Peter S. Brandon andPatrizia Lombardi #2005 by Blackwell Science Ltd a Blackwell Publishing company Editorial offices: Blackwell Science Ltd, 9600… [610446]

EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Peter S. Brandon andPatrizia Lombardi

#2005 by Blackwell Science Ltd
a Blackwell Publishing company
Editorial offices:
Blackwell Science Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1865 776868
Blackwell Publishing Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
Tel: +1 781 388 8250
Blackwell Science Asia Pty Ltd, 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia
Tel: +61 (0)3 8359 1011
The right of the Authors to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of
the publisher.
First published 2005Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
is available
ISBN 0-632-06486-2
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British LibrarySet in 10/12pt Palatino
by DP Photosetting, Aylesbury, Bucks
Printed and bound in India
by Replika Press Pvt. Ltd, Kundli
The publisher's policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy,
and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-freepractices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met
acceptable environmental accreditation standards.
For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website:
www.thatconstructionsite.com

Contents
Preface vi
Acknowledgements viii
1 Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable
Development 1
The environmental perspective 1The international policy debates 4Extension of the debate 9
The impact of the built environment 10
Sustainability: a definition 12Seeking a shared set of values 13Striving for a common framework and classification system 16The characteristics of assessment and measurement for
sustainable development 17
Management and intervention for sustainable development 21Implementing management decisions 23
Summary 24
2 Approaches to Evaluation 26
The Natural Step 27
The concept of community capital 30The ecological footprint 33Discussion 36Why evaluate? 37Indicators and measures 38
iii

Traditional versus sustainability indicators 40
Generic and specific questions 42International indicators 44Progress on UN Habitat indicators 51Summary 52
3 Time and Sustainability 54
Innovation and stability 56Perceptions of sustainable development 57Critical failure points 61
Time in evaluation 66
Future aversion 68Clever or wise? 69Practical assessment of `time' 70The luxury of the `time' horizon 71
4 A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable
Development 74
The need for a holistic and integrated framework 75The theoretical underpinning of the framework 78The built environment explained by the modalities 80
The fifteen modalities for understanding sustainable
development in the built environment 83
Development of the multi-modal framework for
decision-making 91
Key questions for examining sustainable development within
each modality 92
Synthesis of results 96Summary 98
5 The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 100
Case study 1: selection of a municipal waste treatment system 102Case study 2: `multi-stakeholder' urban regeneration
decision-making 107
Case study 3: social reporting of Modena City strategic plan 113Key issues of social reporting 114Summary and conclusion 118iv Contents

6 Assessment Methods 121
A directory of assessment methods 123An outline summary of the main assessment methods in use 127Linking the assessment methods to the framework 137Summary and conclusions 140
7 Towards Management Systems and Protocols 144
Who manages? 147The planning framework 149Management in a learning organisation 151
Soft system methodology 153
Process protocols 154
8 The Future Issues 161
The Vancouver study 167A research agenda 172In conclusion 174
Appendix A: The Philosophy of the `Cosmonomic Idea
of Reality' 175
Appendix B: Commission of the European
Communities: Communication from the Commission ±Structural Indicators 181
Executive summary 181Structural indicators 182
Annex 1: Indicators under development 193
Annex 2: Definition, source, availability and policy objective
behind the selected indicators 198
References 205
Websites 225
Index 226Contents v

Preface
This book is just a beginning. It seeks to address the issues related to
the evaluation of sustainable development within the built environ-ment and to provide a way forward. It is about how we can recognise,structure and assess all those factors that affect whether a development
is sustainable in the medium to long term. It is also about how we try to
balance these factors and how this contributes to our understanding ofsustainability. It is not exhaustive as the authors believe there is stillmuch to learn and to develop but it is hoped that it will provideanother step towards a better approach to the subject.
It is designed for practitioners and students who are interested in the
subject and wish to evaluate the impact of a development within thebuilt environment in terms of its sustainability. At the time of writing
there is considerable activity related to sustainability from a wide
variety of sources. There are world congresses, lists of sustainabilityindicators, government policies and funding programmes, all trying toaddress the issue. Many of these are limited and only seem to addresspart of the problem. The interaction between people and the builtenvironment, the contribution of human decision-making in its widestsense and the interdependence between all the various factors thatmake up a sustainable development are not always present.
This book will focus on two main issues. These are, firstly, how do
we create a structure of knowledge and thinking which will allow us todevelop a vocabulary which all participants in sustainable develop-ment can own and to which they will feel able to contribute and, sec-ondly, how do we assess progress in sustainable development? Thefirst is important because it enables a dialogue to take place between allthe stakeholders in such a way that the complexity of the problem canbe exposed, structured and communicated in order to gain confidence
from all the parties. The second is important because unless we can
vi

evaluate what contributes to sustainability it will be very difficult to
know whether a sustainable environment has been created.
These are fundamental and important issues. Implied in the struc-
turing is not only a recognition that many people are engaged but alsothat they come from a variety of backgrounds, disciplines and levels ofcommitment which all provide a different `filter' for the individual orgroup to view the problem or issue through. For them to come toagreement requires a structure which they can all understand and towhich they can contribute their particular view. It also requires mutual
respect and a desire to come to a solution that may involve compro-
mise. It involves education because all need to understand the positionof the others and it needs a language, which is not exclusive, but whichincludes all participants wherever possible. In terms of technique itrequires a confidence that the techniques for evaluation are fair andtransparent so that the inputs and outputs are not favouring one par-ticular view or, if they are, that all parties are aware of this limitation.There are very few, if any, techniques that are completely neutral in
their advice.
This book, therefore, is an exploration of some of these complex
issues and it attempts to provide an approach that can be built on andevolve over the ensuing years. The term `sustainable development' isrelatively new in terms of its current meaning and its definition, and itstools and techniques will develop over time. Our understanding ofwhat we mean by the term, and how it should be viewed, will change,but this book attempts to provide a structure which will endure these
processes and provide a platform which will allow the subject to grow
and develop in a consistent way.
Peter S. Brandon and Patrizia LombardiPreface vii

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the important contribution made to this
book by a number of individuals including:
oThe members of the BEQUEST European Network (sponsored by
the European Commission and led by Professor Steve Curwell ofthe University of Salford), who have debated many of these issuesover the past three years. Their work has provided a useful sourceof information for many aspects of this book and we value the
critique that they have provided of many of the ideas presented. In
particular, we would like to thank Steve Curwell and Mark Deakin(of Napier University, Edinburgh) who have critically analysedand interpreted the results of the assessment methods surveyreported in Chapter 6.
oHanneke van Dijk, who has played a very important role in
bringing this volume to print. Her patience, particularly in the laterstages, was exemplary and we appreciate the task she undertook in
conforming to the publisher's requirements.
oCristina Orsatti, who was kind enough to research the key con-
ferences in the field and other matters.
oDr Andrew Basden, who provided guidance on the work of Her-
man Dooyeweerd and enabled us to create the structure proposedin Chapter 4.
oErnesto De Matteis, who has provided us with the photo on the
cover taken from his personal collection.
oAnge Lee and Evandro Costa, who provided the Process Protocol
figures included in this book.
oOur respective families, who suffered from the time demands but
provided support throughout.
Appendix B is reproduced from the Official Journal of the European
Union (Brussels, 16-10-2002, COM (2002) 551 final). Disclaimer: Only
European Community legislation printed in the paper edition of the
Official Journal of the European Union is deemed authentic.
viii

1Setting the Context for Evaluating
Sustainable Development
The environmental perspective
The subject of sustainable development is one of the key research and
policy issues as we enter the early years of the twenty-first century. Atthe Rio Conference in 1992, 100 heads of states attended representing
179 governments that committed themselves to an agenda for
addressing the perceived problem. In 2002, 109 governments wererepresented at the Rio + 10 Conference in Johannesburg and vowed tocontinue the focus on what they consider to be this important area.Over the past five years the European Union has committed a sub-stantial proportion of its research and development monies to sus-tainability issues and the majority of governments that have a nationalresearch programme have also committed funds to the cause. So why
the interest and why is it at, or near, the top of global policy for research
and development?
With all new ideas, there is a long gestation period before they are
taken up as policy or identified as a key issue for researchers toaddress. There is little doubt that the current interest in sustainabledevelopment has come from the pressure groups and particularlythose associated with the green movement who saw the depletion ofnon-renewable resources (and particularly energy stocks), the pollu-
tion of the air and water and the breakdown of social conscience
through globalisation, as leading to the demise of mankind and thebalance of nature (the eco-system) which presently sustains livingcreatures. They considered that there was a moral imperative to takethe long-term view and to consider the impact of decisions taken nowon generations that would follow. It is true to say that within this
1

general thrust there was, and probably will be, a variety of opinions on
such matters as the extent of the damage being done to the environ-
ment, the responsibility for the current situation and the manner inwhich it can be remedied. There is, however, a growing consensus thatsomething is wrong and that mankind has a duty to do somethingabout it.
Knowing what to do is of course another matter and there is a
spectrum of views (see Fig. 1.1). At one end of the spectrum are thosewho suggest that we should conserve at all costs, change the way we
live and seek a reduction in economic growth as a means of reducing
consumption. At the other end are those who believe that necessity isthe mother of invention and that a `technical fix' will be found whichwill remove the need for such drastic measures to be taken. Theybelieve that the markets will drive up the price of non-renewableresources and that this in turn will encourage innovators to providesensible alternatives. Against this argument others would say that inthe time it takes for the markets to realise what is happening irrepar-
able damage may have been done to the planet for which future gen-
erations may have to pay the full price.
Much of this debate is at the level of the planet. Saving spaceship
earth is the clarion call and we must all be engaged in the earth'spreservation and its delicate ecological systems. This attitude may alsobe debated, for many would point out that the earth has been in turmoilever since its formation and species have come and gone, climaticchanges far outweigh the actions of mankind in terms of their devas-
Figure 1.1 The spectrum of views on sustainability.2 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

tation and in the very long term the earth itself will disappear and will
probably be engulfed in a black hole or other stellar catastrophe. The
response to this would be that we are the first species able to create itsown downfall and the first to be able to at least extend its sojourn onearth, so why should we not rise to the challenge and try to extend thelife of the species? The focus is on the environment and it is throughthis filter that human activity will be judged. This does not seemunreasonable as future generations will probably judge the activities ofthe current generation in the same way that we often judge the mis-
demeanours of the past: by the way they affect us now.
The question of time is a key one and the text will return to this in due
course. Over what period should we view sustainable development? Itis a critical issue for the systems and techniques we employ to measureprogress. If we take the very long term, the planet is probably doomedanyway. If we take the short term, we can probably muddle through andovercome or manoeuvre around the problems that we have created.How far ahead can we look? Is it one, two, several or hundreds of
generations? Most commentators would suggest that our ability to make
interventions that would aid future populations is limited to two orthree generations. Beyond this we would probably need to be prophetsor exercise witchcraft to know what to do. Predictions made 200 yearsago, extrapolating the knowledge of the time, seem naive and stupidwith the benefit of hindsight. For example it was thought that Londonwould be waist-deep in horse manure at the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century because of the growth of horse-drawn transport!
There is perhaps one area where we can predict a potential problem
and that is with the demise of non-renewable resources. Who knows ofwhat value these resources will be to those who will follow? We do notknow what benefits to health, to quality of life and to the supply ofuseful products these resources will bring because our knowledge oftheir potential is still limited. We do not understand how they may beused in different, complex combinations linked to other knowledge, forexample of the nature of genes, to the benefit of our children and
beyond. If some of these resources disappear, what legacy are we
leaving? We tend to view these resources in terms of what they canprovide nowand not what their potential benefit could be in the future .
Our outlooks are determined by their impact on us and the horizonsthat science and technology have set for us at this point in time. Oftenthese are limited to the human lifespan.
Since the mid-1970s these debates have grown in intensity and have
risen up the international agenda to the point where it is heads of
government who find themselves gathered together to address the
problem. Partly this is a recognition that it is a global problem. Most ofthe environmental problems are not confined within national bound-aries. (A hole in the ozone layer or a leak from a nuclear energy plantdoes not respect the arbitrary limits of territory designated by humanSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 3

beings.) Partly it is because this subject is recognised as being an issue
of morality in which all must co-operate if action is to be taken that will
change the course of environmental wellbeing. No one wants to be seento show a lack of commitment to such a key issue. Partly it is because ineach country there is a political imperative to address these issuesbecause the nature of the problem has permeated the public con-science. It is unlikely that the subject will go away and indeed for sometime to come it is likely to be a major item on the international agendadespite the fact that there are differences of opinion on how the matter
should be tackled. For example, President George W. Bush of the
United States of America refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement ongreenhouse gas emissions in his first term of office.
The international policy debates
Table 1.1 shows some of the key events in the development of the
world approach to addressing the problems of sustainable develop-
ment. All have made their contribution since the 1970s and it is thisgroundswell of views at the very highest levels of global governancethat has begun to change the actions of government and the investmentin research into sustainable development. Many of the world con-ferences and the publications were about the context within which thediscussion should take place. This context included the debates on thereduction in non-renewable resources and the apparent pollution of
land, water and air. However, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992) a sig-nificant change took place. An agenda for change was agreed andsigned up to by 179 world governments. Not only did they sign up, butthey also defined sustainability in a new way, extending its boundariesbeyond just environmental issues.
The signatories embraced the notion that environmental issues often
had their origins in the behaviour of the human race. When humans
dump toxic chemicals or do not seek to conserve energy, or create social
unrest leading to misuse or damage to existing resources, theirbehaviour has an impact on the environment. When the legal systemsand regulations employed by governments make it difficult or evenimpossible to act in an environmentally friendly way, this aspect ofhuman organisation has a detrimental impact on environmental issues.When the striving for economic growth results in poor use of the earth'sresources, this human action and policy lead to more degradation of the
environment. When there are big differentials between those who have
and those who have not, unrest can follow and the damage can besubstantial. The threat of terrorists gaining access to nuclear bombs isnow spoken of quite openly and the terrorists gain much of their supportfrom those who are economically or politically disadvantaged.4 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Table 1.1 Significant international conferences showing the growing importance of sustainable development.
Date Action Output
1972: 6±16
JuneUN Conference on the Human
Environment, StockholmNeed for a common output to inspire and guide the people of the world in the preservation of the
human environment:
(a) Action plan for the human environment.
(b) Educational, informational, social and cultural aspects of environmental issues have to be
faced.
(c) Construction of a framework for environmental action.
(d) Recommendation for action at the international level.
(e) Identification and control of pollution of broad international significance.
(f) Declaration of the UN.
1992: 3±14
JuneUnited Nations Rio de Janeiro
Conference
The Convention on Climate Change
was adopted on 9 May 1992 and
opened for signature a month later
at the UN Conference on
Environment and Development in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest
Principles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. As an output the subsequent follow-up mechanisms
were created:
Commission on Sustainable Development
Inter-agency Committee on Sustainable Development
High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development
1995: 7 April Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 1 (COP 1), BerlinThe Berlin Mandate was adopted at the first Conference of the Parties (COP) on 7 April 1995. It
acknowledged that the commitment of developed countries to take measures aimed at reducing
their GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 was not adequate to achieve the
Convention's objective. The main objective of the Mandate was to strengthen the commitments
for the developed-country Parties after the year 2000 without introducing any new commitments
for developing countries, while reaffirming existing commitments of all Parties contained in
Article 4.1 and continuing to advance their implementation.
1996: 3±14
JuneUnited Nations International
Conference on Human Settlements ±
Habitat II, IstanbulThis was the second conference organised for discussing the issue of habitation (Habitat I
Conference was held in Vancouver in 1976). It specifically focussed on current built
environmental problems in relation to major global changes (e.g. population growth, migration
towards urban areas, tourism, urban regeneration).
ContinuesSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 5

Table 1.1 Contd.
Date Action Output
1997: 8±19
JulyConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 2 (COP 2), GenevaAt the second COP, a large number of ministers agreed on the Geneva Ministerial Declaration,
which provided political impetus to the Berlin Mandate process.
1997: 1±10
DecemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 3 (COP 3), Kyoto Protocol,
JapanTargets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
1998: 2±14
NovemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 4 (COP 4), Buenos AiresAt COP 4 (Buenos Aires, November 1998), Parties adopted the so-called `Buenos Aires Plan of
Action', www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop4/16a01.pdf, setting out a programme of work
both to advance the implementation of the Convention and to flesh out the operational details of
the Kyoto Protocol. This programme of work was conducted in the subsidiary bodies and at COP
5 (Bonn, October/November 1999), with a deadline of COP 6 (The Hague, November 2000).
However, Parties were unable to reach agreement on a package of decisions on all issues under
the Buenos Aires Plan of Action at that session. Nevertheless, they decided to meet again in a
resumed session of COP 6 to try once more to resolve their differences.
1999: 25
October to 5
NovemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 5 (COP 5), BonnMinisters and officials from 166 governments agreed on a timetable for completing the
outstanding details of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by November 2000 in order to intensify the
negotiating process on all issues before the sixth COP.
2000: 13±24
November, The
Hague;
16±27 July
2001, BonnConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 6 (COP 6), The Hague and
BonnPledge to contribute C =450 million per year by 2005 to help developing countries manage
emissions and adapt to climate change. The Convention on Climate Change has been ratified by
37 countries.
2001: 29
October±9
NovemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 7 (COP 7), MarrakeshParties finally succeeded in adopting the Bonn Agreements on the Implementation of the Buenos
Aires Plan of Action, www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop6secpart//05.pdf, registering
political agreement on key issues under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. The final Kyoto rulebook
has been set. Countries must cut 80% emissions of gas. The Marrakesh Ministerial Declaration
emphasises the contribution that action on climate change can make to sustainable development,
calling for capacity building, technology, innovation and co-operation with the biodiversity and
desertification conventions. Up to Marrakesh, 40 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.6 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

2002: 26
August±4
SeptemberUnited Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development,
JohannesburgKey objectives to reach:
(a) A revitalised and integrated UN system for sustainable development.
(b) A new deal on finance ± enabling a deal on SD.
(c) An integration of trade and SD.
(d) A clearer understanding of how governments should move forward nationally in
implementing Agenda 21.
(e) A new charter which could lay the foundations for countries to frame their sustainable
development policies.
(f) A review of the work of the present set of Rio conventions ± looking at the overlaps, gaps and
obstacles.
(g) A set of new regional or even global conventions.
(h) A set of policy recommendations for the environmental security issues that face us.
(i) A clear set of commitments to implement agreed action by the UN, governments and major
groups.
2002: 34
October±1
NovemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 8 (COP 8), New DelhiThe usual division between developed and developing country positions on many issues was in
evidence at COP 8. Parties convened in negotiating groups on a number of issues previously left
off the agenda due to the pressing negotiations under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. The Delhi
Declaration reaffirms development and poverty eradication as overriding priorities in developing
countries and implementation of UNFCCC commitments according to Parties' common but
differentiated responsibilities, development priorities and circumstances, but it does not call for a
dialogue on broadening commitments.
2003: 1±12
DecemberConference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate
Change 9 (COP 9), MilanAccording to the way the Kyoto Protocol (KP) was written, it will go into effect only if 55 of the
signatories ratify. These signatories must account for 55% of the CO 2emissions at the then
specified date ± 1990. There is no problem with the first condition, as 121 countries have ratified
the KP. But thanks to the position of the USA (the country at the forefront of greenhouse gas
emissions), this is not going to represent the required minimum of 55% of emissions without a
Russian ratification of the KP.Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 7

A tangled web of issues leads to actions that eventually have an
impact on the environment. The way we live affects the world on a
global scale when we piece the whole of the jigsaw together. In thewords of John Donne, `no man is an island entire of itself ' (Donne,1623). The environment at one level is fairly robust, taking care of theevents that occur over time in a very practical way which is often notapparent to a single generation. At another level it can be presented asa very sensitive entity in which it is easy, through the interactions ofman, to destabilise the whole superstructure and the interrelationships
which provide the balance and allow the life forms that exist today to
survive and prosper. It is the survival of what we have today, the bio-diversity, the climatic conditions, the level of water supply and so forththat provides the basis for the argument for sustainability. No oneseems to be arguing for natural evolution which could see the demiseof the human race in favour of some other life form.
Therefore there is an element of conservation that features strongly
in the debate ± the maintenance of the status quo. However, a recog-
nition that the world is constantly changing is also there and must be
accommodated. Evolution is thought to underpin much of this changebut it is of course enhanced or aggravated by the activities of humans,not only in science and technology but also in the culture that theyadopt and the growth of populations. It is the pace of change that hasaltered and our impact grows greater by the day. The obligation to theneeds of future generations weighs heavily within the argument.
The report of the Rio Summit (United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, 1992) recognised these issues and
identified some major themes. Mitchell, et al. (1995) have distilled from
the literature of Rio and other reports four principles which underliethe guidance and advice is being given and take us beyond the pureenvironmental agenda, or at least to a better understanding of why
environmental conditions change.
These principles are:
oEquity: the concern for today's poor and disadvantaged.
oFuturity: the concern for future generations.
oEnvironment: the concern for the integrity of eco-systems.
oPublic participation: the concern that individuals should have the
opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them.
Only one of these themes is directly concerned with the environ-
ment. The others are moral imperatives or cultural endorsements or
mechanisms by which change can be effected through common
ownership of the problem. However, they all impinge on theenvironment and their selection as major themes has come from theenvironment debate. They arise from a collective view of `what isbest' for the world both now and in the future. They represent ourcurrent stance on these issues but it is not necessarily true that these8 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

principles will hold in the future even though most of us would sub-
scribe to them today.
Extension of the debate
The scope or focus of the debate has therefore been extended into new
realms concerned with social, legal, economic, political and technicalaspects of how we live (commonly known under the acronym SLEPT).
The shift has introduced a much wider debate about the values we
place on various aspects of our lives, how we treat others and whatlevel of intervention it is appropriate for a state or organisation to adoptto address these issues. Hence the move to an agenda with a differentfocus, known as sustainability. Since the word `sustainability' has comeinto frequent use, many commentators have queried whether it has anymeaning ± even though they acknowledge that the term has created animportant agenda. It is rather strange that a term which has favourable
connotations and is used as the basis of some major research funding
and government and industry initiatives is still considered rathervague by many individuals. Sometimes the concepts underlying theterm get dismissed because the term itself is not sufficiently defined forthese people to `buy' into it. For some, the term `sustainable develop-ment' is more meaningful as it suggests that it is concerned withinterventions by humankind into the environment that can be analysedto see whether they have a positive or negative impact on the envir-
onmental issues of concern.
It may be helpful to look at the root words in sustainable develop-
ment. To sustain means to continue without lessening, to nourish, to
allow to flourish. To develop means to improve or bring to a more
advanced state. Sustainable development is therefore about facilitatingimprovement without jeopardising what exists already. Sustainabledoes not mean that nothing ever changes, nor does it mean Utopiawhere nothing bad happens. It is not about maintaining the status quo
or reaching perfection. Development does not mean continually get-
ting bigger but is about qualitative improvement. In addition,sustainability does not mean sustained growth. At some point a com-munity stops getting larger but it continues to improve the quality oflife of its inhabitants.
This book has used sustainable development in its title for the above
reasons. The book is largely concerned with the built environmentwhich by definition is concerned with humankind's activity in creating
shelter and accommodation for itself, an act which inevitably changes
the environment in some way. In particular the development of cities,and the underlying social cohesion and culture which is createdthrough cities, has a big impact on the use of resources, the way peoplebehave, their interaction with nature and the waste products that ensuefrom this type of living.Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 9

The impact of the built environment
Unfortunately most of the interventions created by building accom-
modation in which to reside or to work have a negative effect on theenvironment. For example, the UK government has suggested (DETR,1998) that consumption associated with the built environment is asfollows:
oConsumption of each person in the UK averages 6 tonnes of
material per year broken down into 1.5 tonnes for new infra-
structure (roads, railways, etc.), 1.5 tonnes for new buildings and 3
tonnes for repair and maintenance.
oOf the 300 million tonnes of quarried aggregates per annum only
10% to 15% is recycled.
oOver 70 million tonnes of construction waste is created per annum
which represents 17% of the total UK waste.
oAround 70% of energy use can be directly or indirectly attributed to
buildings and infrastructure.
These are frightening statistics and reveal how important the built
environment is to any policy and evaluation of environmentalsustainability.
So where does the built environment fit into the big picture? As Fig.
1.2 shows, there is a growing complexity as we move away from theactions of individuals towards the actions of groups and nations andtheir interaction with the global environment. The more people
Figure 1.2 Levels of response to sustainable development. ( Source: Construction
Research and Innovation Panel Report: Sustainable Construction: Future R & I Require-
ments: Analysis of Current Position, 23 March 1999.)10 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

involved, the more the interactions and the more decisions become
driven by policy. These policies may not be co-ordinated and therefore
may conflict with each other. If this is coupled with the normal vagariesof nature, a very complex set of interacting systems emerges. This iswhat makes the holistic study of the environment and sustainabilitysuch a difficult research issue.
The built environment is just one strand of development found in
this complexity and there are many more. Nevertheless, the con-struction and use of buildings is an important factor in the overall
game. Buildings and structures use raw materials, some of which are
non-renewable. They use energy to extract these materials and tomanufacture components and, once in the structure, these affect theheating and cooling requirements of the accommodation space. Themanner in which people use the space could well affect the energyrequirements too, for example if a family has a pet dog in the houseit is likely that they will open the back door more frequently to letthe dog out. This in turn will increase the energy loss, creating
demands for the use of more fuel which may come from a non-
renewable source.
Figure 1.2 attempts to show the relationship between different parts
of the built environment including the communities that exist within itand the global environmental agenda. It starts with the constructionindustry and its suppliers, moves on to the built environment and theinfrastructure required to sustain human activity, and then moves upto the communities themselves. This structure is quite useful for clas-
sifying the broad areas that need to be addressed for sustainability
when viewed from the built environment perspective. It shows acontinuum between the elements but gives focus for particular groupsof decision-makers. Broadly, level `A' would be addressed by buildingcontractors, consultants and clients of individual structures, level `B'would be primarily the decision-making area for the planners and localgovernment and level `C' would be the province of central govern-ment.
This series of statements is, of course, too simplistic. For example, as
public participation is increased, so the representatives of citizens willneed to be engaged. Ideally we would want a common structure thatallowed information to flow freely from one level to another and acommon language to allow full communication both across disciplinesand between different levels.
This book will attempt to provide the starting point for such a lan-
guage and structure and there will be more on this later in this chapter
and beyond. There is of course an interdependence between all the
issues. The environment determines our need for a certain type ofaccommodation, the built environment is largely determined by thecommunities that dwell there and the buildings reflect the needs of theindividuals and groups, the culture and the location of the structures.Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 11

Sustainability: a definition
The discussion to date has centred around the transition from the
general environmental debate to the wider discourse which includes
those factors that influence the environment and therefore contributeto sustainability, and to the role that the built environment has to playin these matters.
It was the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that provided a fresh under-
standing of the intimate link between the earth's environmentalproblems and such issues as economic conditions and social justice. Itshowed that the social, environmental and economic needs must be
met in a balance with each other for sustainable outcomes in the long
term. It showed that if people are poor, and national economies areweak, the environment suffers; if the environment is abused andresources are over-consumed, people suffer and economies decline.The conference also pointed out that the smallest local actions ordecisions, good or bad, have potential worldwide repercussions. TheRio conference outlined the way that various social, economic andenvironmental factors are interdependent and change together. It
identified the critical elements of change, showing that success in one
area requires action in others in order to be sustainable over time.
A major achievement of the Rio conference was the development of
what became known as Agenda 21 ± a thorough and broad-ranging
program of actions demanding new ways of investing in our future toreach global sustainable development in the twenty-first century. Itsrecommendations ranged from new ways to educate to new ways tocare for natural resources and new ways to participate in designing a
sustainable economy. The ambition of Agenda 21 was extraordinary
for its goal was to make a safe and just world in which all life hasdignity and is celebrated (see http://www.johannesburgsummit.org).
As the basis for the programme, the conference took the definition of
sustainable development provided by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development (WCED) and its 1987 report entitledOur Common Future (WCED, 1987). The Commission was Chaired by
Gro Harlem Brundtland from Norway and the report is sometimes
referred to as the Brundtland Report . The Rio conference took much of
the argument in this report as the basis for its own recommendations. Itis one of the most important documents in the field of sustainabledevelopment.
The definition is as follows:
`Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.'
(WCED, Brundtland Commission, 1987)12 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

This simple statement has provided the basis for most of the debate
and actions those engaged with sustainability have chosen to follow.
However Brundtland went on to say:
`In essence sustainable development is a process of change in which
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orien-tation of technological developments and institutional change are allin harmony and enhance current and future potential to meet human
needs and aspirations.'(Note: author's italics.)
There are a number of points to be made from these statements for
what follows in this book. Firstly, the definition itself has come undercriticism because it is argued that it is difficult, even today, to deter-mine people's needs. To try to forecast what they might be in the futureis an impossible task. It is too difficult ± let's all go home!
However, the further statement above does give a better picture of
what can be done. It refers to sustainable development as a process and
not an end goal or destination. It is therefore open to further learning
and adaptation, and to evolution as knowledge progresses. It is aboutcreating a learning environment in which all participants strive toimprove the situation that exists for the needs of today and tomorrow.It acknowledges aspirations as well as needs and therefore engages thedrive for improvement that is seen in all societies. It is not necessarilyconservative and conservationist but it does recognise that a change ofapproach is needed in which the wider sustainable objectives are part
of the agenda for change. In addition, it recognises that it is about
harmony and balance between often conflicting aspirations and needs.
It therefore requires, on occasions, compromise and negotiation ratherthan imposition. No doubt there are times when imposition is essential,for example when irreparable damage might be done to the environ-ment if action is not taken quickly. However, on the softer issuesrelated to social issues a local democratic approach, where consensus issought, might provide an appropriate solution.
Seeking a shared set of values
If we are to engage in democracy, both in the imposition of lawsregulating behaviour and in local debate and negotiation, there needsto be a set of shared values which allows discussion to take place. Atone level it could be argued that the preservation of the human race
and the planet to which we belong is a motivation we have in common.
This is probably true, but there are some Eastern philosophies thatmight not consider the preservation of the human species as the pre-eminent driver for sustainable development. Nevertheless mosthuman societies by implication would place it high on their agenda,Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 13

even if some would place a different emphasis on the balance between
species. All would agree that the preservation of the planet and its eco-
systems are of considerable importance.
The establishment of a set of values is important if we are to strive for
harmony. Indeed one definition of a philosophy can be `the system ofvalues by which one lives'. The system is supported by logic andreasoning but underpinning the conclusions is this concept of value.The problem is, of course, that there are many shared value systems.Figure 1.3 is a typical landscape of a city and it can be seen that there
are many systems at work.
The photograph identifies many systems of which the following are
just a few:
oReligious system centred around the church. In days gone by this
might well have been the dominant set of values in the locality.
oCommunity system based on the interdependence between the
activities taking place and the community that demands and/oruses them.
oTransport system which uses vehicles and cars and taxis to ferry
people and products around the locality and beyond.
oBiological system which sustains human life but also maintains the
landscape environment that people and other life forms enjoy.
Figure 1.3 Value systems at work in the city environment.14 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oResidential system which allows people to have accommodation to
meet their needs.
oBusiness system which provides wealth and economic activity in the
region to support the local community and others.
oRetail system which allows the local community and those working
in the area to purchase new items to develop their standard ofliving and sustain themselves.
It is not difficult to see that behind this list of systems there are also a
multitude of different stakeholders. Stakeholders are those people who
have an interest in the area either political, social, economic or legal.They will have different stakes but all contribute to the area's wellbeingand most will have an effect on its advancement or decline. They willinclude citizens, lawyers, developers, shop owners, priests, busdrivers, taxi owners, local authorities, politicians and many more. It isalso not difficult to see that there is potential conflict between thesystems identified as represented by their stakeholders. For example,
the demand for business may squeeze out the residents from the area
or create transport systems which are different from those desired bythe citizens who live there or which have a detrimental effect on thehealth of both humans and plants. The noise level may increase to thepoint where the quality of life of the citizens is damaged and it mayaffect their ability to worship in the church. However, without thebusiness centre it may be impossible to create the jobs people need tosustain themselves and the wealth which supports their life improve-
ment. If the area is successful, the land costs rise and it may be that new
forms of development take place which destroy the sense of commu-nity enjoyed by those living in the area and attract a different kind ofperson or activity which is hostile to the current environment.
There is a very complex interdependency between all these systems.
Is it pie in the sky to expect that we can have harmony in such anenvironment? Many would say that it is, and yet our legal systems andgovernance attempt to create the framework in which, at the very least,
minimal protection is given to many of these demands. In some cases
the legal systems can work against each other and set in motion plansand activities which are not conducive to sustainable development.Another important factor is the timescale over which the decision willbe considered. What seems right and appropriate now, may well seementirely inappropriate in a generation or even less. Sometimes, andsometimes quite often, the changes that affect an area may come fromadjacent areas over which the decision makers in the locality have little
control. Indeed, sometimes they may be dictated by policy decisions at
national or international level. The harmony we aspire to may be dif-ficult to achieve and yet it is something for which we strive. What isclear is that, whatever we do, it is likely to be imperfect and whateversystems we set up to address these issues must have within them aSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 15

high degree of flexibility and be able to be altered and adapted within a
variety of time frames.
Striving for a common framework and classification
system
If we can accept that some degree of stakeholder engagement with
decision making relating to the built environment is desirable, it is also
important to consider within what framework or structure we need to
have the dialogue. If the dialogue is to be helpful it needs to be at variouslevels, depending on the participants. For example, it is unlikely to behelpful to have a highly technical discussion with a citizen who may beunaware of the techniques being employed in the assessment. However,it is also the case that every contribution should be able to be pulledtogether within an understandable structure which identifies where thecomment or report is targeted and how it helps the elements of sus-
tainability. The field is littered with models and reports and opinions
which are partial and unstructured. It is difficult for anyone to piecethese together in a structured way in order to derive coherence from thediverse contributions and also to allow comparison with otherassessments. It is rather like a group of people getting together and aretrying to communicate when each only knows part of a language andeach language is different. Confusion will reign and in the end it will bethe dominant participant who knows slightly more than the rest who
may get his or her own way either because this person is seen to be
superior or because his or her ability to communicate is just a little better.`In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king!'
A major part of this book is the attempt to deal with this issue of
structure and it will be returned to in Chapter 4. However, it is worthnoting at this early stage that the following are required from such aclassification:
oThe framework should be common to whatever form of sustainable
development is being considered.
oThe framework should allow for the evolution of knowledge about
sustainability as time progresses.
oThe framework should not impose solutions but should facilitate
thought and debate on the issue.
oThe framework should be understood by all participants.
oThe framework should allow different levels of knowledge to be
brought together for common understanding.
oThe framework should contribute to the wider question of global
sustainability.
oThe framework should have a theoretical base from which practical
decision-making can be implemented.16 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oThe framework should encourage a vocabulary and thought pro-
cess that aids communication.
oThe framework should allow the complex interrelationships within
sustainable development to be made explicit when required,together with their interdependency.
oThe framework should provide a mechanism by which knowledge
gained can be transferred in a clear and understandable way,assisting in the overall education process of society and of theparticipants in particular.
oThe framework should be holistic and encompass all issues likely
to impact on sustainable development.
This is not a trivial list. Many of these issues are fundamental and can
apply to a variety of complex problem-solving issues. Although thestructure itself is likely to require refinement in the light of newknowledge it should be sufficiently robust for its own underlyingprinciples to be kept intact.
The characteristics of assessment and measurement for
sustainable development
Once a structure is agreed it should be possible to develop a method to
establish whether progress has been made in sustainable development.This is difficult but is nevertheless vital to the field of study. If it is not
possible to establish whether we have improved our performance in
our move towards sustainable development it is difficult to justify anydecision that might be made now or in the future. How do we monitorprogress without some assessment? In addition, it is important toknow whether this assessment, if it takes place, is confined by thetechniques employed to assess. There is a danger that it might berestricted to those aspects that are easy to measure. This is not unlikethe drunk being asked at night why he is searching under a lamp-post
for a coin he has lost and replying `This is where the light is!' Measures
that are easy may not produce the right results.
It may be useful at this stage to distinguish between measurement and
assessment . Measurement involves the identification of variables related
to sustainable development and the utilisation of technically appro-priate data collection and data analysis methods. Assessment involvesthe evaluation of performance against a criterion or a number ofcriteria. Both performance and criteria can only be defined by a value-
based judgement; they are not empirically verifiable. Indeed the term
performance must refer to a goal-orientated behaviour, i.e. a behaviour
rendered meaningful by the existence of a criterion that specifies whena goal has been attained. So a publicly meaningful assessment can onlybe achieved if the value system underlying performance and criteria isSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 17

shared by both experts and public (Francescato, 1991). This latter
statement reinforces the discussion in the previous section ± there must
be common language and structure to make it intelligible.
The methods employed in assessment are dealt with in Chapter 6,
together with the appropriate application areas. There are considerablelimitations to all evaluation methods (see Bentivegna, 1997) but theseshould be made as explicit as possible in order for all participants toengage properly within the process, otherwise the techniques can bemisused to exact power.
Certain principles should underlie all assessments in sustainability if
they are to be used for maximum benefit. They should be:
oHolistic : They should encompass all the key aspects needed to
establish sustainable development.
oHarmonious : They should endeavour to balance or be used to balance
the criteria upon which sustainable development should be judged.
oHabit-forming : They should be a natural tool to all concerned and
encourage good habits.
oHelpful : They should assist in the process of evaluation and not
confuse matters by further complexity or conflict.
oHassle-free : They should be easy to use by a wide range of people
and not require extensive training unless they are to be used byexperts, and even then the results and their limitations should besimple to explain.
oHopeful : They should point towards a possible solution and not
leave the users in a state where there appears to be no answer.
oHumane : They should seek solutions which by their nature assist
the development of human beings without pain, suffering orundue anxiety.
Again, this is a daunting list which may at this stage of our knowledge
be impossible to achieve in its entirety. Nevertheless, it provides anaspiration which should be in the back of our minds as we develop
systems for evaluation. It is a sounding board for our development of
such techniques.
A review of the literature on assessment techniques will reveal a
number of what are called indicators for sustainable development. In
some ways this is a recognition that the subject does not always haveabsolute values which we can measure and present as fact. It may bepossible to provide hard measures for physical entities such as carbonemissions and levels of radiation in the soil but it is not possible to be so
precise with issues relating to social questions or human behaviour. In
these areas we can use measures to indicate what is happening but wecannot necessarily measure the direct impact on the environment orsustainability. For example, the downward spiral of economic activityleading to inner city decay might suddenly change when an inner city18 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

area suddenly becomes fashionable as people move into it from the
centre of a city because the centre has become too expensive. It is not
possible to be sure that this will happen but it may be possible to plottrends that suggest the probability that it might. This could then be anindicator of the regeneration of an urban environment and subsequentsustainability. On the other hand, if the city were to have no watersupply this would be measurable and would lead to an unsustainablefuture, as has occurred in several cities around the world. These issueswill be explored later in the book.
Another issue that is also relevant to this discussion is the categor-
isation of users or stakeholders of such information. There are bound tobe different levels of knowledge among them and the techniques willhave to be used where they are most appropriate. It would be easy toestablish a very complex list of such people and this in turn would addto the complexity of addressing sustainable development. In fact, theFrench (ATEQUE, 1994) have suggested a comprehensive classificationof participants in the built environment. The following list has been
developed by the Intelcity Roadmap (EU-IST 2001-7373) from the
ATEQUE classification of actors influencing the built environment(Intelcity Roadmap ± version 4, June 2003).
Civic service providers: the pole
of collective interest (ten actors):oelected representatives
ocity administrators
ogovernment agencies
oregional authorities
olocal authorities
oresearch institutions and
technical centres
ovocational training
institutions
oconsumer associations
onon-government agencies for
environmental protection andother relevant interests
oICT standards organisations
Private service providers 1: the
pole of operational decision-making (seven actors)
oproperty development
companies
onon-managing building and
infrastructure ownersomanaging building and
infrastructure owners
obanks and other financial
backers
oICT development companies
onon-managing ICT
infrastructure, broadcastingand content owners
omanaging ICT infrastructure,
broadcasting and contentowners
Private service providers 2: the
pole of design (ten actors)odesigners ± architects,
engineers etc.
oproperty and construction
technical consultants
otown planners
olandscape architects
oconstruction economists
odesigners ± software
engineers
oICT technical consultantsSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 19

However, a much simpler grouping which might also define the
nature of the techniques that might be employed could be as follows:
oCitizens : This general group would include all lay people engaged
in the process who have no formal training in evaluation butnevertheless should be engaged with the decision-making process.
oClients : This group would be largely the people who directly
commission development within the built environment. They areinterested in the impact on their own or corporate objectives. Inprivate development this can either be for the client's ownaccommodation or speculatively for tenants and users. In the
public sector their interest will be to establish value for the com-
munity.
oConsultants : This group would include the specialists and experts
employed to create change and see through the procurementprocess. Their main objective will be to provide for a reasonable feea service that satisfies the demands of their client base, as definedby themselves or the people who pay them.
Each may require a different set of techniques but within a standard
structure and with consistency in the messages that derive from theoICT systems designers
onetwork developers
oIST/ICT economists
Private service providers 3: the
pole of production (six actors)
oconstruction material
producers and distributors
oconstruction contractors and
managers
odevelopment control officers
oICT component producers
and distributors
onetwork and ICT equipment
manufacturers and managers
onetwork development control
officers
Mixed public/private service
providers: the pole of use (fiveactors)
otransport and utility service
providersofacilities managers
oinsurers
onetwork and network service
providers
onetwork and ICT facilities
managers
Citizens: the pole of use (six
actors)
ousers of buildings
ousers of public open space
ousers of transport and utility
services
ousers of city ICT services
ousers of ICTs
ousers of network and network
services20 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

techniques (See Fig. 1.4). This approach is still in its infancy but will be
addressed further in Chapter 4. The key issue is whether the techniques
employed encourage debate within the stakeholder group and whetherthey direct the decision-makers to a more sustainable developmentand/or one that has the flexibility to adapt to new circumstancesrelating to sustainability over time.
Management and intervention for sustainable
development
The discussion so far has focussed on the underlying issues related to
sustainability and our understanding of the term itself. The concept ofevaluation has been brought in and some of the issues related to
measurement and assessment have been addressed. But for what
purpose are these structures and measures? They are of little value ontheir own unless we can use them to do something which will alterevents. To do this it is implied that human beings must intervene toensure that something positive results. There is an irony here because itis often human intervention in the past that has created the severeproblems we have today. Now we have a different set of assumptionsfrom the past based on our improving knowledge of the earth and its
eco-systems but we also recognise that even today our knowledge is far
from complete. We also recognise the complexity of the systems we are
Figure 1.4 A consistent and integrated view for all parties to the sustainable devel-
opment process.Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 21

dealing with. This must mean that we have to tread carefully when
putting forward ideas for change and we must allow for flexibility so as
to be able to respond to the better understanding we may have in thefuture.
The discipline charged with the task of controlling and implement-
ing change is that of management. Managers are thought to possess theskills which allow change to occur efficiently and effectively. However,what is the responsibility of management? Webster's Dictionarydefines the role of management as `to bring about or contrive' or `to
direct or conduct the affairs of something' . This raises a whole series of
questions. It is not clear, in the case of sustainable development, what`management' is to `bring about'. We have argued previously that it is aprocess rather than a destination and the end goal in terms of what the
sustainable world might look like is changing and unstable.
The timescales and complexity of the issues that contribute to sus-
tainability are also major factors. In sustainable development we aretalking about long-term issues and a whole variety of things that act
together with a complex network of interdependent issues which may
well be changing as time progresses. No one manager has control overthe whole series of factors and in addition the timescales mean that,even if he or she did have such control, it is almost certain that themanagement would change over time. This raises the question of whowould hold the blueprint for sustainable development that we mightdesign right now. In reality it is likely to be held by a large number oforganisations and people who may well be going through several
transformations over relatively short periods of time. Who will feel the
ownership and responsibility to see the process through?
Part of the role of management must be to bring the stakeholders
together and strive for a degree of harmony between them. It must alsobe about timing and determining the process and trying to get theoptimum balance between all the factors making up a sustainabledevelopment. But optimum for whom? Each stakeholder will have adifferent view, no doubt! The manager will also be responsible for the
interactions between people and organisations, and for when they
should be consulted and when they should act. It is obviously a verycomplex problem which cannot be viewed in the normal managementsense. Indeed, it seems to be more about changing a culture within acommunity and then establishing a learning environment responsiveto that culture which is constantly reviewing its previous decisions astime goes on.
Managers have an important role to play in the process and new
management systems are required to deal with such a long-term and
complex issue. It is not goal orientated in quite the same way as con-ventional management operations, at least not at the strategic level. Ata tactical level decisions have to be made and they would follow nor-mal management practice except that the complexity of relationships22 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

and ownership of the problem could still be very diverse indeed. The
choice of system is critical to what follows. There is a tendency for some
prescriptive systems to control in a way that is counterproductive forthe learning environment required for continuous improvement. It iswhen managers have the insight to see that systems cause their ownbehaviour that these issues can be tackled effectively. These matterswill be explored further in Chapter 8.
Implementing management decisions
At some stage in any process that is going to change events someonewill have to make a decision. This statement is not as naive as it sounds.We can define the problem of sustainable development for ever and aday; we can bring out statistics that make clear the degradation of theenvironment; we can develop systems that are meant to provide aframework in which we can work; but if we do not get to the point
where we can make a decision, all will have been in vain. To be able to
do this we need to be clear about what decisions need to be made andwho will make them. The question is `Can this be left to chance or doessome order need to be brought to the process?'
If it is left to chance there is every likelihood that something will get
missed. If we make the process too prescriptive, either the balancebetween issues will get distorted or we will be led in a specific directiondictated by the system we are following. Neither of these approaches is
desirable. We need to create a flexible decision-making environment
where all factors are considered and where a structured approach canbe taken which has order without regimentation. We need to know wehave covered everything, and that all parties are aware of progress andthe critical points for `go' or `no go' so that we can work in harmonytogether.
This would suggest that a protocol of some kind is required to
achieve such an end within the process of planning, designing and
building, and perhaps one of the most valuable approaches is that
developed by Cooper for a process protocol (see Chapter 7) in terms ofthe development process for construction (Cooper, et al., 1998). A
protocol is any rule, code of behaviour or etiquette used to achieve orperform an action. It can therefore be formal or informal but in themajority of cases would contain some clearly agreed approach orstandard. In Cooper's Process Protocol there are a number of hard andsoft `gates' in the process through which the decision-makers pass. The
`soft gates' allow progress to be made without all decisions being firm
while the `hard gates' are points in the process where the process itselfcannot continue unless a firm decision is made by those engaged at thatpoint in time. It has been suggested that this procedure might beapplicable to sustainable development, and the Cooper research teamSetting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 23

have considered working on a protocol for sustainable construction
which can be superimposed upon the overall protocol as already
developed and integrated within it.
There is certainly a case to be made for a generic model that will
provide a template for evaluating and implementing sustainabledevelopment at all levels in the sustainable development process. In acomplex arrangement with a vast array of potential stakeholders, someform of standardisation is essential if all are to know how, and when,they can participate. It would provide a level of transparency which
would aid participation and allow all participants to understand the
process and the techniques being employed. The danger would be ifthis became too bureaucratic and slowed down processes just becauseof the weight of the management overhead involved. It is a balancebetween getting as close as we can to the right solution and the timeand effort required to get there.
Summary
This chapter has attempted to provide a context for the subject ofsustainable development within the built environment. It has intro-duced some of the arguments and has set the scene for what will fol-low. Sustainable development has been presented as a process that isemerging and evolving to reflect the knowledge that is emerging and
evolving at the same time. It has argued for six requirements in the
development of models and processes to be considered to address theevaluation of sustainability:
oWorking definition : Here it has been suggested that the WCED
definition might be appropriate even though it has inadequacies.
oShared value system : We need a consensus around a set of values in
order that all stakeholders can participate.
oRobust classification system : This is needed to provide a structure for
discussion within which knowledge-building can take place.
oA set of assessment/measurement tools : These are required to assess
whether progress has been made.
oManagement framework : If humans are to intervene in the process
they must operate within a system that they understand, andbecause of the timescales involved they must develop such systemsto be flexible and to provide an active learning environment with a
culture of self-improvement.
oProcess Protocol : This is required to ensure that all knowledge with
regard to sustainable development is addressed at the right timeand with the right technique or approach, otherwise some stake-holders will be disadvantaged.24 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

One further issue needs to be explored and that is the question of the
time horizon up to which any decision-making is intended to apply.
This is a big subject but it is critical to our understanding of process andwhat can be achieved by any group of decision-makers. This require-ment is fundamental to the whole of the evaluation process. Muchmodern planning can be considered to be short term and withoutconsideration for future generations. It is often dictated by economiccriteria prevailing at the time whereas truly sustainable developmentrequires the long-term view. We will return to this in Chapter 3.Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 25

2Approaches to Evaluation
Chapter 1 provided an outline of the issues related to sustainable
development and suggested that certain needs must be met. It is theintention of this book to put forward a structure that can address someof these issues although it is recognised that there is much work to be
done in creating the tools which will allow the complete set to be
implemented. For some time it has been recognised that unless someevaluation can take place it will be impossible to judge whether pro-gress has been made. But progress towards what?
In the previous discussion it was recognised that sustainable
development is a process and not a destination. It is something ongoing
which is at the same time a learning activity whereby behaviour ismodified as we learn from our actions and the growth of knowledge. It
follows, therefore, that it is likely to be imprecise in terms of
measurement and evolving in terms of content. This would suggestthat it might be useful to concentrate on the structure by whichknowledge is gained and classified in order that new knowledge can beidentified and placed within an appropriate framework. This willallow relationships to be expressed that will address the complexity ofthe multi-criteria and multi-dimensional nature of the problem.Sustainable development rests on the harmony between the needs of
stakeholders, and they require a framework within which they can
address the issues that affect them.
Underpinning the framework must be an understanding of what we
are trying to achieve and what we need to do to get there. The drivingforce is often the environmental agenda and therefore it is the valuesystems pertaining to this agenda that provide the foundation for theapproaches taken by many researchers and practitioners in the field.There are a large number of these and most are partial in terms of the
total sustainable agenda. For example, some just address the energy
26

issues, others the issues of pollution or contamination, and some just
focus on conservation or historical development. These are not wrong
in any sense but it must be recognised that they fulfil only part of theagenda for a sustainable development. There are also some which aremore fundamental and provide a generic approach. It is worth lookingat a few of these to see how they might impact on our future proposalsin the book.
The Natural Step
The Natural Step approach was originated by Dr Karl-Henrick Robertin Norway in the 1980s and in 1991 he attempted to describe the basicenvironmental laws that would form the basis of a sustainable society.These arose from a scientific consensus of what was required tomaintain the earth's systems. This consensus focussed on what were
called `system conditions' and these became the primary focus of the
Natural Step creators. The Natural Step emphasises that the only long-term sustainable approach in which business and society can operate iswithin the earth's natural cycles. It accepts that answers to the wideand complex environmental problems facing society are not clear so itreturns to basic science as the foundation of a consensus view (Robert,2002).
The scientific principles are:
oMatter and energy cannot be destroyed (first law of thermo-
dynamics and the principle of the conservation of matter).
oMatter and energy tend to disperse (second law of thermo-
dynamics) so that sooner or later all matter introduced by man willbe released into the natural system.
oMaterial quality can be characterised by the concentration and
structure of matter ± we never consume energy, only its exergy (i.e.
we decrease its order, purity and structure).
oNet increases in material quality on earth can be produced by sun-
driven processes. Disorder increases in all closed systems (secondlaw of thermodynamics), therefore an exergy flow from outside theeco-sphere is needed to increase order.
In this frame of reference `quality' represents the value of a resource.
Higher quality means a material is more useful, e.g. `concentrated' iron
is more valuable than iron ore, and so on. Throughout evolution,
energy from the sun has driven natural processes which have provideda continual increase in quality, e.g. concentrated hydrocarbons. Cur-rent industrial society reverses this process with the loss of materialquality being waste and pollution. Fortunately, nature constantly triesApproaches to Evaluation 27

to produce quality by reprocessing and reconcentrating waste into
more valuable resources, in a cyclical process. Recent industrialisation
has imposed a linear process in which quality is consumed faster thanit is produced in nature (Stahel, 1996; Jackson, 1996).
From an understanding of nature's fundamental cyclic principles,
the authors of the Natural Step believe that this can be accomplishedthrough four basic sustainable conditions. These provide the frame-work within which assessment and monitoring can take place. The fourconditions are:
(1) Materials from the earth's crust must not be systematically increased in
the atmosphere . In practice this means the extraction of fossil fuels,
metals and other minerals no faster than their redisposition intothe earth's crust ± in other words radically decreased mining anduse of fossil fuels and minerals.
(2) Materials produced by society must not systematically increase in the
eco-sphere . In practice this means the production of substances no
faster than they can be broken down and reintegrated into the
cycles of nature and the phasing out of persistant man-madesubstances not known in nature, e.g. CFCs.
(3) The physical basis for the productivity and diversity of nature must not
be systematically diminished . In practice this means the harvesting
and manipulation of eco-systems that preserve productive capa-city and diversity in order to husband the capacity of nature toreconcentrate and reconstruct waste in a way that maintains the
productivity of the land and sea.
(4) There must be a fair and efficient use of resources with respect to meeting
human needs . In practice this means that society's values should
allow sufficient stability to achieve the other three conditions bydoing more with less through a much more resource-efficientlifestyle in the wealthy sections of society.
These are, of course, important guiding principles and they provide an
effective sounding board for much of the discussion on sustainable
development. They also provide a context within which business canjudge its efforts and they have been used by a large number of orga-nisations that are sensitive to the environment or see long-term busi-ness advantage in addressing sustainability issues. The Natural Stepsuggests that organisations are not expected to achieve long-term goalsimmediately. Firms are encouraged to move systematically towardsthe goals by making investments that will provide benefits in the short
term while also retaining a long-term perspective. Organisations can
use the Natural Step framework to map out a series of steps that willeventually lead to sustainability. It is often appropriate to start with the`low-hanging fruit' and to take the steps that are easiest and that willachieve results that will help move the organisation towards its goals.28 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

