Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Framework for measuring sustainability of neighbourhoods in Nagpur, India T

a,∗ b
Sarika Bahadure , Rajashree Kotharkar
a
Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture & Planning, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
b
Associate Professor, Department of Architecture & Planning, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India

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

Keywords: Sustainable development tries to provide suitable physical and economical base to human environment with
Environment minimal adverse effect on environment. In an urban context measuring sustainability becomes crucial due to its
Land-use mix varying and vast dimensions. This study tries to develop a framework to measure sustainability at the neigh-
Neighbourhood bourhood level in an urban context Nagpur, India. The framework is developed based on composite indicators.
Sustainability
Twenty sub-indicators are selected under different domains as demography, environmental and transport (ac-
Transport
cessibility, infrastructure, speed and safety).
The theoretical base is studied and experimented for twelve neighbourhoods with varying commercial and
residential land-use mix. The indicators' values are computed. A performance benchmarking is determined
through literature study. Weights are assigned through expert opinion survey. Linear aggregation facilitated
sustainability performance based index for the neighbourhood. This framework can facilitate the policy maker
and stakeholders for effective decision making and raising awareness concerning the need to develop and
maintain sustainability of urban area.

1. Introduction of compatible land uses for sustainable development need investigation.

Sustainable urban development mainly deals with the improvement
and enhancement of the city's economic, social and environmental
conditions. It can be achieved through multidimensional approaches
like mixed land-use, compact development, transit oriented develop-
ment, regenerating brownfields, redeveloping core areas, etc. There is a
need to have intelligent and efficient land-use planning for reducing
energy consumption [1]. There aren't enough studies that measure
sustainability at neighbourhood level in the context of India. Green
rating systems like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
rating system and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment
majorly deals with sustainability at building to cluster level. Though
some new housing schemes and townships are planned and designed
with sustainable approach but, not much effort has been taken to assess
the sustainability of the existing neighbourhoods or large urban areas.
This study attempts to understand the sustainability of the neigh-
bourhoods with mixed land-use. The sustainability of these neigh-
bourhoods are studied with the help of different indicator domains-
demography, environmental and transport (accessibility, infrastructure,
speed and safety).
Mixed land-use is one of the approach to achieve sustainability [2].
Prior studies mention that areas with mixed land-use are more sus-
tainable than segregated areas [3]; however, the proportion of the mix
To investigate the change in the land-use mix, leading to (un)sustain-
ability in a city, the neighbourhood scale is appropriate as it provides
both residential and non-residential functions through a built en-
vironment and connects communities and dwellings to the wider urban
context. This study tries to identify the relationship between sustain-
ability and neighbourhoods with varying mixed land-use. It provides a
framework to assess the sustainability at neighbourhood level.
1.1. Sustainable neighbourhood
Sustainable neighbourhood focuses on achieving the wellbeing of
the community by improving built and unbuilt environment [4]. Some
features of sustainable neighbourhood are: i) Satisfaction (neighbour-
hood and housing); ii) Safety (traffic or accidents and crime); iii) Aes-
thetics (acceptable appearance); iv) Walkability and Accessibility to
amenities and transit; v) Social Interaction (pleasant, friendly social
relations and participation); vi) Economic Aspects (manageable cost of
residence and provide opportunities); vii) Mix (activities, tenure and
housing choices); viii) Environmental (low noise disturbance, less pol-
lution and conservation); ix) Density (Population and Built). While as-
sessing the sustainability of the neighbourhood, following issues need
special attention: i) Congestion; ii) Lack of infrastructure; iii) Social
issues (health, poverty, crime, affordability, equity); iv) Environmental

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sarikabahadure@arc.vnit.ac.in (S. Bahadure), rskotharkar@arc.vnit.ac.in (R. Kotharkar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.10.034
Received 1 September 2017; Received in revised form 25 October 2017; Accepted 29 October 2017
Available online 31 October 2017
0360-1323/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
issues (energy, greenhouse gases, pollution and industrial hazards); and
v) Transport facility (mode, transit facility and ownership) [5,6,7,8].
Most of the existing sustainability assessment systems are for
buildings. Though the sustainability assessment at the neighbourhood
level contributes to the city's sustainability, but only few urban areas
have integrated the same in improving the decision-making for sus-
tainable development [9,10]. Neighbourhood assessment tools address
many challenges and are successful in raising the sustainability con-
sciousness. The methodology of evaluating or achieving neighbourhood
sustainability varies [11]. There is a need to improve and evolve these
tools over time. The tool can be customized according to the context as
the issues selected for one neighbourhood might not be applicable to all
neighbourhoods [10]. A Global Survey of Urban Sustainability Rating
Tools mentions, amongst 59 urban sustainability rating tools, 24 are for
planned neighbourhoods only 2 are for existing neighbourhoods [12].
Thus, there is a need to develop a sustainability framework for existing
neighbourhood in specific context.
Different criteria and indicators are used to develop the sustain-
ability framework [10,11]. Although, achieving sustainability is the
aim of these tools, but there are differences in the process to pursue the
aim. They have differences in themes and indicators [13,14]. A com-
parative study of six exiting tools-i) Indian Green Building Council
(IGBC) Green Townships; ii) LEED for Neighbourhood Development
(ND); iii) Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology (BREEAM) Communities; iv) Comprehensive Assessment
System for Built Environment Efficiency for Urban Development (C-
ASBEE-UD); v) Haute Qualité Environnementale et Economique Ré-
habilitation (HQE2R); and vi) Neighbourhood Sustainability Frame-
work (NSF) expressed different approaches. Amongst different thrust
areas, ‘resources and environment’ gets maximum emphasis followed
by ‘physical infrastructure’ and ‘transport’ theme. Neighbourhood form
(density) shows significant influence on travel behaviour. Other influ-
encing features such as orientation of buildings, mixed use, availability
of green spaces also reduce environmental impacts. Except CASBEE-UD
mixed land-use as an indicator is included in other five tools. The
sustainability issues are inter-related [15] and mixed use development
affects other issues such as energy and transportation [10]. Mixed use
and density (high, medium and low) is the neighbourhood selection
criteria in NSF [4].
2. Study area
Nagpur, with a history of three hundred years, acts as the key ad-
ministrative, business and institutional center for central India. The city
has seen enormous development activities in the last two decades [16].
There are different typologies of neighbourhoods within the Nagpur
Municipal Corporation's administrative limit with different land-use
mix as high-mix in core, moderate-mix in the intermediate areas and
low-mix in the fringe. Mix of commercial and residential land-use was
most perceptible here. Twelve neighbourhoods (NH1 to NH12) with
varying residential and commercial mix were selected. They were di-
vided under four categories as i) L1- High Commercial; ii) L2- Mod-
erate-High Commercial; iii) L3- Moderate-Low Commercial; and iv) L4-
Low Commercial. The study areas, their mix and other characteristics
are represented in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Within a category, land-use mix,
age and socio-economic characteristics of the neighbourhoods are si-
milar. Household survey is conducted in each neighbourhood to know
the residents' socio economic condition, travel behaviour and percep-
tion.
3. Indexing base of the model
Indexing method is based on composite indicators which involve
following steps - i) indicator selection; ii) data collection; iii) normal-
ization of the indicator score (benchmarking); iv) assigning weights to
the indicators using experts' opinion survey; and v) aggregation
87
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
(linear).
3.1. Indicators-data collection and normalization of the indicator score
(benchmarking)
Density, environmental, transport and social aspects influence sus-
tainability and land-use [17]. Thus, selected indicators revolve around
these domains. Expert consultation and literature review guided the
indicator selection. Indicators' data was extracted either from the
monitoring stations (primary data) by the researcher or from the re-
source agencies or reports (secondary data). The indicator domains are
categorized in three distinct groups as - i) demography; ii) environ-
mental; and iii) transport (accessibility, road infrastructure, traffic
speed and safety) further, detailed in twenty indicators (Table 2). Each
indicator is studied for its contribution to sustainability.
Each indicator has different units. So, the indicators' scores are
normalized by representing them in five-point scale (low to high sus-
tainability level). The benchmarking is decided with the help of lit-
erature study and expert opinion. The selected indicators are assigned
values based on their performance (Table 3). The indicator scores are
computed and the results and observations are reported for the neigh-
bourhood.
3.2. Demography indicators
Demography provides an overview of the population size, density
and pattern. Humans' population size, distribution, and characteristics
are central to sustainability [18]. There are two indicators under de-
mography domain as population density, i.e. number of persons per
unit area (including floating population) and percentage of working
population.
3.2.1. Population density
To prevent sprawl and promote sustainability, higher urban density
is perceived as an effective land-use strategy [8,19]. It tries to con-
centrate people and their activities. Thus, lower energy is used in travel
and reduce resource use [20]. There are multiple opinions about an
optimum range of density. A worldwide variation exists in defining the
range of density, the high density perceived by developed nations is
equivalent to the low density of developing nations [21]. Since the
study revolves around commercial and residential mix, floating popu-
lation contributes to load on infrastructure and congestion. Therefore,
while calculating the population density floating population has been
added to the residents' population.
3.2.2. Working population
Workforce or working population is a measure of a number of
persons working per total population. The working population com-
prises of working adults in the age ranges from 15 to 64 and non-
working population consist of children, elderly, retired persons and
non-working adult females [22]. In a neighbourhood, there should be a
balance of working and non-working population. An optimum number
of working population contributes to an active portion of an area's
economy. UDPFI guidelines suggest workforce participation as thirty-
three percent [23]. This decides the benchmarking for working popu-
lation. The study uses population data of 2011 census to compute a
population density and working population [24].
3.3. Environmental indicators
Environmental issues play a vital role to understand land-use mix.
Six indicators are selected to study environmental aspects as noise
pollution, tree density and open land availability.
3.3.1. Road noise
The traffic noise is studied for major and residential roads. Noise is
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97

