global sustainability assessment tools of urban development to allow for better
understanding of the drivers and goals of each practice. The study also highlights the special
circumstances in which various assessment tools selected their list of indicators and categorized
them according to the following sustainability dimensions: environmental, economic, social and
cultural. Also, the comparative analysis of methodology aims to select different practices that have
used different types of criteria and indicators that can lead to knowledge sharing among many
practices to develop new plans and policies of urban sustainability. This will also help to improve
the process of decision- making by selecting a list of comprehensive urban indicators that are
transferable developing new plans of urban development, and as a part of improving the effective
communication between the global assessment tools.
The study explains how to select of list of indicators and reveals the selection process according
to the importance of indicators based on qualitative analysis and the benchmarks gained from
sustainability assessment tools. The information gained to describe individual tools and their
complete criteria and indicators list propose to monitor the strength and weak points of each
assessment tool and the demands that can be achieved for urban sustainability assessment.
The study is conducted in three states: sustainability assessment methods overview, selection of
sustainability assessment tools and an analytical comparison of the methodology of sustainability
assessment tools.
2.1 Overview
Despite the short history of their appearance, there are different types of sustainability assessment
methods of urban development, such as, projects, indices, frameworks and tools as shown in Table
1, this refers to the importance of urban sustainability in decision-making processes in planning
and urban design for cities (Bond et al. 2012a). Many methods have been developed for specific
regions and indicators are adopted for assessing in different terms, e.g., categories, criteria and
indicators and according to the spatial- temporal variables. Also, they give a clear perception of
urban elements and important considerations in general policies for different countries
(Moussiopoulos et al. 2010; Tanguay et al. 2010). In the beginning, there was a number of holistic
projects in the urban sustainability assessment domain. These projects were mainly international
initiatives used by several countries and focused on pressing issues internationally (especially
climate change) and encompassed the environment, society and economy aspects of sustainability
(CIDA 2012). For example, The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
emerged in 1990 and provided training, consulting information and props to national governments
in the application of local-sustainable development (Lindseth 2004); Agenda 21, a holistic
voluntarily– implemented action plan on international, national and local levels, presented a global
sustainability of cities and was produced by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992 (UN 1992); Aalborg Commitments, which emerged in 1994 in
European cities and towns after Agenda 21, provided a general framework of sustainable
development (Zilans and Abolina 2007); The SUE- MoT project appeared in 2003 as a web-enabled
framework to encourage key decision-makers to assess the urban development systematically by
focusing on different values e.g.: life cycle, scale, project location, context and spatial values
(Edum-Fotwe and Price 2009); DPSIR framework details (Driving forces, Pressures, State of the
Environment, Impacts and Response) were provided for the first time in 1995, and adopted by the
European Environment Agency (Svarstad et al. 2008); The Building Environmental Quality
Evaluation for Sustainability through Time (BEQUEST) was established in three year (1998– 2001)
and was updated in 2001 and provided a general organization map of the toolkit and the
classification for six urban criteria (waste, energy, water, transport, green areas and land use)
(Bentivegna et al. 2002); Creating Innovative Sustainability Pathways (CRISP), a project aimed to
identify potential pathways that will assist the European Union towards the transmission to a
sustainable urban trend and low carbon emissions (Huovila and Jasuja 2005; Emmert et al. 2014);
and Practical Evaluation Tools for Urban Sustainability (PETUS) aimed to identify evaluation tools
for the sustainability of urban environment in European cities, and emerged in 2003 (Jensen and
Elle 2007).
In recent years, sustainability assessment methods of urban development have become a very
popular research field, especially, CASBEE-- UD, BREEAM and LEED-- ND. Indeed, they have
attracted attention and predated other tools when they expanded their assessment scope of the
individual building to an urban development scale. This made many other tools follow suit such as:
PERALS Community, GSAS/QSAS Neighbourhoods, Earth Craft Communities, DGNB for Urban
Development, Green Star Communities, Green Mark for Districts and SBTool PT- UP (Rahardjati et
al. 2010; Ameen et al. 2014; Castanheira and Braganca 2014; Sharifi and Murayama 2014). The
main reason, according to the analytical study of these tools, reveal its emphasis on environmental
aspects such as consistent energy efficiency, renewable resources and the reduction of carbon
emissions, which attracts the world's attention at the moment.
A number of studies compared urban sustainability assessment tools. Gil and Duarte (2013),
reviewed sustainable urban development evaluation tools focussing on their format, structure,
content and output. Their findings suggest that no tool covered all of the aspects required for urban
design practice and concluded that there was scope for both to develop new tools and further
improve existing ones. Shen et al. (2011), tested different practices and suggested a comparative
basis to understand the drivers and targets for selecting indicators according to the benchmarks
acquired from preferable practices. Sharifi and Murayama (2014), on the other hand, assumed that
sustainability assessment tools have the capability to evolve through learning from their successes
and failures.
Other researchers such as: Jaeger et al. (2010), Moussiopoulos et al. (2010) and Crosbie et al.
(2014) have collected urban sustainability indicators from disparate sources and analysed for
specific countries and regions. Their aim was to understand the drivers behind and targets for the
indicators, as well as the circumstances under which the set of indicators were identified. to develop
and employ a system of indicators as a effective tool for the management of the three main
dimensions: environmental, social and economy in order to assess urban sustainability. Several
attempts have been made the sustainability of four dimensions instead of three. A concept of
institutional sustainable development was introduced as an additional dimension of sustainability
in 1995 by the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and the indicators for institutional
sustainability were suggested by the UN, which focussed on several titles aspects such as: a
participatory political system, non-discriminatory education, social security systems, gender equity
etc. (Spangenberg 2002). Besides, ADUPC (2010a) has added the culture as the fourth dimension
and , considered it as vital to understand the nature of the Middle Eastern countries. Whilst, Shen
et al. (2011) postulated that governance was is critical to ensuring that the benefits of development
by creating opportunities for public participation in decision making; hence should be considered
as the fourth dimension. Nevertheless, the overlap in the dimensions of sustainability often makes
it difficult to segregate their scope and role, and justify their inclusion in a sustainability assessment
scheme/method.
The previous studies did not refer to the specificity and disparities of different assessment tools
dealing with urban sustainability dimensions that affect urban sustainability assessment tools within
different countries and regions, and diversity in indicators that led to the difference of the evaluation
results. The study of the various assessment tools draws attention to different results of examining
different environments, social, economics, cultures and climates.
2.2 Selection of sustainability assessment tools
The six tools are selected for review primarily because they are globally well-known and have
evolved in scope from an individual building to neighbourhood and urban developments, as well as
the public availability of technical documents and guidance, which is a proxy for the level of maturity
these tools has achieved. The selected tools have also been widely adopted in their respective
jurisdictions and in varying contexts. A body of knowledge exists on their usability, applicability and
flexibility. Research projects that does not have an organisational presence in the industry were
excluded as they may not be constrained by the issues related to practical implementation, which
may introduce bias in the findings. Voluntary international initiatives covering sustainability
assessment for a large geographical area such as regions, countries or continents were eliminated
as they seldom deal with physical building forms. Moreover, the selected tools have been a positive
force in pushing the limits of market recognition for sustainability through assessment and
certification. Their potential for impact makes it imperative that these tools are critiqued.
2.2.1 BREEAM Communities
BREEAM was launched in 1990 and has a long track record in the UK by the Building Research
Establishment (BRE). At first, it was concerned with the assessment of buildings (BRE 2013b), and
as the first green buildings assessment method. Then, the scope was extended in 2009 towards
community assessment and sustainable assessment of urban community and called BREEAM
Community. And now, BREEAM have a family of assessment tools versions in respect of region
such as BREEAM Hong Kong, BREEAM Canada and BREEAM International (BRE 2011).
According to the technical manual for BRE (2013b), this version is for local projects in the UK, and
it is not a global assessment tool.
2.2.2 LEED– ND (for neighbourhood development)
In the year 1993, USGBC (United State Green Building Council) designed the first version of LEED,
in order to transform the market for green buildings and then expanded quickly to urban
development assessment. In 2007, the pilot version was launched and developed to include
neighbourhood development (ND) in 2009-2010. It represented the specific version for assessing
sustainability of urban design (USGBC 2011b).
Table 1: Selected urban sustainability assessment projects, indices, frameworks and tools
Type Examples Organization Country/ Context Date*