This pragmatic approach has been attractive to a large number of
organisations.
Dr Robert's approach has been endorsed by over 50 of Sweden's
leading scientists and has been backed by a number of large Swedishindustrial concerns including Electrolux, Scandic, IKEA, OK Petro-leum, Gripen, SJ (Swedish rail), Bilspedition and over 60 local muni-cipalities.
In America The Interface Corporation, the world's largest manu-
facturer of commercial carpet tiles, was one of the first companies to
embrace the concept. In just a few years it had revised its processes and
products in line with this approach and had saved approximately $76million. It has since been joined by a number of other American com-panies including Home Depot, Nike, Mitsubushi Electric (USA), Col-lins Pine (Forest products), Placon, IKEA and MacDonald.
In the UK the principles underlie `Forum for the Future' led by
Jonathan Porritt and worldwide the Natural Step organisation nowincludes over 10 000 professionals and nineteen networks from all
disciplines.
These firms and organisations appear to recognise that viewing
sustainability issues through a framework that has a strong envir-onmentally friendly future perspective is good for their business andtheir relations with the community. They see the process as graduallymoving in a strategic way towards a vision rather than solely trying tosolve problems caused by the mistakes of the past. The method claimsthat the potential benefits of doing this include reduced expenses for
resources and waste disposal, avoidance of future liability, enhanced
innovation and improved internal morale and motivation.
In practice the approach has been of benefit to many, but it is not easy
to know what would take priority for the shareholders if there were aconflict between short-term profit and long-term environmental pay-off. It will depend on the commitment of the organisation to TheNatural Step principles and how far they are prepared to examine theirtrading activities to meet these goals.
In particular, the last principle of meeting human need is difficult for
any organisation to determine, let alone to action. At the national levelthe distribution of wealth is something that is debated continuously inmost democratic countries but the evidence in most economies is thatthose who have get richer while those who have not get relativelypoorer. Is this sustainable in the long term? In time this is likely to leadto a loss of social cohesion. A firm which might be trying to contributeto meeting the needs of all its stakeholders might find it difficult to
address this issue in any meaningful way. This is true for any orga-
nisation irrespective of the structures and frameworks within which itchooses to work. It is, however, a fundamental aspect of the WCEDdefinition of sustainability (i.e. meeting current and future needs) andthe themes of the Rio World Congress.Approaches to Evaluation 29

The concept of community capital
Another way to look at sustainability is through the concept of `capital'.
This term is familiar to those engaged in financial markets and refers to
the accumulated wealth, usually (but not exclusively) of a company.
However, it can also be applied to other facets that contribute to awider definition of wealth.
Maureen Hart, in her Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (Hart,
1999), suggests the following as being contributors to what she callscommunity capital :
oBuilt and financial capital : manufactured goods, equipment, build-
ings, roads, water supply systems, jobs, information resources and
the credit or debt of a community.
oHuman and social capital : the people in society, their skills, education
and health, and their ability to co-operate and work together.
oNatural capital : the natural environment, which includes natural
resources (both renewable and non-renewable), the services thatthe eco-system provides and the life-enhancing qualities ofnature.
All of these types of capital are necessary for communities to function.
All three types of capital need to be managed by a community. Allthree types of capital need to be cared for, nurtured and improved overtime. Hart (1999) goes on to suggest that this can be represented dia-grammatically as a pyramid (Fig. 2.1).
The base of the pyramid is the natural capital which relates directly to
The Natural Step systems but is extended to include those matters that
a community finds attractive or beautiful. The second layer of the
pyramid relates to human and social capital and has two blocks, peopleand connections. This begins to extend the concept of sustainabilitymuch further than the Natural Step. Human capital is each individual's
personal skills and abilities, physical and mental health and education.Social capital is the connections in the community and the ways inwhich people interact and relate to each other. The simplest connec-tions are connections to family, friends and neighbours and we can
then proceed on to the larger scale where we form connections through
community organisations, links to government and the ability to formcommercial organisations to create goods and services to satisfy theneeds of the community. Finally, the remaining level of the pyramid isbuilt capital which provides the physical infrastructure and supplies the
needs that allow the other levels to flourish. It includes roads, trans-port, factory buildings, houses and basic necessities such as food andclothing together with luxury goods such as dishwashers, cars, tele-
phones and computers.
Money is not included as money is just a medium by which we30 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

exchange goods and services. We do not have to use money as we
could exchange by barter, for example.
The three forms of capital are measured in different ways and this is
what makes them difficult to compare when trying to make valuejudgements. A value can be given to a house or car or share of stock inmonetary terms. It is much more difficult to place a monetary value onthose items that appeal to the human senses or contribute to a sense of
wellbeing. A mountain view, a clean beach, the ability to read, con-
tentment in a child and an open and free government are all of value tothe community but are difficult to capture in monetary terms, althoughsome try to do this through techniques such as cost-benefit analysis. Intrying to get harmony between stakeholders and even between thepriorities you might hold as an individual, it is very difficult to knowwhat weight to place on one feature rather than another.
Nevertheless the concept of capital would appear sensible. The
driving force behind the sustainability debate has been the loss of
natural capital through human intervention in the environment andthe pollution created by this intervention. In our daily lives we try tolive off the interest that we gain from investments rather than lessenthe capital, which, when invested, earns that interest. If we eat into ourcapital we will have less interest to enjoy, and eventually we will findwe have no capital from which to gain income. Extrapolations of whatis happening to our planet as we use up the non-renewable resources
are forecasts of what is likely to happen to our natural capital. It will
Figure 2.1 Sustainable community indicators. (Reproduced with permission from
Hart, M. (1999) Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators , 2nd edn. Hart Environ-
mental Data, North Andover, MA.)Approaches to Evaluation 31

eventually disappear and we will be able to get no return. We are not
always sure we can find an alternative that will give the same service or
satisfaction.
The concept of community capital takes this a stage further. It recog-
nises that people's quality of life also depends on other matterswhich are not just about food and shelter and our access to naturalresources but about how we can assimilate, create, interact, celebrate,care for and enjoy ourselves. In turn these things have an impact onwhat we demand from the man-made environment and conse-
quently what will be taken from natural capital to satisfy these
wants. Where these things are in balance we do not use up our capi-tal at a faster rate than we can replace it. Where they are out of bal-ance it can lead to disaster or extreme difficulties. This book islargely about the built environment and its contribution to sustain-able development. It is therefore largely addressing the top of thepyramid and how we create systems that allow us to monitorwhether natural capital and the response to demand are in equili-
brium. However, it must also take into account the communities that
create the demand and how development is contributing to the satis-faction of these wants in a sustainable way. This raises another issue:it is possible to invest and to create more capital. Most communitieswill want to improve their position rather than stay where they are.The Brundtland definition of sustainability (see Chapter 1) recognisesthis and specifically mentions meeting the needs of future genera-tions. The question is whether this improvement can be achieved
without depletion of the capital base.
At the present time there are many examples throughout the world
of communities giving up their natural capital and thus degradingtheir community capital. The obvious ones are the depletion of the rainforests in Brazil, the depletion of fish stocks in the North Sea, and thepollution of air, land and water in many places. It could also be arguedthat human capital is being degraded in some communities throughpoor health promotion (e.g. the spread of AIDS), insufficient and
inadequate education, poor training for employment and so forth. In
some cases the legal and financial infrastructure is not sufficientlyrobust to support the values of society or the need to conserve non-renewable stocks of resources. All these factors have a contribution tomake to sustainable development.
At the level at which this book is considering sustainable develop-
ment, i.e. at the largely urban level of the built environment, theselarger matters of community capital are viewed from the local per-
spective. However, some of these issues are global in their nature,
affecting other communities way outside the community that ismaking the decision to deplete the natural or other capital. Each localcommunity will be making an impact on the world outside and cannotignore the interdependence between itself and others.32 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

The concept of community capital is one that is useful in any
deliberation on sustainable development and it is important that any
structure or evaluatory system attempts to preserve capital whereverpossible. Again, it provides a conceptual framework which allows us toexplore sustainable development in a useful way.
The ecological footprint
So far we have addressed approaches that build on the broad issues ofthe environment and the way in which an understanding of capital canbe used to test judgement and explain the concept of sustainabledevelopment. These are compatible approaches where one extends theother. Another approach is to look at the impact that an individual oran individual development has on the environment and/or the com-munity in which they live or are developed. This is sometimes referredto as the ecological footprint. A footprint is of course a measure of the
amount of space that a person uses to stand upon the earth's surface. It
follows therefore that an ecological footprint is a measure of theamount of space a person uses in the eco-system. To take a simpleexample, imagine yourself living in a glass dome that covers you andsome land around you. If the dome is too small you will quickly runout of air to breathe, and if it were a little larger you might have enoughair but might run out of water or food. If you include enough space toprovide all your needs such as energy for heat, electricity and trans-
portation, housing materials, food, clothing, etc. as well as enough land
to assimilate all the waste that you generate and to convert all thecarbon dioxide to oxygen, the result would be your ecological foot-print.
The size of your footprint depends on the amount of resources you
consume. Someone who travels by foot or by bicycle has a smallerfootprint than someone who travels by car. It could be that someonewho lives in a small well-insulated house has a smaller footprint than
someone who lives in a large, poorly insulated house although the
ecological impact of the extraction processes for the insulation andquality of materials, known as their embodied energy , would have to be
taken into account. In the developed world it is lifestyle issues that areplaying an increasingly large part, including food menus requiring thetransport of ingredients from across the world, leisure activities andmethods of transport.
Some of the figures generated by this form of assessment are quite
staggering. It is estimated that the average American's ecological
footprint is over 13 acres. This compares with a world average of 4.68while in India it is 1.04. Figure 2.2 shows this in diagrammatic form.However, even with the existing population and the amount of pro-ductive land, there is less than 4 acres available per person on theApproaches to Evaluation 33

whole earth! If everyone consumed as much as the average American
we would need two more earths. It is clear that this level of con-sumption would not be sustainable if every one on earth were acting inthis way. It would require a major reduction in the earth's population
just to allow this kind of behaviour to continue if the wealth and life-
style aspirations of those in the developing and Third World are to berealised. Alternatively the developed world has to seek new ways ofachieving its quality of life without endangering the planet on whichthe activity takes place. It would require a change in lifestyle that usesnatural resources without degrading or destroying the ability of theeco-system to continue to provide those resources and servicesindefinitely (Wackernagel, et al., 1993).
Imagine now looking not at the individual but at the impact of a new
building or development. What would it take to bring the building ordevelopment into operational being and what would be the impact onthe eco-system? This would include all the energy required for theextraction of materials, the transportation of materials and labour, theinfrastructure for the construction process, the materials for the com-ponents, the communication links, the water supply and so on. Thenyou would have to consider the running and organisational costs of the
building and all the activities and heating/cooling, etc., that were
needed to meet the occupiers' demands. Finally, you would have toconsider the issues related to demolition and disposal as well as thedisposal of waste over the lifetime of the property. The ecologicalimpact could be vast.
Figure 2.2 The ecological footprint of countries. ( Source: Wackernagel & Rees,
1995.)34 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

In construction and building the notion of footprint is well under-
stood. This is the area of the planet's surface directly covered by a
building's ground floor plan. However, its ecological footprint is not sowell established. In one sense it could be argued that every building isan act against nature (Cooper & Curwell, 1998). A building directlymakes some proportion of the earth's surface organically sterile bycovering it over, rendering that area of soil incapable of producingthose natural resources that require the interaction between soil, sunand water. As a result, in ecological terms the building is a parasite,
what Rees (1992) describes as `a mode of pure consumption' which
calls on an extensive external resource base to sustain the life that ithouses.
It follows that a building's footprint is very much larger than the
physical footprint it occupies. It will require other activities to sup-port it, many of which will be elsewhere and distant, and each ofthese will have its own ecological footprint. These may grow intoeconomic or cultural dependencies which may develop instability or
new power structures when acting together with other aspects of a
global economy. These in turn may create social unrest and lead toconflict and more wastage and pollution. For a large building as fora city, the ecological footprint may extend across the planet, drawingin materials from developed, developing and Third World countries.This problem of boundaries and interdependence makes thedevelopment of an assessment tool based on the footprint verydifficult.
For a city or building to be described as sustainable its ecological
footprint should closely match or be smaller than its physical footprint.This is achievable only by using the minimum of resources, byobtaining them locally and by minimising the amount of resultingpollution and waste to a level that can be disposed of safely within theconfines of the site or community. This is the concept behind theautonomous building or city. However, autonomy is too unsophisti-cated and restrictive to effectively define sustainable urban develop-
ment in modern complex market economies. The idea of replacement
or renewal is better. This accepts that resources are finite and, com-bined with man's ingenuity and technology, can supply a givenmaximum at any one time. Finite resources are being drawn upon tooheavily so we must replace the natural capital that is used by anyparticular development. This idea is supported by the concept of totalcost accounting, in which the external costs of environmental degra-dation of the production process are represented in the internal costing
of products and services ± which in turn is reflected in the `polluter
pays' principle (see Constanza, 1991). These ideas have the attractionthat a number of traditional ways of assessing `progress' such asmoney, energy, labour content, etc., can be used to assess sustainabledevelopment (Cooper & Curwell, 1998).Approaches to Evaluation 35

Discussion
These concepts are useful, particularly in terms of the environment.
They provide us at a very strategic level with conceptual criteria which
we can apply to a new or existing development to ascertain whether or
not the development is going to be sustainable. In the case of theNatural Step and the ecological footprint, they are looking at the issueof sustainability through the filter of the environment and the reasonswhy people behave in a certain way to cause these things to happen arelargely ignored. It is the end result that is the focus and not the pro-cesses leading to such an eventuality. Of course when these are used inpractical decision-making they act more as checks and drivers on the
processes and measures used to judge them. It is a little like assessing
the result of a general election. The end result is clear but the reasonswhypeople voted in a particular way need much further analysis and a
great deal of knowledge of the factors that concerned people at thetime. This in turn requires an understanding of their culture and theframework within which they live their lives. This framework includesthe value systems that they hold dear and the legal and ethicalframework that reflects these values. None of these issues is overtly
reflected in the two systems although it could be argued that the
concern for the environment and the preservation of the human speciesare strongly represented.
The concept of community capital takes the matter a stage further. It
looks at a much wider range of issues which ultimately have an impacton the way human beings intervene within the environment. However,it looks at them as capital which in this context means the wealth andresource available to be used at any point in time. Is this resource being
depleted or is it being enhanced? Will future generations be able to use
this resource for their benefit or will it diminish or disappear and not beavailable to them? In the case of the natural capital this could be dis-astrous unless renewable alternatives are found or space freight traveloccurs and we can mine other planets. Since both of these areunknowns, we can assume that in our timescale for decision-makingspace travel, at least, is not part of the equation. We cannot easilypredict how technology will develop to create alternatives so it may not
be sensible to build any strategy for sustainability on this expectation.
We could have damaged our planet beyond repair before the alter-native is produced to satisfy our needs.
Nevertheless, the introduction of community capital is very helpful
since it begins to address the processes by taking us into the realm of
human behaviour, values and judgement ± the very things thatdecision-makers have to deal with when making practical decisions.However, there are still limitations. It is still monitoring the end result
and not the interrelationships which take us to the point where capital
is created or diminished. The processes are implicit in the system but36 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

not explicit. It is a little like looking at the value of your house and not
considering the multitude of processes, decisions and external factors
that act together to reach the finite sum we call house value. Theconcept of the value of the house is largely an economic one but itderives from supply and demand. Demand will reflect society's valuesin terms of accommodation requirements (bathrooms, kitchens, etc.)and also location, perhaps the most important variable for most houseprices. The supply side will provide what society demands, whetherthat is brick external walls, two bathrooms, a level of heating or cooling
to provide comfort, gold plated taps or whatever. Society, on the other
hand, may wish to control some of these issues so it produces planninglaws or gives powers to local authorities or introduces anti-pollutionlegislation which limits what can be done.
The strength of the relationships between this mass of variables and
the way they interact is important. In addition, the concept of capitalgives little indication of what affects what and by how much.Obviously these are major issues which any structure is going to find
difficult to address. However, perhaps we should be striving for
something which keeps all these concepts intact but takes them stillfurther in providing an understanding of relationships and how theyimpact on sustainability. It needs the widest possible terms of referencebecause practically anything that occurs in the world can be said tohave some impact on the question of sustainability and sustainabledevelopment. In Chapter 4 we try to put forward another frameworkwhich attempts to provide further illumination of this question.
For the moment we will leave the matter of structure, process and
interrelationships and will focus on the evaluations we may think areappropriate for assessing progress in sustainable development. Eva-luation tools are critical for such monitoring but they are also impor-tant for setting targets for the future and for gauging the importance ofthe variables which contribute to the concept of sustainability. Withoutthem it is hard to rank, prioritise, measure and act in a sensible andauditable way.
Why evaluate?
If people are going to adopt the principles of sustainable developmentthey will need to adopt policies and possibly commit resources toachieving sustainable objectives. Sooner or later someone is going toask whether this investment of resource or adoption of policy is
working. To answer these questions requires evidence and this evi-
dence must be acceptable to all the parties involved. In practice, forlarge developments, it is likely that what constitutes evidence will beagreed in advance and may well form the basis of the decision to goahead. Evidence can come in many forms but in the vast majority ofApproaches to Evaluation 37

cases will be reflected in some sort of quantitative measure. Even
where the evidence is of a qualitative nature, for example the happi-
ness of the community, a survey that provides statistics on the views ofthe population being studied will be required. The qualitative data isthus represented in a quantitative form.
If this is accepted as a requirement, the issue becomes one of `what
aspects of sustainable development do we evaluate and in what form?'This is not an easy question to answer and there are literally thousandsof organisations across the globe attempting to establish sets of infor-
mation that will address this issue. Of course there is massive overlap
between the sets being developed but at the same time the commu-nities to be evaluated often have their own particular issues which theywant to address and these may not be applicable to others. In addition,and this is even more common, they will want to prioritise the criteriato suit their own particular circumstances. In a study of the suburbs oftwo cities, Salford and Turin, with similar profiles of workers, Salfordresidents placed the reduction of crime as their highest priority and
Turin residents placed environmental quality as their highest
requirement (Curwell & Lombardi 1999). To some extent this reflectsthe present state of affairs in the neighbourhoods and a previous lack ofinvestment in certain areas of public life. The starting point is differentfor each case study under consideration. If these highly ranked issuesare addressed in twenty years time they may be reversed for each city ifadequate action is not taken to resolve the changes that may take placeover this period.
There appears, therefore, to be a requirement for a high-level,
strategic, questioning framework that is generic to all issues of sus-tainability. We also then need, for a particular scheme, a specificframework that operates within the generic framework but takes intoaccount the local issues. This raises the questions of what we measure
and to what level of detail . We also need to ask what level of reliability we
would find acceptable.
Indicators and measures
If we are to evaluate sensibly we need enough information to enable usto make sensible and good decisions. It is possible to measure manythings to several decimal places but the extra benefit obtained frommeasuring to this level of detail diminishes rapidly beyond a certainpoint. In fact in some cases it is counterproductive to have too much
detailed information since it can confuse, can give a false impression of
accuracy when the underlying data from which it is abstracted is notmeasured with precision, and can add to the computation problem.Imagine all the detailed information that goes into the calculation ofecological footprint outputs. We could present the accumulated data to38 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

many decimal places but, firstly, many of the inputs would be fairly
coarse measures; second, the data would probably be out of date now;
and third the conversion to `carrying capacity' is not a precise art.However, the output is not devalued by a broad approximation. Itindicates the comparative values between societies and allows us to
draw a reasonable conclusion.
To take another example from everyday life, we do not require a very
precise measurement of the amount of gasoline or petrol left in the tankof our car when we are taking a journey. The purpose of the measure is
to tell us when to fill up again to avoid running out of fuel. We know
that when the tank gauge shows it is empty, with or without a warninglight, we will have enough petrol to get to a reasonably close petrolstation. When it is half-full we can gauge roughly when we will need tofill up again on a long journey. The indicator has to be timely to beuseful. It would not be of much use if the petrol or gas indicator onlyshowed the position at the start of the journey and did not keep thedriver informed along the way. It also has to be understandable in that
it must convey the information quickly and effectively. Petrol gauges
can come in different forms such as a dial or an electronic presentationbut they have the same purpose. These rough indicators, the measuresused and the methods of presentation are sufficient for the purpose forwhich we use them. If, on the other hand, we wanted to undertake atest of the fuel efficiency of the car we might need to measure everydrop of petrol used and the precise distance covered.
Indicators therefore are presentations of measurements to suit a
particular need. They are pieces of information that summarise the
characteristics of systems or highlight what is happening in a system.Indicators simplify complex phenomena and make it possible to gaugethe general status of a system. An indicator helps you understandwhere you are, which direction you are going in, and how far you haveto go. It both assesses the current situation and gives advice for thefuture. Indicators can alert you to a problem before it becomes criticaland in some case can help the user recognise what needs to be done to
resolve the problem. Sometimes it is useful to bring many indicators
together to provide a composite assessment of what is happening andthis is called an index . However, an index is an indicator in its own
right, simplifying the complexity of the indicators that form its con-stituent parts.
The essentials of all good indicators are therefore as follows:
oThey must be relevant and fit for the purpose for which they are
intended.
oThey must be reliable so that you can trust the information the
indicator is providing.
oThey must be easy to understand even by the people who are not
experts in the field.Approaches to Evaluation 39

oThey must be based on accessible data so that the information is
available while there is still time to act.
Traditional versus sustainability indicators
The reader will be aware of the very large number of indicators that
abound in the world today. All the developed nations have a long
history of collecting information that could be useful to them in making
strategic decisions and in particular for advising government on policyissues. The areas where these indicators proliferate most are in theeconomic fields where the economic performance of a government iscritical to its survival in office and in advising the financial and tradingmarkets on where to invest. These may be measures of, for example,trends in employment, inflation, level of investment or gross nationalproduct. Gradually these measures are being brought into line so that
comparisons can be made across national boundaries.
Other sectors are also producing similar sets of measures that gauge
how they are performing. For example, the health services may want tomeasure life expectancy or waiting lists at hospitals or cost efficiencyper patient. The education services may want to measure the cost perpupil, the performance of school children in standard tests or theleague tables on school performance in a particular area. The transportdepartments may want to examine the congestion in an area judged by
the number of cars passing through a checkpoint or the number of
passenger miles travelled on public transport. With increasedaccountability the number of indicators has grown enormously. It isimportant to realise that most of these indicators are derived fromsome kind of model which a group of people, usually designated asexperts, have decided is the appropriate way to measure or evaluate aparticular feature. There can be arguments for different measuresdepending on what end result is required.
Sustainability raises another set of issues which may not be reflected
in these traditional measurements. For example, the economies of mostnations are measured in terms of gross national product (GNP). Thisdrives the agenda of most governments and is thought to be a gauge ofprosperity. However, sustainability wants to look at the quality of lifeover the longer term. It is more concerned with long-term prosperityand the underlying issues that reflect this quality of life. Normal GNPmeasures may not reflect these issues. For example, a country that has a
large number of car accidents may well see its GNP grow because these
accidents place extra demand on the health services and extra demandfor new cars or car repair services. These push up the GNP but it wouldbe difficult to argue that this aids sustainability or adds to the quality oflife. On the other hand, if a large number of citizens decided to walk to40 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

work the population would be fitter and would place less demand on
the health services, but the GNP would go down.
To take some other examples, a traditional indicator might use the
cost of electricity as a measure for energy but to use this as a cost ofconsumption, without regard to the effects on the energy use, wouldnot assist in indicating an improvement or otherwise of sustainability.If the cost is lowered it is likely to increase consumption which mightnot be desirable from a natural resources or air pollution perspective.
Another indicator might be the median income of a family, which is
frequently used as an indicator of economic wellbeing. By definition, in
any community half the people earn less than the median and half earnmore. What this measure does not do is link the economic wellbeing ofthe community with the social or environmental wellbeing of thatcommunity. So if, for example, the median value rises by 5% butinflation rises by 10%, the economic wellbeing of the community hasdeclined in comparison with other communities in terms of what isnormally required to live at a certain standard. A better measure might
be to see whether the median income allowed a person to survive at a
certain level based on the average cost of basic needs of that commu-nity within its social context. Another problem might be that the rise of5% is a result of using up non-renewable resources and is thus at theexpense of the environment. Here, a measure which looks at the per-centage of the population whose income comes from the non-sustainable use of resources might be a better one.
This brief introduction to the problem raises a number of issues of
which two are key to further development. Firstly, where will we get
the data for these new measures when the world has spent the lastcentury or more developing and recording against a set of measuresthat are now thought to be inappropriate, at least to the sustainabilityagenda? Second, how many of these indicators do we need to use to bereassured that we are indicating in a reliable manner whether adevelopment is sustainable or not?
The first point is easy to respond to, but less easy to implement. At
some stage in the past our society was faced with just this issue when
determining its current set of indicators. It managed over time todevelop and add new ones so that we find ourselves with the range wehave today. The same will happen with sustainability indicators pro-vided there is the political will to ensure that sustainability becomes akey issue in all policy making. The real problem is that today we areless patient. We expect to have this kind of information quickly and forit to be easily accessible. It may be that the growth of the internet will
allow both speed and accessibility. Certainly the ease with which data
can be downloaded has greatly increased, and more and more iscoming into the public domain. The question of data capture is lessobvious but this will depend on the growth in integrated systems andtools such as remote sensing which may allow automatic capture ofApproaches to Evaluation 41

information and analysis that can then be made widely available. There
is no doubt that we are moving in this direction, sometimes with
concern over the kind of information being captured and also theprivacy of this information.
Technically many of the problems have been solved. Perhaps the
main issue now is how far society is prepared to go in making trans-parent the way its citizens behave? Issues of privacy and individualitybecome important in this matter. However, there will still be a verylarge number of indicators, perhaps the majority, which relate to social
and political issues that are difficult to capture by machine. In addition,
if we do use measures we sometimes forego the richness of humanculture and society and consequently lose something significant interms of sustainable communities. Issues such as aesthetics and heri-tage can come into this category. How is it possible to measure theseand capture their full meaning to a society? Not only that, but ourperspective on these matters changes quite quickly and what is anappropriate view now will not necessarily be shared by future gen-
erations. You only have to look at how society values buildings over
time. At one point it wants to pull them down to build a `brand newmodern' future, then shortly afterwards it wants to preserve them aspart of its common heritage, signposts to the past and a sharing of itscommon roots. In addition, the public view of what is a beautifulbuilding also changes as fashions come and go. To ascertain thesefactors in the sustainable development debate will require new meth-ods and a totally different view on the data with which we work.
Generic and specific questions
Whatever approach we adopt, we have to recognise that it will never becomplete nor will it capture every possible nuance that relates towhether something is sustainable or not. It will be a useful (we hope!)contribution or indicator but it will not be precise. There is also another
important issue that we need to address: how many indicators do we
need? If we have too many the systems fall into disuse because humanbeings cannot spend the time collecting and analysing them or theysuffer from fatigue or they think it is economically not worthwhile. Ifwe have too few we run the risk of missing a really important featurethat goes to the very root of whether a particular development, in thecase of the built environment, is going to be sustainable. There havebeen many attempts to provide a comprehensive list of indicators but
there are severe problems. The UN Report on the State of the Indicators
(2001) suggested that many people are designing many indicatorswithout verifying them as there are no data collections related to thechosen indicators and consequently many of the indicators are notbeing used. (Appendix B, European Commission Structural Indicators,42 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

shows the structural indicators for EU countries which provide an
indication of the data collected recently. These indicators are, however,
constantly under development.)
There appears to be no consistency in the choice of indicators among
the various groups trying to evaluate sustainability, and no consensusas to what the indicators should contain and what should be themethod of assessment. Of course something like this has happened in awide variety of disciplines as each discipline has emerged. It is notpossible to wave a magic wand so that suddenly everyone agrees and
an instant structure and set of measures is created. There needs to be
considerable dialogue and debate and a real wish to seek a commonground. Unfortunately it is human nature to hold on to the measuresyou have invested in and developed, even though something bettermight be preferred by others. At some stage a powerful authorityneeds to endorse a particular approach so that the others will followand create such a strong critical mass that it is difficult not to change. Inthe case of sustainable development that authority is currently the
United Nations, as we shall see later. However, it is by no means
dominant and there are still hundreds of different systems being usedthroughout the world.
This does raise another question. At what level of detail is agreement
to be sought? Surely there are generic questions to which we can all giveour assent. We can then leave the second-order questions that follow toan evolutionary process of refinement and selection. For example, if oneof the key questions for a sustainable development is `What level of
commitment and vision is there from all the stakeholders to the pro-
posals being postulated?' we could leave the other questions that teaseout the detail behind this generic question to the particular communityundertaking the development and its own set of priorities. In the UK, fora new commercial scheme on a derelict brownfill site, we might askabout the political support, the planning authority support, the financialsupport and so forth. On the other hand, if we were evaluating theregeneration of a historic area as our development we might want to ask
these questions but also to ask about the views of the community on the
preservation of the area, the vision of the national historic commissionsinterested in this work and the Arts and other councils.
In fact because of the complexity and interdependence between
factors and the external implications for most development, it wouldbe impossible to devise a robust scheme at this second level whichcould be used by all. We would find that the list would get longer andlonger as each proposal identified how it was different from others that
preceded it and why it therefore should have a different set of ques-
tions and different evaluation criteria. These would then have to beadded to the list. This probably paints too black a picture as in timethere would be sufficient consensus around a set of issues, at least for aparticular type of development. It does, however, illustrate the diffi-Approaches to Evaluation 43

culty. It also illustrates where we should be placing our effort at this
time: on the big generic questions around which we should be able to
gain a consensus. To do this we need a robust structure within which toframe these questions and this book tries to contribute to the debatewith the proposals in Chapter 4.
International indicators
There has been a strong desire among all those addressing the issues ofsustainability to provide a set of indicators that can form the basis of anagreed set of parameters for sustainable development. Given the pre-ceding discussion it is clear that these indicators will need to be at ahigh strategic level, allowing more detailed work to take place at thenext level down in tailoring the indicators to the needs of local andcultural circumstances. Of the many that have been developed therecan be little doubt that those developed by the United Nations
(UNCSD, 1996) are likely to have the most authority and to be imple-
mented most widely as a result. Indeed the intention of such indicesand indicators is to gain widespread support and use in order that theconcept of sustainable development can be included in all nationalagendas, allowing for international comparison.
It would be true to say that there is still some debate about the
indicators to be adopted and some of the developed nations of theworld would argue that those currently listed are simplistic and do not
reflect the complexity of the problem. They also believe there can be
trade-offs between the indicators such as the planting of forests tocompensate for CO
2emissions. Nevertheless, the indicators identified
by the United Nations have widespread acceptance and form the basisof many of the other indicator lists found across the world. They aregrouped under a number of categories of sustainable development, i.e.social aspects, economic aspects, environmental aspects, and institu-tional aspects. These are listed in Table 2.1 (see http://www.un.org/
esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isdms2001/table_4.htm):
The model on which they are based is the Driving force-State-
Response framework. Driving force indicators suggest human activities,
processes and patterns that impact on sustainable development, state
indicators suggest the state of sustainable development and response
indicators indicate policy options and other responses to changes in thestate of sustainable development. These are shown in Fig. 2.3.
The indicators in the Commission on Sustainable Development
under the UN Sustainable Development Programme are described as a
`working list' which suggests that they are still under development.They are structured according to the chapter headings of Agenda 21.Agenda 21 was the 300-page plan for achieving sustainable develop-ment in the twenty-first century which arose from the United Nations44 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 and
was endorsed by over 100 heads of state. The Commission on Sus-tainable Development (CSD) was created in 1992 to ensure effectivefollow-up of UNCED: to monitor and report (UNCSD, 1996) on
implementation of the earth summit agreements at the local, national,
regional and international levels. The CSD is a functional commissionof the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) with 53 members.In June 1997 a special session of the General Assembly of the UNadopted a comprehensive document entitled Programme for the Fur-ther Implementation of Agenda 21, prepared by the CSD to take theissues still further. It continues to be the arm of the UN that ensuressustainable development issues have high visibility within the UN
with a series of workshops and conferences around the world.Table 2.1 Categories for UN indicators.
SOCIAL
(1) Equity : poverty, gender.
(2) Health : nutritional status, mortality, sanitation, drinking water,
healthcare delivery.
(3) Education : education level, literacy.
(4) Housing: living conditions.
(5) Security : level of crime.
(6) Population : population change.
ENVIRONMENTAL(1) Atmosphere : climate change, ozone layer depletion, air quality.
(2) Land : agriculture, forests, drought, urbanisation.
(3) Oceans, coasts, seas : coastal zone, fisheries.
(4) Fresh water : water quality, water quantity.
(5) Bio-diversity : eco-system, species.
ECONOMIC
(1) Economic structure : economic performance, trade, financial
status.
(2) Consumption and production patterns : material consumption,
energy use, waste generation and management, transportation.
INSTITUTIONAL
(1) Institutional framework : strategic implementation of sustainable
development, international co-operation.
(2) Institutional capacity : information access, communication infra-
structure, science and technology, disaster preparedness and
response.Approaches to Evaluation 45

Not surprisingly the `environmental' category of Agenda 21 appears
to be the most developed but it is likely that the others will be enhancedas time goes on. An example under the `social' category is given inTable 2.2.
It is clear from Table 2.2 that these indicators work at a very high
strategic level for the nation as a whole. Indeed since 1993 governments
have been preparing national reports for submission to the CDS inorder to help countries monitor their own progress and share experi-ence and information with others, and to serve as an `institutionalmemory' to track and record national actions undertaken to implementAgenda 21.
It would be possible to bring these indicators into the local under-
standing of sustainability but in most developed countries the local
situation would mirror the national situation and it would be difficult
to know where to draw the boundaries for data capture. Politicalboundaries for local authorities are useful but may reflect a ratherarbitrary historical precedent. For a new development within the builtenvironment a whole series of other measures might be more appro-priate such as the number of vacancies in local schools at different agelevels, the number of pupils going on to university education, the ageprofile of the local population and so forth. This illustrates the point
that while we might be able to accept the generic heading we will
Figure 2.3 Driving force±state±response model.46 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

almost certainly have to develop more sensitive local indicators for a
particular situation in a particular locality.
The UN has been aware of this, of course, and has attempted to
provide urban indicators which are linked to the above but reflectthe urban situation. Of the 130 indicators identified in the Drivingforce-State-Response model they have expanded 23 indicators andnine lists of quantitative data related to the 20 key indicators onwhich the human settlement unit has been working. Indicators in thecase of the urban context are supposed to measure urban trends andthe progress of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda (UNCHS,
1996). Examples of these are included in the following lists which are
still under development (see Table 2.3 for a list of indicators corre-sponding to the 20 Habitat Agenda key areas of commitment http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/guo_guide.asp).
Shelter
This indicator provides an overview of the share of different tenurestatus among urban dwellers and the indices for shelter. It assumes
that among the safest tenures are ownership, purchasing, and tenancy
in social housing and, where rental regulations are protective enough,private tenancy can also offer a fairly safe tenure to households. Themost common precarious tenures are considered to be those of thehomeless and squatters. It is suggested that any indicators shouldTable 2.2 Example: Social indicators suggested under CSD working list.
Chapter of
Agenda 21Driving force
indicatorsState
indicatorsResponse
indicators
Category: social
Chapter 36:
promoting
education,
public
awareness and
trainingoRate of change
of school-age
population
oPrimary school
enrolment ratio
(gross and net)
oSecondary
school enrolment
ratio (gross and
net)
oAdult literacy
rateoChildren
reaching grade
5 of primary
education
oSchool life
expectancy
oDifference
between male
and female
school enrolment
ratios
oWomen per
hundred men in
the labour forceoGDP spent on
educationApproaches to Evaluation 47

Table 2.3 List of indicators corresponding to the 20 Habitat Agenda key areas of commitment.
(Source: http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/guo_guide.asp)
Chapter 1: Shelter
(1) Provide security of tenure
indicator 1: tenure types
indicator 2: evictions
(2) Promote the right to adequate housing
qualitative data 1: housing rights
indicator 3: housing price-to-income ratio
(3) Provide equal access to land
indicator 4: land price-to-income ratio
(4) Promote equal access to credit
indicator 5: mortgage and non-mortgage
(5) Promote access to basic services
indicator 6: access to water
indicator 7: household connectionsChapter 4: Economic development
(15) Strengthen small and micro-enterprises, particularly those
developed by women
indicator 20: informal employment
(16) Encourage public±private sector partnership and stimulate
productive employment opportunities
qualitative data 5: public±private partnerships
indicator 21: city product
indicator 22: unemployment
Chapter 2: Social development and eradication of poverty
(6) Provide equal opportunities for a safe and healthy life
indicator 8: under-five mortality
indicator 9: crime rates
qualitative data 2: urban violence
(7) Promote social integration and support disadvantaged groups
indicator 10: `poor' households
(8) Promote gender equality in human settlements development
indicator 11: female±male gapsChapter 5: Governance
(17) Promote decentralisation and strengthen local authorities
qualitative data 6: level of decentralisation
(18) Encourage and support participation and civic engagement
qualitative data 7: citizen involvement in major planning
decisions
(19) Ensure transparent, accountable and efficient governance of
towns, cities and metropolitan areas
qualitative data 8: transparency and accountability
indicator 23: local government revenue and expenditures48 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Chapter 3: Environmental management
(9) Promote geographically balanced settlement structures
indicator 12: urban population growth
(10) Manage supply and demand for water in an effective manner
indicator 13: water consumption
indicator 14: price of water
(11) Reduce urban pollution
indicator 15: air pollution
indicator 16: waste water treated
indicator 17: solid waste disposal
(12) Prevent disasters and rebuild settlements
qualitative data 3: disaster prevention and mitigation instruments
(13) Promote effective and environmentally sound transportation system
indicator 18: travel time
indicator 19: transport modes
(14) Support mechanisms to prepare and implement local
environmental plans and local Agenda 21 initiatives
qualitative data: local environmental plansChapter 6: International co-operation
(20) Enhance international co-operation and partnerships
qualitative data 9: engagement in international co-operationApproaches to Evaluation 49

present the percentage of man- and woman-headed households in the
following categories:
oOwned.
oPurchasing.
oPrivate central.
oSocial housing.
oSub-tenancy.
oRent free.
oSquatter, no rent paid.
oSquatter, rent paid.
oHomeless.
oOther.
With regard to shelter in general they suggest that the following
indicators are appropriate:
(1) Tenure type.
(2) Evictions.(3) Housing price-to-income ratio.(4) Land price-to-income ratio.(5) Mortgage and non-mortgage facilities.(6) Access to water.(7) Household connections.
Social development and eradication of poverty
Here the aim is to assess the social development of the city, the era-dication of poverty and equal opportunity for a safe and healthy life.The indicators suggested are:
(8) Mortality rate indicator.
(9) Crime rate.
(10) Level of `poor' households.(11) Female±male gaps.
Environmental management
To promote environmental management this theme attempts to
stimulate geographically based settlement structures through the fol-
lowing indicators:
(12) Urban population growth.
(13) Water consumption.(14) Price of water.50 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

(15) Air pollution.
(16) Waste water treated.
(17) Solid waste disposal.(18) Travel time indicator.(19) Transport modes.
Economic development
To stimulate economic development of small and micro-enterprises,and particularly those developed by women.
(20) Informal employment.
(21) City product.(22) Unemployment.
Urban indicators are regularly collected in a sample of cities world-
wide in order to report on progress in the twenty key areas of the
Habitat Agenda at the city level. Data collection is conducted throughlocal and national urban observatories as well as through selectedregional institutions. The Global Urban Indicators Database 2 (GUID2)contains policy-orientated indicators for more than 200 cities world-wide. Its results have been analysed and incorporated in the State ofthe World's Cities Report 2001 (UNCHS, 2001).
Progress on UN Habitat indicators
Five years after Habitat II, the Special General Assembly (so-calledIstanbul + 5) held in New York on 6 to 8 June 2001 made a first interimassessment to verify the degree of implementation of the HabitatAgenda.
National Reports and Global Reports from almost all 130 states
present in New York were laid out on the occasion of the SpecialGeneral Assembly, so that an interesting variety of views on how theHabitat Agenda has been implemented in the Member States of the
United Nations were given. The majority of reports are available to be
downloaded from the website of the General Assembly (www.un.org/ga/habitat).
A joint publication of the EU Member States ( Implementing the Habitat
Agenda: The European Union Experience ), based on the National Reports
of both the EU Member States and the non-EU Member States, illus-trates comprehensively the European activities undertaken to imple-ment the Habitat Agenda. (See Wakely & You, 2001.)
The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) has
presented a report of experts which documents the progress ofApproaches to Evaluation 51

worldwide implementation of the Habitat Agenda ( Cities in a Globa-
lizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements 2001 ). The report
focusses on the significance of settlements for a sustainable social andeconomic development in a globalising world and provides strategiesfor implementing the Habitat Agenda (UNCHS, 2001).
Around 80 eminent scientists from all over the world have actively
contributed to this report. Furthermore, UNCHS has published its ownreport ( The State of the World's Cities Report ) which presents a series of
analyses based on UNCHS databases ( Urban Indicators and Best Practices
Databases ) and takes into account core fields of action of the Habitat
Agenda. Both reports offer useful working tools to all those dealingwith urban research, urban development and urban policy (source:http://www.planum.net/topics/main/m-hab-documents-bbr.htm).
Note: A further UN Habitat initiative is the Guide to Monitoring Target
11: Improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers May 2003 where seven
indicators are proposed for eliminating slums and poverty (the pdf file
can be download from http://www.unchs.org/programmes/guo/).
Summary
The indicators shown above and in Table 2.3 are just those being
proposed by United Nations initiatives. There are literally hundreds oflists of indicators being developed by a very large number of organi-
sations for a variety of different purposes. Some of their websites are
identified at the end of the References section at the back of this book.However, these web addresses may change over time.
As you would expect, there is a large amount of overlap at the
strategic level as identified above. It is when more detailed indicatorsare brought in that they become specific to the development or thesector or region under consideration and some divergence in the sortsof indicators needed becomes apparent. In broad terms the categories
identified by the UN do provide a baseline from which to work.
However, while the UN indicators provide an indication of the positiveand negative impacts of human interactions on sustainable develop-ment it could be argued that they are not integrated with each other.Each indicator has an influence on another and there is therefore aproblem associated with a lack of discrete measurement which maymean that too much or too little emphasis is given to one measure. Forexample, the economic indicators have an impact throughout the
system. If unemployment is low and incomes are high, many of the
indicators for poverty will have little impact. However, the economicwellbeing of a community will also have an impact on what shelter canbe provided and what tenure will be expected. It will also affect whatcan be done to tackle the environmental issues (as many of them52 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

require substantial investment) and even perhaps the institutional
frameworks within which the total system can operate. This inter-
dependency can create problems in weighting various indicators whendeciding what actions to take to improve matters. It may be clear thatthe economic activities are of such overriding importance that if theseare dealt with all other aspects will follow. On the other hand, a rise ineconomic levels can lead to a major rise in consumption which in turncan have an impact on waste, pollution and all those other downsideissues. There will be more cars, more packaging, more travelling and so
forth. This is why we need to be careful with the indicators that are
chosen.
The danger is that we use the measures that already exist but find
them inadequate in assessing sustainable development issues. They areattractive because of the fact that they exist already but they can sendthe wrong signals and distort the behaviour patterns of the decision-makers. In these early years of establishing a new way of looking atdevelopment it is inevitable that there will be a period of transition
from the old to the new. The speed at which new indicators are
accepted and used and the data collected to make them meaningfulwill depend on the political will of each nation and of the worldcommunity.
The United Nations has started on this process and some countries
are endorsing the indicators wholeheartedly. Others are more reticentbut it is likely that they will fall in line as time goes on, mainly as aresult of international pressure. At this stage it is important that we
learn the limitations of indicators and make sure that we interpret them
correctly. Meanwhile, governments have a role to play in ensuring thatagreement is reached on which indicators are really appropriate andthat resources are placed at the disposal of those who need to collectthe statistics.Approaches to Evaluation 53

3Time and Sustainability
At the heart of sustainable development are some assumptions about
how long a development is expected to be sustainable for. Over whatperiod are we considering the issue? One answer might be `forever',another might be `over a human lifetime' and another might be `until
something comes along which is better or changes the reason for trying
to sustain the development'. Underlying all the assessments and eva-luations of sustainable development must be some consideration of thetime period over which we are making the assessment. Some mightargue that as sustainable development is thought to be a process it is not
necessary to pay too much attention to this matter. It is part of gettingall the stakeholders to think in a certain way about the future to avoidleaving future generations in a worse position than we have today. It is
therefore as much about culture and the creation of a learning
environment as it is about calculation and prediction.
However true this might be, at some stage decisions have to be made
about what to build, how to build and how to use the built environ-ment. Finance houses, clients, local authorities and all the other parti-cipants who have some power or require accountability in the processwill want to know over what time period these assessments have beenmade. Every decision is made within the context of an assumed time
period. It influences the choice of material, the speed at which devel-
opment occurs, the response to market forces, the design and layoutand a whole host of other factors that make up the complexity of thebuilt environment. While our horizon might be the long-term future,we have to make decisions in the here and now.
Strangely, it appears not to be something that is a major issue in the
literature on the subject. It is hidden from view but is an implicitassumption in many of the techniques employed. A quick review of
some text books on sustainable development in the built environment
54

has revealed that only a few have a reference to `time' in their index.
This may be a reflection of the nature and youth of the subject. It may
reflect the imprecision in the definitions of the term sustainabledevelopment or it may be that the lack of structure underpinning thesubject prevents us from getting to this level of detail in general dis-cussion. After all, the time period over which the stakeholders willview a decision will vary from one to another. For example:
oPolitical support for development in an area may be limited to the
term of office of an elected politician or party.
oFinance houses may view the development over the time required
to get a pay-back on their investment.
oRetail clients may view the development over the number of years
they believe they have left before the market moves on elsewhereor the market has grown to the point where they need a new storeor a major extension.
oA group of citizens may be interested in the development over their
lifetime or the lifetime of their children.
oPlanners may see the development within the lifetime of their
`master plan' or other such strategic document.
oDevelopers may view the development from a financial point of
view but also in terms of what is happening in adjacent sites,regions and even other countries and therefore as a response tomarket conditions (in the markets in which they work) over thetime it takes to create the development.
oExperts in demography will be interested in the changing age
patterns around the development over a specified period related,perhaps, to government horizons.
oLawyers may at one level be interested in the development for the
time it takes to sign off a contract, and/or at another level thelength of time new legal business will exist, and at another level theimplications of changes in the law over a much longer time period.
oValuation surveyors may be interested in the time taken to create
an increase in property and land values.
oArchitects will be interested over the lifetime of their commission
but also in the long-term impact of their design as expressed in thebuilding.
It can be seen from even this short list of potential stakeholders that
there are a variety of views of the time dimension. If the aim is to createa harmony of view among all the participants, these different levels of
interest over different time periods should be recognised as an essen-
tial aspect of the sustainable development process. This raises manyquestions, of course, such as:
oWhose view should take priority in the case of a dispute? Is it theTime and Sustainability 55

person or organisation who has the longest time interest in the
development?
oShould the financiers, who take the major financial risk, be con-
sidered pre-eminent in the decision-making process? If they arenot, will the finance become available to undertake any develop-ment?
oShould market forces be challenged as, in time, the markets will
adjust to the new situation that faces them? However, the time-lagmay be too great to avoid irreparable destruction to the environ-
ment: is this acceptable?
oIs it the aim of sustainable development to avoid negative influ-
ences on the environment or is it to provide positive influencestowards what is believed to be a better way of living?
oAre our techniques for evaluation sufficiently sensitive to the way
society views sustainable development?
oWould it be more sensible to identify potential critical failure
points, rather than critical success factors, in the quest for sus-
tainable development?
Each of these questions contains the essence of a research question
which at this stage of the topic has yet to be answered. It is not theintention of this chapter to answer them but to explore their nature andprovide some context for the techniques and structures that follow.
Innovation and stability
Stewart Brand in the stimulating book The Clock of the Long Now (Brand,
2000) has proposed six significant levels of pace and size in theworking structure of a robust and adaptable civilisation. From fast toslow, the layers are as identified in Fig. 3.1 with fashion, technicalinnovation and other quick-change items stimulating change and thelower levels of culture and nature providing a balancing force. In a
healthy society, he argues, each level is allowed to operate at its own
pace, safely sustained by the slower levels below and kept invigoratedby the livelier levels above.
To quote an example, if commerce is allowed to advance unfettered
and unsupported by watchful governance and culture, it easilybecomes crime, as in some nations and republics after the fall ofcommunism. Likewise, commerce may instruct but must not controlthe levels below it because commerce is too shortsighted. Brady goes
on to say:
`One of the stresses of our time is the way commerce is being
accelerated by global markets and the digital and network revolu-tions. The proper role of commerce is to both exploit and absorb56 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

these shocks, passing some of the velocity and wealth on to the
development of infrastructure, at the same time respecting the
deeper rhythms of governance and culture.'
He debates the roles of each of the layers in a similar manner.
For our purposes in this book, this useful metaphor provides an
indication of the timescales within which civilisations change andwork, and their innovative drivers and stabilising forces. When theseare not in harmony tensions and breakdowns occur. Nature is seen asthe major stabilising force but it is this layer that is under threat
because the other facets are imposing themselves upon it in a negative
way. It may be a case of Future Shock (Toffler, 1985) where the future is
coming so fast that the natural evolutionary processes cannot keep up.
The built environment plays a major part in infrastructure and
commerce and its impact on those below can be significant. It identifiesthe physical position of governance, expresses the culture that hascreated it and imposes itself on the natural world in many differentways.
Perceptions of sustainable development
There is within the human psyche a latent model of the world and thefuture which understands that within a closed system such as the
universe, as time progresses, less energy becomes available to be used
Figure 3.1 The order of civilisation. (Reproduced with permission from Brand, S.
(2000) The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility: The Ideas Behind the
World's Slowest Computer . Basic Books, New York.)Time and Sustainability 57

and the system falls into decay. Entropy seems to be the fate of all
closed systems. This model pervades our thinking and we think in
terms of something being created, existing for a finite time and duringthat period of existence probably increasing in energy before reaching apeak and then moving into decline. Figure 3.2 shows this in graphicform.
The conventional wisdom within sustainable development seems to
have this model behind it. A development is created, there is growth inthat development in both physical and social terms, and then it reachesa peak. For a further period of time it remains at this level and then itbegins to decline for a wide variety of reasons until eventually it dis-appears as a recognisable development. This process may takethousands of years or it may be measured in tens of years or evenshorter time spans if a major catastrophe should befall the develop-
ment. The purpose of sustainable development is to halt the downward
decline and, if possible, increase the availability of energy representedby social cohesion, physical wellbeing, biodiversity, appreciation of thehabitat and so forth that go to make up a sustainable community whichin turn creates the sustainable physical environment in which thecommunity lives.
Evidence for this pattern of events can be seen in a large number of
the cities we see around us. They start as small settlements, grow into
larger conurbations with a strong social activity and then decline, often
Figure 3.2 Entropy in closed systems ± is our mental model like this for sustainable
development?58 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

as the result of a downturn in economic wellbeing of the country or
context in which they find themselves. Often this pattern is repeated at
the sub-city level with certain suburbs going into decline as crime andpoverty begin to establish themselves. Others become fashionable andcontinue to rise, sometimes creating barriers beyond the financial toentry from unwelcome influences that exist in the poorer suburbs. Intime, two societies exist side by side with tension between them, and insome cases this tension is so great that it creates a complete socialbreakdown which can lead to the demise of both. These events are
almost unpredictable until they are well into the decline phase of the
graph. The potential for breakdown can be articulated but it is muchmore difficult to know exactly when this might occur.
If we are to address the Brundtland definition (see Chapter 1) of
sustainable development (WCED, 1987), we have an obligation to leavethe environment in at least the same position, and if possible a betterposition, for future generations. We should not compromise theirability to make decisions about their future even if it means some short-
term sacrifice in the way we behave now. The problem is that it is
difficult to get people to accept the concept of self-sacrifice when theyare not the beneficiaries. Even in the short term we know that this istrue because governments that tax to provide something better a fewyears ahead, or to aid the redistribution of wealth, often find them-selves unpopular and voted out of office. This is where education andpublic participation have a major part to play. Education is required todevelop a different culture with a set of values that reflect sustainable
development, and public participation is needed to enable as many
stakeholders as possible to be informed and engaged in the planningprocess that adopts these values.
In many situations there is considerable inertia. Plans are made,
budgets are set, political mandates are established and, together withthe desire of many for certainty and routine, there is a reluctance toalter the status quo. It is not until a real breakdown of social cohesion orsecurity or quality of environment occurs that we see a willingness to
alter direction or to make substantial investments. The danger here is
that the breakdown may be irreversible and significant damage mayhave been done which may destroy the community, and the stake-holders may well not be interested in doing anything about it. In thewider dimension of the earth's natural resources, for those resourcesthat cannot be replaced (i.e. they are non-renewable) it will beimpossible within any time frame to do anything about it. In otherinstances, such as the destruction of rainforests and other habitat, it
may be possible to reverse the trend but there must be the political will.
In the built environment it is difficult to envisage a total loss of theurban infrastructure as it can rise again as it has done for centuries ±often one on top of another! Its nature may be forced to change becauseof the scarcity of the non-renewable resources that make up its physicalTime and Sustainability 59

presence but its ability to emerge again always remains. What will be
lost are some of the less physical aspects of the built environment such
as its historical and cultural value, its use as a social integrator, its roleas a focal point of religious significance, for example. The pattern ofsustainable development in the urban context is represented in Fig. 3.3.
Of course the investment is not necessarily so abrupt or the decline
so rapid as envisaged above, but nevertheless the pattern is recog-nisable and can even be seen in our personal investment in our homes.We do not usually invest in a new washing machine when the original
is still serviceable. Then, later, we may decide to buy a better one if our
finances allow it or the decision is forced upon us because the originalhas completely broken down and is not worth repairing.
In cities the decisions are similar but of course much more complex
and bigger in their impact. The decline of docklands in many parts ofthe world because of a change to container traffic and other forms oftransport (a change in the technology) has resulted in considerableexpanses of blighted urban landscape. More recently these land-
holdings adjacent to the docks have been seen by developers as an
opportunity and have been rapidly developed as new conurbations,revitalising a derelict area. The London Docklands, Salford Quays inManchester and the Albert Dock in Liverpool are all prime examples inthe UK. In Bilbao it has been the Guggenheim museum that has revi-talised the whole city and in Sydney, Australia, the opera house hastransformed the image of the whole country. These transformations arealmost always the result of a political will to get things done. In the
early days of Salford Quays, which was originally the old Manchester
Figure 3.3 Hypothetical cyclical pattern of investment in the built environment over
time.60 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

docks, the local authority tried to sell the site without success. No
developer would invest and in fact the developers who were
approached were asking for money to take it off the authorities' hands.It was not until a new vision was created by a small number of like-minded individuals with influence, and the government changed itsplanning policies and began to invest in urban infrastructure, that anew and successful life was given to the area. Now it is a primedevelopment site and has wonderful new cultural buildings, with eachnew development reinforcing the others success (see Fig. 3.4).
The question for all these developments is how long they will last
before they move into decline. In fact, of course, nobody knows. Aserious downturn in the economy creating a lack of tenants, followedby a lack of maintenance and security, could quickly see the beginningof a demise. If war should break out on a large scale, it is again difficultto predict what might happen. Sustainable development can onlysurvive while all the external factors that bear upon the developmentare in harmony together. A failure in any of the major factors could
well bring the whole development into crisis. The aim of sustainable
development seems to be to ensure that the overall pattern of invest-ment into an area continues in an upward direction even if we have toaccept that there will be fluctuations in the upward graph caused bynormal investment cycles. It is worth noting here that investment inthis context is being used in its widest sense to include any input ofresources, whether it be labour, finance, infrastructure, arts, socialwelfare or whatever is required to sustain or improve the built
environment.
Critical failure points
In the majority of decision-making strategies relating to the built
environment, the people making the decision are driven by the `critical
success factors' (CSFs). They look for the returns and the key ingre-
dients that will make the development successful. This is the basis forsome of the sustainability indicators that are used. In sustainabledevelopment these positive attributes still hold good but at the sametime it may be important to give equal attention to the critical failurepoints. These are the factors which, if they fail or do not exist, couldlead to a rapid decline in the sustainability of development in generaland possibly the demise of the whole scheme or area. The type of issues
that may be of this nature include:
oThe loss of a key resource such as water. In India the city of Fatapur
Sikri near the Taj Mahal lasted only fifteen years because the watersupply dried up.Time and Sustainability 61