Table 1
Study Area- Commercial and Residential land-use Ratio.

Neighbourhood Category Study Area % Commercial % Residential % other land-use (open Ratio of Commercial
(Characteristics) (age in years; location in Nagpur) land-use land-use spaces, institutional, public) and Residential

L1 NH1 Buldi 30.81 34.88 34.32 1: 1.13

High Commercial (150; CBD and centrally located)
(core area, compact, organic, NH2 Itvari 30.30 50.52 19.18 1: 1.67
medium rise high density) (150; known for wholesale market)
NH3 Mahal 12.62 39.53 47.85 1: 3.13
(150; known for heritage and retail
market)
L2 NH4 Sadar 7.65 24.00 68.35 1: 3.14
Moderate-High Commercial (100; in North West)
(compact to moderately dense, NH5 Dharampeth 15.55 51.97 32.48 1: 3.34
organic to planned, low to medium (75; in West)
rise) (75; NH6 Buddha Nagar 12.04 32.00 55.96 1: 2.66
(in North)
L3 NH7 Nagsen Nagar 2.42 33.77 63.81 1: 13.94
Moderate-Low Commercial (40; along Nara Road and Ring Road
(mix of commercial only along the in 2North)
major road) NH8 Trimurti Nagar 3.35 59.46 37.20 1: 17.77
(moderately dense, low to medium (30; along Ring Road in South West)
rise, planned NH9 Friends Colony 1.42 50.83 47.75 1: 35.82
and partly sprawled) (25; along Katol Road in North West)
L4 NH10 Civil Lines 0.87 31.63 67.51 1: 36.56
Low Commercial (90; residential and administrative
(no or very less ingress of area planned during British period in
commercial activity) West)
(partly planned and partly NH11 Manish Nagar 0.17 17.76 82.07 1: 102.78
unplanned sprawled low rise) (5-10; Sprawl in South suburb)
NH12 Nara 0.34 20.19 79.46 1: 58.68
(5-10; Sprawl in North suburb)

Table 2
Domains and indicators.

Domains Indicator Set Twenty Indicators

1. Demography Density 1 Population Density

2 Working Population per Hectare
2. Environmental Noise Pollution 3 Major Road Noise in decibel
4 Residential Road Noise in decibel
Ecology (Trees 5 Tree Density per Hectare
Count) 6 Tree Density per Ten Persons
Urban Habitat 7 Open Areas per Hectare
8 Open Area Availability per Capita
3. Accessibility Access to Land- 9 Access to Various Amenities
uses (Shop/Health/Services/
Education/Green Spaces
Access to 10 Average Distance to Bus Stops
Transit (Bus) 11 Bus Frequency in Minutes
4. Road Infrastructure Carrying 12 Carrying Capacity of Major Road
Capacity 13 Carrying Capacity of Residential
Road
Road Pattern 14 Road Pattern and Complete
and Network Network
5. Traffic Speed Two-Wheeler 15 Two-Wheelers’ Speed on Major
Speed Road
16 Two-Wheelers’ Speed on
Residential Roads
Four-Wheeler 17 Four-Wheelers’ Speed on Major
Speed Road
Fig. 1. Spatial location of the selected neighbourhoods in Nagpur City [17]. 18 Four-Wheelers’ Speed on
Residential Roads
6. Safety Safety Index 19 Fatal Accidents per One Lakh
an unwanted sound measured in a decibel (dB) unit. Noise from certain Population
use type like restaurants and clubs during nighttime creates problems. Thefts 20 Thefts per Thousand Population
Lower the noise level, higher will be the productivity. Noise level in
developing nations is high as compared to developed nations [25].
Noise below 80–85 dB is generally considered to be safe [26,27,28]. 3.3.2. Tree density per hectare and tree density per ten persons
The measurements are taken at four locations - two on major roads and As the presence of trees in an urban landscape plays an important
two on residential roads in each neighbourhood. Sixty readings per day role, two indicators are selected - tree density per hectare and tree
are taken on each location during evening peak hours (5.00–6.30 p.m.) density per ten persons. For a healthy environment trees play a vital
from Monday to Friday. The average reading per monitoring station role as it acts as a carbon sink, purify the surrounding, conserver water,
constitutes the indicator score. preserve soil and support birds and animals. An urban heat island effect

