- Email: [email protected]
Urban sustainability mobility assessment: indicators proposal
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect AvailableScienceDirect online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740
9th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, SEB-17, 5-7 July 2017, Chania, Crete, Greeceand Buildings, SEB-17, 5-7 July 2017, 9th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy Chania, Crete, Greece
Urban sustainability mobility assessment: indicators proposal Urban sustainability mobility assessment: indicators proposal a a
Joaquim Macedoa*, Fernanda Rodriguesa and Fernando Tavaresb Joaquim Macedoa*, Fernanda Rodriguesa and Fernando Tavaresb RISCO, Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal
b CivilCivil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal RISCO, Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal b Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal
Abstract Abstract The main goal of this paper is to analyse the flexibility and applicability of urban sustainability assessment methodologies, and propose approach the is sustainable of urban areas, also focused mobility. Current high importance of urban The mainangoal of thisfor paper to analyseassessment the flexibility and applicability of urbanonsustainability assessment methodologies, and sustainability, considering its constantly evolving, associated with a growing environmental awareness of the population, propose an approach for the sustainable assessment of urban areas, also focused on mobility. Current high importance ofresults urban on the need toconsidering reevaluate its theconstantly current management systems with for sustainability of urban centers, trying them a results larger sustainability, evolving, associated a growing environmental awareness of to thegive population, organization efficiency,the associated with a low socio-economic impact. Different sustainability assessment on the need and to reevaluate current management systems for sustainability of urban centers, trying to give methodologies them a larger were analysedand andefficiency, it was concluded thatwith haveatolow be complemented have a Different more balanced distribution of its indicators among organization associated socio-economictoimpact. sustainability assessment methodologies the different sustainability dimensions. Based on literature review, four sustainable dimensions were considered in this study: were analysed and it was concluded that have to be complemented to have a more balanced distribution of its indicators among environmental, social, economic and cultural for urbandimensions mobility. Awere new considered proposal ofin anthis indicators the different sustainability dimensions. Basedthat onincludes literaturespecific review,indicators four sustainable study: system for urban sustainability A balanced distribution of the indicators within the four environmental, social, economicassessment and culturalwas thatproposed. includes specific indicators for urban mobility. A new proposal of andimensions indicators and a more flexiblesustainability and suitable assessment indicators were system for urban was obtained. proposed. A balanced distribution of the indicators within the four dimensions and a more flexible and suitable indicators were obtained. © 2017 2017 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by by Elsevier Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. © Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. Keywords: Urban, mobility, sustainability, indicators. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. Keywords: Urban, mobility, sustainability, indicators.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction The environmental dimension is one of the main concerns of sustainability studies since its beginning [1, 2, 3]. However, the vision ondimension the study is of one sustainability hasconcerns widenedoftosustainability consider other dimensions likebeginning the economic The environmental of the main studies since its [1, 2,and 3]. social issues 3] that were considered since the EarthtoSummit ]. These dimensions contribute to and the However, the [2, vision on the study of sustainability has1992 widened consider[3other dimensions like the economic knowledge the 3] sustainability impact at urban for example, within the the density of buildings,toland Theseof dimensions contribute the social issuesof [2, that were considered sincelevel, the 1992 Earth Summit [3].study use or even of thethe organization of urban [4].level, for example, within the study of the density of buildings, land knowledge sustainability impactlayouts at urban use or even the organization of urban layouts [4]. * Corresponding author. E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding
E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review [KES International]. 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International].
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.569
732
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Thus, three important dimensions (also known as vectors or pillars) support urban sustainability: environmental, economic and social, characterized by more than 700 indicators [5]. The number of sustainability dimensions has generated some controversy having some authors that refer the existence of one more: the cultural. The Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council [6] and Ameen et al. [2] suggests this dimension, to justify the need to understand the cultural differences that exist relatively to the Middle East population. Tweed and Sutherland [7] refers the increase recognition that the built cultural heritage has a significant impact on the social wellbeing of different population groups, living increasingly in cosmopolitan towns and cities. Geniaux et al. [8] and Singh et al. [9], sustains that there is a need to create a fourth vector, the institutional one, since there are indicators evaluated in the other three dimensions that could easily be exchanged for this one and be certainly identified by the institutional side, mainly due to interdependencies between dimensions. Shen et al. [10] advocate governance as the fourth dimension, arguing that there is a need for development, by creating opportunities for public participation in decision-making. According to Ameen et al. [2], the greatest challenge is not to fill economic, social or environmental deficits, but also to promote the preservation of local cultural values in order to conserve the different identities of communities. Documents and organizations such as Agenda 21, UNESCO, World Summit on Sustainable Development, among others, have been struggling for the inclusion of the cultural dimension as one of sustainable development, since is directly associated with the development and behaviour of the different globe’s populations [11]. So, considering the above and similarly to Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council [6] and Ameen et al. [2] the sustainability analysis indicators proposed in this work consider four dimensions, including the cultural one. In spite of this institutional and governance indicators are included in social and economic dimensions. Sustainability assessment methodologies in urban areas have been developed in order to meet requirements from the point of view of land use and territory planning. The increasing urbanization has been responsible for the loss of some ecosystems and land areas in order to meet the intensification demand for urban resources. Besides that, sustainability assessment methodologies also promote sustainable urbanization leading to achieve some goals proposed by the management/governmental entities and international institutions [10]. According to Pacheco [12], the accessibility and mobility conditions are fundamental in the decision-making on the location and access of interest urban locations, being the large urban centers the most dependent of those conditions. At urban level the land use and land demand, are also dependent on mobility, supported on a more efficient modal split, reducing the distances between points of interest and using, mainly, more sustainable modes of transport, namely public transports, bike and walk. Aiming to achieve these goals, in the 1990s, Portugal adopted the Common Transport Policy of the European Union (EU). This policy was based on the sustainable mobility, which would discourage unnecessary transport demand by developing appropriate spatial planning policies and promoting alternative transport modes in order to reduce the use of the most polluting, private car [12]. 2. Methodology 2.1. Urban sustainable assessment methodologies: analysis According to Bragança et al. [13], the development of sustainability assessment methodologies, a process that has been going on for more than two decades, has been more focused on the evaluation of buildings and their components. However, as stated by Ameen et al. [2] and Gargiulo and Daniotti [14], it is so important to assess the sustainability of the building as of the urban environment in which are inserted. The lack of efficiency in the sustainability assessment of urban environments is because many of the indicators used have interdependencies between them, being the application of these indicators a challenge, since the performance of one indicator is linked with others [2]. In response to this implementation barrier, there is a need to develop methodologies based on networks grouping indicators with interdependencies into categories, depending on the different areas of intervention, for example, environment and green spaces, health and wellbeing, land use, transport and circulation, public space and social cohesion, culture and education, among others [2, 5, 15, 16, 17]. Although, the development of sustainability assessment methodologies of urban environments is a relatively recent process, several projects, indices, evaluation frameworks or even tools dedicated to specific characteristics of each region have already been developed [2]. The evolution of these processes demonstrates once again the importance of sustainability in urban planning and decision-making [18].