Region
Projects ICLEI International Council for Local Europe Global 1990
Environmental Initiatives
Agenda 21 United Nation Conference on UNCED† Global 1992
Environment and Development
BEQUEST European Commission (EC) Europe 2001
SUE- Mot SUE- Mot consortium UK Global 2003
Sustainability A- Test EU and national sustainable Europe Global 2006
development partners
Green Cities The OECD Green Cities OECD§ Global 2010
Programme Programme
Indices Environmental Yale University & Center for Switzerland Global 2005
Sustainability Index International Earth Science and Italy
Information Network (CIESIN)
Environmental European Commission Europe Global 2006
Performance Index
ICLEI Star Community Local Governments for USA Global 2008
Index Sustainability (ICLEI)¶
Green City Index Siemens ------- Global 2009
Eco- city Development Chinese Society for Urban Studies China Local 2011
Index System
Frameworks Aalborg Commitments European Commission (EC) Europe Global 2003
DPSIR\\ European Environmental Agency Europe Global 2007
(EEA)
Caofeidian Eco- City Tangshan municipality China Local 2008
Eco2 Cities The world bank USA Global 2009
RFSC** European Union Europe Global 2013
Tools PETUS European Commission Europe Global 2003
CASBEE- UD (JaGBC) and (JSBC) †† Japan Local 2007
LEED- ND US Green Building Council USA Local 2009
BREEAM Community BRE/UK UK Local 2009
Smart cities challenge IBM USA Global 2010
GSAS/QSAS Gulf Organization for Research Qatar Local 2010
Green Star Sustainable Green Building Council of Australia Australia Local 2012
Communities (GBCA)
Notes:
* Date of public release.
† The agenda was adopted by 178 countries.
§ 34 OECD member countries.
¶ ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability- USA.
\\ DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, State of the Environment, Impacts and Response).
** The Reference Framework for sustainable cities.

†† Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) and the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC).
LEED- ND deals with overall urban-design elements commenced from smart-growth principles of
cities, site selection, individual and clusters of buildings, infrastructure and land uses, as well as
interest in the landscape of neighbourhood units (USGBC 2011a). Also, it was used to assess the
sustainability for many urban projects in the United States, and as a global-assessment tool outside
the United States, where it has worked as a guide for developers in England and Germany and
some other countries, as shown in Table 2 (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). Many studies agreed that
BREEAM and LEED as the basis for most assessment rating tools around the world (Reed et al.
2011).
2.2.3 CASBEE- UD (for urban development)
The Japanese Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) is the developer of the environmental
assessment tool for CASBEE as an environmental performance of buildings, after its appearance
in 2001 as a sustainable assessment tool for office buildings. CASBEE-- UD was launched in 2007
as a joint product between the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium and the Japan Green
Building to cover urban development (town and city development) (Reed et al. 2011). Several
generations were represented in CASBEE, e.g. CASBEE new construction, CASBEE existing
buildings, CASBEE renovation projects, and urban development that deals with entire cities,
building components and clusters, multiple functions, in addition to urban spaces and ancillary
spaces. It was designed for external spaces only instead of inside buildings (IBEC 2008).
2.2.4 SBToolPT – UP (for urban development)
SBTool emerged in 1996 under the name GBTool, as an assessment method for individual and
green buildings established by the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment
(iiSBE) in 2005, and the name became SBTool (Ding 2008; Larsson 2012).
Stool PT is one of the important products of SBTool specifically to assess the building sector in
Portugal and started as a building assessment tool to develop local design methods and
construction methodologies.
The sustainability assessment of building is more important than evaluating the groups of buildings.
Hence, the scope was expanded in the development and the assessment scale of sustainability
toward sustainability of urban planning and design. SBToolPT- UP (The Portuguese sustainability
assessment method) appeared as the latest method in the sustainability assessment of cities
(Castanheira and Braganca 2014). The technical manual of SBToolPT- UP or the user guide is not
issued yet.
2.2.5 The Pearl community rating system (PCRS) for Estidama- UAE
Estidama in the Arabic language means ‘’Sustainability’’. The Pearl community rating system was
developed by the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (ADUPC) in 2010 as the first sustainability
assessment tool in the Middle East and linked with Abu Dhabi’s plans for 2030 due to the need of
sustainability assessment for buildings and urban planning and design in the UAE, and specifically,
at a local scale (Madden 2011). PCRS launched the culture as a fourth dimension of sustainability
to give speciality and spatial effect to the assessment process (ADUPC 2010b).
PCRS has been developed from BREEAM and LEED as a method to determine the similarities,
differences, and deficiencies between the two methods and takes in to account the United Arab
Emirates spatial and cultural dimensions. PCRS consist of a unified document for three standards
varying with rating size, including villas, the sustainability assessment of buildings and
communities. It represents a compulsory standard for all buildings and urban planning and design
projects in UAE as a first step to achieve urban sustainability (Elgendy 2014).
2.2.6 GSAS/QSAS Qatar Sustainability Assessment System
The method was developed in 2009 by the Gulf Organization for Research & Development
(GORD), as a collaboration work with T. C. Chen (Centre for Energy Studies and Building
Simulation) at Pennsylvania University in the (USA). Firstly, it emerged under the name QSAS
(Qatar Sustainability Assessment System) and changed to be GSAS (Global Sustainability
Assessment System) (Writer 2009 ).
The oil boom, and a huge expansion in the building and construction sector in the Gulf, created a
need for a classification system and assessment of the buildings and urban development to
decrease negative effects on the environment, and to meet the national and local needs of Qatar.
GSAS/QSAS was developed depending on wide international practices and global assessment of
the sustainability of buildings and the urban environment, by taking into account spatial
characteristics and national considerations (Horr 2013). GSAS/QSAS is taught in Qatar universities
as part of the curriculum to achieve the urban sustainability targets of the city in the future (Ayoubi
2010). Also, it represented a mandatory standard for buildings projects and urban planning
depending on the QCS (Qatar Construction Specification). GSAS also issued the technical manual
for 2013, in addition to a set of assessment manuals for 2013, which included: GSAS Districts,
GSAS Parks, and typologies GSAS Design assessment, GSAS Railways, GSAS Health Care,
Construction Assessment, Technology GSAS Operation Assessment and Commercial &
Residential (Horr 2013).
3 Comparison of sustainability assessment tools
The analytical comparison methodology of six sustainability assessment tools that have been used
different types of criteria and indicators can lead to knowledge sharing among many practices, as
well as help to understand the demands of assessment tools. The sustainability assessment tools
of urban development were compared according to two aspects:
3.1 The key characteristics of the urban assessment tools
The key characteristics of urban tools are presented in Table 2 and aim to highlight the
organizational structure of each tool and its assessment scope, local or global, as well as its
certification patterns. They have been organized by five major categories, namely: the version date,
size and nature of the development that can be assessed, national and global scope, rating system
and rating classification. The comparison clarified the following:
3.1.1 Convergence timeline to emerge
All tools have been developed in close intervals between the year 2007 for a CASBEE-UD up to
PT
2014 for SBTool - UP, which is still in the development stage, and this confirms that the subject
of urban sustainability assessment is relatively recent at the global level. Additionally, assessment
tools have received a great amount of attention by the scientific community due to the increasing
number of assessment methods within a short period. (Sharifi and Murayama 2014).
3.1.2 The size of projects that can be assessed
According to Table 2: there are no preconditions to determine the size of the city that wants to
assess its sustainability. The assessment tools deal with small and large cities, whether they have
multiple sectors, or ones with small neighbourhoods with some buildings.
3.1.3 The national or local scope
According to Table 2: all sustainability assessment tools of urban development have been
designed to assess the sustainability of local urban projects.
3.1.4 The international scope
The tools are not implemented at a global level, except for LEED-ND, which has been used to
assess the sustainability of many urban projects outside of the United States, where it has worked
as a guide for developers in Canada, Malaysia, China and South Korea as well as some other
countries. Also, CASBEE- UD was used in Sweden, as shown in Table 2 (Sharifi and Murayama
2015). These tools were applied by their local standards in other countries, and there has been no
mention to make any changes in the indicators, or the assessment patterns, when they have been
used on a global level.
Only BREEAM Communities issued BREEAM Communities Bespoke International (BRE 2013a),
to make the sustainability assessment tools correspond with the global context. Thus, it requires
determining the characteristics of the project and make the required adjustments in accordance
with the local conditions of the project such as, climatic conditions; development and planning
standards; land use pressures across the local area, etc.
BREEAM Communities Bespoke International is a specific version of the assessment projects

