Prioritizing Sustainability Criteria in Urban Planning Processes: Methodology Application Holger Wallbaum1; Sabrina Krank2; and Rolf Teloh3
Abstract: Since the beginning of the sustainability debate approximately 20 years ago, all parties involved in the urban planning process have been expected to devise sustainable solutions to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Potential to include sustainability criteria is present in the strategic planning stage and during the initial studies of a project. However, instruments available at these early stages are rare and show numerous weaknesses. The present study intends to close this gap by developing an instrument for the prioritization of sustainability criteria in urban planning processes. It is based on the Sustainable Building Tool 07 (SBTool 07), a comprehensive and wellestablished tool for the assessment of sustainability of construction projects, key issues pertaining to the initial planning stages are identified via a materiality matrix—a method established for corporate sustainability reporting. The resulting method has been tested in a competition in the Icelandic city of Reykjavík. Results include a materiality matrix on stakeholder priorities and the relevance of criteria to sustainability across the life cycle as well as a core set of 19 criteria to be addressed in Reykjavík. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000038. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings: Sustainable development; Planning; Methodology; Assessment; Urban development. Author keywords: Sustainable development; Planning; Methodology; Assessment; Urban development.
Introduction Aspiring to install a concept of sustainable development has now become broadly accepted. However, although in recent years, governments have embedded the concept of sustainable development into their constitutions, promulgating countless targets and approving national strategies, and although the business sector has entered into agreements and obligations, the progress achieved with regard to the implementation of sustainable development can only be described as very hesitant (Sanders and Eskridge 1993; Lafferty 2006; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). In the field of urban planning too, all parties involved are now expected to devise sustainable solutions for the challenges of the 21st century (Norman et al. 2006). The realities of the urban planning process, however, also clearly demonstrate how difficult it is in practice to implement sustainable development as an objective. On a global basis, the number of failed initiatives considerably exceeds examples of good practice available (WRI 2003; MEA 2005; Miller et al. 2008). Also, there seems to be a consensus that the challenges involved in achieving sustainable urban development (SUD) are increasing significantly 1 Chair of Sustainable Construction, Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: wallbaum@ ibi.baug.ethz.ch 2 Ph.D. Student, Chair of Sustainable Construction, Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 15, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail:
[email protected] 3 Founder and Principal, Urban Essences–Architecture and City Planning, Sophienstrasse 17, 10178 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: rolf.teloh@ urban-essences.com Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 27, 2009; approved on April 12, 2010; published online on May 7, 2010. Discussion period open until August 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 137, No. 1, March 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488/2011/1-20–28/$25.00.
as our cities grow in population and spatial extension and as their economic and political instability increases (Tiwari 2003; Daigger 2007; Lee and Chan 2008). It is not surprising that in the past few years, urban development is increasingly no longer regarded as the exclusive domain of the public authorities (Nunn 2004; Tam et al. 2009). Furthermore, decisions of the legislature agree with those of relevant stakeholders on a local and regional level (Seiss 2007). In Freeman’s classical definition, a stakeholder is defined as an actor that “can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984). In the case of urban planning, this organization appears mainly in the form of a municipality. Stakeholders in urban planning are numerous and highly fragmented (Oreszczyn and Lane 2000; Tam et al. 2009). The concept of stakeholders covers a wide range of parties, such as investors, nongovernmental organizations, the economy, designers, venders, suppliers, tourists, and inhabitants. It is often difficult to integrate the attitudes of different actors into a single solution because of conflicting interests, diverging backgrounds, a lack of information, and poor management strategies (Henry and Paris 2009). However, planning for sustainability in the public sector requires the inclusion of a broad range of actors in the process as, “sustainability is such a value-laden and context-sensitive concept” (Maclaren 1996). A major concern of sustainability planning should thus be to obtain input on concerns and priorities from a broad range of actors. In the corporate sector too, the use of stakeholder dialogue and stakeholder management are assuming ever greater importance (O’Connor and Spangenberg 2008; Roloff 2008; Welford et al. 2008). Yet, the business sector often perceives stakeholders as the origin of conflict rather than as a valuable contributor to solutions. The generic strategies for dealing with stakeholders are classified by most writers by terms such as “monitor,” “inform,” “satisfy,” and “cooperate,” the latter only recommended if power and level of interest of stakeholders is high (Freeman 1984; Savage et al. 1991; Johnson et al. 2006).
