Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Community participation in the identification of neighbourhood

sustainability indicators in Brazil
Marcele Salles Martins a, *, Passo Fundo b, Rosa Maria Locatelli Kalil a, Francisco Dalla Rosa a
a
Graduate Program on Civil and Environmental Engineering – PPGENG, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil
b
Rodovia BR 285, Km 292,7 - Campus I, São José, 99052-900, Passo Fundo - RS, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The challenges inherent to urbanisation, such as the densification of peripheral locations, promote precarious
Community participation urban scenarios with several deficiencies in infrastructure and habitability, where neighbourhoods are formed
Sustainable neighbourhood without planning guidelines as in the vast majority of Brazilian cities. Given this scenario, how can these
Neighbourhood sustainability indicators
neighbourhoods become more sustainable? While cities strive to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals of
the UN 2030 Agenda, some issues are not often discussed at the local level or with community participation. The
objective of this study is to present and analyse the opinion of citizens regarding urban sustainability issues,
focusing on a neighbourhood level. Exploratory descriptive research was developed, contemplating 42 questions
based on assessment tools were presented to participants in order to determine their degree of agreement or
disagreement with each statement using a five-point Likert scale. The dataset was subjected to principal
component analysis to verify which indicators contribute most to sustainability from the perspective of the
community. The results demonstrate synergy between observed urban problems and positive opinions of re­
spondents, with emphasis on urban infrastructure, social well-being, education, security and urban space. The
arguments extracted from this research aim to inform the development of an evaluation structure for existing
peripheral neighbourhoods, applied to medium-sized cities in southern Brazil, based on the opinions of residents.

1. Introduction Goals (SDGs) proliferate, information and intra-municipal indicators

Sustainable urban development is difficult to achieve due to its
complex and constantly evolving nature. The term “sustainable devel­
opment” has experienced many conceptual derivations in recent years,
but remains widely used in its original essence, satisfying “the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987). While the concept of
sustainability stands on the three pillars of economic, social and envi­
ronmental well-being, the inclusion of an institutional pillar was sug­
gested by Agenda 21, Dawodu, Akinwolemiwa, and Cheshmehzangi
(2016), Sharifi and Murayama (2013), United Nations (1996), and
Valentin and Spangenberg (2000). Huang, Wu, and Yan (2015)
concluded that the concepts derived from sustainability focus on
long-term human well-being, balancing three dimensions of minimising
resource consumption and damaging environmental policies, max­
imising resource use efficiency and guaranteeing equity and democracy.
In order to gauge progress toward sustainability, indicators are
needed. As policy proposals for achieving the Sustainable Development
(districts and neighbourhoods) have become increasingly relevant
(United Nations, 2017). The neighbourhood has been recognised as an
appropriate level at which to implement principles of sustainability in
urban transformation (Berardi, 2013; Elgadi & Ismail, 2016). Therefore,
implementing neighbourhood-level interventions generally appears to
be a more promising option for the transition to urban sustainability
(Lützkendorf & Balouktsi, 2017).
Sustainability assessment is seen as a tool to help communities
advance towards sustainability, measured using indicators (Adewumi,
Onyango, Moyo, & Al Waer, 2019; Happio, 2012; Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu,
Anderberg, & Olsson, 2007; Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders,
2004; Wu & Wu, 2012, pp. 65–86). The use of sustainability in­
dicators provides information on the trends and behaviours of the
phenomena addressed, guiding the development and monitoring of
policies and strategies, in order to facilitate measures for the imple­
mentation of sustainable development (Himerath, Balachandra, Kumar,
Bansodes & Murali, 2013; Jepson, 2009, pp. 103–116). In this context,
evaluation systems are developed, which in recent years have become