outside of the United Kingdom, which represents a contract to study local indicators of the region
to make the necessary adjustment to BREEAM Communities according to the local standards of
the project region. This process has to be repeated for any other kind of project, so it may cause a
waste of time, as well as the high costs that are connected with the assessment of any project.
3.1.5 Rating classification
The rating classification varies between tools, so as to give each tool its own specificity in a way
that is adopted in the assessment as shown in Table 2.
3.2 The structure of the selected assessment tools
Although sustainability assessment tools of urban development have been developed to serve the
same goal, they vary widely in terms of shape, potential, borders, and the application context (Gil
and Duarte 2013). Therefore, the selection of the six tools was based on the similarity in their
organization, components, processes and procedures findings to fulfil the objective comparison
according to common foundations. The general structure of the tools as shown Table 3, comprising
three levels.
3.2.1 Sustainability dimensions
All assessment tools emphasize three interrelated and interconnected dimensions of sustainability:
environment, social and economic, with differing visions of the emphasis on sustainability issues,
according to the specific circumstances and these reflect the nature and quality of indicators that
are expressed for the sustainability dimensions for each tool. It can be seen that some assessment
tools adopted overlap in sustainability dimensions and their indicators to serve multiple purposes
at the same time, e.g., social and economic wellbeing in BREEAM Co., neighborhood patterns and
design & Green infrastructure in LEED-- ND. And also, customizing and minimizing the overlap
refer to strength and importance the dimension and its indicators, e.g.; (Environmental conditions;
Resources and energy; and land used and ecology in BREEAM Communities), (Urban form;
PT
Ecology and biodiversity; energy and water in SPTool - UP), (Natural system, Livable
Communities and Precious Water in Pearl community).
Economic, social, or environmental issues are not the only challenges that the world is facing. The
duty of communities promotes the continuity of indigenous local cultures around the world as a
contribution to preserve the identity of different communities. Also, the three- dimensions alone
cannot reflect current society’s complexities. Many voices, such as, Agenda 21, UNESCO, the
World Summit on Sustainable Development, experts and researchers are calling for the inclusion
of culture as one of the sustainable development dimensions, because culture ultimately expresses
and forms the meaning of development and determines how the people behave in different regions
of the world (UCLG 2013).
Culture dimension refers to the issue of community identity and preservation of traditions and to
develop local belief systems and common values of different communities. This issue is implicit in
many of the assessment tools with varying ratios of importance. Several studies attempt to add a
fourth dimension of sustainability to focus on an important issue in a specific region, like the Pearl
community’s attempt to add the culture as a fourth dimension of sustainability (ADUPC 2010b).
The research seeks to support the addition of culture as another dimension of urban sustainability,
provided that it should be reflected clearly in the urban indicators and covered comprehensively
within the assessment tool. This will be examined later in the paper.
3.2.2 Identifying criteria and indicators assessment
Numerous methodological approaches have been taken to assess sustainability of urban

development. Sets of urban indicators have been used as tools for generating relevant and usable
information to increase the database size that is gained from a wide range of sources (Singh et al.
2012). Indicators can be defined as parameters which describe conditions or circumstances of
specific region not directly able to be ascertained. Indicators are also used as a synopsis and can
be synthesized to assess the success and the performing of the evaluation systems. They can
estimate qualitative data and assess quantitative data for different aims, also, used in different
contexts. Therefore, the name of indicators varied (Categories, Main indicators and indicators) as
well as various types of indicators in different urban development fields e.g. energy, water ,waste,
and ecology (Weiland 2006).
Each sustainability assessment tool consists of a list of criteria or indicators associated with aspects
of urban development which need to be evaluated. The criteria generally, have one or several
indicators (Gil and Duarte 2013) as shown in the assessment tools that have been selected in
Table 3. Also, there is a need for a sub-indicator (s) to illustrate the multiple aspects of criteria.
Urban Indicators and sub- indicator(s) are variables related with sustainability elements of urban
development, as well as having specific values and role in the measurement of performance design
(Shen et al. 2011), e.g. :distance of walking between common spaces (open spaces) and
neighbourhood components; the reduction in the impact of noise and the distance between the
home, the work place; etc. Also, they deal with the issues and problems of urban development
within specific regions, e.g., CO2 emissions of transport, natural ventilation, and the use of local
materials. Therefore, two categories of indicators can be distinguished: common indicators for all
assessment tools and particular indicators for specific areas, e.g., Plan 2030 in PEARL Co., flood
risk assessment and floodplain avoidance in BREAM Communities and LEED- ND, and
desertification in GSAS/QSAS. Additionally, there are differences of weighting points and ratios
depending on the importance of indicators in different assessment tools according to the
circumstances of the specific region, e.g. the precious water in Pearl community and QSAS, and
Economic categories in Pearl Community
Table 2: Key characteristics of the selected urban design sustainability assessment tools
Categories Sustainability assessment tools of urban design

BREEAM Community LEED- ND CASBEE- UD SBTool PT-UP Pearl community GSAS/QSAS
Version year 2012 2009 2007 2014* 2010 2010†
Size and nature of No limits to the size or No limits, but Minimum: A group of buildings No limits, but No limits, but emphasis on city Minimum: A wide range
the development that nature of the development emphasis on on two or three adjoined plots. emphasis on and enterprises projects of building typologies.
can be assessed neighbourhoods or Maximum: A combination of urban scale Maximum: city built
parts of tens, hundreds, or thousands environment.
neighbourhoods of building plots and non-built
land such as roads and parks.
Scope
National and local Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Global‡ No§ Yes¶ Yes\\ No No No
Rating method The final rating is the sum of The sum of points Based on the ratio between Not issued All mandatory credits (AMC) The credits gathered
weighted percentage of gained under building environmental quality need to be met for 1 pearl from the collection
credits achieved under each different credits, (Q) and building environmental rating. The subsequent ratings points every individual
BREEAM section, provided provided that the pre- loadings (L), known as building are based on AMC plus the indicator during the
that minimum standards are requisites are met. environmental efficiency cumulative credit points (TCPP) assessment process for
met for the rating level. (BEE = Q/L). of the optional indicators. the project.
Rating classification Unclassified (<30%) Certified (40-49) Poor (<0.5), ☆ Not issued AMC ** = 1 Pearl X< 0.0††
Pass (≥30%) Silver (50-59) AMC+ 60 cp = 2 Pearl 0.0≤x≤ 0.5, ☆
Good (≥45%) Gold (60-79) Fairly poor (0.5-1), ☆☆ AMC+ 85 cp = 3 Pearl
Very good (≥ 55%) Platinum (≥80) AMC+ 115 cp = 4 Pearl 0.5<x≤1,- ☆☆
Good (1-1.5), ☆☆☆
Excellent (≥70%) AMC+ 140 cp = 5 Pearl 1<x≤1.5,- ☆☆☆
Outstanding (≥85%) Very good (1.5–3), ☆☆☆☆
1.5<x≤ 2,- ☆☆☆☆
Excellent (≥3), ☆☆☆☆☆
2<x≤2.5,- ☆☆☆☆☆
2.5<x≤ 3,- ☆☆☆☆☆☆
Notes:
* No technical manual is available for SBTool PT- UP as of yet.
†
Updated in 2013. ‡ Represents the claim made by the assessment tools, not the author's assertions.
§ Guidance for international implementation has been issued in the Bespoke version 2012.
¶ Has been implemented in Canada, Malaysia, China and South Korea.
\\ Has been implemented in Sweden.
** All mandatory credits.

