Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development (CAMSUD) - A New Multi-Criteria System for Planning, Evaluation and Decision-Making

Abstract This paper reports on the newly developed multi-criteria urban sustainability system CAMSUD (version 1.0) including the theoretical and analytical process underlying its development. CAMSUD stands for Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development. First, an extensive comparative analysis of five well-known urban rating systems is reported: CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities, DGNB-NSQ and Green Star Communities. These rating systems are selected based on their widespread use, their numerous parallels in content, but also contrasting features, which give clear evidence on consensual and non-consensual items related to sustainability understanding and implementation. The analysis items revolved around their development drive, conceptualization, domain of applicability, technical content, practicality, measurability, and certification. Hence, this comparison identified the convergences and divergences of these systems and their potential for further optimization in view of highlighted strengths and weaknesses. Based on that analysis, the second part of the paper depicts the first version (1.0) of CAMSUD, including: 1. the prevailing key concepts in its development as well as its 40 compliance criteria structured in 8 thematic categories; 2. the logic chain of criteria interactions and their effects on an appropriate measuring and scoring. 3. the linkage between CAMSUD and the German sustainability-related legislation (laws, acts, standards and guidelines) as proof of compliance, and 4. the comparative analysis of a database consisting of 160 sustainable urban projects using CAMSUD 1.0 in order 1) to illustrate the handling of urban sustainability in practice and 2) to demonstrate its practical usability and to assess the current version for possible optimization. The motivation for and the outcome of CAMSUD is also to serve as a theoretical basis for a computational decision-making tool to be developed (ECAMSUD), which peculiarity is to manage topic, scale and time related criteria interactions responsible in probable redundancy or failure in scoring. By this means, CAMSUD strives to offer an alternative for a transparent and traceable framework for self-critical analysis and compromise finding when handling complex and cross-disciplinary urban development processes.

[1]  Emmanuel Rey.  Nachhaltige Quartiere. Herausforderungen und Chancen für die urbane Entwicklung , 2011 .

[2]  Patrizia Lombardi,et al.  Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment , 2005 .

[3]  Spatial quantification and pattern analysis of urban sustainability based on a subjectively weighted indicator model: A case study in the city of Saskatoon, SK, Canada , 2014 .

[4]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  A practical approach for estimating weights of interacting criteria from profile sets , 2015, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[5]  William E. Rees,et al.  Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out , 1992 .

[6]  Ling Zhang,et al.  City sustainability evaluation using multi-criteria decision making with objective weights of interdependent criteria , 2016 .

[7]  Appu Haapio,et al.  Towards sustainable urban communities , 2012 .

[8]  Adil Baykasoglu,et al.  An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP , 2016, Expert Syst. Appl..

[9]  Tan Yigitcanlar,et al.  Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach , 2015 .

[10]  Julie Brown,et al.  Benchmarking sustainability in cities: The role of indicators and future scenarios , 2012 .

[11]  C. Turcu.  Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability , 2013 .

[12]  M. Santamouris,et al.  Urban Climate Mitigation Techniques , 2016 .

[13]  Arend Ligtenberg,et al.  A GIS-based support tool for sustainable spatial planning in metropolitan areas , 2007 .

[14]  Darryl J. Newport,et al.  Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities , 2013 .

[15]  Joan Marull,et al.  Emerging megaregions: A new spatial scale to explore urban sustainability , 2013 .

[16]  R. Kasperson,et al.  A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  D. Geneletti,et al.  Sustainability principles in strategic environmental assessment: A framework for analysis and examples from Italian urban planning , 2013 .

[18]  Robert W. Kates,et al.  From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science: Ideas and Practice , 2012 .

[19]  Rahul B. Hiremath,et al.  Indicator-based urban sustainability—A review , 2013 .

[20]  M. Bovea,et al.  Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context , 2015 .

[21]  Julio J. Ochoa,et al.  The application of urban sustainability indicators – A comparison between various practices , 2011 .

[22]  Wilhelm Kuttler,et al.  Climate Change on the Urban Scale – Effects and Counter-Measures in Central Europe , 2012 .

[23]  Jianguo Wu.  Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes , 2013, Landscape Ecology.

[24]  Billie Turner,et al.  Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? , 2010 .

[25]  Emmanuel Rey,et al.  An indicator system for the assessment of sustainability integrated into the project dynamics of regeneration of disused urban areas , 2015 .

[26]  S. Kumar,et al.  Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low carbon and climate resilient low income housing settlements , 2014 .

[27]  Akito Murayama,et al.  Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan , 2014 .

[28]  Jianguo Wu.  Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions , 2014 .

[29]  Alena Bleicher,et al.  Spatially explicit computation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessment of land-use options , 2013 .

[30]  A. Reith,et al.  Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability , 2015 .

[31]  Catalina Turcu,et al.  Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching Housing Market Renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods , 2012 .

[32]  Mathis Wackernagel,et al.  Natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept , 1999 .

[33]  J. Spangenberg.  Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons , 2011, Environmental Conservation.

[34]  D. Moran,et al.  Measuring sustainable development - Nation by nation , 2008 .

[35]  K. Mori,et al.  Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI) , 2012 .

[36]  M. Lundin,et al.  A life cycle assessment based procedure for development of environmental sustainability indicators for urban water systems , 2002 .

[37]  Daniel L. Childers,et al.  Advancing urban sustainability theory and action: Challenges and opportunities , 2014 .

[38]  Piet Rietveld,et al.  Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade , 2007 .

[39]  Tan Yigitcanlar,et al.  A parcel-scale assessment tool to measure sustainability through urban ecosystem components: The MUSIX model , 2014 .

[40]  M. Alberti,et al.  Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Studying Urban Ecosystems , 2003 .

[41]  Ayyoob Sharifi,et al.  A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools , 2013 .

[42]  Marta Carla Bottero,et al.  The application of a Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support System (MCSDSS) for the assessment of biodiversity conservation in the Province of Varese (Italy) , 2013 .