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: arqmarcelesalles@gmail.com (M.S. Martins), ppgeng@upf.br (P. Fundo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102370
Received 17 September 2020; Received in revised form 17 May 2021; Accepted 19 May 2021
Available online 10 June 2021
0197-3975/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Martins et al.
essential to guide sustainable development (Becker, 2005; Kyrkoua &
Karthaus, 2011). Specifically, in the case of existing urban neighbour­
hoods, they can assist in the identification of problematic areas, devel­
opment of improvement strategies and continuous monitoring of the
success and impact of interventions and sustainability measures adopted
(Lützkendorf & Balouktsi, 2017).
Assessment and certification tools have been analysed in the litera­
ture (Berardi, 2013; Reith & Orova, 2015; Sharifi & Murayama, 2013,
2014a; Yildiz, Yilmaz, Kivrak, & Gültekin, 2016) and applied in case
studies (Arslan, Durak, & Aytac, 2016; Happio, 2012; Hurley & Horne,
2006; Komeily & Srinivasan, 2015; Kyrkoua & Karthaus, 2011; Oregi,
Roth, Alsema, Van Ginkel & Struik 2015; Sharifi & Murayama, 2014b;
Yoon & Park, 2015). There is no single tool suitable for all regions of the
world (Yoon & Park, 2015); vary depending on factors such as location,
climate conditions and socioeconomic context. Typically, these tools are
suitable for newly designed and built districts, in addition to influencing
the decisions of individual developers at the planning level but are
inappropriate for the sustainable transformation and improvement of
existing neighbourhoods (Lützkendorf & Balouktsi, 2017).
Therefore, Valentin and Spangenberg (2000) argue that each com­
munity should develop its own individual set of indicators. Public
participation in indicator selection is defended in the principles of
Fraser, Dougill, Mabee, Reed, and McAlpine (2006), Happio (2012) and
Reed, Fraser, and Dougill (2006). Assessment of neighbourhood sus­
tainability needs to consider how economic, environmental and social
issues are related to citizens (Berardi, 2013). Community participation
at the micro-level contributes to identifying priority sectors and to some
extent to contemporary urban planning, although studies have found
that participation remains restricted concerning the planning of urban
resources (Nop & Thornton, 2020). In this article, the term “community
participation” is used instead of citizen participation, considering “in­
dividuals as members and representatives of a fully organised commu­
nity” (Choguill, 1996, p. 435).
As a manner of resident participation in developed countries, the
provision of housing and urban services in a cooperative modality has
been successful. Its concepts and organisational forms are being trans­
ferred to developing countries, where self-help housing strategies are
explored as a solution to the growing demand for housing. One alter­
native for housing provision for marginalised groups is the cooperative
base; even in public programs in which land and certain public services
are provided, the production of houses is left to the user. In this way,
housing cooperatives are seen as a synonym for organised self-help or
even as substitutes for the organisational capacity of housing agencies
(Guhr, 1983).
These cooperative alternatives have different degrees of community,
state and private initiative participation. Since the 1950s, they have
been developed in several European countries: Spain, Portugal, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Austria, Switzerland
and the Netherlands; as well as in Canada and the United States, and
Argentina, Uruguay and Chile (Kalil, 2001). In the Dutch system, the
participation of residents in housing and urban programs is very well
established, allowing the high quality of life in cities, in terms of pre­
serving the environment, sustainability, ecological quality, environ­
mental comfort, adaptation to the needs of different owners, and
generation of income, among other concerns. Residents’ associations,
women’s committees, groups of senior citizens, and neighbourhood as­
sociations act in operational and financial cooperation with municipal
departments, other residents’ associations, commercial associations and
other public or non-governmental bodies (Holland, 1996). Brazilian
experiences of popular participation in urban areas have been more
restricted to the housing sector, with great inspiration found in the
models of Uruguay, Argentina and Chile (Kalil, 2001). The urban reform
agenda sets out to ensure rights to urbanised land and guarantees the
social function of cities (Rolnik, 2009).
2
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
2. Contextualisation of the urban trajectory and community
participation in Brazil
As in many developing countries, contemporary Brazilian urban
problems began with intense urbanisation in the 1980s. Urbanisation
rates went from 67.59% in 1980 to 84.36% in 2010 (IBGE, 2010), due to
the rise of industrial capitalism, which boosted the economy of large
industrial cities, mainly São Paulo (Monte-Mór, 2006, pp. 61–84). This
urban-industrial base led to the formation of peripheral neighbourhood
areas without urban infrastructure, and housing in precarious habit­
ability conditions. These so-called subnormal agglomerations, which in
2010 totalled 6,329, are concentrated in metropolitan regions of the
country, absorbing 6% of the total population (IBGE, 2011).
Many government initiatives were launched to address the housing
shortage, such as the creation of the Housing Finance System (SFH) for
homeownership in the 1960s; the National Housing Bank (BNH,
1976–1986); the Real Estate Credit Societies; the Real Estate Bills; and
the Federal Housing and Urbanism Service (SERFHAU), which ended in
1974. In 1995, housing finance resumed with contributions from the
Guarantee Fund for Time of Service (FGTS) (Del Rio & Siembieda, 2013;
Rolnik, Cymbalista, & Nakano, 2011). Another initiative was the regu­
lation of the Minha Casa Minha Vida Program, launched in 2008 and still
in force, though at an insufficient level to meet demand.
These strategies determined the formation of peripheral residential
neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods present two types of housing:
repeated units of single-family homes, and apartment buildings, pro­
ducing typological homogeneity in both cases. In five housing de­
velopments where residents were consulted, houses were preferred to
apartments (Kowaltowski et al., 2006). Access to urban equipment and
green leisure areas, and available services and commercial activities are
generally insufficient to serve the population living in these complexes.
Public transport becomes essential for commuting to work centres.
There is little incentive to adopt sustainable modes of transport, such as
pedestrian and cycle routes, as connections between neighbourhoods
are compromised in many cases, even with the increase in the number of
cycle paths.
Economic policies have impacted Brazilian urban design, with
predatory real estate development generating dense vertical cities,
furthering spatial fragmentation and social segregation, in addition to
contributing to environmental impacts due to occupation of natural
areas and production of waste (Silva & Romero, 2011). The displace­
ment of high-end developments to peripheral areas illustrates one of the
factors present in segregation. Poor and rich live in the same neigh­
bourhood, often separated by a wall, an avenue, or a small hill (Gohn,
2010). However, it has also encouraged popular participation in
re-democratisation, beginning in the postmodern era with the intro­
duction of the Constitution and the concept of the social role of urban
property and socially inclusive urban development (Brasil, 1988). The
1988 Constitution resulted in a major step towards Brazilian urban
development, further consolidated with the approval of the City Statute
in 2001, which regulated the discourse of democratic management and
encouraged the involvement of popular movements in the production of
urban space. Organised struggle movements for housing participated
in-depth in the different stages of creating Participatory Master Plans
(Rolnik et al., 2011). Another contribution to the search for more
regionally balanced development was the formation of the Ministry of
Cities in 2003.
Some projects have sought the participation of residents, as is the
case with self-managed housing cooperatives and joint effort programs.
In the 1990s, popular participation in housing projects and programs,
both public and financed by international NGOs, grew. The task force for
housing construction was adopted by several public administrations,
reducing the number of vertical housing estates in proposals sometimes
of reduced quality, and increasing ground floor installations. Achieve­
ments of the housing movement include the creation of the National
Forum for Urban Reform, the National Housing Forum, Meetings of the
M.S. Martins et al.
National Movement for the Struggle for Housing, and the Central of
Popular Movements, as well as the emergence and consolidation of
numerous national and foreign support entities and NGOs acting in
partnership with the community (Gohn, 1997, pp. 137–141). In the
metropolitan region of São Paulo, there have been numerous proposals
for popular housing joint efforts: Recanto da Alegria (Bonduki, 1992, pp.
59-65), São Bernardo Residents’ Cooperative (Gohn, 1991, pp.
117–121), and urbanisation of countless slums in Diadema through a
partnership with the needy population (Hereda & Alonso, 1996, pp.
129–144). Other examples are given by Andrade, de Bonduki, and
Rossetto (1993), and Bonduki (1996a, 1996b, 1996c). Perhaps the
biggest impact arose from the Housing Production and Self-Management
Program in Mutirão, which facilitated the construction of 11,000 new
houses and apartments in 84 projects, in addition to completing 19 slum
upgrading projects and four curved property recovery projects (Bon­
duki, 1996a, pp. 180-194).
Thus, the end of the 1990s brought to the fore new social actors and
modalities in housing provision—residents’ associations, popular
movements, non-governmental organisations, technical advisors, polit­
ical pressure groups and others. These collectively act as a point of
pressure and innovation among the socioeconomic forces of Brazilian
society and indicate different trends in the struggle for adequate housing
conditions for the population as a whole. In the state of Rio Grande do
Sul, in 1991, the Organization of Cooperatives of the State of Rio Grande
do Sul (Ocergs) registered 12 housing cooperatives in the state, with
2968 cooperatives. In 1997, there were 26 cooperatives in the housing
sector registered with Ocergs, representing 4.89% of the total number in
the state (Kalil, 2001).
In this context, municipal support for self-managed housing co­
operatives emerged in Porto Alegre, initiated at the Housing Union
Forum in 1991 and expanded in 1993 to include the participation of
residents’ associations, technical advisors, NGOs, and housing and ser­
vice cooperatives. Support from the Municipal Housing Department
includes training courses, seminars, project design, meetings and visits
to other housing cooperatives, as well as the creation of a specific sector
for the Coordination of Housing Cooperatives. From the aforementioned
forum, the Forum of Self-Managed Housing Cooperatives of Porto Alegre
was created (Buonocore, 1997). This included the Vigilantes Coopera­
tive and the Belém Novo Residents ‘Association, the Cooperative of
Journalism Workers (Cootrajor), and the Production and Maintenance
Cooperative of Metalworkers’ Housing in Porto Alegre (Coometal). In
São Leopoldo, there was the Consumer Cooperative of Bairro Santo
Afonso (Coobasa) and Habitasinos; in Erechim, the Cooperativa Hab­
itacional da Indústria e Comércio (Cooperhabic) and the Cooperativa
Habitacional Vida (Coopervida); and in Pelotas, the Housing Coopera­
tive of the Municipal Public Servants of Pelotas (Coohamup) (Kalil,
2001).
However, these types of housing provision with popular participa­
tion were discontinued, due to changes in urban and housing policies.
Only in the 2010s were some provisioning and financing initiatives
resumed through the Associative Letter of Credit Program, public/pri­
vate organising entities and companies in the construction industry in
general (cooperatives, associations, unions, state and municipal gov­
ernment, housing companies, construction companies, developers, pri­
vate non-profit entities and other legal entities focused on the
production of housing units). In this modality, a set of houses can be
built with the participation of groups of future residents, in projects
more suited to residents’ realities (Caixa Econômica Federal, 2020). An
example of this is the implementation of a social housing project for 210
families in a municipality in the south of Brazil. The initiative was
launched by a group of women seeking to remedy the housing deficit in
their neighbourhood and is financed by the Minha Casa Minha
Vida-Entidades Program (Mussi et al., 2018). The future resident com­
munity participated in the architectural design of the social housing,
indicating their preferences for rooms in the residences to be enlarged
(Martins, Romanini, Mussi, & Folle, 2013).
3
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
3. Evaluation based on indicators
Indicator-based assessment has been widely used to measure the
sustainability of developments (Bell & Morse, 2001). The literature in­
dicates two methodological approaches: one led by experts, top-down,
and one that is community-based, or bottom-up. Indicators proposed
for the top-down approach are generally collected rigorously, examined
by experts and assessed for relevance using statistical tools. This process
exposes trends (both between regions and over time) not involving local
communities. Indicators from the bottom-up method show an under­
standing of local context, providing a good source of indicators and the
opportunity to improve the community’s ability to learn and understand
(Bell & Morse, 2001, 2003; Reed et al., 2006).
However, Maclaren (1996) warns that there may be considerable
discrepancies between communities in terms of their preferred in­
dicators. Indicator choice is shaped by sustainability objectives driven
by the community and, in turn, is influenced by local environmental,
economic and social conditions. Communities may not be able to
monitor sustainability accurately or reliably. The division between
ideological approaches (top-down and bottom-up) can be overcome by
community members and researchers working together to develop
locally relevant, objective and easy to collect sustainability indicators
that are capable of informing managerial decision making (Reed et al.,
2006). This also offers an opportunity for strengthening the community
that conventional development approaches are not able to provide
(Fraser et al., 2006).
The assessment of neighbourhood sustainability arose from the need
to expand the scale of assessment from a building to the neighbourhood
level (Berardi, 2013) in combination with the role of the neighbourhood
as a planning unit and part of the city (Choguill, 2008; Sharifi & Mur­
ayama, 2014b). Another factor that reinforced the development of in­
dicators for assessing and monitoring sustainability at the local level was
Agenda 21, through its objective 13: Promote local and sustainable in­
tegrated development (Brasil, 2002). One of the great achievements of
the last decade is advancement in the conception of development as
decentralised and participatory, focused in an original way on local
power. Methodology for applying Brazilian Agenda 21 has been adapted
to different municipalities, states and regions of the country, and there
are now over two hundred initiatives for the preparation of local Agenda
21 activities. Many preceded the elaboration of the Brazilian Agenda 21
(Brasil, 2002, p. 59). Indicator-based assessment structures for the
neighbourhood level have been developed for Northern Europe
(Medved, 2016), Italy (Ghellere, Devitofrancesco, & Meroni, 2017),
Portugal (Santos, Gonçalves, & Mezzomo, 2017), India (Bahadure &
Kotharkar, 2018), Libya (Elgadi & Ismail, 2016), and Malaysia (Yigit­
canlar, Kamruzzaman, & Teriman, 2015), with conceptual bases for the
selection of indicators supported by literature review and expert
consultation.
Community sustainable development indicators (CSDIs) assume,
according to the Urban Ecology Coalition’s Neighbourhood Sustain­
ability Indicators Project (UEC-NSIP): a) focus on neighbourhood assets
rather than their inabilities; b) engagement with residents and other
stakeholders; c) express values that have been formally adopted by
community residents; d) integration (integrated responses); e) future
forecasting and f) equitable distribution (Meter, 1999). The difference
between CSDIs and SDIS is mainly in terms of who has set them and their
purpose. Table 1 presents the main differences between the two of them.
CSDlIs may have a more indirect effect on policy, while the tradi­
tional SD indicators may be intended to directly influence policy rather
than facilitate change at the local level (Bell & Morse, 2003).
In Brazil, the development of indicators from bottom-up approaches
is embryonic. The Sustainable Development Indicators of the Brazilian
1
Acton, C. (2000). Community Indicators for Sustainability: A European
Overview. Environ Trust, Leicester.
M.S. Martins et al. Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370