88
 Table 3
Benchmarking for demography, environmental and transport domains' indicators.
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar

Indicators Various Benchmark Values Unit Mode Benchmark Value adopted in this study

Low (1) Medium-Low (2) Medium (3) Medium-High (4) High (5)

Population Density 80 pph [51]; 150 pph [8]; Persons per Has two 0–49 50–74 75–99 100–149 150–199
50-100 pph [27]; 100 to 175 pph [23] Hectare tail 350-More 300–349 250–299 200–249
Working Population 33% [23] Percent More is 0–11 12–18 19–25 26–32 33-More
better
Major road Noise Less than 75 dB [52]; 45-55 dB for Decibel Less is 75.00-More 70.00–74.99 65.00–69.99 60.00–64.99 59.99-Less
Neighbourhood road residential and 55-65 dB for commercial better 65.00-More 60.00–64.99 55.00–59.99 50.00–54.99 49.99- Less
Noise [26]
Tree Density per Hectare 50 trees/ha [53] Trees/Hectare More is 0.00–29.99 30.00–49.99 50-00-69.99 70.00–89.99 90.00-More
better
Tree Density per 10 Persons a full grown tree produces oxygen, Trees/ More is 0.00–2.49 2.50–4.99 5.00–7.49 7.50–9.99 10.00-More
which ten people inhale in a year [30] 10 Persons better
Open Space per 18-30% [23] Percent More is 0.00–4.99 5.00–9.99 10.00–14.99 15.00–19.99 20.00-More
Neighbourhood Area better
Open Space per Capita 40 m2/capita in developed nation and Square meter/ More is 0.00–4.99 5.00–9.99 10.00–14.99 15.00–19.99 20.00-More
20 m2/capita in developing nations Capita better
[33]; minimum 9 m2/person [34];
50 m2/capita [27]
Access to Amenities ∼400 m [54,55,56], meters Less is 1000-More 800–999 600–799 400–599 0–399

89
better
Distance to Bus-Stops 150 to 300 m [42]; 200 m [28,56], meters Less is 801-More 601–800 401–600 201–400 200-Less
better
Bus Frequency 10 min [43] minutes Less is 20.01-More 15.01–20.00 10.01–15.00 5.01–10.00 5.00-Less
better
Carrying Capacity of Major Six-point scale from Excellent (0.0–0.2) Ratio Less is 0.80-More 0.60–0.79 0.40–0.59 0.20–0.39 0.00–0.19
Road to Very-Very Poor (1.0–1.2) [46] better
Carrying Capacity of
Neighbourhood Road
Road Pattern and Complete Clear pattern (ring radial or gridiron) Points – Un-clear pattern and Unclear pattern and Somewhat clear pattern (ring Clear pattern (ring radial Clear pattern (ring radial
Network and complete network [46] incomplete network complete network radial or gridiron) but or gridiron) somewhat in- or gridiron) and complete
somewhat incomplete complete network network
network
Two-Wheelers’ Speed on Major 30 km/h Km/h Has two 11.99 less 12.00–16.99 17.00–21.99 22.00–26.99 27.00–34.99
Road [47,37], tail
Two-Wheelers’ Speed on
Neighbourhood Road
Four-Wheelers’ Speed on 50.00-more 45.00–49.99 40.00–44.99 35–39.99
Major Road
Four-Wheelers’ Speed on
Neighbourhood Road
Fatal Accidents on Roads Road safety index approaching 0.00 is Per lakh Less is 10.00-More 6.00–9.99 4.00–5.99 2.00–3.99 1.99-Less
un-safe and above 0.35 is safe [38]; Population better
2 Fatality/Annum/Lakh Population [37]
Thefts 0 to 1 crime per 1000 persons for Per 1000 Less is 4.01-More 4.00–2.01 2.00–1.01 1.00–0.51 0.50-Less
different crime types [50] Population better
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
caused by pavements, buildings and construction work can be reduced
by planting more trees [29]. Each full grown or a mature tree produces
oxygen in a year which ten people inhale in a year [30]. The amount of
oxygen produced by a tree depends on the species, age and sur-
rounding. For this study, more than 10 trees per ten persons indicate
high sustainability. The data for the number of trees is extracted from
ward's tree census data [31].
3.3.3. Open space per neighbourhood area and open space per capita
Two indicators investigate the status of open spaces. The first in-
dicator measures the availability of open spaces in each neighbourhood.
It is calculated as a percentage of open space per hectare. Open space
availability per capita is other indicator. It is different from the earlier
one as it is related to the population distribution and takes into account
the variation in population density within each neighbourhood. The
presence of urban open space is important in city development as they
contribute to the livable and healthy environment. Open spaces have
environmental functions of maintaining microclimate balance, habitat
for flora and fauna, reduce pollution and rainwater runoff; social
functions of mental and physical health benefits by providing outdoor
playing, walking and cycling options, recreation and education bene-
fits; and economic and aesthetic functions [32]. Developed countries
propose a standard of 40 m2 high quality urban green space or 140 m2
suburb forest area per capita. Developing countries adopt a standard of
green space of 20 m2 park area per capita [33]. Abercrombie's plan in
1943–1944 suggested 1.62 ha open space per 1000 persons and WHO
recommends a minimum of 9 m2 green spaces [34]. In study area, the
cumulative sum of the open spaces under public, semi-public and re-
creational open spaces are considered.
3.4. Accessibility indicators
There are three indicators under accessibility domain - i) access to
various amenities; ii) average distance to transit stop (bus); and iii) bus
frequency.
3.4.1. Access to various amenities
Accessibility is the ease with which persons living at a given loca-
tion are able to move to reach important activities and services [35].
Accessibility is measured in terms of distance (meters) to various
amenities. Location access is studied as: a) distance to the amenities
(optimum 400 m) [36]; or b) 15 min access time to work [37,38]; or c)
Neighbourhood Destination Accessibility Index (NDAI) score. NDAI is
an area level measure of access to neighbourhood destinations like
education, transport, recreation, socio-cultural, food retail, financial,
health, etc. [39]. Easy access to various amenities in the neighbourhood
enhances livability of the community. Lesser the distance to various
amenities, more frequently people will prefer to use non-motorized
transport mode (walk or cycle) [40] resulting in a reduction of mo-
torized vehicle traffic and the associated environmental impacts. This
study considers access to five basic amenities (shop, health, services,
education and green spaces) in each neighbourhood. The indicator
value is the average score of the amenities. With neighbourhood center,
concentric circles with radius in multiple of two hundred meters were
marked on the land-use map in each area. Access to various amenities is
calculated based on the on-site survey and concentric circles marked on
the map.
3.4.2. Distance to mass transit stop (bus)
Public or Mass Transit is a shared passenger transport service
available for the general public by city bus services or trains. Transit
accessibility is measured as: a) distance to transit stop in meter; or b)
NDAI score; or c) Public Transport Accessibility Index [37]. Transit
facility enhances access to amenities and services [41]. Easy access and
good transport facility attract people to use transit instead of a personal
vehicle. The optimum walking distance to a transit stop and work place
90
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
is 150–300 m and residents are willing to walk a slightly longer dis-
tance till 400 m [42]. The location of all the bus stops in each neigh-
bourhood is identified to calculate the distance from bus stop. But,
there is a population density variation within a neighbourhood. More-
over, the location of bus stop is not exactly in the neighbourhood
center. So, the weighted-grid average distance to the bus stop is com-
puted.
3.4.3. Bus frequency
The presence of the bus stop in proximity makes no sense if no or
very few buses are passing or stopping there. Thus, the waiting time or
frequency for bus is crucial. Bus frequency is calculated in terms of
minutes of waiting time during a peak and non-peak hours [37,43], or
bus service per day [44]. If the bus frequency is high then people tend
to use it, against personal vehicle. This helps to reduce the environ-
mental stress and congestion caused by personal vehicles.
The bus frequency in this study is calculated for 15 h (900 min). In
Nagpur, the bus frequency during peak hours ranges from 5 to 120 min,
and for non-peak hours it ranges from 10 to 180 min. There is variation
in the number of bus stops, routes and frequencies in each neighbour-
hood. Thus, in order to find the number of daily services for bus
transport, the routes servicing the area is recorded in a separate
spreadsheet. All the bus routes are identified and the total number of
trips on each of these routes is calculated by multiplying the number of
buses with the number of trips. The total sum of trips on each route is
divided with the total day shift of 15 h (900 min) from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30
p.m.
3.5. Road infrastructure indicators
There are three indicators under road infrastructure domain. The
first two indicators are associated with the road carrying capacity for
major and neighbourhood roads and the third indicator is associated
with the pattern of the road network.
3.5.1. Carrying capacity of roads
The road carrying capacity is linked with traffic congestion. Traffic
congestion is a condition of the road, when its use increases beyond its
carrying capacity. Slower speeds, longer trip times, delays, fuel wa-
stage, increased vehicular queuing and spillover effect are the char-
acters of congested roads. Congestion also occurs if there exist a mix of
traffic (slow and fast), pedestrians, cycles, two wheelers, four wheelers
and heavy vehicles moving on the same road with no defined lane.
Congestion is also common during peak morning and evening hours.
The capacity of the transport facility is the maximum number of ve-
hicles, passengers, or like per unit time which can be accommodated
under given conditions with a reasonable expectation of occurrence
[45]. The traffic congestion in this study is calculated in terms of road
carrying capacity also known as road volume. It is a measure of the
quality of the service.
Traffic volume survey is carried out for 1 h from 5.30 to 6.30 p.m.
(peak hour) from Monday to Friday at major and residential roads in
each neighbourhood. At each monitoring stations, the total number of
vehicles is noted in both the directions. To have uniformity among
different vehicle shares, all the vehicle types are converted to Passenger
Carriage Unit (PCU) [46]. The sum of PCU of the vehicle types re-
presents the current flow rate for each road (Equation (1)). The road
width is measured on each monitoring station. Road carrying capacity
(performance) is calculated by equation (2), where, ‘Capacity of Urban
Roads between Intersections [46]’ provides the Capacity (C) of urban
roads between intersections.
n
Current Flow Rate (V ) = ∑ Vi
i=0 (1)
Where, Vi is the PCU of different vehicle type per hour and n is number
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97

