Investigating urban sustainability in American Cities

Investigating urban sustainability in American Cities The characteristic of our era is urbanization and, consequently, the creation of small and large cities. The rapid growth of urbanization has had negative consequences for the environment. Environmental sustainability is an essential issue for the international community. Environmental sustainability assessment has been one of the essential tools in the sustainable development planning process. Assessing the environmental sustainability of cities is necessary to achieve proper urban planning and, at the same time, in line with the natural environment variables. For this reason, the purpose of this research is to evaluate urban sustainability in American Cities. I will collect and discuss literature on environmental sustainability assessment, and select indicators of environmental sustainability for measurement of US cities. Then I will collect data of selected indicators. Using Geographic Information System (GIS), each city will be given a score based on the sustainable indicators, and several maps, which depict each index\u27s situation in the city, will be presented. The Shannon entropy method is used to determine the weight of indices. The VIKOR method will be used for ranking indices. It is expected that the environmental dimension of urban sustainability in fast-growing cities is showing the adverse effects of urbanization

Multicriteria Assessment of Urban Development Projects – from Objectives to a Project Priority List

Impact assessment is a crucial basis for decision-making. Characterization of projects, identifying objectives and indicators for the justification and comparison of alternatives represent essential elements of any impact assessment. Comparing alternatives against a set of objectives and criteria addresses different impact types, understanding merits of each option, and establishing a preference ranking calls for a framework to integrate information on effects and impacts, with values and preferences of decision-makers and stakeholders. This paper refers to a study on “Integrated Urban Design Concepts” for the World Bank Consultancy for pilot cities under the “Uzbekistan Medium-Size Cities Integrated Urban Development Project” (MSCIUDP, World Bank, 2018). The focus of the paper is on multicriteria assessment that allows for a ranking of urban development projects for cities in Uzbekistan to enhance urban sustainability. The approach starts with the definition of a set of urban development objectives related to selected projects for several Uzbek cities. Based on the defined objectives, a set of indicators is extracted which allows describing the benefits on economic prosperity and well-being of society and on environment and climate improvement. Based on theassessment urban development projects shall be selected to be implemented in the pilot cities to foster their urban centrality. The paper describes the suggested projects for one of the Uzbek cities, the selected indicators to examine wether the urban development objectives with their related criteria are met, and discusses details on quantifying, weighting and merging the indicators to achieve a final priority list

Using Machine Learning Tools to Classify Sustainability Levels in the Development of Urban Ecosystems

[EN] Different studies have been carried out to evaluate the progress made by countries and cities towards achieving sustainability to compare its evolution. However, the micro-territorial level, which encompasses a community perspective, has not been examined through a comprehensive forecasting method of sustainability categories with machine learning tools. This study aims to establish a method to forecast the sustainability levels of an urban ecosystem through supervised modeling. To this end, it was necessary to establish a set of indicators that characterize the dimensions of sustainable development, consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals. Using the data normalization technique to process the information and combining it in different dimensions made it possible to identify the sustainability level of the urban zone for each year from 2009 to 2017. The resulting information was the basis for the supervised classification. It was found that the sustainability level in the micro-territory has been improving from a low level in 2009, which increased to a medium level in the subsequent years. Forecasts of the sustainability levels of the zone were possible by using decision trees, neural networks, and support vector machines, in which 70% of the data were used to train the machine learning tools, with the remaining 30% used for validation. According to the performance metrics, decision trees outperformed the other two tools.Molina-Gomez, NI.; Rodriguez-Rojas, K.; Calderón-Rivera, D.; Díaz Arévalo, JL.; López Jiménez, PA. (2020). Using Machine Learning Tools to Classify Sustainability Levels in the Development of Urban Ecosystems. Sustainability. 12(8):1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083326S120128Shen, L., Kyllo, J., & Guo, X. (2013). An Integrated Model Based on a Hierarchical Indices System for Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Sustainability. Sustainability, 5(2), 524-559. doi:10.3390/su5020524Verma, P., & Raghubanshi, A. S. (2018). Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological Indicators, 93, 282-291. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.007Phillis, Y. A., Kouikoglou, V. S., & Verdugo, C. (2017). Urban sustainability assessment and ranking of cities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 64, 254-265. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.03.002Gerry Marten, Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development—Populations and Feedback Systemshttp://gerrymarten.com/ecologia-humana/capitulo02.htmlTanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.-F., & Lanoie, P. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 407-418. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013Mapar, M., Jafari, M. J., Mansouri, N., Arjmandi, R., Azizinejad, R., & Ramos, T. B. (2017). Sustainability indicators for municipalities of megacities: Integrating health, safety and environmental performance. Ecological Indicators, 83, 271-291. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.012Rajaonson, J., & Tanguay, G. A. (2017). A sensitivity analysis to methodological variation in indicator-based urban sustainability assessment: a Quebec case study. Ecological Indicators, 83, 122-131. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.050Dizdaroglu, D. (2015). Developing micro-level urban ecosystem indicators for sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 119-124. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.004Niemeijer, D., & de Groot, R. S. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8(1), 14-25. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Mason, M., & Manzardo, A. (2009). The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: The case study of Padua Municipality. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 364-380. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.002Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565-573. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003Sotelo, J. A., Tolón, A., & Lastra, X. (2011). Indicadores por y para el desarrollo sostenible, un estudio de caso. Estudios Geográficos, 72(271), 611-654. doi:10.3989/estgeogr.201124Feleki, E., Vlachokostas, C., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2018). Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: An analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 563-577. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.025Ocampo, L., Ebisa, J. A., Ombe, J., & Geen Escoto, M. (2018). Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy Delphi method – A Philippine perspective. Ecological Indicators, 93, 874-888. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.060Torres-Delgado, A., & López Palomeque, F. (2018). The ISOST index: A tool for studying sustainable tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 281-289. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.05.005Cui, X., Fang, C., Liu, H., & Liu, X. (2019). Assessing sustainability of urbanization by a coordinated development index for an Urbanization-Resources-Environment complex system: A case study of Jing-Jin-Ji region, China. Ecological Indicators, 96, 383-391. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.009Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176. doi:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273-297. doi:10.1007/bf00994018R package version 6.0-72https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caretnnet: Feed-Forward Neural Networks and Multinomial Log-Linear Modelshttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nnet/index.htmle1071: Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group (Formerly: E1071), TU Wienhttps://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/e1071/index.htm