Table 1 4. Methodology
Two different types of sustainable development indicators.
Characteristic Sustainable development Community sustainable Research began with a systematic literature review to identify in­
indicators (SDIS) development indicators dicators of sustainability at the neighbourhood level. The review iden­
(CSDIs) tified 370 indicators from six sustainability assessment tools: BREEAM
Public Limited Extensive Communities; CASBEE-UD; LEED-ND; Aqua Neighbourhood, based on
participation the French tool HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale) and the HQE ™
Who collects data/ Experts Community - Adapted Aménagement process for the Brazilian context; 2030 Dis­
statistics?
Communication of Extensive within the policy- Via media and other means
tricts; and the Livability Index used to assess existing neighbourhoods.
indicators maker/manager group More This step constitutes the theoretical basis illustrated in Fig. 1.
limited with other groups A framework for the classification and comparison of identified in­
Use Directly to drive policy Encourage individuals to dicators was developed based on the guidelines of Maclaren (1996) and
make changes in their day-to
Reed et al. (2006). Initially, the structure establishes the definitions and
day lives Affects policy
indirectly dimensions of sustainability, and a categorisation supported by the
Resonance Policy-makers/managers Public findings of Ameen, Mourshed, and Li (2015), Braulio-Gonzalo, Bovea,
and Ruá (2015), Happio (2012), Komeily and Srinivasan (2015); Reith
Source: Acton, 20001 apud Bell & Morse, 2003.
and Orova (2015), Sharifi and Murayama (2013) and Yildiz et al.
(2016).
Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and, recently, the NBR ISO
The conceptual structure is composed of three levels: the sustain­
31720/2017 - Sustainable Development of Communities, both have top-
ability dimension, which comprises environmental, economic, social
down approaches and are applicable at the city level. Although the re­
and institutional aspects; twenty categories; and 42 indicators. From the
ported Brazilian experiences of community participation are focused on
340 indicators inserted in the structure, 30 were excluded due to the
the housing sector, there is a need to broaden understanding related to
lower relevance to the research purpose. The insertion of indicators in
community opinions of sustainability. In the Brazilian frameworks of
this structure allows comparative analysis, revealing that although the
Gonçalves and Kunen (2016), Mezzomo, Borges Junior & Gonçalves
indicators have different names, they are similar in nature. The in­
(2018), Nunes, Mayorga, Gullo, and Pedone (2016) and Scussel (2007),
dicators were organised in a table by similarity. Similarity analysis
the selection of indicators was based on bibliographic consultation. No
resulted in a 40% reduction in the number of indicators, ensuring that
validation approaches of the set of indicators were identified in previous
important information was not lost.
studies. Neither was the uptake of the four sustainability dimensions
Indicators were selected according to the following criteria: a) viable
(environmental, social, economic, and institutional). The previous
and scientifically valid (Bragança, Conde, & Alvarez, 2017, pp. 85–94);
studies developed and applied in several countries show a diversity of
b) qualitatively measurable (Barrera-Roldán & Saldı ́var-Valdés, 2002;
approaches. Regarding the selection and validation of the set of in­
Bell & Morse, 2003; Bragança et al., 2017, pp. 85–94); c) comparable
dicators, most frameworks use the top-down modality by expert re­
with other structures (Maclaren, 1996); and d) reflective of urban sce­
searchers. Given the above, this study observed a gap regarding the
narios (Turcu, 2013). Finally, 42 indicators were selected.
process for choosing indicators. Thus, it inserted community participa­
The sustainability of a neighbourhood was assessed in terms of the
tion in the process of the indicators choosing. In this way, the commu­
degree of agreement with the 42 sustainability indicators selected in the
nity can feel included in the process of identifying elements that
conceptual stage. A questionnaire was used to assess respondents’
contribute to sustainability at the neighbourhood level, providing input
opinions because it allowed data collection to occur in different places,
for the development of a future assessment tool. The objective of this
covering a larger number of people; offered anonymity, favouring
research was to verify if there is a consonance between urban problems
honesty in answers; was safe, enabling the respondent to choose the
identified in peripheral neighbourhoods and the community’s percep­
most convenient time and place to respond; and presented uniformity in
tion of these issues. Furthermore, the components that are most
the assessment. The main disadvantages of questionnaires are the
important to the community are ascertained in this study.
inability to answer queries from respondents and the low rate of return
(Rheingantz, Azevedo, Brasileiro, Alcantara, & Queiroz, 2009, p. 79).
The questionnaire was prepared using the Google Forms tool for

Fig. 1. Methodological planning.

4
M.S. Martins et al.
electronic submission and divided into two parts. The first part related to
the questions and the second to the respondent’s profile. The instrument
had 42 affirmative questions, one for each indicator. For example,
“Irregular occupations in high-risk areas pose serious risks to the safety
and health of residents, in addition to contributing to the degradation of
the natural environment”; this issue refers to indicator B34: Irregular
risk areas occupancy. “The community space strengthens the commu­
nity bond and generates greater engagement in proposals for improve­
ments”, referring to indicator B29: Community centres. Three questions
were formulated with inverted sentences: 1) “The availability of
different types of housing does not promote resident diversity” (B2:
Availability of housing types); 2) “A neighbourhood with lesser variety
of shopping facilities, services, entertainment, and food allows residents
to carry out their activities on foot” (B10: Mixed land use); and 3) “In the
neighbourhood, it is not necessary to have job opportunities” (B31:
Employment opportunities). The inclusion of inverted phrases is
important to reduce biased responses (Field, 2009, p. 595). To gather
people’s opinions, a quantitative approach was used to ‘measure’
choices about the questions. A five-category Likert scale was used. The
respondent was asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagree­
ment with each statement using a five-point scale, where 1 indicates
strongly disagree; 2 is disagree; 3 is neither agree nor disagree; 4 is
agree; and 5 denotes strongly agree.
Interviewees were selected randomly from a survey of the electronic
addresses of residents’ associations, non-governmental organisations
and federations of municipalities in Brazilian states. Questionnaires
were sent via email to the catalogued addresses, with the following
items: a) request for referral to peers; b) guidelines for completing the
questionnaire; and c) an access link. An online form turned possible to
expand the reach of data collection to people living in different realities,
facilitated agility in data tabulation, reduced implementation costs and
stipulated requirement for complete answers. The data collection period
ran from November 2019 to January 2020.
Data were initially evaluated using descriptive and relational sta­
tistics in order to characterise the sample collected. Subsequently, the
normality of the data was confirmed by Shapiro-Wilks and Kolmogorov-
Smirnov tests, comparing scores of a sample with a normal distribution
model of the same mean and variance of the values found in the sample
(Field, 2009). Correlation between variables was investigated using the
correlation coefficient.
The answers provided the basis for identifying the main indicators of
neighbourhood sustainability through principal component analysis
(PCA). PCA reduces a set of variables to a limited number of principal
components, including correlations between the original variables. To
identify the number of factors that can be extracted, the scree test cri­
terion was used. The Scree test is determined by graphing the latent
roots regarding the number of factors in their order of extraction, and
the shape of the resulting curve is used to evaluate the cut-off point, that
is, the point at which the slope denotes the true number of factors (Hair,
Black, Badin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2009). Factor interpretation requires
rotation of factors—a rotation method is used to simplify the factorial
structure. Varimax rotation, an orthogonal factorial rotation method,
was used to simplify the columns in a factorial matrix (Hair et al., 2009).
The resulting PCA picture was tested with Cronbach’s alpha to verify the
reliability of the extracted set; the values of 0.70–0.80 indicate an
acceptable scale (Field, 2009). This data-driven approach provides in­
sights into the aspects that citizens consider important in building
neighbourhood sustainability.
5. Results
The analysis focuses on community opinions to identify priorities
concerning sustainability at this level, presenting a profile of the par­
ticipants followed by the conceptual framework. Subsequently, evalu­
ation from the perspective of the citizens is presented. This stage
encompasses the distribution of sustainability among its four dimensions
5
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
and a stratified analysis of respondents into three groups by the scope of
involvement: 1) members of civil society, 2) managers and technicians
in public services and 3) members of residents’ associations and NGOs;
five groups by age: 19–29 years, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and over 60
years; and two groups by sex. Finally, the main components are ana­
lysed, identifying which indicators reflect the main contributions to the
sustainability objectives.
5.1. Survey participants
Survey participants totalled 124 citizens, wherein 60% are female
and the other 40% are male. Ages range from 19 to 70 years, with an
average of 40 years. Respondents indicated residency in 56 cities in the
following states: Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná, Pernambuco,
Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondônia, Santa Catarina and São
Paulo. Out of the 61 neighbourhoods indicated, 51% of respondents
rated their neighbourhood as a good place to live (4) on a scale from 1
(terrible) to 5 (excellent).
The results show that 16.5% of respondents had no previous
knowledge of urban planning, urbanism, or sustainability, while 83.5%
were familiar with the concepts. Of the latter, 32.5% work in professions
related to sustainability, with an average of 12 years of experience, and
67.5% do not. Participants are members of civil society, residents’ as­
sociations, and non-governmental organisations, or managers and
technicians in public services. There is a clear multidisciplinary nature
to the profiles of respondents, corroborating the necessity of diversity of
opinions to contribute to more sustainable communities, as indicated by
Happio (2012), Reed et al. (2006), and Sharifi and Murayama (2013).
5.2. Conceptual framework
The definition of sustainability adopted in this study is related to the
balance between the subsystems that make up a city (environmental,
economic, social, institutional, and physical), respecting cultural and
social diversity, and ensuring well-being, healthy quality of life and
equality of access to resources and services for residents—and thereby
encouraging efficient and participative urban management. Fig. 2 shows
the structure, with the sustainability principles, categories, and respec­
tive indicators.
The sustainability principles for each domain are:
a) Principle of environmental sustainability: maintenance of ecosys­
tems by minimising impacts of functions and preventing pollution
and emission of waste; consideration of natural resource use,
respecting the ability to renew the environment.
b) Principle of economic sustainability: provision of diversified eco­
nomic options, efficient use of available resources.
c) Principle of social sustainability: provision of equity and social
participation; ensure access to health, education, housing, green
spaces, employment and a safe environment; encourage social re­
lations among the community.
d) Principle of institutional sustainability: encourage society’s partici­
pation in decision-making.
5.3. Sustainability evaluation from the perspective of citizens
Participants presented their opinions on neighbourhood sustain­
ability issues; 90% of responses fully agreed with the statements pre­
sented, with emphasis on basic sanitation (“The lack of basic sanitation
affects public health”), which obtained 96% agreement. Some questions
received a range of responses, such as those related to the diversity of
housing types (“The availability of different types of housing does not
promote resident diversity”), subsidised housing (“Subsidised housing
(social rent) helps lower-income residents to live in higher-cost neigh­
bourhoods, contributing to social inclusion”) and the cycling network
(“The implementation of a cycling network contributes to reducing
M.S. Martins et al.
Fig. 2. Conceptual structure of sustainability in a neighbourhood.
vehicular traffic”). In questions related to digital citizenship (“Using
digital mechanisms in public spaces contributes to the safety and
interrelationship of residents”) and building reuse (“The reuse of exist­
ing structures (abandoned/underused buildings) helps in reducing the
environmental impact of a new construction”), the lowest percentages of
responses were received for ‘strongly agree’, and ‘agree’, with 33.9%
and 30.6%, respectively (Fig. 3).
The percentages of different responses by dimensions of sustain­
ability are shown in Table 2. The environmental and social dimensions
obtained equal percentages (61.4%) of participants strongly agreeing
with statements, and 48.8% and 46.2% strongly agreed with statements
in institutional and economic dimensions, respectively. This demon­
strates that the environment and society are of greater importance for
neighbourhood sustainability from the perspective of respondents.
These percentage distributions reflect the relative importance of envi­
ronmental and social indicators observed in sustainability research and
development (Bahadure & Kotharkar, 2018; Elgadi & Ismail, 2016;
Ghellere et al., 2017; Gonçalves & Kunen, 2016; Mezzomo, Borges
6
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
Junior & Gonçalves, 2018; Nunes et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2017;
Yigitcanlar et al., 2015).
Of the environmental sustainability indicators that contributed to
responses of ‘strongly agree’, the highest coefficient was observed for
basic sanitation (B36, 96%), followed by irregular waste disposal on
public roads (B38, 83.9%), water pollution (B15, 83.1%), green infra­
structure (B4, 82.3%) and conservation of natural resources (B41,
80.6%). For the social dimension, the indicators with the highest co­
efficients were access to green space (B3, 79.8%), access to education
(B19, 76.6%) and crime prevention (B35, 75%). High percentages for
access to education and crime prevention demonstrate that respondents
perceive the Brazilian reality of educational deficits and an increase in
urban violence. The monitoring of these indicators would contribute to
the creation of public policies targeted at these issues.
The institutional dimension, composed of the two categories of
governance and innovation, includes four indicators. In this dimension,
48.8% of responses were ‘strongly agree’. The following indicators
contributed to this: representation of residents’ associations in
M.S. Martins et al. Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370