Figure 3.4 The regenerated Salford Quays, Salford, UK.62 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oThe loss of the major employer in a region can destroy the local
economy and the ability of the community and its infrastructure to
survive. Examples of this include some of the towns built aroundcoal mines that closed, or steel works that became part of a con-centration of production elsewhere.
oPollution of air, land or water , if on a long timescale, can mean that an
area becomes uninhabitable. Examples are toxic chemicals in theland, pollution of sea water depriving the fishermen in an area oftheir livelihoods, or acid rain destroying forests.
oA breakdown in law and order which can mean that property values
fall and residents become trapped in a cycle of decline; or, if theyare financially able, they may move to other places but no onewishes to take the place they have vacated.
oA breakdown in the commitment of a community due to a challenge to
the faith that has been practiced there. Towns in what used to beYugoslavia identified as Muslim or Christian or towns built arounda religious order find themselves vulnerable if the basis of the
community is challenged.
It can be seen from the above that most of these issues are related to
well-being and the quality of life. Some of them, such as pollution orloss of a key resource, are secondary to the need for a quality of life,however that is defined, although ultimately these issues impinge onthe enjoyment of life anyway. It should be possible to overcome thesematters but it requires substantial resources or a level of technical
competence that the community might not have. It is therefore better
for the community to move elsewhere and thus avoid the problem. Bymoving, their quality of life is expected to improve. In the context of thediscussion of `time' in sustainable development, these factors compli-cate the issue. We do not know when these movements might occurand in many cases we will not know with certainty the underlyingcauses. It is therefore difficult in developing a model of sustainabledevelopment to prejudge when we can expect a critical failure point to
manifest itself. All that we can do is ensure that, as far as our know-
ledge exists today, the circumstances that might lead to such aneventuality are avoided or mitigated through the process of develop-ment. This leads us on to the approaches used in `risk management'.
The majority of `failures' are not critical in this respect. They do
not result in sudden collapse. In general there appears to be a spiralof decline, a vicious cycle, where a lack of investment, a period ofdisinterest by the current and potential stakeholders or a lack of eco-
nomic wellbeing, in particular, can result in gradual decline. Even-
tually the possibility is that it is no longer feasible to create avirtuous spiral that will build the community again and result in asustainable solution. Again, the timescale for this is unknown. Wecannot predict with certainty how long this will take and we oftenTime and Sustainability 63

do not know when the stage of non-renewal has been reached. So
here we have a strong psychological urge to ensure that we create
something sustainable, yet we cannot predict the events that willcreate the environment in which this demise will take place nor canwe predict the timescale over which it is likely to happen. The twoare of course related.
Kohler (see Fig. 3.5) has shown this diagrammatically in his work on
life cycle analysis in the case of cities (Kohler, 2003). He suggests thatthere might be a corridor of solutions that need to be examined and
evaluated over time which any decision-maker should be aware of and
keep within. It is possible to overshoot as much as undershoot and thejob of the decision-maker is to keep in balance all the contributingfactors. Critical success and critical failure are therefore built withinthis framework. Of course, even with dereliction there is usually theopportunity to build again but the economic, social and other costs arethat much larger.
Another view of this problem concerns the changing timescales for
renewal within the process of an emerging and evolving city. These
complicate the time when decisions canbe made and in a complex
organism such as a city they make the task of addressing the sustain-ability problem that much more difficult.
Figure 3.6 shows some assumed cycles for physical and other assets
in the built environment. In some ways these are similar to the upperlayers of the invigorating and sustaining aspects of the order ofcivilisation in Fig. 3.1.
These differing transformations suggest that we have to address
`time' in some other way, not as a measure but as a continuum withinwhich we learn and improve. This is not unlike the arguments beingput forward by those advocating the concept of the learning organi-sation within business. Senge (1990) describes `learning organisations'as:
`organisations where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive pat-
terns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is setfree, and where people are continually learning how to learntogether.'
It appears that the act of learning and sharing the results of learning
can lead to a corporate view of the problem and a solution that allowsfor more creative ideas and a positive attitude to the aims of the
organisation. Senge goes on to say that
`. . . learning disabilities are tragic in children, but they are often fatal
in organisations. Because of them, few corporations live even half aslong as a person ± most die before they reach the age of forty'.64 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Perhaps this is also true with regard to corporate action for sustainable
development.
This approach requires a move to systems thinking which we shall
address later. For now, it is worth noting that a focus on working and
Figure 3.6 Cycles of transformation for the city and its culture. (Reproduced with the
kind permission of Niklaus Kohler from his 2003 Presentation: Cycles of Transformation
for the City and its Culture. Intelcity Workshop, Siena (under the auspices of the Uni-
versity of Salford).)
Figure 3.5 Solution corridor within urban regeneration. (Reproduced with the kind
permission of Niklaus Kohler from his 2003 Presentation: Cycles of Transformation for
the City and its Culture. Intelcity Workshop, Siena (under the auspices of the University
of Salford).)Time and Sustainability 65

learning together is thought to be beneficial to organisations and, as the
built environment is an organisation of a sort, there may well be lessons
to be learnt for achieving a sustainable development. If we do not dothis the cycles described are likely to continue and we can expectfailure on a regular basis.
Time in evaluation
Even with a learning organisation approach and the focus on theprocess, it will not be possible to ignore the effect of time in our eva-luation and assessments. As we have said earlier, most of thoseauthorities with financial or political power will want to have propo-sals justified in order to persuade committees or shareholders orboards or whatever group they are accountable to. This inevitably
means that some form of risk assessment has to be made, and this is a
recognition that we cannot predict or control all future events.
In economic evaluation the concept of discounting is used to take
account of the effect of time on the view of the investor at the presentday. In simple terms the view is held that the value of a payment orreceipt in the future is worth less now because, in the case of a pay-ment, a smaller sum of money could be set aside now that could growover time to meet the needs of that payment at the time specified. In the
case of a receipt the value to the recipient now is worth less because a
smaller sum invested now will accrue at compound interest to theamount to be received in the future. This is shown diagrammatically inthe Fig. 3.7.
Figure 3.7 The present value of an amount to be paid or received in the future.66 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

What this graph indicates is that if you are set to receive C = 100 in 25
years time its value to you now is C = 29.5 if you expect your investments
to produce a return of 5% and C = 9.2 if you expect a return of 10%. In
other words, if you invested C = 9.2 now in a bank or other financial
concern and a return of 10% was guaranteed, it would accrue, withinterest added, to C = 100 in 25 years' time. Notice that the higher the
interest rate, the lower the value to you now or the smaller the amountthat needs to be invested now to accrue to the same figure. The timeremains the same but the effect on the supposed value is quite dif-
ferent, depending on the interest rate. It follows that if we were to use a
higher rate of interest in our calculations we would be discounting theeffect of future transactions more than if we used a lower rate. If insustainability we want to take a long-term view and encourage thiswithin our calculations, we would use a low rate of interest becausethis would make future activities appear more important in financialterms.
The choice of interest rate is therefore critical and is more complex
than it at first appears. No account has been taken of inflation and this
might have a substantial impact on the calculation. It might, forexample, eat away at the real benefit from the investment over time.Some would argue that the `real' rate of interest that should be used isthe assumed rate less the inflation rate. Others would argue thatinflation can be ignored as it affects both income and expenditureequally. This may or may not be true as differential inflation is quitecommon. It is also quite clear that long-term periods of stable interest
rates and inflation are almost non-existent within the timescales of the
built environment.
The time element is also a major consideration. The formula for
computing the present value is based on the compound interest for-mula and is presented as follows:
present value C =1ˆ
1
…1‡i†n
Where i = interest rate divided by 100 and n = number of years.
It follows that there is an exponential curve which rapidly discounts
future values as time increases. The result is a model of the world,
upon which decisions are made, based upon a view that suggests the
future is something to be discounted and is of considerably lessvalue than the present. It is mechanistic and uses few variables in itsoperation. Nevertheless, much of financial investment is based uponTime and Sustainability 67

it. It has replaced some of the other models such as `pay back',
where the length of time required to pay off the original investment
is the criterion, because it is thought to more accurately reflect thelogic of the financial markets. However, even on this assumption itmay not reflect the real values that investors adopt within their deci-sion-making processes.
Future aversion
It could be argued that when time enters a calculation most people arelikely to prefer present over future gains (this could be termed `futureaversion' ± we want to limit the risk on future gain) and future lossesover present losses (this could be termed `future seeking' ± we areprepared to take a greater risk to minimise losses). However, there is
unlikely to be symmetry between the two, which is plausible on the
intuitive grounds that a postponed loss is less aversive than a post-poned gain of a similar amount is attractive (Kahnemann & Tuersky,1984). This is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 3.8. In sustainabledevelopment, where the emphasis is on reducing future losses, thisasymmetry could be important in reflecting the psychology of thedecision-maker within the technique.
If there is such a view at work in the minds of the decision-makers, it
has relevance to sustainable development and affects the way in which
those who are encouraging sustainable development are prepared toargue for different models that allow a longer-term perspective to beaddressed. It would suggest a move away from the conventional eco-nomic models to the adoption of a moral imperative which willdemand that future values are given significant weight. This could bedone in some cases by legislation and regulation that requires mini-mum standards to be kept ± say the reduction in major pollutants, or it
could be that business advantage is achieved by taking the long-term
view.
There are already instances in banking where banks that take an
ethical stance in their investments have managed to increase theirperformance substantially. However, this may be the absorption ofthe niche market of those investors sensitive to these issues. Never-theless, it is a start and with further education in these issues it maybe that the minority niche market becomes the mainstream. Direc-
tives such as those contained in the Agenda 21 documents and adop-
ted by many authorities throughout the world will hasten the take-up of a longer-term assessment. There is little doubt that it will68 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

require a variety of approaches to ensure that the concepts of sus-
tainable development are included as the norm in addressing deci-sions in the built environment.
Clever or wise?
Patricia Fortini Brown, in Venice and Antiquity (Brown, 1996) draws our
attention to the fact that the ancient Greeks distinguished two kinds oftime: kairos , meaning opportunity or the propitious moment; and
chronos , meaning eternal or ongoing time. `While the first . . . offers
hope, the second extends a warning'. Kairos is the time of cleverness,
chronos the time of wisdom. Our dead and our unborn reside in the
realm of chronos, murmuring warnings to us presumably if we would
ever look up from our opportunistic, kairotic seizures of the day. Today
we live in the golden age of kairos , where opportunity is all, the cult of
the individual is paramount and the corporate sense that will allow usto engage with time is hard to come by. This has its zenith in economicevaluation where the views of shareholders in corporations oftenseems to dictate a short-term perspective in policy matters and wherethe evaluation methods heavily discount the value to futuregenerations.
Figure 3.8 Risk aversion related to the future.Time and Sustainability 69

Practical assessment of `time'
This discussion has revealed some of the issues relating to `time' within
decision making. It has not, however, put forward a proposal that canbe used on a day to day basis to address the matter. This is because noone method exists. In fact when the situation is analysed fully it isrealised that it is difficult to obtain a universal view of timescales forsomething as varied and complex as the built environment. Boulding(1978) diagnosed the problem of our times as `temporal exhaustion': `Ifone is mentally out of breath all the time from dealing with the present,
there is no energy left for dealing with the future.' She proposed a
simple solution: expand our idea of the present to 200 years ± 100 yearsforward and 100 years back. A personally experienceable, generations-based period of time, this reaches from grandparents to grandchildren± people for whom we feel responsible ± thus allowing human natureto support the longer-term perspective. From our grandparents andparents we distil our values and through our children and grand-children we connect with the future. This is shown diagrammatically in
Fig. 3.9.
Whatever scale we choose, it would seem that a philosophy is more
appropriate than a range of techniques. It is more about behavingwithin a framework in a way that is conducive to the objective to beachieved. One of the attempts to outline a philosophy such as this in asimple way, that all could understand, was Alex Gordon's `3 Ls' con-cept: `Long life, Loose fit, Low energy' when designing buildings(Gordon, 1974). It had no quantitative measures but provided a frameof reference within which it was possible to begin to collect quantitative
evidence and then seek improvement. It enters the realm of the
Figure 3.9 Impact of generations on decision-making.70 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

learning organisation where the call for improvement becomes the
watchword of the organisation ± in this case society. The questions
asked are then:
o`Will this building development last a long time or longer than
previous developments?'
o`Will it be easily adaptable to change in the future to avoid using up
non-renewable resources either in extraction or in use?'
o`Will it use less energy in extraction, manufacture and operation
than similar types of building?'
Once we get into this frame of thinking we begin to devise the tech-
niques and measures appropriate to this view of the world. It pro-vides a belief system which those who adhere to this belief canrespond to and justify their behaviour. If it becomes the mantra ofthe many, it becomes politically unacceptable to follow a differentpath and it is adopted within the culture. In the `3 Ls' concept, two
of the drivers have time as a key feature and so it begins to permeate
the thinking of the many. What seems appropriate for a buildingsoon becomes the view of the planners and the local authorities andbegins to have significance for the district and then the city. A vir-tuous circle has begun.
Perhaps the closest to a view about how to approach the question of
`time' is the methodology employed in the study referred to in Chapter8. This was a competition to set out a plan for a sustainable city for 100
years time and was won by the City of Vancouver. Those undertaking
the study had to address the question of time in a very positive way.Targets for the future were set by the team and then it was necessary todiscover a process by which these could be achieved including mile-stones relating to time for the whole of the 100-year period. As such,they had to address many of the issues raised in this chapter in a verypractical way. The encouraging aspect of the exercise was that as thestakeholders began to look beyond the immediate future they began to
leave the `baggage' of the present behind and were able to think more
freely. If this is the case it could be argued that we need more of thistype of study because it encourages improvement without the con-straints of the future and allows a wider group to gain consensusaround the problems faced by an urban environment in achievingsustainable development.
The luxury of the `time' horizon
The discussion in this chapter has argued the case for a longer timeperiod in which to consider sustainable development than presentlyseems to exist in the developed world. Short-term financing andTime and Sustainability 71

meeting the needs of stakeholders are often quoted as the reason why
we can't extend our horizons. Financiers and investors want quick
returns and sustainable development needs time to establish itself.Even if we could persuade people to think long term and consider theneeds of future generations in the developed world, and there are signsthat this is happening, the Third World might consider this a luxury ofthe rich.
If someone is living at subsistence level and the question is one of
whether he or she will survive, then considering the needs of future
generations appears absolutely irrelevant because it may well be that
the present generation will not survive. Long term thinking becomes aluxury which only the wealthy can contemplate.
Various figures suggested for South Africa, a very mixed group of
First and Third world peoples, forecast that by 2010 deaths from AIDSwill leave two million children as orphans. If this is true the reper-cussions for the country are enormous. Not only is there the problem ofassisting these poor children but there is also the social impact of large
numbers of children, many of them living on the streets, who to stay
alive may turn to other activities that may be antisocial. In addition, itmeans by implication that a vast swathe of those who work and pro-vide the economic wealth of the country (the parents of these children)will be dead or incapacitated. It is thought that around 17% of thepopulation of South Africa is HIV positive. The impact on the economyand its ability to provide social services for the orphans will bedevastating. This problem will impact within a decade, not within a
generation. The timescale over which decisions have to be made is
extremely short and taking the long-term view, which may still be agood thing to do, is almost impossible. Survival becomes the order ofthe day.
This is in a country where many communities have been able to live
sustainably for scores of generations. However, the integration ofoutside cultures, and the wealth within those cultures, has led toaspirations that go beyond rural living and that often create an
unsustainable society as the mistakes of the western economies are
repeated, within much shorter periods, in the Third World environ-ment.
These aspirations for wealth can lead to the repetition of First World
mistakes at a time when the First World is coming to terms with thosemistakes and attempting to take action. Does the First World turn backand retreat into a more primitive but nevertheless sustainable way ofliving and meet the developing nations half-way, or is there some other
way in which the aspirations, already realised by western economies,
can be achieved by the developing nations? It is a critical issue and avisit to some of the nations with high economic growth will show thatthe mistakes are often being repeated.
When the West points a finger, the developing nations cry hypocrisy.72 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

It is often seen as a way of penalising the developing world when the
West has reaped the benefit of exploitation in the past. For the Third
World it can appear to be a restraint on their growth and a means bywhich the West can avoid competition ± economic power is being usedto exploit them still further.Time and Sustainability 73

4A Proposed Framework for Evaluating
Sustainable Development
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 have provided a basis for viewing sustainable
development and have tried to establish some guiding principles. They
have also looked in outline at some of the approaches that are being
taken by others, and their success or otherwise.
One of the major requirements identified in Chapter 1 was the need
for structure. This is not a new problem for an emerging discipline.Every new avenue for study has to go through the process of giving thesubject form. This allows the subject to progress and encourages thebuilding blocks of knowledge to be developed in a coherent and sys-tematic way so that the full meaning and extent of the subject can be
discussed and shared by those working in the field, and subsequently
by those who will use and be the beneficiaries of the system. If there isnot a commonly agreed structure the following problems can arise:
oThe topic loses coherence and understanding is difficult.
oIt is difficult to share knowledge in a meaningful way.
oVocabulary can be too diverse. The same topic can be described in
different ways and meanings are not shared.
oIt is difficult to build knowledge in a systematic way.
oViewed by those who are outside the system (as well as those
inside), the subject appears to be ill-formed and it may even bedismissed as unimportant or irrelevant or insufficiently thoughtthrough.
oCollection of data becomes problematic as standardisation is dif-
ficult because of the different competing structures all trying to dothe same thing.
oThere is little theoretical underpinning for the subject as a whole. It
74

rests on a collection of apparently unrelated topics that cannot be
linked together.
oA reductionist view prevails and this can mean that the holistic
approach is lost.
Sustainable development at the present time suffers from many of the
above problems and therefore can often be seen by sceptics as havinglittle substance. A framework or structure does help enormously inpeople's understanding of what is included in a topic and this in turn
can give it more substance than a series of ad hoc studies. This chapter
attempts to provide such a structure from what the authors believe tobe a useful theoretical base.
The need for a holistic and integrated framework
Decision-making for sustainable development in the built environment
requires new approaches that are able to integrate and synthesise all
the dimensions of an urban system (or a building) and different pointof views, in a holistic manner (Mitchell, 1999; Deakin, et al., 2001).
Much of the early work on sustainable development in the built
environment was focussed on the ecological dimension of the problem,as reflected in the policy agendas of various local authorities. On theother hand, the softer and more `fuzzy' dimensions of sustainableurban development (e.g. political, social, cultural, aesthetic, and so
forth) are still poorly addressed in decision-making, while con-
temporary analytical tools do not handle them adequately.
Recent surveys of environmental assessment (Deakin, et al., 2001,
Deakin, et al. 2002a; Deakin, et al. 2002b) have examined how the
methods are currently being used. Only in `life-cycle assessment' isthere evidence to suggest that the assessments augment environmentalcapacity to include equity, public participation and futurity within thesustainable development issues of the economic and social structures
in question (i.e. the economic and social structures underlying the city
of tomorrow and its cultural heritage). Even with this group of meth-ods, there is clear evidence to show that the methods experiencenoticeable difficulties in dealing with the complexity of institutionalstructures and the range of stakeholder interests that this introducesinto any such assessment (Lombardi, 2001; Nath, et al., 1996).
At present, there is a need for greater integration at the level of local
decision-making. This is often emphasised in the literature through the
concept of what is sometimes called `co-evolutionary interdependence'
between the physical environment and the human environment(Faucheux, et al., 1996; O'Conner, 1998; Faucheux and O'Conner, 1998,
Capello, et al., 1999). This approach suggests that the development of
the environmental, economic and social dimensions are all com-A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 75

plementary. There is a serious lack of understanding regarding the
complex dynamic interactions and feedback effects of socio-economic-
technological activities and the earth's ability to sustain itself. Forexample, the impact of social organisation on the built environmentand subsequently on its sustainability is not well understood.
A further problem is that experts use a specialised and codified
vocabulary that is not common to all the disciplines and stakeholdersinvolved in the planning process. Each discipline brings its ownagenda, its own classification system and its own techniques to the
problem. Often the disciplines are unwilling (or unable) to consider the
views represented by others because there is not a common languageor a systematic methodology that will allow a fruitful dialogue to takeplace (Lombardi & Brandon, 1997). Consequently, there is still a needto incorporate sustainable development principles and criteria in cur-rent decision-making processes.
Devising strategies for the sustainable development of cities is dif-
ficult, not just because the nature of a city is complex, but also because
the concept is ambiguous, multi-dimensional and generally not easy to
understand outside the single issue of environmental protection.Mitchell (1996) suggests that effective urban sustainable developmentstrategies and sustainable development plans can best be identified byensuring that decision-makers and developers are adequately briefedon sustainable development issues, local characteristics and commu-nity needs. This process requires the application of a suitable oper-ational framework, and an evaluation method or approach that is able
to guide developers through the decision-making. However, at the
moment, such a structure for organising the information required indecision-making is not yet available or agreed on among the differentdisciplines and fields of activities.
The lack of an agreed structure that can help decision-making pro-
cesses achieve greater sustainability is a major problem. This chaptersuggests an integrating mechanism or framework which could bringtogether the diversity of interests necessary to assess the impact of the
built environment and urban design on urban sustainable develop-
ment. This framework could be used by all stakeholders in thedevelopment process including political and technical decision-makers, public local control officers, planners and designers, citizens,lawyers and financial advisers, enabling them to check a design or aplan in the context of sustainable development and to learn from it. Itshould be able to assist the process of devising sustainable planningstrategies, ensuring that all sustainable development aspects and
quality of life issues are included and nested into each other. It also
provides a structure that can be used at different levels of detail, thusproviding a vehicle that all stakeholders can engage in but contribute toat different levels of complexity.
The basis for this framework is the work of the Dutch philosopher76 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Herman Dooyeweerd (1894±1975) who developed what he called a
`Theory of the Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' (Dooyeweerd, 1955). This
theory attempts to integrate all of the aspects of the universe in ameaningful form to help explain structure and relationships in aholistic way. At the very least it provides a checklist of things toexamine in order to establish whether a development is sustainable. Atbest it provides a means of explaining the interdependence betweenaspects of the urban environment and can be linked to the wider sus-tainable development agenda. Its holism allows an integrated view of
the issue and also assists in explaining what is meant by, and what
contributes to, sustainable development (see Appendix A).
As stated earlier, there is the added advantage that this approach is
simple in concept and can be used effectively by all stakeholders atdifferent levels of understanding (see Fig. 4.1). The underpinningphilosophy, however, is complex and is based on a Christian view ofthe world not unlike the value systems adopted by the westerndemocracies. However, in informal conversations with people from
other cultures and faiths it has proved to be acceptable as a way for-
ward since it recognises all issues in which human beings are engagedwith the universe. The interpretation of content may differ but thestructure remains the same.
Figure 4.1 Features of the framework.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 77

The theoretical underpinning of the framework
The challenge for political and technical actors (planners, designers
and urban authorities) is to devise strategies and policies, urban plans
and projects that can guide cities and other aspects of the built
environment along a more sustainable development path. At present,there is a lack of a decision support framework, system or tool, which isboth comprehensive and holistic, to harmonise the different aspects ofsustainable development in planning and design. This section intro-duces a possible approach to this problem.
As stated earlier, the framework is supported by Dooyeweerd's
theory of the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' (Dooyeweerd, 1968, 1979).
This has recently been postulated in a number of studies related to
cybernetics, information systems and organisation learning, mainlybecause it offers an extremely useful checklist to guide systemsdevelopment and usage, ensuring that not only one but all aspects ofhuman life, from the quantitative to the highest-level value system, arepresent in the design. In addition, it has been studied and developed byother contemporary authors such as Hart (1984), Clouser (1991),Kalsbeek (1975), de Raadt (1991, 1994, 1997), Griffioen (1995) and Basden
(1994, 1996), who have illustrated some of its benefits for understanding
and explaining how social systems and institutions work.
A particular feature of the theory is its ability to explain complexity
without falling into reductionism and/or subjectivism. This featuresuggested that the theory would be useful in structuring sustainabledevelopment in the built environment, overcoming one of the prob-lems of current tools (see Chapter 2).
The theory is complex, but broadly the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'
proposes a list of dimensions of reality, named modalities , which can be
useful for understanding the `functioning' of a complex system orentity such as the built environment or a local community. The list ofmodalities identified by Dooyeweerd and their meanings is providedin Table 4.1. The third column of the Table illustrates the meaning ofeach modality in the context of sustainable development. Both theoriginal name of the modalities and the proposed definition are used inTable 4.1.
In simple terms, a modality can be defined as an irreducible area of
the functioning of a system or entity. It is characterised by a nucleus ofmeaning and it has its own law, or set of laws, which not only guidesbut enables entities (people, animals, trees, houses, etc.) to function in avariety of ways. For example, the laws of physics provide the func-tioning of materials while the laws of biology regulate the functioningof trees. More complex entities, such as local communities, are guidedby several other modalities whose laws are less determinative and
more normative since their fulfilment is contingent on people's incli-
nation to follow these laws, e.g. the law of justice or the law of ethics.78 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

The philosophy of the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' has not placed
the fifteen modalities in an arbitrary order: the earlier modalities serve
as a foundation for the later (Dooyeweerd calls this `the cosmic order oftime') (Kalsbeek, 1975). For instance, the economic modality isdependent on the social, the social on the lingual, the lingual on thehistorical, and so on. In other words, the fifteen modalities are nestedinside one another and each modality affects and informs those above.
This interrelation between the modalities ( dependency relation )
defines their position in the list. The consequence of this order is also
felt in terms of the influence they are able to exert on each other. For
instance, we often use the laws of mathematics (numeric modality) tounderstand economical processes (guided by the economic modality)but the results are much more effective if we use a modality closer onthe list such as the social one. In other words, the greater the distancebetween the ordered modalities, the less influence they have on eachother. Figure 4.1 graphically illustrates these concepts. A more detaileddescription of the theory is provided in Appendix A.
The modalities can be better illustrated by an example related to the
built environment.Table 4.1 The list of modalities and their meaning.
Modality Meaning Proposed definition in the
context of sustainable
development
Numerical Quantity Numerical accounting
Spatial Continuous extension Spaces, shape and extensionKinematics Movement Transport and mobility
Physical Energy, mass Physical environment, mass and energy
Biological Life function Health, biodiversity, eco-protectionSensitive Senses, feelings People's perceptions towards the
environment
Analytic Discerment of entities Analysis and formal knowledgeHistorical Formative power Creativity and cultural developmentCommunicative Information Communications and the media
Social Social intercourse Social climate and social cohesion
Economic Frugality Efficiency and economic appraisalAesthetic Harmony, beauty Visual appeal and architectural styleJuridical Retribution, fairness Rights and responsibilitiesEthical Love, morality Ethical issues
Credal Faith, trustworthiness Commitment, interest and visionA Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 79

The built environment explained by the modalities
The built environment represents a meaningful sub-set of the whole
topic of sustainable development (Brandon, 1998). It is part of the
physical system and is intrinsically linked to both the environmental
(physical) and the human (social and economic) systems. For example,urban density, mobility and lifestyles are usually reflected in thedemand for space and the flow of resources (Breheny, 1992).
Literature on sustainable urban development emphasises the need to
have the three systems ± environmental, social and economic ± func-tioning in an integrated and coherent manner. This is important if weare aiming to achieve a stable or improving level of wellbeing in the
local community in the long term (quality of life) and a reduction of
negative effects, such as pollution in the biosphere (environmentalquality).
As a physical entity, the built environment has spatial extension,
mass and energy. It is subject to the laws of thermodynamics (energy)and others, such as the law of gravity, the laws of physics and the rulesof geometry. Its fundamental characteristics include building materialsand components, layout and form of the building and the structure of
the ground on which it is built. In the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'
these are all issues of the spatial and physical modalities whose lawsregulate and guide the functioning of buildings, materials and com-ponents.
The built environment represents the physical context in which
individuals spend their time living, dwelling, working and recreat-ing. Unlike other manufactured products, it is unequivocally linkedto the land. This makes a building unique, and therefore an object of
economical and juridical interest. In addition, it has social and cul-
tural properties since it is useful in satisfying a number of humanneeds, both material and immaterial. In terms of the `CosmonomicIdea of Reality', the built environment, as a system or entity, is quali-fied by the physical modality. This is the specific aspect that guidesand regulates the internal organisation or development of thesystem.
Although the built environment is characterised by the physical
modality, it functions in all the other modal aspects, maintaining dif-
ferent relationships with them. For example, an urban district isusually formed by a number of houses, offices, banks, schools, roadsand so forth (numerical modality), placed according to a particularlayout (spatial modality). Within an urban district there is usually aconstant movement of people, cars, bicycle, animals and goods (kine-matics modality) which need energy in order to function (physicalmodality). People and other living creatures also need food, water,
air to breath, houses for shelter and hospitals for health (biological
modality). They display emotions and feelings in their relationships80 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

within a group (sensitive modality). Furthermore, people have an
intrinsic logical dimension resulting in the discerning of entities
(analytic modality). They build their houses on the basis of pastexperience and technological knowledge (historical modality) andthey communicate with each other and with the outside environmentthrough media (communicative modality). They have social inter-course (social modality) and often find their employment there (eco-nomic modality). The built environment can be beautiful andattractive both for the people who live in it and for tourists (aesthetic
modality). A group of laws regulate the use of land and property
(juridical modality) and often there is discussion on topics such asthe environmental pollution caused by modern city life (ethical mod-ality), but, in the end, there is usually a strong belief in science andtechnology as the solution to modern society's ecological problems(credal modality).
Table 4.2 classifies a number of issues related to the built environ-
ment according to the modalities. This list of issues can only be indi-
cative. It cannot be exhaustive because of the complexity and richness
of the urban environment.
Table 4.2 Examples of sustainable development aspects within each modality for the
built environment.
Modalities Issues of the built environment
Numerical Population (human), amount of various resources available,
number of species and their population levels, census statistical
office, information.
Spatial Layout, shape, building footprint, location, proximity, terrain shape
± flat, mountainous, etc., neighbourhood area, urban area, district
area, etc.
Kinematics Infrastructures, roads, motorway, railways, cycling roads,
pedestrian streets, car parking, transport and mobility, wildlife
movement, mobility, accessibility.
Physical Energy for human activity, energy for biotic activity, physical
environment, structure of ground on which to build, building
materials, components, buildings, districts, settlements.
Biological Food, shelter, housing, air and air quality, water and water quality,
hygiene, green areas, pollution, soil quality, biodiversity, habitat
diversity and quality, resilience of eco-system (ability to recover
from imbalances), health and health services, hospitals, gyms.
Sensitive Feelings engendered by living there, feeling of wellbeing, comfort,
fitness, noise, security, safety, privacy, provision of peaceful
surroundings, e.g. motorway noise that makes bird song inaudible,
counselling services, asylums, housing for domestic animals.
Contd.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 81

The above description has made use of the fifteen modalities of
Dooyoweerd's theory for revealing the complexity of an urban
environment as a system and its multi-dimensional meaning. How-
ever, if we want to understand the modal aspects more fully we need toisolate each aspect in our mind so that we can get at its individualnatures and distinguish each aspect, making it irreducible to the others(Kalsbeek, 1975).Table 4.2 Contd.
Modalities Issues of the built environment
Analytical Clarity with which issues are aired in the community, letting people
clearly know facts and issues, quality of analysis for planning and
evaluation, diversity, functional mix, knowledge, tendency to
understand rather than react to issues, schools, universities,
education services, research.
Historical Encouraging creativity in the community, innovation, heritage,
history of the community and area, technology employed,
museums, archives, built heritage.
Communicative Ease of communication in the community, quality of communication
(e.g. truthfulness), lingual networking, symbols, information
provision, monuments, signs, advertising, the media.
Social Social relationships and interaction, recreational places, social
climate, cohesion, plurality, competitiveness, collaboration,
authority structure, social register, clubs and societies.
Economic Use of land, use and replacement of renewable resources, use of
non-renewable resources, recycling schemes, attitude to finance,
efficiency, financial institutions, offices, banks, stock markets,
industrial plants, employment.
Aesthetic Beauty, visual amenity and landscape, architecture and design,
architectural style decoration, social harmony, ecological harmony
and balance, art galleries, theatres.
Juridical Laws and law-making with regard to property, ownership,
regulation and other policy instruments, contracts for building,
rights, responsibilities, inequities, property-market interests,
democracy, participation, tribunals, administrative offices, legal
institutions, political structure.
Ethical General demeanour of people towards each others, goodwill,
neighbourliness, solidarity, sharing, equity, morality, health of the
family, voluntary centres.
Credal Loyalty to the community, general level of morale, shared vision of
what we are, (e.g. `I shop, therefore I am', `I am responsible to
God'), aspirations (e.g. to car ownership), shared vision of the wayto go (e.g. `science±technology±economics will solve our
problems'), religious institutions, churches, synagogues.82 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

The fifteen modalities for understanding sustainable
development in the built environment
In this section, all the fifteen modal aspects are outlined with specific
attention to the `role' that each of them plays within the context ofsustainable development in the built environment. It should beemphasised that the modal order provides a particular position foreach aspect. The modal aspects are so constituted that the earlieraspects serve as a foundation for the later. This order is not reversiblewithin the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'.
This order of fifteen modal aspects is suggested as an approach that
provides decision makers with a framework with which to classify
relevant sustainable development issues in an urban design or planningsituation. The names of the modalities given below relate to Table 4.1.
The numerical modality: numerical accounting
The numerical modality means a discrete quantity, awareness of how
much there is of things, and it precedes all the following modalities. Infact it provides all the required quantification for an urban develop-ment. Some well-known examples in construction are: the number ofhectares of ground on which a building is placed (spatial), the amountof resources required for the construction (physical) and the number ofliving creatures (sensitive) who occupy a building.
The spatial modality: spaces, shape and extension
The spatial modality refers to `continuous extension'. It is one of the
most fundamental modalities for this study since it qualifies spatialdifferentiation and all the following issues: building shape and layout,terrain shape, location, geographical position, proximity, area topologyand form. It is the basis for the development of all the later aspects. Forexample, the accessibility to a site or to a building, which is recognisedas a crucial factor for the quality of living, is characterised by the spatial
modality but it is also qualified by the kinematics aspect (such as
movement to a place or a site).
The kinematics modality: transport and mobility
The meaning of the kinematics aspect is movement. It characterises the
movement of people and goods within an open or closed space, a cityor a building. It qualifies mobility in towns and regions. Transport andmobility are crucial factors for the sustainable development of an urban
context, both for their environmental ecological impacts and for their
utility and quality of life features.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 83

The physical modality: physical environment, mass
and energy
The physical modality has its meaning in energy and mass. It qualifies
different elements of our living environment, dealing inter alia with
energy, water, air, soil, and natural materials and resources. Its coremeaning qualifies physical (natural) elements, such as buildingmaterials and the ground on which to build, and also those naturalbarriers to the spatial development of regions, such as mountains andlakes, the oceans and so on. Artificial or man-made barriers, such as
walls, bridges and other built infrastructures, are also qualified by the
physical modality. Finally, the physical modality characterises all built(urban) environments, which are recognised as systems with a finitecarrying capacity (Rees, 1992).
The biological modality: health, biodiversity and
eco-protection
The biological modality has its core meaning in organic life. In terms of
the built environment, it has been recognised that buildings have amajor impact on the eco-system as they are produced, consumed andcontinue to exist within the cycle of nature. This can be expressed by
the concept of the ecological footprint (see Chapter 2) which is defined as
the area of land required to produce biologically all the resourcesconsumed by a community, and to assimilate its waste, indefinitely(Rees, 1992). It expresses the impact of construction on the naturalenvironment, in biological terms. These can be associated withinrecurring impacts over the building's life, producing a remarkablylarge footprint. Unfortunately, an understanding and assessment of allthe life-cycle impacts of a building is not an easy task. There is a need to
know the types of information available and the problems that arise in
assessing the existing situation, analysing past trends and projectingfuture ones.
Case studies and examples of sustainable development in planning
have shown that both health and eco-protection or biodiversity arerelevant issues in the development of an area. The consequences ofbuilding and construction activities influence the quality of air, thequality of water and the quality of the soil over a long time period,
particularly in the case of an industrial plant. Biodiversity is not
encouraged but penalised by the construction sector which has alwaysremoved land from the natural environment and from agricultural usefor material extraction and the expansion of cities. Again, the wastederived from construction activities and other uses of land (industrialuse or housing) can condition the biological functioning of the site andthe urban complex. On the other hand, biological issues can providedirection, for example, in the importance of a `green' design. A shape84 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

and form of building sensitive to environmental issues, as well as a
good location in terms of reducing the pollution produced by a
building, are key issues in sustainable development at the buildinglevel.
The sensitive modality: people's perceptions towards
the environment
The biological modality anticipates a number of later modalities. For
example, the presence of pollution and the lack of biodiversity of a site
are able to influence the perception that people have towards theenvironment. The latter is an issue of the sensitive modality and it iscrucial for sustainable development processes. The sensitive has itsroot in feeling, which is a quality belonging to everyday experience.Because feeling is irreducible, defining it is as difficult as defining theother meanings.
The feelings of comfort, safety and privacy or, say, the noise level all
play a large role in the quality of living for human beings. If we did not
feel safe in a place we would certainly not stay there long and wouldprefer to change our living environment. However, the feelings ofprivacy, security and comfort and the pleasure engendered by livingthere can make our lives more satisfactory and of higher quality.
Not only the biological issues but also the spatial and the physical
characteristics of the built environment, such as the layout, shape andlocation of the building, also contribute to the quality of living. This
means that the sensitive modality is able to encapsulate all the mod-
alities preceding it.
The analytical modality: analysis and formal knowledge
Human feelings and perceptions are the basis for the logical process of
analysis and discernment of the parts constituting a building. The
sensitive is the base for developing analytical aspects.
The meaning of the analytical modality is logic and distinction. In
planning and design, the analytical modality refers to analysis andformal knowledge. This usually helps decision-makers to recognise agood construction from a bad one and the quality of analysis used inthe building design. In some cases the building can be viewed as agood example of design and it can act as an educational tool. Again, theshape, layout and form of the building play a strong role in providing
information for this analytical function. This explains why the spatial
and physical modalities are placed before the analytical in the modalorder. But the latter is able to anticipate and provide information forother aspects, such as the historical modality. Education and the abilityto rationalise and discriminate between elements are the foundationA Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 85

for developing a knowledge and a cultural background in construction.
These are issues related to the historical modality whose core meaning
isformative power .
The historical modality: creativity and cultural development
The historical modality qualifies creativity in design and the tech-
nology employed in construction. The expertise in construction usually
comes from learning from good practice. Innovation in technology is
made possible through research activities that make use of analysis.The relation between the historical modality and the analytical mod-ality is particularly important here.
The historical modality represents the cultural and technological
progress of human beings in achieving a better quality of living. Theproduction of the built environment entails the use of natural materialsand the consumption of energy, and impacts on local habitats. This
modality governs the processes of modelling the physical materials
and of assembling the components of a building and all the operationsrequired for developing the construction plan. Therefore it includes thespatial, kinematical, physical and analytical modalities. In planningand design for a human community this is reflected in creativity andcultural development, and it also refers to conservation strategies forthe built heritage.
The communicative modality: communications and
the media
The historical modality anticipates a number of modalities, and firstly
the communicative. For instance, a new building (or renewal) can beregarded as an example of good practice or a laboratory for innovativetechnologies. In both cases it represents a way forward in scientific andcultural development. It represents a modification of the present
environment that has been put in place in order to satisfy some com-
munity needs. It communicates symbols and messages to the com-munity. This is an issue of the communicative modality whosesignificance is to provide information and meaning.
A building is usually able to inform people about the functions held
within it. We can easily recognise a hospital as different from a stationor from a bridge just by its external form and layout. Therefore thecommunicative anticipates both the spatial and the physical but also
the historical.
Often, a building such as a monument or a built cultural heritage or
an example of modern architecture is able to communicate particularvalues to a community (credal) from an aesthetical viewpoint (aes-thetic). In these examples, the communicative is the foundation for the86 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

higher modalities. Communication and the media are relevant factors
in linking people together, facilitating participation in planning and the
achievement of a common vision of sustainable development in thebuilt environment. The communicative modality directly anticipatesthe meaning-nucleus of the social modality: a house or a site mayprovide a welcome message to its visitors. The building is usually agathering place for people, such as a meeting point for friends in a baror a club, but may also be an office or other building that encouragesrelationships with colleagues or other people.
The social modality: social climate and social cohesion
Social intercourse is the meaning-nucleus of the social modality. The
size and form of the building, the biological quality of the internal andexternal environment, the accessibility of the building, the feeling ofcomfort, its design, the technology used and the messages provided byit ± all these elements play a pertinent role in human attitudes towardssocial interaction and thereby condition it. The spatial, physical, sen-sitive, historical, analytical and communicative modalities precede thesocial modality in the framework and support it.
The economic modality: efficiency and economic appraisal
The use that a community makes of a building is connected to its
economic value in the real-estate market. The social modality antici-
pates the economic modality. The link between the two modalities isvery strong, as is also recognised by the utility theory of value forbuildings (Forte & De Rossi, 1996).
A number of economic issues relate to construction activity and a
number of decisions are taken with regard to the initial, limitedamount of resources available to developers and builders for con-struction. Form, shape, layout, and location are fundamental issues
that determine the cost of a building. Physical and spatial resources
also influence future economic decisions, as the life-cycle cost of abuilding demonstrates (Ferry, Brandon & Ferry, 1999). The economicmodality asks planners and designers to consider future costs for thedesign and development of buildings as it very often refers to aneconomic appraisal over the building life cycle.
The spatial, physical, sensitive, analytical and all the other earlier
modalities are anticipated by the economic modality. Many economic
decisions relating to buildings are determined by the environmental
conditions of the site, the perception that people (e.g. developers, users,economic decision-makers) have of it, the analyses made for devel-oping the building design, the technology available at the time, theinformation owned by the actors and finally the use made of thebuilding.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 87

In the literature, an existing interdependence that also encompasses
social and cultural values is recognised between the economy and the
environment (Costanza, 1991; 1993). On one hand, environmentalquality influences economic performance (e.g. a higher environmentalquality could be reflected in a higher market value of buildings) and,on the other hand, the economy affects the environment (e.g. anindustrial plant may provide pollution and stress the eco-system). Thisinfluence is visible for both its positive effects, such as the improve-ment and regeneration of the built environment, and its negative
effects, such as the damage that urban activities have caused, for
example to natural landscapes, to sites of historical, architectural orcultural interest and to local traditions and customs.
The economic modality precedes the softer modalities and reflects
a key issue for sustainable development in the built environment.For example, the use that people make of a building has an impacton the harmony (aesthetic) of the urban complex. If the users of thebuilding are functioning poorly in the economic aspect, by squander-
ing physical resources or by inefficient handling of their domestic
waste or by not caring about their gardens and their neighbourhood,the harmony of the whole urban area might be threatened andsustainability is low.
The aesthetic modality: visual appeal and architectural style
The concept of harmony between elements of a settlement or parts of
the same building is the meaning-nucleus of the aesthetic modality. A
number of factors occur to determine the harmony of a built system,
such as the form, layout, location and distribution of the buildings, thequality of design, the use made of the built environment by the com-munity, the cost paid and other economic choices that occur duringplanning, design and building. The aesthetic modality comes before allthe more quantitative aspects in the modal order.
The particular architectural style and the decoration of a building
possess an aesthetic meaning. The beauty of a building can be recog-
nised not only by its inhabitants but also by neighbours and tourists.
For example, a qualitatively high image of an urban area not onlymeets the requirements of the citizens but also attracts new investors,drawing in firms that intend to re-locate and becoming a `model' tobe followed by other local administrations. Many effects of wellbeingare expressed only indirectly and may bear little relation to anincrease in productivity or cost savings, such as the relationship ofinhabitants to the urban context, the degree of social integration,
safety, the presence of green areas and people's contribution to edu-
cation and training.88 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

The juridical modality: rights and responsibilities
The building can be in harmony with its surrounding or, alter-
natively, can be in contrast. These relationships between a buildingand its surrounding are usually regulated by technical and planninglegislation. The latter is an issue of the juridical modality, which pre-
cedes the aesthetic aspect, specifically in the case of standards, codes
of practice or norms regulating the development of the building interms of architectural style, the colour of the facade and similarmatters.
The meaning of the juridical modality is well explained through
the concepts of rights and responsibilities. From a juridical point ofview, a building belongs to a public or private owner within anadministrative space, under the regulation of a local authority. The
local administration governs and regulates the functioning of an
urban complex through a complex body of laws. Regulations canalso be found at different planning levels ± local regional andnational. In the UK, for instance, the main planning legislation is theTown and Country Planning Act 1990 (amended and revised in1991) and, in contrast to other Member States of the European Union,there are fewer provisions for planning at the national and regionallevel. Spatial planning is largely the responsibility of local autho-
rities, although central government retains considerable influence
and control.
There are also several repercussions in terms of properties and use of
land. In designing a building, urban and technical standards need to betaken into account. On the other hand, a new building can provide amodification to the actual property structure, and sellers and buyersare required to be formally registered.
The juridical modality follows and encapsulates not only the aes-
thetic modality but also the economic, social, sensitive and all the
earlier aspects in the list. In particular, the relationships between thejuridical and the biological modalities need to be emphasised interms of sustainable urban development, for example the environ-mental pollution caused by a building such as a factory or a wastedisposal plant. In the juridical modality, the producers of pollution(the users or owners of the building) are responsible, in legal terms,for the negative service provided to the community. Consequently,
in some countries they are required to pay a price or a particular tax
for this pollution, according to the principle that `pollutant (or user)pays' (Pearce & Turner, 1991). Unfortunately, it is not always easy todefine the exact boundaries of a pollution source. The effects of pol-lution can often be felt very far away from the place or origin andthis provides an obstacle to the application of the principle. Often theadministrative boundaries (juridical) do not correspond to the natu-ral (spatial and physical) ones.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 89