Combining the conservation of biodiversity with the provision of ecosystem services in urban green infrastructure planning. Critical features arising from a case study in the metropolitan area of Rome

A large number of green infrastructure (GI) projects have recently been proposed, planned and implemented in European cities following the adoption of the GI strategy by the EU Commission in 2013. Although this policy tool is closely related to biodiversity conservation targets, some doubts have arisen as regards the ability of current urban GI to provide beneficial effects not only for human societies but also for the ecological systems that host them. The aim of this work is to review the features that should be considered critical when searching for solutions that simultaneously support biodiversity and guarantee the provision of ecosystem services (ES) in urban areas. Starting from a case study in the metropolitan area of Rome, we highlight the role of urban trees and forests as proxies for overall biodiversity and as main ecosystem service providers. We look beyond the individual functional features of plant species and vegetation communities to promote the biogeographic representativity, ecological coherence and landscape connectivity of new or restored GI elements

Operationalizing the circular city model for naples' city-port: A hybrid development strategy

The city-port context involves a decisive reality for the economic development of territories and nations, capable of significantly influencing the conditions of well-being and quality of life, and of making the Circular City Model (CCM) operational, preserving and enhancing seas and marine resources in a sustainable way. This can be achieved through the construction of appropriate production and consumption models, with attention to relations with the urban and territorial system. This paper presents an adaptive decision-making process for Naples (Italy) commercial port's development strategies, aimed at re-establishing a sustainable city-port relationship and making Circular Economy (CE) principles operative. The approach has aimed at implementing a CCM by operationalizing European recommendations provided within both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework-specifically focusing on goals 9, 11 and 12-and the Maritime Spatial Planning European Directive 2014/89, to face conflicts about the overlapping areas of the city-port through multidimensional evaluations' principles and tools. In this perspective, a four-step methodological framework has been structured applying a place-based approach with mixed evaluation methods, eliciting soft and hard knowledge domains, which have been expressed and assessed by a core set of Sustainability Indicators (SI), linked to SDGs. The contribution outcomes have been centred on the assessment of three design alternatives for the East Naples port and the development of a hybrid regeneration scenario consistent with CE and sustainability principles. The structured decision-making process has allowed us to test how an adaptive approach can expand the knowledge base underpinning policy design and decisions to achieve better outcomes and cultivate a broad civic and technical engagement, that can enhance the legitimacy and transparency of policies

Evaluating urban freight transport policies within complex urban environments

Urban Freight Transport (UFT) entails significant advantages for the economic growth of cities, but can also hamper population quality of life, obstructing vehicles and people movements while exacerbating environmental problems. Many initiatives have been engaged by many city administrators in order to efficiently manage UFT, evaluating different policies at a global scale. From the perspective of operators, most works analyze a limited set of policies or only focus on the benefits of companies. In this work, a decisionmaking process is used to evaluate a large set of UFT policies, through different attributes representing the advantages and limitations of each policy over promoter companies and the society. To do so, an ex-ante procedure in five steps is proposed to classify the policies: (1) attributes definition, (2) attributes weighting, (3) policy-attribute assessment, (4) policy ranking, and (5) feasibility threshold satisfaction. The whole process is supported on consultations to 26 experts regarding shop supply and restocking activities within complex urban environments. Results show a classification of the analyzed policies, according to their suitability for implementation ; which could be extended (directly or with small adjustments) to other contexts, given the flexibility of the decision-making procedure developed.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

A holistic approach to the evaluation of sustainable housing

Residential housing is often evaluated against single or at best a limited number of similar criteria. These include quantifiable indicators such as energy use and its associated greenhouse gas emissions. It might also include material consumption from an embodied energy or resource use perspective. Social factors or qualitative indicators may be evaluated but are rarely placed or juxtaposed alongside these quantifiable indicators. A one-dimensional approach will be limiting because sustainable development includes both environmental and social factors. This paper describes the methodologies that have been developed to assess housing developments against five quite different criteria. These are: energy use, resource use, neighbourhood character, neighbourhood connectedness and diversity. In each case, high and low sustainability practice has been identified so that ranking is possible. These methodologies have then been tested by evaluating a typical precinct (approximately 400 m by 400 m) of a 1970-80s housing development in a suburb of Geelong. The rankings of the particular precinct have then been combined in a visual way to assist in the evaluation of the housing in a more holistic way. The results of this evaluation method are presented, along with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies. The research is the outcome of collaboration by a cross-disciplinary group of academics within Deakin’s School of Architecture and Building

ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT LEVEL THROUGH THE USE OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABILITY

In this paper the authors analized the evolution of four major cities of Romania between 2006-2008, with the goal to compare and rank them in terms sustainable development. To meet this goal, we have choosed indicators of sustainability at urban level, grouped in four categories (economic, social, environmental and natural resources). For each city was calculated an overall score. The comparation of these scores could be used to diferentiate the cities in terms of sustainability in each year and the evolution during a period of three years, and provides important informations about the measures that can be applied for future improvement.sustainable development, indicators, monitoring, city, comparison, ranking.