Fig. 3. Percentage of indicators on scales 3, 4 and 5.

The availability of housing types (B2), in the social dimension, does not
Table 2
interfere with neighbourhood sustainability for any group; most neither
Percentages of respondents agreeing with statements from different dimensions
agreed nor disagreed with statements. Group 2 mostly disagreed with
of sustainability.
the implementation of a cycle path network (B16), in the environmental
Dimension 1 Strongly 2 3 Neither 4 5 Strongly dimension, while groups 1 and 3 tended to neither agree nor disagree.
Scale disagree Disagree agree nor Agree agree
disagree
The question related to indicator B17 (“In a compact neighbourhood,
the distances between the home and the workplace are facilitated
Environmental 1.9% 3.0% 8.5% 25.3% 61.4%
avoiding large displacements”), in the environmental dimension, led to
Economic 6.2% 10.5% 15.3% 21.8% 46.2%
Social 2.3% 2.3% 10.8% 23.2% 61.4% a split in responses: groups 1 and 3 agreed with the statement, but group
Institutional 1.2% 1.4% 15.3% 33.3% 48.8% 2 respondents either agreed (35%) or strongly agreed (35%). In the
institutional dimension, the statement for indicator B42 (“Using digital
mechanisms in public spaces contributes to the safety and interrela­
municipal councils (B12, 54%) and continuing education for the training tionship of residents”) was mainly agreed with by groups 2 and 3 and
of labour (B5, 53.2%). In the economic dimension, the indicator that strongly agreed with by group 1.
contributed significantly to the percentage (46.2%) of ‘strongly agree’ Other statements that divided respondents’ opinions are related to
responses was access to commercial activities of daily use (B39, 63.7%). B10 (mixed land use) and B11 (availability of subsidised housing), in the
The presence of commercial establishments for daily use would provide environmental and economic dimensions, respectively. Group 3 strongly
vitality and attribute dynamism to the territory from the perspective of disagreed (36%) or disagreed (36%) with the statement related to in­
the use and security of public space. dicator B10 (“A neighbourhood with little variety of shopping, services,
In a stratified analysis, respondents were divided by group: members entertainment and food allows residents to carry out their activities on
of civil society (group 1), managers, and technicians in public services foot”). This same question divided the opinion of group 2 respondents:
(group 2) and members of residents’ associations and NGOs (group 3).

7
M.S. Martins et al. Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370

26% strongly disagreed and 26% agreed. As the question is reversed, the
majority of respondents were expected to strongly disagree.
Groups 1 and 3 tended to strongly agree (27%) or neither agree nor
disagree (25%) with the statement “Subsidised housing (social rent)
helps lower-income residents to live in higher-cost neighbourhoods,
contributing to social inclusion” (B11). Group 2 tended to agree (30%)
with the statement or neither agreed nor disagreed (30%).
In the environmental dimension, group 2 agreed with statements
B14: “The streets are safe when they have signs such as a pedestrian lane
and a speed limit compatible with the road hierarchy. Example: local
route, 30 km/h (Source: Brazilian Traffic Code)” and B37: “The use of
absorbent materials on the facades and front setback with vegetation are
strategies to reduce internal noise pollution”, while groups 1 and 3
strongly agreed.
Group 3 agreed with the related issues in statements B26 (“The
implementation of multifunctional municipal centres in regions that
serve more than one neighbourhood benefits social and cultural inclu­
sion and human appreciation”), and B27 (“The reduction of paved
parking areas contributions to soil permeability”) in the social dimen­
sion and B32 (“The reuse of existing structures (abandoned/underused
buildings) helps to reduce the environmental impact of new construc­
tion”) in the environmental dimension, while groups 1 and 2 strongly
agreed.
The variation in responses indicates the different positions of each
group. Members of residents’ associations demand improvements in the
urban environment at the local level, representing a collective. NGOs in
Brazil are linked to welfare projects and environmental causes. Members
of civil society demonstrated an understanding of neighbourhood sus­
tainability issues, but Brazilian society as a whole need to develop its
perception of sustainability. Kowaltowski et al. (2006, p. 1104) state
that the concept of sustainability is not well understood in terms of
wider aspects of conservation, pollution and other related issues.
Potential issues for sustainable development at the local level, such
as compact neighbourhood, availability of subsidised housing and cycle
path networks divided opinions in the group comprising managers and
technicians in public services. These issues need to be addressed during
local urban planning for effective implementation. The responses ob­
tained in this research reflect a recurring view in Brazilian urban plan­
ning and design. Aimed at large displacements, urban expansion is
encouraged, emptying central areas and forming strictly residential
neighbourhoods with no diversity in services.
Respondents’ perceptions by sex and age (19–29 years, 30–39,
40–49, 50–59, over 60 years) were analysed to verify similarities and
differences in perceptions. Women in the 30–39 age group and men in
the 50–59 age group diverged most from the standard responses to some
indicators.
In the environmental dimension, indicator B6 (internet access) ob­
housing) was polarised; women over 30 years neither agreed nor dis­
agreed with the associated statement, while men disagreed. The state­
ment related to B31 (employment opportunities) was agreed with by
most men aged 50–59 years. Most men in the 30–39 and 50–59 age
groups agreed with the statement for indicator B39 (“Access to shops,
grocery stores and public markets provides economic dynamism in the
neighbourhood”), while other age groups and women strongly agreed.
Indicators B5 (lifelong education for workforce training) and B12
(resident associations’ representation in councils) in the institutional
dimension obtained the same number of ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’
responses from women aged 30–39 years. Men aged 30–39 years tended
to neither agree nor disagree or agree with B5. For B42 (digital citi­
zenship), men aged 19–29 years agreed or strongly agreed, while men
aged 30–39 years responded equally with ‘neither agree nor disagree’,
‘agree’, or ‘strongly agree’.
The results obtained in this study indicate that Brazilian society
needs to increase its awareness concerning sustainability. It is currently
very focused on the environmental domain; we do not observe a col­
lective discourse covering all dimensions. This is clear from the opinions
of survey respondents when they recorded mostly neutral responses for
the availability of housing types and subsidised housing, social and
economic category indicators, respectively, linked to the housing
problem and the promotion of improved quality of life for the less fav­
oured. Another indicator, B16 (cycling network) obtained neutral re­
sponses. This can be explained by the excessive use of individual
transport by Brazilians, discredit about public transport and the scarce
infrastructure of bicycle paths.
5.4. Principal component analysis
In order to identify the set of indicators that reflects the main con­
tributions among the objectives of environmental, economic, social and
institutional sustainability, principal component analysis was used for
the indicators presented in Fig. 2.
The scree plot test suggested the extraction of five components (1–5
in Table 3), with this solution explaining 61.40% of the total variance.
This is an adequate solution since 18 variables can explain more than
60% of the original data. Cronbach’s alpha was verified for the global
solution, indicating acceptable reliability with 0.795. The load matrix
for each resulting component after Varimax rotation is shown in Table 3
with substantial loads (>0.5).
In the first component, green building, low-impact materials,
Table 3
Rotated factor loading matrix.
Variables Components