The ethical modality: ethical issues
In its role of anticipating and supporting the ethical aspect, the juridical
modality provides a fundamental contribution to our understanding ofsustainable development in the built environment. The ethical mod-ality refers to a particular attitude towards other entities, both livingcreatures and inanimate ones, which is governed by love and morality.In the context of this study, it specifically suggests that citizens (par-ticularly building and land owners) go beyond mere duty in exercising
ownership and responsibility and that those who live nearby should
look beyond the traditional NIMBY (`not in my back yard') defen-siveness.
The ethical modality precedes and encapsulates the meaning of all
the earlier modalities. For example, we can think of the social conflictsarising from the decision to locate a waste disposal plant, an airport ora railway nearby. The spatial modality (in terms of location) and thebiological modality are foundation dimensions of this modal aspect.
However, other examples can be found in our everyday experience
with regard to the wide repercussions that a legislative act (juridical)may have on the morale of a community.
Finally, the concept of equity ± which is fundamental in a study of
sustainable development ± is an ethical issue, although the concept alsoholds an economic and juridical meaning when it is defined as a `fairdistribution of resources between members of the same community'(Voogd, 1995). It is based on humanitarian love for one's neighbour,
love of nature and so forth or, in the words of the Brundtland Report
(WCED, 1987): `a respect for the needs of future generations'.
The credal modality: commitment, interest and vision
The ethical certainly anticipates the credal modality. It can often be
observed that when the morale of a community is low for some reason,such as a political decision, an economic decline derived from aninefficient use of resources or a social problem (e.g. the presence ofcrime), people have no commitment towards their environment and nodevelopment is possible.
The meaning of the credal aspect is specifically faith. This is an
essential part of the structure of human beings and not just a char-
acteristic peculiar to Christian or other religions. The contents and the
directions of faith differ among different people. For example, beliefcan be directed towards God or towards an idol or towards any otherphilosophy of life whether it be communism or materialism.
The built environment is, finally, a reflection of what we think it has
to be. Urban form, the shape and layout of buildings and infra-structures, the design and the planning, the social attitude towards theenvironment, all the economic choices made and the aesthetical and90 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

ethical characteristics of our built environment are just a reflection of a
simple but fundamental credal issue : who we are and where we aim to go as
individuals or as a community (Lombardi & Basden, 1997).
Development of the multi-modal framework for
decision-making
The development of the scientific procedure underpinning the frame-
work is supported by the theory of Dooyeweerd described above. Thefifteen descriptions are suggested to provide decision-makers with aqualification system for classifying sustainable development issues inurban planning and design. A number of scientific criteria and speci-fications, followed by questions for examining sustainability, willguide the user in handling the evaluation of a planning or designproposal.
The limitations encountered in existing frameworks for decision-
making (see Chapter 2) have suggested that the structure should beflexible and able to take into account various situations and planningand design problems. The structure should include criteria that arerelevant to decision-making and at the same time are easily checked byusers, providing information about the sustainability of an urbandevelopment.
This framework should be able to facilitate collaboration among
stakeholders, aiding consultation and communication between the
formal decision-makers (planners, designers and urban authoritieswho devise strategies and policies for the cities), and any members ofthe general public who may participate in this decision-making process(stakeholders and concerned citizens). In other words, it should pos-sess a user-friendly terminology.
To illustrate the use of the framework, some example questions have
been developed for an urban district that is being redeveloped. These
questions will help decision-makers (planners or stakeholders) to
examine each sustainable development aspect and to provide evidencethat the aspect has been addressed in a planning situation.
This cannot be an exhaustive list of questions because of the com-
plexity of the subject but they provide a prompt which may supportand guide evaluation in planning. It is also worth noting again that theevaluation is not limited to technical factors but also includes non-technical aspects as it follows the checklist illustrated in Table 4.1. Each
of them will represent a level of information that may be relevant for
the stakeholders.
A final point is that the evaluation perspective adopted in the
development of these questions is related to the so-called ex ante eva-
luation of potential alternatives. In this evaluation perspective, the aimA Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 91

of the framework is to aid choice by decision-takers and stakeholders in
the decision-making process. Clearly this example may be one in a
series. By changing questions and assessment techniques, the checklistof modalities remains the same and can be assumed as the basis for anex post (retrospective) evaluation or a monitoring .I nex post and moni-
toring , both of which imply a different view of the planning and
management process, the framework may be a useful guide forunderstanding the changes produced by a policy or a programme andfor judging the degree of achievement of a planning process. The
flexibility of the framework will be further discussed in Chapter 5.
The following provides a short illustration of the questions which
will allow us to examine sustainable development, encompassing allthe issues that might lead to a harmonic environment.
Key questions for examining sustainable development
within each modality
As sustainable development is a process that includes also non-
technical aspects, such as socio-economic and cultural factors (seeChapter 1), the process can only be assessed by a robust theoreticalframework able to provide structure and support for this complexevaluation exercise. The authors have adopted the modal order basedupon the philosophy of Dooyeweerd and illustrated in the early part ofthis chapter.
Starting from the top of the modal order, the following are poten-
tially key questions related to each modality redefined in the context of
sustainable development, as introduced in Table 4.1. These examplequestions are indicative of the issues that need to be addressed and aidthe person making the assessment to consider all the key issues (andthe moral imperatives).
Credal modality: commitment, interest and vision
oIs the political situation stable?
oDoes the scheme meet the requirements of regional±national plans?
oWill finance be available for environmental protection and for how
long?
oWhat commitment has each stakeholder made to the scheme?
Ethical modality: ethical issues
oDoes the development scheme provide the same opportunities or
improvements for people in the future as in the present?
oDoes the development scheme reduce social inequalities? Does it
support the action of voluntary groups?92 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oDoes the scheme provide protection to the biosphere, eco-system
and animal species?
oHave all the stakeholders been involved in the development of the
scheme?
Juridical modality: rights and responsibilities
oHave the rights and the responsibilities of all developers, land
and building owners and users been accounted for in the longterm?
oDoes the scheme identify those who benefit and those who pay for
the development? Does it include some possibilities for the reim-
bursement of damage and payment for the rights received?
oTo what degree can people change their environment either
directly or through elected representatives?
oHas a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) been undertaken
(see Chapter 6)? Is there compliance with the technical±planningstandards related to the protection of the environment?
oWhat citizens groups are entitled to participate in the decision
process?
Aesthetical modality: visual appeal and architectural style
oDoes the development scheme improve the artistic character and
significance of buildings and settlement in the short and longterm?
oDoes the condition of the built environment enhance the visual
appeal?
oAre the planned interventions aesthetically satisfying to all the
stakeholders?
oIs the development in harmony with the context, the surroundings
and the eco-system? Does the scheme improve the visual appeal ofnatural settings?
Economical modality: efficiency and economic appraisal
oHas a long-term financial appraisal been undertaken?
oWhat is the financial distribution to the stakeholders?
oHas employment of the local labour force in construction been
considered?
oIs there an efficient environmental management system? Are there
exhaustive city-wide recycling programmes from which thedevelopment could benefit?
oHow many of the stakeholders have committed themselves to the
financial appraisal?A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 93

Social modality: social climate and social cohesion
oDoes the plan enhance and sustain social interaction in the long
term?
oDoes it consider the impact of the development on the social
climate in the long term?
oDoes the plan favour co-operation and association between indi-
viduals and institutions? Does it improve the accessibility to socialutilities for all the members of the community?
oDoes the plan consider the impacts of tourism on the cultural and
natural settings?
oHave social clubs, voluntary groups and cultural associations been
involved in the development of the scheme?
Communicative modality: communications and the media
oIs a monitoring system for the area available?
oWill the communicative infrastructures be improved in the present
and the future?
oIs a long-term programme for urban signs available?
oDoes the plan improve the accessibility to communication facilities
for all citizens, including the poor and disadvantaged?
oDoes the plan include environmental audits? Is environmentally
orientated advertising available for the area?
oIs information on the development scheme available to all stake-
holders? Are all relevant citizen groups able to take part in thediscussion, argument and evaluation in planning? Does everyoneunderstand the language used?
Historical modality: creativity and cultural development
oDoes the urban plan include a restoration programme to preserve
the cultural heritage of the area?
oIs the innovation based on local practice?
oDoes the plan improve the living standards of the poor and dis-
advantaged and their cultural aspirations?
oAre the technologies employed environmentally friendly?
oDoes the city have a well-established consultation process? Has
consultation been successfully undertaken in relation to the pro-posal?
Analytical modality: analysis and formal knowledge
oHas scientific analysis been applied to the problem including
consideration of the long-term perspective? Does the fundingprovided support the proposed solution in the long term?94 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oIs an educational scheme available for citizens ?
oIs an educational programme relating to the environment available
for the community?
oHas the developed analysis been accessed and agreed by most of
the stakeholders?
Sensitive modality: people's perceptions towards
the environment
oIs a long-term security scheme available for the area?
oDoes the plan address the issues of crime and vandalism in the area
and surroundings? Will every stakeholder feel comfort and con-fidence in the design for safety within the surroundings? Is theviewpoint of children taken into consideration?
oDoes the plan solve the problems of noise in the area? Does it take
into account the visual impact?
oAre the viewpoints of all stakeholders, including those who have
no voice, taken into consideration? Have groups representing therights of children been active in decision-making?
Biological modality: health, biodiversity and eco-protection
oWhat is the carrying capacity of the area? Does the development
scheme for the area take into account the maintenance of availablecapital of non-renewable resources in the long term?
oIs every stakeholder able to enjoy an appropriate quality of air,
water and land in the developing area? Do they feel happy with thepresence of green areas, hygiene, health and health services, hos-pitals, gyms, etc.?
oIs there an environmental planning scheme available for the area?
Does the plan improve air, water and soil quality in the area? Does
it increase or improve health services?
oAre the community groups active on environmental issues? Have
all stakeholders taken part in the development of the environ-mental planning scheme?
Physical modality: physical environment, mass and energy
oIs an energy saving scheme that takes into account the long-term
perspective available?
oIs there an environmental planning scheme available for the area?
oDoes the development scheme for the area take into account the
maintenance of non-renewable resources in the long term?
oHave local environmental action groups been involved in the
development of the scheme?A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 95

Kinematics modality: transport and mobility
oDoes the development scheme for the area improve the mobility in
and out of the area for the long-term future?
oIs every stakeholder able to move easily using public transport?
Are transport facilities available to all stakeholders?
oIs the transport planning scheme environmentally friendly? Will it
improve the air quality?
oHave all stakeholders taken part in the development of the trans-
port planning scheme?
Spatial modality: space, shape and extension
oIs the development sufficiently flexible to take into account future
development schemes for the area? Will the urban form be stablethrough time?
oIs the urban density appropriate for every stakeholder?
oIs the new urban density and form environmentally friendly?
oHave all stakeholders taken part in the development of shape and
layout of buildings and settings?
Numerical modality: numerical accounting
oHow long is the development process?
oHow much redistribution of wealth is contained within the
scheme?
oHow much, in terms of natural and non-renewable resources, does
the development cost?
oHow many stakeholders have taken part in the decision-making?
It should be stressed again that these questions are merely examples
and will vary from scheme to scheme. However, the basic frameworkremains the same. This provides the opportunity to `think global'through the modalities, and yet to `act local'. Even this limited list of
questions illustrates the massive complexity in understanding and
evaluating sustainable development.
Synthesis of results
A major problem faced in decision-making for sustainable develop-ment is the massive amount of information which can confusedecision-makers rather than help them to find a final solution. To
overcome this problem, the fifteen modalities and planning aspects
have been regrouped into two more aggregated sets of dimensions ofsustainable development as illustrated in Table 4.3.96 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Table 4.3 The proposed framework for sustainable development decision-making.
Goal First-level
aspectsSecond-level
aspectsMulti-modal
aspectsBuilt environment and planning aspects
Physical
environmental
capital
Human cultural
capital
Financial
institutional capitalUrban and
infrastructural
development
Environmental and
physical quality
Education and
scientific development
Social and economical
development
GovernanceNumerical
Spatial
Kinematic
PhysicalBiologicalSensitiveAnalyticalFormative
Communicative
SocialEconomicAestheticalJuridicalEthical
CredalNumerical accounting
Space, shape and extension (e.g. urban density)
Transport and mobility (e.g. infrastructure level)
Physical environment (e.g. environmental quality level)Health and ecological protection or biodiversity (e.g. greenery)Perceptions of people towards the environmentAnalysis and formal knowledge (e.g. university reputation)Creativity and cultural development
Communication and the media (e.g. ICT level)
Social climate, social relationships and social cohesionEfficiency and economic appraisal (e.g. GNP)Visual appeal and architectural style (e.g. cultural heritage)Rights and responsibilities (e.g. legal framework)Ethical issues (equity)
Commitment, interest and vision
Sustainable developmentA Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 97

The first set of sustainable development dimensions corresponds to
the three major clusters of sustainable development (`first-level
aspects' in Table 4.3), also defined as three different types of `capital'(see Chapter 2), which are related to the physical environment, thehuman environment and the institutional environment (as suggestedby Lombardi & Nijkamp, 2000; Nijkamp, 2003), in accordance with theEU definition of sustainable urban development (see EC Report, Feb-
ruary 2002).
The second set of issues are the five classes of urban policies (`second
level aspects' in Table 4.3), i.e. urban and infrastructure development,
environmental and physical quality, education and scientific devel-opment, social and economical development, and governance, whichreflect the main strategic areas where interventions can be made in theurban environment (Stanghellini & Lombardi, 2002).
This structure is intended to provide a synthesis of the results
obtained from an evaluation process by incrementally aggregating thenumerous aspects and evaluation issues into a smaller class of well-
known key sustainable development dimensions. These are illustrated
further in the case studies in Chapter 5.
Summary
Decision-making for sustainable development, particularly in the fieldof planning or design, requires a framework that is able to structure the
problem. This enables us to understand the implications that the
(re)development may have for the existing context.
This chapter has shown a new conceptual framework for under-
standing sustainable development in urban planning and design forthe built environment. The framework developed in this study is basedon a simplified version of the philosophical theory of the `CosmonomicIdea of Reality'. This is useful, not only because it recognises differentlevels of information but also because it suggests an integration of the
key aspects to provide a continuum for harmony and decision-making.
The proposed framework aims at guiding designers and planners,
official public developers and decision-makers through the process ofunderstanding and evaluating sustainable development in planningand design on the basis of a new holistic structure that acts as a promptand a checklist.
The evaluation framework involves all of the following:
oAtechnical assessment of the construction under development with
regard to dimension, space, functions, accessibility, etc.
oAn ecologically orientated assessment of the project (a `green
design') illustrating the environmental compatibility of this develop-
ment within the existing context.98 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oAn understanding of the historical and cultural significance of the
planning asset and of its social desirability .
oAn analysis of the financial and economic feasibility .
oA check of the visual appeal of this new (re)development and of its
flexibility or adaptability which may allow it to meet some future user
needs.
oAn assessment of the institutional sustainability of the project, based
on an analysis of the juridical and procedural issues.
oAn understanding of what interest or concern there is in the local
agenda of the city and in its strategic plan.
Problems arise in decision-making for sustainable development: for
example, the amount of information required for an evaluation is time-consuming and costly; the variety of vocabulary employed andrequired by each assessment method confuses the dialogue betweenstakeholders; the elements of uncertainty included in the available datamake prediction difficult; and compromise is difficult because of the
lack of an agreed structure.
The framework, as it has been developed, does not overcome all of
these problems directly but it does provide new opportunities forcollaboration between disciplines, experts and people; it adds newdimensions that were traditionally not covered in the evaluation (e.g.aesthetics); and it links all the knowledge and the special contributionsof technique and science within the same structure, providing order,continuity and integration without falling into reductionism or lack of
transparency. Thus it can also act as a learning tool, addressing current
demands for higher education in the field of planning.
In Chapter 5, three case studies will provide an illustration of this
structure at different planning levels, demonstrating the power of theframework as a tool for decision-making.A Proposed Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Development 99

5The Framework as a Structuring Tool:
Case Studies
This chapter aims to show the robustness, relevance, comprehensive-
ness and flexibility of the proposed multi-modal framework for
decision-making through some case study applications. Three real-
world examples are provided which are related to various planning/design contexts and different operative levels. These are intended todemonstrate that this framework is able to make the key issues within adecision-making process explicit and transparent in the context ofsustainable development and that it is able to cover a wide range ofissues that are rarely addressed by current methods.
It is worth re-emphasising that technical information and scientific
knowledge related to sustainability in the built environment are, at
present, very limited. Moreover, experience in the field of sustain-ability in planning and the built environment is restricted to some good`local' examples or case studies whose applicability cannot always begeneralised (Selman, 1996; Cooper, 1999).
Research on sustainability is still experimental and still very frag-
mented since it requires joint effort, collaboration and continuousimplementation and monitoring, involving many different disciplines
and many different people working together over a long period of time.
A further major constraint is the lack of a comprehensive data base onsustainable development, making it difficult to apply. Current debateson sustainable development tend to focus on statistical indicators andclassification systems as a structure for organising the informationrequired in decision-making but currently few of these are available oroperational (Mitchell, 1996; Bentivegna, et al., 2002; Deakin, et al., 2002a).
It is in response to the above that this book has been undertaken. The
book has adopted a new theoretical base to address the need, with the
100

support of the theory of the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality', suggesting a
framework for the evaluation of sustainability in planning (see Chapter
4). This process has required understanding, investigation and infor-mation. It has also required testing and reviewing. However, the lim-ited amount of information available at present on many of the issuesin the framework means that future practical applications of the pro-posed multi-modal framework will be required to test it to the full. Acontinuous implementation and adaptation of the structure in eachplanning situation and decision-making process is necessary to
encourage users to adopt it as a fully operative tool for the evaluation
of sustainability.
As the information on which the proposed multi-modal structure
relies is still in a state of change, it follows that applications can onlyfocus on the theoretical structure underlying it. This structure encap-sulates 15 modal aspects and the three clusters of sustainability aspectsof physical environment, human environment and the institutionalenvironment, illustrated in Table 4.3.
Wegener (1994) argues that an urban model should provide
thoughts that `open up' the field to new problems that were not evidentpreviously. Recent studies (Deakin, et al., 2001; Bentivegna et al., 2002)
suggest that not just one but a variety of methods are required to dealwith sustainability in planning and decision-making.
In this chapter three case studies are provided, based around the
comprehensiveness of the framework to aid the decision-makingprocess for sustainable development. These case studies try to address
the following key questions:
oIs the proposed structure flexible enough to be able to produce
meaningful results in different planning situations?
oIs ittransparent enough to produce clear advice for decision-making
within each modality?
oDo the framework components help decision-making , leading to an
improvement in understanding, monitoring and learning aboutsustainability?
The first example provides evidence for the comprehensiveness of the
modalities for the long-term planning of a situation by applying themodality approach to a decision-making problem that has been tackledpreviously by a traditional provisional ( ex ante ) evaluation method.
Thus it is possible to compare the new approach with the one under-taken previously in order to see whether there is an improvement. Inthis example, it is shown that the multi-modal structure is able to
render all the factors underlying the decision-making explicit, pin-
pointing the limitations of the traditional method used in the casestudy. In turn, this helps to illustrate that the structure is comprehen-sive and able to address the identified problems sufficiently.
The second case study proposes a retrospective ( ex post ) analysis of aThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 101

decision-making process, adopting the multi-modal framework as a
tool for detecting the stakeholders' views of the problem. The third
deals with sustainability indicators, structuring the `Social reporting'(or stakeholder reporting) of the City of Modena (Italy) by means of thesuggested multi-modal framework. All three examples illustrate therelevance of the fifteen structure components.
All the three case studies are related to different planning situations
in order to show the flexibility of the proposed structure to differentcontexts and its potential for generalisation, i.e. its replicability. As
already stated, planning and design are multi-aspect activities and
generally pose a variety of different problems that challenge decisionmakers. For the purposes of illustration, the following major currentplanning/management problems for sustainability (UNCHS, 1996)have been selected: management of technological systems at theinfrastructure level, urban regeneration at the district level andstrategic planning at the city level.
In the first case study, an example is used to show how multi-criteria
methods (see Chapter 6) are able to tackle the problem of selecting a
new waste treatment for the city of Turin, demonstrating that a numberof aspects ± which are important for true long-term sustainability ± areleft uncovered.
In the second case study, the multi-modal framework is used as a
retrospective evaluation tool for prompting understanding and learn-ing about sustainability. A multi-stakeholder decision-making prob-lem that deals with the crucial sustainability problem of regenerating
an ex-industrial area is illustrated (Curwell & Lombardi, 1999).
Finally, the third case study required rigorous field work and three
stages of development relating to social reporting in a city. The firststage concerned a deep understanding of the problem involved. Thesecond stage applied the framework to the context within the city andthis implied a structured collection of information. The third stage isthe analysis of the results.
All three case studies are based on previous applications of some
traditional methodologies and are documented in Lombardi & Zorzi
(1993), Lombardi & Marella (1997) and Comune di Modena (2004)respectively. Detailed background information can be found withinthese publications and it is not possible to replicate the detail here.
Case study 1: selection of a municipal waste
treatment system
This example deals with a major ecological issue of concern for sus-
tainable development: the problem of municipal waste. This generallyconsists of organic substances, paper, metals, textiles, glass, syntheticmaterials and small quantities of a large variety of toxic substances.102 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Municipal waste is generally collected in most European cities,
although in deteriorating neighbourhoods removal systems do not
always work adequately, because of a lack of public funding.
In Europe, between 150 kg and 600 kg of municipal waste are pro-
duced per person each year. On average, each European producesmore than 500 kg of waste per annum or 1.5 kg of waste each day.Estimates provided by the OECD for western Europe indicate anincrease in the production of municipal waste at the rate of 3% perannum between 1985 and 1990 (OECD, 1994; CER, 1996). In addition, a
major shift is occurring in the composition of municipal waste, with an
increase in plastics and packaging materials.
A large proportion of municipal waste from cities is taken to land-
fills. Tipping, which is the most common method of disposing of urbanwastes in landfills in Europe, is not always controlled. An alternativesystem for disposing of municipal waste is an incinerator. In westernEurope it is used, on average, for 20% of produced waste. Incinerationof municipal waste causes a reduction of up to 30% in the weight of the
initial quantities of treated waste and can be designed to recoup the
energy content of the waste. At the same time, this can cause notoriousproblems of air pollution, and harmful and toxic waste products. Inaddition, it is very costly and extremely difficult to manage (Stanner &Bourdeau, 1995).
Efforts are now undertaken in many European cities to set an
example of good practice by recycling, with the aim of reducing theunnecessary import of materials as well as the volume of waste that
leaves the city (EEA, 1995).
The present case study concerns the problem of selecting a new
municipality waste treatment system for the town of Turin. At themoment, a public company called AMIAT manages the municipalwaste through a system of controlled burial. Although the system isstill operational, the problem of finding new technical solutions for thefuture will remain after the closing of the current system.
The disposal of urban waste by means of a new landfill raises the
problem of finding suitable new sites with suitable hydro-geological
characteristics, so that this will not add to underground water or soilpollution. In addition, the landscape can be blighted by unsightlyviews and smells during the life cycle of the tip and a considerableincrease in dust, rats, insects and fire hazards may occur. Theseproblems are at the root of the social conflicts that are usually gener-ated in decisions of this kind.
In the case study developed by Lombardi and Zorzi (1993), three
main systems of municipal disposing ± controlled burial, incineration
and recovery/selection ± were analysed (as alternative solutions) andan environmental impact analysis was developed for decision-making.In this application a number of environmental factors and social-economical issues were taken into consideration (as evaluationThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 103

criteria). These included: air, water, soil, landscape, public hygiene,
technological risk, economic analysis, life cycle of the system and ease
of operation.
The complete hierarchy used, with the goal at the top and the
alternative solutions at the bottom, is illustrated in Fig. 5.1 and Table5.1.
An assessment of the significance of the impact of each alternative
solution, in terms of reversibility and duration in time, was alsodeveloped by creating a nine-point measurement scale. This impactanalysis formed the basis of the application of three different multi-criteria analysis methods (MCA), in order to devise a single preferenceindex for each alternative system of disposing of urban waste (seeChapter 6).
The reason why Lombardi and Zorzi (1993) used three differentTable 5.1 The goal, criteria and alternatives adopted in this evaluation.
Goal
Identification of a technical solution for waste disposal in Turin
Criteria
(1)Safeguarding the atmosphere
(2)Safeguarding the water supply
(3)Safeguarding the soil
(4)Protection of the landscape
(5)Protection of public health (maximum hygiene)
(6)Minimisation of danger (maximum safety)
(7)Maximisation of cost/revenue ratio
(8)Maximum life of plant
(9)Ease of operation
Alternatives
(A) Controlled burial
(B) Incineration
(C) Mixed recovery and controlled burial
(D) Mixed recovery and incineration
(E) Mixed recovery, incineration and controlled burial
Figure 5.1 The hierarchical model structure.104 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

MCA methods (when one is generally considered sufficient for this
problem) was to avoid the well-known problem of `method uncer-
tainty' (Voogd, 1983), which states that the results of an MCA appli-cation are fettered by the mathematical structure on which the methodis based. Therefore, a comparison of the results obtained by differentmethods may be of advantage for the decision.
The application of the MCA methods devised a final ranking of
alternative options which placed a mixed waste treatment system(mixed recovery and incineration) at the top, as best, and traditional
systems (controlled burial and incineration) at the bottom.
This result is dependent upon both the subjective selection of the
evaluation criteria used and their weighting vector (this has beenidentified as an additional `uncertainty' of this method (Voogd,1983)). The criteria and their weights were agreed on by expertswithin a consultative process that did not consider the views of non-experts and in fact only technical factors were considered in theanalysis.
The MCA methods used in this application were the following:
Concordance-Discordance Analysis ± Electre II (Roy, 1985), AnalyticalHierarchy Process (Saaty, 1980) and Regime Method (Hinloopen, et al.,
1983). A short illustration of the multi-criteria analysis is given inChapter 6.
An application of the multi-modal framework shows a number of
problems in terms of threats to sustainable development, particularlywith regard to the aspects not included in the above analysis. In par-
ticular, it shows the lack of commitment due to the absence of com-
munity non-expert participation in the evaluation (see Table 5.2).
Although some major environmental-technological and social-eco-
nomical impacts have been taken into consideration in the assessment,the lack of elements related to users' perceptions and to social or ethicalfactors may have influenced the output, leading to a strictly `expert-orientated' decision. For instance, the concern for non-renewableresources such as landscape, air quality, water quality and soil quality,
and the attention paid to both public hygiene and hazardous materials
(safety) are important in relation to the health of people and the valuesystems prevalent within a community. The chosen decision-makingprocess did not consider these aspects.
In the literature, MCA methods are often considered useful tools for
consultation with experts and the general public. However, practicalexamples of experience in this field are not easily accessible or avail-able. In many contexts, only a few sporadic and mainly theoretical
experiments are available and the results of these are not very satis-
factory (Archibugi, 2002). MCA requires an explanation of the indivi-dual preferences of each decision-maker in an explicit manner. Thedecision-makers require a priori agreement on the criteria to be
included and the weights to be assigned, avoiding interrelationsThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 105

Table 5.2 Critique of the MCA application based on the proposed multi-modal framework.
Modalities Major concerns regarding sustainability
Numerical accounting A cardinal scale with decimal indices was used by experts to compare
the alternatives with the criteria and assign the relative importance to
the evaluation criteria. Reduction in the analysis is sometimes
dangerous in analysing sustainable development processes.
Space, shape and
extensionThe assessment did not take into consideration spatial location of a
waste treatment system. The only spatial concern was `safeguarding
the soil in terms of land occupation' as one of the evaluation criteria.
Transport and mobility Not considered in the above decision-making.Physical environment, mass
and energyConsidered the landscape on one hand and the impacts on the human
system from hazardous materials on the other.
Health, bio-diversity and
ecological protectionA number of environmental criteria were used in this evaluation, such
as: safeguarding the atmosphere, safeguarding both the surface and
the underground water supply, protection of public health in terms of
maximisation of hygiene.
Perceptions of people
toward the environmentNot considered in the above decision-making.
Analysis and formal
knowledgeThe criterion used to compare the relative strengths of alternative
waste treatment systems was related to the analytical level `easy to
operate'.
Creativity and cultural
developmentTwo different criteria were used at this level, i.e. minimisation of
danger (for technological risks) and maximum life of a plant. Both are
important for the sustainability principle of futurity.
Communication and the
mediaNot considered in the above decision-making.
Social climate, social
relationships and social
cohesionNot considered in the above decision-making.
Efficiency and economic
appraisalOne evaluation criterion refers to the `maximisation of cost/revenue
ratio derived from economic analysis'.
Visual appeal of buildings
and settings and
architectural styleThe visual impact of alternative waste treatment systems is not
considered as such but in terms of protection of the landscape.
Rights and responsibilities The regulatory framework considered was limited to technical issues
and had no reference to political and legal structures.
Ethical issues Not considered in the above decision-making.Commitment, interest and
visionNot considered. In the above decision-making.
(Note: the proposed definitions of the modalities have been used here to aid clarity.)106 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

between them (Zeppetella, 1997). This is not always possible or easy to
carry out, and therefore discussions and negotiations cannot take
place.
The suggested multi-modal framework illustrated in Table 4.3 is able
to guide the decision-makers in the selection of the most suitablecriteria for the evaluation. The new hierarchical structure of criteriaand sub-criteria suggested for evaluating the five selected alternativesolutions is illustrated in Table 5.3.
Compared with the original hierarchy of elements shown in Table
5.1, this list is more comprehensive as it incorporates all the relevant
sustainable development issues for decision-making (including user'sperception and social or ethical factors). It also places the previouscriteria ( in italic ) inside each appropriate group of sustainable
development modalities.
Case study 2: `multi-stakeholder' urban regeneration
decision-making
In decision-making processes related to public and private sectors,
conflict often occurs when competing interests who value land in dif-ferent ways, such as house-builders and amenity societies, seek topromote or prevent development of the same site. During the planningprocess many public and private interests have to be considered, e.g.
healthy environmental conditions for living and working, social and
cultural needs of the citizens, the demand for home-ownership andsocial equality, mobility and conservation.
In general, urban planning laws protect the individual corporation
or citizen against disadvantages and encourage equal opportunitiesand competition in the real-estate market and urban development.However, in practice there are many problems, especially those ofcommunication, between public and private decision-makers who
often do not co-operate. There are often lengthy negotiations without
any result. In particular, there are few shared values concerning thedevelopment of the urban area, nor is there agreement about measuresto promote development (Kaib, 1994; Koster, 1994). If the preferencesof certain groups are in conflict, it is usually necessary to know thecomparative `strengths' of the interests, generally expressed in terms ofcosts and benefits, in order to increase the information available toassist in the resolution of conflicts through the decision-making pro-
cess (Lichfield, et al., 1975; Lichfield, 1996).
In this case study, the multi-modal framework has been used as a
guide for analysing the various stakeholder decision-making pro-cesses that took place in relation to the redevelopment of an ex-industrial area in Muggia (Trieste). The methodology involved aThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 107

Table 5.3 The new list of criteria and sub-criteria identified on the base of the multi-modal framework.
Goal Modalities Criteria Specification of criteria and sub-criteria
Numerical accountingSpace, shape and extensionTransport and mobility
Physical environment
Health and ecological protection
or biodiversity
Perceptions of people towards the
environment
Analysis and formal knowledge
Creativity and cultural
development
Communication and the media
Social climate, social
relationships and social cohesion
Efficiency and economic
appraisal (e.g. GNP)
Visual appeal and architectural
style
Rights and responsibilitiesEthical issuesCommitment, interest and visionUrban and infrastructure
development
Environmental and
physical quality
Education and scientific
development
Social and economical
development
GovernanceConsiders quantitative issues such as population density, the location
and extension of the waste disposal and the issue of transportation.
Includes the following sub-criteria:
oSafeguarding the atmosphere
oSafeguarding the water supply
oSafeguarding the soil
oProtection of the landscape
oProtection of public health (maximum hygiene)
Takes into account the technological development in this field and the
issue of good communications for sustainable functioning of the waste
disposal, including the sub-criterion:
oEase of operation
Includes the following sub-criteria:
oMinimisation of danger (maximum safety)
oMaximisation of cost/revenue ratio
oMaximum life of plant
oVisual appeal of the site
Includes rights and responsibilities, the participation of people in
decision-making, the ethical issues and the vision of a sustainable
development.
Sustainable development108 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

study of the decision-making problems related to the area, an under-
standing of the objectives and strategies of the different actors and a
detailed analysis of the project in spatial and economic terms. Theanalyses required investigation, collection of information and inter-views with the key actors.
The case study refers to the long decision-making process involved
in the regeneration of the area. This involved four different stake-holders:
oThe local authority of Muggia.
oThe private industrial owner of the area.
oThe local authority of Aquilinia (a small village developed by the
employers during the firm's year of activity, under the jurisdictionof Muggia).
oThe local authority of Trieste, the biggest town adjacent to the
area, which as regional capital holds territorial jurisdiction overMuggia.
The opportunity to understand a re-development of the area arose at
the beginning of this decade thanks to the Italian law n.179/92 onurban regeneration (Ministry of Public Works, 1995) which facilitatespublic±private partnership by providing national funding to cover thecost of the reclaimed land (D.M.LL.PP, 1994).
The local authorities and an industrial firm started a number of time-
consuming negotiations in order to reach an agreement. The main
conflicts related to the new land uses to be included in the area. Muggia
and Aquilinia sought residential and tourist areas, and Trieste aimed atdeveloping its territorial influence by including public services for itsharbour and fruit market; the private owner was interested in makingthe highest profit. Large differences in the interests of all these actorsmade it very difficult to achieve a solution. A simple financial appraisalhad been applied but this method was not able to assist in the reso-lution of the conflict.
After years of discussion and a long process of design, it was pos-
sible to reconcile the interests of all the actors in a single project. Thisfinal project included residential and tourist areas, commercial areasand public services, providing a synthesis of the numerous negotia-tions undertaken by the actors.
A retrospective analysis of the above decision-making process was
undertaken, using the multi-modal framework (Lombardi & Marella,1997). This analysis was useful in that it recognised the major areas of
integration between the actors, the nature of the conflicts and their
dependence on the interests of each actor, and the relationshipsbetween the design factors and other factors that could have led to anearlier resolution of the above conflicts.
An outline of the differences is provided in Table 5.4. In particular,The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 109

Table 5.4 A retrospective analysis of the decision-making process on the basis of the modal aspects.
Aspects Decision-makers (stakeholders)
Land owner Aquilinia Muggia Trieste
Numerical accounting 516 000 volume 321 000 volume 321 000 volume 352 000 volume
Space, shape and
extensionBuilding layout according
to landscapeBuilding layout according
to landscapeBuilding layout according
to landscapeBuilding layout according
to landscape
Transport and mobility To improve accessibility:
building a new motorwayTo solve urban traffic:
building a railway, a
motorway and a
pedestrian streetTo improve connection
with Trieste: building a
new motorwayTo improve connection
with Muggia: building a
new motorway
Physical environment Not addressed Reduce energy use of
trafficReduce energy use of
trafficRecycling of building
materials
Health, bio-diversity and
ecological protectionAttention to reclaimed
landAttention to reclaimed
landAttention to reclaimed
land and water qualityAttention to reclaimed
land and water quality
Perceptions of people,
welfareNot addressed To improve security Not addressed Not addressed
Analysis and formal
knowledgeSuggested land uses from
the analysis: shopping
mall; business district;
hotel; residenceSuggested land uses from
the analysis: business
district; residenceSuggested land uses from
the analysis: business
district; hotel; residenceSuggested land uses from
the analysis: public
services; harbour services;
residence
Creativity and cultural
developmentNot addressed To break with previous
activityNot addressed To develop public services
and residential areas
Communications and the
mediaTo include signs and
advertising for commercial
activityNot addressed Not addressed Not addressed110 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Social climate, social
relations, social cohesionNot addressed To improve social
interaction, e.g. design an
urban squareNot addressed Not addressed
Efficiency and economic
appraisalTo use public funding,
minimising private
resourcesFrugality in the use of the
landTo use national funding for
building local
infrastructuresRecycling schemes for
building harbour wharves
Visual appeal and
architectural styleTo improve visual impact
and to harmonise
landscapeHarmony within the
landscapeTo improve visual impact,
to harmonise accessibilityNot addressed
Rights and responsibilities To reduce own
responsibilities in
constructionTo move property rights
from private to public
sectorTo increase responsibilities
of private owner in
constructionNot addressed
Ethical issues Not addressed To improve health of
familiesNot addressed Not addressed
Commitment, interest and
visionTo increase own profit and
improve `image' for
company marketing
reasonsTo improve wellbeing of its
citizens and increase
young populationTo improve tourism,
increasing areas for
recreational activitiesTo expand its territorial
influence and increase
areas for new services
(Source: adapted from Lombardi & Marella, 1997)The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 111

the analysis showed that there are reasons of a different nature
underlying the interests of each actor (see the credal modality:
`commitment, interest and vision'), but there are also strong integra-tions of interest among the actors (concerning the issues of `transportand mobility', `health, bio-diversity and ecological protection' and`visual appeal of buildings and settings'). The major conflicts arose indealing with issues related to the `efficiency and economic appraisal'and `rights and responsibilities' and these have led the stakeholdersto end up with different results from the ones they wanted, both in
the amount of construction and in their proposed design, particu-
larly with regard to land-use and the allocation of resources (see`numerical accounting' and `analysis and formal knowledge'). Forexample, the purpose of the land owner was to use public resources(efficiency and economic appraisal) to improve his marketing image(commitment, interest and vision) and to reduce his responsibility inconstruction (rights and responsibilities). This would result in adesign scheme with a greater amount of construction (numerical
accounting) and a `highest and best use' of the land identified in a
shopping centre (analysis and formal knowledge). However, thesame land owner agreed with the other stakeholders regardingaccessibility of the site (transport and mobility), the land reclamation(health, bio-diversity and ecological protection) and the harmonisa-tion of the re-development with the landscape (visual appeal ofbuildings and settings).
This retrospective analysis of the conflict in this `typical' (at least for
the Italian context) decision-making process suggested that the multi-
modal structure provides a useful theoretical foundation for the com-prehension of a planning (and design) process in the context of thesustainability of our built environment. The analysis also suggests thatthe structure may assist in the resolution of conflicts between actorsinvolved in a planning process. It makes a number of critical factorsthat underlie a decision-making process explicit, stimulating thoughtand `opening up' the field to problems that were not previously
evident.
An application of this structure at an early stage of decision-making
(as a proactive evaluation tool) would have helped to explain therelationships between the actors, showing the aspects that qualify theinterests of each stakeholder. This, in turn, would have revealed thoseaspects that are in opposition and this might have guided the stake-holders towards a different result in planning. Finally, it would havehelped decision-makers to recognise the areas where negotiation was
needed.
In planning, particularly at the strategic level, there is a great
demand for, but also a lack of, systematic methods that are able to help(Bentivegna, 1997). It may be that the proposed framework canimprove this situation.112 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Case study 3: social reporting of Modena City
strategic plan
This case study deals with the sustainability reporting of Modena,
which has recently been developed in the context of the strategic
planning process of the city (Comune di Modena, 2004).
In planning, traditional tools have largely lost their original meaning
in predicting the future assets of a town. There is a clear understandingthat, on the one hand, local development takes into account a biggerspatial scale with many more stakeholders. On the other hand, glo-balisation and trans-national integration processes have increased therole of cities inside the socio-economical and territorial development of
countries (Mazzola & Maggioni, 2001).
The role of strategic planning is to build incrementally a shared
vision of the future development of a city through networking andmulti-disciplinary effort (Archibugi, 2002). The main differences fromtraditional physical planning, e.g. the City Master Plan, are the inclu-sion of uncertainty and discontinuity in the decision-making process,the networking of actors and competitiveness, global vision anddirection for future urban development (Ciciotti & Perulli , 1998).
According to Bryson (1998) the main steps of a strategic planning
process are:
(1) Framing of the issues.
(2) Networking of the stakeholders.(3) Evaluation of the actions undertaken.
The framing and networking activities aim at:
oExploring the decision-making problem.
oIdentifying the strategic issues for the development of the vision of
the future.
oAnalysing the relationships between the issues and the actors
involved.
oRecognising the partnerships and strategies of the stakeholders.
Strategic planning implies taking a holistic view of the context in which
the action is performed. It requires retrospective and monitoring eva-luation approaches as learning tools for transparent, inclusivedecision-making (Ciciotti, et al., 2001; Pugliese & Spaziante, 2003).
The model of participatory democracy postulates that policy-making
takes place in continuous interaction with citizens and aims to build upthe capacity of individuals to exercise greater control over decisions(Davidson, 1998; Davoudi, 1999). It originates from a generally
accepted definition of strategic planning as `the process which aims at
building a shared vision of the future development of a community orThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 113

a town' (Bryson, 1988). The stakeholders in this shared vision are all
individuals who have specific interests regarding the future develop-
ment and who have the opportunity to influence decision-making andall those contributing to the building of value. It also includes allconcerned citizens (Lichfield, 1999).
The `social reporting' is a retrospective evaluation process based on a
system of performance indicators of economical, social and environ-mental nature (thus the term `triple bottom line approach'). The aim isto evaluate the actions (decisions, projects, investments, etc.) under-
taken by a local authority in the past in order to improve future deci-
sions and eventually correct current mistakes (Hinna, 2002).
Key issues of social reporting
oIt is a marketing and managerial tool for local governance, derived
from the private sector with an ethical underpinning (e.g. eco-audit).
oIt has evolved from a `one bottom line' to a `triple bottom line'
approach: economical, social, environmental.
oIt is based on ex post evaluation and monitoring .
oIt includes both tangible and intangible effects of the actions
undertaken by the local authority.
The concept of social reporting has evolved during the past few dec-
ades from a simple act of counting, i.e. of listing information of afinancial nature (one bottom line), to a more sophisticated tool whichlinks this information to the underlying process of actions (i.e. theaccounting), and finally with the `Social reporting', comparing therequired information with appropriate criteria or goals, in order toevaluate and produce evidence to the local community of the con-sequences of those actions (see Fig. 5.2).
The evolution of social reporting has been reflected in the legal
framework of both Europe and the Member States, including Italy andthe UK. Table 5.5 illustrates this framework.
Figure 5.2 The evolution of the concept of social reporting. ( Source: adapted from
CLEAR Project, 2001.)114 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Current reporting on environmental issues (e.g. in the context of
local Agenda 21) faces a number of problems related to sustainabilityindicators developed with the aim of identifying current urban prob-lems in order to assist local administration decision-making processes.
Chapter 2 has already discussed the main problems associated with
the current lists of indicators. Previous studies (see Lombardi & Bas-den, 1997; Lombardi 1998; Lombardi, 1999) have also shown that theydo not put the same weight on all the sustainability aspects recognised
in the literature, but mainly emphasise the issues of `environmental
sustainability' and specifically the threats to the natural environmentarising from issues such as mobility, transportation and decisionsrelated to economic appraisal. The extensive literature available in thisarea has confirmed this observation. In turn, this also reveals a generalimbalance in the decision-making process, due to an over-emphasis oncertain issues rather than others (Lombardi & Basden, 1997). The listsof sustainability indicators developed by international organisations
such as the United Nations and OECD show a lack of harmonious
distribution among the aspects related to an urban system. This is seenas a problem of imbalance, with more emphasis on certain issues thanon others, leading to unsustainable decisions (see Lombardi & Basden,1997; Lombardi, 1998).
More specific criticisms of social reporting are related to the avail-
ability of the information required. The reporting activity is stronglyrelated to contingent aspects, political elections or administrative and
marketing reasons. The data are often stored in different statistical data
bases that are difficult to access, manipulate and compare. The lack ofan available structured data base is due mainly to the fact that socialreporting is not an obligatory tool. On the contrary, it is undertaken atthe end of an administration process and is not linked to the forwardprogramming stage. A major problem is the selection of the `right'indicator which is best able to represent the urban situation.
In this case study, the selection of indicators was developed on the
basis of a number of criteria largely chosen from the principal inter-
national organisations on sustainability, such as the United Nations.Table 5.5 The legal framework. ( Source: adapted from Hinna (ed.), 2002.)
Italy EU
Private sector Public sector European Union
Batelle Institutte,
Genevra, 1975
Legge Draghi,
1998GBS-Task-group
Guidelines, 2001L. 142/1990
Dlgs 77/1995
Dlgs 267/2000
(TUEL)EMAS, 1993 for eco-audit
Network for Building Social Responsibility in
Europe, www.ebnsc.org
Green Book, 2001,www.europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index_it.htm
Corporate Social responsibility, 2002The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 115

These were chosen because they appeared to relate to local needs, data
was available and easy to up-date, they were scientifically sound at
both national and international level and they were relatively simpleand easy to communicate. The social reporting process of the City ofModena was developed using a number of steps (see Comune diModena, 2004):
(1) An identification of the main actions and programmes undertaken
by the local authority (LA) during the first administrative stage of
the major provisional programme and its additional adminis-
trative documentation (i.e. the Italian local `Programma elettorale'and `Relazioni previsionali e programmatiche').
(2) A taxonomy analysis of the actions and programmes, which are
grouped in five strategic axes, or macro-programmes (packages ofprogrammes containing groups of projects), as follows:
(a) Strategic axe n.1: Innovation . This deals with economic
development and technological and infrastructure endow-
ment.
(b) Strategic axe n.2: Urban quality . This deals with environ-
mental and physical quality, parks and greenery, wastemanagement, energy consumption, transport and mobility,and urban regeneration.
(c) Strategic axe n.3: Sociality . This deals with social integration,
crime, sport, culture, tourism and citizens' rights.
(d) Strategic axe n.4: Welfare . This deals with education and
sanitary policies (hospitals, nurseries, etc.).
(e) Strategic axe n.5: Administration . This deals with an
improvement in public services supplied to citizens.
(3) The selection of a number of performance indicators for each
action, related to four specific measures of:
(a) Efficiency . This deals with the managerial capacity of the local
administration by measuring the number of projects under-taken compared with those planned, and their degree of
realisation.
(b) Economics . This measures the minimisation of the financial
resources used for the development of the projects.
(c) Efficacy . This measures the goal achievement of each project.
(d) Effects on the community . This measures the benefits of each
project to socio-economic sectors and to the community.
(4) A measurement of each performance indicator in terms of per-
centage of decrease or increase in the period of analysis (1996-
2003).
Figure 5.3 provides a graphical illustration of this model (named the `4-
Emodel').
This system of performance indicators provides a rich picture of the116 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

results obtained by the local administration during the years of
activity, by measuring the achievement of each target declared in the
Administrative Political Programme. However, it does not provide afinal synthesis of the results obtained or a judgement on the sustain-ability of the local authority's action. The large number of indicatorsand measures may confuse the decision-makers who generally want an
Figure 5.3 A graphical representation of the model used for each strategic axes of
the social reporting of the City of Modena.The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 117

easy measure to illustrate the sustainability of these actions. The aim of
the multi-modal framework is to achieve a comprehensive and holistic
view of the results.
Table 5.6 shows the re-classification of the strategic axes (and con-
sequent actions and indicators) by using the multi-modal frameworkillustrated in Table 4.3. This forces the identification of a limitednumber of `sound' indicators which refer to the modalities. It providesa systematic and logical design for the performance indicators to beused in the social reporting, which is comprehensive but which avoids
an overload of unprocessed information. At the same time, it drives all
the different measures and actions towards a restricted number ofsustainable development criteria.
As illustrated in Chapter 4, the framework articulates the concept of
sustainable development by using three different levels of criteriawhich are interlinked to each other.
The third level of criteria is represented by the fifteen modalities. The
second level of criteria incorporates the five classes of urban policies:
oUrban and infrastructure development.
oEnvironmental and physical quality.
oEducation and scientific development.
oSocial and economical development.
These are reflected in the strategic axes of urban quality, welfare,
sociality, innovation and administration. They are linked to the first
level of sustainable development aspects named physical environment
capital, human cultural capital and financial institutional capital,which in turn encapsulate the concept of sustainable development (seeChapter 2).
The key role played by an information base in decision-making
within the context of sustainable development should be re-emphasised. An overflow of data may hinder a decision because it isdifficult for stakeholders and decision-takers to distil the correct and
appropriate information to be used in the decision-making process.
The benefit of the proposed framework is to allow this selection,emphasising those indicators and/or criteria that are meaningful tocitizens and stakeholders for sustainable development.
Summary and conclusion
This chapter has illustrated the application of the multi-modal frame-work to three case studies related to different planning contexts. Inthese examples, the structure has assisted in making the relevant issuesof a decision-making process explicit and transparent in the context ofsustainability. It is able to cover a wider range of issues which are118 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Table 5.6 Structuring the social reporting of Modena City according to the multi-modal framework.
Goal Second level
aspects
Urban and
infrastructuraldevelopment
Environmental
and physical
quality
Education and
scientificdevelopment
Social and
economicaldevelopment
GovernanceStrategic axes and
public policies
AXE N.2: URBAN
QUALITY
AXE N.2: URBAN
QUALITY
AXE N.4: WELFARE
AXE N.1:
INNOVATIONAXE N.4: WELFARE
AXE N.3: SOCIALITY
AXE N.5:
ADMINISTRATIONModalities
Numerical accounting
Space, shape and extensionTransport and mobility
Physical environment
Health and ecological protection
or bio-diversity
Perceptions of people towards
the environment
Analysis and formal knowledge
Creativity and cultural
development
Communication and the mediaSocial climate, social
relationships and social cohesion
Efficiency and economic
appraisal (e.g. GNP)
Visual appeal and architectural
style
Rights and responsibilities
Ethical issues
Commitment, interest and visionExamples of indicators
Total built-up area
Length of cycle-roads
Energy consumption (gas)
Presence of green areas
Available rooms in
nurseries
Number of registrations at
university
Unemployment rate of
young people
ICT endowmentCrime rate
Number of enterprises
Number of museum
visitors
Simplifying administrative
actions
Number of people
participating in voluntaryactivities
Population voting in the
administrative electionsDecrease/increase
value (1996/2003*)
+6.3%
+50%
+5.1
+38.4%
+5.6%
+2.7
78.8%
Not found
74.8%
+21.1%
+18.2%
738.7%
Not found
Not found
(* Note: the value of some indicators refers to a different year due to a lack of data availability.)Sustainable developmentThe Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 119

rarely addressed by current methods. If these can be completed with
evaluation methods (see Chapter 6), a powerful approach to evaluation
has been developed.
The three case studies have also shown that a great many aspects of
urban sustainability for decision-making can meaningfully be checkedfor completeness, consistency, duplication and internal logic bydeploying the three classes of sustainable urban development and thefifteen constituents (including the five main groups of urban policyactions) from the proposed structure (see also Nijkamp, 2003).
Within the extraordinary variety of planning contexts and evaluation
perspectives (both retrospective and predictive), the framework pro-vides a flexible guide that is able to identify the critical factors forsustainability and the decision-making problem, `opening up' the fieldto key issues that were not previously evident. It also suggests that it isable to aid the analysis of different stakeholders' perspectives, pro-viding useful insights for the resolution of conflicts.
As the planning process is itself a dynamic one that can change over
time, the findings of the above applications support the view that the
multi-modal framework can be used in different contexts, for differentstakeholders and multi-objective problems. However, this frameworkwas never intended to be in itself an alternative method for evaluationin planning and design. Rather it is proposed as a structure for all:supporting applications of multi-criteria analysis by helping theidentification of a list of relevant evaluation criteria (Case study 1); forillustrating different stakeholders' views (Case study 2); and for syn-
thesising the results of a quantitative analysis based on statistical
indicators (Case study 3), widening the horizon of current practice andopening up new boundaries and directions for research work in thisfield.
Future, practical applications are required to test the validity of this
approach in real decision-making to see whether it increases the like-lihood of greater sustainable development in urban districts and cities.This is an evolutionary process which will develop in time but the
structure should remain stable as the techniques and content emerge.120 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

6Assessment Methods
A directory of assessment/measurement tools is one of the key
requirements to be considered in the development of models andprocesses to address the evaluation of sustainability. These are some-times known as evaluation `tool-kits'. In order to make progress,
assessment methods must be adopted for determining whether the
environmental capacity required for the city of tomorrow and its cul-tural heritage exists. These tools must be able to evaluate whether theforms of human settlement that surface from urban developmentprocesses are, in social terms, sustainable (Deakin, et al., 2002a). Eva-
luation methods are also required to assess whether progress has beenmade towards sustainable development and, finally, to justify anydecision that might be made now or in the future.
`Evaluation', in this context, is generally defined as `a technical-
scientific procedure for expressing a judgement, based on values,about the impacts of a policy or of an action on the natural and builtenvironment, or for assessing the effects of these impacts on thecommunity' (Bentivegna, 1997, p.25). The monitoring of progress isalso important because unless we can evaluate what contributes tosustainability it will be very difficult to judge whether a sustainableenvironment has been created (Brandon, 1998).
Recent surveys reveal that the evaluation methods currently in use
are many and there is no agreement among scholars on the theoreticalframework within which they can be placed (Mitchell, 1996; Benti-vegna, 1997; Brandon, et al., 1997). Additional surveys show that opi-
nion about the potential of environmental assessment is currentlydivided between those who believe it can promote sustainabledevelopment (Brandon, et al., 1997; Bergh, et al., 1997; Nijkamp &
Pepping, 1998), and those who feel existing approaches, exemplified by
revealed preference techniques (e.g. contingent valuation methods),
121

are unable to evaluate non-market goods and services and hence are
inappropriate for sustainability assessment (Guy & Marvin, 1997).
According to Deakin, et al . (2002b) this division of opinion is
important for two reasons. Firstly, it illustrates that the scientificcommunity is divided about the quality and value of assessmentmethods, and second, it undermines the confidence of the professionalcommunity in the validity and usefulness of these methods (Pugh,1996; Cooper, 1997, 1999).
The authors of this book believe that environmental assessment
methods can be used to promote sustainable urban development, and
that the root cause of the problem is the absence of a systematicapproach towards the assessment of all the activities in the urbandevelopment cycle related to significant sustainability issues (Curwell,et al. , 1998; Cooper & Curwell, 1998). This opinion receives support
from the literature (e.g. Hardi & Zdan, 1997; Devuyst, 1999; Devuyst, et
al., 1999; BEQUEST, 2001; Deakin, et al., 2001; Deakin, et al., 2002a).
Techniques for evaluation and monitoring are required to be fair and
transparent so that the inputs and outputs are not favouring one par-
ticular view or, if they are, that all parties are aware of this limitation.There are in fact very few, if any, techniques that are completelyneutral in their advice. Therefore it is important to know whether anassessment, if it takes place, is confined by the techniques employed toassess the problem. It might be confined to those aspects that are easyto measure. Measures that are easy may not produce the right result.
According to Francescato (1991), there is a distinction between
measurement andassessment . Measurement involves the identification of
variables related to sustainable development and the utilisation oftechnically appropriate data collection and data analysis methods. Itmainly deals with sustainability indicators rather than with processesand methods. On the other hand, assessment involves the evaluation ofperformance against a criterion or a set of criteria. Both performanceand criteria can only be defined by a value-based judgement. They arenot empirically verifiable. Indeed the term `performance' must denote
a goal-orientated behaviour, i.e. a behaviour rendered meaningful by
the existence of a criterion that specifies when a goal has been attained.
The multi-modal framework offered in this book is suggested to
make the value-based judgement mentioned above intelligible in aconsistent manner, and thus to explain the complexity underlying adecision. It also helps recognition of where limitations and gaps exist incurrent assessment methods.
As illustrated in Chapter 5, this framework is flexible and able to take
into account various situations and planning and design problems; it
includes an ordered list of modalities which guides the identification ofrelevant criteria for evaluating sustainable development in an urbancontext and, at the same time, is easily checked by users. It is useful as ithelps decision-makers to understand, explain and communicate the122 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

complexity of the problem to all stakeholders and to assess progress
towards sustainable development.
Since different assessment techniques are required for different
dimensions, and for the micro and macro scales, it is also clear thatsustainability assessment of the urban environment may need to be aprocedure or process that uses various techniques rather than oneintegrated method (Bentivegna, et al., 2002, BEQUEST, 2001; Deakin, et
al., 2001; Lombardi, 2001; Mitchell, 1996). The multi-modal framework is
a great assistance in linking the different assessment methods into one
single procedure which may guide decision makers toward sustainable
urban development even though it involves many assessment methods.
This chapter specifically focusses on the assessment methods avail-
able, and their classification and use for evaluating sustainabledevelopment in the built environment. It also addresses their limita-tions, which should be made clearly explicit by the multi-modalframework in order that all participants can engage properly withinthe process (Bentivegna, 1997). However, this chapter will not deal
with the problems of sustainability indicators and their classification
systems as these were discussed in Chapter 2.
A directory of assessment methods
A recent survey of the assessment methods currently in existence(Deakin, et al., 2001; Deakin, et al., 2002a, b) has identified at least 61
methods available for evaluating the planning, design, constructionand operation of the sustainable urban development process (see Table6.1) and has classified them in terms of `pre-' and `post-Brundtland'(see Table 6.2).
Table 6.1 List of assessment methods.
1. Analysis of Interconnected Decision Areas (AIDA)
2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
3. ASSIPAC (Assessing the Sustainability of Societal Initiatives and Proposed Agendas for
Change)
4. ATHENA (life cycle impact assessment of building components)
5. BEPAC (Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria)
6. BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
7. BRE Environmental Management Toolkits
8. Building Energy Environment (BEE 1.0)
9. Building Environmental Assessment and Rating System (BEARS)
10. Building for Economic and Environmental Sustainability (BEES 2:0)
11. Cluster Evaluation
12. Community Impact Evaluation
13. Concordance Analysis
14. Contingent Valuation Method
ContinuesAssessment Methods 123

