A Relational Indicatorset Model for urban land-use planning and management: Methodological approach and application in two case studies

Urban land-use planning and management are in constant mutation throughout the world. With sustainability as the goal, the use of indicators for land auditing and monitoring is becoming more and more in demand. Classical approaches elaborate core sets of indicators by picking the most relevant elements in exhaustive lists. More recently, a few structured research approaches consider the set of indicators as a whole, following the concepts of systemics, and so highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the sets. Starting from the principle that the relevance of an indicator is due not only to its intrinsic qualities, but also to its placement and relationships with the other indicators in the collection, this paper proposes a systemic method, named Relational Indicatorset Model (RIM), for the elaboration of a set of indicators for management support. The RIM method starts with the a priori definitions of the goals and users’ purpose (RIM-objectives), and then chooses indicators to reflect the objectives on representing the distribution of indicators in a relational graph (RIM graph). The graph modeling allows analyzing the match between the indicatorset and the defined objectives, as well as the interrelationships between the indicators. The analysis is made easier by breaking down the RIM graph following two projections: the first one (RIM-4D) highlights the distribution of the indicators in a multidimensional graph with respect to the objectives; the second one (RIM-IR) focuses on the interrelationships and offers the possibility of formalizing the causal interactions and the aggregational relationships between the indicators, following a qualitative approach. The RIM is applied to the design of sets of spatial and non-spatial indicators for the cities of Thies (Senegal) and of Geneva (Switzerland) to emphasize the potential of the method. It opens up interesting possibilities for application to all sets of indicators for sustainable land-use development. It also contributes to the creation of observatories for city management, instruments used to monitor and control the urban sustainable development. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  John Stillwell,et al.  Planning Support Systems: An Introduction , 2003 .

[2]  J. Stillwell,et al.  Interactive Support Systems for Participatory Planning , 2003 .

[3]  S. Bell,et al.  Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? , 1999 .

[4]  Hannes Palang,et al.  Holistic landscape ecology in action , 2000 .

[5]  P. Newman Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model , 1999 .

[6]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21 , 2002 .

[7]  D. Bryant,et al.  Environmental indicators : a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development , 1995 .

[8]  Jean-Claude Bolay,et al.  Quel sens au « développement durable » dans l'urbanisation du tiers monde? , 2000 .

[9]  Zev Naveh,et al.  What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction , 2000 .

[10]  John Stillwell,et al.  Planning Support Systems in Practice , 2003 .

[11]  Patrick Le Galès,et al.  Regulations and Governance in European Cities , 1998 .

[12]  Roland Prélaz-Droux,et al.  An Urban Monitor as support for a participative management of developing cities , 2003 .

[13]  Karl Birkhölzer,et al.  Local economic development , 1999 .

[14]  Martin Kaupenjohann,et al.  Derivation of ecosystemic effect indicators — method , 2000 .

[15]  I. Malkina-Pykh Integrated assessment models and response function models: pros and cons for sustainable development indices design , 2002 .

[16]  Z. Naveh Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes , 2001 .

[17]  F. Luz Participatory landscape ecology: A basis for acceptance and implementation , 2000 .

[18]  Marino Bonaiuto,et al.  Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome , 2003 .

[19]  Kari Lautso,et al.  The SPARTACUS System for Defining and Analysing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Policies , 2003 .

[20]  Michael Pacione,et al.  Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective , 2003 .

[21]  Marc Soutter,et al.  System for Monitoring Urban Functionalities (SMURF): Instrument, Method, and Application , 2004 .

[22]  Bongkoo Lee,et al.  A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life , 2000 .

[23]  M. Campagna GIS for Sustainable Development , 2005 .

[24]  Ludwig von Bertalanffy,et al.  General System Theory , 1969 .

[25]  Irene van Kamp,et al.  Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study , 2003 .

[26]  Florent Joerin,et al.  GIS and participatory diagnosis in urban planning: a case study in Geneva. , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Batty,et al.  NCGIA National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Locational Models , Geographic Information , and Planning Support Systems , 2022 .

[28]  S. P. Tjallingii,et al.  Ecopolis: Strategies for ecologically sound urban development , 1995 .

[29]  Shu-li Huang,et al.  A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei's urban sustainability , 1998 .

[30]  Florent Joerin,et al.  Information et participation pour l'aménagement du territoire - Rôle des instruments d'aide à la décision , 2001, Rev. Int. Géomatique.