tained different responses for women aged 30–39 years, most of whom 1 2 3 4 5
agreed with the statement, whereas men in the same age group tended to B30 Building energy performance 0.732
neither agree nor disagree. Men in the 30–39 and 40–49 age brackets B25 Low impact materials 0.726
agreed with B14 (safe streets), while women in the 30–39 age bracket B21 Water use reduction 0.722
either agreed or strongly agreed. Women aged 19–29 and over 60 years B29 Community centres 0.715
B27 Reduced parking footprint 0.696
old neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement discussing the B26 Multifunctional municipal 0.683
cycling network (B16). Men in the 30–39 and 50–59 age groups mostly centres
disagreed with the statement. Responses to the indicator compact B38 Irregular waste disposal on 0.659
development (B17) were indifferent to women aged 30–39 and 40–49 public roads
B35 Crime prevention 0.703
years old; it was most important (‘agree’ response) to women aged
B7 Urban drainage 0.694
50–59 years old. The indicator related to building reuse (B32) divided B33 Supply regularity 0.681
women’s opinions between ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ in the 30–59 age B36 Basic sanitation 0.516
group, and in men divided between ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and B9 Environmental education 0.667
‘agree’ in the 50–59 age group. B11 Availability of subsidised 0.664
housing
In the social dimension indicators, there were some opinion di­ B23 Historic heritage preservation 0.623
vergences of B27 (reduced parking footprint); most women in the 30–39 B15 Water pollution 0.876
age group agreed with the statement, while most men aged 50–59 years B3 Access to green space 0.749
neither agreed nor disagreed. B2 Availability of housing types 0.826
B10 Mixed land use 0.728
In the economic dimension, indicator B11 (availability of subsidised