Table 6.1 Contd.
15. Cost Benefit Analysis
16. Eco-Effect
17. Eco-Indicator '95
18. Eco-Instal
19. Economic Impact Assessment
20. Ecological Footprint
21. Eco-points (a single unit measurement of environmental impact)
22. Ecopro
23. Eco-Profile (a top-down method for environmental assessment of existing office buildings)
24. EcoProP (a requirements management tool)25. Eco-Quantum (Eco-Quantum Research and Eco-Quantum Domestic)
26. ENVEST (tool for estimating building life cycle environmental impacts from the early design
stage)
27. EIA ± Environmental Impact Analysis
28. Environmental Profiles (BRE Methodology for Environmental Profiles of Construction)
29. EQUER
30. ESCALE
31. Financial Evaluation of Sustainable Communities
32. Flag Model
33. Green Building Challenge
34. Hedonic analysis
35. Green Guide to Specification (Environmental Profiling System for Building Materials
Components)
36. Hochbaukonstruktionen nach o Èkologischen Gesichtspunkten (SIA D0123)
37. INSURED
38. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEEDTM)
39. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
40. Mass Intensity Per Service Unit (MIPS)
41. MASTER Framework (MAnaging Speeds of Traffic on European Roads)
42. Meta Regression Analysis
43. Multi-Criteria Analysis
44. Net Annual Return Model
45. OGIP (Optimierung der Gesamtanforderungen ein Instrument fu Èr die Integrale Planung)
46. PAPOOSE
47. PIMWAQ (minimum ecological levels for buildings and ecological degree of development
projects)
48. Project Impact Assessment
49. Regime Analysis
50. Quantitative City Model
51. Planning Balance Sheet Analysis
52. Risk Assessment Method(s)
53. SANDAT
54. Semantic Differential
55. Social Impact Assessment
56. SPARTACUS (System for Planning and Research in Towns and Cities for Urban Sustainability)57. SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment)
58. Sustainable Cities
59. Sustainable Regions
60. Transit-orientated Settlement
61. Travel Cost Theory124 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

The pre-Brundtland directory includes most of the assessment
methods in use. They can be traced back to cost-benefit analysis and thecritique of the discounting principle upon which this technique ofanalysis is based (Pearce & Markandya, 1989; Pearce & Turner, 1990;Rydin, 1992). Their development can also be linked to the emergence ofhedonic and non-market techniques of analysis such as the contingent
value and travel cost method of environmental assessment described
below (Brooks, et al., 1997; Powell, et al., 1997). The pre-Brundtland
approach tends to identify impacts (using checklists or matrices, forexample) and evaluates development using techniques such as logicalframeworks, fiscal analyses, cost-effectiveness analysis and multi-criteria assessments. Cost-benefit analysis was also widely used toevaluate outcomes from these techniques, with environmental (non-market good) evaluations using revealed or expressed preference
techniques including contingent valuation, hedonic pricing and the
travel cost method (see, for example, Pearce & Markandya, 1989).
Since Brundtland, and the Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) call for the
integration of environment and development in decision-making, thescience of assessment has been placed under greater scrutiny byenvironmentalists and critical distinctions have been drawn betweenecocentric (those focused on the concept of nature) and anthropo-Table 6.2 Classification of assessment methods.
Pre-Brundtland
Environment in generalPost-Brundtland
Forms of life cycle assessment
Environmental
AppraisalEnvironmental Impact
Assessment
Cost-benefit analysis
Contingent valuationHedonic pricing method
Travel cost method
Multi-criteria analysisCompatibility matrix
Eco-profilingEcological footprint
Environmental auditing
Flag method
Spider analysisEIA ± Environmental Impact Analysis
SEA ± Strategic environmentalassessment
Community impact evaluation
ASSIPAC
BEES
BREEAM
Eco-points
Green Building Challenge
MASTER Framework
Meta-analysis (Pentagon method)
NAR model
Quantitative City model
SPARTACUS
Sustainable City model
Sustainable communities
Sustainable regions
Transit-orientated settlement
(Source: Deakin, et al., 2002a)Assessment Methods 125

centric (those based around humankind) techniques of analysis (Rees,
1992; Pearce & Warford, 1993). The role of the natural environment as
the fundamental support system for all economic and social develop-ment is now being increasingly recognised in all forms of assessment.This recognition has led to the development of many methods thatfocus on energy and material flows, addressing both resource usageand waste arising across a wide range of urban activities. This has inturn led to the development of multi-criteria analysis as a key methodin environmental assessment. Examples include ATHENA, a tool for
the life-cycle impact assessment of building components, BREEAM
and BEES, which address material flows and impacts associated withinindividual buildings, and the ecological footprint and environmentalspace methods which can express consumption patterns of cities,regions or countries relative to clearly defined environmental sus-tainability thresholds (Breheney, 1992; Selman, 1996).
As illustrated in Table 6.2, these assessment methods may be
grouped in two major classes: environmental in general and those aug-
menting into various forms of life-cycle assessments (Deakin, et al.,
2002a, b). The `environment in general' methods tend to focus onassessments of eco-system integrity. Examples of this class includecost-benefit analysis, hedonic analysis and multi-criteria analysis. Theforms of `life-cycle assessment' have been sub-classified as environ-
mental appraisal and environmental impact assessments (complex and
advanced evaluations).
The forms of environmental appraisal include the production of a
compatibility matrix, the use of eco-profiling measures and environ-
mental auditing techniques. The environmental impact assessmentsinclude project, strategic, economic, social and community evaluations,BEES, BREEAM, Eco-points and the Green Building Challenge. It alsoincludes, the MASTER Framework, the Pentagon model, the Quanti-fiable City model, SPARTACUS, the Sustainable City model, sustain-able region, sustainable community and Transit-orientated settlementmodels as advanced forms of environmental assessment.
Several of the latter are complex computer-based urban models
integrating extant models of individual urban processes, often within aGeographical Information System (GIS), with other decision-makingtechniques (e.g. Delphi, Multi-criteria analysis) used to evaluatealternative development options within a sustainability framework.They are distinct from conventional urban models in that they areorientated towards sustainable development processes rather thanhaving an objective to further the understanding of urban land use or
demographic or transportation processes. All these methods tend to
focus on building the environmental capacity needed to not only qualifythe integrity of eco-systems but to evaluate the equity, participation andfuturity of the economic, social and institutional issues underlying thebuilt environment and the city of tomorrow (Deakin, et al., 2002a).126 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

All these methods are used in two ways: to assess the environmental
capacity of a specific stage of the urban development process (e.g.
planning, design) and, in a more general way, to qualify and evaluatewhether the planning and design of the urban development is sus-tainable. The use of the methods in this more general way illustratesthe growing inter-disciplinary nature of the assessment exercise.
Methods that assess the planning policy commitment to sustainable
development can be applied at the city-regional, district and neigh-bourhood scale. These levels of analysis are also typical of the methods
adopted to assess the planning and design of major infrastructure
projects. Methods that assess the design, construction and operationalaspects of various buildings relate to the whole building, componentsand materials as major levels of analysis.
With regard to the time dimension, methods are available to assess
urban activities across short, medium and long (>20 years) time peri-ods. However, often the political pressures for urban regenerationmeans that decisions that reflect evaluation conducted over the short
term are taken (<5 years) with little or no consideration of the long-
term and particularly the inter-generational effects. Thus, as with thedesign, construction and operation of buildings, short-term con-siderations often apply and dominate the appraisal in question (see, forexample, Curwell & Lombardi, 1999).
An outline summary of the main assessment methods
in use
In this section a short description of the best-known assessment
methods in use is given. These include examples for each of the classessuggested in Table 6.2, pre-Brundtland (or `environment in general')and post-Brundtland (or `life-cycle assessments'). In particular, thefollowing methods are described:
Pre-Brundtland
CBA ± Cost-benefit analysis
CVM ± Contingent valuation method
HPM ± Hedonic pricing method
TCM ± Travel cost methodMCA ± Multi-criteria analysis
Post-Brundtland
Ecological footprint
EIA ± Environmental impact analysisSEA ± Strategic environmental assessmentAssessment Methods 127

CIE ± Community impact evaluation
BREEAM ± Building Research Establishment Environmental Assess-
ment Method
The reader can find a short explanation of additional methods, among
them those included in Table 6.1, athttp://research.scpm.salford.ac.uk/bqtoolkit/index2.htm.
CBA ± Cost-benefit analysis
CBA is a well-known appraisal technique widely applied by bothpublic and private organisations to aid the decision-making process in
an early stage of a project's development. The main purpose of
undertaking project appraisal at an early stage is to determine theviability of a project development to decide whether or not to build.Project appraisal can also help to establish cost limits or boundaries inorder to determine the availability of funding and resources inundertaking the proposals (Ding, 1999).
CBA sets out to measure and compare the total costs and benefits of
different projects that are competing for scarce resources by means of a
market approach. It is concerned with which alternative gives the best
return on capital. Thus it can be used to determine which of the pos-sible projects to finance in order to maximise the return from a givenamount of capital or public resources.
There are two types of CBA: economic and social. Economic analysis
involves real cash flows that affect the investor. Social analysis involvesreal and theoretical cash flows that affect the overall welfare of society.Discounted cash flow analysis is used to make judgements about the
timing of cash inflows and outflows on rates of return. Most experts
agree that timing is fundamental to the correct evaluation of projectsinvolving differential time periods in the payment and receipt of cashand that discounting makes allowance for the financial impact overtime (Ashworth & Langston, 2000).
The main components of CBA are project costs and project benefits.
Project costs are all expenditures incurred by the developer in com-pleting the project. They are broadly divided into development and
operation costs. The development costs refer to the expenditure for the
construction of a project. They include land acquisition costs, reloca-tion costs, construction costs and other statutory charges. Operationcosts begin when the project finishes on site and continue up to the endof its life span. They refer to the energy consumed during the operationperiod, regular maintenance and repair, major repair work and regularcleaning. However, total project cost should go beyond just the costincurred and also include costs to the public and the community in
terms of environmental quality and impacts. Nevertheless, these costs
are often ignored and not included in the project cash flow.128 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Project benefits are the revenues received from a project develop-
ment and depend on the attitude of the developer towards the
development. If the developer intends to use the completed project,benefits are derived from the selling of goods and services producedby it or revenue from renting out the completed project in the mar-ket place. However, the intended use of the project may be for thedeveloper to utilise the building for his own activities, and the bene-fits from the development may be in terms of a better workingenvironment and increased productivity. Nevertheless, project bene-
fits should also go beyond the actual benefits expressed in monetary
terms to take into account environmental issues such as a better liv-ing environment, leisure facilities and better traffic arrangements.From an economic point of view, project implementation mayinclude productivity and employment opportunities in the region.However, it is difficult to place a money value on these social bene-fits (Ding, 1999).
The two most common capital budgeting tools used as selection
criteria in CBA are net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return
(IRR). Both rely on the existence of costs and benefits over a number ofyears, and lead to the identification and ranking of projects.
Literature on the deficiencies of CBA as a major tool in project eva-
luation indicates that it neither theoretically nor empirically account ina satisfactory way for ecological sustainability objectives. Alternativeshave been suggested either to replace CBA completely with anothertechnique that does not need to value environmental cost, or to sup-
plement CBA with a technique that can measure environmental cost in
other than monetary terms.
For further detailsoMarshall, A. (1949) Principles of Economics , 8th edn. Macmillan,
London.
oWalras, L. (1954) Elements of Pure Economics . Allen & Unwin,
London.
oMisham, E.J. (1964) Welfare Economics; Five Introductory Essays .
Random House, New York.
oPearce, D. (1983) Cost Benefit Analysis . Macmillan, London.
oMusgrave, R.A. (1995) Finanza pubblica, equita Á, democrazia . Il Mulino,
Bologna.
oDasgupta, P. & Pearce, D.W. (1972) Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and
Practice . Barnes & Noble, London.
CVM ± contingent valuation method
CVM is a direct method of eliciting valuations from customers by
questioning their stated willingness to pay (WTP) for an environmentalAssessment Methods 129

improvement, or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for a
fall in the quality of the environment. It has been used for over 30 years
in studies of recreation and the environment as a means of obtainingmonetary estimates of individuals' preferences for goods, such as clearair, landscape and water quality, which are not traded in the market-place and thus do not attract a price.
CVM is based on Hicksian measures of utility: welfare change is
estimated as the money income adjustment necessary to maintain aconstant level of utility before or after the change in provision of the
environmental good or service being investigated. In practice, esti-
mates are generated through the use of a questionnaire survey. Here,respondents are presented with a hypothetical scenario in which theyare asked to estimate their WTP or WTA compensation for a given levelof provision of environmental quality.
The construction of the hypothetical scenario and the design of the
questionnaire are both critical to the successful application of themethodology. In practice, the method works best when respondents
are asked about things with which they are familiar and when the
valuation question is based on a payment mechanism that seemsreasonable (Brooks, et al., 1997).
For further details
oMitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public
Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method . Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC.
oCummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. & Schulze, W.D. (1986) Valuing
Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent ValuationMethod . Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
oBishop, R.C. & Heberlein, T.A. (1979) Measuring values of extra-
market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of
Agricultural Economics , 12, 926±932.
HPM ± hedonic pricing method
HPM was developed by Rosen (1974), on the earlier consumer theory
of Lancaster (1966). It aims to determine the relationship between the
attributes of a good and its price.
It is strongly rooted in microeconomic consumer theory and takes
as its starting point that any differentiated product unit can beviewed as a bundle of characteristics, each with their own implicit or`shadow' price. Thus the price of a given property in the builtenvironment can be viewed as the sum of the shadow prices of itscharacteristics.
A large number of hedonic studies considering the effect of the
environmental and neighbourhood variables (such as a forest or a site130 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

of special scientific interest; countryside characteristics or the impact of
surrounding properties; location and proximity to a high-pressure gas
pipeline or aircraft flight path ) on house prices have been undertaken.There also exists a significant body of research into the impact archi-tectural style and historic sites have on property valuation. A review ofthese applications can be found in Bravi & Lombardi (1994), Brooks, et
al. (1997) and Sirchia (1998).
For further details
oRosen, S. (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: production
differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy ,
82(1), 34±55.
oLancaster, K.J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory Journal of
Political Economy , 84, 132±157.
TCM ± travel cost method
TCM was developed by Clawson and Knetsch (1966). It is based on the
assumption that the cost of travel to recreational sites can be used as a
measure of visitors' willingness to pay (WTP) and thus their valuation
of those sites.
The real costs of travelling to a site are taken as a proxy for the price
of the product. Thus even if visitors do not pay to use the site, they mayhave incurred expenditure either implicitly or explicitly in travelling toit, which could be used as a measure of their valuation of that site. Timecan also be perceived as an implicit cost while explicit costs are petrolor public transport fares.
For further details
oClawson, M. & Knetsch, J.L. (1966) The Economics of Outdoor
Recreation . John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
oHotelling, H. (1949) The Economics of Public Recreation . National Park
Service, US Dept of the Interior, Washington, DC.
oPearce, D.W. & Turner, K.R. (1990) Economics of Natural Resources
and the Environment . Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
MCA ± multi-criteria analysis
MCA attracts increasing attention from all around the world as one of
the most important alternatives to CBA in decision-making. Due to thefact that environmental impacts are difficult to assess in economicterms within a market approach framework, the MCA techniques of
weighting and ranking are investigated and applied to value these
impacts in non-monetary terms.Assessment Methods 131

In general, MCA is a technique designed to manage decisional
processes typically characterised by many assessment criteria, alter-
natives and actions. The main advantage of MCA is that it makes itpossible to consider a large number of data, relations and objectives(often in conflict) which are generally present in a specific real-worlddecision problem, so that the decision problem can be studied frommultiple angles.
Attaining a solution in a multi-actor and multi-criteria problem is a
far from easy task. The presence of several conflicting criteria excludes
the existence of an `optimum', i.e. a solution presenting the best score
according to all criteria taken into account. Each alternative solutionpresents advantages and disadvantages, while preferences can varyaccording to the relative importance attributed to the various criteria inthe `ideal' solution, i.e. the alternative having the best performance forall the criteria selected is usually not feasible, and a compromisebetween realistic solutions is necessary.
The various multi-criteria methods aim to aid decision-makers in
attaining such a compromise. These are classified as quantitative and
qualitative or mixed in relation to the information-inputs they are ableto handle. Examples of quantitative and qualitative or mixed methodsare, respectively, `weighted summation' and `concordance and dis-cordance analysis' on the one hand, and `regime method', `frequencyanalysis' and `analytic hierarchy process' on the other.
For further details
oHinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P. (1983) Quantitative dis-
crete multiple criteria choice models in regional planning. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 13, 77±102.
oNijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. & Voogd, H. (1990) Multicriteria Evaluation
in Physical Planning . Elsevier, Amsterdam.
oRoy, B. (1985) MeÂthodologie multicrite Áre d'aide a Ála deÂcision . Econom-
ica, Paris.
oRoy, B. & Bouyssou, D. (1993) Aide multicrite Áre aÁla deÂcision: me Âthodes
et cas . Economica, Paris.
oSaaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision in a
Complex World . RWS Publications, Pittsburg.
oSaaty, T.L. (1996) The Analytic Network Process . RWS Publications,
Pittsburg.
oVoogd, H. (1983) Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional
Planning . Pion, London.
Ecological footprint
This concept is discussed in Chapter 2.132 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

EIA ± environmental impact analysis
EIA is a comprehensive procedure which involves different dimen-
sions of a planning problem such as social, administrative and physi-cal. It has been developed and is used as a means to identify potentialdamaging effects of proposed developments.
This procedure was born in the USA in 1969 under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for land use planning. Later, theEEC introduced a common directive to all Member States (85/337/CEE) which imposed the application of this EIA to all those projectshaving strong impacts on environmental resources. More recently, theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe has recommendedthe extension of EIA principles to policies, plans and programmes (seeSEA, below).
More specifically, EIA is the process of assessing the physical and
social impacts of projects. The main aim is to identify options in orderto minimise environmental damage, for example selecting sites forproject development with minimal environmental impact. The mainpurpose is to inform decision-makers about the environmental impactsof a proposal before a decision is made.
Sometimes vital environmental issues are valued separately by
external consultants and the outcomes are included as part of an EIA
submission. It may be useful for identifying environmental effects that
might otherwise be totally ignored in the project evaluation process.
There are a number of methodological problems associated with
non-monetary methods and, more generally, with EIA procedures,such as the following: difficulties in predicting impacts, lack of defi-nition and measurement, monitoring of ongoing environmentalchange, absence of specific methods, and consultation and participa-tion. At the moment, the analysis is usually limited to a list of
environmental factors that do not take into account the complexity of
interdependence with the human system.
Current research is focusing on the use of multi-criteria analysis
(MCA) as an alternative to conventional economic evaluation (Ash-worth & Langston, 2000).
For further details
oDepartment of the Environment (1993) Environmental Appraisal of
Development Plan: A Good Practice Guide . HMSO, London.
oWarner, M.L. & Preston, E.H. (1984) Review of Environmental Impact
Assessment Methodologies . US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
oZeppetella, A., Bresso, M. & Gamba, G. (1992) Valutazione ambientale
e processi decisionali . La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Rome.
oBettini, V. (1996) Elementi di ecologia umana . Einaudi, Turin.Assessment Methods 133

SEA ± strategic environmental assessment
SEA is an integrated assessment approach for policies, plans and
programmes as it extends the process of EIA beyond specific projects.The European Commission has long espoused the desirability ofextending EIA from projects to higher tiers of action and began con-sultations on an SEA directive in 1991. This is a consequence of thegrowing belief that project EIAs may occur too late in the planningprocess to ensure that all the relevant alternatives and impacts are
adequately considered (Therivel, et al., 1992; Wood, 1995). Thus when
certain alternatives and significant environmental impacts cannot beadequately assessed at the project level, it may well be possible toassess them at the programme, plan or policy level (see also Directive2001/42/CE).
In comparison with EIA, the focus of evaluation is essentially on
development plans' strategies and policies. These are shaped andinfluenced by many driving forces such as economic, social and poli-
tical priorities. Individually, or as whole, they can have a significant
positive or negative impact on the environment. SEA can be seen as theprocess by which such impacts are identified and alternative courses ofactions are proposed with the aim of considering the impacts at theearliest possible planning stage.
As with project EIA, SEA involves all screening, scoping, predicting,
consulting, public participation, mitigation of impacts and monitoring(Therivel, et al., 1992). The skill of the assessor comes to bear in selecting
an appropriate mix from all the different approaches, tools and tech-
niques available.
A considerable range of methods are available, including specific
techniques for air quality, health risk, and tools such as the PolicyImpact Matrix. This allows identification of the impact of each policyon the country's environmental stocks.
Environmental stocks, e.g. geology, soils, waste, air, energy, land,
wildlife, landscape, man-made features, open space and human
beings, must be chosen to reflect the themes of the environment report.
To make the appraisal more objective, a list of indicators of positive
impact can be drawn up for each environmental stock. For each policy
appraisal a policy impact commentary must also be provided.
For further details:oTherivel, R, Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D. & Pritchard, D.
(1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment . Earthscan, London.
oTherivel, R. & Partidario, M.R. (eds) (1996) The Practice of Strategic
Environmental Assessment . Earthscan, London.134 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

CIE ± community impact evaluation
CIE is a method that results from the adaptation of cost-benefit analysis
to urban and regional planning. Its fundamental feature is that itprovides the measure not only of the total costs and benefits but also oftheir impact on different sectors of the community, enabling the equityand social justice implications of the decisions to be taken into account(Lichfield & Prat, 1998).
The method was originally developed by Lichfield in 1956, with the
name of the Planning Balance Sheet or PBS (Lichfield, 1996). PBS was
explicitly devised to overcome the fact that many social costs andbenefits are not easily measured in monetary terms, so that the resultsof any social benefit analysis was always liable to objections that somecosts or benefits were incorrectly valued. Thus the approach stoppedshort of assigning values to many cost and benefits, simply indicatingwhere they should be placed on the balance sheet, either as assets orliabilities. CIE further indicates which sections of the community are
likely to gain or lose from planning, so taking the distribution effects
into account (Brooks, et al., 1997).
For further details
oLichfield, N. (1996) Community Impact Evaluation . UCL Press,
London.
oLichfield, N. & Prat, A. (1998) Linking ex-ante and ex-post eva-
luation in British town planning. In: Evaluation in Planning: Facing
the Challenge of Complexity (eds N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D.
Borri, A. Kakee & A. Prat) pp. 283±298. Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers, Dordrecht.
oLichfield, N (1988) Economics in Urban Conservation . Cambridge,
University Press, Cambridge.
oLichfield, N., Hendon, M., Njikamp, P., Realfonso, A. & Rostirolla,
P. (1990) Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Conservation of Built Cultural
Heritage . Ministero dei Beni Culturali, Rome.
BREEAM ± Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method
BREEAM is a scheme for environmental labelling of buildings devel-
oped by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in collaborationwith a number of private sector sponsors. The basis of the scheme is acertificate awarded to individual buildings stating clearly the perfor-mance of the building against a set of defined environmental criteria.
The scheme is voluntary and self-financing. Assessment is carried out
by independent assessors licensed by BRE.
The first version, launched in 1990, was for new office buildingsAssessment Methods 135

assessed at the design scheme stage. This was updated in 1993 to reflect
developing knowledge and experience gained in the operation of the
scheme. Other design stage schemes have been launched for super-markets, new houses, light industrial buildings and others.
The scheme embraces a large range of environmental issues grouped
under three main headings:
(1) Global issues , which includes CO
2emissions resulting from energy
use, acid rain, ozone depletion due to chlorofluorocarbons/
HCFCs, natural resources and recyclable materials, storage of
recyclable materials and designing for longevity.
(2) Local issues , which includes transport and cyclists' facilities, water
economy, noise, local wind effects, overshadowing of otherbuildings and land, reuse of derelict/contaminated land andecological value of the site.
(3) Indoor issues , which includes hazardous materials, natural light-
ing, artificial lighting, thermal comfort and overheating, and
ventilation.
Issues receive individual, discrete credits. A credit signifies that the
design satisfies the criteria for the issue concerned but there is noattempt at weighting the diverse issues. A summary of the perfor-mance is included; this is expressed as a single rating of `fair', `good',`very good' or `excellent', based on a minimum level of creditsachieved in each of the three classes of environmental issues. This
rating is simply a measure of the balance of the design approach across
the three classes. A rating of `excellent' indicates a high standard ofperformance across the range of impacts, although there may still bescope for further refinement.
Similar schemes to BREEAM are the BEPAC programme in Canada
and the Green Builder Program in the US.
For further details
oBirtles, T. (1997) Environmental impact evaluation of buildings and
cities for sustainability. In: Evaluation in the Built Environment for
Sustainability (eds P. Brandon, et al.), pp. 211±223. E&FN Spon,
London.
oPrior, J. (ed.) (1993) Building Research Establishment Environment
Assessment Method (BREEAM), Version 1/93: New Offices . Building
Research Establishment Report, Second Edition.
oCole, R.J., Rousseau, D. & Theaker, I.T. (1993) Building Environ-
mental Performance Assessment Criteria, Version 1: Office Buildings .
The BEPAC Foundation, Vancouver.136 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Linking the assessment methods to the framework
As discussed in Chapter 4, the framework provides for decision-
makers a guide to comprehensive evaluation of sustainable develop-
ment which includes all the appropriate levels of information.
In decision-making for sustainable development, it is important that
all environmental±social±economical±institutional aspects encapsu-lated in the fifteen modalities of the proposed framework are coveredfor the true long-term sustainability of any built environment and itscommunity.
This statement can be derived from everyday experience. If people
are functioning poorly in the biotic modality, for example by inefficient
handling of human waste, life functions may be threatened and sus-
tainable development will be low. If people in an area have no visionand no commitment to the area ± which are elements of the credalmodality ± morale is likely to be low and this will again affect all otherfunctioning and lead to divisions in society. Again, but in a differentmanner, true sustainability suffers (Lombardi & Basden, 1997).
The evaluation methods previously described belong to different
scientific disciplines and technical fields, such as economics, engi-
neering, technology and planning. Most of them are able to deal with
different sustainable development issues at the same time (e.g. multi-criteria analysis) but some can only deal with one or a few of them (e.g.financial appraisal). None is able to tackle all the sustainabledevelopment issues in a comprehensive manner.
Table 6.3 maps the assessment methods described above on to the
fifteen modalities of the framework. This table is useful because itshows the issues of sustainable development (i.e. the modalities)
tackled or involved by each method. It also indicates the different
classes of `capitals' and areas of interventions (see Table 4.3), i.e.infrastructure development, environmental development, scientificdevelopment, socio-economic development and governance, which arehandled by current assessment methods.
It can be noted that the environmental dimension of sustainable
development has the greatest coverage among the main assessmentmethods in use. Here issues such as resource consumption, pollution
and impacts on bio-diversity and people's health are considered, using
methods that include cost-benefit analysis and revealed/expressedpreference techniques (contingent valuation, travel cost and hedonicpricing), building scale methods (BREEAM), and methods to evaluateinfrastructure and particularly planning policy. The latter is addressedby EIA, community impact analysis (CIE), and the proposed EUdirective on SEA.
The social and economic sustainable development elements address,
respectively, considerations relating to the financing of the infra-
structure and utilities required for the desired urban development,Assessment Methods 137

Table 6.3 Mapping the assessment methods onto the modalities.
Capitals Environmental Human Institutional
Areas Infrastructure
developmentEnvironmental
developmentScientific
developmentSocio-economic
developmentGovernance
Modalities Qu Sp Ki Ph Bi Se An Hi Co So Ec Ae Ju Et Cr
Pre-Brundtland methods
CBA
CVM
HPMTCMMCA
Post-Brundtland methods
EcoFootprintEIASEA
CIE
BREEAM
(Note: In grey the main issues involved and in black the focusses of the evaluation.)138 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

access to services, people's safety and security, and aesthetic issues.
With the application of the pre-Brundtland `environment in general'
methods, both economic and social analyses are confined to the plan-ning, property development and design stages (thus addressingassessment of policy, programme and infrastructure provision), and donot address the construction of projects, or the installation of oper-ations. Conversely, the `post Brundtland' methods attempt to addresssocial and economic issues in addition to their environmental focus,although this treatment is piecemeal.
It is apparent that these life-cycle assessment methods often address
social or economic issues using approaches from the former group.Examples can be found in the sustainable city models, in the mix offormal life-cycle assessment and CBA (e.g. Glasson, et al., 1994; Lich-
field, 1996; Therival, 1998), in meta-analysis of policy planning andinfrastructure design (Berg, et al., 1997), and in the transformation of
multi-criteria assessments into regime analysis so as to resolveenvironmental problems arising from alternative economic and social
structures relating to sustainable development (Bizarro & Nijkamp,
1997).
A major problem with approaches based on economic utility theory,
such as cost benefit analysis, which are widely applied in spatialplanning is that the long-term effects of human actions are oftenignored. Opposite approaches based on argumentation and rhetoric ornominalistic theories (Zeppetella, 1997; Khakee, 1998), such as multi-criteria analysis methods avoid the dangers of reductionism by
acknowledging the views and wishes of all and sundry. However,
there are still some problems; for example, there is no standard bywhich to arrive at consensus. In addition, there is the danger, inpractice, that `those who shout loudest get heard', while less articulategroups and those who cannot represent their rights, such as animals oryoung children, tend to get ignored unless their cause is championedby others (Lombardi & Basden, 1997).
Table 6.3 also shows that a number of gaps exist in relation to many
inter-related activities of the urban development process, such as in
scientific and human development and institutional development.Perhaps the most obvious `gap' evident is the relative absence ofmethods addressing institutional issues such as governance, justiceand ethics with respect to development. Unfortunately, there is evi-dence to indicate that methods addressing these issues experienceextreme difficulty in dealing with the complexity of institutionalstructures and the range of stakeholder interests this introduces into
assessment. Thus methods to assess the capability of institutional
structures to promote sustainable development remain poorly devel-oped, despite the evident need for them (Deakin, et al., 2001).
Although MCA methods have often proved able to provide a guide
for selecting suitable planning and design solutions in evaluation, theyAssessment Methods 139

lack content and a conceptual framework or theoretical guide that can
help designers and decision-makers to structure the problem of sus-
tainability in the built environment. Consequently, the selection of themost appropriate criteria to be used in the evaluation process is oftendeveloped on an intuitive basis or in a non-optimal manner (see casestudy n.1 in Chapter 5; also Nijkamp, 2003).
The proposed multi-modal framework should not be understood as
an alternative final method for problem solving in planning and con-struction. Rather, it is intended to be an evaluation structure that makes
available the new perspective of sustainable development in planning,
integrating different approaches and methods in a structured multi-layered tool-kit . In other words, the framework allows a multi-
disciplinary and multi-people approach to take place, enlarging andextending the horizon of current practice.
Future knowledge about sustainable development, further imple-
mentation of the information on which the framework relies andpragmatic testing in real worldwide contexts will certainly be required.
Practical applications could also be improved if the model were linked
to expert systems or Geographic Information Systems. At present,research findings show that the framework is reliable as a model to beused for challenging planning towards greater sustainability in thebuilt environment.
Summary and conclusions
This chapter has examined some of the major evaluation methodscurrently in use for assessing the sustainable development of an urbansettlement or a building. It has been noted that there are a wide varietyof evaluation approaches to sustainable development in planning,design and construction but little agreement among scholars on thetheoretical framework to be used. For instance, developers of assess-ment models for sustainability at the urban scale, such as the Quanti-
fiable City Model by May, et al. (1997), mostly take into account
economic-social and physical aspects of a sustainable development,while environmental assessment methods at the building scale, such asBREEAM in the UK (1993) and BEPAC in Canada (1995), concentrateon the environmental and ecological issues related to sustainabilityand quality of life.
All the methods are constrained and limited and take into con-
sideration only a few of the many aspects required for developing
sustainable solutions. Most evaluations are mainly technical and eco-
nomic and there is not a mechanism or tool that is able to take intoaccount all sustainability issues in a comprehensive manner.
Decision-making for sustainable development requires holistic
approaches and a change from current methods both in the emphasis140 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

and in the criteria by which development is judged. There needs to be a
movement towards environmental protection and social/economic
objectives. It needs to build social consensus as well as to improvetechnical performances. Among others, Nijkamp (1991), Brandon, et al.
(1997) and Lichfield, et al. (1998) suggest that an appropriate evaluation
approach should have a number of characteristics, as follows:
oInclude all the relevant effects generated by urban projects on the
environment in the long term.
oProvide information on the social, economic and environmental
consequences of a design process through time.
oIntegrate different evaluation approaches and scientific disciplines (a
multi-disciplinary approach) required to verify the socio-economic
and environmental compatibility of urban projects.
oTake into account the different viewpoints , objectives and interests of
decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens within a participationprocess (a pluralistic ormulti-person approach).
Since the time when Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) called for the inte-
gration of environment protection and socio-economic development indecision-making, impact assessment has advanced considerably(Deakin, et al., 2002b). Within the EU, EIA has been introduced as a
statutory instrument (directive 85/337/EEC and amendment 97/11/EC), and the critique of EIA as solely a project-specific assessmentapproach (e.g. Glasson, et al., 1994) has led to its extension to plans and
programmes under the proposed EU SEA directive. This shift in
emphasis is significant as it requires the development of procedures forthe procurement and assessment of plans, programmes and projectsable to satisfy the policy commitment to sustainable development(O'Conner, 1998; Devuyst, 1999; Harrop & Nixon, 1999; Selman, 2000).
According to Deakin, et al. (2002b), a further key gain has been the
evolution of methods that attempt to assess the impact of developmentin terms of material and energy flows, across most stages of the urban
life cycle. These present opportunities to assess developments with
respect to ecological limits, although in practice few are able to achievethis at present. While this suggests that much progress has been madepost-Brundtland to improve the theory of assessment, it is recognisedthat the practice of assessment lags well behind. New methods remainlargely experimental, with relatively few applications in practice.Meanwhile, many of the methods currently in widespread use fail tomake assessments that adequately address the issues underlying the
sustainable urban development process (Cooper, 1997; Cooper &
Curwell, 1998; Cooper, 1999).
The review of assessment methods illustrated in this chapter and the
mapping exercise using the multi-modal framework have pointed outseveral critical points, as follows.Assessment Methods 141

oFirstly, those sustainability issues that are poorly addressed by
available assessment techniques have been identified. Method
`gaps' are significantly evident in the social and institutionalaspects of sustainable development. Method developments arerequired in this area, but perhaps the difficulty current methodshave in dealing with the complexity of institutional structures andassociated stakeholder interests presents the greatest challenge(Deakin, et al., 2002b).
oDevelopments also need to encourage the integration of assess-
ment methods with other assessment techniques alluded to earlier
as being beyond the scope of this chapter. In particular, thereremains considerable scope for integration of assessment methodswith sustainability indicators, and with urban sustainabilitymodels (Deakin, et al., 2002b). Both attempt to address the urban
system holistically, but the former presents essential sustainabilitybenchmarks while the latter presents the opportunity to seek pre-ferred development alternatives for complex urban systems which
are otherwise difficult to assess (Mitchell, 1999).
oA further aspect, which has been suggested by Mitchell (1996) and
Deakin, et al. (2002b), is the need to ensure that the emerging sus-
tainable development assessment techniques are applied andaudited. Methods must move quickly beyond the experimentalphase and be applied in practice, so that conventional techniquesare replaced by those that better address sustainability concerns.This may require the application of multiple methods (conven-
tional and experimental) in parallel to accelerate the learning
process and identify how both theory and practice can beimproved. Critically, such applications will require greater use ofauditing and post-assessment monitoring to determine how wellmethods perform.
oFinally, research is required into methods of assessing the aggre-
gate effect of policy and urban developments on urban sustainabledevelopment. This could take the form of assessment method
integration as in the above-mentioned emerging models, or
development of unifying frameworks and analytical procedures asargued for by Hardi and Zdan, (1997) and Devuyst (1999) andillustrated by Curwell, et al . (1999). However, in practice the
effectiveness of both approaches will rely on the development ofadaptive management structures within decision-making institu-tions, so that they are able understand, respond to and fosterimprovement of the sustainability assessment procedures (Deakin,
et al., 2002a).
The multi-modal structure suggested in this book represents a key
resource to decision-makers in this problem area. It provides a meansto assist the selection of assessment techniques so as to address142 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

sustainable urban development issues in a pragmatic and integrated
manner. It also helps to address the need for a holistic approach which
is needed for sustainable urban development. This means that the mostsignificant elements and linkages in the system are addressed, and the`technical' aspects of assessment, and the `soft' institutional systemsthat direct and respond to them, evolve together.Assessment Methods 143

7Towards Management Systems
and Protocols
At the heart of the sustainable development agenda is the question
of management. If we take the broad definition of management asbeing `. . . the act of controlling, directing affairs to succeed,coping. . . .' ( New Webster's Dictionary, 1992), these are issues that are
at the centre of the sustainable development agenda. We need to con-
trolin order to avoid the perceived calamities that might ensue if we
do not intervene and control in some way. We need to direct affairs in
order to take positive action that will address the agenda identifiedas necessary to improve the position of future generations and weneed to act to cope with what is perceived to be a worsening environ-
mental and social disorder.
The paradox is, of course, that it is the management actions of human
beings that have resulted in the present unsatisfactory situation and are
the reason why it is now thought necessary to encourage an agenda
entitled `sustainable development'. Throughout human history man-kind has found it necessary to take decisions that he believed wouldenhance his status and position within nature. Humans strove to be in
control of nature and, in so doing, many forgot that in fact they were
part of the natural environment and part of its delicate balance. Nowthat we have come so far with one set of objectives, which were aboutcontrolling nature, is it possible to find a new paradigm which seeks to
re-establish the position of humans within nature? The world is full of
examples where humans have attempted to change things for thebetter, only to find that in a comparatively short period the results oftheir actions have resulted in another problem in another area whichwas not foreseen at the time. All technologies have the power to pro-vide positive advantages but, if used improperly, they can often lead to
144

disastrous consequences. This is a warning to all of us seeking to find
`solutions' to the sustainability problem.
In past centuries, the population of the world, the level of techno-
logical sophistication and the geographical impact were all of a smallerorder and, while some damage was done, it could be corrected in timeand often by natural means. Now we have a different situation where,in some instances such as global warming, it requires a massive effortby all nations to solve the problem. Pollution does not recognisenational boundaries, nor does it recognise human jurisdictions, nor
does it have respect for culture or religion. Human development
contributes to both the physical environment and also the behaviouralconsequences of the life in that environment. It can be beneficial or itcan be harmful. The problem is that it is not always possible to tell, atthe time of making the decision to develop, what the impact will be.Apart from war situations, there are very few instances where it couldbe said that humans have undertaken development to deliberatelyharm the planet or indeed its human population. It is true that some-
times decisions have been made recklessly and without regard for the
consequences, often with an economic motive in mind, but, by andlarge, decisions were made to `improve things'. If improvement wasthe aim, why do we have the problems we now face?
It is impossible to be exhaustive about the reasons why a breakdown
has occurred but it must be partly due to the changing nature of thehuman world; see Table 7.1, for example.
Table 7.1 The changing nature of the human world.
Past generations Current generations
Human settlements were bounded
largely by people's ability to travel and
the natural resources available.Human settlements are engaged across
the planet and wealth is the constraint not
technology.
Technological development was to
enhance human labour and its impact
was limited to the individual or to small
communities.Technological development has moved to
the wider community and global level
and its impact is beyond national
boundaries.
Management control was in the hands of
the few.Management control is exercised by a
plethora of agencies.
Financial power was localised and
within the control of the local community.Financial power exists within a vast
number of institutions, many of which are
multi-national and global.
Regulation was exercised locally within
the cultural context of the community.Regulation is now exercised nationally
and internationally and it reflects the
demands of those with power at this level.Towards Management Systems and Protocols 145

There is little doubt that the changes brought about by technology
have made managing towards a sustainable environment much more
difficult. This is coupled with a shift towards democratic processeswhereby the political machines have to respond to the voice of thepeople. The result is a much more complex world where the institu-tions and mechanisms of governance can be found in a variety of dif-ferent locations, where it is often the short term that is being addressedinstead of the long term, and where the impacts of technologies aredifficult to gauge in a holistic manner.
So how do we intervene in such an environment? It appears an
impossible task. Is it realistic to expect governments to unite around acommon set of principles? Can managers across the world agree onwhat constitutes sustainable development within their context? Canwe expect a common filter on all decision-making in the future thatengages with the sustainable development debate? It is unlikely.
If not we must, at least for the foreseeable future, consider what is
possible at this point in time and what the conditions are that
encourage good management. It would be fair to say that few would
claim to have solved the problem of managing development in such away that it is sustainable. This is not surprising since the concept ofsustainability has not been adopted until comparatively recently. Manyphilosophers and writers have made statements over the centurieswhich demonstrate that wise men have understood the problem, but itwas only in the latter part of the twentieth century that this became amajor agenda item for the world. Good husbandry for the locality has
become good stewardship for the world.
In some ways this gives us the clue for advancement because there
are links between the two. The global agenda depends on a multitudeof decisions at the local level. The disposal of refrigerators, the choice ofenergy for housing, the method of manufacturing building productsand the planning framework for a local authority are all examples ofthe billions of small decisions that contribute to sustainable develop-ment. Thus the maxim think global, act local has become a motto for
many within the field.
It is not difficult to see that although this may be a useful call to
improve the situation, it is extremely difficult to implement in practice.A decision in one area has an impact in another which may lead to anunsustainable development. Examples abound. The method of insu-lating a building may save energy at the local level but the extractionprocess for the raw materials may require more energy than it savesand may deplete the earth of a valuable resource or at least increase its
cost in a market situation. The regeneration of one urban area may lead
to the decline of adjacent areas as people move to take advantage of theimprovement and another community is deprived of its economicresource to maintain or improve its standards. The shift to out-of-townshopping centres can lead to deprivation in the traditional city centres,and so it goes on.146 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

How can `management', whatever that might be and by whoever it
might be implemented, deal with such complexity? I think most people
would say that at one level it cannot. We have not yet developed thetools or systems that allow us to address the issues and certainly not ina way that is understandable and actionable by all stakeholders con-cerned with decision-making in the built environment, or indeedelsewhere. Even if we were in favour of a totalitarian regime, whichcould control all inputs and outputs from the process, we do not knowsufficient about the inter-relationships that exist between the various
impacts of millions of decisions to know what the outcome would be. In
fact we are not yet sure what the destination might be, if there is such athing. Over time these relationships will change and consequently thedecisions will need to respond accordingly. What is considered to besensible now might well appear stupid to a future generation.
In a democratic society, where the will of the people determines
policy, much depends on the knowledge and commitment of thepeople to the objective of sustainable development. This requires a
high standard of education coupled with a willingness to make sacri-
fices now in order to allow future generations to have choice in theirown futures, equal to what we enjoy now. All the constraints thatpoliticians work with in such societies come clearly to the fore. Will thisresult in good economic performance, allowing the current populationto achieve its present aspirations? Will it attend to the health needs ofthis generation? Will it resolve current difficulties in society before thenext election? If this is extended to the developer, the motivation may
well be even shorter term and depend on meeting the bottom-line
requirements of the shareholders or investors.
This could be considered a very pessimistic scenario, and indeed
would be if we thought we had to resolve everything right now.However, the nature of the management process must be to learn as weprogress. This suggests that whatever system is developed must haveclear and structured feedback mechanisms to allow continual reviewand improvement. The important question is ` Who manages? ' in order
that feedback can be systematically established in such a way that there
is corporate learning at all levels.
Who manages?
A simple answer to the question of who manages sustainable devel-opment would be ` Everyone '. At least everyone has a contribution to
make. On environmental issues, for example, the way each household
purchases its products and disposes of waste is a managementresponsibility within the home. The local authority usually hasresponsibility for waste disposal and recycling of waste material underthe auspices of a central government that provides legislation anddirectives as to what to do. The companies that produce the productsTowards Management Systems and Protocols 147

manage the wrapping and promotion, and transport companies deli-
ver the products in a particular way. The list is endless but it illustrates
the complexity of the management process and the complex ownershipissue within the problem. In broad terms, the management of sus-tainable development can be categorised as follows:
oGovernment: The government has the responsibility of providing a
legislative and regulatory framework within which managementcan operate. In addition, as a large client for many activities within
most countries, it has a management responsibility to encourage
and implement sustainable development within those activitiesand to educate the public about such issues. It is also themechanism whereby global initiatives between nations, such asAgenda 21, are realised.
oLocal authorities: These authorities have the responsibility of
working out government policy within the context of their ownjurisdiction. They too determine policy and work out their policies
through actions in areas such as transport, policing, waste disposal,
infrastructure works and so on. At the urban level they are themanagers who set the framework within which all others have tooperate.
oOrganisations and firms: These institutions have to comply with
what government and local authorities demand but they can alsomanage their organisations to be sensitive to sustainable develop-ment, and indeed many firms have their own policy on such issues
which is available for public scrutiny. It can be complex, particu-
larly when the organisation is a multi-national company operatingacross the world. The sensitivities and requirements of a countrysuch as India or China may be quite different from those in theWest.
oIndividuals: All of us have some responsibility for managing our
lives and we do this within the context provided by governmentand local authorities and within the constraints of those who pro-
vide goods and services for us. While we can change these `con-
trollers' through the election processes and through purchasingpower, this is usually a long-term affair and we have to adaptaccordingly.
While the above appears as a hierarchy it is really much more complex
as between the levels there is interaction which changes according tothe decision-making process that is adopted. It is also almost impos-
sible to opt out from the system as many small communities have
suggested they might do. They find themselves dependent at somelevel on others or controlled in some way, and their freedom to act iscurtailed. There are also the remaining freedoms to act which indivi-duals can exercise at will, whether within the law or outside it, and148 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

these individual acts will have a bearing on sustainable development.
Communities with high crime rates can find their position unsustain-
able through the actions of individuals outside the legal and regulatoryframework.
The planning framework
Whatever management system is implemented for sustainable
development, it has to respond to and contribute to the regulatory
framework within which it must operate. One of the primary frame-works, at least for the built environment, must be that of the planningprocess. This is the process by which government, at all levels, exer-cises influence and power as to what is allowed or encouraged to bebuilt. Usually this is defined within a process that has legal enforce-ment. However, there might also be a number of less formal con-stituents which are advisory and might be taken on board by a
planning authority when it uses its discretionary powers. This can
make the sources for management decision-making quite varied andcomplex unless these are made explicit. It also varies from region toregion of each country and from country to country, making itimpossible to generalise about such issues.
An international project called SUSPLAN, funded by European
Union Framework Funds, involving three local government and uni-versity partnerships across Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK
looked at how attitudes to sustainable development impact on urban
and rural planning. One study produced a useful map of the way inwhich the concept of sustainable development was integrated into theplanning process in the UK (Porter, 2000) as shown in Fig. 7.1. It can beseen that the local authority at the centre of the map is responding todirectives and enabling planning through a variety of instruments. Itresponds to European, national and regional objectives and targets andinitiates a complex process and system that engage sustainable
development issues alongside the conventional planning criteria. In an
ideal world the two would be synonymous since part of the object ofplanning must be the sustainability, in its widest interpretation, of thecommunity that it serves.
In a very real sense the planning authority is managing the process of
sustainable development through its planning processes. This is fine atthe strategic level but at some point the more detailed aspects of sus-tainable development have to be owned by those who operate and
develop within the framework that has been instigated. Again, regu-
lation and legal enforcement can be used as an instrument to make surethat firms, organisations and individuals comply with what is thoughtto be needed in order to achieve the current view of what is sustainable.These tend to be minimum conditions as there is a sensitivity aboutTowards Management Systems and Protocols 149

individual freedoms in most democratic societies. To achieve major
improvements may require much more stringent discipline by all
concerned and this in turn may need a greater focus on education. It is
interesting to note that the Club of Rome, which did so much to bringthe plight of the earth's dwindling non-renewable resources to ourattention in the 1970s, is now making education its major policy driver.
The nature of the education will vary and will have to take place at
Figure 7.1 The integration of sustainable development in planning (Source: Porter,
G. (2000), in Mawhinney, M. (2002) Sustainable Development. Understanding the
Green Debates . Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.)150 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

many different levels from the education of the policy makers to the
education of the child, and from the education of the corporation to the
education of the household. This is a long-term task and for some areasof sustainable development, where the damage to the environment isboth critical and irreversible, we may not be able to wait that long.
The knowledge that needs to be imparted is evolving and emerging
slowly. There is not a comprehensive body of knowledge, in an easilydigestible form, which can be put before all the various stakeholdersfor them to implement. Indeed, in many areas there is a debate to be
had as to what is sustainable and which issue takes precedence over
another. This is part of the process and requires feedback and con-tinuous learning as our knowledge is enhanced.
Management in a learning organisation
We have suggested in this book that sustainable development is a
process rather than a destination. In other words, it can never be said
that we have arrived at `sustainable development' but we can say thatwe are striving to improve the environment within which humans liveand that we are seeking to leave that environment in a better positionfor future generations. We are aiming not to close down their options.This is important because it means that we have to keep the trends insustainable development under constant review and match them withour improved understanding of what is required for sustainable
development. Any management system that we set up must therefore
have systematic feedback as part of the process.
Pete Senge, in The Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990), makes the case that
the organisations that will survive in the longer term will be those thatarelearning organisations. He defines such organisations as:
`. . . organisations where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive pat-
terns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free
and where people are continually learning how to learn together.'
It would not be pushing the definition too far to say that these are the
attributes of a society that wishes to take sustainable developmentseriously within the context of what we understand sustainabledevelopment to be. Even the definition is likely to change with time aswe learn together about what sustainable development means to the
current generation. Senge goes on to provide some `thinking tools' for
achieving this desirable state of affairs where we learn, provide feed-back and implement, and this becomes the normal way of operating forthe organisation.
In most cases it is necessary to do this activity in a systematic way.Towards Management Systems and Protocols 151