of vehicle types. 3.7.2. Thefts

Theft is a type of crime where a person's or community's belongings
Current Flow Rate (V )
Carrying Capacity (Performance ) = or property are taken by someone without their consent. The crime rate
Capacity (C ) (2)
is usually expressed in terms of crimes per lakh population [49]. The
Neighbourhood scout identifies crime rates and crime risk for streets in
America. The crime data is reported as a number of crimes per 1000
3.5.2. Road pattern and complete network
residents and per square mile area, the chances of becoming a victim
Pattern of a road network defines the movement of people in a
and comparative crime indices [50]. Ideally, there shall be no thefts or
neighbourhood. For sustainability road infrastructure should be ade-
crime in a neighbourhood. Neighbourhood scouts developed crime
quate in terms of road design and pattern, connectivity, separate lanes
index from 0 to 100. If the value is 100 then the neighbourhood is safest
for fast and slow moving traffic. For the effectiveness of transport
indicating 0 to 1 crime per 1000 persons [50]. As the number of crimes
network arrangements, overall trip reduction and easy access to various
increases, index value reduces on an exponential scale.
land uses, it is necessary to have a clear pattern and completeness of a
The accident and theft data of various types (cumulative score of
road network [37]. The road pattern and completeness of a network is
house, shop, animal, vehicles, vehicle parts and others) are collected for
studied through on-site surveys. The road network is plotted on the
years 2012, 2013 and 2014 from the office of Additional Commissioner
neighbourhood plan, residents' travel behaviour is studied and expert
of Police, Crime Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur, through personal enquiry
opinion is sought. This helped to take a decision on the existing con-
and from published reports.
ditions of the road pattern and network.