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
733
2.2. Selected methodologies In Portugal, the sustainability study of urban areas has a relatively small evolution compared to other countries where tools to analyse this issue were developed. In England the BREEAM Community [19, 20], in the United States of America the LEED - ND [21, 22], in Australia the Green Star Sustainable Communities [23], in Spain, where a proposal for a structure of indicators for the Spanish context was developed [5, 15, 24]. In these countries, sustainability in urban areas has been part of the foundations of a better urban organization. Currently, in Portugal, there are two tools dedicated to the study of the sustainability of urban areas: LiderA and SBToolPT [17, 25, 26]. In an initial phase of development, both LiderA and SBToolPT were more directed to the building. Recently both have undergone some changes in order to extend its application to the urban areas. In 2009, version 2.0 of LiderA was launched, focusing not only on buildings but also on outdoor spaces, including blocks, neighborhoods and other projects. In 2014, the SBToolPT developed the Urban Planning (PU) version, but the knowledge about this tool is still reduced, since its application guide has not yet been officially published [2, 17]. From the existent sustainable assessment tools and projects, a group of six tools was selected. The selection criteria were based on the inclusion of urban sustainability assessment indicators. Table 1 and 2 depict different aspects of each one, such as, scope, classification system, indicators structure, type of indicators, among others. Table 1 - Summary of each sustainability assessment methodology Tool/Country
Publication Year
Last Version
References
Scope
Classification System A++, A+ e A – more efficient
LiderA Portugal
2005
2011
[16]
Urban areas including buildings
B, C e D - good E – usual practice G – less efficient Platine > 80 pontos
LEED – ND USA
2006
2013
[22, 27, 28, 29]
The whole neighborhood, including urbanized and nonurbanized areas
Gold > 60 pontos Silver > 50 pontos Certified > 40 pontos Exceptional > 85 %
BREEAM Communities
Excellent > 70 % 2007
2014
[19, 30]
United Kingdom
Urban areas including residential and non-residential areas
Very good > 55 % Good > 45 % Certified > 30 % Not certified < 30 %
SBToolPT –PU Portugal Spanish Context Spain Barcelona Spain
2009
2014
[17]
Urban areas, mainly housing areas
-
2015
2015
[5]
Urban areas belonging to the city context and surrounding areas
-
2010
2010
[15]
Consolidated residential and non-residential urban areas
-
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
734
Table 2 – Structure of each sustainability assessment methodology Tool
Indicators: type/number
Mandatory indicators
Indicators ponderation
43 quantitative and qualitative indicators
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations. Do not depend on the application context.
12 prerequisites of mandatory assessment
Rigid ponderations. Do not depend on the application context.
12 indicators of mandatory assessment and 28 of optional assessment
Different ponderations dependent on the assessment context, only within the United Kingdom.
Not yet published
Not yet published
Not yet published.
73 quantitative and qualitative indicators
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations developed to the Spanish context.
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations developed to the Spanish context, in particular to the city of Barcelona.
Structure 6 categories
LiderA
22 areas 43 indicators
44 indicators
44 quantitative indicators (1 to be defined by the local manager)
12 prerequisites
12 prerequisites
5 categories LEED - ND
BREEAM Communities
5 categories 3 stages 40 indicators
Quantitative 1st stage – 11 indicators 2nd stage- 17 indicators 3rd stage – 12 indicators
12 categories SBToolPT - PU
Spanish context
Barcelona
41 indicators 14 categories 69 subcategories 73 indicators 7 scopes
52 quantitative
52 indicators
indicators
2.3. Methodologies comparative analysis In each sustainability assessment tool, considering the interdependencies between indicators, is difficult to group some indicators in a given category or dimension since the same indicator can be easily associated to two or more different dimensions/categories [2]. The indicators interdependencies improve the way how the structures of evaluation tools are organized, since it advises that all indicators with similarities should be grouped into categories or dimensions and, in the absence of a category where they fit, there is a need to develop a new one. The 6 tools under analysis have a different number of categories, varying from LEED - ND with 5 categories, to the proposal for the Spanish context, with 14 categories. As referred by Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], the number of categories and the information to be evaluated by each category, has been the object of study of several authors, such as Bourdic et al. [31], which suggests the adoption of nine categories: “land use”, “mobility”, “water”, “biodiversity”, “equity”, “economy”, “wastes”, “cultural/wellness” and “energy”. Luederitz et al. [32] proposes the adoption of eleven categories: “function”, “structure”, “context”, “leakage effects”, “socioecological system integrity”, “livelihood sufficiency and opportunity”, “intra-generational equity”, “inter-generational equity”, and there is no consensus to date. In spite of the difficulties in framing certain indicators in a given sustainability dimension, due to interdependencies between them, for each tool or system under study it was done the distribution of the number of indicators by each one of the four dimensions (environmental, economic, social and cultural) (Fig. 1) based on the approach depict on [2]. Analysing Fig. 1 it is possible to verify the disparity that exists in the attribution of weight to the different dimensions in each tool and indicators systems analysed (depicted in Table 2). Fig. 1 shows the greater importance given to environmental and social dimensions (with the correspondent high number of indicators)
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
735
against the economic and cultural ones (with the attribution of a low number of indicators), reinforcing the disparities in the assessment of the different dimensions involved. Even if the choice of indicators were made in accordance with local needs, it would be expected that the distribution of the indicators, according to the four sustainability dimensions, would be more homogeneous. In order to assign indicators to the application of sustainability assessment tools, some authors have provided two types of indicators: prerequisites or mandatory indicators and optional indicators [2, 21]. The assessment according to mandatory parameters permits the application in different locations (e.g. with different legal requirements). The optional indicators depends on the context of application, that is, for example, the needs of the communities under evaluation. LiderA Environmental 56%
Cultural 2%
7% Economic
LEED - ND
BREEAM - Co.
Environmental 48%
Environmental 45%
Cultural 7%
2% Economic
Social 35%
Social 43%
SBTooL PT - PU
Spanish Context
Environmental 41%
Environmental 41%
Cultural 7%
Cultural 8%
10 % Economic
Social 40%
Barcelona Environmental 44%
Cultural 10%
16% Economic
Social 41%
8% Economic
Cultural 2%
17% Economic
Social 37%
Social 33%
Fig. 1. Distribution of indicators within the four dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social and cultural)
According to Ameen et al. [2], the indicators and the number of mandatory indicators differ between the various tools, as depicted in Table 3. Relatively to this there is no consensus among different authors, being only consensual that all indicators based on legal obligations, whether they are local, regional, national or international, are mandatory as indicated by Pinheiro [16]. Table 3 - Distribution of mandatory indicators (adapted from [2]) Tool
Total Number of Indicators
Number of Mandatory Indicators
Percentage of Mandatory Indicators (%)
LiderA
43
43
100
LEED – ND
56
12
21
BREEAM – Co.