†† Certification denied.
18
3.2.3 Rating method
The primary aim of designing and implementing rating systems is to manage environmental, social
and economic impacts of development, as well as to manage stakeholder’s expectations. The other
aim is to provide market recognition of buildings and urban areas with a low environmental impact
(Poveda and Lipsett 2011). Indicators of urban development are evaluated individually and as a
group, to achieve a level of quality for urban region under assessment. The final evaluation provides
flexible values and not fixed numbers (Gil and Duarte 2013). Moreover, the indicators that have been
adopted by assessment tools are resilient according to many variables like, geographical location,
the type of the project, indicators types and according to the topics covered (Trusty 2008).
The weighting ratios or weighting points are shown in Table 3: and are designated depending on the
international and local databases that are available and by using a quantitative multi-criteria analysis
(MCA) to allocate weight to each indicator and then to obtain a final weighted summation. Also, an
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) can be used with some tools like: LEED – ND, and BREEAM
Communites to determine the weights of each category of indicators (IBEC 2008; USGBC 2011a;
BRE 2013b). The process is conducted with the participation of a panel of experts to identify
indicators and to combine the local conditions with global expertise, in addition to a wide involvement
of community through many stages to determine the final findings (Poveda and Lipsett 2011; Shen
et al. 2011; Sharifi and Murayama 2013). It is one of the main differences among the global
sustainability assessment tools because they reflect the local condition to assess sustainability.
4 Discussion and results
The study was focused on the discussion of three main points as follows:
4.1 Indicators list selection
There is unanimity that there is no unified definition of sustainable urban development (Tanguay et
al. 2010). It is difficult to determine a standard number and type of indicators and the application
possibilities. It is a struggle to achieve the target as expressed by Levett (1998). In spite of that,
indicators occupy great significance as contributing to the decision-making process for urban
sustainability projects, starting from the designing concept of the project and through the multiple
phases of the design, construction, implementation, and until the end of the project (Wedding and
Crawford-Brown 2007). Indicators should, therefore, be relevant to sustainable urban design, as well
as being clear, workable, as measurable as possible and show the priorities and objectives of the
local urban environment (Ugwu and Haupt 2007; Behzadfar and Abdi 2013).
The indicators of sustainability assessment tool start from a foundation and be aligned with the main
dimensions of sustainability: economy, environment and society (Moussiopoulos et al. 2010). Table
3 highlights the indicators of the assessment tools that have been selected and that have been widely
19
used in the local urban sustainability projects, as well as showing the types, varieties and priorities
of indicators, which obviously appear through the weighting points or weighting ratios according to
each tool. Table 3 focused on six aspects:
4.1.1 Global or common indicators
Several indicators were repeated in all global assessment tools explicitly or implicitly, although they
have different weight or points weighting depending on conditions of the local region e.g. energy,
water, waste, transport, sustainable buildings, etc. This indicators represent as main indicators as
shown in Table 3 and for instance, in BREEAM Co.; resources and energy; transport and movement;
in LEED- ND: green infrastructure and buildings, in CASBEE- UD: natural environment, social
infrastructure, in SBTool PT-UP, land use and infrastructure, energy, water, material and wastes and
transport and mobility, in Pearl community, liveable buildings, precious water and resourceful energy,
and in GSAS/QSAS: energy, water and materials. Also, they may represent as sub-indicators, for
instance, in BREEAM Community: green infrastructure under social well-being, water strategy under
resources and energy, and in LEED- ND: transportation demand management under neighbourhood
pattern and design, building energy efficiency under green infrastructure and buildings, etc. Hence,
the term ‘global’ or ‘common’ indicators can be used to denote these indicators.
4.1.2 Pluralism and reductionism
The main dimensions of sustainability allowed for overlaps over a wide range and multiple-
interpretations. Hence, the pluralism of urban indicators could observe the overlap by giving the
indicators more specificity clearly and to determine values of the weighting percentages and point
(Behzadfar and Abdi 2013).
Therefore, the numbers of indicators varies among the global assessment tools; for example,
BREEAM Community and LEED- ND contain five main indicators each, while SBTool - UP have
PT
thirteen, in spite of the relative compatibility for all tools as being concerned with sustainability
assessment of urban development. This suggests that the optimal number of indicators is still
controversial and not yet agreed upon (Tanguay et al. 2010).
Several researchers (Briassoulis (2001); Seabrooke et al. (2004); Shen et al. (2011); Castanheira
and Braganca (2014)) have concluded that anomalies in the classification of indicators constitutes
an undesirable factor in conducting urban design sustainability assessment, due to the lack of clarity
in the hierarchy of indicators within the main criteria on the one hand, and to the sustainability
dimensions on the other hand.
4.1.3 Changing or renewed indicators
The indicators set cannot be classified as a final form because it may affect all sustainability
dimensions. They remain subject to change and renewal. Furthermore, they should be subject to
periodic review to determine the efficiency of their quantity, quality and content.
Addition and development may be affected by external factors, including the emergence of variables
and calls for global change, or it often susceptible to local variables. Perhaps the most striking
example is BREEAM Community, as when the technical manual was put on the market in 2011, the
list included nine main indicators (categories with 39 sub-indicators as follows: climate, energy and
resources, place of formation, transport and movement, the community, ecology and biodiversity,
business and economy, buildings, and credits innovation). These indicators were different from the
list in the technical manual for 2012 , which included five main indicators (see Table 3), where some
of them were combined into other indicator, in addition to the 40 sub-indices (ADUPC 2010b; BRE
2013b). Therefore, the numbers of indicators within the assessment tools are subject to change and
do not represent fixed numbers.
4.1.4 Analysis of indicators
Some indications received high attention by having the highest rates and points weighting in
assessment of urban sustainability. Unlike others that receive low attention according to their priority
in local urban challenges. This requires inclusiveness for all types of indicators. Nevertheless, the
indicators importance varies in accordance to the sustainability assessment tools. It is noticeable
that some indicators are received attention more than others and have the highest points or rates
weighting (Häkkinen 2007). It is significant to give precise information about indicators, their
importance, and extent of success in evaluation. As well as determining compliance within specified
context through analysis of sub-indicators that shows indicators total content (Shen et al. 2011). The
analysis of indicators confirms the strength of the connection and the linkage between all indicators
(main and sub-indicators). Therefore, that will contribute to deliver correct information to community
experts and decision makers (Wedding and Crawford-Brown 2007). This highlights about the
quantitative and qualitative indicators and their importance to number of tools and illustrates the
consistency and differences among them. It also raises questions about whether the degree of
importance of indicators at the same level in all assessment tools, or it is different?
Table 3 gives a clear answer to this question by identifying the priority of indicators and shows clearly
that change in the six assessment tools regardless of partial matching for some pointers. There are
differences between the indicators priorities among different assessment tools, and these
differences give an obvious sign that the geographic, demographic, environmental, social, and
economic factors, moreover the nature of the local community, represents a main determinant of the
types, numbers and priorities of indicators. Thus, it is not feasible to use one of the global
assessment tools as a ready recipe fit for all and applied anywhere.
4.1.5 Mandatory and optional indicators
According to Sharifi and Murayama (2013), some designers and planners do not respond to the
application of the comprehensive indicators for urban sustainability projects, which may negatively
affect the achievement of the indicators of urban sustainability. Therefore, it was necessary to apply
preventive measures to get the minimum requirements through the application of the mandatory
indicators, to ensure that the minimum requirements of points are a condition to gain a certification
as a sustainable project.
All assessment tools included mandatory indicators, except, CASBEE- ND, that appeared as
optional indicators only without any mandatory limitations as shown in Table 3. CASBEE-ND has a
good market and are recognized in the urban environmental assessment field and can provide
certification, therefore, it does not require mandatory determinants (Sharifi and Murayama 2014).
The adoption of mandatory indicators may differ between tools. The BREEAM Community
mandatory indicators are placed across its five criteria and they have a weighting percentage. Also,
it is necessary to achieve the mandatory indicators within two phases to ensure compliance and to
achieve the minimum requirements of urban sustainability for the project (BRE 2013b). It is worth
noting that LEED- ND and GSAS/QSAS have adopted mandatory indicators, but without weighting
points. As for Pearl community, it has taken a different approach in dealing with the mandatory
indicators, it has allocated the first rating stage to assess the mandatory indicators and given a score
of one pearl for each project that achieves the minimum requirements for urban sustainability issues.
Also, weighting points have been collected from the optional indicators, which are added to the
credits of the mandatory indicators, to identify a four-level rating, which determines the final
certification of the project (ADUPC 2010b).
Table 4 shows the distribution of mandatory indicators for four global sustainability assessment tools
that have mandatory determinants. Despite the similarities of few of the indicators, the assessment
tools have been developed according to the local conditions, climatic conditions, social and cultural
dimensions, urban problems, economic situations and priorities of the regions. Therefore, they are
allocated according to the spatial specificity.
Table 3: Indicators in urban sustainability assessment tools