4. Results and observations

3.6. Traffic speed indicators
This section presents indicator scores, results and observations for
Four indicators under traffic speed indicator domain are-i) two-
each neighbourhood.
wheelers’ speed on major road; ii) two-wheelers’ speed on residential
road; iii) four-wheelers’ speed on major road; and iv) four-wheelers’
4.1. Demography indicators
speed on residential road.
Traffic speed on a road is defined by the distance covered by ve-
Population Density. The neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1)
hicles per unit time. Transport policies in India measure the traffic
have high density putting an extra burden on the infrastructure. The
speed (congestion) as mobility index [38]. According to sustainable
residential spaces here are being replaced by commercial activity. The
safety reference, speed lower than 30 km/h rarely results in fatal cra-
Floor Space Index is more than 2.00 leading to compact, less ventilated
shes. Slow traffic and motor vehicles can mix safely at this speed. The
and congested building units. Neighbourhoods with moderate mix (L2
quality of life improves as vehicle noise level reduces [47].
and L3) have average density ranging from 103 to 259 persons per
The speed and delay surveys are conducted on major and residential
hectare (pph). NH4 has a combination of high density mixed land-use
roads on working days during peak hours. Two-wheeler used for the
area on one side to a large green space on the other side which has
survey is Honda Activa-2013 and four-wheeler is Wagan R VXI -2011
resulted in reducing the gross density. The low density of NH10 (even
made model. The road distance is computed by AutoCAD drawing and
when it is a part of the main city) is due to sparsely distributed gov-
cross checked in Google image. Time taken by two-wheeler and four-
ernment residential colonies. Neighbourhoods with low land-use mix
wheeler on different roads are recorded. It helped to compute the travel
(NH11 and NH12) are part of fringe and have leapfrog development so
speed by equation (3).
the density is low (Fig. 2).
Distance travelled by Vehicle (Kilometer ) Working Population Density. The workforce participation is almost
Travel Speed =
Time taken to cover the Distance (Hour ) (3) similar (30–40% of the total population) in all the neighbourhoods ir-
respective of its location in Nagpur (Fig. 3). This indicates that a fair
amount of population is working. The data could not be generated for
3.7. Safety indicators workforce participation within their own neighbourhood. However, the
household survey revealed that old and high mix areas have more
Safety is studied using two indicators-i) fatal accidents on roads; and working population residing in the same neighbourhood or nearby
ii) thefts at neighbourhood level. neighbourhoods.

3.7.1. Fatal accidents on roads 4.2. Environmental indicators

Road accidents are caused due to one or more of the following
reasons-users' behaviour on road, interaction of mixed traffic modes Noise Pollution. The noise pollution for the neighbourhood square is
(slow and fast moving vehicles on the same road), vehicle design, road very high irrespective of the mix type but noise pollution on major and
design, road infrastructure and any other situational conditions. An residential roads show variation. The traffic noise is more due to the
accident can be fatal which leads to death or heavy injury of the person honking of horns than the vehicle engine. Neighbourhoods with high
or non-fatal. Road safety index (Equation (4)) is defined in terms of
Accident Fatality Index as the number of road accident deaths per lakh
of population [38]. Ideally, when there are no fatalities and injuries
then this is the best situation but practically, it is a rare case. In high
income countries more four-wheeler drivers die as compared to the low
income countries where more deaths are of pedestrians. In developing
countries, most car users are affluent and the vulnerable victims are
poor who walk or cycle [48]. Lesser the number of accidents better is
the sustainability. Road safety index scores approaching 0.00 is un-safe
and 0.35 and more score is safe [38].
1
Road Safety Index =  
Accident Fatality Index (4) Fig. 2. Population density.

91
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97

Fig. 6. Open spaces.

Fig. 3. Working population density.

Fig. 4. Noise pollution.

Fig. 7. Access to various Amenities (1-low to 5-high accessibility).

land-use mix (L1) are highly noisy due to the noise created by traffic
Neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1) have good access to many
and commercial uses. NH9 and NH10 are comparatively less noisy as
amenities but poor access to green spaces. Neighbourhoods with
they have green areas which act as a buffer. The ongoing construction
moderate land-use mix (L2 and L3) have appreciable access to all
work contributes for noise in neighbourhoods with low land-use mix
amenities. Neighbourhoods with low land-use mix (L4), especially
(NH11 and NH12). Except NH8, NH9 and NH10 all other neighbour-
NH11 and NH12 are highly inaccessible. Most convenient access
hoods have high noise levels (Fig. 4).
amongst all amenities is for shops followed by public services. Health
Tree Density. Tree density per hectare is less in NH1 and NH12 and
and education facilities have moderate access. There is large disparity
other areas have moderate tree density. More than 100 trees per hectare
for access to green spaces.
are in NH5, NH8, NH9 and NH10. Trees available per ten persons is
Accessibility to Transit Stop (Bus). The distance to the bus stop varies
very low in neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1), and more in
from 297 m in NH1 in the Central Business District (CBD) to 1046 m in
neighbourhoods with low land-use mix (L4). NH10 has twenty-five
NH12 at periphery, indicating mix neighbourhood has high access to a
trees per ten persons supporting environmental sustainability (Fig. 5).
bus stop as compared to low mix (Fig. 8).
Open Spaces. In study areas, the open spaces are less except in
Bus Frequency. The bus frequency for the neighbourhood varies from
neighbourhoods with low land-use mix (L4) (Fig. 6). NH4 and NH10
0.61 min for NH1 (as this is the major cross junction node) to 26.48 for
open spaces are attributed to the presence of gardens and institutional
the NH11 in fringe. As the distance from CBD increases, the bus fre-
areas. Even though neighbourhoods with low land-use mix (NH11 and
quency decreases and the waiting time increases. NH2 being highly
NH12) have highest open spaces, but they are neither maintained nor
congested doesn't have bus route and the bus stop, so the nearest bus
used for community benefits. Many times, they are used for dumping
stop is considered to calculate bus frequency (Fig. 9).
waste, encroached or are vacant.

4.3. Accessibility indicators 4.4. Road infrastructure indicators

Access to Various Amenities. Some neighbourhoods have good access
to shops and offices while others have open areas at proximity and
neighbourhoods in the city's periphery have minimal access to basic
amenities. Access to five basic amenities are presented on a five-point
scale, where 1 is low and 5 is high accessibility (Fig. 7).
Road Carrying Capacity. The carrying capacity of the major road in
neighbourhoods with high and moderate-high land-use mix (L1 and L2)
are very low indicating the roads are highly congested. The worst case
is for NH2 where the service flow ratio is 3.16. The carrying capacity of
residential road is in a sustainable range except for neighbourhoods

Fig. 5. Tree density. Fig. 8. Distance to bus stop.