40
12
30
SBToolPT - PU
41
41
100
Spanish Context
73
73
100
Barcelona
52
52
100
Although all of the tools have mandatory indicators, the reference values can be different, since they depend on the local regulation where they have to be applied. According to Poveda and Lipsett [33], the classification of the sustainability assessment has as main objective to verify the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of pre-defined requirements (according with each tool, location and context of application), and to distinguish between urban zones
736
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
with different approaches to sustainability (mainly at environmental impact level), valuing the most sustainable areas in demerit of the valuation of the less ones. Thus, in addition to supporting decision-making relatively to territory planning, urban sustainability assessment methodologies also have the capacity to establish differentiation between different contexts [10]. Ameen et al. [2] state that the weights are defined based on a multicriteria analysis and rely on data, usually available in international or local databases, being possible to assign a weighting to each indicator and consequently establish a final classification table. However, a hierarchical analytical process, as in LEED-ND and BREEAM Communities [2, 19, 29], can determine these weightings. 2.4. Results and discussion One of the main barriers to a wider application of sustainability assessment tools is the application to different contexts with different needs. Since most of the indicators and correspondent weights have been developed for very specific contexts, the range of application of each one of the tools ends up being limited. As stated by Ameen et al. [2], one of the major differences among sustainability assessment tools is that they reflect evaluation processes based on local requirements. Even within the same country, there are cities with different requirements, which make the application of some sustainability assessment tools invalid in certain regions of the globe [34]. In addition to the lack of flexibility of application stated above, the assessment tools, even those directed developed for Portugal (LiderA and SBToolPT – PU), depict an inconsistent evaluation, assessing fundamentally the environmental and social dimensions in demerit of the other two dimensions: economic and cultural. Given this, from the point of view of the Portuguese territory, there is a need to develop a new assessment tool based on local needs and also with a more coherent distribution of indicators, giving more importance to the economic and cultural aspects than the previously tools analysed. 3. System of indicators: proposal 3.1. General proposal After analysing the indicators and assessment requirements of the six tools (Table 2 and 3) it was concluded that LEED-ND and BREAM Communities are similar, as well the system of indicators for the Spanish context and the system of indicators for large and medium-sized cities. Taking into consideration the similarities between tools, Fig. 2 only shows the analysis for the LEED-ND and the indicator system for the Spanish context, as well for the two Portuguese systems. The proposed system is organized according two levels, where the hierarchically higher level has 10 categories, subdivided by 65 indicators, which make the second level of the hierarchy. The 10 categories proposed in the system were obtained based on the study of the analysed tools categories and in function of the interdependencies between indicators, grouping them by areas of interest, and later defining the theme of each category around those areas. Further details can be found in [35]. Fig.2 shows the relation between the categories of the four systems considered with their equivalents in the proposed system. The proposed indicators system presents a more balanced distribution of indicators, as shown in Fig. 3. The distribution of the number of indicators by the four sustainable dimensions show a more homogeneous distribution within the four dimensions than the tools and indicators systems evaluated in the previous section, resulting in a more efficient sustainability assessment. The proposed indicators can still be adapted to suit local needs and requirements, being, as suggested by Pinheiro [16], based on regulations or legislation: local, regional, national or international.
Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia (2017) 000–000 Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy00Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740
LiderA
Local integration
LEED – ND
Smart location and accessibility
Environmental comfort Efficiency in resources consumption
Green infrastructure and buildings
Sustainable use
Spanish context
Urban form
Urban morphology
Land use and infrastructure
Local and land use
Mobility and transports
Transports and circulation
Ecology and biodiversity
Nature and biodiversity
Green spaces
Energy
Energy
Resources and energy
Materials Waste
Waste
Pollution Comfort and outdoor areas Safety
Social aspect
Public space, habitability and social cohesion Health and wellness
Amenities Innovation and development processes
Land use
Mobility
Materials and waste
Neighborhood framing and design
Proposed system
Building and housing
Water
Environmental loads
Socioeconomic adaptability
SBToolPT - PU
737
Promotion of employment and investment
Economic aspect
Economy and employment
Local identity
Institutional management
Culture and education
Fig. 2 – Relation between the categories of the different systems
Proposed system of indicators Environmental 40%
Cultural 12%
13% Economic
Social 34%
Fig. 3 Distribution of the number of indicators by the four dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social and cultural) in the proposed system [35]
3.2. Urban mobility As stated by Banister [36], the ease access to bank credit and the consequent massification of the car use, coupled with a decentralization of the importance of urban centers, led to a reduction in the use of local public transport, bicycle and pedestrian mode, resulting in greater dependence on the car as the more relevant transport mode. According to Banister [36] the need for travel is directly associated with the inherent value to the activity for which it is intended, and, in general, the user only takes into account the trip direct cost and the time spent in it. Gaffron et al. [37] emphasize that mobility is fundamentally demarcated by the structure of the city, since it is the main
738
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
responsible for the distance that people have to travel along the fundamental trips, home to school, work or leisure areas. In order to strengthen the links between land use and transport, and to meet the users' modal needs, Banister [36] suggests the adoption of models based on sustainable indicators for mobility. Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], mentions that a high rate of urbanization without adequate planning contributes to low compactness that usually results in longer and delayed trips. The category “Transports and Circulation” results from the need to provide urban centers with a better organization, based on sustainability indicators and aiming to adopt sustainable mobility models. As indicated by Banister [36], the intention of this category is not to prohibit the use of private car as a mean of transportation, which could be seen as an attack of freedom of choice, but rather to design urban environments with quality leading users to think in the private car as a second modal option. The proposed category “Transports and circulation” is composed by 12 indicators (in Table 4), detailed in [35], ranging from the modal split of residents and users, to the level of service of the circulation corridors, through pavement conservation status and also studying the geometric characteristics of the elements that compose the site under study. Table 4– Indicators for the sustainability assessment of transports and mobility [35] Street proportion [15] Population trip mode [15] Access to public transport [16] Low impact mobility [16] Accessibility for pedestrians [15] Pedestrian crossings by road length Transports and circulation Spatial and functional continuity of the pedestrian corridor Proximity to bicycle parking [15] Car parking [15] Off-street loading and unloading operation [15] Pavement conservation status Level of service of circulation corridors
The proposed system is based on the verification of parameters composed of minimum values (based on legal values or on reference values considered as goals to be achieved in the future); and desirable values (those that within local needs represent a higher local performance than when only minimum values were verified, leading to a more sustainable community), as suggested by several authors (Barcelona [15], Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], or even Ameen et al. [2]). As example, the indicator “Pedestrian crossings by road length” tries to assess the quality of the conditions provided to pedestrians on the sites where the pedestrian infrastructure intersects the road infrastructure. Encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport such as soft modes (pedestrians and cyclists) lead to the need of creation of better conditions for the circulation of these users. Moreover, the intersections between infrastructures for different users are always critical points in terms of capacity and safety. In this sense the main objective of the “Pedestrian crossings by road length“ indicator is to assess if it is establish a good relation between the number of pedestrian crossings and the total length of the road/street segment under analysis, ensuring by this way more safety pedestrian crossings. This indicator establishes a relationship between the total length of the segment of road/street being evaluated and the total number of crossings available for the pedestrians, whether they are at level or grade separated crossings. According to the Portuguese law [38] the pedestrians can only cross the road carriageway on the sites specially signalised for that purpose (e.g. a zebra crosswalk) or, when none exists at a distance of less than 50 m, perpendicularly to the axis of the roadway. Thus, a maximum distance between crossings for pedestrians of 100m is established. To assess the indicator the total length of the road/street in analysis is divided by the number of existent pedestrians crossings. In accordance with the aforementioned law [38], it can be stated that the maximum distance between pedestrian crossings should not be greater than 100 m (minimum value) and the desirable would be a distance of less than 100 m (in average) always satisfying the minimum value of 100 m between two pedestrian crossings.