Criteria or Indicators No. of sub- Mandator Optional Weight
Indicators y Points %
Governance 4 2 2 09.3
BREEAM Social and economic wellbeing 17 4 13 42.7
Community Resources and energy 7 3 4 21.6
(2012) Land use and ecology 6 2 6 12.6
Transport and movement 6 1 6 13.8
Total 5 40 12(30%) 28(70%) 100
Smart Location and Linkage 9 5 9 27 24.54
Neighbourhood Pattern and Design 15 3 15 44 40.00
LEED- ND Green Infrastructure and Buildings( 21 4 21 29 26.34
(2009) Innovation and Design Process 2 2 6 5.46
Regional Priority Credit 1 1 4 3.63
Total 5 56 12(21%) 88(79%) 110 100
Natural Environment (microclimates 17 17 N/A
and cosystems).
Service functions for the designated 15 15 N/A
area
CASBEE- Contribution to the local community 7 7 N/A
(history, culture, scenery and
UD (2007) revitalization)
Environmental impact on 14 14 N/A
microclimats,
Façade and landscape
Social infrastructure 14 14 N/A
Management of the local environment. 13 13 N/A
Total 6 80 0% 80(100%)
Urban form 3 N/A
Land use and infrastructure 5 N/A
Ecology and biodiversity 4 N/A
Energy 3 N/A
Water 3 N/A
Material and wastes 3 N/A
Comfort of outdoor area 4 N/A
SBToolPT-
Safety 2 N/A
UP (2014)
Amenities 3 N/A
Mobility 3 N/A
Local and culture identify 3 N/A
Employment promotion and 3 N/A
investment
Extra 2 N/A
Total 13 41 0% 41(100%) N/A
Integrated Development Process 4 3 4 10 6.29
(IDP)
Pearl Natural Systems (NS) 5 3 5 14 8.80
community Livable Buildings (LB) 12 5 12 35 22.01
(2010) Precious Water (PW) 5 3 5 37 23.27
Stewarding Materials (SM) 8 3 8 18 11.33
Resourceful Energy (RE) 8 3 8 42 26.41
Innovating Practice (IP) 2 2 3 1.89
Total 7 44 20(45.45%) 24(54.55) 159 100
Urban Connectivity 9 9 8.00
Site 8 8 9
Energy 5 5 24
GSAS/QSA Water 1 1 16
S (2010) Materials 5 2 5 8
Indoor Environment 10 1 10 14
Cultural & Economic Value 2 2 13
Management & Operations 4 2 4 8
Total 8 44 5(11.16%) 39(88.64%) 100
Table 4: Distribution of mandatory indicators under three sustainability dimensions
Criteria Scope of indicators BREEAM Co. LEED- ND Pearl Co. GSAS/QSAS

No. % No. % No. % No. %
Environment
Energy Strategy and energy 1 2.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 0
efficiency
Water Strategy and water 1 2.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 0
efficiency
Materials Life cycle material and 0 0 1 2.27 1 2.27
reuse materials
Transportation Walkable streets and 1 2.5 1 1.75 0 1 2.27
transport assessment
Ecosystem Agricultural and natural 1 2.5 1 1.75 1 2.27 0
system and strategy
Waste Construction and 0 0 2 4.54 1 2.27
operational waste
management, recycle
management
Pollution and hazard Noise, flood avoidance 1 2.5 2 3.5 0 0
and pollution prevention
Conversation Water body conservation 0 1 1.75 0 0
Social
Design process, and land Consultation, smart 3 7.5 1 1.75 3 6.81 1 2.27
use location, integrated
strategy & natural design
Community Demographic needs, 1 2.5 2 3.5 4 9.08 0
ecological & connected
community, urban system,
amenity provision
Culture Compact development 0 1 1.75 0 0
Infrastructure 1 2.5 0 0 0
Building Existing and green 0 1 1.75 2 4.54 1 2.27
building
Safety Risk assessment and 1 2.5 0 1 2.27 0
protection
Economic
Economic impact 1 2.5 0 0 0
Total number of mandatory indicators [a] 12 12 20 5
Total number of indicators in the tool [b] 40 56 44 44
Share of mandatory indicators [S=a/b*100] 30 21 45.4 11.36
4.1.6 The spatial correlation for indicator
The standard tools are mainly designed for the local context (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). So, urban
indicators are different in their importance depending on the strength of spatial correlation and the
determinants of regions, such as the geographical nature, economic wealth, population growth,
cultural heritage and civilization, in addition to laws and regulations and structural determinants.
4.2 Indicators of urban design sustainability
The paper highlights the relationship between direct and indirect indicators with the elements of
urban design or what is expressed in urban form (Jenks and Jones 2010) and its impact on
sustainability. The urban form consists of a number of physical characteristics and non-material, in
spite of the overlap between the elements, it works as a single unit, and in accordance to Dempsey
et al. (2008) and Jenks and Jones (2010), it can be classified into six elements (after separation the
transportation for lay out) as follows:
4.2.1 Density
Density is a multi-faceted concept associated with the number of people who occupy a certain living
area, work or entertainment, and relates to the concepts of pedestrian movement, transport and
street width, as well as open and closed spaces, and the amount of interdependence, which can
have an effect on other aspects of urban forms, like land use indicators.
4.2.2 Housing and building types
Housing and building types are elements that have a significant impact on the daily life of the people
living in the urban environment and are related with high or low density, the availability of open
spaces or the density of buildings, building types, buildings form, the materials, the height, the
orientation of buildings and its relationship with natural light and natural ventilation, in addition to the
types of housing, their size and relationship with the efficiency of the building of how the building
operates and the amount of energy consumption.
4.2.3 Land use
It is used to describe the different functions of the urban environment such as housing, industry,
commerce, retail, office and other, and the relationship of these functions with each other, including
that one of them does not affect negatively on the other, in addition to providing accessibility between
the multiple functions.
4.2.4 Accessibility & transportation
It refers to the mobility between the different functions, which are not required to be horizontal as a
signal to the multiplicity of layers, and not just proximity and distance, as well as transportation
systems and their relationship with the environment. The main relationships are determined at a
distance between the house and the city centre, workplace or school and so on, and the distances
as walking distance or movement using different modes of transport.
4.2.5 Infrastructure
Infrastructure is the connecting of building on one hand, and mobility and accessibility on the other
hand. This in addition to the distribution of buildings, movement axes, services and open spaces
within residential neighbourhoods and city.
4.2.6 Urban layout
This represents the description of the spatial arrangement of urban design elements and the
connection between the parts. It is a sign of mass buildings and open spaces with street networks
for the various sectors in the city.
Through the brief definitions of the elements of urban form, it is possible to distinguish the robust
interdependence between the urban design elements and urban sustainability indicators for
assessment tools that have been selected, as well as to note the magnitude of synergy between the
elements of urban form and the dimensions of sustainability and the extent fulfils the requirements
for the major indicators or sub-indicators for this side. Also, the disparity in the urban assessment
tools toward the urban design element means that some of the tools might be designed for a specific
range within the city such as a neighbourhood, for example, and not designed for the city.
4.3 Categorization and description the common indicators
The indicators are instruments to direct the sustainable development and select appropriate policies
to success in urban sustainability. Therefore, urban indicators should be multiple and specific as
much as possible, in order to interpret the notions of sustainable development and reduce
overlapping among dimensions. Depending on the three fundamental dimensions of sustainability
(economy, environment and society), and through the review of all criteria, the main indicators and
sub-indicators for the six assessment methods were numbered as 44 main indicators and 305 sub-
indicators. A list has been devised of common indicators as shown in Figure 5. They have been
elected and characterized by clarity and pluralism and inclusiveness, with an attempt to reduce the
overlapping between sustainability dimensions. Also, this has been done with an effort to introduce
the culture as an extra dimension to determine its importance for assessment tools besides adding
new indicators, such as community involvement, innovation and flexibility for periodic review and
sustainability assessment through various stages of urban design projects. It constitutes a common
set of indicators to assess the sustainability of urban design, which represents one of the aims of
this study. As well as, for the purpose of the definition of sub-indices in Table 5, and determine the
ranges that have been described accurately and in detail, this includes the scope and limits of
indicators and its contents. This list can be subjected to the test through databases and expert teams
and public participation to be the first nucleus in terms of common standards between global
sustainability assessment methods to develop a framework of local sustainability assessment is
through the addition of local indicators to give the characteristics of the local region. Thus, this can
lead to knowledge sharing among different practices and improve the effective communication of the
status of practices, as well as being used to select a common indicators list of sustainable urban
development from the aggregation of the experiences for each practice and use it to develop new
urban development plans and improve the decision-making process in sustainability assessment of
urban design.
5 Conclusion
Sustainability cannot be achieved on its own in urban areas and cities without considering local
conditions, environmental and urban policies (Rees and Wackernagei 1996). Therefore, many
methods and assessment tools for urban sustainability are a result of the expansion from building
assessment toward the planning and design elements of the city (Haapio 2012).
Six well-known international assessment tools have been selected for a critical review of their
characteristics, organization, components, processes and procedures. All reviewed tools are widely
used for assessing the sustainability of urban development in different regions of the world. The aim
of the review was to clarify ambiguities that exist in this area and to highlight the exchange of
experiences among the reviewed assessment tools, in terms of organizational structure and
assessment methods.
The assessment tools show a wide coverage of issues, but without considering all. The study
concluded that there are disparity in scope of topics that have been covered by the indicators and
sub- indicators included in global sustainability assessment tools. They focus on the themes of
energy, water, recycling and environmental aspects without threads of social and economic effects,
which sometimes represent an essential part of communities’ lives in addition to the disparity in the
coverage of themes related to urban development indicators between the assessment tool and
another. All assessment tools demand a single target, in different forms with disparity in the emphasis
on the dimensions of urban sustainability as shown in Figure 6. The study findings identified that
urban sustainability assessment tools focus on environmental sustainability performance issue; and
some extent on social issues of sustainable urban design, while there are concerns about the
economic and cultural dimensions that are not emphasized in any of the tools, which made these
dimensions marginal in the development of sustainability assessment tools (Haapio and Viitaniemi
2007). Therefore, all sustainability dimensions are important and should be developed, particularly
in developing countries, as the tools can make substantial contributions to local sustainable
development. The indicators represented a set of referencing standards and guidelines reflecting
the urban sustainability issues. Despite the lack of consensus about the ideal number of indicators
and types, as well as disparities in the importance of the different tools (Wedding and Crawford-
Brown 2007; Moussiopoulos et al. 2010), all indicators are of great importance as they constitute a
clear picture that are adopted in the decision-making process (Sharifi and Murayama 2015). Besides,
the provision of mandatory indicators for design often enhances the acceptance of the tool, as well
as stimulating designers and developers to adopt social aspects, local economies, housing,
etc.(Sharifi and Murayama 2013). As shown in Table 5, the urban tools in general offer local
experiences based on the circumstances of the region, political decisions and local construction
regulations (Haapio 2012).
Environmental Social Economic Cultural
Recourses and Land Used& Environmentally Economic Impact Local community