92
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
Fig. 9. Bus frequency.
Fig. 10. Road carrying capacity.
with high land-use mix (L1) (Fig. 10).
Road Pattern and Complete Network. Overall, the Nagpur city road
network is distributed evenly connecting all parts of the city within and
from outside, but connectivity is poor in newly developed fringe areas.
Areas within L2 (NH5 and NH6), L3 and L4 (NH10) are connected with
arterial roads. Neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1) have or-
ganic road network, high traffic and congestion prevails. The road
width here in few lanes is very narrow (1.5 m) making difficult even for
a two-wheeler to move. NH10 have properly designed, maintained,
clear and complete road network, but they discourage pedestrian
movement. It has more footpath cover as compared to other areas. Even
though these footpaths are wide (till 3 m) they are around 0.3 m high
with multiple dis-connectivity adding to inconvenience. Here, pedes-
trians are comparatively lesser than in other neighbourhoods. The most
critical problem of road connectivity is in neighbourhoods with low
land-use mix (NH11 and NH12) where less than 50% areas lack major
road connectivity. The existing roads are designed with poor road de-
sign and geometry with no footpaths.
Traffic Speed Indicators. The speed of both two and four-wheelers are
at par with each other. A very low traffic speed in neighbourhoods with
high land-use mix (L1) is due to the narrow width and encroachment on
roads. Many streets in neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1) are
so narrow that they do not allow four-wheeler's movement (Fig. 11).
Traffic speed for neighbourhoods with moderate-high land-use mix (L2)
neighbourhoods is moderate to low. Traffic speed in NH10 is more than
30 km/h, which is dangerous for residential areas as they are prone to
accidents. Traffic speed in NH12 is low because of poor road conditions
and an incomplete road network.
Fig. 11. Vehicle traffic speed.
93
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
Fig. 12. Fatal Accidents (safety index).
4.5. Safety indicators
Fatal Accidents. The Nagpur city has threshold safety index, neither
too safe nor too unsafe [38]. The rate of accidents is minimum in
neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (NH2 and NH3). Literature
[57] and survey revealed that the very low traffic speed results to a less
number of accident injuries. NH1 is unsafe due to mix traffic. The oc-
currence of accidents is due to the absence of separate lanes for slow
and fast moving vehicles and lack of adequate and efficient footpaths
for pedestrians. Thus, slow movers are forced to share the right of way
with fast moving vehicles. In NH6 accidents is attributed to a poor
traffic sense of the residents. In NH10 accidents are due to high traffic
speed. Other neighbourhoods have moderate accident rates. Neigh-
bourhoods with low land-use mix (NH11 and NH12) are most unsafe
due to poor road facilities and infrastructure (Fig. 12).
Thefts. Thefts are more in sprawled fringe neighbourhoods with low
land-use mix (NH11 and NH12) (Fig. 13). The leapfrog development
here makes residents more prone to get trapped by theft. Amongst the
different category of thefts, most common is two-wheeler theft followed
by house-break theft.
4.6. Weights
Weights reflect the relative importance given to each indicator
[58,59,60]. This study assigns ‘Expert Opinion Survey’ to weight the
indicators. Thirty experts from urban planning and design discipline
with ample academic or professional experience from the city partici-
pated in the survey. They were asked to assign the ranking for weight
calculation. The study brief was presented and the ‘Ranking Survey
Sheet’ was provided to them. The indicators were ranked from one
(low) to twenty (high) according to their preference of importance for
measuring the sustainability of the neighbourhoods in the context of
Nagpur. The cumulative ranking of each indicator was calculated using
Microsoft Excel 2013 software and then the mean of ranking by an
expert for each indicator was computed. After completing the process of
ranking, weights for each indicator were calculated using an equation
(5) based on experts' ranking.
1 = x + 2x + 3x + …+20x (5)
Where, x is the common factor of each indicator and x, 2×, 3×, …,
20× are the weights for twenty indicators. These scores are scaled from
0 to 1. Table 4 indicates the ranking and the weights assigned to each
Fig. 13. Thefts per 1000 persons.
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97

Table 4 decision of expert opinion and equal weights with the statistical output
Indicator Weights based on Expert Opinion Survey (1 low to 20 high). by PCA.
Sr.No. Indicators Ranking Weights
4.8. Environmental and transport domains
1 Population Density 20 0.0952
2 Working Population Density 1 0.0048
3 Noise on Major road 7 0.0333 To get the insight of the indictor domains the Sustainability Indices
4 Noise on Residential road 8 0.0381 are computed separately for environmental (six indicators) and trans-
5 Tree Density per Hectare 14 0.0667 port (twelve indicators) domains. Equal weighted normalized indicator
6 Tree Density per Ten Person 17 0.0810
scores are aggregated by Equation (6), where n is six, w is 1/6 (equal
7 Open Space per Neighbourhood area 13 0.0619
8 Open Space per Capita 15 0.0714
weights) for environmental domain, and n is twelve, w is 1/12 (equal
9 Access to various amenities 19 0.0905 weights) for transport domain, and I correspond to the normalized in-
10 Distance to bus stops 16 0.0762 dicator score.
11 Bus Frequency 12 0.0571
12 Carrying Capacity of Major Road 6 0.0286
13 Carrying Capacity of Residential Road 5 0.0238 5. Discussion
14 Road Network and Pattern 18 0.0857
15 Two wheelers Speed on Major road 3 0.0143
The sustainability index of neighbourhoods varies from 0.359 for
16 Two wheelers Speed on Residential road 11 0.0524
17 Four wheelers Speed on Major road 2 0.0095 NH1 to 20.787 for NH8. It indicates that the studied neighbourhoods
18 Four wheelers Speed on Residential road 10 0.0476 are neither very high (score 5) nor very low (score 1) sustainable. High
19 Fatal Accidents per One lakh Persons 9 0.0429 mixed land-use neighbourhoods are under medium to low sustainability
20 Thefts per Thousand Persons 4 0.0190 level and moderate mixed neighbourhoods are at medium to satisfac-
tory level of sustainability. Moderate mix neighbourhoods are ranked in
the range of first to a seventh position followed by low mix neigh-
indicator based on the expert opinion ranking survey.
bourhoods. The tenth to twelfth rank goes to high mixed land-use
neighbourhoods. NH10 is placed at a sixth position due to superior
4.7. Aggregation
infrastructure (Table 5 (b) and Fig. 14).
It is observed that the sustainability indices extracted through the
Scores are linearly aggregated by equation (6) to compute a com-
expert opinion survey, equal indicator weights and PCA are at par with
posite indicator and sustainability index for each neighbourhood. The
each other. This indicates the robustness of the study. The correlation of
Composite Indicator (CI), Sustainability Index (SI), Sustainability Level
sustainability index extracted through expert opinion survey is 0.979
(SL) and ranking of the neighbourhoods are presented in Table 5 (a).
for equal weights and 0.937 for principal component analysis.
The composite indicator scores are in the range of 0–5. It is converted to
The correlation of sustainability indices of twenty indicators with
0 to 1 scale to compute the sustainability index. Sustainability index is
mixed land-use measure is -0.408 (less correlation ship). This could be
in the range of 0.356 for NH2 to 0.787 for NH8. The study is further
the consequence of more number of diverse indicators. Thus, the in-
presented in five comparative sustainability levels to know the status of
dividual domain results are studied. The environmental sustainability
sustainability. The final ranking is decided based on the sustainability
index is correlated to mixed land-use measure, the score -0.81 indicates
index score.
both are high-negatively correlated. It means that environment act as
n an externality (cost) in neighbourhoods with high land-use mix and
Composite Indicator = ∑ wi Ii environmental improvement should be at priority. The correlation of
i=1 (6)
sustainability index of transport domain with mixed land-use measure
where, n is 20 (number of indicators); w is the weights of each indicator is -0.265 indicating poor correlation. It is not directly supporting prior
as mentioned in Table 4 and I corresponds to the normalized indicator studies. The disparity is due to the inadequate infrastructure in high
score (1–5) Table 5 (b). mix neighbourhoods. But moderate mix neighbourhoods show a fair
The sustainability indices are also calculated using equal weights amount of correlation-ship.
technique and Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a multivariate The red colour in Table 5 (a,b) indicates the sustainability perfor-
statistical method to strengthen the study. It compares the subjective mance of indictor is poor. Poor performance is noticed in

Table 5a
Sustainability Index.