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
739
All the other indicators included in the category of "Transports and circulation" (Table 4) were described individually and the minimum and desired reference values of each indicator established, but not presented in this paper. However, further details can be found in [35]. 4. Discussion On one hand, the urban sustainability assessment methodologies depict a focus in two of the sustainability dimensions (social and environmental). The different distribution of its indicators was demonstrated within this work and it was proposed a system of sustainable assessment indicators, with a more balanced distribution of indicators by four sustainability dimensions. On the other hand, most of the urban sustainability assessment methodologies were developed from the adaptation of assessment tools created to evaluate the buildings` sustainability, and therefore are somewhat dependent on the characteristics of the buildings, and not so much on the urban area where they are integrated. The proposed system of indicators seeks to fill some of such gaps through the development or adaptation of a set of indicators more adequate to the subject under study. Aiming the sustainability assessment of urban mobility, beyond this paper, the indicators for the sustainability assessment of transports and mobility were applied to a case study to obtain their validation, with good results [35]. The assessment system developed is not intended to create any segregation in the assessment of each one of the four dimensions considered, aiming, by the contrary, to strengthen the link between each one, often using interdependent indicators that, in one way or another end up sharing some data. It was concluded that even if, because of the differential treatment of each indicator, a different result is produced, and the attendance of interdependencies between indicators is reinforced in the developed work. 5. Conclusions In this paper was analysed the applicability of urban sustainability assessment methodologies, and it is proposed an approach for the sustainable assessment of urban areas, mainly focused on mobility. From the set of existing tools and projects, a group of six assessment tools was selected, because they include urban sustainability assessment indicators. The comparative analysis performed reveal that from the point of view of the Portuguese territory, there is a need to develop a new assessment tool based on local needs and also with a more coherent distribution of indicators, giving more importance to the economic and cultural aspects than the previously tools analysed. Thus, a new proposal of an indicators system for urban sustainability assessment was proposed. It can be concluded that the proposed system indicators for urban sustainability assessment is a more balanced system, when compared with the analysed ones as it considers a more balance number of indicators within the four dimensions of sustainability. This system reveals a high concern with mobility issues and its assessment. References [1] Drexhage, J., Murphy, D. Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. United Nations Headquarters, New York; 2010, 9-13. [2] Ameen, R. F. M., Mourshed, M., Li, H. A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2015, 55: 110-125. [3] ONU. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Reproduction, (June); 1992, 351. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11671-008-9208-3. [4] Cooper, R., Boyko, C. How to design a city in five easy steps: exploring VivaCity2020’s process and tools for urban design decision making?. Journal of Urbanism; 2010, 3.3: 253-273. [5] Braulio-Gonzalo, M., Bovea, M. D., Ruá, M. J.. Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2015, 53: 16-30. [6] Council, A. D. U. P. The Pearl Rating System for Estidama: Community Rating System. Abu Dhabi; 2010. [7] Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and urban planning; 2007, 83.1: 62-69. [8] Geniaux, G., Bellon, S., Deverre, C., Powell, B. System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society. Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks and Initiatives; 2009. [9] Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., Dikshit, A. K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators; 2009, 9.2: 189-212. [10] Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators–A comparison between various practices. Habitat International; 2011, 35.1: 17-29. [11] UCLG. Culture: Fourth pillar of sustainable development. United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Policy Statement; 2010.
740
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
[12] Pacheco, E. Modal change and transport policy in Portuguese NW. In: V Portuguese Geography Congress, Guimarães; 2004. (in Portuguese) [13] Bragança, L., Mateus, R., & Koukkari, H. Building sustainability assessment. Sustainability; 2010, 2.7. [14] Gargiulo, C., Daniotti, B. A multi-scale method to optimize the sustainability in construction work. In: The World Sustainable Building Conference, World SB14, Barcelona; 2014. [15] Barcelona, A. d’Ecologia U. Sistema de indicadores y condicionantes para ciudades grandes y medianas. Agencia de Ecologia Urbana de Barcelona; 2010. [16] Pinheiro, M. D. LiderA-Voluntary system for the sustainability of built environments. Lisboa: Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa; 2011. (in Portuguese). [17] Castanheira, G., Bragança, L. The Evolution of the Sustainability Assessment Tool SBToolPT: From Buildings to the Built Environment. The Scientific World Journal; 2014, 2014. [18] Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal; 2012, 30.1: 53-62. [19] BRE. BREEAM Communities Technical Manual, SD202-1.; 2014, 1–177. Retrieved from http://www.breeam.org/ [20] Sharifi, A., Murayama, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment; 2014, 72: 243-258. [21] Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2013, 38: 73-87. [22] USGBC. Technical Guidance Manual for Sustainable Neighborhoods; 2013. [23] Australia, G. B. C. of. Green Star Communities: Guide for Local Government; 2012. [24] Rueda, S. (Coord.) Plan Especial de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Actividad Urbanística de Sevilla. Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona, Barcelona; 2007. [25] Pinheiro, M. D. Environment and sustainable construction (in portuguese). Instituto do Ambiente, Amadora; 2006. [26] Gil, J., Duarte, J. P. Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning; 2013, 166.6: 311-325. [27] USGBC. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations; 2008. [28] USGBC. For Public Use and Display (Vol. 2010); 2010. [29] USGBC. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System Created by the Congress for the New Urbanism , Natural Resources Defense Green Building Council; 2011. [30] BRE. BREEAM Communities 2012 Bespoke International Process Guidance Note GN07; 2013. [31] Bourdic, L., Salat, S., Nowacki, C. Assessing cities: a new system of cross-scale spatial indicators. Building Research & Information; 2012, 40.5: 592-605. [32] Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Von Wehrden, H. A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning; 2013, 118: 40-52. [33] Poveda, C. A., Lipsett, M. G. A review of sustainability assessment and sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. Journal of Sustainable Development; 2011, 4.6: 36. [34] Rueda, S. Barcelona, ciudad mediterránea, compacta y compleja: una visión de futuro más sostenible. Ayuntamiento de Barcelona; 2007. [35] Tavares, F. D. Applicability of sustainability assessment methodologies to urban mobility. Master thesis in Civil Engineering. University of Aveiro; 2016. (in Portuguese). [36] Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy; 2008, 15.2: 73-80. [37] Gaffron, P., Huismans, G., Skala, F. Ecocity Book II: how to make it happen. Hamburg, Utrecht, Vienna; 2008. [38] Law n.º 72/2013, of September 3. Republic Diary n.º 169, Série I of 2013-09-03. (in Portuguese).