The complexity of the interrelationships and the wide spectrum of
stakeholder involvement means that anything else would be ad hoc
and would eventually lead to chaos. Even today we can often seeconflicts between regulatory bodies in terms of the legislation theybring forward. One piece of legislation, although well intentioned, canhave the opposite effect to what was intended within another field. Weneed a holistic approach in which the learning can be shared for mutual
benefit. Until quite recently the technology required to share suchcomplex knowledge has not been available. Now, with the advent of
the Internet and the concept of knowledge grids arriving in the near
future, there is the opportunity to tap in and gain the knowledge weneed quickly and, we hope, reliably. This suggests that we can movemore quickly towards an understanding of what is needed, and anassessment of what the impact of our management decisions might be,fairly soon. It will not happen overnight but in time the diversity ofknowledge will be available to those who want to know and it will bestructured in a way that will allow people to incorporate it within their
decision-making processes. Not only this, but it will be possible for the
results of those decisions to be collected and fed back into the system toenhance the knowledge that will be there. In this sense it will beorganic and constantly reviewing itself for the benefit of its users.
At one level this sounds useful but, like most technologies, it has the
potential for harm as well as good. The way information is handled andpresented affects the messages that are given. It will be based on thevalues of those who create the systems and, by their nature, the sys-
tems will be designed to be used frequently by the many. If they do not
evolve quickly they can create a fossilised view of knowledge and anoppressive tool which will dominate thinking and not allow theexpansive patterns of thinking encouraged by Senge. Even outside thewrong hands this can be dangerous but a tool of this nature in thehands of a malevolent dictator could be disastrous.
The building of such systems is also exceedingly complex and will be
a learning process in its own right. It is most unlikely that a definitive
system can be produced which will match the advances in commu-
nication technologies and be able to create its own brain-like tendenciesto deal with these problems. In fact modelling such a system on thehuman brain may impart the limitations of the human brain to themachine. On the other hand, not modelling it on the brain may createproblems for the human mind in comprehending what the machine isdoing. These may seem fanciful scenarios but in the time frame of, say,three generations, our grandchildren may not find it so remote or so
speculative. It looks as if information technology as we know it today
will be an issue in sustainable development within the fairly nearfuture (see Chapter 8).
If we accept that the process is key and that we need to systemise it in
some way to make it understandable and comprehensive, we have to152 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

consider what tools might be available. These tools have to be flexible
and to be adaptable over long periods of time. They have to be
forward-looking to ascertain what might happen in the future and
prepare the ground for various possibilities. Conventional manage-ment systems are unlikely to fulfil this combination of requirements.One possibility might be soft systems methodologies .
Soft system methodology
The concept of soft system methodology was developed by Peter
Checkland and Jim Scholes (Checkland & Scholes, 1999) to combat
some of the limitations they had perceived in traditional systems
engineering. Although trained as systems engineers, they found thatreal-world management situations were always too complicated for thestraightforward application of the systems engineering approach. Theysaid that
`. . . they had to accept that in the complexity of human affairs the
unequivocal pursuit of objectives which can be taken as given is very
much the occasional special case: it is certainly not the norm.'
(Checkland & Scholes, 1999)
In other words, the likelihood is that we will find conflicts within the
operation of objectives, an inability to decide on the most appropriate
objectives and consequently will have difficulty in meeting thoseobjectives. Sustainable development has, at the moment at least, greatdifficulty in setting out objectives and creating harmony within thevarious conflicting objectives of those who participate as stakeholdersover very extensive periods of time. It does not lend itself to hardsystems thinking.
The initiators of soft systems identified four key thoughts which led
them to develop their new approach. They suggested that all human
activity was purposeful and meaningful to the person undertaking it. This
led to the idea of modelling purposeful `human activity systems' as a setof linked activities which together could exhibit the emergent propertyof purposefulness and they developed models to handle this concept.
Secondly, they realised that as you begin to develop such models
several interpretations of any declared purpose are possible. There are a
huge number of human activity models that can be built in any com-
plex human problem and a choice has to be made between the models
as to which ones are relevant. It is therefore necessary to focus onwhich ones are useful and which ones reflect the perspective fromwhich the results will be built and viewed. This perspective needs to bemade explicit.Towards Management Systems and Protocols 153

Thirdly, as they moved away from an obvious problem that required
a solution they moved towards the idea of a problem situation instead.
They used the handful of models that might be produced of humanactivity as a source of questions to be asked of the real situation ratherthan as a representation of that situation.
The final shift was to argue that the learning that came out from the
models of purposeful activity could provide an entry into work ininformation systems.
In a book of this nature it is not possible to argue the full case or to
present the methodology, but the Checkland book quoted will provide
the necessary knowledge in this respect. The approach is based onaction learning and research where participation becomes an essentialaspect of the process. It moves away from an argument about systemsto a systemic approach. The methodology is systems thinking basedbut recast in a different form. Systemicity is shifted from modelling theworld to the process of enquiry into the world. The system is no longer a
part of the world which is to be engineered or optimised: the system is
the process of enquiry itself. This allows reflection upon action taken, and
this becomes analysable.
Such an approach may well be the appropriate one for the man-
agement of sustainable development over the longer term. It allows usto build a model, in fact several models, which we can use to enquireabout the process of sustainable development and from which we canlearn. It deals with the issue of purpose which underlies the need foraddressing sustainable development and it provides tools for
improving our understanding by reflection. The potential has not yet
been harnessed because we are still in the early days of exploring theapproach but there seems to be strong potential for aiding us in thedecision-making process. Eventually it may be able to capture hardknowledge within tools such as knowledge-based systems and otherinformation systems in such a way that they do not become inflexibleand oppressive, but that is some way off. Information is needed for theexploratory models, but its encapsulation into knowledge arises from
the reflection and perspectives given by humans and for the moment
these are best dealt with through human experience.
Process protocols
It is one thing to create systems, whether for enquiry or not, andanother to articulate the process of what, when, and where decisions
have to be made. Developers, local authorities and individuals are
having to make decisions at this point in time and these cannot bedelayed until all the knowledge is available. They have a goal toachieve and for them it is a `destination', not a `process'. Those whowish to engage in sustainable development require guidance as to154 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

when the principles of sustainable development should be included in
the decision-making they are undertaking. This requires a protocol, i.e.
a framework of rules which can be followed to achieve as far as pos-sible the desired objective. We have already stated that it may be dif-ficult to identify the objective but in some cases, where the goals areclear, such a protocol can be delivered.
If we observe the construction of a building we know we have to
deliver accommodation of the type required by the client (and to someextent the stakeholders) within budget, of the right quality and within a
certain period of time. Usually there is not much flexibility. We also
know that there are activities that have to be enacted to get the buildingwe require. We have to ascertain the client's requirements, draw upplans, tender for the construction and then build the building. It is notquite that easy, but nevertheless a process can be established which insome part can be considered generic. Researchers at the University ofSalford, UK, have been exploring such a protocol for some time (Cooper,et al., 2004). The result is a map of the activities in a construction project
which can be used to assist in determining what decisions are to be
made, at what time and by whom. Figure 7.2 shows the high-level mapof the process but each activity can be driven down to further levels ofdetail to reveal the information required and its complexity.
Upon this process can be overlaid other factors such as risk man-
agement (Ceric, 2003). Risk management is driven by many of theprocesses below each high-level activity. Another might well be sus-tainable development and the incorporation of the Sustainable
Material Advice and Resource Tool (SMART) within the Process Pro-
tocol generic model as described by Gilkinson (Gilkinson, et al., 2002).
This enables the process owners within the project life cycle to beprompted to consider a particular issue at the appropriate time in thedecision-making process.
A feature of the Process Protocol is the concept of hard andsoftgates.
Hard gates are those where the decision maker must have the infor-mation and must make a decision before he or she moves on to the next
phase. These are mandatory and must be adhered to. Soft gates, on the
other hand, allow some permeability if information is not available inorder that the process can progress. Such a protocol could well be anadvantage in decision-making with regard to sustainable developmentwithin the construction process as it would force the manager to con-sider and decide on a course of action at each hard gate. At each softgate the sustainability issue would also be raised, creating awareness ofsustainable development throughout the process. This does not mean
that a good decision will be made but, by pointing to key issues and
possibly suggesting suitable techniques to evaluate or aid decision-making, it increases the probability of a satisfactory solution beingfound. Of course, as in any other situation, all such decisions are basedon the information provided and the skills of the manager in using it.Towards Management Systems and Protocols 155

Figure 7.2 High level Process Protocol.156 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Towards Management Systems and Protocols 157

Figure 7.2 Contd.158 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Towards Management Systems and Protocols 159

It may well be possible to extend the concept into the urban planning
process but then further complexity will arise due to the multiple
phasing of the regeneration and renewal of a large number of prop-erties and the infrastructure. Other techniques may be more appro-priate in these circumstances.
This chapter has outlined the issues related to the management of
sustainable development. In particular it has drawn attention to thecomplexity of the management problem. The tools identified earlier inthe book are aids to those undertaking management of the built
environment, but to be used effectively they must be placed within a
systemic management framework that encourages good practice and alearning environment. The former can be addressed by developing`process protocols' which identify the decisions to be made, theknowledge required and the timing of the action to be taken. The latterrequires a commitment within an organisation or governmentdepartment to respond to the sustainable development agenda and tochange their culture to one of continuous learning. Much of this
learning will come from experience and suitable `feedback loops' will
be required.
This is an area open to much wider research and development but it
is an essential one if sustainable development is to have any practicalbenefit.160 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

8The Future Issues
This book has attempted to provide an introduction and overview of
the key issues with regard to evaluating sustainability. It is, as wasstated earlier, just a beginning. Each Chapter could be expanded into abook in its own right. The subject is evolving fast and new insights and
techniques are being developed all the time. It would be unwise to
assume that the subject will reach stability for some time to come. Inthis it is not unlike many other disciplines. In their early stages, whenthey are identified as a new area of study, there is an exploratoryprocess, which is also evolutionary in nature. In this period the subjectgains definition and methodologies which establish it as a bona fidearea of study worthy of formal recognition in universities and inpolicy-making.
Some of this development has already taken place with regard to
sustainable development and it is now found in many research insti-tutions as part of the academic content. Also, in government it is foundas part of the policy-making units of a large number of ministries,particularly where the government has signed one of the many sus-tainability protocols. However, it would also be true to say that oftenthese policies are not carried through in practice, and only time willdiscover whether there is true intent. The fact that they exist must give
encouragement to all who believe that this is a significant subject for
future development and worthy of substantial research.
In a book such as this it is sometimes easy to give the impression that
all is solved: that all we need to do is apply the knowledge and tech-niques and we will then have dealt with the sustainable developmentissues. It is not true. There is still a debate as to whether evenenvironmental sustainability, as currently perceived, is on the rightcourse. This is much more complex when we face the issues raised by
those aspects related to sustainable communities. The world con-
161

gresses, such as those identified in Chapter 1, have taken this concept
of sustainable development and made it high priority but the tools and
policies needed to understand and exercise sustainable communitiesare not well established. When we address communities we are dealingwith all aspects of human social and political behaviour and theirimpact on development. If this is coupled with environmental factors,the whole of human kind's relationship with its environment and withone another and all living species is brought into play.
It is a vast canvas on which to research and herein lies its potential
downfall. There is a danger that its spectrum is too wide to be mean-
ingful or to manage. Management must be at the root of the study ofsustainable development. It is assumed that if something is goingwrong we can intervene and do something about it. Our experience inthe past has shown that, when humans do intervene, the full impact isoften not addressed and while a problem is solved in one area anotheris created elsewhere. The reductionist view which deals with a highlyfocussed area has developed because we as human beings find it dif-
ficult to handle all the inter-relationships at once. This approach has
taken us far in many areas, particularly in the physical sciences, but itcan be found wanting in the social sciences, mainly because of all theinterdependencies between the players and between the players andthe multitude of variables.
We do not know what will happen in the future that may enable us to
explore issues at a global level. It is difficult, even in economic orfinancial investment forecasting, to know what will happen next. The
models used are based on previous experience, and who knows what
new features are on the horizon? The number of interrelationships is sohuge that it only needs a small change from previous experience for usto find that a domino effect has been created and a totally new para-digm with which the model cannot cope. Models are by nature sim-plifications of the real world and are myopic. If they were perfect, thosein the know would all be millionaires as we could presumably play thestock exchange to our advantage. This does not happen.
In some ways this can be depressing and can send rather negative
vibrations around the world. How do we take this very importantmatter forward? What is there that may help us? This book has tried tolay down some parameters within which we can work. It has outlinedthe key areas for investigation. It has provided a comprehensivestructure which goes beyond mere lists of indicators to approach thesubject. It has provided a list of the more common techniques that canbe applied to measure events and enable informed decision-making
(even though it recognises their shortcomings) and it has suggested
ways in which management may address the issue. Each of thesematters requires substantial further investigation and there are manyresearchers across the world who are undertaking such studies. Is thisenough?162 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Of course these studies are of benefit and will contribute sig-
nificantly to what might evolve in the future. Scenario planning will
also help `try out', albeit in a limited way, what the future might be like.Foresight studies may help prepare for or influence the future and allmodels of all types may warn of us of future impending problems.There are some technologies that will influence us in a way that we willnot have seen before. It could be argued that a zero carbon energypolicy might change many things. The types of energy source wouldchange, creating a whole new infrastructure of manufacture and
delivery. Fuel cell technology, thought to offer enormous potential, is
still in its comparative infancy and we do not know whether it will beapplicable beyond the local environment. Using existing technologies,the Three Gorges Dam in China is a new infrastructure designed tosupply a large proportion of China's future energy need as the countrycontinues with its economic growth. However, up to two millionpeople have been `displaced' in order for the dam to be built, creating areservoir 450 miles long. For those dependent on the technologies, they
will have a major impact on the way they behave and their built
environment. They may make them more or less vulnerable in thefuture, which in turn may instigate social behaviour related to self-protection. Will another country use the vulnerability of the dam, forexample, to attack or place pressure on the country and its policies?The `community' may well change its behaviour to make it less sus-tainable in the long term from the perspective of most sustainabilitymodels.
Perhaps the biggest unknown is the influence of information tech-
nology on the way we behave. We have never faced such an infor-mation explosion before. We do not know how we will react in the longterm and we do not know what the increased connectivity betweenhumans, and between humans and machines, will do to what humansexpect from the built environment. At the moment there is some evi-dence that those engaged in providing information technologies andtheir content are binding themselves together in conclaves around the
world such as Seattle or Dubai. This is counter-intuitive as most pre-
dictions have suggested that geography is no longer a barrier for work,but here we see the big players apparently reaping major benefits frombeing geographically close to each other while encouraging the rest ofus to work apart! This may be a temporary situation, but who knows?
So what are the trends in information technology that may have an
impact on sustainable development? Broadly they are as follows:
oConvergence: The concept of convergence is at two levels. At one
level the technologies themselves are converging together throughdigital processes so that they can interact in a way that has nothappened before. Television, audio, telephone, camera, music cannow be transmitted and received by a single source machine. ItThe Future Issues 163

allows all media to be incorporated together. The second is con-
vergence of content. The Internet even as currently operated has
few boundaries and knowledge is passed seamlessly around theworld. Those who own the distribution of such knowledge mayfind themselves in a strong strategic position. It is a way of influ-encing values, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. Allknowledge has a filter which is provided by the authors or dis-seminators and this can be for good or ill. It provides bias which inthe normal course of events is subject to debate and criticism. This
provides checks and balances. But what happens when a piece of
knowledge is used repeatedly for convenience and expediency? Itcan establish a `conventional wisdom' in which thinking can befossilised and an oppressive tool can emerge. The benefits thendepend on the benign or malign nature of the knowledge. The newtechnologies are designed to be repeated to aid the less informed.Who will provide the checks to take on the large-scale providers?For those opposed to a particular filter on knowledge it represents
a threat which can lead to an undermining of their perceived value
system and in extreme cases to acts of terror as the only way out.
oConnectivity: Alongside convergence we need connections to be
made so that we can realise the potential of sharing these differentmedia. The last decade has seen a massive increase in the pene-tration of computers per head of population in the developedworld coupled with access to a wide variety of devices to transmitand receive the information. Mobile phones are now pivotal points
for the exchange of music, knowledge, visuals, games and many
other things, in addition to the use for which they were originallydeveloped. We are now moving towards `knowledge grids' wherecomputers act together and become more powerful and theirknowledge more accessible. This opens avenues for sharinginformation in ways we have never seen before. These machinescan also act as the repositories for data collected by sensors and itmay be that the kind of knowledge capture required for complex
domains such as sustainable development becomes available
without the enormous expense of manual labour.
oCulture: As technology becomes more user-friendly and education
on how to use it becomes more widespread, the patterns ofbehaviour among human beings will adapt to the new environ-ment. The computer games industry has changed the nature ofleisure time, the the Internet has changed the way students accessknowledge as well as having led to the development of on-line
shopping. These are all indicators of behaviour change and it is
difficult to know where these developments will end. Will there bea reaction to them reversing current extrapolations or will theycontinue to a point where an outside observer might see the humanrace as an interconnected whole, entirely inter-dependent and able164 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

to be manipulated at will? Extreme scenarios these may be, but it
could happen. What is clear is that at the moment the way we live
our lives has changed dramatically in one generation.
oCreativity: For many years computers have been seen as machines
that constrain creativity. The rules which have to be obeyed tooperate them have been seen as limiting what can be done. This ischanging, and increasingly, as the technology mimics the realworld and the degrees of freedom we experience in the real worldbecome available in the virtual environment. In fact they may well
go further because the things at which human beings are not good
may well be the things at which machines excel, and the combi-nation could lead to real breakthroughs in creativity. The bound-aries may well disappear and already technologists are talkingabout enhancing human performance by `jacking in' the machineto the brain. At present it is to enhance the brain where there isimpairment, but in the future it could be used for overcomingnatural human constraints and providing life enhancement.
oContent: It is the content of these knowledge networks that is critical
to their take-up and the way they are used, and what actions followfrom this increase in knowledge. The knowledge has the power tobind people together by dispelling ignorance and allowing freecommunication. On the other hand, it has the power to divide andreinforce prejudice. It remains to be seen what this will do to makecommunities more sustainable. Will they come together or willthey fight? Already tensions can be seen between communities
where there is strong religious belief that divides them. Does one
group's value system, as conveyed by the technology, lead to theundermining of the other? Is it a tool for harmonisation or dissent?It is likely to be both, but which will prevail at a particular point intime we just do not know.
oCollaborative working: Despite the clustering of those engaged in IT
in certain parts of the world, there is also a development in colla-borative working across normal geographic boundaries. Aero-
planes are designed and constructed with design and sub-
assembly plants thousands of miles apart. Supply chains forindustry are linked through the Internet, and can act on-line andmonitor easily the performance of their teams. Many firmsencourage their personnel to work at home for part of the week toavoid paying for large buildings and to assist performance. Whatdoes this do for the concept of a sustainable community? Does itenrich or destroy?
The above list gives an indication of some of the issues related to
perhaps the biggest technological driver the world has ever seen. Itseffect is being debated throughout the world and arguments willcontinue for many years to come. It is possible to paint a very positiveThe Future Issues 165

scenario in which information technology may well be a player in
providing a solution to many of the sustainable development prob-
lems. We may be able to avoid people travelling as much, we may beable to break down ignorance and improve understanding, we may beable to engage the Third World and assist in the education it needs butcan ill afford. On the other hand, the technology can be seen as anoppressive tool by which the poor are excluded, human beings aremanipulated, privacy is jeopardised and values drop to the lowestcommon denominator.
The future is in our hands, or at least in the hands of those who
control the technology. It is here that governments have a part to play.If we wish to have a benign technology that will help sustainabledevelopment, what aspects should we be encouraging? This is an issuewhich all governments need to address in terms of policy, but at whatlevel can it be implemented? This raises the whole question of long-term strategies for sustainable development. Who does own the prob-
lem and who can implement them?
This is an interesting question. Figure 8.1 shows where we might see
decisions being made with some examples. It is applicable to a widevariety of decisions and not just information technology. It demon-strates where we can expect responsibility to lie. However, in terms ofpolicy it is the top four layers that have most impact and the bottomthree where this policy is implemented. In fact the `city' is at the pivotalpoint between policy and implementation as it both makes andimplements policy.
This is made clear in Fig. 8.2 where it can be seen that the city plays a
very significant role at the interface between policy and enabling
Figure 8.1 The sustainability complex. ( Source : Mathew Cullinan: MCA Planners,
South Africa, 2003.)166 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

action. While we need to act in each layer of the triangle, a useful focus
for sustainable development in the first instant could well be the cityand its environs. This would combine policy with action and is likely tohave the greatest impact.
If cities do provide this useful interface, it is worth considering `how'
cities might address a long-term policy and action agenda. There are
very few examples of where this is happening at the present time. Most
cities have to consider relatively short-term perspectives on the futurebecause of a number of factors which impact upon their decision-makers. A major factor for the politicians might be the length of timeuntil the next election.
The Vancouver study
There have, however, been some examples of a long-term view whichprovide an insight into the approach that could be taken. One of themost interesting is the International Gas Union competition to deter-mine a sustainable city in 100 years' time. It was set appropriately inthe millennium year of 2000 and nine cities were invited to compete.
The winner was Vancouver in Canada and it is worth looking at the
approach that was taken and which impressed the judges. It is notusual for a city to look as far ahead as 100 years and it requires anapproach that can engage as many stakeholders as possible.
What the Vancouver study showed was that once the timescale
Figure 8.2 What is the significance of the city? ( Source : Mathew Cullinan: MCA
Planners, South Africa, 2003.)The Future Issues 167

moved beyond 20 years or so, the baggage of the present is left behind.
People become much more open about what they think is really needed
for a sustainable future, and begin to build a consensus. This allowsstrategies to develop which can be translated into policy and intoprogrammes of long-term action. One hundred years, or approxi-mately three generations, is probably a sensible time to expect cities toplan ahead provided it is recognised that any plan will need to be keptunder review and updated at regular intervals. None of us can forecasttoo far into the future but we can put in place systems that will act as
reference points which can be modified as our knowledge increases
and as we see events unfolding.
`Cities PLUS' (PLUS standing for Planning for Long-term Urban
Sustainability) was the term used by the Vancouver study and wasundertaken over a period of eighteen months with around 500 people,representing major stakeholders, involved. These people spent thatperiod in `thinking, dreaming, talking, drawing, assessing and mostimportantly, committing themselves to a process and plan'. This is an
extraordinary achievement in the time and one of which many other
cities would be envious. The full plan can be obtained from SheltairGroup Inc, 2-3661 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver BC, V6R 1P2 (web site:www.sheltair.com or email: info@sheltair.com) and the authors areindebted to the members of Sheltair for their assistance in providing thisresume Â. The brief description that follows cannot do justice to the
considerable amount of work and thought put into the full report. Thereport does provide an outline plan for the Greater Vancouver Region
but, more importantly for the rest of the world, it provides a suggested
process which could be adopted by many even if the plan itself isfocussed on Vancouver. It did this by focussing on three main stages.
Stage one: defining the context
The first stage of the process was to identify the context for the `vision'of what forces might be acting upon the city over the specified period.These included the following:
oTechnological transformations including movement of information,
improvement in machine energy efficiency, economies of scoperather than economies of scale, progressive lightening of struc-tures/components, progressive miniaturisation, discontinuity inmanufacturing technique and transition from carbon to hydrogencontent fuels.
oClimate change which for Vancouver included an expected tem-
perature increase of 3 8to 48C, average precipitation increase of 5%
to 20% in winter and average precipitation decrease of up to 20% in
summer.168 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

oDemographic change which demographers are suggesting could
peak at nine billion globally and then decrease to six billion in 2100.
For Vancouver lower fertility rates and increased longevity willresult in a proportionately smaller working population, causinglabour shortages and higher dependency rates within the first twodecades of the twenty-first century and suggesting the encour-agement of further immigration.
oResource scarcity with the accompanying disturbance of the global
marketplace may lead to Vancouver facing food shortages,
increased demand on water supply, land shortages around the city
and timber loss through deforestation and disease, and to non-renewable energy sources being affected.
oGlobalisation will dissolve national and cultural boundaries and
may result in a new economy based on emerging technologies witha `world city' at its centre and hinterland cities at the perimeter.
oWorldview shifts away from the view that nature was to be exploited
to one where our physical and spiritual connections to the bio-
sphere are rediscovered and we respect the ecological limits of our
planet.
The report goes on to look at the specific forces related to the context
for Vancouver which included its place, people, economy and infra-structure.
The report then describes three challenges that arise from these
studies:
oFirst, the need for a move from urban planning viewing cities as a
series of discrete components, to finding common solutions whichwould cut across urban planning disciplines and jurisdictions. Inother words, a holistic rather than a reductionist model.
oSecondly, the challenge of how to deal with the uncertainty
inherent in planning 100 years ahead.
oThirdly, the challenge of how to think globally while acting locally.
The team rejected any view that there was a correct development
pathway generic to all situations and decided that they must findlocal solutions to local problems.
Stage two: developing the long-term plan
Having set out the context, the team then moved to developing thelong-term plan. This adopted the following three phases:
oPhase one: envisioning our future : This involved defining Vancouver
region as `one system' where the people, the place, the infra-
structure and governance are in constant interaction; identifying
core themes underlying the vision (`sustainability, resilience andThe Future Issues 169

liveability' were chosen); determining the constraints to be faced;
building on assets and past successes as the `seeds of sustain-
ability'; and determining one broad vision and then specific visionsand end-state goals for each of the individual components of theurban system.
oPhase two: exploring the options : Forecasting techniques were used to
determine the impact of the forces shaping the next century andthen measurable 100-year targets were set for each component ofthe urban system together with an assessment of their current
status to determine the critical path towards achievement. The
magnitude of change required to achieve the critical path wasevaluated and where it was possible to achieve the target earlier(the preferred path) the `solution space' was established. Then bestpractices were found and used to suggest the best path, andbackcasting methods were used to develop staged scenarios forgetting into the solution space.
oPhase three: implementing the plan : A long-term plan of 100 years
involves great uncertainty so the team focussed on finding inte-
grated strategies that would guide implementation plans (ratherthan the traditional reductionist approach). They identified eightcatalyst strategies to stimulate movement in the right direction andused an integrated design workshop to visualise the transforma-tion. Finally, they identified a series of implementation measuresthat could be taken in the short run using a suite of policy tools toset the wheels of change in motion and then they defined key roles
for a broad range of actors.
The above description is inadequate for the amount of thinking and
preparation that went into the effort. To determine such a plan for acity region is a daunting task and it is also extremely ambitious. It is tothe credit of the team that they managed to provide such a high-levelproposal in the time available.
Stage three: the legacy of the endowment
The legacies of cities include the long-term plan for the city/region
along with a transferable process and networks of people. Without this
legacy the exercise would be almost worthless. There must be `followthrough' and this requires current and future generations to `buy in' tothe process and own its operation. This means that there must be anetwork of people able and willing to work together to achieve theaims of the plan who are also willing to educate and inform futuremembers of the network about the whole process, not only of planningbut of implementation. There needs to be an agenda to which all
stakeholders can subscribe in such a way that it affects their present
day decision-making and their future priorities.170 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

In the case of Greater Vancouver, the long-term plan has sparked a
process of integrated comprehensive planning. All urban components
have been examined or re-examined and then transformed in accor-dance with a shared set of visions, goals, targets, scenarios andstrategies. It has engaged a broad cross-section of actors in a colla-borative process based on significant communication and trust-building. It is an interesting experiment and it will be interesting to seewhether it can stand the test of time. In particular, it will be interestingto see whether shared values can be maintained when some of the
global changes mentioned earlier place pressure on the system.
The networks play a key role in this exercise and the Vancouver team
has established networks at different scales. There was the regionalnetwork in the first instance and then this was extended to a nationalnetwork engaging other cities and organisations. An internationalnetwork has now been established bringing together over 30 like-minded cities willing to share experiences, tools and talents. The aimwill be to share these experiences with the world at the 2006 World
Urban Forum.
The conclusions of the Vancouver study
The process of undertaking the study seems to have given unexpected
`added value' to the issue of sustainable development as viewed fromthe city level. It has allowed the Vancouver team to forge new part-nerships, to clarify and galvanise a commitment to sustainability and toestablish new and extensive networks for the future. The team's con-clusions are appropriate for a book of this nature and they include thefollowing:
oForecasting scenarios emphasised that major change was needed if
the region was to remain liveable and secure. Backcasting scenariosshowed that it was possible to `close the loop' over the centuryahead and reduce the ecological footprint to become a region thatlives comfortably within the carrying capacity of its resource base.
oSustainable development is both a goal and a process and they
achieved useful results whenever they combined a clear under-
standing of the goal with participatory processes involving
government, private and civil sectors.
oThe 100-year time horizon enabled all parties to look beyond
immediate pre-occupations and vested interests, discover power-ful unifying ideas and consider responsibilities to future gen-erations.
oIntegration is the key to sustainable development. It requires
determination to focus simultaneously on all dimensions, i.e.
social, economic, environmental; short-, medium- and long-term;
from the local to the global levels.The Future Issues 171

oThe future of a particular city is intimately connected with the
wellbeing of other cities. The flows of materials, resources, finance
and information have impacts well beyond the city under exam-ination. Responsible planning involves dialogue and alignmentwith the interests of other urban and rural areas.
oPlanning a large urban region is much more complex than plan-
ning for a neighbourhood or city. The challenge is to find commonground and move beyond abstract generalisations.
oThe adaptive management framework and integrated design pro-
cess provides a transferable model for long-term planning.
oIt is important to create opportunities for big thoughts that can
produce big plans. Taking the long view and imagining one urbansystem has changed the way the participants see their city/regionand the way they see themselves.
oCompetition with others brought out the best. As Ron Clark, Pre-
sident and CEO of SaskEnergy, said of the Vancouver study:
`The Process generates informed choices. It is not about seeing
the future, and it's certainly not about guaranteeing an outcome,but it is about defining a rich and intellectually robust anddefensible process. Win, lose or draw, we've already gained
immensely.'
There is much in this case study from which we can learn and in
investigating such approaches it may be possible to develop genericand yet flexible methodologies which will allow comparisons andevaluations to be made across national and international boundaries.In turn this will allow the body of knowledge regarding sustainabledevelopment to build into a robust source of information which will
benefit countries and communities around the world.
A research agenda
This book has provided an overview of the current state of knowledge
with regard to the evaluation of sustainable development. It cannot beexhaustive as the potential spectrum of activity that falls under theheading of sustainable development is enormous. Evaluation methodsin practically every aspect of social, economic, political and techno-logical behaviour can be brought to bear on the subject. It is practicallyimpossible for a single individual to have the knowledge and skills
required to undertake such exercises in a complete way. It has to be a
corporate effort and projects such as the Vancouver study providepointers to the way this can be handled. We are in the middle of anaction learning process whereby we all bring our knowledge gainedformally and informally to the issue and we endeavour to find an172 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

improvement in the way we can evaluate and manage sustainable
development.
In this book we have tried to provide an outline of the scale of the
task that has to be faced but at the same time we have tried to suggestways in which this can be addressed. At the root is a structure which isrobust and which can be used for all such studies. The Dooyeveerdstructure (see Chapter 4) is the closest we have found to answeringsome of the questions we have posed about integrating informationand providing meaning to the subject. Sustainable development can
`mean all things to all people' but by providing structure it gives the
opportunity to rigorously address the subject and establish `buildingblocks' of knowledge. However it does not answer questions aboutprocess and this is where the Vancouver study may provide assistance.The process adopted by the Vancouver team echoes some of the issuesraised by Dooyeweerd in terms of a holistic approach and goes on toestablish how this might be implemented.
It would be true to say that there are no right or wrong answers to
methods and processes of evaluation. More standardised approaches
would have advantages in terms of knowledge-building and makingcomparisons. However, meeting the needs of today without jeopar-dising the opportunities for future generations to meet their own needsmeans that a flexible and adaptive system is required. Whether this canbe done within a framework to which all can bring their understandingand sets of values is not yet proven. The following is a suggestedresearch agenda (one of many, we are sure) which could help in
understanding this complex issue:
oDevelop, test and assess a framework for addressing sustainable
development in which various value systems can be represented insuch a way that it does not produce a prescribed solution.Dooyeweerd's `Theory of the Cosmos' as adapted by Lombardiand Brandon (see Chapter 4) might be a good starting point forsuch a study.
oTest the above framework across international boundaries and
develop an adaptive, generic process which can form the basis ofinternational comparison and policy-making, always realising thatnew technologies and events will occur which may change theprocesses and evaluations involved.
oPlace evaluation methods within the framework and investigate
how these might act together to aid the achievement of consensuson action. The evaluation methods should not dominate the result
but merely be aids to educating stakeholders as to the implications
of their actions. Where there is a shortfall in evaluation methods,new approaches should be sought.
oProvide a manual that gives guidance to all concerned with the
subject at various levels (e.g. building, district, city, region) andThe Future Issues 173

provides a coherent and robust approach to a holistic approach to
the evaluation of sustainable development.
In conclusion
Readers will no doubt be aware of the complexity of the subject now ifthey were not before. The authors have attempted to give an overview
that provides pointers to the future based on their experience and theliterature in the field. It is not possible to cover in every detail therequirements of a full system for sustainable development, and indeedno such system exists. Those engaged in sustainable development areacting rather like the learning organisation suggested by Peter Senge(Senge, 1990) in The Fifth Discipline . He starts his book by saying:
`From an early age , we are taught to break apart problems, to
fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks andsubjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price.We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose ourintrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole. When we try to seethe „big picture'' we try to reassemble the fragments in our minds, tolist and organise the pieces. But, as physicist David Bohm says, thetask is futile ± similar to trying to re-assemble the fragments of a
broken mirror to see a true reflection. Thus, after a while we give up
trying to see the whole altogether.'
He then goes on to say that:
`When we give up this illusion ± we can build „learning organisa-
tions'', organisations where people continually expand their capa-city to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set
free, and where people are continually learning how to learntogether.'
Sustainable development demands this corporate enlightenment
and commitment. It also requires an acknowledgement that there is notone solution but many and that our understanding will emerge in anevolutionary way in a continual process of improvement over time.
At the start we said that this book was just a beginning, and so it is.
There is still much to do and much to learn. We hope that the contentprovides further insight to the reader and encourages him or her toengage in the `learning together' process for the benefit of all those whoengage with the built environment . . . and that is practically all of us!174 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Appendix A: The Philosophy of the
`Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'
Note: The following text provides an outline summary of the very
extensive philosophical underpinning of the `Cosmonomic Idea of
Reality'. It cannot be comprehensive but for those who wish to know
more it may provide additional insight which will lead to further studyof the subject. However, the reader should be warned that this is not aneasy exercise to be undertaken.
The proposed framework is based on the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'
theory of Herman Dooyeweerd (1955), which underlies the systemicapproach named multi-modal system thinking (de Raadt, 1991, 1994,
1997). The multi-modal system thinking approach aims to make
complex systems intelligible by escaping from the traditional Cartesianapproach by means of comprehensive philosophical studies of multi-level perspectives.
Compared with previous system schools, such as the open system
theory proposed by L. von Bertalanffy (1971) and later developed by LeMoigne (1994), the multi-modal system thinking approach maps sys-tems according to two axes, a multi-modal one (vertical) and a systemic
one (horizontal). Specifically, this approach is based on the Cosmo-
nomic Idea philosophy of Dooyeweerd and cybernetics as developedby Ashby (1956, 1976) and Beer (1967, 1981). Adapting and modifyingthese two foundations, multi-modal system thinking has shifted thefocus of systems design and usage onto a number of levels of func-tioning (named modalities ) in which systems operate, instead of being
on the systems themselves.
The main similarities and differences between the two systemic
schools of le Moigne and de Raadt are shown in Table A1.
175

As said above, the groundwork of the multi-modal system thinking
is the scientific methodology of Dutch philosopher Herman Dooye-weerd (1894±1975), known as the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'. It isbased on the fundamental notion that nothing, not even theoreticalthought, is absolute: all is relative to the Creator God who, by the act ofcreation, gave everything meaning.
In the words of Basden (www.basden. demon.co.uk/Dooy/sum-
mary.html):
`. . . the main motivation behind Dooyeweerd's work was to form a
philosophical framework that did not make God-avoiding assump-tions right from the start, and one that was self-consistent. Hewanted it to account for the unity and diversity that we experience.Dooyeweerd was troubled by the fact that Biblical ideas do not seem
to fit „comfortably'' with most theoretical thinking, yet he was not
satisfied with the explanation given by both secularists and funda-mentalists that religion has nothing to do with this world of science,technology, business and, in particular, thinking.'
For a general description of Dooyeweerd's work see Clouser (1991) and
Kalsbeek (1975), and for full theoretical treatment see Dooyeweerd(1955) and Hart (1984). The present illustration makes copious refer-Table A.1 Comparison between systemic schools of thinking.
Common ground Systemic approach
(Le Moigne)Multi-modal system
(De Raadt)
Both promote a reconception of
science in a personal relation
denying the objective,
independent notion.Both consider the loop of
information and organisation
as fundamental in making
social sciences intelligible as
distinct from the traditional
energetic notion of natural
sciences.
Both oppose the popular notion
that social science is less exact
or more fuzzy. Both try to find
alternatives to the cybernetic
paradigm, which is considered
to be insufficient. Both admit
that ultimately faith is the last
criterion of choice, or the last
station on a multi-modal stair.Emphasis on the inadequacy of
the analytical paradigm in
understanding complexity.
Constructivism makes how weconstruct knowledge intelligent.
This is received neither through
senses nor by way of
communication but is actively
built up by a cognisant subject.
The function of cognition is
adaptive and serves the
subjects' organisation of the
experimental world, not the
discovery of an objective
ontological reality. This does not
tell us what kind of knowledge is
constructed. It may fall into
relativism.Emphasis on the inadequacy of
isolation of normative and
determinative orders.
The assumption is that there isan absolute truth and ordered
reality independent of human
beings.
It escapes relativism by
focusing on a priori knowledge,
which is justified by faith.
Our knowledge is limited.
However, it uses the cybernetic
paradigm as an attempt to
make social systems intelligible.
(Source: based on Eriksson, 1996)176 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

ences to the expositions of de Raadt (1991, 1994, 1997) and Basden
(1994, 1996).
The theory of the `Cosmonomic Idea' acknowledges an external
reality that is independent of the acting and knowing subject (hence theterm ` Cosmonomic '). We are affected by it but also affect it and have
views and desires concerning it. In particular, the theory claims thereare two `sides' to reality as we know it: a law side and an entity side .
The entity side concerns things, systems and, in fact, anything that
does something: e.g. a person, a flower, a house, a town, a government,
a symphony. The law side concerns modalities in which entities operate:
e.g. physical, social, biotic, ethical, technical.
A modality can be defined as an irreducible area of the functioning of
a system. It is characterised by a nucleus of meaning which provides itwith an internal order named sphere sovereignty and has its own order,
or set of laws, by which it is governed (hence the alternative name law
sphere given by Dooyeweerd), e.g. the laws of arithmetic, the laws of
physics, the laws of aesthetics, the laws of ethics. These not only guide
but also enable entities (people, animals, etc.) to function in a variety of
ways.
The law and entity sides can be seen as orthogonal: an entity crosses
several modalities. For instance, an entity such as a tree is characterisedby a number of modalities, including the spatial (it occupies a limitedspace) and the physical (it is made of materials), up to the biological (itis alive!) but, compared with a person, it has a more limited range inwhich it actively functions. It is unable to learn or to speak, and it does
not have social interactions or financial businesses. On the contrary, it
can be used (as an object) for learning, can be given as a present to afriend, or can be sold or bought (see Figure A1).
In everyday living the entities stand to the fore, as it were, and the
law side recedes into the background, but in science the law side comesto the fore while the entities recede. So when we analyse reality weshould study the law side, not the behaviour of entities. It is the lawside (i.e. the modalities) that expresses the fundamental meaning , and it
is the law side that enables entities to `exist'.
Modal laws ± or orders ± are fulfilled in two different ways. In the
earlier (or lower or `hard') modalities, such as numerical and spatial,and their equivalents in the scientific disciplines, mathematics andgeometry, the orders, or set of laws, that govern these modalities aremore determinative, i.e. `the law always exerts its own fulfilment'. Forexample, within the physical modality the law of gravity is alwaysobeyed; it is a law of spatial aspect that nothing can be both round and
square. However, in the later (or higher or `soft') modalities, such as the
ethical and the juridical, the laws are more normative since their ful-filment is contingent on people's inclination to follow these laws andthey cannot be described through the harder modalities' determinativerules.Appendix A: The Philosophy of the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' 177

The laws are unique and irreducible, differing from modality to
modality, so that it is not possible to entirely understand the behaviourof one modality on the basis of the laws of another modality (spheresovereignty). However, there are definite relationships between themwhich allow an entity to function in a coherent rather than fragmentedmanner. These relationships between modalities are of three kinds.
(1) Dependency : The laws of later aspects depend on and require those
of earlier ones. Thus biotic laws require those of physics, whichrequire those of movement, and so on. The philosophy of the`Cosmonomic Idea' has not placed the fifteen modalities in anarbitrary order and the earlier aspects serve as foundations for thelater (Dooyeweerd calls this `the cosmic order of time').
(2) Functioning : An individual structure (entities and systems) func-
tions in each aspect either as subject or object. While human
beings can act as subject in all aspects, animals have a morelimited range in which they can function as subject. A sheep mightact as an economic object, for instance, but not an economic sub-ject, i.e. it can be used as exchange but it cannot itself do anexchange. This functioning individuality structure serves as anintegration point for the aspects.
(3) Analogy : Components of each aspect are mirrored or echoed in
Figure A.1 Two-dimensional representation (modality/system axes) of entities (a
man and a tree) crossing different modalities.System axis178 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

others. Such an analogy is the basis for the symbolic representa-
tion of knowledge on a computer. The correspondence between
the orders of different modalities allows one modality (named thesource ) to be used as a metaphoric representation of another or
several other modalities (named idioms ). For example, social
scientists often express aspects of social behaviour (operating inthe social modality) in terms of quantitative measures (operatingin the numeric modality). They can then use the laws of mathe-matics to manipulate aspects of behaviour in the social modality
and derive conclusions that have been difficult to arrive at with-
out the aid of these laws. In the words of de Raadt (1991), it isimportant to note that `. . . these conclusions rest upon the laws ofthe numeric modality and not on the basis of the social modality.Therefore, while they may be mathematically valid, they need notbe necessarily valid in the social sphere'.
Although every modality can be an `idiom' for another, its effec-
tiveness as an idiom varies and the degree of correspondence declines
as the distance between one modality and another increases. Forexample, the numeric modality is not a very suitable idiom for thejuridical modality and it would be better to use a closer modality suchas the ethical modality. In the words of de Raadt (1991), the softness ofthe normative order is not due to any indefiniteness, but due to thelower homomorphism that exists between the soft modalities and thelogical and numerical modalities (these latter being the idioms
employed by much of the hardest science) when compared with the
homomorphism that exists between the hard modalities themselves.
Dooyeweerd illustrates a `working' list of fifteen modalities whose
properties are exhibited by the objects of people's experience. Thesefifteen aspects and their meaning-nuclei (in brackets) are as follows:numerical (quantity); spatial (continuous extension); kinematics(movement); physical (energy, mass); biological (life function); sensi-tive (senses, feeling ); analytic (discerning of entities, logic); historical
(formative power); communicative (informatory, symbolic repre-
sentation); social (social intercourse, social exchange); economic(frugality, handling limited resources); aesthetic (harmony, beauty);juridical (retribution, fairness, rights); ethical (love, moral); and credal(faith, commitment, trustworthiness). They were derived by takingevery large-scale kind of property that has been distinguished in thehistory of philosophy and science.
In identifying the modalities and their order, however, not all
authors are in accord. Hart (1984) identifies only fourteen modalities,
as she does not include aesthetic. In addition, she places the analyticmodality between the historical and the communicative modalities. DeRaadt (1997) adds two new aspects: epistemic (whose essence is wis-dom) and operational (whose essence is production). These are placed,Appendix A: The Philosophy of the `Cosmonomic Idea of Reality' 179

respectively, next to the communicative modality and the social
modality. Kalsbeek (1975) discusses the meaningfulness of including
kinematics within physical as part of it.
The framework developed in this study keeps the original number
and order of the modalities given by Dooyeweerd as a consistent listfor interpreting sustainable development processes of the built envir-onment. The aim was not to rethink reality, but rather to provide auseful tool for aiding decision-making in planning.180 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Appendix B: Commission of the
European Communities
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Structural indicators
Brussels, 16.10.2002
COM(2002) 551 final
Executive summary
This Communication
presents the Commission's
proposal for the list of
indicators to be used in theSpring Report 2003.This Communication presents the Commission's pro-
posal for the list of indicators whose main purpose is to
support the key messages of the Spring Report 2003.
The Communication also describes the progress theCommission services have made over the last year indeveloping new indicators, improving the quality oflast year's list of structural indicators and integratingthe candidate countries into the structural indicatorsprocess.
The new list comprises a
high degree of stability andallows for some flexibility.This is the third year in which the Commission has
chosen a set of structural indicators. There have beenlimited changes to the list to ensure a high degree ofstability . This is important for assessing progress in the
achievement of objectives from one year to the next, and
181

it allows the reliability and the quality of the indicators
to continue to be improved. However there has also
been some flexibility in the list to incorporate indicators
reflecting new political priorities or when better indi-cators have become available.
The list remains short and
balanced between the
domains.The list of indicators has also been kept short with no
increase in the number from the 42 indicators used in
last year's Spring Report. A shorter list allows one tobetter focus the policy messages drawn from the indi-cators. The balance between the domains has been
retained with seven indicators for each of the domains.
The main change is the
inclusion of the candidatecountries.In response to the request from the Gothenburg Euro-
pean Council all 13 candidate countries will be inte-grated into the structural indicators this year so thatthey can be assessed in the Commission's SpringReport. The Communication presents the expectedavailability of data for the candidate countries at the
time of the next Spring Report.
Much progress has been
made on developing andimproving indicators.The Commission services have made good progress on
developing new indicators and improving the qualityand presentation of the existing indicators. Progress has
been made in developing indicators in several areas:
composite indicators, potential output, marginal (andaverage) effective tax rate, childcare facilities, e-com-merce, e-government, business demography, companyregistration, financial integration, recycling rate ofselected materials and hazardous waste. From thiswork two new indicators have been added to the list.The Commission services will continue to develop
indicators across a wide range of areas over the next
year. Two composite indicators on the knowledge-based economy have been developed and will be usedin relevant policy discussions and Communications.The Commission continues to reflect on the use ofcomposite indicators within the framework of thestructural indicators.
Structural indicators
I Background
(1) The Lisbon European Council conclusions (paragraph 36) asked
for an agreed set of structural indicators to be used to underpin182 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

the analysis in the Commission's annual Spring Report to the
Spring European Council. The role of the structural indicators is
to allow for an objective assessment of the progress madetowards the Lisbon European Council objectives, expanded atGothenburg and refined at Stockholm and Barcelona.
(2) In each of the last two years the Commission prepared a list of
structural indicators and agreed it with the Council. Theseindicators cover six areas: general economic background,employment, innovation and research, economic reform, social
cohesion and the environment. The indicators proved useful in
the Spring Report for illustrating areas where more policy actionwas needed and for measuring the progress made towards theLisbon goals.
(3) This Communication presents the Commission's recommenda-
tion for the list of structural indicators which are a key element ofthe Spring Report 2003. The final list of structural indicators,agreed with the Council, will be adopted at the Copenhagen
European Council in December 2002.
II Work in progress
(4) The Commission services' work on structural indicators since
last year's Communication has been directed to four areas:
(i) to continue to improve the quality of the indicators in the
list used for the Spring Report 2002;
(ii) to integrate the candidate countries into the structural
indicators, following the request of the Gothenburg Eur-
opean Council;
(iii) to produce precise definitions and data for the agreed list of
indicators to be developed; and
(iv) to assess whether there is a need to modify the list of
indicators taking into account the progress made on theindicators to be developed and the policy priorities identi-fied at recent European Councils.
(5) Eurostat has been working with the other Commission services
and with Member States' national statistical institutes to improvethe quality of the structural indicators. Over the last year Euro-stat has improved the country coverage, time series and qualityof the data for many of the existing structural indicators. Inparticular, considerable progress has been made with regard toproviding official data for structural indicators which havepreviously been based on unofficial sources. Moreover, Eurostat
has continued to improve its publicly accessible internet site
1
which now contains detailed methodological information as well
1www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/structuralindicatorsAppendix B: Commission of the European Communities 183

as the data for all the structural indicators. Improving the quality
of the indicators improves the robustness of the policy conclu-
sions drawn in the Spring Report.
(6) This Communication represents the main outcome of the Com-
mission's work on structural indicators over the last year. SectionIII sets out the main principles for the new list of indicators.Section IV presents the new list of structural indicators andexplains why new indicators have been included in this year'slist and why certain indicators have had to be dropped. Section V
sets out how the candidate countries are being integrated into the
structural indicators this year. Finally section VI describes theprogress made by the Commission services in developing newindicators since last year, with more details and the new list ofindicators to be developed presented in annex 1.
III Principles for the new list of indicators
(7) This is the third year in which the Commission has chosen a set
of structural indicators whose main purpose is to support the key
messages of the Spring Report 2003. There is a high degree of
stability in the list of indicators in order to allow for the
measurement of progress over time as requested by the Council.This stability is also appropriate as most structural problemsusually show considerable persistence. At the same time thisallows for a process of continuous improvement of the indicatorsin terms of reliability and quality. Changing the indicators fromyear to year would render this task much more difficult for both
Eurostat and national statistical institutes.
(8) There has also been flexibility in the list of indicators as new
priorities have been identified and improved indicators havebecome available. However, this has been balanced by the needfor a sufficient degree of stability to ensure that a consistent andwell-founded assessment of the progress towards the Lisbon andsubsequent European Councils' objectives can be made in eachyear's Spring Report.
(9) The list of indicators should be kept short in order to send clear,
simple and focussed policy messages but it should also bebalanced to reflect the equal importance that Lisbon and
Gothenburg placed on the domains of (1) employment, (2)innovation and research, (3) economic reform, (4) social cohesionand (5) the environment. In addition, some general economicbackground indicators are included to illustrate the economiccontext in which the structural reforms are taking place. To that
end, this Communication presents 42 indicators, a number which
is unchanged from the Spring Report 2002. There are seven184 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

indicators in each domain to ensure that each policy domain can
be covered in equal depth.
(10) In principle any new indicators should be taken from the set of
indicators which the Commission services have been developingsince last year's Communication, or should be justified in thelight of a new major objective set by the European Council. Inaddition, these new indicators should be drawn from the dif-ferent indicator and benchmarking processes going on at thesectoral level where they have already been tested. It is impor-
tant to ensure the consistency between these sectoral processes
and the overarching structural indicators.
(11) Any new indicators should also meet the criteria used for the
original choice of indicators. The indicators should be: (1) easy toread and understand; (2) policy relevant; (3) mutually consistent;(4) available in a timely fashion; (5) comparable across MemberStates, the candidate countries and as far as possible with othercountries; (6) selected from reliable sources; and (7) should not
impose too large a burden on Member States and respondents.
(12) The main change to the structural indicators this year is that their
coverage will be expanded to all 13 candidate countries ,a s
requested by the Gothenburg European Council. This will allowthe candidate countries to be included step by step into theLisbon strategy starting with the Spring Report 2003. Eurostathas been working in conjunction with the statistical institutes inthe candidate countries to improve the availability and quality of
the structural indicators for these countries. More details are
given in section V.
IV The new list of indicators
(13) The new list of indicators has been drawn up in accordance with
the principles set out above. In total three indicators have beenadded to the list and three indicators dropped out of the 42indicators.
(14) The list includes new indicators where there has been sufficient
progress on developing the data such as the `effective average
exit age', `company registration' and `financial integration'. Newpolitical priorities are also reflected in the list. For example `R&Dexpenditure' is now disaggregated by `R&D financed by indus-try' rather than by `Business R&D expenditure' to reflect theobjective set by the Barcelona European Council. The inclusion ofthe `effective average exit age' also reflects the importanceattached to this issue at the Barcelona European Council.
Whenever new indicators have been added to the list they have
had to fulfil the quality criteria set out in section III above.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 185