94
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
Table 5b
Neighbourhoods with Normalized Indicator Score indicating Sustainability.
neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1). The residents in these
neighbourhoods mentioned dissatisfaction due to congestion and lack
of infrastructure. The neighbourhoods with low land-use mix (L4)
sprawled areas are low sustainable due to poor accessibility and lack of
infrastructure. These areas represent the scope of increasing land-use
mix and the provision of better infrastructure facilities here. Within the
same mix land-use index range, the neighbourhoods show some var-
iations in certain characteristics like access to certain amenities and
infrastructure provision. The neighbourhoods with moderate land-use
mix (L2 and L3) have medium to medium-high sustainability levels, but
the neighbourhoods with high land-use mix (L1) and low land-use mix
(L4- NH11 and NH12) have medium to medium-low sustainability le-
vels.
Fig. 14. Sustainability index.
95
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
6. Conclusion
Indian cities has an evident residential and commercial land-use
mix-old core areas have high mix of commercial use, where residential
uses are replaced by commercial activities due to economic market
pressure; sub CBD and other intermediate areas have moderate land-use
mix; and fringe areas have a low land-use mix.
The performance based benchmarking for indicators helps to un-
derstand the critical domain in each neighbourhood. To achieve sus-
tainability the aim is to reach the benchmarked threshold. Studied
neighbourhoods in Nagpur have sustainability level between medium-
low to medium-high, no neighbourhood has neither low nor high sus-
tainability. The neighbourhoods with moderate land-use mix are more
sustainable than high or low. Thus, this study states that a very high
and a very low mix of commercial and residential is not a successful
situation in land-use planning, while a range of commercial: residential
ratio of 1:3 to 1:18 is desirable for sustainability.
The sustainability index generated from this framework can act as a
tool for the policy maker and stakeholders for effective decision making
and raising awareness concerning the need to develop and maintain
sustainability of an urban area. It provides guidance for the mitigation
action on the priority basis as the results are represented in terms of
individual indicators and cumulative sustainability index. This frame-
work can be a prototype for other similar cities to assess sustainability
at neighbourhood level.
This study is conducted with twelve neighbourhoods and study of
more number of neighbourhoods could have provided more options. It
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
selects neighbourhoods on the varying mix category; the framework can
be developed for different neighbourhoods on its generic character-
istics.
This study is based on a different combination of indicator domains.
Similar study can be carried out giving emphasis on any one or com-
bination of the following domains-environmental, social, economic,
land-use or built environment, transport, infrastructure (physical and
social) and stakeholders' perception. With the availability and improved
quality of data in future, the new indicators can be added in the mea-
surement of sustainability index.
Trade-offs and synergies (between indicators) depending on the
share of mix-use can be explored in future studies. The empirical study
supported by simulation method(s) can be adopted to simulate and
understand alternate possible development patterns.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] E. Burton, M. Jenks, K. Williams, Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, E & FN Spon,
London, 2000.
[2] J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage, 1961.
[3] K. Saville-Smith, M. Dwyer, J. Warren, Valuing Sustainable Neighbourhoods Final,
(2009) Report NH3112/2 for Beacon Pathway Limited.
[4] K. Saville-Smith, K. Lietz, D. Bijoux, M. Howell, Neighbourhood Sustainability
Framework: Prototype," NH101 Prepared for Beacon Pathway Limited, (2005).
[5] D. Rudlin, N. Falk, Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood: Building the 21st Century
Home, Routledge, 2009.
[6] A. Sharifi, A. Murayama, Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: cross-
evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and
Japan, Build. Environ. 72 (2014) 243–258.
[7] H. Barton, Sustainable communities: the potential for eco-neighborhoods,
Earthscan, London, 2000.
[8] UN, "A New Strategy of Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning: Five Principles,
Urban Planning Discussion Note 3 UN-habitat for a Better Urban Future," UN-ha-
bitat for a Better Urban Future, (2014) [Online]. Available http://unhabitat.org/
wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-Principles_web.pdf [Accessed 2015].
[9] U. Berardi, Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems,
Environment, Development and Sustainability 15 (6) (2013) 1573–1591.
[10] A. Sharifi, A. Murayam, A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustain-
ability assessment tools, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 (2013) 73–87.
[11] R. Hargreaves, M. Howell, K. Lietz, R. Jaques, C. Eason, R. Vale, J. Mackay,
S. Pandey, A. Greenaway, Neighbourhoods, NBH1: neighbourhood research base-
line, (2004) New Zealand.
[12] "A Global Survey of Urban Sustainability Rating Tools, Criterion Planners, Portland,
Oregon (November 2014) [Online]. Available http://crit.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/11/criterion_planners_sustainability_ratings_tool.pdf [Accessed 10
June 2015].
[13] Josefin Wangel, Marita Wallhagena, Tove Malmqvist, G. Finnveden, Certification
systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: what do they really certify? Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 56 (2016) 200–213.
[14] A. Reith, M. Orova, Do Green Neighbourhood Ratings Cover Sustainability? Ecol.
Indic. vol 48, (2015) 660–672.
[15] R. Mateus and L. Bragança, "Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings: de-
veloping the methodology SBTool PT–H," Build. Environ., vol. 46, no. 10, pp.
1962–1971.
[16] Global Scientific Inc, "Environmental Status Report of Nagpur City, Traffic and
Transportation, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, 2008-2009 2010.
[17] S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar, Assessing sustainability of mixed use neighbourhoods
through residents' travel behaviour and perception: the case of Nagpur, India,
Sustainability 7 (9) (2015) 12164–12189.
[18] UNFPA, Population Matters for Sustainable Development, The United Nation
Population Fund, 2012, https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/
UNFPA%20Population%20matters%20for%20sustainable%20development_1.pdf.
[19] V. J. R, C. Kennedy, A spatial analysis of residentail greenhouse gas emmission in
the toronto cencus metropolitan area, J. Indi. Ecol. 11 (2) (2007) 133–144.
[20] E. Säynäjoki, J. Heinonen, S. Junnila, Urban Density and Local Sustainability – a
Case Study in Finland, 189th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference on
13-16 January, 2013 Melbourne Australia.