8
M.S. Martins et al.
reduced water consumption and community centres substantially load
the set. Thus, the first component is understood to reflect the sustainable
built environment and a sense of community.
In the second component, crime prevention carried the most signif­
icant value, followed by urban drainage, regular water supply and basic
sanitation. This component denotes urban infrastructure and security.
The third component covers aspects of environmental education and the
provision of subsidised housing, followed by the preservation of heri­
tage. Thus, component three is understood as education, culture and
diversity.
In the fourth component, water pollution and access to green areas
show high factor loads. This component represents urban space and
pollution. The fifth component has high factor loading from the diversity
of housing types and mixed land use, so reflects housing and dynamics.
6. Discussion
The eighteen indicators that contributed to the highest factor load­
ings are discussed under the four domains of sustainability. Then, the set
is grouped into three segments, and finally, potential methods of mea­
surement are indicated.
6.1. Set of extracted indicators and the four domains of sustainability
Analysis of the distribution of components across sustainability di­
mensions indicates that 50% of the variables are in the environmental
dimension, 40% in the social dimension, 5% in the economic dimension
and 5% in the institutional dimension. These results are affected by two
factors: first, the indicators were identified from assessment tools that
focus on environmental and social domains. Second, it demonstrates
respondents’ concern about the environment; most indicators included
in this category were strongly agreed with. Divergences in agreement
explained in section 5.3, occurred for indicators B10 (mixed land use),
B11 (availability of subsidised housing), B14 (safe streets), B17
(compact development), B26 (multifunctional municipal centres), B27
(reduced parking footprint), B32 (building reuse), B37 (noise pollution)
and B42 (digital citizenship). As these indicators are not commonplace
in community discussions, respondents may have had uncertainty or
doubts when expressing their opinion.
Of the indicators that obtained the highest percentages in the
descriptive analysis, some also contribute to sustainability after statis­
tical analysis. These are access to green areas, crime prevention, irreg­
ular waste disposal on public roads, basic sanitation and water pollution,
and are focused on urban infrastructure and social well-being. These
indicators are perceptible to the population, which may have contrib­
uted to their strong agreement with these statements.
The results reflect respondents’ perceptions of problems in the Bra­
zilian context of precarious urban infrastructure. This supports the
findings of Zhang, Yung, and Chan (2020) who compared residents’
perceptions of sustainability performance across three neighbourhoods
in Chengdu in China and revealed that infrastructure was a significant
factor affecting neighbourhood sustainability.
6.1.1. Environmental sustainability
The extracted indicators belonging to the environmental domain are
related to the built environment, urban infrastructure and urban form.
The built environment is included in indicators B30 (building energy
performance), B25 (low impact materials) and B21 (water use reduc­
tion). There are several examples in Brazil of consideration of building
energy performance in central neighbourhoods, shopping centres, and
high-income neighbourhoods; many of these buildings have LEED cer­
tification. Their presence helps neighbourhood sustainability, as green
buildings have devices for energy efficiency and control of water con­
sumption. Encouraging the use of low impact materials, considering
their life cycle and extraction method, reduces damage to the environ­
ment. However, in peripheral neighbourhoods, there is a total scarcity of
9
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
initiatives to implement green principles in buildings, where in many
cases the production of space occurs through self-construction. Recently,
the Minha Casa Minha Vida housing program included solar heating
systems in homes in an attempt to reduce the energy consumption of the
low-income population. The incorporation of these premises in the built
environment in a generalised way in Brazil would contribute to the
realisation of sustainable neighbourhoods that aim to reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to the provision
of high-quality housing and public spaces.
A sanitary concern is present in water pollution (B15) and irregular
waste disposal on public roads (B34). All groups strongly agreed with
both indicators, demonstrating that this concern is related to urbanisa­
tion and is a threat to public health, with waterborne diseases found in
peripheral and low-income neighbourhoods as a result of inadequate
sanitation, drainage and solid waste collection services. Irregular waste
disposal blocks drainage systems, causing flooding in low-lying neigh­
bourhoods and those close to rivers and streams. Environmental
agencies annually clean urban rivers and remove tons of waste. There
are campaigns to collect recyclable materials, some promoted by local
entities, in order to mobilise and encourage the population to increase
the proportion of recyclable material. However, there is a lack of
awareness in the majority of the population of the separation of waste. A
high proportion of waste can be recycled both to reduce the amount
discarded and to contribute to income generation since in Brazil many
communities base their livelihood on recyclables.
Many Brazilian neighbourhoods have the potential for flooding, due
to inefficient or poorly sized drainage networks, irregular waste disposal
on public roads and reduction in permeable surface areas. Permeable
surfaces prevent flooding risk in areas with high soil impermeability and
ease the demand on public urban drainage networks, in addition to
contributing to the maintenance of the water cycle through recharging
the water table. In peripheral neighbourhoods, there is a greater pres­
ence of permeable surfaces, due to a lack of internal paving of plots and
pavements. Regularity of the water supply is seen as deficient or non-
existent in many neighbourhoods, mainly in the north of the country,
where drought is constant.
Basic sanitation is one of the biggest problems in Brazil; about 55% of
sewage is not treated. In many peripheral neighbourhoods, it is exposed
to the open. This causes major health problems due to the proliferation
of diseases. This falls in both the environmental, with soil and water
contamination, and social, because it mostly affects the poorest com­
munities, dimensions. This is despite commitments made by government
officials in line with the SDGs to universalise the provision of services by
2030. There is a National Basic Sanitation Plan (2010) and many Bra­
zilian municipalities have developed individual sanitation plans. How­
ever, investment in sanitation has stagnated or decreased. Nevertheless,
this is an indicator that all groups consider important for the sustain­
ability of communities.
Mixed-use is one of the five principles presented by the United Na­
tions (2014) that aim to promote sustainable neighbourhoods, and
positively loaded the fifth component. However, it caused disagree­
ments among groups of respondents regarding allowing mixed land use
in neighbourhoods. Mixed-use allows dynamism in the neighbourhood,
reducing vehicle travel and providing work opportunities close to
homes. In Brazil, neighbourhoods close to the centre have a wider range
of uses, whereas in peripheral neighbourhoods there is a low diversity of
uses, usually only trade in daily use and personal services.
6.1.2. Economic sustainability
At the neighbourhood scale, economic sustainability includes the
supply of commercial establishments linked to a population sufficient to
justify their installation, allowing local purchases but also as a modest
supplier of jobs within the neighbourhood (Choguill, 2008). Mixed
housing at affordable prices is also promoted in order to enable habi­
tation by a variety of socioeconomic groups.
Of the indicators included in the economic domain, B11 (availability
M.S. Martins et al.
of subsidised housing) was extracted in component 3 of the PCA. This
indicator contributes to a reduction in social segregation by offering
subsidised housing to favour families without income. Even though
some respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the descriptive
analysis, the vast majority believe that the prioritisation of this indicator
would be of benefit to the less favoured classes.
In Brazil, the example of social rent can be cited, which is applied to
families that have suffered the effects of climatic catastrophe and are in a
situation of social vulnerability, where the assistance would guarantee
the protection of their social right to housing. This indicator, if imple­
mented, would also contribute to reducing the housing deficit. Aban­
doned buildings in urban centres could receive public investment to be
converted into housing. This measure brings the low-income population
closer to urban infrastructure and employment services.
6.1.3. Social sustainability
Social sustainability is related to access to services, security, pro­
tection, human health, well-being and social equity. The indicators
included in the structure reflect these relationships. Of the indicators
extracted in the PCA, indicator B2 (availability of types of housing) re­
fers to housing issues. This indicator seeks to promote the social inte­
gration of different groups and to avoid social segregation. It is seen by
survey respondents as neutral for sustainability. This may be linked to a
movement in the Brazilian context of including different housing types
in the same neighbourhood as just beginning. This practice is not yet
implemented on a large scale; although a few examples have been
suggested, there has been no effective result, thus this practice requires
increased public awareness.
In Brazil, the presence of community centres in neighbourhoods is
not a widespread practice, but it obtained a high score in the extraction
of components, demonstrating that respondents support the inclusion of
this measure to provide both a meeting and exchange space in the
community. Case studies observed by Medved (2016) demonstrate that
the community centre in a neighbourhood is very important for com­
munity involvement and strengthening local culture and identity.
In the third component, two social indicators contributed to sus­
tainability, B9 (environmental education) and B23 (historic heritage
preservation). The first is related to the importance of environmental
education in the school curriculum, as a guide for best practices to be
applied to daily life to care for the environment. Respondents under­
stood that by including environmental education in schools, environ­
mental awareness is built, which can improve the local environment and
promote good practices among communities. The second indicator in­
volves the preservation of historical heritage, maintaining the identity of
a neighbourhood. In the competitive real estate market, neighbourhoods
with historic buildings, or historic neighbourhoods, have undergone
urban transformations. These changes have been observed mainly in the
central neighbourhoods of large Brazilian cities with historic charac­
teristics. Respondents are aware that preservation should be practised so
that the history of neighbourhoods is preserved. Several Brazilian ex­
amples have managed to maintain their identity and become potential
tourist attractions, such as cities in Minas Gerais, Parati in Rio de Janeiro
and Pelourinho in Bahia. Others have been used in city marketing
strategies, thus increasing the city’s competitiveness. On the other hand,
these changes increase gentrification and social segregation.
Crime prevention (B35) scored highly in the second component,
demonstrating respondents’ concerns about security. Most respondents
strongly agree with indicator B27 (reduced parking footprint) in the first
component, while members of residents ’associations and NGOs agree.
Parking areas are present in central neighbourhoods and tend to have
impermeable surfaces. It is understood that reduction in these areas
would contribute to sustainability. Another high-scoring indicator is the
proximity to green areas (B3) in the fourth component. Urban green
spaces can be a comprehensive tool to help cities mitigate the adverse
effects of rapid urbanisation and urban expansion in a sustainable
manner. They improve quality of life, provide outdoor living spaces, and
10
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
allow neighbourhood residents to have contact with natural resources,
in addition to improving air quality and the urban climate (Abu Kasim,
Mohd Yusof, & Mohd Shafri, 2019). Green spaces have experienced a
greater level of appreciation by the population due to phases of
confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Green space next to resi­
dences that can be reached on foot or by bicycle becomes a space for the
preservation of physical and mental health. Not all neighbourhoods
have green spaces to serve the entire resident population, especially
peripheral neighbourhoods, due to the high population density in these
neighbourhoods.
6.1.4. Institutional sustainability
In Brazil, the participation of social entities and the general popu­
lation in urban policy is mentioned in Article 2, II of the City Statute:
“democratic management through the participation of the population
and representative associations from the various segments of the com­
munity in the formulation, execution and monitoring of urban devel­
opment plans, programs and projects” (Brasil, 2001). Thus, community
participation in neighbourhood planning is important, as it can
contribute to the identification of priority sectors for investment and the
formulation of public policies, expanding participation beyond that
observed in the housing sector. Indicators related to the institutional
dimension address lifelong education for workforce training (B5), resi­