ScienceDirect AvailableScienceDirect online at www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740
9th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, SEB-17, 5-7 July 2017, Chania, Crete, Greeceand Buildings, SEB-17, 5-7 July 2017, 9th International Conference on Sustainability in Energy Chania, Crete, Greece
Urban sustainability mobility assessment: indicators proposal Urban sustainability mobility assessment: indicators proposal a a
Joaquim Macedoa*, Fernanda Rodriguesa and Fernando Tavaresb Joaquim Macedoa*, Fernanda Rodriguesa and Fernando Tavaresb RISCO, Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal
b CivilCivil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal RISCO, Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal b Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário Santiago 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal
Abstract Abstract The main goal of this paper is to analyse the flexibility and applicability of urban sustainability assessment methodologies, and propose approach the is sustainable of urban areas, also focused mobility. Current high importance of urban The mainangoal of thisfor paper to analyseassessment the flexibility and applicability of urbanonsustainability assessment methodologies, and sustainability, considering its constantly evolving, associated with a growing environmental awareness of the population, propose an approach for the sustainable assessment of urban areas, also focused on mobility. Current high importance ofresults urban on the need toconsidering reevaluate its theconstantly current management systems with for sustainability of urban centers, trying them a results larger sustainability, evolving, associated a growing environmental awareness of to thegive population, organization efficiency,the associated with a low socio-economic impact. Different sustainability assessment on the need and to reevaluate current management systems for sustainability of urban centers, trying to give methodologies them a larger were analysedand andefficiency, it was concluded thatwith haveatolow be complemented have a Different more balanced distribution of its indicators among organization associated socio-economictoimpact. sustainability assessment methodologies the different sustainability dimensions. Based on literature review, four sustainable dimensions were considered in this study: were analysed and it was concluded that have to be complemented to have a more balanced distribution of its indicators among environmental, social, economic and cultural for urbandimensions mobility. Awere new considered proposal ofin anthis indicators the different sustainability dimensions. Basedthat onincludes literaturespecific review,indicators four sustainable study: system for urban sustainability A balanced distribution of the indicators within the four environmental, social, economicassessment and culturalwas thatproposed. includes specific indicators for urban mobility. A new proposal of andimensions indicators and a more flexiblesustainability and suitable assessment indicators were system for urban was obtained. proposed. A balanced distribution of the indicators within the four dimensions and a more flexible and suitable indicators were obtained. © 2017 2017 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by by Elsevier Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. © Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. Keywords: Urban, mobility, sustainability, indicators. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International.]. Keywords: Urban, mobility, sustainability, indicators.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction The environmental dimension is one of the main concerns of sustainability studies since its beginning [1, 2, 3]. However, the vision ondimension the study is of one sustainability hasconcerns widenedoftosustainability consider other dimensions likebeginning the economic The environmental of the main studies since its [1, 2,and 3]. social issues 3] that were considered since the EarthtoSummit ]. These dimensions contribute to and the However, the [2, vision on the study of sustainability has1992 widened consider[3other dimensions like the economic knowledge the 3] sustainability impact at urban for example, within the the density of buildings,toland Theseof dimensions contribute the social issuesof [2, that were considered sincelevel, the 1992 Earth Summit [3].study use or even of thethe organization of urban [4].level, for example, within the study of the density of buildings, land knowledge sustainability impactlayouts at urban use or even the organization of urban layouts [4]. * Corresponding author. E-mail address:author. [email protected] * Corresponding
E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review [KES International]. 1876-6102 ©under 2017responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of [KES International].
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of KES International. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.569
732
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
Thus, three important dimensions (also known as vectors or pillars) support urban sustainability: environmental, economic and social, characterized by more than 700 indicators [5]. The number of sustainability dimensions has generated some controversy having some authors that refer the existence of one more: the cultural. The Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council [6] and Ameen et al. [2] suggests this dimension, to justify the need to understand the cultural differences that exist relatively to the Middle East population. Tweed and Sutherland [7] refers the increase recognition that the built cultural heritage has a significant impact on the social wellbeing of different population groups, living increasingly in cosmopolitan towns and cities. Geniaux et al. [8] and Singh et al. [9], sustains that there is a need to create a fourth vector, the institutional one, since there are indicators evaluated in the other three dimensions that could easily be exchanged for this one and be certainly identified by the institutional side, mainly due to interdependencies between dimensions. Shen et al. [10] advocate governance as the fourth dimension, arguing that there is a need for development, by creating opportunities for public participation in decision-making. According to Ameen et al. [2], the greatest challenge is not to fill economic, social or environmental deficits, but also to promote the preservation of local cultural values in order to conserve the different identities of communities. Documents and organizations such as Agenda 21, UNESCO, World Summit on Sustainable Development, among others, have been struggling for the inclusion of the cultural dimension as one of sustainable development, since is directly associated with the development and behaviour of the different globe’s populations [11]. So, considering the above and similarly to Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council [6] and Ameen et al. [2] the sustainability analysis indicators proposed in this work consider four dimensions, including the cultural one. In spite of this institutional and governance indicators are included in social and economic dimensions. Sustainability assessment methodologies in urban areas have been developed in order to meet requirements from the point of view of land use and territory planning. The increasing urbanization has been responsible for the loss of some ecosystems and land areas in order to meet the intensification demand for urban resources. Besides that, sustainability assessment methodologies also promote sustainable urbanization leading to achieve some goals proposed by the management/governmental entities and international institutions [10]. According to Pacheco [12], the accessibility and mobility conditions are fundamental in the decision-making on the location and access of interest urban locations, being the large urban centers the most dependent of those conditions. At urban level the land use and land demand, are also dependent on mobility, supported on a more efficient modal split, reducing the distances between points of interest and using, mainly, more sustainable modes of transport, namely public transports, bike and walk. Aiming to achieve these goals, in the 1990s, Portugal adopted the Common Transport Policy of the European Union (EU). This policy was based on the sustainable mobility, which would discourage unnecessary transport demand by developing appropriate spatial planning policies and promoting alternative transport modes in order to reduce the use of the most polluting, private car [12]. 2. Methodology 2.1. Urban sustainable assessment methodologies: analysis According to Bragança et al. [13], the development of sustainability assessment methodologies, a process that has been going on for more than two decades, has been more focused on the evaluation of buildings and their components. However, as stated by Ameen et al. [2] and Gargiulo and Daniotti [14], it is so important to assess the sustainability of the building as of the urban environment in which are inserted. The lack of efficiency in the sustainability assessment of urban environments is because many of the indicators used have interdependencies between them, being the application of these indicators a challenge, since the performance of one indicator is linked with others [2]. In response to this implementation barrier, there is a need to develop methodologies based on networks grouping indicators with interdependencies into categories, depending on the different areas of intervention, for example, environment and green spaces, health and wellbeing, land use, transport and circulation, public space and social cohesion, culture and education, among others [2, 5, 15, 16, 17]. Although, the development of sustainability assessment methodologies of urban environments is a relatively recent process, several projects, indices, evaluation frameworks or even tools dedicated to specific characteristics of each region have already been developed [2]. The evolution of these processes demonstrates once again the importance of sustainability in urban planning and decision-making [18].