[21] Rod Burgess, Mike Jenks, R. Burgess, M. Jenks (Eds.), Compact Cities: Sustainable
Urban Forms for Developing Countries Edited by, Taylor & Francis, 2000.
[22] C. Wolf, S. Dalal, J. DaVanzo, E.V. Larson, A. Akhmedjonov, H. Dogo, M. Huang,
S. Montoya, China and India, 2025, a Comparative Assessment, RAND Corporation
National Defence Research Insti, 2011.
[23] UDPFI, Urban development plans formulation and implementation guidelines,
Institute of Town Planners, India, New Delhi, 1996.
96
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
[24] Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, "District Census
2011," 15 May 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.census2011.co.in/district.
php. [Accessed 5 September 2015].
[25] M. Concha-Barrientos, D. Campbell-Lendrum, K. Steenland, Occupational Noise:
Assessing the Burden of Disease from Work-related Hearing Impairment at National
and Local Levels WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Seri, World Health
Organization, Geneva, 2004.
[26] CPCB, The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, under Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2000 Gazette of
India, vide S.O.123(E).
[27] F. Dur, The Integrated Land Use and Transportation Indexing Model: Assessing the
Sustainability of the Gold Coast Australia, (2012).
[28] D. Dizdaroglu, A Micro-levelindexing Model for the Assessment of Sustainabvle
Urban Ecosystems, School of Civil Engineering and Built Environmnet, Queensland
University of Technology, 2013.
[29] R.A. Memon, D. Leung, Y.C. Opens, A review on the generation, determination and
mitigation of Urban Heat Island, J. Environ. Sci. 20 (1) (2008) 120–128.
[30] Arbor Day Foundation, Benefits of Trees, Arbor Day Foundation, 2015 [Online].
Available https://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm [Accessed 10 April 2015].
[31] NMC, Nagpur City Environmental Status Report (2011-12), Garden Department,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, 2012.
[32] S.M.A. Haq, Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable en-
vironment, J. Environ. Prot. 2 (2011) 601–608.
[33] W. Xiao-Jun, Analysis of problems in urban green space system planning in China,
J. For. Res. 20 (1) (2009) 79–82.
[34] V.S. Singh, D.N. Pandey, P. Chaudhry, Urban Forests and Open Green Spaces:
Lessons for Jaipur, Rajasthan, India, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
(RSPCB), Jaipur, 2010 Occasional Paper.
[35] M. Thériault, F.D. Rosiers, Modelling perceived accessibility to urban amenities
using fuzzy logic, transportation GIS and origin-destination surveys, 7th AGILE
Conference on Geographic Information Science 29 April- 1, May 2004 Heraklion,
Greece, 2004.
[36] H. Dittmar, G. Ohland, The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented
Development, Ialand Press, Washington D.C, 2004, p. 120.
[37] GoI. MoUD, Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs) for Urban Transport at a Glance,
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi, 2010.
[38] Wilbur Smith Associates, Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and
Strategies in Urban Areas in India, MoUD, GoI, 2008.
[39] S. Mavoa, K. Witten, J. Pearce, P. Day, Measuring Neighbourhood Walkability in
New Zealand Cities, Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation Massey University, 2009.
[40] B.E. Saelens, J.F. Sallis, L.D. Frank, Environmental correlates of walking and cy-
cling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literature, Ann.
Behav. Med. 25 (2) (2003) 80–91.
[41] K. Lucas, "Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for en-
vironmental justice in the UK, Transportation Res. Part A (40) (2006) 801–809.
[42] H. Kim, Walking Distance, Route Choice, and Activities while Walking: a Record of
Following Pedestrians from Transit Stations in the San Francisco Bay Area, Urban
Des. Int. vol 20, (2015) 144–157.
[43] A. Blackmore, A Neighbourhood Sustainability Framework for New Zealand:
Beacon's Research and Tools, Beacon Pathway Incorporated, 2012.
[44] Booz & Company, Melbourne Public Transport Standards Review, State Governmnet
of Victoria, Department of Transport Melbourne, 2008.
[45] T.V. Mathew, Capacity and Level of Service LOS, Lecture Notes in Traffic
Engineering and Management vol. 5, (August 2014) [Online]. Available http://
www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tvm/1111_nptel/551_CapLOS/plain/plain.html [Accessed
November 2014].
[46] IRC, IRC-106 -1990, Guidelines for Capacity of Urban Roads in Plain Areas, Indian
Roads Congress, New Delhi, 1990.
[47] SWOV, SWOV Factsheet Zones 30: Urban Residential Areas, Institute for Road
Safety Research, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, 2010.
[48] K. Watkins, Safe and Sustainable Roads an Agenda for Rio+20, (2012) [Online].
Available http://www.makeroadssafe.org/publications/Documents/Rio_20_Report_
lr.pdf [Accessed 15 September 2014].
[49] J.J. Nolan, Establishing the statistical relationship between population size and
UCR crime rate: Its impact and implications, Journal of Criminal Justice 32 (2004)
547–555.
[50] Crime Rates, Discover the Safest Neighbourhoods in Any City, Location INC, 2015
[Online]. Available http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-
rates/ [Accessed 15 January 2015].
[51] Demographic Trends 2012, Subnational Demographic Projections," Statistics New
Zealand, (April 2015) [Online]. Available http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_
stats/population/estimates_and_projections/demographic-trends-2012/subnational
%20demographic%20projections.aspx [Accessed 15 January 2015].
[52] B. Berglund, T. Lindvall, D.H. Schwela, Guidelines for Community Noise, World
Health Organization, Geneva, 1999.
[53] H.S. Singh, Tree density and canopy cover in the urban areas in Gujarat, India, Curr.
Sci. 104 (10) (2013) 1294–1299.
[54] D.T. Duncan, J. Aldstadt, J. Whalen, S.J. Melly, S.L. Gortmaker, Validation of walk
score for estimating neighborhood walkability: an analysis of four US metropolitan
areas, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8 (2011) 4160–4179.
[55] R. Ewing, R. Hodder, Best Development Practices: a Primer for Smart Growth,
Smart Growth Network International City/County Management Association,
Washington, D.C, 1998.
[56] T. Yigitcanlar, N.G. Sipe, R. Evans, M. Pitot, A GIS-based land use and public
transport accessibility indexing model, Australian Planner 43 (3) (2007) 30–37.
S. Bahadure, R. Kotharkar
[57] W. Odero1, P. Garner, A. Zwi, Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a
comprehensive review of epidemiological studies, Trop. Med. Int. Health 2 (5)
(1997) 445–460.
[58] OECD, Household behaviour and the environment reviewing the evidence,
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development, France, 2008.
[59] M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, Workpackage 5, input to handbook
97
Building and Environment 127 (2018) 86–97
of good practices for composite indicators' development, deliverable 5.2," european
commission by funding from the sixth framework programme for research, (2005).
[60] J. Kondyli, "Measurement and evaluation of sustainable development: a composite
indicator for the islands of the North Aegean region, Greece, Environ. Imp.
Assessment Rev. 30 (6) (2010) 347–356.