Ecology Urban Space
Energy Infrastructure compatible design Cultural & Heritage
• Demography • Energy strategies & • Comprehensive • City public Spaces

• Mixed Use • Local community &
• Microclimate management design & urban • Open & enclosure • Economic impacts
• Functions Social inclusion
• Ecology strategy • Energy of building network spaces • Economic viability
relationship • Historical & Identity
and monitoring • Infrastructure energy • Smart and preferred • Utilities and facilities
• Remediation Land of cultural & heritage
• Landscape and • Natural & renewable • Land use scheme
location • Activities & distances
• Different facilities • Cultural and natural
Distribution of resources, Solar, • Built environment • Community involvem-
distances assets use
green spaces Wind & others • Rehabilitation of ent opportunities
• Universal design • Conservation
• Heat Island • Electrical power urban areas • Amenities provision
• Social infrastructure
reduction • Saving energy • Infrastructures
consideration • Encourage health
• Buildings environme- formation
• Desertification and • Monitoring energy & network activities
ntally compatible • Cultural practices
Shading treatment performance
Water Quality Air Quality and Materials Transportation / Business, Investment

Safety Services
emissions management Mobility and Employment
• Water quality • Sustainable materials • Transport assessment

• Good air quality • Securing buildings
consideration • Local materials • Public transport • Services delivery
• Acoustic and • Open spaces and • Personal skills
• Building Water • Materials selection • Private Transportation • Services
Efficiency vibration street • Local industries
according to the • Street Networks information
• drinking water environments • Safety of pedestrian • Employability
global environment • Pedestrian walkways systems
Consumption • Ventilation areas • Life cycle costing
consideration & health • Cars parking • Usability
• Water pollution • Urban Heat • Providing rapid and
• recirculation & • Reused and recycle • Cycling facilities • Proximity to
Reduction safe evacuation
treatment materials • Ecosystem networks services
• Carbon, CO2 • Low-emitting • Crime prevention
• Rainwater • Transportation syste- • Entertainment
management
emissions materials • Secure & safe equipment
• Heat exhaust ms capacity& demand Communities
• Water bodies’ Natural Hazards
Waste Management Hazards Sustainable Comfort outdoor Operation, Conservation Governess &Commu- Flexibility and
Buildings
Local community areas Long term nity involvement Innovation
Cultural & Heritage
• Sustainable
• Waste • Hazards assessment buildings • Consultation and
• Reuse of existing • Conservation
Management & management • Light and noise engagement • Intelligent
• Flood risk buildings management for
classification, pollution • Community manag- Buildings
• Wind hazard • Construction products long-term
treatment & • Reduction of ement of facilities • Innovation and
recycling • Earthquake reduction • Preservation of
vibration impacts • Outreach and effective
• Solid, Organic • Sand dunes • Natural & mechanical • Smell impacts
historical
performance
commu nity
waste • Avalanche and ventilation
reduction
resources
participation • Flexibility of
• Wastewater collapse • Thermal comfort in • Urban
• Outdoor thermal • Awareness of changing demand
management • The risks of natural buildings preservation
• Acoustic Quality and
comfort Strategies sustainability and
• Hazardous waste hazards & protection
daylight Design review
management
Figure 5: Common indicators and sub- indicators for sustainable urban design dimensions
28
However, the study found that some of the tools are heading towards international assessment
projects outside its local scope. The assessment results of such projects remain questionable and
because the decisions have been taken through the use of local indicators that are not related with
the place (Sharifi and Murayama 2015).
The weights and benchmarks reflect the performance indicators against the basic dimensions of
sustainability. It should be an expression of spatial characteristics, and, in accordance to Sharifi and
Murayama (2013), the experts and specialists who have a basic role to determine the indicators,
need to consider the local standards as well as the ways to increase the community participation, in
addition to the need to revise the weighting ratios or weighting points periodically to ensure that local
requirements are met. The study highlighted that the new urban assessment tools focus on pluralism
of indicators instead of reducing their number, that makes indicators clearer and more specialized
and are helping to reduce the overlap between the sustainability dimensions, making it easy to
deliver accurate information to the specialists, designers, stockholders, local community and
decision-makers (Castanheira and Braganca 2014). Furthermore, it is important to encourage the
use of indicators during the early lifecycle stages of the project and not after the end of the project.
Hence, the list of indicators in Figure 5 shows the common list of indicators, as well as the indicators
that are not covered in the assessment tools. For example, the technology indicator and its impact
on the sustainability of urban design did not have a clear presence or was implicit in the comparison.
This encourages the possibility of a future study to cover the subject and to analyse its effects. This
list can form a database for planners and developers to develop the framework for local urban
sustainability while providing an important role for professionals, designers, stakeholders and
decision-makers to nominate a list of local indicators. Through a combination of the two lists, it can
achieve a national project and local sustainability assessment framework of urban design and can
be used particularly in developing countries.
The assessment tools, despite being in their early years, provide a model in the process of collecting
community awareness towards the environment in which we live, in addition to its role in
strengthening the participation between community groups.
29
Table 5: The topics range covered by indicators and sub- indicators included in global sustainability
assessment tools
Dimensions Tools
Indicator Sub-indicator BREEA LEED- CASBEE SBToolPT Pearl GSAS/
M Co. ND Co. - UP Co. QSAS
Environmental
Ecology Arid/ Desert climate      
Cold/ Snow      
Tropical/ Equatorial      
Not- specified climate      
Specific topography      
Not- specified topography      
Ecological survey      
Ecological network      
Projects location      
Recourses and Solar energy      
energy Wind      
Tidal      
Nuclear      
Geo- thermal      
Not- specified      
Eneconservati      
Building performance      
Water Water Quality      
Drinking water consumption      
Water pollution      
Water recycle      
Rainwater harvesting      
Microclimat Air quality      
CO2 emissions      
GHG emissions      
Waste Solid waste      
Management Organic waste      
Waste recycling      
Hazards Flood risk      
Earthquake      
Wind hazard      
Sand dunes      
Avalanche and collapse      
Land Use Land Use      
Land remediation      
Green infrastructure      
Network infrastructure      
Infrastructure and expansion      
Buildings Sustainable buildings      
Natural ventilation      
Daylighting      
Thermal Comfort      
Materials Sustainable materials      
management Recycled materials      
Social
Environment Urban context      
compatible Comprehensive design      
design Universal design      
consideration
Connectivity      
Accessibility      
Transportation Transport assessment      
Public Transportation      
Private Transportation      
Cycling network      
Local parking      
Urban space Multi- functional spaces      
Public spaces      
Mixed use      
Services Amenities provision      
Delivery of services      
Safety Safe and Secure      
Comfort in Noise pollution      
outdoor areas Lighting pollution      
Reduction smell impacts      
Vibrations      
Community involvement      
Long term Operation      
Flexibility and Innovation      
Economic
Economic impacts      
Local resources      
Business      
Investments      
Employments      
Cultural
Historical Identity      
Social infrastructure      
Cultural practices      
Cultural and natural assessment      
Conservation      
Inclusion percentage of indicators  48.0% 33.8% 15.6% 36.4% 36.4% 44.15%
 2.6 % 10.4% 11.7% 9.1% 11.7% 11.7%
 49.4% 55.8% 72.7% 54.5% 51.9% 44.15%
Key:  Not- applicable  Semi- applicable  Fully- applicable
Figure 6: Disparities in the affective dimension of urban sustainability according to indicators analysis
32
References
Adinyira, E.,Oteng-Seifah, S. and Adjei-Kumi, T. 2007. A Review of Urban Sustainability
Assessment Methodologies. In: International Conference on Whole Life Urban
Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow, UK. Caledonian University,
ADUPC. 2010a. Estidama Pearls Rating System-Community Rating System. Abu Dhabi
Urban planning council, UAE:
ADUPC. 2010b. Estidama: Pearls Rating System- Version 1.0. Community, Building and
Villa Rating System Construction Version 1.0. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Abo Dubi Urban Planning
Council.
Ameen, R. F. M.,Li, H. and Mourshed, M. 2014. Sustainability assessment methods of