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
733
2.2. Selected methodologies In Portugal, the sustainability study of urban areas has a relatively small evolution compared to other countries where tools to analyse this issue were developed. In England the BREEAM Community [19, 20], in the United States of America the LEED - ND [21, 22], in Australia the Green Star Sustainable Communities [23], in Spain, where a proposal for a structure of indicators for the Spanish context was developed [5, 15, 24]. In these countries, sustainability in urban areas has been part of the foundations of a better urban organization. Currently, in Portugal, there are two tools dedicated to the study of the sustainability of urban areas: LiderA and SBToolPT [17, 25, 26]. In an initial phase of development, both LiderA and SBToolPT were more directed to the building. Recently both have undergone some changes in order to extend its application to the urban areas. In 2009, version 2.0 of LiderA was launched, focusing not only on buildings but also on outdoor spaces, including blocks, neighborhoods and other projects. In 2014, the SBToolPT developed the Urban Planning (PU) version, but the knowledge about this tool is still reduced, since its application guide has not yet been officially published [2, 17]. From the existent sustainable assessment tools and projects, a group of six tools was selected. The selection criteria were based on the inclusion of urban sustainability assessment indicators. Table 1 and 2 depict different aspects of each one, such as, scope, classification system, indicators structure, type of indicators, among others. Table 1 - Summary of each sustainability assessment methodology Tool/Country
Publication Year
Last Version
References
Scope
Classification System A++, A+ e A – more efficient
LiderA Portugal
2005
2011
[16]
Urban areas including buildings
B, C e D - good E – usual practice G – less efficient Platine > 80 pontos
LEED – ND USA
2006
2013
[22, 27, 28, 29]
The whole neighborhood, including urbanized and nonurbanized areas
Gold > 60 pontos Silver > 50 pontos Certified > 40 pontos Exceptional > 85 %
BREEAM Communities
Excellent > 70 % 2007
2014
[19, 30]
United Kingdom
Urban areas including residential and non-residential areas
Very good > 55 % Good > 45 % Certified > 30 % Not certified < 30 %
SBToolPT –PU Portugal Spanish Context Spain Barcelona Spain
2009
2014
[17]
Urban areas, mainly housing areas
-
2015
2015
[5]
Urban areas belonging to the city context and surrounding areas
-
2010
2010
[15]
Consolidated residential and non-residential urban areas
-
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
734
Table 2 – Structure of each sustainability assessment methodology Tool
Indicators: type/number
Mandatory indicators
Indicators ponderation
43 quantitative and qualitative indicators
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations. Do not depend on the application context.
12 prerequisites of mandatory assessment
Rigid ponderations. Do not depend on the application context.
12 indicators of mandatory assessment and 28 of optional assessment
Different ponderations dependent on the assessment context, only within the United Kingdom.
Not yet published
Not yet published
Not yet published.
73 quantitative and qualitative indicators
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations developed to the Spanish context.
All indicators are mandatory
Rigid ponderations developed to the Spanish context, in particular to the city of Barcelona.
Structure 6 categories
LiderA
22 areas 43 indicators
44 indicators
44 quantitative indicators (1 to be defined by the local manager)
12 prerequisites
12 prerequisites
5 categories LEED - ND
BREEAM Communities
5 categories 3 stages 40 indicators
Quantitative 1st stage – 11 indicators 2nd stage- 17 indicators 3rd stage – 12 indicators
12 categories SBToolPT - PU
Spanish context
Barcelona
41 indicators 14 categories 69 subcategories 73 indicators 7 scopes
52 quantitative
52 indicators
indicators
2.3. Methodologies comparative analysis In each sustainability assessment tool, considering the interdependencies between indicators, is difficult to group some indicators in a given category or dimension since the same indicator can be easily associated to two or more different dimensions/categories [2]. The indicators interdependencies improve the way how the structures of evaluation tools are organized, since it advises that all indicators with similarities should be grouped into categories or dimensions and, in the absence of a category where they fit, there is a need to develop a new one. The 6 tools under analysis have a different number of categories, varying from LEED - ND with 5 categories, to the proposal for the Spanish context, with 14 categories. As referred by Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], the number of categories and the information to be evaluated by each category, has been the object of study of several authors, such as Bourdic et al. [31], which suggests the adoption of nine categories: “land use”, “mobility”, “water”, “biodiversity”, “equity”, “economy”, “wastes”, “cultural/wellness” and “energy”. Luederitz et al. [32] proposes the adoption of eleven categories: “function”, “structure”, “context”, “leakage effects”, “socioecological system integrity”, “livelihood sufficiency and opportunity”, “intra-generational equity”, “inter-generational equity”, and there is no consensus to date. In spite of the difficulties in framing certain indicators in a given sustainability dimension, due to interdependencies between them, for each tool or system under study it was done the distribution of the number of indicators by each one of the four dimensions (environmental, economic, social and cultural) (Fig. 1) based on the approach depict on [2]. Analysing Fig. 1 it is possible to verify the disparity that exists in the attribution of weight to the different dimensions in each tool and indicators systems analysed (depicted in Table 2). Fig. 1 shows the greater importance given to environmental and social dimensions (with the correspondent high number of indicators)
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
735
against the economic and cultural ones (with the attribution of a low number of indicators), reinforcing the disparities in the assessment of the different dimensions involved. Even if the choice of indicators were made in accordance with local needs, it would be expected that the distribution of the indicators, according to the four sustainability dimensions, would be more homogeneous. In order to assign indicators to the application of sustainability assessment tools, some authors have provided two types of indicators: prerequisites or mandatory indicators and optional indicators [2, 21]. The assessment according to mandatory parameters permits the application in different locations (e.g. with different legal requirements). The optional indicators depends on the context of application, that is, for example, the needs of the communities under evaluation. LiderA Environmental 56%
Cultural 2%
7% Economic
LEED - ND
BREEAM - Co.
Environmental 48%
Environmental 45%
Cultural 7%
2% Economic
Social 35%
Social 43%
SBTooL PT - PU
Spanish Context
Environmental 41%
Environmental 41%
Cultural 7%
Cultural 8%
10 % Economic
Social 40%
Barcelona Environmental 44%
Cultural 10%
16% Economic
Social 41%
8% Economic
Cultural 2%
17% Economic
Social 37%
Social 33%
Fig. 1. Distribution of indicators within the four dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social and cultural)
According to Ameen et al. [2], the indicators and the number of mandatory indicators differ between the various tools, as depicted in Table 3. Relatively to this there is no consensus among different authors, being only consensual that all indicators based on legal obligations, whether they are local, regional, national or international, are mandatory as indicated by Pinheiro [16]. Table 3 - Distribution of mandatory indicators (adapted from [2]) Tool
Total Number of Indicators
Number of Mandatory Indicators
Percentage of Mandatory Indicators (%)
LiderA
43
43
100
LEED – ND
56
12
21
BREEAM – Co.