(15) With the inclusion of new indicators it has been necessary to
drop some indicators from last year's list. This is an increas-
ingly difficult process as more and better indicators becomeavailable. New indicators were included when they were morepolitically relevant compared to the previous indicator, whenthe quality of the data for the new indicators was better andwhen the previous indicator duplicated to some extent anotherindicator in the list.
(16) The disaggregation by gender is a general principle of the structural
indicators. This disaggregation has been extended this year,
where good-quality data are available and where a gender dis-aggregation is meaningful. It is expected that data by gender willbe available for `effective average exit age', `life-long learning',`accidents at work' (serious, but not fatal accidents)', `risk-of-poverty rate', `persistent-risk-of-poverty rate', `dispersion ofregional employment rates', `long-term unemployment', `scienceand technology graduates' and `early school leavers' by the
Spring Report 2003.
General economic background
(17) The general economic background indicators illustrate the
overall economic context in which the structural reforms aretaking place. No changes have been made to the indicators in thisdomain. A new indicator has been developed to measureincreases in potential output, which is the ultimate objective ofstructural reform. However, it has been decided not to includepotential output growth in the list this year to allow time toresolve any issues which may arise from the indicator's use.
Employment
(18) The employment indicators address several of the key aims of
the Lisbon European Council namely: to strengthen employment
in the Union; the importance of equal employment opportunities
for men and women; and the importance of an `ActiveEmployment policy' such as focussing on life-long learning. It isimportant to note that the Barcelona European Council refinedthe Lisbon objectives concerning employment and socialcohesion.
(19) An indicator on the average effective exit age has been included in
the list of structural indicators to monitor the Barcelona Euro-
pean Council's objective of a progressive increase of about five
years in the effective average age at which people stop workingin the European Union by 2010. This indicator replaces theemployment rate of older workers which will now be included as
part of the employment rate indicator.186 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Innovation and research
(20) The innovation and research indicators measure Lisbon's
emphasis on the transition to a knowledge-based economythrough better policies for R&D, education and the informationsociety. No changes are being proposed to the indicators in thisdomain. However the indicator R&D expenditure will now be
disaggregated by source of finance rather than the sector carry-ing out the R&D expenditure. This reflects the objective set at theBarcelona European Council to raise overall spending in the
Union on R&D with the aim of approaching 3% of GDP by 2010
and increase efficiency of R&D. Two-thirds of this investmentshould come from the private sector. The composite indicatorsdeveloped in this area will be used in the first stage in the sec-toral policy processes.
Economic reform
(21) The indicators on economic reform respond to the Lisbon Eur-
opean Council's emphasis on product and capital market reform.
They look at market integration, progress in liberalising thenetwork industries and possible distortions in the functioning ofproduct markets caused by public intervention.
(22) The indicator convergence of interest rates has been included in the
list of structural indicators to replace capital raised on stockmarkets .
The new indicator allows to better measure progress in financialmarket integration. Compared to capital raised on stockmarkets,
convergence of interest rates is less narrowly focussed as it
covers several financial markets and it is not distorted byprivatisation programmes or cyclical fluctuations in stock mar-kets. In addition, data are available with a short time lag andconvergence of interest rates is a well-established and easy tointerpret indicator.
(23) An indicator on company registration has been added to the list of
structural indicators reflecting the Lisbon European Council's
request that the time and cost involved in setting up a company
be monitored. The total number of procedures required forregistering a new company and the average period of timeneeded for going through this process are good indicators ofprogress made in economic reform. This indicator replacesbusiness investment which is a less precise measure of progress in
economic reform.
Social cohesion
(24) The social cohesion indicators provide measures of the degree
and the persistence of the risk of poverty, income dispersion andthe associated risk of social exclusion in accordance with theLisbon European Council's high priority on social cohesion. TheAppendix B: Commission of the European Communities 187

open method of co-ordination in the field of social inclusion was
endorsed at the Laeken European Council. Seven of the ten
primary indicators agreed in Laeken for this process have beenincluded in the list. Others, such as `life expectancy' at birth areused in the sectoral processes.
(25) In the social cohesion domain some changes have been made to
the definitions of inequality of income distribution ,risk-of-poverty
rate,persistent-risk-of-poverty rate , and population living in jobless
households . The definition of regional cohesion has been changed
from the variation in regional unemployment rates to the vari-
ation in regional employment rates and the name has beenchanged to dispersion of regional employment rates .
Environment
(26) The environment indicators reflect the Gothenburg European
Council's integration of sustainable development issues into theLisbon process. The indicators cover the four main areas iden-
tified by the Gothenburg European Council: climate change,
sustainable transport, threats to public health and managingnatural resources.
(27) No changes are proposed to the environment indicators this
year. However the indicator greenhouse gases emissions has been
modified by including the policy targets set by the Kyoto pro-tocol and the EU Burden Sharing Agreement. These targetsrequire certain Member States to reduce their emission while
others are permitted to increase their emissions in comparison to
1990 levels. Comparing the difference between present emissionsand the individual target values for each Member State is aneffective way of assessing the effects of climate change policies.
V Inclusion of the candidate countries in the structural
indicators
(28) As requested by the Gothenburg European Council the 13 can-
didate countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia,
Slovakia and Turkey) will be included in the structural indicatorsexercise step by step starting this year. Preference will be given toa wide country-coverage of a sub-set of the structural indicatorswhich will permit an appropriate comparison with and betweenthe candidate countries. Any proposals for new structural indi-cators should take into account the need for data on the candi-date countries.
(29) Eurostat has been working in conjunction with the statistical
institutes in the candidate countries to improve the availability188 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

and quality of the structural indicators for these countries.
Considerable progress has been made in this work. Eurostat has
based its work on the deadline of the Spring Report and atpresent most data for the structural indicators for the candidatecountries are still being collected and quality-assessed. Data forthe candidate countries are therefore not included in the statis-tical annex of graphs attached to this Communication.
(30) The expected availability of data for the candidate countries is set
out in Table 1. At this stage it is difficult to provide precise details
on which countries and which years will be available for the
Spring Report 2003 because Eurostat and the candidate coun-tries' national statistical institutes are working hard to ensure aswide a coverage as possible, taking into the account the need forgood-quality data while respecting the foreseen developmentplans of the statistical system of the country concerned. Inclusionof the candidate countries in the structural indicators exerciseshould not result in placing a heavy burden on them.
(31) Table 1 shows that, in general, some information on most of the
indicators is expected to be available in time for the SpringReport 2003 at least for a majority of candidate countries,although data coverage is poorest for the economic reformdomain. In some cases, when data are available they will need tobe interpreted with care given the recent collection of the dataand the specific characteristics of the candidate countries. Forsome of the structural indicators covering the candidate coun-
tries more fully is likely to be a lengthy process but one which
has a high priority.
(32) It should also be noted that the EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland,
Liechtenstein and Norway) will be included in the statisticalannex of the Spring Report 2003, where data are available.
VI Indicators under development
(33) Twenty-one indicators to be developed were presented in last
year's Commission Communication on structural indicators.
Since the last Communication was published in October 2001 the
Commission services have made a lot of progress in developingindicators. In particular progress has been made with regard tothe following indicators: potential output, marginal (and aver-age) effective tax rate, childcare facilities, e-commerce, e-gov-ernment, business demography, company registration, financialintegration, consumption of toxic chemicals, resource pro-ductivity, recycling rate of selected materials and hazardous
waste. A summary of the progress made in each of the areas is
provided in annex 1.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 189

(34) The Commission services have made considerable progress in
developing composite indicators, particularly in areas such asthe knowledge-based economy, entrepreneurship and theInternal Market. Composite indicators are calculated by
weighting together a set of well-chosen sub-indicators to provide
a summary of each Member State's progress in a particularpolicy area. Composite indicators would have the advantage ofproviding a broader coverage of information than can beTable 1 Expected data coverage of the candidate countries for the Spring Report 2003.
Indicator Coverage Indicator Coverage
General economic background
(a) GDP per capita and GDP
growth
(b) Labour productivity (per
person only)
(c) Employment growth
(d) Inflation rate
(e) Unit labour cost growth
(f) Public balance
(g) General government debtYes
YesYes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YesIII Economic reform
(1) Relative price levels
(2) Prices in the network industries
(3) Market structure in the network
industries (electricity)
(4) Public procurement
(5) Sectoral and ad hoc State aid
(6) Convergence of interest rates
(7) Company registrationYes
No
*
No
*
Yes
No
I Employment
(1) Employment rate
(2) Effective average exit age
(3) Gender pay gap
(4) Tax rate on low-wage earners
(5) Life-long learning
(6) Accidents at work
(7) Unemployment rateYes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
YesIV Social cohesion
(1) Inequality of income
distribution
(2) Risk-of-poverty rate
(3) Persistent-risk-of-poverty rate
(4) Dispersion of regional
employment rates
(5) Early school-leavers
(6) Long-term unemployment
(7) Population living in jobless
householdsYes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
II Innovation and research
(1) Spending on human resources
(2) R&D expenditure
(3) Level of Internet access
(households only)
(4) S&T graduates
(5) Patents (EPO only)
(6) Venture capital
(7) ICT expenditureYes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
YesV Environment
(1) Greenhouse gases emissions
including targets (CO
2only)
(2) Energy intensity of the
economy
(3) Volume of transport (freight
only)
(4) Modal split of transport (freight
only)
(5) Urban air quality
(6) Municipal waste
(7) Share of renewablesYes
YesYesYes
No
Yes
Yes
Key: Yes = Data available for all or a high proportion of candidate countries.
No = Data available for none or very few candidate countries.
* = Pending. Decision to be taken during the autumn on basis of data coverage and quality.190 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Table 2 The 42 structural indicators proposed for the Spring Report 2003.
General economic background
(a) GDP per capita (in PPS) and real GDP growth rate(b) Labour productivity
(c) Employment growth*
(d) Inflation rate(e) Unit labour cost growth(f) Public balance
(g) General government debt
I Employment
(1) Employment rate*(2) Effective average exit age*
(3) Gender pay gap
(4) Tax rate on low-wage earners(5) Life-long learning(6) Accidents at work*
(7) Unemployment rate*
II Innovation and research
(1) Spending on human resources (public expenditure on education)(2) R&D expenditure ( by source of finance )
(3) Level of Internet access
(4) Science and technology graduates*(5) Patents(6) Venture capital
(7) ICT expenditure
III Economic reform
(1) Relative price levels and price convergence(2) Prices in the network industries
(3) Market structure in the network industries
(4) Public procurement(5) Sectoral and ad hoc State aid(6)Convergence of interest rates
(7)Company registration
IV Social cohesion
(1) Inequality of income distribution(2) Risk-of-poverty rate*
(3) Persistent-risk-of-poverty rate*
(4) Dispersion of regional employment rates*
(5) Early school-leavers not in further education or training*(6) Long term unemployment*
(7) Population living in jobless households
V Environment
(1) Greenhouse gases emissions (including targets)(2) Energy intensity of the economy
(3) Volume of transport (tonne- and passenger-km) relative to GDP
(4) Modal split of transport(5) Urban air quality(6) Municipal waste
(7) Share of renewables
Changes are marked in bold . * Denotes indicators which are disaggregated by gender.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 191

included in the current list of structural indicators and they
would also allow for a reduction in the number of indicators
presented in the list. However, because composite indicatorsinvite strong policy messages to be concluded they need to berobust and based on a sound methodology.
(35) The Commission has therefore worked on the basis that com-
posite indicators should be assessed on a case by case basis andshould meet the following quality criteria. The composite indi-cators should: add value compared to the use of simpler indi-
cators; include only sub-indicators which are relevant to the
phenomenon to be measured; be based on high-quality data forall the sub-indicators; the intercorrelation between the sub-indicators should be investigated; the method for weighting thesub-indicators should be transparent, simple and statisticallysound; and the composite indicators should be tested forrobustness and sensitivity.
(36) Over the last year two composite indicators on `investment in the
knowledge-based economy' and `performance in the transition
towards the knowledge-based economy' have been developed.These composite indicators have been assessed by externalexperts and have undergone a detailed review and sensitivityTable 3 Changes to the list of structural indicators*.
General economic background
No change.
I Employment
`Effective average exit age' has replaced `employment rate of older workers'. The
latter is now included as a part of the `employment rate' indicator.
II Innovation and research
'R&D expenditure' is now disaggregated by source of finance rather than by thesector carrying out the R&D.
III Economic reform
'Convergence of interest rates' has replaced `Capital raised on stockmarkets'.'Company registration' has replaced `Business investment'.
IV Social cohesion
'Regional cohesion' is now defined as the variation in regional employment rates,
rather than unemployment rates and has been renamed `Dispersion of regional
employment rates'.Changes have been made to the definitions of `inequality of income distribution' and
`population living in jobless households'.
V Environment
`Greenhouse gases emissions' now includes the agreed policy targets.
* In comparison with the list adopted by the Laeken European Council.192 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

analysis2. The Commission now proposes to use these composite
indicators in the relevant policy discussions and Communica-
tions. This will also be the case for other composite indicatorsbeing developed by the Commission services. For example, anindicator to measure the e-business readiness of Europeanenterprises is under development while composite indicators arealready used to measure progress made in the area of theInternal Market and innovation. In order to improve the qualityof the synthesis brought forward, the Commission could con-
sider the inclusion of composite indicators within the framework
of the structural indicators on the basis of the assessment of theiruse in the sectoral processes.
Annex 1: Indicators under development
(1) Since last year's Communication on structural indicators was
published in October 2001 the Commission services have madeconsiderable progress in developing indicators. This annexdescribes where progress has been made. It also presents the newlist of indicators to be developed.
Composite indicators
(2) The Commission services have made considerable progress in
the development of composite indicators since last year, asexplained above
3. In particular, two composite indicators,
`investment in the knowledge-based economy', and `perfor-mance in the transition towards the knowledge-based economy'have been developed. The Commission now proposes to usethese composite indicators in relevant policy discussions andCommunications. This will allow further progress in capturing
the various dimensions of the knowledge-based economy.
(3) The composite indicator `investment in the knowledge-based
economy' captures the two main aspects of knowledge invest-ment: creation and diffusion. The composite indicator is con-structed from sub-indicators on R&D expenditure, science andtechnology doctorates, researchers, gross fixed capital formation,e-government, education spending and life-long learning.
(4) The composite indicator `performance in the transition to the
knowledge-based economy' captures four important elements of
performance: labour productivity, scientific and technological
2State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator
Development . Joint Research Centre ± Applied Statistics Group, Ispra, June 2002
(www.jrc.cec.eu.int/uasa/prj-comp-ind. asp)
3These composite indicators will be assessed through their use in the sectoral processes.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 193

performance, use of the information infrastructure and the
effectiveness of the education system. The composite indicator is
constructed from sub-indicators on labour productivity, patents,publications, e-commerce and the schooling success rate.
General economic background
(5) The Commission services in co-operation with the Council have
now produced an indicator of potential output using a production
function approach. As stated above it has been decided not to
include this indicator in the list this year to allow time to resolve
any issues which may arise from the indicator's use.
Employment
(6) The Commission services are analysing the main factors con-
tributing to the gender pay gap with a view to obtaining further
information for analysing pay differentials between men andwomen. A Commission policy paper is under preparation.
(7) Development of indicators on the marginal effective tax rate and
the average effective tax rate has continued with the OECD.These indicators provide a measure of poverty and unemploy-ment traps respectively. However, the data are not expected to bedelivered in time for the Spring Report 2003.
(8) The Barcelona European Council established targets for childcare
facilities . Some data are now available from Member States'
National Action Plans on employment. 3 These composite indi-
cators will be assessed through their use in the sectoral processes.
At present data are available from 11 Member States but not infull compliance with the agreed definition. The Commissionservices are working with Eurostat and the Member States toimprove the coverage of the data. Given the political importanceattached to this indicator Member States should redouble theirefforts to provide data on childcare facilities.
Innovation and research
(9) Eurostat carried out a pilot survey for e-commerce in 2001 and
2002. At present the survey does not cover all 15 Member States.In the meantime, the Commission services have collected datavia a Eurobarometer survey on the percentage of companiesselling on-line and the percentage of companies buying on-line.Data from the 2001 survey are already available and data fromthe 2002 survey are expected in November 2002. From 2003
onwards data on e-commerce will be provided from the Eurostat
survey. As the Eurostat data do not yet cover all the MemberStates this indicator remains under development.
(10) The indicator e-government is defined as the average percentage
use of 20 basic public services available on-line. The first results194 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

for this indicator became available in 2001 and they have been
used successfully in the e-Europe benchmarking process. Whilst
the data are available the Commission has decided not to includee-government in the structural indicators due to the constraint ofkeeping the list short. E-government is retained in the list ofindicators to be developed as it may be considered for futureinclusion in the list of structural indicators.
Economic reform
(11) Progress has continued in collecting data on business demography .
Harmonised data on `enterprise births', `survival rates of newlyborn enterprises' and `enterprise deaths' covering most MemberStates should be available by late 2002, with the aim of coveringall Member States by 2003.
(12) Indicators on company registration have now been published as
part of the Best procedure under the Multi-annual Programmefor Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. Data on `the time required
to register a private limited company' and `the cost of registering
a private limited company' have therefore been included in thestructural indicators (as explained above).
(13) The Commission services have developed three indicators on
financial integration following a request from the Ecofin Council in
July 2000. One of these indicators, convergence of interest rates,has therefore been included in the list of structural indicators (asexplained above). Work is continuing on other indicators of
financial integration such as the degree of bias towards domestic
assets in banks' or pension funds' portfolio allocations.
Social cohesion
(14) The Employment and Social Affairs Council adopted the Social
Protection Committee's `Report on Indicators in the field ofpoverty and social exclusion' on 3 December 2001. Followingfrom this work, indicators are being developed on, for instance,
health and socio-economic status, housing and living conditions.
For the Spring Report 2003 data for most of the social cohesionindicators are expected to be available from the EuropeanCommunity Household Panel. In the future, such indicators willbe based on the new `Statistics on Income and Living Conditions'(EU-SILC) which is expected to provide data with a shorter (twoyear) lag. In addition, Eurostat will reflect on the development ofregional GDP per capita data based on regional price level data.
Environment
(15) Six indicators to be developed on the environment were included
in last year's Communication. More detailed information onthese indicators, and other environment indicators underAppendix B: Commission of the European Communities 195

development, are included in Eurostat's forthcoming report to
the Environment Council.
(16) As regards consumption of toxic chemicals considerable methodo-
logical and development work is still required. Eurostat haslaunched a project to develop a set of indicators that takesaccount of the most common toxicological effects on humans andthe effects on the ecosystem.
(17) Data on resource productivity for electricity generation are already
available, but data for apparent consumption of mineral ores still
need improvement to fill gaps and to improve the quality and the
timeliness of the data.
(18) As regards both the recycling rate of selected materials and generation
of hazardous waste the forthcoming European Regulation on
Waste Statistics is expected to provide harmonised statistics withimproved country coverage, timeliness and quality.
New list of indicators to be developed
(19) The new list of indicators to be developed includes indicators
retained from last year's list which have not yet been fullydeveloped or which would still benefit from use in sectoralpolicy processes. This is the case for composite indicators,potential output, marginal (and average) effective tax rate,childcare facilities, e-commerce, e-government, business demo-graphy, recycling rate of selected materials and hazardous waste.Other indicators have been retained because little progress was
made, due to the fact that the Commission services had to restrict
their attention to developing a manageable number of indicators.In the same context, further reflection should be given to therelationship between the indicator to be developed `healthy lifeyears' and the indicator `life expectancy at birth'.
(20) GDP per capita at regional level has been added to the list of
indicators to be developed. This indicator, which plays a centralrole in the definition of economic and social cohesion policy, had
been proposed by the Commission in previous years for the list
of structural indicators but it had not been retained by theCouncil. As a result, the Commission services will continue theirefforts to develop this indicator and in particular to express thisindicator using purchasing power parities measured at regionallevel.
(21) No other new indicators have been added this year to the list of
indicators to be developed. Developing indicators is a long
process and therefore the Commission has decided to focus its
attention on those indicators already earmarked for develop-ment. The only other change from last year's list is that companyregistration has been removed because it is now included in thestructural indicators.196 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

Disclaimer : Only European Community legislation printed in the paper
edition of the Official Journal of the European Union is deemed
authentic.Table 4 List of indicators to be developed.
Composite indicators
General economic background
(1)Potential output
(2) Total factor productivity
I Employment
(3) Vacancies
(4)Quality of work
(5)Marginal (and average) effective tax rate
(6)Childcare facilities
II Innovation and research
(7)Composite indicators on the knowledge-based economy
(8) Public and private expenditure on human capital
(9)E-commerce
(10) E-government
(11) ICT investment
III Economic reform
(12) Business demography
(13) Cost of capital
(14) Financial integration
IV Social cohesion
(15) Regional GDP per capita in PPS
Indicators will continue to be developed by the Social Protection Committee and the
Commission services.
V Environment
(16) Consumption of toxic chemicals
(17) Healthy life years
(18) Biodiversity
(19) Resource productivity
(20) Recycling rate of selected materials
(21) Generation of hazardous waste
Indicators where progress has already been made are marked in italics .Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 197

Annex 2: Definition, source, availability and policy objective behind the
selected indicators
General economic background indicators
Indicator Definition Source Availability* Overall policy
objective
(a) GDP per capita in PPS
and real GDP growthrateGDP per capita in Purchasing
Power Standards (PPS).Growth rate of GDP at constantprices (base year 1995).Eurostat; National
Accounts.Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Growth performance,
standard of living.
(b) Labour productivity GDP per person employed.
GDP per hour worked relative tothe EU15 (EU15= 100).Eurostat; National
Accounts and OECD.Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Overall efficiency of the
economy.
(c) Employment growth Annual percentage change in total
employed population. (Total andby gender).Eurostat; National
Accounts and OECD.Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Progress towards full
employment.
(d) Inflation rate Harmonised indices of consumer
prices (HICPs). Annual averagerate of change.Eurostat; Price Statistics. Coverage : HICP for all MS.
US and Japan data are notstrictly comparable.Time series : 1991±2001.Sound macroeconomic
environment.
(e) Unit labour cost growth Growth rate of the ratio:
compensation per employee incurrent prices divided by GDP incurrent prices per totalemployment.Eurostat; National
Accounts.Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991-2001.Sound macroeconomic
environment.
(f) Public balance Net borrowing/lending of
consolidated general governmentsector as a percentage of GDP.Eurostat, OECD. Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Sound macroeconomic
environment.
(g) General government
debtGeneral government consolidated
gross debt as a percentage ofGDP.Eurostat, OECD. Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991-2001.Sound macroeconomic
environment.
* `Time series' describes those years for which data are available in most of the Member States.198 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

I Employment
Indicator Definition Source Availability Overall policy
objective
(1) Employment rate Employed persons aged 15±64 as a share of
the total population aged 15±64. Alsoemployed persons aged 55±64 as a share oftotal population aged 55±64. (Total and bygender for both age groups.)Eurostat; Labour
Force Survey.Coverage : All MS. Comparable
data not available for the US andJapan.Time series : 1991 ±2001.Full employment.
(2) Effective average
exit ageAverage exit age, weighted by the
probability of withdrawal from the labourmarket. (Total and by gender.)Eurostat; Labour
Force Survey.Coverage : All MS. Comparable
data not available for the US andJapan.Time series : 2001.Full employment.
Combating socialexclusion.
(3) Gender pay gap Average gross hourly earnings of females as
a percentage of average gross hourlyearnings of males.Eurostat; European
CommunityHousehold Panel(ECHP).Coverage : All MS except L, FIN
and UK. No data for US orJapan.Time series : 1995±1998.Combating gender
discrimination.
(4) Tax rate on low-
wage earnersIncome tax plus employee and employer
contributions less cash benefits as apercentage of labour costs for a low-wageearner (single person without children with awage of 67% of the average productionworker's wage).OECD; Fiscal Affairs
Statistics (for theAPW work).Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1996±2000,
estimates for 2001.To measure the tax
pressure on labour,especially the low-paid and therelatively unskilled.
(5) Lifelong learning Percentage of population aged 25±64,
participating in education and training in thefour weeks prior to the survey. (Total and bygender.)Eurostat; Labour
Force Survey.Coverage : All MS. Comparable
data not available for the US andJapan. F uses non-harmonisedmethodology.Time series : 1992±2001.Full employment.
More and better jobs.
(6) Accidents at work
(quality of work)Index of the number of accidents at work
(serious and fatal) per 100 000 persons inemployment (1998=100). (Total, and bygender for serious accidents but not fatalaccidents.)Eurostat; European
Statistics onAccidents at Work(ESAW).Coverage : All MS, US but not
Japan.Time series : 1994±2000.Quality of work.
(7) Unemployment
rateTotal unemployed individuals as a share of
the total active population. Harmonisedseries. (Total and by gender.)Eurostat;
UnemploymentStatistics.Coverage : All MS, US and
Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Full employment.
Combating socialexclusion.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 199

II Innovation and research
Indicator Definition Source Availability Overall policy
objective
(1) Spending on
human resources(publicexpenditure oneducation)Total public expenditure on education
as a percentage of GDP.Joint Unesco/OECD/
Eurostatquestionnaire.Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : 1995±99 (2000 and
2001 data available for some MemberStates, time series start in 1992 forseveral MS).Quality of human
resources.
(2) R& D expenditure
(by source offinance)Total R& D expenditure, broken down
by source of finance (industry, public orabroad).Eurostat, OECD. Coverage : All MS (except
Luxembourg), US and Japan.Time series : 1991±99 (2000 for some
MS).R& D effort.
(3) Level of Internet
accessPercentage of households who have
Internet access at home.Percentage of enterprises who haveaccess to the Internet (web).Eurobarometer
Survey and Eurostat(households).Eurostat (enterprises).Coverage : All MS, US and Japan. No
US data for enterprises.Time series : 1998±2002 for
households, 2000±01 for enterprises.Information society.
(4) Science and
technologygraduatesTertiary graduates in science and
technology per 1000 of populationaged 20±29 years. (Total and bygender.)Joint Unesco/OECD/
Eurostatquestionnaire.Coverage : All MS (except EL), US and
Japan.Time series : 1993±2000.Quality of human
resources.
(5) Patents Number of European and US patents
per million inhabitants (EPO andUSPTO patents).European Patent
Office (EPO) and USPatent Office(USPTO).Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : 1991±99 (provisional
data for 2000).Innovation capacity.
(6) Venture capital Venture capital investments relative to
GDP. Breakdown by investment stages(early stage and expansion).European Venture
Capital Association(for EU), PriceWaterhouse Coopers(for US).Coverage : All MS (except
Luxembourg), US but not Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Access to finance, in
particular for start-ups.
(7) ICT expenditure ICT expenditure as a percentage of
GDP. Disaggregated into IT andtelecommunications expenditure.European Information
TechnologyObservatory (EITO).Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : 1991±2000.Diffusion of ICT.200 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

III Economic reform
Indicator Definition Source Availability Overall policy
objective
(1) Relative price
levels and priceconvergenceRelative price levels of private final
consumption including indirect taxes(EU=100) and their coefficient ofvariation.Eurostat/OECD
(price statistics: PPPindicators).Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Times series : 1991±99 for MS. Estimates
for 2000. 1993 and 1996 for US andJapan plus estimates for other years.Product market
integration. Marketefficiency.
(2) Prices in the
networkindustriesPrice level and evolution in the
telecommunications, electricity and gasmarkets.Eurostat; Energy
statistics. DGINFSO fortelecommunicationsdata.Coverage : All MS. US and Japan data for
telecommunications.Time series : 1992±2002 for electricity
and gas. 1997±2001 fortelecommunications.Market efficiency.
(3) Market
structure in thenetworkindustriesMarket share of the incumbent in the fixed
and mobile telecommunications markets.Market share of the largest generator inthe electricity market.DG INFSO for
telecommunicationsdata. Eurostat forelectricity data.Coverage : All MS, except Lux for
electricity. No US or Japan data.Time series : 1999±2000 for fixed
telecoms. 2001 for mobile telecoms.1999±2000 for electricity.Market efficiency.
(4) Public
procurementValue of public procurement which is
openly advertised as a percentage ofGDP.DG MARKT;
Eurostat.Coverage : All MS. No US or Japan data.
Time series : 1993±2000.Product market
integration.
(5) Sectoral and ad
hoc State aidState aid (sectoral and ad hoc) as a
percentage of GDP.DG COMP. Coverage : All MS. No US or Japan data.
Time series : 3-year averages from 1990±
92 to 1998±2000.Distortions in the
single market.
(6) Convergence of
interest ratesConvergence of annual percentage
interest rates. Calculated for interest ratescharged on mortgages, short-termcorporate debt and medium- to long-termcorporate debt.DG MARKT based
on EuropeanCentral Bank data.Coverage : All MS for mortgage rates.
12/13 MS for corporate loan rates.Time series : 1995±2002.Financial market
integration.
(7) Company
registrationThe average time and financial cost for
complying with the mandatoryprocedures required for companyregistration.Study conducted for
DG ENTR.Coverage : All MS. No US or Japan data.
Time series : 2001.Promoting
entrepreneurship.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 201

IV Social cohesion
Indicator Definition Source Availability Overall policy
objective
(1) Inequality of
incomedistributionRatio of total income received by the 20%
of the country's population with thehighest income (top quintile) to thatreceived by the 20% of the country'spopulation with the lowest income (lowestquintile). Income should be understood asequivalised disposable income.Eurostat; European
CommunityHousehold Panel(ECHP).Coverage : All MS except L, FIN and UK.
No data on US or Japan.Time series : 1995±98.Combating poverty
and socialexclusion.
(2) Risk-of-poverty
rateShare of persons with an equivalised
disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold before and after socialtransfers. The threshold is set at 60% of thenational median equivalised disposableincome (after social transfers). (Total andby gender.)Eurostat; European
CommunityHousehold Panel(ECHP).Coverage : All MS except L, FIN and UK.
No data on US or Japan.Time series : 1995±98.Combating poverty
and socialexclusion.
(3) Persistent-risk-
of-poverty rateShare of persons with an equivalised
disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold in the current year andin at least two of the preceding threeyears. The threshold is set at 60% of thenational median equivalised disposableincome (after social transfers). (Total and
by gender.)Eurostat; European
CommunityHousehold Panel(ECHP).Coverage : All MS except L, FIN, S and
UK. No data for US or Japan.Time series : 1997±98.Combating poverty
and socialexclusion.
(4) Dispersion of
regionalemployment
ratesCoefficient of variation of employment
rates across regions (NUTS 2 level) withincountries. (Total and by gender.)Eurostat; Regional
Statistics.Coverage : All MS except DK, IRL and L.
No data for French DOM. No US orJapan data.
Time series : 1991±2000.Cohesion.202 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

(5) Early school-
leavers not infurthereducation ortrainingShare of the population aged 18±24 with
only lower secondary education and notin education or training. (Total and bygender.)Eurostat; Labour
Force Survey.Coverage : All MS except UK.
Comparable data not available for the USand Japan.Time series : 1992±2001.Investing in people.
Combating socialexclusion.
(6) Long-term
unemploymentrateTotal long-term unemployed (over twelve
months) as a percentage of total activepopulation ± harmonised series. (Totaland by gender.)Eurostat; based on
Labour ForceSurvey.Coverage : All MS except EL. Comparable
data not available for the US and Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Full employment.
Combating socialexclusion.
(7) Population
living in joblesshouseholdsPersons aged 0±65 (and additionally 0±
60) living in households with no memberin employment as a percentage of allpersons living in eligible households.Eligible households are all except thosewhere everyone falls into any one of thesecategories: (1) aged less than 18; (2)aged 18±24 in education and inactive;(3) aged 65 (60) and over and notworking. (Total and by gender.)Eurostat; Labour
Force Survey.Coverage : All MS except DK, FIN and S.
Comparable data not available for the USand Japan.Time series : 1991±2001.Combating poverty
and socialexclusion.Appendix B: Commission of the European Communities 203

V Environment
Indicator Definition Source Availability Overall policy
objective
(1) Greenhouse
gases emissions
(including
targets)Progress in emissions control relative to
targets. Aggregated emissions of six main
greenhouse gases (CO 2,C H 4,N2O,
HFCs, PFCs and SF 6) expressed in CO 2-
equivalents.European
Environment
Agency.Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : 1991±99.Limit the climate
change and
implement the
Kyoto Protocol.
(2) Energy intensity
of the economyGross inland consumption of energy
divided by GDP.Eurostat; Energy
Statistics.Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : 1991±99.Use energy more
efficiently.
(3) Volume of
transportrelative to GDP(tonne- and
passenger-km)Index of (freight and passenger) transport
volume relative to GDP. Measured intonne-km/GDP and passenger-km/GDPand indexed on 1995.Eurostat/DG
TREN/US Bureau ofTransportationStatistics.Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : Freight 1991±96; Passenger
1991±99.Decouple transport
growth fromeconomic growth.
(4) Modal split of
transportModal split of freight transport
(percentage share of road in total inlandfreight transport) and passenger transport
(percentage share of car transport in total
inland passenger transport).Eurostat/DG
TREN/US Bureau ofTransportation
Statistics.Coverage : All MS, US and Japan.
Time series : Freight 1991±96; Passenger
1991±99.Progress towards
moreenvironmentally
friendly transport
modes.
(5) Urban air
qualityIndicators based on the concentrations of
ozone and particulates in urban areas
(number of days of pollution exceeding
standards for each of the two selected airpollutants).European Topic
Centre/Air Quality.Coverage : All MS, except Lux and S for
ozone; except DK, EL, F, Lux, A and S for
particulates. No data for US or Japan.
Time series : 1991±99 (gaps are present).Improve urban air
quality.
(6) Municipal
wasteMunicipal waste (collected, landfilled and
incinerated). Measured in kg per person
per yearEurostat;
Environment
Statistics.Coverage : All MS except A for collected;
except EL and IRL for incinerated. No data
for US or Japan. Data for all MS expectedby end of 2001.Time series : 1991±99 (gaps are present).Decrease waste
generation and
harmful disposal.
(7) Share of
renewablesContribution of electricity from
renewables to total electricityconsumption.Eurostat; Energy
Statistics.Coverage : All MS. No data for US or
Japan.Time series : 1991±99.Sustainable
production ofenergy.204 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

References
Adams, D. (1994) Urban Planning and the Development Process . UCL Press,
London.
Albers, L. & Nijkamp, P. (1989) Multidimensional analysis for plan or project
evaluation: how to fit the right method to the right problem. In: Evaluation
Methods for Urban and Regional Planning , IRIS±CNR, Vol. 6 (ed. A. Barba-
nente), pp.29±46. Bari.
Allwinkle, S. & Speed, C. (1997) Sustainability and the built environment:
tourism impacts. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds
P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna). E&FN Spon, London.
Archibugi, F. (2002) Introduzione alla pianificazione strategica in ambito pubblico.
Centro di Studi di Piani Economici, Rome.
Arrow, K. J. & Fisher, A. C. (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty and
irreversibility. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 88, 312.
Arrow, K. J. & Raynard, H. (1986) Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision
Making. MIT, Boston.
Ashby, R. (1956) Introduction to Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Ashby, R. (1976) An Introduction to Cybernetics. Methuen, London.
Ashworth, A. & Langston, C. A. (2000) Whole of life assessment and the
measurement of sustainability. In: Cities and Sustainability: Sustaining our
Cultural Heritage (eds P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & P. Srinath), pp. 42±52.
Proceedings of The Millennium Conference , University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
ATEQUE (1994) Identification of actors concerned with environmental quality of
buildings . Technical Document No.1, Paris, December.
Ave, G. & Corsico, F. (eds) (1994) Urban Marketing in Europe. Torino Incontra
Edizioni, Turin.
Banister, D. & Burton, K. (1993) Transport, the Environment and Sustainable
Development . E&FN Spon, London.
Barbanente, A. (ed.) (1992) Evaluation Methods for Urban and Regional Planning,
IRIS±CNR, vol.6. Bari.
Barbier, E. B. (ed.) (1993) Economics and ecology . Chapman & Hall, London.
Barret, P. (1993) Profitable Practice Management . E&F Spon, London.
205

Barret, P. & Holling, J. (1991) The Future Direction of Quality Management for the
Construction Professions in the UK . Department of Surveying, University of
Salford.
Barton, H. & Bruder, N. (1995) A Guide to Local Environmental Auditing . Earth-
scan, London.
Basden, A. (1994) A Multi-Modal Approach to Knowledge-Based Systems . Infor-
mation Technology Institute, University of Salford (unpublished).
Basden, A. (1996) Towards an understanding of contextualized technology. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference of the Swedish Operations Research
Society on Managing the Technological Society: The Next Century's Challenge toO.R., pp.17±32. University of Lulea, Sweden, 1±3 October.
Baumol, W. J. & Oates, W. E. (1988) The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Beer, S. (1967) Decision and Control . John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1981) Brain of the Firm. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Bentivegna, V. (1997) Limitations in environmental evaluations. In: Evaluation
of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V.
Bentivegna), pp. 25±38. E & FN Spon, London.
Bentivegna, V., Mondini G., Nati Poltri, F. & Pii, R. (1994) Complex evaluation
methods: an operative synthesis on multicriteria techniques. In: Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Engineering Management , pp.1±18, Mel-
bourne, Australia, April.
Bentivegna, V., Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Lombardi, P. & Nijkamp, P. (2002) A
vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development:
BEQUEST. Building Research International , 30(2), 83±94.
BEQUEST (2001) Final Report 2000±2001 , Contract N.ENV 4 CT/97/607, EC
Environmental and Climate Programme (1994±1998) Research Theme 4:Human Dimensions and Environmental Change , University of Salford.
BEQUEST ± Building Environment Quality Evaluation for Sustainability
through Time Network (1999) Report 1998±99, EC Environment and ClimateResearch Programme, Theme 4: Human Dimensions and Environmental Change .
Directorate D ± RTD Actions: Environment ± E.U. DG12.
Bergh, J., Button, K., Nijkamp, P. & Pepping. G. (1997) Meta-Analysis of
Environmental Policies. Klewer, Dordrecht.
Bertalanffy, L. von (1968) General System Theory. Braziller, New York.
Bettini, V. (1996) Elementi di ecologia umana. Einaudi, Turin.
Betty, M. (1976) Urban Modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Betty, M. (1995) Planning support systems and the new logic of computation.
Regional Development Dialogue , 16(1), 1±17.
Betty, M. (1998) Evaluation in the digital age. In: Evaluation in Planning (eds N.
Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Khakee & A. Prat), pp.251±274. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Betty, M. & Densham, P. (1996) Decision support, G.I.S. and Urban Planning.
Sistema Terra , 1(1), 72±76.
Bezelga, A. & Brandon, P. S. (eds) (1991) Management, Quality and Economics in
Buildings. E & FN Spon, London.
Bezzi, C. & Palumbo, M. (eds) (1998) Strategie di valutazione. Gramma, Perugina.
Birtles, T. (1997) Environmental impact evaluation of buildings and cities for
sustainability. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S.
Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna), pp. 211±223. E & FN Spon, London.206 References

Bishop, R. C. (1982) Option value: an exposition and extension. Land Economics ,
1, 1±15.
Bishop, R. C. & Heberlein, T. A. (1979) Measuring values of extra-market
goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics , 12, 926±932.
Bizarro, F. & Nijkamp, P. (1997) Integrated conservation of cultural built
heritage. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S.
Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Bobbio, L. (1996) La democrazia non abita a Gordio. Angeli, Milan.
Bocchi, M. & Ceruti, M. (eds) (1994) La sfida della complessita. Feltrinelli, Milan.
Bonnes, M. (ed.) (1993) Perception and evaluation of urban environment
quality. In: Proceedings of the MAB-UNESCO International Symposium, Edigraf,
Rome, 28±30 November.
Bonnes, M. & Bonaiuto, M. (1993) Users' perceptions and experts' evaluations
of the quality of urban environment: some comparative results from the
MAB-ROME project. In: Perception and Evaluation of Urban Environment
Quality (ed. M. Bonnes), pp.179±193. Proceeding of the MAB-UNESCO
International Symposium, Edigraf, Rome, 28±30 November.
Boulding, E. (1978) The dynamics of imaging futures. World Futures Society
Bulletin , 7, September.
Boulding, K. (1956) General system theory: the skeleton of science. Management
Science , 2, 197±214.
Brand, S. (2000) The Clock of the Long Now: Time and Responsibility: The Ideas
Behind the World's Slowest Computer. Basic Books, New York.
Brandon, P. S. (1992) Quantity Surveying Techniques. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Brandon, P. S. (1993) Intelligence and Integration: Agenda for the next decade.
Department of Surveying, University of Salford.
Brandon, P. S. (ed.) (1998) Managing Sustainability: Endurance Through Change .
CIB World Conference, Symposium D, Gavle, Sweden.
Brandon, P. S. & Betts, M. (eds) (1995) Integrated Construction Information. E&F
Spon, London.
Brandon, P. S. & Lombardi, P. (1995) L'approccio multimodale per la valuta-
zione della qualita Ádell'ambiente costruito nella pianificazione sostenibile.
Genio Rurale, 12, 57±63.
Brandon, P. S. & Lombardi, P. (2001) Structuring the problem of urban sus-
tainability for holistic decision making. In: Proceedings of the First International
Virtual Congress on Ecology and the City. UPC, Departament de Construccions
Arquitectoniques, Barcelona, March 2001.
Brandon, P. S. & Powell, J. A. (eds) (1984) Quality and Profit in Building Design. E
& FN Spon, London.
Brandon, P. S., Basden, A., Hamilton, I. & Stockley, J. (1988) Expert Systems:
Strategic Planning of Construction Projects. The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, London.
Brandon, P. S., Lombardi, P. & Bentivegna, V. (eds) (1997) Evaluation of the Built
Environment for Sustainability. Chapman & Hall, London.
Brandon, P.S., Lombardi, P. & Srinath, P. (eds) (2000) Cities and Sustainability:
Sustaining our cultural heritage. Conference Proceedings, Vishva Lekha Sar-
vodaya, Sri Lanka.
Bravi, M. (1998) Metodo del prezzo edenico. In: La valutazione economica del
patrimonio culturale (ed. G. Sirchia). Carocci, Milan.References 207

Bravi, M. & Lombardi, P. (1994) Techniche di valutazione. Linguaggi e organizza-
zione de DATE-BASE. Celid, Turin.
Breheny, M. J. (ed.) (1992) Sustainable Development and Urban Form. Pion
Limited, London.
Breheny, M. J. & Rookwood, R. (1993) Planning the sustainable city region. In:
Planning for a Sustainable Environment (ed. A. Blowers). Earthscan Publica-
tions Ltd, London.
Breheny, M. J., Gent, T. & Lock, D. (1993) Alternative Development Patterns: New
Settlements. HMSO, London.
Bresso, M. (1982) Pensiero economico e ambiente. Loescher, Turin.
Brooks, C., Cheshire, A., Evans, A. & Stabler, M. (1997) The economic and social
value of the conservation of historic buildings and areas. In: Evaluation of the
Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V.
Bentivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Brown, P. F. (1996) Venice and Antiquity: The Venetian Sense of the Past. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Bruinsma, F. R., Nijkamp, P. & Vreeker, R. (2002a) A comparative industrial
profile analysis of urban regions in Western Europe: an application of rough
set classification. Tijdschrift Economische en Sociale Geografie , 94 (4).
Bruinsma, F. R., Nijkamp, P. & Vreeker, R. (2002b) Urban regions in an inter-
national competitive force field: a cross-national comparative study on
planning of industrial sites. In: Urban Regions: Governing Interacting Economic,
Housing, and Transport Systems (eds J. van Dijk, P. Elhorst, J. Oosterhaven & E.
Wever). Nederlandse Geografische Studies (303), Utrecht.
Bryson, J. M. (1988) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations.
Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Cadman, H. & Payne, G. (eds) (1990) The Living City. Routledge, London.
Camagni, R. (ed) (1996) Economia e pianificazione della citta Ásostenibile. Il Mulino,
Milan.
Camp, R. C. (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to
Superior Performance. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee.
Capello, R., Nijkamp, P. & Pepping, G. (1999) Sustainable Cities and Energy
Policies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
CEC ± Commission of the European Communities (1993) Towards Sustainability .
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Cecchini, A. & Fulici, F. (1994) La valutazione di impatto urbano. Angeli, Milan.
CER ± Ministero dei lavori pubblici (1996) Rapporto sulle condizioni abitative in
Italia . United Nations Conference on Human Settlement (Habitat II), Istan-
bul, 3-14 June.
Ceric, A. (2003) A Framework for Process-Driven Risk Management in Construction
Projects . PhD thesis, University of Salford, May 2003.
Checkland, P. B. (1981) System Thinking, System Practice. John Wiley, New York.
Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Checkland, P. B., Forbes, P. & Martin, S. (1990) Techniques in soft systems
practice, Part 3: Monitoring and control in conceptual models and in eva-luation studies. Journal of Applied System Analysis , 17, 29±37.
Ciciotti, E. & Perulli, P. (eds) (1998) La pianificazione strategica . Daest, Venice.
Ciciotti, E., Dall'Ara A. & Politi, M. (2001) Valutazione delle politiche terri-
toriali e governance dello sviluppo locale: aspetti teorici e di metodo. In:208 References

Crescita regionale ed urbana nel mercato globale. Modelli, politiche, processi di
valutazione (eds F. Mazzola & M. A. Maggioni). Angeli, Milan.
Clark, B. D. (1995) Improving public participation in environmental impact
assessment. Built Environment, 20(4), 294±307.
Clark, D. (1997) Hedonic values of noxious activity: a comparison of US worker
responses by race and ethnicity. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for
Sustainability ( eds P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna), pp.382±
398. E & FN Spon, London.
Clawson, M. & Knetsch, J. L. (1966) The Economics of Outdoor Recreation. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Clementi, A., Dematteis, G. & Palermo, P. C. (eds), (1996) Le forme del territorio
italiano. Laterza, Rome.
CLEAR (2001) City and Local Environment Accounting and Reporting , Life
Environment Programme.
Clough, D. J., (1984) Decisions in Public and Private Sectors: Theories, Practices and
Processes. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Clouser, R. A. (1991) The Myth of Religious Neutrality . University of Notre Dame
Press, London.
Coccossis, H. & Nijkamp, P. (1995) Planning for Our Cultural Heritage. Avebury,
Hants.
Cole, R. (1997) Prioritising environmental criteria in building design. In: Eva-
luation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S. Brandon, P. Lom-
bardi & V. Bentivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Cole, R. J. & Lorch, R. (eds) (2003) Buildings, Culture and Environment. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford.
Cole, R. J., Rousseau, D. & Theaker, I. T. (1993) Building Environmental Perfor-
mance Assessment Criteria Version 1: Office Buildings. The BEPAC Foundation,
Vancouver.
Cole, R. J., Campbell, E., Dixon, C. & Vrignon, J. (eds) (1995) Linking and
prioritising environmental criteria. Proceedings of the International Workshop
CIB TG-8 , Toronto, 15±16 November.
Commissione delle Comunita ÁEuropee (1994) Orientamenti per l'UE in materia di
indicatori ambientali e di contabilita Áverde nazionale. COM(94) 670, Brussels.
Commissione Europea, Direttiva 2001/42/CE del Parlamento Europeo e del
Consiglio concernente la valutazione degli effeti di determinanti piani e
programmi sull'ambiente, 27/6/2001, Luxemburgh. http://europa.eu.int/comm./environment/eia/full-legal-text/0142 _it.pdf
Comune di Modena (2004) Un decennio di scelte. Bilancio Sociale di Mandato per un
Piano Strategico della citta Á. Tracce, Modena.
Construction Industry Board (1997) Constructing Success: Code of Practice for
Clients of the Construction Industry. Telford, London.
Construction Research and Innovation Panel Report (1999) Sustainable Con-
struction: Future R & I Requirements ± Analysis of Current Position , 23 March.
Cook, T. M. & Russell, R. A. (1989) Introduction to Management Science. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cooper, I. (1997) Environmental assessment methods for use at the building
and city scale: constructing bridges or identifying common ground. In:
Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability ( eds P. S. Brandon, P.
Lombardi & V. Bentivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Cooper, I. (1999a) Learning lessons from the UK Sustainable Cities researchReferences 209

programme. In: Analisi e valutazione di programmi e progetti di sostenibilita Á
urbana. Alcune esperienze (ed. P. Lombardi). Urbanistica, 112 (in press).
Cooper, I. (1999b) Which focus for building assessment methods? Building
Research and Information, 27(4).
Cooper, I. (2000) Inadequate grounds for a `design-led' approach to urban
design. Building Research and Information , 28(3).
Cooper, I. & Curwell, S. (1998) The implications of urban sustainability.
Building Research and Information , 26(1), 17±28.
Cooper, R. G. (1990) Stage-gate system: a new tool for managing new products.
Business Horizons , May±June, 44±54.
Cooper, R. G. (1994) Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product
Innovation Management , 11, 3±14.
Cooper, R. G., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. & Sheath, D.
(1998) The development of a generic design and construction process.
European Conference, Product Data Technology (PDT) Days , Building Research
Establishment, Watford, March 1998.
Cooper, R. G., Aouad, G., Lee, A., Wu, S., Kagioglou, M. & Fleming, A. (2004)
Process Management in Design and Construction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Oxford.
Costanza, R. (ed.) (1991) Ecological Economics. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Costanza, R. (1993) Ecological economic systems analysis: order and chaos. In:
Economics and Ecology (ed. E. B. Barbier), pp.29±45. Chapman & Hall, London.
Cox, E. (1999) The Fuzzy Systems Handbook , 2nd edn. Academic Press, New
York.
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S. & Schulze, W. D. (1986) Valuing Environ-
mental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman &
Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
Curti, F. & Gibelli, M. C. (eds) (1996) Pianificazione strategica e gestione dello
sviluppo urbano . Alinea, Firenze.
Curwell, S. & Lombardi, P. (1999) Riqualificazione urbana sostenibile. In:
Analisi e valutazione di programmi e progetti di sostenibilita Áurbana. Alcune
esperienze (ed. P. Lombardi). Urbanistica, 112, 96±103 (English version 114±
115), June 1999.
Curwell, S., Hamilton, A. & Cooper, I. (1998) The BEQUEST Network: towards
sustainable urban development. Building Research and Information , 26 (1).
Curwell, S., Yates, A., Howard, N., Bordass, B. & Doggart, J. (1999) The
Green Building Challenge in the UK. Building Research and Information ,2 7
(4/5).
Curwell, S., Deakin, M. & Symes, M. (eds) (in press) Sustainable Urban
Development: The Framework, Protocols and Environmental Assessment Methods .F
& EN Spon, London.
Curwell, S., Houvila P. & Lombardi, P. (eds) A Toolkit for Assessing the Sus-
tainability of Urban Development. E & FN Spon (in preparation).
Dalkey, N. C. (1967) Delphi . Rand Corporation, New York.
Daly, H. E. (1990) Towards some operational principles of sustainable
development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), 87±102.
Daly, H. E. & Cobb, J. B. (1989) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
Towards the Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon
Press, Boston, MA.210 References

Dasgupta, P. & Pearce, D. W. (1972) Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice,
Barnes and Noble, London.
Dasgupta, P. S., Sen, A. & Marglin, S. A. (1972) Guidelines for Project Evaluation.
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Vienna.
Davidson, S. (1998) Spinning the wheel of empowerment. Planning , 3, 14±15,
April.
Davies, L. & Ledington, P. (1991) Information in Action. Soft Systems Methodology .
Macmillan Education Ltd, Hong Kong.
Davoudi, S. (1997) Economic development and environmental gloss: a new
structure plan for Lancashire. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sus-
tainability (eds P. L. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V. Bentivenga). E & FN Spon,
London.
Davoudi, S. (1999) Sostenibilita Á: una nuova visione per il sistema britannico, di
pianificazione. Urbanistica , 112, 78±83.
de Raadt, J. D. R. (1991) Cybernetic approach to information systems and
organization learning. Kybernetes, 20, 29±48.
de Raadt, J. D. R. (1994) Expanding the horizon of information systems design.
System Research, 2(3),185±199.
de Raadt, J. D. R. (1997) A sketch for human operational research in a
technological society. System Practice , 10(4), 421±442.
Deakin, M. (1997) An economic evaluation and appraisal of the effects land use,
building obsolescence and depreciation have on the environment of cities. In:
Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. L. Brandon, P.
Lombardi & V. Bentivenga). E & FN Spon, London.
Deakin, M. (2000) Developing sustainable communities in Edinburgh's South
East Wedge. Journal of Property Management , 4(4).
Deakin, M. (2001) Modelling the development of sustainable communities in
Edinburgh's South East Wedge. International Transactions in Land Manage-
ment ,4 .
Deakin, M., Curwell, S. & Lombardi, P. (2001) BEQUEST: sustainability
assessment, the framework and directory of methods. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 6(6), 373±390.
Deakin, M., Curwell, S. & Lombardi, P. (2002a) Sustainable urban develop-
ment: the framework and directory of assessment methods. Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management , 4(2), 171±197.
Deakin, M., Mitchell, G. & Lombardi, P. (2002b) Valutazione della sostenibilita Á:
una verifica delle tecniche disponili. Urbanistica, 118, 28±34 (English version
50±53).
Dente, B. (1989) Politiche pubbliche e pubblica amministrazione. Maggioli, Rimini.
Department of the Environment (1993) Environmental Appraisal of Development
Plan: A Good Practice Guide. HMSO, London.
DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998)
Sustainable Development: Opportunities for Change. Sustainable Construction .
Stationery Office, London.
Devuyst, D. (1999) Sustainability assessment: the application of a methodo-
logical framework. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management ,
1(4), 459±487.
Devuyst, D., Hens, L. & De Lannoy, W. (1999) Sustainability Assessment at the
Local Level. Columbia University Press, New York.
Ding, G. K. (1999) MCDM and the assessment of sustainability in construction.References 211