urban design: a review. In: The 21st International Workshop: Intelligent Computing in
Engineering 2014 (ISBN: 978-0-9930807-0-8). Cardiff, UK. European Group for Intelligent
Computing in Engineering (EG- ICE),
Ayoubi, S. A. 2010. QSAS to be adopted in the curriculum of the Environmental Design

Faculty at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. Emirates Week [Online].
Available at: www.emiratesweek.com/2010/12/5520
Basiago, A. D. 1998. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development

theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist 19(2), pp. 145-161.
Behzadfar, M. and Abdi, F. 2013. Urban Sustainability Indicators Assessment with the
Analytic Hierarchy Process: A comparison between different examples. Journal of Social
Issues & Humanities 1(3), pp. 137-147.
Bentivegna, V.,Curwell, S.,Deakin, M.,Lombardi, P.,Mitchell, G. and Nijkamp, P. 2002. A

vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST.
Building Research & Information 30(2), pp. 83-94.
Bond, A.,Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J. 2012a. Sustainability assessment: the state

of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1), pp. 53-62.
Bond, A.,Saunders, A. M. and Stoeglehner, G. 2012b. Designing an effective sustainability

assessment process. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Bragança, L.,Mateus, R. and Koukkari, H. 2010. Building Sustainability Assessment.

Sustainability 2(7).
BRE. 2011. BREEAM for Communities: Stage 2. UK: BREEAM
BRE. 2013a. BREEAM Communities Bespoke International UK: BREEAM.

33
BRE. 2013b. BREEAM Communities Code for a Sustainable Built Environment. Technical
Manual SD202- 0.1: 2012 UK.
Briassoulis, H. 2001. Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Through a (Planner's)

Glass Darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44(3), pp. 409-427.
Carmen, G. and Bruno, D. 2014. A Multi-scale Method to Optimize the Sustainability in

Construction works. In: The World Sustainable Building Conference, World SB14
Barcelona. Madrid, Spain.
Castanheira, G. and Braganca, L. 2014. The Evolution of the Sustainability Assessment

Tool: From Buildings to the Built Environment. Hindawi Publishing Corporation: The
Scientific World Journal 2014(Article ID 491791), pp. 1-10.
CIDA. 2012. Indicators for Sustainability: How cities are monitoring and evaluating their
success. Ottawa, Canada: The Canadian International Development Agency
Cooper, R. and Boyko, C. 2010. How to design a city in five easy steps: exploring
VivaCity2020’s process and tools for urban design decision-making? Journal of Urbanism
3(3), pp. 253-273.
Crosbie, T.,Crilly, M.,Dawood, N.,Oliveras, J. and Niwaz, N. 2014. 'Visualising the ‘Big
Picture’: key Performance Indicators and sustainable urban Design'. Nice, France: EEB
Data Models Community ICT for Sustainable Places.
Dawson, R.,Wychmans, A.,Heidrich, O.,Koler, J.,Dobson, S. and Feliu, E. 2014.

Understanding Cities: Advances in integrated assessment of urban sustainability.
Newcastle, UK: The Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research (CESER),
Newcastle University.
Dempsey, N.,Brown, C.,Raman, S.,Porta, S.,Jenks, M.,Jones, C. and Bramley, G. 2008.

Elements of Urban Form.Dimensions of the sustainable city. Netherlands: Springer pp.
21-51.
Ding, G. K. 2008. Sustainable construction- The role of environmental assessment tools.

Journal of Environmental Management 86(3), pp. 451-464.
Drexhage, J. and Murphy, D. 2010. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio

2012. New York, USA: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
Edum-Fotwe, F. T. and Price, A. D. F. 2009. A social ontology for appraising sustainability

of construction projects and developments. International Journal of Project Management
27(4), pp. 313-322.
34
Elgendy, K. 2014. Comparing Estidama’s Pearls Rating System to LEED and BREEAM
[Online] (www.carboun.com/sustainable-urbanism/comparing-estidama%E2%80%99s-
pearls-rating-method-to-leed-and-breeam ). Available at.
Emmert, S.,Luiten, H. and Lindt, M. v. d. 2014. Synthesis of three sustainable pathways:

Final Report. Netherlands: Creating Innovative Sustainable Pathways (CRISP).
FAO. 2011. The State of the World's Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture-
Managing systems at risk. New York, USA: FAO.
Gil, J. and Duarte, J. P. 2013. Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a
review. Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning 166(6), pp. 311-325.
Haapio, A. 2012. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 32(1), pp. 165-169.
Haapio, A. and Viitaniemi, P. 2007. Environmental Criteria and Indicators used in the
Environmental Assessment of Buildings. CIB World Building Congress CIB2007-241, pp.
2406- 2416.
Häkkinen, T. 2007. Assessment of indicators for sustainable urban construction. Civil

Engineering and Environmental Systems 24(4), pp. 247-259.
Horr, Y. A. 2013. GSAS Technical Guide: V 2.1. Doha, Qatar: Gulf Organisation for
Research and Development (GORD).
Huang, Y. 2010. Urbanization, Hukou System and Government Land Ownership: Effects
on Rural Migrant Work and on Rural and Urban Hukou Residents. France: OECD
Development Center.
Huovila, P. and Jasuja, M. 2005. CRISP Indicators analysis. Netherlands: Performance

Based Building Network (PeBBu)
IBEC. 2008. CASBEE for Urban Development. Technical Manual 2007 Edition Tool- 21.
Japan: Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
IEA. 2013. Would energy outlook. International Energy Agency, France.
Jaeger, J. A. G.,Bertiller, R.,Schwick, C. and Kienast, F. 2010. Suitability criteria for

measures of urban sprawl. Ecological Indicators 10(2), pp. 397-406.
35
Jenks, M. and Jones, C. 2010. Chapter 1: Issues and Concepts.Dimensions of the
Sustainable City. UK: Springer.
Jensen, J. O. and Elle, M. 2007. Exploring the Use of Tools for Urban Sustainability in
European Cities. Indoor and Built Environment 16(3), pp. 235-247.
Jose, J.-T. S.,Garrucho, I. and Cuadrado, J. s. 2006. The first sustainable industrial
building projects. The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) 159(ME3), pp. 147–153.
Joss, S. ed. 2012. Tomorrow's City Today Eco- City Indicators, Standards & Frameworks.
UK. University of Westminster.
Larsson, N. 2012. SB Method and SBTool for 2012 - overview [Online]. IISBE. Available
at: [Accessed.
Levett, R. 1998. Sustainability indicators - integrating quality of life and environmental

protection. Royal Statistical Society 161(Part 3), pp. 291-302.
Lindseth, G. 2004. The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of
Local Climate Policy. Local Environment 9(4), pp. 325-336.
Madden, J. 2011. Estidama Program: Moving Abu Dhabi Toward a Sustainable Future.
UAE: Abo Duabi Urban Planning Council (ADUPC).
Moussiopoulos, N.,Achillas, C.,Vlachokostas, C.,Spyridi, D. and Nikolaou, K. 2010.

Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of
sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 27(5),
pp. 377-384.
Munda, G. 2001. Indicators and Evaluation Tools for the Assessment of Urban. Working
Paper, University of Barcelona, Barcelona.
Paranagamage, P.,Khandokar, F. and Price, A. 2010. Briefing: Holistic assessment of

sustainable urban development. Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning
163(3), pp. 101-104.
Poveda, C. A. and Lipsett, M. 2011. A Review of Sustainability Assessment and

Sustainability/ Environmental Rating Systems and Credit Weighting Tools. Journal of
Sustainable Development 4(6), pp. 36-55.
Pucci, S.,Pantosti, D.,De Martini, P. M.,Smedile, A.,Munzi, M.,Cirelli, E.,Pentiricci, M. and

Musso, L. 2011. Environment–human relationships in historical times: The balance
between urban development and natural forces at Leptis Magna (Libya). Quaternary
International 242(1), pp. 171-184.
36
Rahardjati, R.,Khamidi, M. F. and Idrus, A. 2010. The Level of Importance of Criteria and
Sub Criteria in Green building Indux Malaysia. In: International Conference on
Sustainable Building and Infrastructure (ICSBI 2010). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Kuala
Lumpur Convention Centre, pp. 15-17.
Reed, R.,Wilkinson, S.,Bilos, A. and Schulte, K.-W. 2011. A Comparison of International

Sustainable Building Tools– An Update. In: The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate
Society Conference, Gold Coast pp. 16-19.
Rees, W. and Wackernagei, M. 1996. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities cannot be
Sustainable and why they are a key to Sustainability. Elsevier Science Inc. 16(223), pp.
223-248.
Seabrooke, W.,Yeung, S. C. W.,Ma, F. M. F. and Li, Y. 2004. Implementing sustainable

urban development at the operational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and
Guangzhou). Habitat International 28(3), pp. 443-466.
Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood

sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38, pp. 73-87.
Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2014. Neighbourhood sustainability assessment in action:

Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and
Japan. Building and Environment 72(2014), pp. 243-258.
Sharifi, A. and Murayama, A. 2015. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood
sustainability assessment: insights from a comparative case study. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 58(1), pp. 1-23.
Shen, L.-Y.,Jorge Ochoa, J.,Shah, M. N. and Zhang, X. 2011. The application of urban
sustainability indicators – A comparison between various practices. Habitat International
35(1), pp. 17-29.
Siemens. 2012. The Green City Index- A summary of the Green City Index research
series. Germany: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Singh, R. K.,Murty, H. R.,Gupta, S. K. and Dikshit, A. K. 2012. An overview of

sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 15(1), pp. 281-299.
Spangenberg, J. H. 2002. Environmental space and the prism of sustainability:

frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological indicators 2(3),
pp. 295-309.
Suzuki, H.,Dastur, A.,Moffatt, S.,Yabuki, N. and Maruyama, H. 2010.

Eco2Cities_Ecological Cities as Economic Cities. The World bank Publications, USA.
37
Svarstad, H.,Petersen, L. K.,Rothman, D.,Siepel, H. and Wätzold, F. 2008. Discursive

biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25(1), pp. 116-
125.
Tanguay, G. A.,Rajaonson, J.,Lefebvre, J.-F. and Lanoie, P. 2010. Measuring the

sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological Indicators
10(2), pp. 407-418.
Tartaglia, A.,Mele, C.,Mele, C. and Ruggiero, M. L. 2014. Urban Issues and Sustainability.
In: E3S Web of Conferences. p. 03004.
TCPP. 2010. National Development Plan 2010-2014. Baghdad- Iraq: Technical

Committee for Plan Preparation- Iraqi Ministry of Planning.
Trusty, W. 2008. Standards versus recommended practice: separating process and

prescriptive measures from building performance. Journal of ASTM International 5(2).
Turcu, C. 2013. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban

sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(5), pp. 695-719.
Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. 2007. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban
development. Landscape and Urban Planning 83(1), pp. 62-69.
UCLG. 2013. Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. Barcelona, Spain: United
Cities and Local Governments & Ajuntament De Barcelona- Institute de Culture.
Ugwu, O. O. and Haupt, T. C. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment

methods for infrastructure sustainability—a South African construction industry
perspective. Building and Environment 42(2), pp. 665-680.
UN. 1987. Our Common Future- Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. England: United Nations Documents.
UN. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development- AGENDA 21.
Brazil: United Nations Sustainable Development.
UN. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. New York, USA: United
Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
USGBC. 2011a. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development- Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ). USA: U.S. Green Building Council.
38
USGBC. 2011b. LEEE 2009 for Neighbourhooh Development. USA: U.S. Geen Building
Council & CaGBC.
Wedding, G. C. and Crawford-Brown, D. 2007. Measuring site-level success in brownfield

redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building. J Environ Manage 85(2), pp.
483-495.
Weiland, U. 2006. Sustainability Indicators and Sustainable Development. Global Change,

Urbanization and Health (China Meteorological Press, Beijing), pp. 241 – 250.
Worldbank. 2014. The World Bank Data [Online]. The World Bank Organization,
Washington, USA: Available at: www.worldbank.org [Accessed.
Writer, S. 2009 Barwa, Qatari Diar, TC Chan sign deal. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.emirates247.com/eb247/companies-markets/construction/barwa-qatari-diar-tc-
chan-sign-deal-2009-04-09-1.96653.
Xing, Y.,Malcolm, R.,Horner, W.,El-Haram, M. A. and Bebbington, J. 2007. A Framework

Model for Assessing Sustainability Impacts of a Built Environment. In: International
Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow, UK.
Zhou, N.,He, G. and Williams, C. 2012. China’s Development of Low- Carbon Eco- Cities
and Assosated Indicators Systems. China: Ernest Orlando Lawrence & Berkeley National
Laboratory.
Zilans, A. and Abolina, K. 2007. A methodology for assessing urban sustainability: Aalborg
commitments baseline review for Riga, Latvia. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 11(1), pp. 85-114.
39

A Critical Review of Environmental Asses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Environmental Asses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

A critical review of environmental assessment

ARTICLE in ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW · AUGUST 2015

Raed Ameen Monjur Mourshed

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Monjur Mourshed

A critical review of environmental assessment tools

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

1.1 Need for urban sustainability

Figure 1: Historical and projected urban and rural population percentage

Figure 2: Historical and projected rate of urbanization in developed

Figure 3: Historical and projected population density in developed and

1.2 Development of urban sustainability assessment methods

1.3 Pluralism in sustainability assessment

1.4 Convergence vs divergence

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

Ecology Resources and energy

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

1.5 Study aim and structure

2.2 Selection of sustainability assessment tools

2.2.1 BREEAM Communities

2.2.2 LEED– ND (for neighbourhood development)

Type Examples Organization Country/ Context Date*

** The Reference Framework for sustainable cities.

2.2.3 CASBEE- UD (for urban development)

2.2.4 SBToolPT – UP (for urban development)

2.2.6 GSAS/QSAS Qatar Sustainability Assessment System

3 Comparison of sustainability assessment tools

3.1 The key characteristics of the urban assessment tools

3.1.1 Convergence timeline to emerge

3.1.2 The size of projects that can be assessed

3.1.3 The national or local scope

3.1.4 The international scope

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

3.1.5 Rating classification

3.2 The structure of the selected assessment tools

3.2.1 Sustainability dimensions

3.2.2 Identifying criteria and indicators assessment

Numerous methodological approaches have been taken to assess sustainability of urban

Categories Sustainability assessment tools of urban design

** All mandatory credits.

4 Discussion and results

4.1 Indicators list selection

4.1.1 Global or common indicators

4.1.2 Pluralism and reductionism

4.1.3 Changing or renewed indicators

4.1.4 Analysis of indicators

4.1.5 Mandatory and optional indicators

Table 3: Indicators in urban sustainability assessment tools

Table 4: Distribution of mandatory indicators under three sustainability dimensions

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

4.1.6 The spatial correlation for indicator

4.2 Indicators of urban design sustainability

4.2.2 Housing and building types

4.2.3 Land use

4.2.4 Accessibility & transportation

4.2.6 Urban layout

4.3 Categorization and description the common indicators

Recourses and Land Used& Environmentally Economic Impact Local community

• Demography • Energy strategies & • Comprehensive • City public Spaces

Water Quality Air Quality and Materials Transportation / Business, Investment

• Water quality • Sustainable materials • Transport assessment

Ameen, R. F. M.,Li, H. and Mourshed, M. 2014. Sustainability assessment methods of

Ayoubi, S. A. 2010. QSAS to be adopted in the curriculum of the Environmental Design