40
12
30
SBToolPT - PU
41
41
100
Spanish Context
73
73
100
Barcelona
52
52
100
Although all of the tools have mandatory indicators, the reference values can be different, since they depend on the local regulation where they have to be applied. According to Poveda and Lipsett [33], the classification of the sustainability assessment has as main objective to verify the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of pre-defined requirements (according with each tool, location and context of application), and to distinguish between urban zones
736
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
with different approaches to sustainability (mainly at environmental impact level), valuing the most sustainable areas in demerit of the valuation of the less ones. Thus, in addition to supporting decision-making relatively to territory planning, urban sustainability assessment methodologies also have the capacity to establish differentiation between different contexts [10]. Ameen et al. [2] state that the weights are defined based on a multicriteria analysis and rely on data, usually available in international or local databases, being possible to assign a weighting to each indicator and consequently establish a final classification table. However, a hierarchical analytical process, as in LEED-ND and BREEAM Communities [2, 19, 29], can determine these weightings. 2.4. Results and discussion One of the main barriers to a wider application of sustainability assessment tools is the application to different contexts with different needs. Since most of the indicators and correspondent weights have been developed for very specific contexts, the range of application of each one of the tools ends up being limited. As stated by Ameen et al. [2], one of the major differences among sustainability assessment tools is that they reflect evaluation processes based on local requirements. Even within the same country, there are cities with different requirements, which make the application of some sustainability assessment tools invalid in certain regions of the globe [34]. In addition to the lack of flexibility of application stated above, the assessment tools, even those directed developed for Portugal (LiderA and SBToolPT – PU), depict an inconsistent evaluation, assessing fundamentally the environmental and social dimensions in demerit of the other two dimensions: economic and cultural. Given this, from the point of view of the Portuguese territory, there is a need to develop a new assessment tool based on local needs and also with a more coherent distribution of indicators, giving more importance to the economic and cultural aspects than the previously tools analysed. 3. System of indicators: proposal 3.1. General proposal After analysing the indicators and assessment requirements of the six tools (Table 2 and 3) it was concluded that LEED-ND and BREAM Communities are similar, as well the system of indicators for the Spanish context and the system of indicators for large and medium-sized cities. Taking into consideration the similarities between tools, Fig. 2 only shows the analysis for the LEED-ND and the indicator system for the Spanish context, as well for the two Portuguese systems. The proposed system is organized according two levels, where the hierarchically higher level has 10 categories, subdivided by 65 indicators, which make the second level of the hierarchy. The 10 categories proposed in the system were obtained based on the study of the analysed tools categories and in function of the interdependencies between indicators, grouping them by areas of interest, and later defining the theme of each category around those areas. Further details can be found in [35]. Fig.2 shows the relation between the categories of the four systems considered with their equivalents in the proposed system. The proposed indicators system presents a more balanced distribution of indicators, as shown in Fig. 3. The distribution of the number of indicators by the four sustainable dimensions show a more homogeneous distribution within the four dimensions than the tools and indicators systems evaluated in the previous section, resulting in a more efficient sustainability assessment. The proposed indicators can still be adapted to suit local needs and requirements, being, as suggested by Pinheiro [16], based on regulations or legislation: local, regional, national or international.
Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia (2017) 000–000 Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy00Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740
LiderA
Local integration
LEED – ND
Smart location and accessibility
Environmental comfort Efficiency in resources consumption
Green infrastructure and buildings
Sustainable use
Spanish context
Urban form
Urban morphology
Land use and infrastructure
Local and land use
Mobility and transports
Transports and circulation
Ecology and biodiversity
Nature and biodiversity
Green spaces
Energy
Energy
Resources and energy
Materials Waste
Waste
Pollution Comfort and outdoor areas Safety
Social aspect
Public space, habitability and social cohesion Health and wellness
Amenities Innovation and development processes
Land use
Mobility
Materials and waste
Neighborhood framing and design
Proposed system
Building and housing
Water
Environmental loads
Socioeconomic adaptability
SBToolPT - PU
737
Promotion of employment and investment
Economic aspect
Economy and employment
Local identity
Institutional management
Culture and education
Fig. 2 – Relation between the categories of the different systems
Proposed system of indicators Environmental 40%
Cultural 12%
13% Economic
Social 34%
Fig. 3 Distribution of the number of indicators by the four dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social and cultural) in the proposed system [35]
3.2. Urban mobility As stated by Banister [36], the ease access to bank credit and the consequent massification of the car use, coupled with a decentralization of the importance of urban centers, led to a reduction in the use of local public transport, bicycle and pedestrian mode, resulting in greater dependence on the car as the more relevant transport mode. According to Banister [36] the need for travel is directly associated with the inherent value to the activity for which it is intended, and, in general, the user only takes into account the trip direct cost and the time spent in it. Gaffron et al. [37] emphasize that mobility is fundamentally demarcated by the structure of the city, since it is the main
738
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
responsible for the distance that people have to travel along the fundamental trips, home to school, work or leisure areas. In order to strengthen the links between land use and transport, and to meet the users' modal needs, Banister [36] suggests the adoption of models based on sustainable indicators for mobility. Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], mentions that a high rate of urbanization without adequate planning contributes to low compactness that usually results in longer and delayed trips. The category “Transports and Circulation” results from the need to provide urban centers with a better organization, based on sustainability indicators and aiming to adopt sustainable mobility models. As indicated by Banister [36], the intention of this category is not to prohibit the use of private car as a mean of transportation, which could be seen as an attack of freedom of choice, but rather to design urban environments with quality leading users to think in the private car as a second modal option. The proposed category “Transports and circulation” is composed by 12 indicators (in Table 4), detailed in [35], ranging from the modal split of residents and users, to the level of service of the circulation corridors, through pavement conservation status and also studying the geometric characteristics of the elements that compose the site under study. Table 4– Indicators for the sustainability assessment of transports and mobility [35] Street proportion [15] Population trip mode [15] Access to public transport [16] Low impact mobility [16] Accessibility for pedestrians [15] Pedestrian crossings by road length Transports and circulation Spatial and functional continuity of the pedestrian corridor Proximity to bicycle parking [15] Car parking [15] Off-street loading and unloading operation [15] Pavement conservation status Level of service of circulation corridors
The proposed system is based on the verification of parameters composed of minimum values (based on legal values or on reference values considered as goals to be achieved in the future); and desirable values (those that within local needs represent a higher local performance than when only minimum values were verified, leading to a more sustainable community), as suggested by several authors (Barcelona [15], Braulio-Gonzalo et al. [5], or even Ameen et al. [2]). As example, the indicator “Pedestrian crossings by road length” tries to assess the quality of the conditions provided to pedestrians on the sites where the pedestrian infrastructure intersects the road infrastructure. Encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport such as soft modes (pedestrians and cyclists) lead to the need of creation of better conditions for the circulation of these users. Moreover, the intersections between infrastructures for different users are always critical points in terms of capacity and safety. In this sense the main objective of the “Pedestrian crossings by road length“ indicator is to assess if it is establish a good relation between the number of pedestrian crossings and the total length of the road/street segment under analysis, ensuring by this way more safety pedestrian crossings. This indicator establishes a relationship between the total length of the segment of road/street being evaluated and the total number of crossings available for the pedestrians, whether they are at level or grade separated crossings. According to the Portuguese law [38] the pedestrians can only cross the road carriageway on the sites specially signalised for that purpose (e.g. a zebra crosswalk) or, when none exists at a distance of less than 50 m, perpendicularly to the axis of the roadway. Thus, a maximum distance between crossings for pedestrians of 100m is established. To assess the indicator the total length of the road/street in analysis is divided by the number of existent pedestrians crossings. In accordance with the aforementioned law [38], it can be stated that the maximum distance between pedestrian crossings should not be greater than 100 m (minimum value) and the desirable would be a distance of less than 100 m (in average) always satisfying the minimum value of 100 m between two pedestrian crossings.