In:The Challenge of Change: Construction and Building for the New Millennium ,
Vol.1 (eds D. Baldry & L. Ruddock). RICS, University of Salford, Salford.
Directive 85/337/EEC and amendment 97/11/EC.Directive 2001/42/CE: Commissione Europea, Direttiva 2001/42/CE del Par-
lamento Europeo e del Consiglio concernente la valutazione degli effeti di
determinati piani e programmi sull'ambiente, 17/6/2001, Luxembourg.
http://europa.er.int/comm/environment/eia/fulllegal-text.0142_it.pdf
Dixon, J., Carpenter, R. & Fallon, L. (1986) Economic Analysis of the Environmental
Impacts of Development Projects. Earthscan, London.
Dixon, J. A., Fallon, S. L., Carpenter, R. A. & Sherman, P. B. (1994) Economic
Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Earthscan Ltd, London.
D.M.LL.PP (1994) Programma di requalificazione urbana a valere sui finanziamenti di
cui all'art.2 comma della leggem, 179 del 17 febbraio 1992 s.m.i.
Donne, J. (1623) Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1955) A New Critique of Theoretical Thought , 4 Vols. Presby-
terian and Reformed Publisher Company, Philadelphia.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1968) In the Twilight of Western Thought. Nutley, New
Jersey.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1979) Roots of Western culture: Pagan, Secular and Christian
options. Wedge Publishing Company, Toronto.
Dupuit, J. (1844) De la misure de l'utilite Âdes travaux publics. In: Annales des
ponts et chausse Âes.
Dupuit, J. (1933) De l'utilite Âet de la mesure. La Riforma Sociale , Turin.
Ecological Building Criteria for Viikki, Aaltonen-Gabrielsson-Inkinen-
Majurinen-Pennane-Wartiainen, Helsinki City Planning Department Pub-
lication 1998:6.
EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse: call +1 (202) 260±1023 or
e-mail ppic@epamail.epa.gov
Eriksson D. (1996) System science: a guide for postmodernity? A proposition.
In:Proceedings of the International Conference of the Swedish Operations Research
Society, Managing the Technological Society: The Next Century's Challenge to O.R. ,
pp.57±71. University of Lulea, Sweden, 1±3 October.
Eriksson D. (1997) Postmodernity and System Science: An evaluation of
J. L. Le Moigne's contribution to the Management of the present civilization.
System Practice, 10(4), 395±408.
European Commission (1990) Green paper on the urban environment . Commission
of the European Communities, COM (90) 218 CEC. Office of Publications of
the European Commission, Luxembourg, Brussels, 27 June.
European Commission (1993) Toward Sustainability (The Fifth EC Environmental
Action Programme). Commission of the European Community, CEC.
European Commission (1994) Europe 2000+ Cooperation for European territorial
development. Office of Publications of the European Commission, Luxem-
bourg, Brussels.
European Commission (1997) European Spatial Development Perspective. First
official draft paper presented to the Informal Meeting of Ministers respon-
sible for spatial planning of the Member States of the European Union.Noordwijk, 9±10 June. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
European Commission (1998) European Spatial Development Perspective. Com-
plete draft paper presented to the Meeting of Ministers responsible forspatial planning of the Member States of the European Union. Glasgow, 8212 References

June. Office for the Official Publications of the European Commission,
Luxembourg & Brussels.
European Commission (2002) Visions and Roadmaps for Sustainable Development
in a Networked Knowledge Society . Office for the Official Publications of the
European Commission, Luxemburgh & Brussels.
European Commission Regional Policy and Cohesion (1997) The EU Compen-
dium of Spatial Planning System and Policies. Office for the Official Publications
of the European Commission, Luxembourg & Brussels.
European Environment Agency Task Force (1995) Europe's Environment: The
Dobris Assessment. Earthscan, Copenhagen.
European Union, EU (1997) The Go Èteborg Resolution. Third Environment Con-
ference of Regional Ministers and Political Leaders, Go Èteborg, Sweden, 18±20
June.
Evans, J. R. & Olson, D. L. (1998) Introduction to Simulation and Risk Analysis .
Prentice Hall, NJ.
Expert Group on the Urban Environment, EGUE (1994) European Sustainable
Cities. Consultation Draft for the European Conference on Sustainable Cities andTowns. First Annual Report, Aalbourg, Denmark, 24±27 June. Commission of
the European Communities, Directorate XI, XI/307/94-EN.
Faucheux, S. & O'Conner, M. (1998) Introduction. In: Valuation for Sustainable
Development (eds S. Faucheux & M. O'Conner). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Faucheux, S., Pearce, D. & Proops, J. (1997) Introduction. In: Models of Sus-
tainable Development (eds S. Faucheux, D. Pearce & J. Proops). Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Ferry, D. J., Brandon, P. S. & Ferry, J. D. (1999) Cost Planning of Buildings , 7th
edn. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Finsterbusch, K., Llewellyn, L. G. & Wolf, C. P. (1983) (eds) Social Impact
Assessment Methods. Sage Publications, London.
Fischer, M. M., Scholten, H. J. & Unwin, D. (eds) (1996) Spatial Analytical Per-
spectives on G.I.S. Taylor and Francis, London.
Fishburn, P. C. (1970) Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York.
Fishburn, P. C. (1982) The Foundation of Expected Utility. Reidel Publishing Co.,
Dordrecht.
Fisher, F. & Forester, J. (eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and
Planning. Duke University Press, Durham.
Flanagan, R. & Norman, G. (1993) Risk Management and Construction. Blackwell
Science, Oxford.
Fleming, A., Lee, A., Aouad, G. & Cooper, R. G. (2000) The development of a
process mapping methodology for The Process Protocol Level 2. Third
European Conference on Product and Process Modelling in the Building and RelatedIndustries , Portugal.
Florio, M. (1991) La valutazione degli investimenti pubblici. Il Mulino, Bologna.
Forester, J. (1996) Argument, power and passion in planning practice. In:
Explorations in Planning Theory (eds S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza & R. W.
Burchell), pp.241±262. Urban Policy Research Center, Rudgers State Uni-
versity, New Brunswick.
Forte, C. & De Rossi, B. (1996) Principi di economicia ed estimo . Etas Libri, Milan.
Francescato, G. (1991) Housing quality: technical and non-technical aspects. In:
Management, Quality and Economics in Buildings (eds A. Bezelga & P. Bran-
don), pp. 602±609. E & FN SPON, London.References 213

Frederick, K. D. & Rosenberg, N. J. (1994) Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change
in Natural Resource Systems. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Friend, D. & Friend, J. (1991) STRAD, The Strategic Adviser. Sheffield Science
Park.
Friend, J. K. & Jessop, W. N. (1969) Local government and strategic choice. Tavi-
stock Publications, London.
Fusco Girard, L. (1987) Risorse architettoniche e culturali . Angeli, Milan.
Fusco Girard, L. & Nijkamp, P. (1997) Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della
cittaÁe del territorio. Angeli, Milan.
Garrod, G. & Willis, K. (1991) The Hedonic Price Method and the Valuation of
Countryside . Countryside Change Working Paper, 14, University of New-
castle, Newcastle.
GBS (2001) I principi di redazione del bilancio sociale , May 2001.
Geenhuizen, M. van, Banister, D. & Nijkamp, P. (1995) Adoption of New
Transport Technology: A Quick Scan Approach. Project Appraisal , 10 (4), 267±
275.
Giaoutzi, M. & Nijkamp, P. (1993) Decision Support Model for Regional Sustainable
Development. Avebury, Aldershot.
Gilkinson, N., Sharp, C., Curwell, S. & Cooper, R. (2002) SMART: Sustainable
Material Advice and Resourcing Tool for the Construction Sector. First Scottish
Conference for Postgraduate Research of the Built and Natural Environment,
p. 176, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Glasser, H., (1998) On the evaluation of wicked problems: guidelines for
integrating qualitative and quantitative factors in environmental policy
analysis. In: Evaluation in Planning ( eds N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri,
A. Khakee & A. Prat), pp. 229±250. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Glasson, J., Therival, R. & Chadwick, A. (1994) Environmental Impact Assessment.
University College, London.
Gordon, A. (1974) The economics of the 3 Ls concept. Chartered Surveyor B & QS
Quarterly , RICS, Winter 1974.
Graham, A. & Bergvall, B. (1994) Performance indicators in soft systems
methodology. In: Proceedings of the 17th IRIS Conference on Information Systems
Research, Oslo, 6±9 August, pp. 890±910.
Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (1996) Telecommunications and the City. Routledge,
London.
Gray, J. & Tippett, H. (1993) Building quality assessment: a prerequisite to
economic analysis. In: Economic Evaluation and the Built Environment (eds A.
Manso, A. Bezelga, & D. Picken), Vol. 4, pp. 79±89. Laboratorio Nacional de
Engenheria Civil, Lisbon.
Green Building Challenge (1998) An International Conference on the Performance
Assessment of Buildings , October 26±28, Vancouver, Canada.
Griffioen, S. (1995) The relevance of Dooyeweerd's `Theory of Social Institu-
tions'. In: (1995) Christian philosophy at the close of the twentieth century (eds S.
Griffioen & B. M. Balk), pp. 139±158. Uitgeverij, Kampen.
Griffioen, S. & Balk, B. M. (eds) (1995) Christian Philosophy at the Close of the
Twentieth Century. Uitgeverij, Kampen.
Griffioen, S. & Mouw J. (1983) Pluralism and Horizons. Eerdmans Publisher,
USA.
Grillenzoni, M., Ragazzoni, G., Bazzani, G. & Canavari, M. (1997) Land plan-
ning and resource evaluation for public investments. In: Evaluation of the214 References

Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V. Ben-
tivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Guba, E. G. & Loncoln Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, London.
Guy, S. & Marvin, S. (1997) Splintering networks: cities and technical networks
in 1990s Britain. Urban Studies , 34(2) .
Habitat (2001) Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements.
Earthscan, London.
Haines, Y. Y. & Changkong, V. (eds) (1985) Decision Making with Multiple
Objectives . Springer, Berlin.
Hall, P. (1994) Cities of Tomorrow. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hall, P. & Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban Future 21 . E & FN Spon, London.
Ham, C. & Hill, M. (1986) Introduzione all'analisi delle politiche pubbliche , Bologna.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Re-engineering the Corporation , Nicholas
Brealey, London.
Hardi, P. & Zdan, T. (1997) Assessing Sustainable Development. International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.
Hargreaves, H. S., Hillis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R. & Weale, A. (1992) The
Theory of Choice. A Critical Guide . Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Hart, H. (1984) Understanding our world . University Press of America, Lanham,
MD.
Hart, M. (1999) Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators , 2nd edn. Hart
Environmental Data, North Andover, MA.
Heijungs, R. & Guine Âe, J. B. (1992) Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Method of
Products . Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden.
Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (1998) Pa ÈaÈkaupunkiseudun liikenne-
jaÈrjestelma Èn strategisen tason ympa ÈristoÈvaikutusten arviointi (The Strategic
Environmental Assessment of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area TransportPlan Revision B 1998:4.
Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P. (1983) Quantitative discrete multiple
criteria choice models in regional planning. Regional Science and Urban Eco-
nomics , 13, 77±102.
Hinna, L. (ed) (2002) Il Bilancio Sociale. Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan.
Hotelling, H. (1949) The Economics of Public Recreation. US Dept. of the Interior,
National Park Service, Washington, DC.
INU (1998) La nuova legge urbanistica. Indirizzi per la riforma del processo di
pianificazione della citta Áe del territorio. Urbanistica Informazioni , 157.
Jackson, P. (1990) Introduction to Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley, New York.
Jackson, T. (1996) Material Concerns: Pollution, Profit and Quality of Life. Rout-
ledge, London.
Janssen, R. (1991) Multiple Decision Support for Environmental Problems. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Janssen, R. (1992) Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management.
Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Johansson, P. O. (1993) Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Johnes, P., Vaughan, N., Cooke, P. & Sutcliffe, A. (1997) An energy and
environmental prediction model for cities. In: Evaluation of the Built
Environment for Sustainability (eds P. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna).
E & FN Spon, London.
Jowsey, E. & Kellett, J. (1996) Sustainability and methodologies of environ-References 215

mental assessment for cities. In: Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanisa-
tion(ed. C. Pugh). Earthscan Publications, London.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. & Sheath, D. (1998)
Final Report: Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol . University of
Salford.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R. & Aouad, G. (1999) Re-engineering the UK con-
struction industry: the Process Protocol. Second International Conference on
Construction Process Re-Engineering ± CPR99.
Kahnemann, D. & Tuerksy, A. (1984) Choices, values and frames. American
Psychologist , 39(4) 341±350.
Kaib, W. (1994) Urban Marketing as a third way between centrally planned
economy and market economy. In: Urban Marketing in Europe (eds G. Ave &
F. Corsico), pp.877±881. Torino Incontra Edizioni, Turin.
Kallberg, V-P. & Toivanen, S. (1997) Framework for Assessing the Effects of Speed .
MASTER Working Paper (report 1.2.3).
Kallberg, V-P. & Toivanen, S. (1998) Framework for Assessing the Impacts of Speed
in Road Transport . MASTER Deliverable 8 (report 1.2.4).
Kalsbeek, L. (1975) Contours of a Christian Philosophy. Wedge Publishing Com-
pany, Toronto.
Kant, I. (1988) Critique of Pure Reason. J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London.
Keeney, R. L. & Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Preferences
and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Khakee, A, (1997) Evaluation and planning process: methodological dimen-
sion. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. Brandon,
P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna), pp.327±343. E & FN Spon, London.
Khakee, A. (1998) The communicative turn in planning and evaluation. In:
Evaluation in Planning (eds N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Khakee &
A. Prat), pp.97±111. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Klir, G. J. & Yuan, B. (1995) Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Systems. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kohler, N. (2003) Presentation: Cycles of Transformation for the City and its
Culture. Intelcity Workshop, Siena (under the auspices of the University of
Salford).
Koster, A. (1994) Urban marketing ± a new approach for town planning and a
chance for reactivation of sites in old-industrial regions. In: Urban Marketing
in Europe (eds G. Ave & F. Corsico), pp. 662±667. Torino Incontra Edizioni,
Turin.
Kotler, P. (1986) Marketing management. Analisi, pianificazione e controllo ,
Turin.
Kozlowski, J. & Hill, J. (1993) Towards Planning for Sustainable Development: A
Guide for the Ultimate Threshold Method . Avebury, Aldershot.
Krutilla, J. V. (1967) Conservation Reconsidered. American Economic Review ,6 2
(4), 777.
Krutilla, J. V. & Eckstein, O. (1958) Multiple purpose river development. John
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Krutilla, J. V. & Fisher, A. C. (1975) The Economics of Natural Environments:
Studies in the Valuation of Commodities and Amenity Resources. John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Kuhn, T. S., (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.216 References

Kuik, O. & Verbruggen, H. (eds) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lancashire County Council (1994) Report 19: Environmental Appraisal of the 1991±
2006 Lancashire Structure Plan , December. Lancashire County Council
Environmental Policy Unit, Preston.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political
Economy , 84, 132±157.
Le Moigne, J. L. (1990) La mode Âlisation des syste Ámes complex. Dunod, Paris.
Le Moigne, J. L. (1994) La the Âorie du systeme ge ÂneÂral.PUF, Paris.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (1998) Green Buildings
Rating System. US Green Buildings Council, San Francisco.
Lichfield, N. (1988) Economics in Urban Conservation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lichfield, N. (1996) Community Impact Evaluation. UCL Press, London.
Lichfield, N. (1999) Analisi dello stakeholder nella valutazione di un progetto.
Sviluppo economico , 3(2±3), 169±189.
Lichfield, N. & Prat, A. (1998) Linking ex-ante and ex-post evaluation in British
town planning. In: Evaluation in Planning: Facing the Challenge of Complexity
(eds N. Lichfield, A. Barbanente, D. Borri, A. Kakee & A. Prat), pp. 283±298.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lichfield, N., Kettle, P. & Whitbread, M. (1975) Evaluation in the Planning Pro-
cess. Pergamon Press Ltd, Oxford.
Lichfield, N., Hendon, M., Njikamp, P., Realfonso, a. & Rostirolla, P. (1990)
Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Conservation of Built Cultural Heritage. Ministero dei
Beni Culturali, Rome.
Lichfield, N., Barbanente, A., Borri, D., Kakee, A. & Prat, A. (eds) (1998) Eva-
luation in Planning: Facing the Challange of Complexity. Kluwer Academic Press,
Dordrecht.
Lindblom, C. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy. Free Press, New York.
Lindblom, C. E. & Cohen, D. (1979) Usable Knowledge. Yale University Press,
New Haven & London.
Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (eds) (1976) The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Locket, A. G. & Islei, G. (eds) (1988) Improving Decision Making in Organisations .
Springer, Berlin.
Lombardi, P. (1997) Decision making problems concerning urban regeneration
plans. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management , 4(2), 127±142.
Lombardi, P. (1998) Managing sustainability in urban planning evaluation. In:
Managing Sustainability: Endurance Through Change (ed. P. Brandon), pp.2041±
2050. CIB World Conference on Construction and the Environment, Sym-posium D, Gavle, Sweden, 7±12 June.
Lombardi, P. (1999) Agenda 21 e monitoraggio dello sviluppo urbano soste-
nibile. In: Analisi e valutazione di progetti e programmi di sostenibilita Áurbana
(ed. P. Lombardi). Urbanistica (112), June, 104±110 (English version 115±116).
Lombardi, P. (2000) A framework for understanding sustainability in the cul-
tural built environment. In: Cities and Sustainability. Sustaining our Cultural
Heritage (eds P. S. Brandon, P. Lombardi & P. Srinath), IV, 1±25. Conference
Proceedings, Vishva Lekha Sarvodaya, Sri Lanka.
Lombardi, P. (2001) Responsibilities toward the coming generation forming a
new creed. Urban Design Studies , 7, 89±102.References 217

Lombardi, P. (2002a) Sostenibilita Áa scala edilizia e urbana. Analisi e valuta-
zione di esperienze italiane ed europee. In: Sostenibilita Áambientale (eds F.
Indovina & L. Fregolent). ASUR (71/72), 275±298.
Lombardi, P. (2002b) Evaluating sustainability in planning and design. In:
Economic Studies on Food, Agriculture and the Environment (eds M. Canavari, P.
Caggiati & K. W. Easter), pp. 269±280. Kluwer, Hingham.
Lombardi, P. & Basden, A. (1997) Environmental sustainability and informa-
tion systems. Systems Practice, 10(4), 473±489.
Lombardi, P. & Brandon, P. S. (1997) Towards a multimodal framework for
evaluating the built environment quality in sustainability planning. In:Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (P. S. Brandon, P. Lom-
bardi & V. Bentivegna). Chapman & Hall, London.
Lombardi, P. & Brandon, P. S. (1999) BEQUEST Building Environmental
Quality Evaluation For Sustainability Through Time Network, Information
Sheet 3 , Spring 1999. http://research.scpm.salford.ac.uk/bqextra
Lombardi, P. & Brandon, P. S. (2002) Sustainability in the built environment: a
new holistic taxonomy of aspects for decision making. Environmental Tech-
nology & Management International Journal , 2 (1/2), 22±37.
Lombardi, P. & Bravi, M. (1994) Tecniche di valutazione. Linguaggi e organizzazione
di DATA-BASE. Celid, Turin (in collaboration with Marina Bravi).
Lombardi, P. & Curwell, S. (2002) Il progetto BEQUEST: metodologia e quadro
di riferimento. Urbanistica, 118, 23±27.
Lombardi, P. & Mambelli, T. (2002) Bilancio di fine mandato per la costruzione
del piano strategico: il caso di Trieste. In: Genio Rurale. Estimo e Territorio 1,
June.
Lombardi, P. & Marella, G. (1997) A multi-modal evaluation of sustainable
urban regeneration: a case-study related to ex-industrial areas. In: Second
International Conference on Buildings and the Environment , CIB-CSTB,Vol.2,
Paris, 9±12 June, 271±279.
Lombardi, P. & Micelli, E. (eds) (1999) Le misure del piano. Angeli, Milan.
Lombardi, P. & Nijkamp, P. (2000) A new geography of hope and despair for
the periphery: an illustration of the Border Temple Model. In: Launching
Greek Geography on the Eastern EU Border (ed. L. Leontidou), Vol. 1, pp. 275±
306. Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Lesbos.
Lombardi, P. & Zorzi, F. (1993) Comparison between aggregated techniques for
assessing the effects of decision-making processes in the environmental field.In:Economic Evaluation and the Built Environment ( eds A. Manso, A. Bezega &
D Picken), 4, pp.126±138. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenheria Civil, Lisbon.
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. The Technology Press & Harvard Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mak, J. P., Anink, D. A. F., Kortman, J. G. M., Lindeijer, E. & van Ewijk, H.
(1996a) Eco-Quantum, Final Report: Design of a Calculation Method to Determine
the Environmental Load of a Building in a Quantitative Way (in Dutch). Gouda,
The Netherlands.
Mak, J. P., Anink, D. A. F., Kortman, J. G. M. & van Ewijk, H. (1996b) Eco-
Quantum 2, Final Report: Sensitivity Analysis (in Dutch). Gouda, The Nether-
lands.
Mak, J., Anink, D. & Knapen, M. (1997) Eco-Quantum, development of LCA
based tools for buildings. In: Proceedings of 2nd International CIB Conference:
Task Group 8 ± Buildings and the Environment , 9±12 June, Paris.218 References

Mandelbrot, B. (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman, New York.
Marglin, S. (1967) Public Investment Criteria: Benefit-Cost Analysis for Planned
Economic Growth. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Markandya, A. & Richardson, J. (eds) (1992) Environmental Economics. Earth-
scan, London.
Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics. Macmillan, London.
Marvin, S. & Guy, S. (1997) Infrastructure provision, development process and
the co-production of environmental value. Urban Studies , 34(12), 2023±2036.
Massam, B. (1988) Multi-criteria decision making (Mcdm) techniques in plan-
ning. Progress in Planning , 30.
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987) The Tree of Knowledge. Shambhala, Boston, MA.
Mawhinney, M. (2002) Sustainable Development. Understanding the Green Debates .
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
May, A., Mitchell, G. & Kupiszewska, D. (1997) The development of the Leeds
quantifiable city model. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment For Sustain-
ability (eds P. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna). E & FN Spon, London.
Mazzola, F. & Maggioni, M. A. (eds) (2001) Crescita regionale ed urbana nel
mercato globale. Modelli, politiche, processi di valutazione. Angeli, Milan.
Meadows, H. (1972) The Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York.
Mega, V. (1996) Our city, our future: towards sustainable development in
European cities. Environment and Urbanisation , 8(1).
Merkhofer, M. W. (1987) Decision Science and Social Risk Management. D. Reidel
Pubishing. Co., Boston, MA.
Merret, S. (1995) Planning in the age of sustainability. Scandinavia Housing &
Planning Research , 12, 5±16.
Miltin, D. & Satterthwaite, D. (1996) Sustainable development and cities. In:
Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanisation (ed. C. Pugh). Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London.
Misham, E. J. (1964) Welfare Economics: Five Introductory Essays. Random House,
New York.
Mitchell, G. (1996) Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development
indicators. Sustainable Development , 4(1), 1±11.
Mitchell, G. (1999) A geographical perspective on the development of sus-
tainable urban regions. In: Geographical Perspectives on Sustainable Develop-
ment. Earthscan, London.
Mitchell, G. (2000) Indicators as tools to guide progress on the sustainable
development pathway. In: Sustaining Human Settlements: Economy, Environ-
ment, Equity and Health (ed. R. Lawrence). Urban International Press,
London.
Mitchell, G. (2001) Forecasting urban futures: a systems analytical perspective
on the development of sustainable cities and urban regions. In: Geographical
Perspectives on Sustainable Development (eds M. Purvis & A. Grainger),
Earthscan, London.
Mitchell, G., May, A. & McDonald, A. (1995) PICABUE: a methodological
framework for the development of indicators of sustainable development.International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology ,2 .
Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The
Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
Moffat, S. & Campbell, E. (1998) Vision, Tools and Targets. Environmentally Sus-References 219

tainable Development Guidelines for Southeast False Creek. The Sheltair Group-
Iinc. Submitted to Central Area Planning, City of Vancouver, 18 April.
Montemurro, F. (2003) Il bilancio parla chiaro al cittadino. Il Sole 24 Ore , 27/01/
03.
Morris P. & Therivel R. (eds) (1995) , Methods of Environmental Impact Assess-
ment. UCL Press, London.
Musgrave, R. A. (1995) Finanza pubblica, equita Á, democrazia. Il Mulino, Bologna.
Nanariello, G. (2000) Environmental Management and Sustainable Development ,
EUR 19721 EN.
Nasar, J. L. (1990) The evaluative image of the city. Apa journal , 41.
Nath, V., Heans, L. & Devuyst, D. (eds) (1996) Sustainable Development . VUB
Press, Brussels.
Nattrass, B. & Altomare, M. (1999) The Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology
and the Evolutionary Corporation. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,
USA.
Nattrass, B. & Altomare, M. (2002) Dancing with the Tiger: Learning Sustainability
Step by Natural Step. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, USA.
Neary, S.J., Symes, M.S. & Brown, F.E. (eds) (1994) The urban experience: a
people±environment perspective. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the
International Association for People±Environment Studies , Manchester, 13±15
July. E & FN Spon, London.
Nijkamp, P. (ed.) (1991) Urban Sustainability . Gower, Aldershot.
Nijkamp, P. (2003) Il ruolo della valutazione a supporto di uno sviluppo umano
sostenibile: una prospettiva cosmonomica. In: L'uomo e la citta Á(eds L. Fusco
Girard, B. Forte, M. Cerreta, P. De Toro & F. Forte), pp. 455±470. F. Angeli,
Milan.
Nijkamp, P. & Pepping, G. (1998) A meta-analytic evaluation of sustainable city
initiatives. Urban Studies , 35.
Nijkamp, P. & Perrels, A. (1994) Sustainable Cities in Europe: A Comparative
Analysis of Urban Energy and Environmental Policies. Earthscan, London.
Nijkamp, P. & Sponk, J. (1991) Multiple Criteria Analysis: Operational Methods.
Gower, Aldershot.
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. & Voogd, H. (1990) Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical
Planning. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Norgaard, R. & Howarth, R. (1991) Sustainability and discounting the future.
In:Ecological Economics (ed. R. Costanza). Columbia University Press, New
York.
Nuti, F. (1987) Analisi costi e benefici . Il Mulino, Bologna.
O'Conner, M. (1998) Ecological-economic sustainability. In: Valuation for Sus-
tainable Development (eds S. Faucheux & M. O'Conner). Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Odum, M.T. & Odum, E.C. (1980) Energy Basis for Man and Nature , McGraw Hill
Inc., New York.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1994) Report on
Environmental Indicators , OECD, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1997) Better
understanding our cities. The role of urban indicators. Head of Publications Ser-
vice, OECD, Paris.
Ombuen, S., Ricci, M. & Segalini O. (2000) I programmi complessi. Il Sole 24 Ore,
Milan.220 References

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Ott, W. R. (1978) Environmental Indexes: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbour Science,
Ann Arbor.
Palermo, P.C. (1992) Modelli di valutazione e forme di razionalita Á. In: Inter-
pretazioni dell'analisi urbanistica (ed. P. C. Palermo). Franco Angeli, Milano.
Palmer, J., Cooper, I. & van der Vost, R. (1997) Mapping out fuzzy buzzwords ±
who sits where on sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainable
Development , 5 (2).
Palmquist, R.B. (1991) Hedonic methods. In: Measuring the Demand of Environ-
mental Quality (eds J. Brandon & C. Kolstad). North Holland, Amsterdam.
Pearce, D. (1983) Cost Benefit Analysis. Macmillan, London.
Pearce, D. & Markandya, A. (1989) Environmental Policy Benefits: Monetary
Valuation , OECD, Paris.
Pearce, D. & Nash, C.A. (1981) The Social Appraisal of Project: A Text in Cost-
Benefit Analysis. Macmillan, London.
Pearce, D. & Turner, R. (1990) Economics of Natural Resources and the Environ-
ment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Pearce, D. & Warford, J. (1993) World Without End: Economic, Environment and
Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. & Barbier, E.B. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy.
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
Pettersen, T. D. (1999) ékoprofil for Nñringsbygg (Ecoprofile for Office Buildings) .
Norwegian Building Research Institute, January (reference document).
Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension . Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Porter, A. L., et al. (1980) A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact
Analysis. North Holland, New York.
Porter, G. (2000) quoted in Mawhinney, M. (2002) Sustainable Development.
Understanding the Green Debates. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Powell, J., Pearce, D. & Craighill, A. (1997) Approaches to valuation in LCA
impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 2 (1).
PreÂConsultants B.V. (1997) The new SimaPro 4 for windows . Amersfoort, The
Netherlands.
Prigogine, I. & Stenger, I. (1984) Order out of Chaos. Bantam, New York.
Prior, J. (ed.) (1993) Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment
Method, BREEAM, Version 1/93, New Offices. Building Research Establishment
Report, 2nd edn.
Prizzon, F. (1994) Gli investimenti immobiliari . Celid, Turin.
Pugh, C. (1996) Sustainability and sustainable cities. In: Sustainability, the
Environment and Urbanisation (ed. C. Pugh). Earthscan Publications Ltd,
London.
Pugliese, T. & Spaziante, A. (eds) (2003) Pianificazione strategica per le citta Á:
riflessioni dalle pratiche. Franco Angeli, Milan.
Rees, W. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity:
what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation , 4(2), 121±
130.
Repetto, R. (ed.) (1985) The Global Possible. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Repetto, R., McGrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C. & Rossini, F. (1989) Wasting assets:
natural resources in the national income accounts. World Resources Institute,
Washington DC.References 221

Rietveld, P. (1979) Multiple objective decision methods and regional planning.
Studies in Regional Science and Urban Economics , North-Holland, New York.
Robert, K-H. (2002) The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution. New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, USA.
Rodgers, R. (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. E & FN Spon, London.
Roscelli, R. (ed.) (1990) Misurare nell'incertezza. Celid, Turin.
Rosen, S. (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit market: product differentiation in
pure competition. Journal of Political Economy , 82, 34±55.
Rowe, D. (1991) Delphi ± a re-evaluation of research and theory. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change , 39, 235±251.
Roy, B. (1985) MeÁthodologie, multicrite Âre d'aide a Âla deÁcision. Economica, Paris.
Roy, B. & Bouyssou, D. (1993) Aide multicrite Áre aÁla deÁcision: me Áthods et cas.
Economica, Paris.
Ruddock L. (1992) Economics for Construction and Property. Edward Arnold,
London.
Ruddock, L. (ed.) (1999) Information support for building economics. Pro-
ceedings of the CIB-W55 Building Economics International Workshop , Salford, 1±5
September, CIB publication 210.
Rydin, Y. (1992) Environmental impacts and the property market. In: Sustain-
able Development and Urban Form (ed. M. Breheny). Earthscan Publications
Ltd, London.
Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision in a Complex World ,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. (1995) Decision Making for Leaders , Vol. II, AHP Series. RWS Pub-
lications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty. T. L. (1996) The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburg.
Saaty, T. L. & Vargas L. G. (1982) The Logic of Priorities, Applications in Business,
Energy, Health, Transportation. Kluwer-Nijhoff, The Hague.
Saaty, T. L. & Vargas, L. G. (1984) Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal
of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 205±214.
Scettri, M. (1999) La valutazione tassonomica. Rassegna italiana di valutazione
(13).
Schultz, J. (1996) What has Sustainability to do with Ethics? In: Sustainable
Development (eds V. Nath, L. Heans & D. Devuyst), pp.137±157. VUB Press,
Brussels.
Selman, P. (1995) Local sustainability. Town Planning Research , 66(3), 287±302.
Selman, P. (1996) Local Sustainability. Paul Chapman, London.
Selman, P. (2000) Environmental Planning. Sage, London.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline . Doubleday Publishers, New York.
Simin, D. (1999) Sustainability: a new vision for the British planning system. In:
Analisi e valutazione di programmi e progetti di sostenibilita Áurbana. Alcune
esperienze (ed. P. Lombardi). Urbanistica, (112) (in press).
Simon, H. A. (1947) Administrative Behaviour. The Macmillan Co., New York.
Simon, H. A. (1982) Models of bounded rationality , Vol.2. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Simonotti, M. (1997) La stima immobiliare. Utet, Turin.
Sirchia, G. (1997) The economic valuation of cultural heritage. In: Evaluation of
the Built Environment for Sustainability (eds P. S. Brandon, P. Lombardi & V.
Bentivegna), pp. 426±434. E & FN Spon, London.
Sirchia, G. (1998) La valutazione economica del patrimonio culturale. Carocci, Milan.222 References

Skitmore, M. (1989) Contract Bidding in Construction. Longman Group Ltd,
Hong Kong.
Smith, V. K. (1974) Technical Change, Relative Prices, and Environmental Resource
Evaluation . John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
SPARTACUS ± System for Planning and Research in Towns and Cities for
Urban Sustainability. Final Report. Submitted for approval to DG XII in
October, 1998. The Executive Summary appears illustrated at www.ltcon.fi/spartacus.
Spendolini, M. J. (1992) The Benchmarking Book. American Management Asso-
ciation, New York.
Stahel, W. (1996) The service economy: wealth without resource consumption?
Clean Technology: the Idea and Practice , Royal Society Discussion meeting, 29±
30 May, London.
Stanghellini, S. (ed.) (1995) La valutazione del piano: le istanze, gli approcci.
Urbanistica (105), 48±89.
Stanghellini, S. (ed.) (1996) Valutazione e processo di piano , INU (7). Allinea,
Florence.
Stanghellini, S. & Lombardi, P. (in press) Strategic planning and tools: the Swot
Analysis and the social reporting. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Strategic Planning and Environmental Governance, Ministry± FORMEZ, 29±30 November 2002, Rome.
Stanghellini, S. & Mambelli, T. (2001) Evaluation of strategic programs for the
local sustainable development: a case study. Proceedings of the 7th Joint Con-
ference on Food, Agriculture and the Environment , Kluwer Academic Press,
Dordrecht.
Stanghellini, S. & Stellin, G. (1996) Politiche di Riqualificazione delle Aree
Metropolitane: domanda di valutazione e contributo delle discipline eco-nomico-estimative. Proceedings of the XXVI CeSET Seminar , Milan, 17±18
October, pp.34±52.
Stanner, D. & Bourdeau, P. (eds) (1995) The urban environment. In: Europe's
Environment: The Dobris Assessment, pp.261±296. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen.
Stellin, G. & Rosato, P. (1998) La valutazione economica dell'ambiente , CLUP,
Turin.
Stone, P. A. (1989) Development and planning economy. E & F Spon, London.
Stoner, J. A. F. & Wanke, C. (1986) Management . Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Strauss, D. F. M. (1984) An Analysis of the Structure of Analysis. Philosophia
Reformata , 49, 35±56.
Strauss, D.F.M. (1995) The significance of Dooyeweerd's philosophy for the
modern natural sciences. In: Christian Philosophy at the Close of the Twentieth
Century (eds S. Griffioen & B. Balk), pp.127±138. Uitgeverij, Kampen.
Strijbos, S. (1997) Wisdom, ethics, and information technology: some philo-
sophical reflections. System Practice , 10(4), 443±457.
SWEHOL, (1996) Managing our technological society. Proceedings of the Second
Working Conference, Priorij Emmaus, Maarssen, April 15±19.
Therivel R. (1998) Strategic environmental assessment of development plans in
Great Britain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review , 18(1).
Therivel, R. & Partidario, M.R. (1996) (eds.) The Practice of Strategic Environ-
mental Assessment. Earthscan, London.References 223

Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D. & Pritchard, D. (1992)
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan, London.
Thompson, P. (1991) The client role in project management. Project Management ,
9(2), 9092.
Toffler, A. (1985) Future Shock. Pan, London.
Turner, R. K. (ed.) (1988) Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and
Practice. Westview Press, Boulder.
UNCED ± United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(1992) Earth Summit 92 (Agenda 21 ). Regency Press, London.
UNCHS ± United Nations Conference on Human Settlement (1996) The Indi-
cators Programme: Monitoring Human Settlements for the Global Plan of Action.
Paper at United Nations Conference on Human Settlement (Habitat II),
Istanbul, June.
UNCHS ± United Nations Conference on Human Settlement (2001) The State of
the World's Cities Report . New York, 6±8 June http://www/unchs.org/
istambul+5/statereport.htm
UNCHS ± United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (HABITAT) (2001)
Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report on Human Settlement. Earth-
scan Publications, London. www.un.org/ga/istambul+5/globalreport
UNCSD ± United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (1996) CSD
Working List of Indicators. United Nations Division for Sustainable Develop-
ment, ttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/worklist.htm.
United Nations (1995) Work Programme of Indicators of Sustainable Development of
the Commission on Sustainable Development. Paper by United Nations
Department for Policy Coordinator and Sustainable Development.
United Nations (2001) Report on the State of the Indicators of Sustainable
Development. 9th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Develop-
ment, 16±17 April, New York.
Vale, B. & Vale, R. (1993) Building the sustainable environment. In: Planning for
a Sustainable Environment (ed. A. Blowers). Earthscan Publications Ltd,
London.
van Pelt, M. J. F. (1994) Ecological Sustainability and Project Appraisal. Averbury,
Aldershot.
Viviani, M. (2002) Il bilancio sociale in ambiente pubblico. In: Il Bilancio Sociale
(ed. L. Hinna). Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan.
Voogd, H. (1983) Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. Pion,
London.
Voogd, H. (1995) Environmental management of social dilemmas. European
Spatial Research and Policy, 2, 5±16.
Voogd, H. (1998) The communicative ideology and ex ante planning evalua-
tion. In: Evaluation in Planning (eds N. Lichfield, A Barbanente, D. Borri, A.
Khakee & A. Prat), pp.113±126. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. (1995) Our Ecological Footprint. New Society
Publishers, Philadelphia.
Wackernagel, M., McIntosh, J., Rees, W. & Woollard, R. (1993) How Big is Our
Ecological Footprint? A Handbook for Estimating a Community's AppropriatedCarrying Capacity. Taskforce on Planning Healthy and Sustainable Commu-
nities, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Wakely, P. & You, N. (2001) Implementing the Habitat Agenda: In Search of Urban
Sustainability. Development Planning Unit, University College, London.224 References

Walras, L. (1954) Elements of Pure Economics (trans. W. Jaffe). American Eco-
nomic Association and Royal Economic Society, London.
Warner, M. L. & Preston, E. H. (1984), Review of Environmental Impact Assessment
Methodologies. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
Waters, B. (1995) Christian theological resources for environmental ethics.
Biodiversity and Conservation , 4, 849±856.
WCED (Brundtland Commission) (1987) Our Common Future. United Nations,
New York.
Wegener, M. (1994) Operational urban model: state of the art. Journal of the
American Planning Association , 60(1), 17±29.
William, P., Anderson, P. & Kanaroglou, E. (1996) Urban form, energy and the
environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban Studies , 33(1).
Willis, K., Beale, N., Calder, N. & Freer D. (1993) Paying for Heritage: What Price
Durham Cathedral? Countryside Change Unit Working Paper 43, London.
Winfield, M. & Basden, A. (1996) An ontologically based method for know-
ledge elicitation. In: Managing the Technological Society: The Next Century's
Challenge to O.R . SWOT: Proceedings of the International Conference of the
Swedish Operations Research Society, 1±3 October, University of Lulea,
Sweden, pp.72±93.
Winpenny, J. T. (1991) Values for the environment. HMSO, London.
Witte, J. (ed.) (1985) Herman Dooyeweerd: A Christian Theory of Social Institutions.
The Herman Dooyeweerd Foundation, Canada.
Wood, C. (1995) The Environmental Assessment of Plans, Programmes and Policies:
A Comparative Review . EIA Centre, Planning and Landscape Department,
University of Manchester.
Zavadskas, E., Peldschus, F. & Kaklauskas, A. (1994) Multiple Criteria Evaluation
of Projects in Construction. Vilniaus Technikos Universitetas, Russia.
Zeleny, M. (1994) In search of cognitive equilibrium: beauty, quality and har-
mony. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis , 3, 3±13.
Zeppetella, A. (1995) Retorica per l'ambiente . Angeli, Milan.
Zeppetella, A. (1997) Environmental assessment in land use planning: a
rhetorical approach. In: Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability
(eds P. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna), pp.344±362. E & FN Spon,London.
Zeppetella, A., Bresso, M. & Gamba, G. (1992) Valutazione ambientale e processi
decisionali. La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Rome.
Websites
http://www.basden. demon.co.uk/Dooy/summary.html
http:// www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/sustainable_development/progress
http://crisp.cstb.fr
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostathttp://hutchinson@snw.org.uk
http://iisd.ca/measure/compendium.asp
http://iiSustainable Development.ca/measure/faqs.htmhttp://www.research.scpm.salford.ac.uk.bqextra
http://www.scci.salford.ac.uk/intelcityReferences 225

http://urbanobservatory.org/indicators
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/bees.html
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicatorshttp://www.co.pierce.wa.us/services/family/benchmrk/gol.htmhttp://www.eea.eu.int
http://esl.jrc.it/envind/index.htm
http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/epsim/indics/http://www.fsv.edu/~cpm/safe/safelis.html
http://www.iiSustainable Development1.ca/measure/bellagio1htm
http://www.inforegio.org/urban/audit/index.htmlhttp://www.johannesburgsummit.org
http://www.kolumbus.fi/stoivan/Ko Èln.htm.
http://www.meap.co.uk/meap/MEPLAN.htmhttp://www.miniambiente.it
http://www.neweconomics.org
http://www.ocse.org/env/indicators/index.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/statistics/http://www.olywa.net/roundtable
http://www.planum.net/topics/main/m-hab-documents-bbr.htm
http://www.progress.org/progsum/progsum.htmlhttp://www.rsc.salford.ac.uk/bqextra/toolkit)
http://www.scn.org/sustainable/susthome.html
http://www.survery.ac.uk/CES/ee.htmhttp://www.Sustainable Development-commission.gov.uk
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/ecbig/gdp.htm
http://www.unchs.org/programmes/guohttp://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/guo_guide.asphttp://www.un.org/Depts/unSustainable Development/
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/indi6.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/iSustainable Development.htmhttp://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/worklist.htm
http://www.unchs.org/gua/gui/guide.html
http://www.unchs.org/org/guo/gui/guide.htmlhttp://www.unep.ch/earthw/indstat.htm
http://www.unicef.org/pon98
http://www.vtt.fi/cic/eco/eng_prop.htmhttp://www.vtt.fi/yki/yki6/master/master.htm
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/sow98
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/us/us98http://www2.upc.es/ciec/226 References

The authors
Though the book is the integrated result of a joint effort by the two
authors, Peter Brandon is mainly responsible for Chapters 1, 3, 7 and 8and Patrizia Lombardi has written Chapters 4, 5, 6 and Appendix A.Chapter 2 they have developed together.References 227

Index
Note: page numbers in italics refer to figures or tables
`3Ls' concept, 70±71
`4E model', 116, 117
aesthetic modality, 88, 93, 179
Agenda 21 (UNCED), 4, 5, 7, 12, 44±6, 69,
125, 141
analytical modality, 85±6, 94±5, 179
assessment, seeenvironmental, assessment
ATEQUE classification system, 19±20
Basden, Andrew, 176, 177
BEQUEST European Network, viiibiological modality, 84±5, 95, 179
Boulding, Elise, 70
Brand, Stewart, 56±7Brown, Patricia Fortini, 69
Brundtland, Gro Harlem, 12
Brundtland Commission (World
Commission on Environment and
Development), 12±13
Brundtland Report ( Our Common Future ),
12±13, 32, 59, 90, 125
Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method(BREEAM), 126, 135±6, 138
built capital, 30, 31
Bush, George W., 4
business
advantages in long-term views, 68±69and sustainability issues, 29
case studies, 100, 101±102, 118±20, see also
Modena City strategic plan; Muggiaurban regeneration scheme; Turin
municipal waste treatment system
Checkland, Peter, 153±4cities
and entropy model, 57±9
environmental impact, 9, 88life-cycle analysis, 64, 65
planning strategies, 76, 113
policy and implementation, 166±7stakeholders in, 15
value systems in, 14±15
see also urban regeneration; Vancouver
study
`Cities PLUS', seeVancouver study
Clock of the Long Now, The (Brand), 56±7
228

Club of Rome, 150
co-evolutionary interdependence, 75±6
communicative modality, 86±7, 94, 179community capital, 30, 31, 32±3, 36, 138
community impact evaluation (CIE), 135, 138
computer-based models, 126
conservation, 2, 8construction industry, 10, 11, 84
contingent valuation method (CVM),
129±30, 138
Cooper, Rachel, 23
`Cosmonomic Idea of Reality'
(Dooyeweerd), 78±9, 80, 173, 175±80, see
alsomodalities
cost-benefit analysis (CBA), 125, 126, 128±9,
138
credal modality, 90±91, 92, 179critical failure points, 61, 63±4
cybernetics, 175, 176
data capture, 41±2, 46, 164
de Raadt, J. Donald R., 175, 176, 177, 179±80
decision-making
and co-evolutionary interdependence,
75±6
and future aversion, 68±9and generations-based perspective, 70and multi-modal framework, 78±9, 83,
91±2, 97
and value systems, 36±7time horizons, 25
demographic change, 169
developing nations, seeThird World
discounted cash flow analysis, 128
dockland developments, 60±61
Dooyeweerd, Herman, 77, 78, 173, 175, 176,
179
driving force±state±response model, 44, 46,
47
ecological footprint
and decision-making, 36
and multi-modal framework, 84calculating, 38±9
of buildings, 34±5
of countries, 34
of individuals, 33, 34
economic evaluation, 66±8, 69
economic modality, 87±8, 93, 179educationand multi-modal framework, 85±6, 95, 99
and planning, 150±51
and value systems, 59
embodied energy, 33entropy model, 57±59
environmental assessment
and `measurement', 17, 22and multi-modal framework, 138
and value systems, 17±18
classification of methods, 125
computer-based models, 126
directory of methods, 123±36
`environment in general' (pre-Brundtland)
methods, 125, 126, 127, 128±32, 138, 139
life-cycle (post-Brundtland) methods, 125,
126, 127±8, 133±6, 138, 139
Natural Step framework, 28of ecological footprint, 35, 126
potential for sustainable development,
121±122
principles, 18
environmental capital, 138
environmental impact analysis (EIA),
103±104, 126, 133, 134, 138, 141
epistemic modality, 179
equity: and multi-modal framework, 90ethical investment, 69ethical modality, 90, 92±93, 179
European Commission
SEA directive (2001/42/CE), 134, 138, 141
see also structural indicators (European
Commission)
evaluation `tool-kits', 121, 140
Fifth Discipline, The (Senge), 151, 174
financial capital, 30, 31
Forum for the Future, 29
Francescato, Guido, 17, 122
future aversion, 68±9`future shock', 56±7
Global Urban Indicators Database 2
(GUID2), 51
globalisation, 1, 169
Gordon, Alex, 70±71
Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators
(Hart), 30, 31
Habitat Agenda: key areas of commitment,
47,48±9, 50±51Index 229

Habitat II (United Nations International
Conference on Human Settlements
1996), 5
Hart, Maureen, 30, 31
hedonic pricing method (HPM), 126, 130±31,
138
historical modality, 86, 94, 179human capital, 30, 31, 32, 118, 138
indicators
and assessment techniques, 18±19
and data capture, 41±2
driving force±state±response framework,
44,46,4 7
essential features, 39±40
for sustainability, 41imbalances in, 115interpretation, 53
selection of, 43, 44, 53, 115
social indicators (CSD working list), 47
traditional, 40±41
United Nations, 44±5, 47, 53, 115
see also structural indicators (European
Commission)
inflation: and investment, 67
information technology (IT), 126, 152, 163±6institutional capital, 138
Intelcity Roadmap ± version 4, 19±20
interest rates, 67±8
Internet, 41,152, 164investment
and inflation, 67
and interest rates, 67±8and multi-modal framework, 88
and time horizons, 72
cyclical pattern, 60,6 1
ethical, 69
in research, 9
timescales, 55, 56
Istanbul + 5 (United Nations General
Assembly Special Session 2001), 51
juridical modality, 89, 93, 179kinematics modality, 83, 96, 179
knowledge grids, 152, 164Kohler, Niklaus, 64, 65
Kyoto Protocol, 4, 6,7
Le Moigne, Jean-Louis, 175, 176learning organisations, 65±6, 71, 151±3, 174
life-cycle (post-Brundtland) assessment
methods, 75, 125, 126, 127±8, 133±6, 138,
139
lifestyle issues
in developed world, 33±4
Third World aspirations, 34, 72±3
long-term planning
business advantages, 68±9
as moral imperative, 1
Lowry, The, 62,63
management
and democracy, 146, 147, 150
and human development, 145
and individual freedom, 148±9and regulatory framework, 149±50decision-making, 23±4
definitions, 22, 144
framework, 16±17in learning organisations, 151±3
process protocols, 154±60
soft system methodology, 153±4timescales, 22
`measurement' and `assessment', 17, 122
`method uncertainty', 105modalities
and retrospective analysis, 112
and urban development, 80±82
as `idioms', 179modal laws, 78, 177, 178
multi-level perspective, 175
proposed definitions for sustainable
development, 79
relationships between, 178, 179
`working list', 179see also multi-modal framework; multi-
modal system thinking
Modena City strategic plan (case study),
113±14
moral imperatives, 1, 8, 68
Muggia urban regeneration scheme (case
study), 107±12
multi-criteria analysis (MCA), 104±107, 126,
131±2, 138, 139
multi-modal framework
and assessment methods, 138
and construction industry, 84
and ecological footprint, 84and education, 85±6, 95, 99230 Index

and quality of life, 85, 86
and retrospective analysis, 102, 109±12
and strategic axes, 117, 118, 119
and urban environment, 80±82, 88, 96as `tool-kit', 140
critique of MCA, 106
development, 91, 96, 98key questions, 92
social reporting of Modena City, 119
theoretical structure, 78±9, 83, 101
multi-modal system thinking, 175
municipal waste: European statistics, 103
natural capital, 30, 31±2
Natural Step, 27±9, 30, 36
non-renewable resources
and construction, 11foreseeing future requirements, 3
numerical modality, 83, 96, 179
operational modality, 179
Our Common Future ,seeBrundtland Report
participatory democracy, 113±14
`pay back' model, 68performance indicators, 116±17, 118
physical modality, 84, 95, 179
planning
and juridical modality, 89
controls, 149±50
stakeholder participation in, 59SUSPLAN project, 149, 150
`polluter pays' principle, 35
Porritt, Jonathon, 29post-Brundtland (life-cycle) assessment
methods, 125, 126, 127±8, 133±6, 138, 139
pre-Brundtland (`environment in general')
assessment methods, 125, 126, 127,128±32, 138, 139
pressure groups, 1
Process Protocol generic model, 23, 155,
156±9
process protocols, 23, 154±60
quality of life
and community capital, 32
and critical failure points, 63±4and multi-modal framework, 85, 86
research
agenda, 173±4investment in, 9
on assessment methods, 142
Rio Earth Summit (United Nations
Conference on Environment andDevelopment 1992), 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 45
Rio + 10 Conference (United Nations World
Summit on Sustainable Development2002), 1, 7
risk
assessment, 66future aversion, 68±9
management, 64
Robert, Karl-Henrick, 27, 29
Salford Quays, 60±61, 62
Scholes, Jim, 153±4SEA directive (2001/42/CE), 134, 138, 141
Senge, Peter, 65±6, 151, 152, 174
sensitive modality, 85, 95, 179
SLEPT, 9social analysis, 128
social capital, 30, 31
social indicators (CSD working list), 47
social modality, 87, 94, 179
social reporting, 114, 115, 116, see also
Modena City strategic plan
soft system methodology, 153±4Soft Systems Methodology in Action
(Checkland & Scholes), 153, 154
spatial modality, 83, 96, 179sphere sovereignty, 177, 178
stakeholders
and inertia, 59and participatory democracy, 114
and time horizons, 72
in city environment, 15in Muggia urban regeneration scheme, 109
influence on built environment, 19±20
levels of interest over time, 55±6
State of the World's Cities Report 2001 ,5 2
strategic axes, 116, 117, 118, 119
strategic environmental assessment (SEA),
134, 138, 141
strategic planning, seeModena City strategic
plan
structural indicators (European
Commission)
candidate countries, 188±9
definitions, sources, availability and
policy objectives, 198±204Index 231

indicators under development, 189±97
principles, 184±5
proposals, 185±8
SUSPLAN project, 149, 150
sustainable development (definitions), 9,
12±13
`temporal exhaustion', 70
Third World
and information technology, 166aspirations, 34, 72±3
Three Gorges Dam, 163
time
and future values, 68
and political pressures, 127
future aversion, 68±9kairos and chronos, 69
time horizons, 3, 25, 54, 72
timescales
and cultural change, 56±7and investment, 55, 56
for assessing sustainability, 54±5, 127
for management, 22for urban regeneration, 64, 65, 127
generational, 70
in decision-making, 15stakeholder levels of interest, 55±6Vancouver plan, 71, 167±72
`tool-kits', 121, 140
total cost accounting, 35travel cost method (TCM), 131, 138
`triple bottom line' approach, 114
Turin municipal waste treatment, system
(case study), 102±107
United Nations
Centre for Human Settlements report,
51±2Commission on Sustainable Development
indicators, 44±5, 47
Conference on Environment and
Development 1992 (Rio Earth Summit),1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 45, see also Agenda 21
General Assembly Special Session 2001
(Istanbul + 5), 51
International Conference on Human
Settlements 1996 (Habitat II), 5
World Summit on Sustainable
Development 2002 (Rio + 10), 1, 7
urban regeneration, 64, 65, 102, 127, 146, see
alsoMuggia urban regeneration scheme
value systems
and assessment techniques, 17±18and community capital, 31and education, 59
and information technology, 165
and value systems, 36±7in city environment, 14±15
interdependency, 15
shared, 13see also Natural Step
Vancouver study, 71, 167±72, 173
Venice and Antiquity (Brown), 69
waste disposal, 147, see also Turin municipal
waste treatment system
World Commission on Environment and
Development (Brundtland
Commission), 12±13
world congresses, 1, 4, 5±7232 Index