dent associations’ representation in councils (B12), multifunctional
municipal centres (B26) and digital citizenship (B42), aimed at quali­
fying the population and representativeness. Most respondents strongly
agreed with the presented indicators, except for group 3 who agreed
with B26, and groups 2 and 3 who agreed with B42. There were no
negative responses, which indicates that participation and qualification
are important to all respondents.
The indicator extracted from the PCA in the first component was B26
(multifunctional municipal centres). This indicator proposes the instal­
lation of multifunctional municipal centres in strategic neighbourhoods
in the urban network, expanding coverage. These provide educational
and leisure equipment, where young people and children remain in full-
time education with sports and artistic activities complementing regular
education, for example in the Unified Educational Centres in the State of
São Paulo.
6.2. Community contributions to identifying indicators for neighbourhood
sustainability
The reduced set of indicators resulting from the agreement of citizens
living in different neighbourhoods reinforces that participation in
planning and sustainable development involving the local population is
positive, as this study reflected urban problems. This result validates the
conclusion of Fraser et al. (2006) that we can use the community’s
contribution to select and choose indicators to monitor and guide
planning towards sustainable development. It also strengthens
empowerment, which is the first level of Choguill’s (1996) ladder of
community participation.
The main contributions of this set of indicators aiming to promote
sustainable communities are divided into three groups: built environ­
ment, urban infrastructure and social well-being (Fig. 4). These contri­
butions are in line with the definition of neighbourhood adopted in this
study: an integral unit of the city, where social, economic and cultural
relations of residents are allowed, where there is a diversity of housing,
community facilities, services and job offer compatible with the resident
population, and where infrastructure networks and accessible and safe
green spaces are integrated into the planning process.
The built environment includes the insertion of energy efficiency
devices in buildings, the proportion of certified buildings (USGBC, 2019)
and an inventory of materials used (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015), with
high scores for the use of local materials and obtaining certification. The
proportion of rainwater and wastewater utilisation mechanisms and the
use of technology to control water, energy, thermal conditioning and
M.S. Martins et al.
Fig. 4. Dimensions, groups and indicators to promote sustainable communities based on community opinions and principal component analysis.
safety are also important. In the social context, the amount of supply of
different housing types (Yigitcanlar et al., 2015) is important; a social
mix favours cultural and economic diversity and is connected with the
number of housing units subsidised per thousand people (AARP, 2018),
enabling people with lower incomes to access services and employment.
In the group that integrates urban infrastructure, indicators should
relate to the amount of recycled waste (Elgadi & Ismail, 2016), the
amount of solid waste destined for landfill, the amount of solid waste
collected (ABNT, 2017), the population served by conventional and
selective collection and encouragement of composting. For urban
drainage, the amount and location of flooding, percentage of imper­
meable areas (Yigitcanlar et al., 2015) and the area covered by the
drainage system are important. The population served by a water sup­
ply, the average number of water supply interruptions per consumer per
year (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015) and the quantity of distributed water
should also be considered. In water pollution, the level of heavy metals
in the water (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015) and the level of water quality
are measured. In basic sanitation, the population served by the sewage
collection network (ABNT, 2017) and the amount of treated and
collected sewage are verified.
Social well-being is related to the proportion of residential buildings
with integrated economic activities (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015) for
mixed-use. The number of houses at a distance of 600 m from a com­
munity centre can be measured (Yigitcanlar et al., 2015). For the pres­
ervation of patrimony, the percentage of area conditioned by measures
of protection of constructed cultural patrimony is verified (Silva, 2014).
11
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
Access to a library is measured by the number of libraries located within
a 1 km radius (AARP, 2018), and in environmental education, the
development of information material on environmental issues is
considered (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015). Access to green areas can be
measured by the number of parks within a radius of 1 km (AARP, 2018),
availability of open space per capita (ABNT, 2017) and the percentage of
open space per hectare (Bahadure & Kotharkar, 2018). Crime preven­
tion is related to the number of robberies in the neighbourhood (Baha­
dure & Kotharkar, 2018) and design with minimal blind facades for a
safe physical environment (Yigitcanlar et al., 2015). The number of
multifunctional municipal centres located within a radius of 2 km
(Yigitcanlar et al., 2015) can be used to verify access to and installation
of multifunctional municipal centres.
7. Conclusion
The bottom-up modality contributed to the identification of priority
sectors in the neighbourhood, based on the sustainability indicators
choice. Even as occasional attempts at the improvement in the housing
sector mentioned earlier, this modality of community participation in
Brazilian urban planning moves at a slow pace. Even though the com­
munities have residents’ associations, they have not shown enough
engagement in order to make their claims effective, as well as bottom-up
actions, are not a widespread practice. The findings observed in this
research suggest an interruption of this practice, inserting the bottom-up
modality in the indicators choosing process, seeking to comprehend
M.S. Martins et al.
community opinions about sustainability, in the local context, in
recognition that the micro-level makes positioning friendly. The inter­
viewed group demonstrated similarities in agreement on specific issues
in the environmental and social dimensions, that reflects the urban de­
ficiencies present in different neighbourhoods. At the same time, it
revealed opportunities in the economic and institutional dimensions
which may substantially contribute to neighbourhood sustainability.
Although digital tools such as electronic forms tending to become
increasingly used, some methodological limitations in this investigation
were observed. Particularly is not possible to present the necessary
conceptual explanations about the terms, which may result in the
statements misunderstood by the local population. However, since the
research purpose was exploratory, the idea of analysing how citizens
who live in a neighbourhood - but do not discuss in theory the concepts
inherent to sustainability - expose pertinent opinions was fulfilled. The
results reflect that the consulted community is aware of existing urban
problems, maintaining the highest levels of agreement for issues high­
lighted by indicators related to urban infrastructure, social well-being,
urban space and security.
On the other hand, it must observe that the exposed opinions do not
generalize the thinking of Brazilian society as a whole, in the meantime
the same needs to advance its consciousness of sustainability, but signs
that the community realizes urban problems. Also, special attention
needs to be addressed on the increment of community participation,
encouraging residents to give their thoughts at neighbourhood meetings
and strengthening the demands of associations to municipal
governments.
Furthermore, the selection of the indicators considering the bottom-
up modality by participants living in the neighbourhoods or interested
in the theme constitutes a technique that enables the approximation of
broader development objectives with more particular situations and
contexts. Nevertheless, both researchers and managers need to define
the conceptual, territorial and scope for specific application in selected
cities and neighbourhoods.
The gathered indicators extracted by principal component analysis in
this study introduces a discussion in order to establish a framework that
may integrate a future assessment tool with the incorporation of a
participatory process. Even though this research suggests a particular
group of indicators as a tool to evaluate neighbourhood’s sustainability,
this instrument is not only applied at the peripheral neighbourhood level
but is a set that aims to bring together citizen knowledge of local urban
sustainability in an urban environment.
Finally, this set of indicators can provide information for pro­
fessionals involved in urban planning, and public policy promoters. To
an effective application of data-driven investments and support
responsible decisions in mitigating and improving the sustainability
levels of the neighbourhood environment and thus improve the sus­
tainability of the city.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marcele Salles Martins: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi­
gation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Validation, Writing – original
draft preparation. Rosa Maria Locatelli Kalil: Supervision, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing. Francisco Dalla Rosa: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
AARP. (2018). AARP Livability Index. https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/categorie
s/housing. (Accessed 25 January 2018).
ABNT. (2017). NBR ISO 37120:2017 Sustainable development of communities — Indicators
for city services and quality of life. https://www.abntcatalogo.com.br/norma.aspx?
ID=366389. (Accessed 15 March 2018).
12
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
Abu Kasim, J., Mohd Yusof, M. J., & Mohd Shafri, H. Z. (2019). The many benefits of
urban green spaces. CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development, 2(1), 2407–5957,
103-116. ISSN.
Adewumi, A., Onyango, V., Moyo, D., & Al Waer, H. (2019). A review of selected
neighbourhood sustainability assessment frameworks using the Bellagio STAMP.
International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 37(1), 108–118. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-07-2018-0055
Ameen, R. F. M., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental
assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006
Andrade, C. R. M., de Bonduki, N. G., & Rossetto, R. (1993). Arquitetura & habitação social
em São Paulo, 1989-1992. São Paulo: USP-EESC/SAP.
Arslan, T. V., Durak, S., & Aytac, D. O. (2016). Attaining SDG11: Can sustainability
assessment tools be used for improved transformation of neighbourhoods in historic
city centers? Natural Resources Forum, 40, 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-
8947.12115
Bahadure, S., & Kotharkar, R. (2018). Framework for measuring sustainability of
neighbourhoods in Nagpur, India. Building and Environment, 127, 86–97. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.10.034
Barrera-Roldán, A., & Saldı ́var-Valdés, A. (2002). Proposal and application of a
sustainable development Index. Ecological Indicators, 2(3), 251–256. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s1470-160x(02)00058-4
Becker, J. (2005). Measuring progress towards sustainable development. An ecological
framework for selecting indicators. Local Environment, 10(1), 87–101. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1354983042000309333
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about
sustainability indicators? Local Environment, 6(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13549830120073284
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: Learning by doing. London, UK:
Earthscan.
Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating
systems. Environment, Development and Sustainabitity, 15, 1573–1591. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-013-9462-0
Bonduki, N. G. (1992). Habitação e autogestão: Contruindo territories de utopia. São Paulo:
Fase.
Bonduki, N. (1996a). Habitação, mutirão e autogestão: A experiência da administração
luiza erundina em São Paulo. In: Bonduki. N. Habitat: as práticas bem sucedidas em
habitação, meio ambiente e gestão urbana nas cidades brasileiras, 180–194. São Paulo:
Studio Nobel.
Bonduki, N. (1996b). Do mutirão à autogestão na produção da moradia: Qualidade,
produtividade e baixo custo. In: Mutirão habitacional: Curso de formação em mutirão.
São Paulo: Escola plitécnica da universidade de São Paulo, politecnico di Torino, ASTAC
v. 1. .
Bonduki, N. (1996c). Habitat: As práticas bem sucedidas em habitação, meio ambiente e
gestão urbana nas cidades brasileiras. São Paulo: Studio nobel.
Bragança, L., Conde, K. M., & Alvarez, C. E. (2017). Proposta de indicadores de avaliação
de sustentabilidade urbana para países Latino-americanos [Urban Sustainability
Assessment Indicators for Latin American Countries]. In Bragança et al, organizing
committee. Proceedings of the II Encontro Nacional Sobre Reabilitação Urbana e
Construção Sustentável. Lisboa: Universidade do Minho, 16-17 November 2017.
Brasil. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília. http://www.planalt
o.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. (Accessed 8 October 2017).
Brasil. (2001). Lei nº 10.257, de 10 de julho de 2001: Regulamenta os arts. 182 e 183 da
constituição federal, estabelece diretrizes gerais da política urbana e dá outras
providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, DF, 11 de jul,
2001. https://www.senado.gov.br. (Accessed 8 October 2017).
Brasil. (2002). Agenda 21 Brasileira – ações Prioritárias/Comissão de Políticas de