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
739
All the other indicators included in the category of "Transports and circulation" (Table 4) were described individually and the minimum and desired reference values of each indicator established, but not presented in this paper. However, further details can be found in [35]. 4. Discussion On one hand, the urban sustainability assessment methodologies depict a focus in two of the sustainability dimensions (social and environmental). The different distribution of its indicators was demonstrated within this work and it was proposed a system of sustainable assessment indicators, with a more balanced distribution of indicators by four sustainability dimensions. On the other hand, most of the urban sustainability assessment methodologies were developed from the adaptation of assessment tools created to evaluate the buildings` sustainability, and therefore are somewhat dependent on the characteristics of the buildings, and not so much on the urban area where they are integrated. The proposed system of indicators seeks to fill some of such gaps through the development or adaptation of a set of indicators more adequate to the subject under study. Aiming the sustainability assessment of urban mobility, beyond this paper, the indicators for the sustainability assessment of transports and mobility were applied to a case study to obtain their validation, with good results [35]. The assessment system developed is not intended to create any segregation in the assessment of each one of the four dimensions considered, aiming, by the contrary, to strengthen the link between each one, often using interdependent indicators that, in one way or another end up sharing some data. It was concluded that even if, because of the differential treatment of each indicator, a different result is produced, and the attendance of interdependencies between indicators is reinforced in the developed work. 5. Conclusions In this paper was analysed the applicability of urban sustainability assessment methodologies, and it is proposed an approach for the sustainable assessment of urban areas, mainly focused on mobility. From the set of existing tools and projects, a group of six assessment tools was selected, because they include urban sustainability assessment indicators. The comparative analysis performed reveal that from the point of view of the Portuguese territory, there is a need to develop a new assessment tool based on local needs and also with a more coherent distribution of indicators, giving more importance to the economic and cultural aspects than the previously tools analysed. Thus, a new proposal of an indicators system for urban sustainability assessment was proposed. It can be concluded that the proposed system indicators for urban sustainability assessment is a more balanced system, when compared with the analysed ones as it considers a more balance number of indicators within the four dimensions of sustainability. This system reveals a high concern with mobility issues and its assessment. References [1] Drexhage, J., Murphy, D. Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. United Nations Headquarters, New York; 2010, 9-13. [2] Ameen, R. F. M., Mourshed, M., Li, H. A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2015, 55: 110-125. [3] ONU. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Reproduction, (June); 1992, 351. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11671-008-9208-3. [4] Cooper, R., Boyko, C. How to design a city in five easy steps: exploring VivaCity2020’s process and tools for urban design decision making?. Journal of Urbanism; 2010, 3.3: 253-273. [5] Braulio-Gonzalo, M., Bovea, M. D., Ruá, M. J.. Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2015, 53: 16-30. [6] Council, A. D. U. P. The Pearl Rating System for Estidama: Community Rating System. Abu Dhabi; 2010. [7] Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and urban planning; 2007, 83.1: 62-69. [8] Geniaux, G., Bellon, S., Deverre, C., Powell, B. System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society. Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks and Initiatives; 2009. [9] Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., Dikshit, A. K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators; 2009, 9.2: 189-212. [10] Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators–A comparison between various practices. Habitat International; 2011, 35.1: 17-29. [11] UCLG. Culture: Fourth pillar of sustainable development. United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Policy Statement; 2010.
740
Joaquim Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 731–740 Macedo et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
[12] Pacheco, E. Modal change and transport policy in Portuguese NW. In: V Portuguese Geography Congress, Guimarães; 2004. (in Portuguese) [13] Bragança, L., Mateus, R., & Koukkari, H. Building sustainability assessment. Sustainability; 2010, 2.7. [14] Gargiulo, C., Daniotti, B. A multi-scale method to optimize the sustainability in construction work. In: The World Sustainable Building Conference, World SB14, Barcelona; 2014. [15] Barcelona, A. d’Ecologia U. Sistema de indicadores y condicionantes para ciudades grandes y medianas. Agencia de Ecologia Urbana de Barcelona; 2010. [16] Pinheiro, M. D. LiderA-Voluntary system for the sustainability of built environments. Lisboa: Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa; 2011. (in Portuguese). [17] Castanheira, G., Bragança, L. The Evolution of the Sustainability Assessment Tool SBToolPT: From Buildings to the Built Environment. The Scientific World Journal; 2014, 2014. [18] Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal; 2012, 30.1: 53-62. [19] BRE. BREEAM Communities Technical Manual, SD202-1.; 2014, 1–177. Retrieved from http://www.breeam.org/ [20] Sharifi, A., Murayama, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Building and Environment; 2014, 72: 243-258. [21] Sharifi, A., & Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review; 2013, 38: 73-87. [22] USGBC. Technical Guidance Manual for Sustainable Neighborhoods; 2013. [23] Australia, G. B. C. of. Green Star Communities: Guide for Local Government; 2012. [24] Rueda, S. (Coord.) Plan Especial de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Actividad Urbanística de Sevilla. Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona, Barcelona; 2007. [25] Pinheiro, M. D. Environment and sustainable construction (in portuguese). Instituto do Ambiente, Amadora; 2006. [26] Gil, J., Duarte, J. P. Tools for evaluating the sustainability of urban design: a review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning; 2013, 166.6: 311-325. [27] USGBC. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations; 2008. [28] USGBC. For Public Use and Display (Vol. 2010); 2010. [29] USGBC. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System Created by the Congress for the New Urbanism , Natural Resources Defense Green Building Council; 2011. [30] BRE. BREEAM Communities 2012 Bespoke International Process Guidance Note GN07; 2013. [31] Bourdic, L., Salat, S., Nowacki, C. Assessing cities: a new system of cross-scale spatial indicators. Building Research & Information; 2012, 40.5: 592-605. [32] Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Von Wehrden, H. A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning; 2013, 118: 40-52. [33] Poveda, C. A., Lipsett, M. G. A review of sustainability assessment and sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. Journal of Sustainable Development; 2011, 4.6: 36. [34] Rueda, S. Barcelona, ciudad mediterránea, compacta y compleja: una visión de futuro más sostenible. Ayuntamiento de Barcelona; 2007. [35] Tavares, F. D. Applicability of sustainability assessment methodologies to urban mobility. Master thesis in Civil Engineering. University of Aveiro; 2016. (in Portuguese). [36] Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy; 2008, 15.2: 73-80. [37] Gaffron, P., Huismans, G., Skala, F. Ecocity Book II: how to make it happen. Hamburg, Utrecht, Vienna; 2008. [38] Law n.º 72/2013, of September 3. Republic Diary n.º 169, Série I of 2013-09-03. (in Portuguese).