Desenvolvimento Sustentável e da Agenda 21 Nacional. Brasília. https://www.mma.
gov.br/estruturas/agenda21/arquivos/acoesprio.pdf. (Accessed 15 October 2018).
Braulio-Gonzalo, M., Bovea, M. D., & Ruá, M. J. (2015). Sustainability on the urban scale:
Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 53, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.03.002
Buonocore, J. C. (1997). Cooperativismo habitacional: Cidadania e qualidade e vida. São
Leopoldo. Monografia (curso de Especialização superior em cooperativismo).
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (São Leopoldo).
Caixa Econômica Federal. (2020). Imóvel na planta, associativo, recurso do FGTS. http
://www1.caixa.gov.br/gov/gov_social/municipal/programas_habitacao/imovel_p
lanta_associativo/saiba_mais.asp. (Accessed 29 November 2020).
Choguill, M. B. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped
countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-
3975(96)00020-3
Choguill, C. L. (2008). Developing sustainable neighbourhoods. Habitat International, 32
(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.007
Dawodu, A., Akinwolemiwa, B., & Cheshmehzangi, A. (2016). A conceptual re-
visualization of sustainability pathways for the development of Neighborhood
Sustainability Assessment Tools (NSATs). Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 398–410.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.001
Del Rio, V., & Siembieda, W. (2013). Desenho urbano contemporâneo no Brasil. Rio de
Janeiro LTC.
Elgadi, A. A., & Ismail, L. H. (2016). A review of sustainable neighborhood indicator for
urban development in Libya. ARPN-Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(4),
2607–2613.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (2nd ed.). Porto Alegre:
Artmed.
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up
and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator
M.S. Martins et al.
identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable
environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009
Ghellere, M., Devitofrancesco, A., & Meroni, I. (2017). Urban sustainability assessment of
neighborhoods in Lombardy. Energy Procedia, 122, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2017.07.310
Gohn, M. G. (1991). Movimentos sociais e a luta pela moradia. São Paulo: Loyola.
Gohn, M. G. (1997). Os sem-terra, ONGs e cidadania. Cortez: São Paulo.
Gohn, M. G. (2010). Morumbi: o contraditório bairro-região de São Paulo. Cad. CRH, 23
(59), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-49792010000200005
Gonçalves, M. A., & Kunen, A. (2016). Análise de indicadores de sustentabilidade no espaço
urbano: Aplicação em loteamentos da cidade de Francisco Beltrão-PR. Seminário
Internacional de Investigación en urbanismo, 8, Balneário camboriú. Barcelona: DUOT.
Guhr, I. (1983). Co-operatives in state housing programmes: An alternative for low-
income groups?. In R. J. Skinner, & M. J. Rodell (Eds.), People, Poverty and shelter:
Problems of self-help Housing in the third world London: Meuthuemn.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Badin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise
multivariada de dados. Tradução Adonai Schlups Sant’Ana. 6. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Happio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 32,165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.08.002
Hereda, J., & Alonso, E. (1996). Política urbana e melhoria da qualidade de vida em
Diadema. In: Bonduki, N. Habitat: as práticas bem-sucedidas em habitação, meio
ambiente e gestão urbana nas cidades brasileiras (São Paulo: Studio Nobel).
Himerath, R. B., Balachandra, P., Kumar, B., Bansode, S. S., & Murali, J. (2013).
Indicator-based urban sustainability—a review. Energy for Sustainable Development,
17, 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.08.004
Holland. (1996). Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment, department for
information and international relation (Best Practices: sustainable living in the
Netherlands. The Hague).
Huang, L., Wu, J., & Yan, L. (2015). Defining and measuring urban sustainability: A
review of indicators. Landscape Ecology, 30(7), 1175–1193. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10980-015-0208-2
Hurley, J., & Horne, R. (2006). Review and analysis of tools for the implementation and
assessment of sustainable urban development. Paper presented at: Environmental Practice
2006. Proceedings of the 2006 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand
Conference; 17–20 September. Adelaide: Australia (Causal Productions for EIANZ).
IBGE. (2011). Censo demográfico. Aglomerados subnormais Primeiros resultados. https://
ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/imprensa/ppts/00000006960012
162011001721999177.pdf. (Accessed 14 October 2017).
IBGE. (2010). Censo demográfico 1940-2010. https://seriesestatisticas.ibge.gov.br/series.
aspx?vcodigo=POP122. (Accessed 14 October 2017).
Jepson, E. J., Jr. (2009). Planning and sustainability. In D. S. Graber, & K. A. Birmingham
(Eds.), Urban planning in the 21st century. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Kalil, R. M. L. (2001). Participação e satisfação do usuário: Alternativas de gestão de
habitações sociais em passo fundo, RS. Tese (Doutorado em Arquitetura: estruturas
ambientais urbanas) – Curso de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura, Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo.
Komeily, A., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2015). A need for balanced approach to neighborhood
sustainability assessments: A critical review and analysis. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 18, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.05.004
Kowaltowski, D. C., Silva, V. G., Pina, S. A., Labaki, L. C., Ruschel, R. C., & Carvalho
Moreira, D. (2006). Quality of life and sustainability issues as seen by the population
of low-income housing in the region of Campinas, Brazil. Habitat International, 30,
1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.04.003
Kyrkoua, D., & Karthaus, R. (2011). Urban sustainability standards: Predetermined
checklists or adaptable frameworks? Procedia Engineering, 21, 204–211. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2005
Lützkendorf, T., & Balouktsi, M. (2017). Assessing a sustainable urban development:
Typology of indicators and sources of information. Procedia Environmental Sciences,
38, 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.122
Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684
Martins, M. S., Romanini, A., Mussi, A. Q., & Folle, D. (2013). Projeto de habitações
flexíveis de interesse social. Oculum Ensaios, 10(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/
10.24220/2318-0919v10n2a2148
Medved, P. A. (2016). Contribution to the structural model of autonomous sustainable
neighbourhoods: New socio-economical basis for sustainable urban planning.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 120, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.01.091
Meter, K. (1999). Neighbourhood sustainability indicators guidebook. Minneapolis:
Crossroads Resource Center.
Mezzomo, M. D. M., Junior, Borges, M. A., Gonçalves, A. J. J. (2018). Sustentabilidade
de Bairros: uma análise em campo mourão-PR. Brasil. Geo UERJ, 32, e30480.
https://doi.org/10.12957/geouerj.2018.30480
Monte-Mór, R. L. (2006). As teorias urbanas e o planejamento urbano no Brasil. In
C. Diniz, & M. Crocco (Eds.), Economia regional e urbana: Contribuições teóricas
recentes (Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG).
Mussi, A. Q., Romanini, A., Martins, M. S., Silva, T. L., Ribeiro, L. A., Almeida, C. C. O.,
et al. (2018). Trajetória de uma experiência de autogestão habitacional de interesse
social: Reflexões quanto ao empoderamento da comunidade e soluções adotadas.
Cadernos PROARQ, 30, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.37180/2675-0392
Nations, United (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm. (Accessed 6 August
2017).
Nations, United (1996). Indicators of sustainable development, framework and
methodologies. New York: United Nations.
13
Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370
Nations, United (2014). Progress to date in the implementation of the outcomes of the second
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) and identification of new
and emerging challenges on sustainable urban development. New York: United Nations.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1290360#record-files-collapse-header.
(Accessed 27 July 2019).
Nations, United (2017). No poverty. https://nacoesunidas.org/wp-content/uploads
/2017/06/Documento-Tem%C3%A1tico-ODS-1-Erradica%C3%A7%C3%
A3o-da-Pobreza_11junho2017.pdf. (Accessed 6 December 2017).
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023
Nop, S., & Thornton, A. (2020). Community participation in contemporary urban
planning in Cambodia: The examples of Khmuonh and Kouk Roka neighbourhoods
in Phnom Penh. Cities, 103, Article 102770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2020.102770
Nunes, M. F. O., Mayorga, C. T., Gullo, M. C. R., & Pedone, C. E. M. (2016). Indicadores
de Sustentabilidade urbana: Aplicação em bairros de Caxias do Sul.
Arquiteturarevista, 12(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.4013/arq.2016.121.08
Oregi, X., Roth, E., Alsema, E., Vanginkel, M., & Struik, D. (2015). Use of ICT tools for
integration of energy in urban planning projects. Energy Procedia, 83, 157–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.12.206
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6), 595–616. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001
Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D. G., & Dougill, A. J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for
developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological
Economics, 59(4), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.008
Reith, A., & Orova, M. (2015). Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability?
Ecological Indicators, 48, 660–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.005
Rheingantz, P. A., Azevedo, G. A., Brasileiro, A., Alcantara, D., & Queiroz, M. (2009).
Observando a qualidade do Lugar: Procedimentos para avaliação pós ocupação. Rio de
Janeiro: Proarq/FAU/UFRJ.
Rolnik, R. (2009). Democracia no fio da navalha. Limites e possibilidades para a
implementação de uma agenda de reforma urbana no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de
Estudos Urbanos e Regionais, 11(2), 31–50.
Rolnik, R., Cymbalista, R., & Nakano, K. (2011). Solo urbano e habitação de interesse
social: A questão fundiária na política habitacional e urbana do país. Revista de
Direito da ADVOCEF, Ano VII (13), 123–158.
Santos, G. P. O., Gonçalves, A., & Mezzomo, M. M. (2017). Sustainability indicators applied
to neighbourhood scale. Proceedings of the 4th Responsible Management Education
Research Conference; 13–14 September 2017; Curitiba, Brazil.
Scussel, M. C. B. (2007). O lugar de morar em Porto Alegre: Uma abordagem para avaliar
aspectos de qualificação do espaço residencial, à luz de princípios de sustentabilidade.
Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Civil) – Curso de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia
Civil, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2013). A critical review of seven selected neighborhood
sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 73–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.006
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014a). Viability of using global standards for
neighbourhood sustainability assessment: Insights from a comparative case study.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58, 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09640568.2013.866077
Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. (2014b). 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, 243––258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2013.11.006
Silva, L. R. F. V. (2014). Avaliação da sustentabilidade urbana – proposta de um guia para
Almada. Dissertação. Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologias. Universidade Nova de
Lisboa.
Silva, G. J. A., & Romero, M. A. B. (2011). O urbanismo sustentável no Brasil: A revisão de
conceitos urbanos para o século XXI (parte 01). Arquitextos, São Paulo, 128.03,
vitruvius. http://www.vitruvius.com.br/revistas/read/arquitextos/11.128/3724.
(Accessed 23 March 2018).
Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984
USGBC.. (2019). LEED v4 for neighborhood development addenda. https://www.usgbc.org
/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version. (Accessed 12
March 2019).
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability
indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(3), 381––392. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00049-4
Wu, J., & Wu, T. (2012). Sustainability indicators and indices. In C. N. Madu, & C. Kuei
(Eds.), Handbook of sustainable management. London: Imperial College Press.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., & Teriman, S. (2015). Neighborhood sustainability
assessment: Evaluating residential development sustainability in a developing
country context. Sustainability, 7, 2570–2602. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032570
Yildiz, S., Yilmaz, M., Kivrak, S., & Gültekin, A. B. (2016). Neighbourhood sustainability
assessment tools and a comparative analysis of five different assessment tools. Plan,
26(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2016.05914
Yoon, J., & Park, J. (2015). Comparative analysis of material criteria in neighbourhood
sustainability assessment tools and urban design guidelines: Cases of the UK, the US,
Japan and korea. Sustainability, 7(11), 14450–14487. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su71114450
Zhang, Q., Yung, E. H. K., & Chan, E. H. W. (2020). Comparison of perceived
sustainability among different neighbourhoods in transitional China: The case of
M.S. Martins et al. Habitat International 113 (2021) 102370

Chengdu. Habitat International, 103, Article 102204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

habitatint.2020.102204

14