20 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
In the business sector, publication of a sustainability report is an increasingly popular phenomenon to supplement or complement reports that are already published, such as the financial report. The introduction of the reporting guidelines by the United Nations Global Reporting Initiative (UNEP GRI) allowed for a uniform set of aspects to be reported upon (content, quality, and boundary), and to be achieved with regard to both quantitative and qualitative factors (GRI 2007). In practice, however, it would be useful if the large number of aspects taken into account were to be displayed in order of priority. Therefore, a materiality matrix, setting the key performance indicators for evaluation, is utilized (Ford Motor Company 2007; E. on AG 2008; Holcim Group 2008; GE 2010; Intel Corporation 2009). Companies compiling a sustainability report for the first time or only employing a small number of people may find this approach extremely helpful. This particular method of presenting material aspects also makes sense for companies— and their stakeholders—with substantial experience in compiling reports, because the stakeholders are then able to compare the subjective estimation of a company with regard to its key commercial, ecological or social parameters of influence as presented by the company with their own estimations. This method is also useful because it enables expenses associated with the issuing of reports, and indeed the effort needed to read reports to be reduced, without diminishing the quality of the sustainability report. In the field of urban planning, no internationally standardized regulations exist comparable to sustainability reporting and the principle of the materiality matrix in the corporate sector—despite the general recommendations for sustainable urban planning (Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, European Charter for Solar Energy in Architecture and Urban Planning, and Charters of the Council for European Urbanism, Vancouver Ecodensity Initiative). Nevertheless, when it comes to SUD, the challenge lies in focusing on the essential aspects, so as to remain in a position to take action within an appropriate period of time, without losing sight of important issues, and maintaining a balanced view of the stakeholders’ interests. The method described in this article demonstrates the inclusion of stakeholders’ interests and focuses upon the essential aspects of SUD in an early stage of a project’s life cycle. It makes use of a materiality matrix traditionally applied in the corporate sector to prioritize sustainability criteria. The method developed has been tested in a competition for a large-scale urban planning project in the Icelandic city of Reykjavík.
Inclusion of Sustainable Development Principles in the Urban Planning Process Sustainable Urban Development from Different Perspectives If the concept of sustainability, as defined in the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), is applied to the urban setting, then this becomes what is known as SUD. In our understanding of SUD, we follow the definition of the Sustainable City Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in 2000: “The concept of sustainability as applied to a city, is the ability of the urban area and its region to continue to function at levels of quality of life desired by the community without restricting the options available to the present and future generations and causing adverse impacts inside and outside the urban boundary” (Brebbia et al. 2000). This definition places the quality of life of the inhabitants’ at center stage, as opposed to the preservation of the ecological or social fabric. By emphasizing the quality of life, the relevance of the stakeholders in the urban planning
process becomes clear: SUD must attempt to achieve the objectives set forth by the community, taking into account the interests of future generations. In terms of life-cycle management, SUD means that the entire life cycle of an urban site has to be managed sustainably from predesign, design, construction and commissioning, operation, maintenance, and refurbishment (Birkeland 2005; Yeang 2006). Life cycles can vary in time depending on specific urban situations. In addition to the scientific perspective on SUD, it is crucial to understand different stakeholders’ perspectives on the subject in this applied research. From the point of view of a municipality, (in this case, an urban planning authority), social justice, a highlevel of quality of life, and financial feasibility are the key issues of a SUD (Tseng et al. 2009). When acting in the field of SUD, developers of projects focus mainly on economic aspects (Nunn 2004). To date, other sustainability criteria, such as an environmentally friendly development, seldom seem to pay off (Hoffman and Henn 2008). The third party directly affected by SUD projects is the end-users: their understanding of SUD is mainly driven by personal interests, including affordable housing or office space, good connections with public transportation and other services, and a comfortable, healthy environment (Meins et al. 2010; Steemers and Manchanda 2010). A municipality, developers, and end-users can be defined as clients of a design project, depending on its layout and the phase that it is in. External stakeholders, including nonprofit organizations and residents, generally give priority to their individual interests. These actors are often more directly affected by projects and perceive risk in terms of frightening danger (Baum 2003; Cullingworth and Caves 2003). It becomes clear that the aims of different stakeholders are highly conflicting. Numerous disputes have been reported in literature (Cullingworth and Caves 2003; Brearley and Curry 2006; Kassab et al. 2006; Tam et al. 2009). It is thus critical to have an open discussion, to agree on the issue, and to prioritize objectives. Campbell reports that “negotiated conflict resolution can also lead to a better understanding of one’s opponent’s interests and values, and even of one’s own interests” (Campbell 2003). Planning Instruments toward Sustainable Urban Development During the past few years, countless and concentrated efforts have been undertaken to adapt existing planning instruments to the concept of sustainability and to develop new tools and processes to implement them. Advanced research attempted to include all three sustainability dimensions (ecological, financial, and social) into planning processes. Concerning the ecologically sustainable development of settlements, the focus of research has been on the life-cycle assessment of construction materials for housing, facilities, and roads, on the operation of buildings, as well as on transportation. See, for example, Ochoa et al. (2002); Junnila et al. (2006); Norman et al. (2006); Nemry and Uihlein (2008); Sharrard et al. (2008). Until now, financial sustainability has mainly been addressed in the form of life-cycle costing, e.g,. Warszawski (2003), often in combination with the development of decisionsupport instruments, [e.g., Ziara and Ayyub (1999); Juan et al. (2009)]. In the field of social sustainability, research projects focused in recent years in particular on stakeholder involvement (Martin 2008; Howard and Gaborit 2007; Tam et al. 2009). A number of methods and principles developed by research have already found their way into practice. Wallbaum (2008) lists a multitude of methods and tools for sustainable development used in practice. Table 1 shows the tools relating to their respective level
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 21
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 1. Construction-Related Methods and Tools for Sustainable Development, Differentiated by Level, (Adapted from Wallbaum 2008) Materials
Components
Buildings
Settlements
On an international level, no harmonized requirements or tools exist that are able to cover the strategic planning stage and the initial studies.
a
Ecoinvent (e) Bauteilkatalog (e, f) BREEAM (e, s) COMPASS (e, f, s) GaBia (e, f, s) BEES (e, f) CASBEE (e) GoSol (e) DGNB (e, f, s) SUNtool (e, f, s) ixbau (e, s) Ecoinventa (e) OGIP (e, f) ecosoft (e) EPIQR (e, f) Simapro (e) GaBi1 (e, f, s) Green star (e) HQE (e, s) Umbertoa (e, f) Minergie-ECO (e) OGIP (e, f) LEED (e, s) Simaproa (e) LEGEP (e, f) LEnSE (e, f, s) Umbertoa (e, f) OGIP (e, f) SBTool 07 (e, f, s) SNARC (e) Vitruvius (e, f) a
Not specifically developed for the construction sector.
of use and to the sustainability aspect addressed by each one. On the level of use, it can be distinguished between materials, components, buildings and settlements. The letters in brackets refer to the main emphasis of the dimension(s) included in the method or tool: ecological (e), financial (f) and social (s). From an international perspective, the SBTool 07/Canada, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)/USA, and the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)/UK are well established. All of them are highly developed tools used for planning, construction, and maintenance processes, whenever the sustainability of an intended building project (new construction, renovation or even relating to entire sites) needs to be implemented, evaluated, and communicated. LEED, BREEAM, and most other tools of the so-called first generation focus mainly on environment and energy. Among these three tools, the SBTool 07 provides the most comprehensive coverage for the three sustainability dimensions economy, society, and the environment (second generation). Stages in Planning In planning processes, it is possible to distinguish between the strategic planning stage, the initial studies that then take place, the project planning, the competition, and the realization of the project in the field of planning and design (SIA 2004). In many European countries, developing projects by means of design competitions is a standard practice. This practice is used in the United States, but less frequently. This may be related to the more consultant-like role of planners in European countries, in which government and other stakeholders act as the client. During the strategic planning stage and the initial studies in particular, there is considerable potential to ensure that sustainability criteria are firmly embedded in the project (Hermelin 2009; Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2009). However, especially in this phase, instruments for the inclusion of sustainability criteria are rare. In Switzerland, the SNARC tool (methodology for sustainability assessment in architectural competitions and design studies) has been designed for application in this early planning phase, in addition to the assessment of projects in competitive situations (SIA 2004). Although the tool has already been successfully used in competitions, its weakness lies in the insufficient coverage provided with regard to sustainability aspects focused on environmental issues.
Data and Methodology Case Study: Competition for Reykjavík Vatnsmýri The urban redevelopment of inner city areas forms a typical task of contemporary planning in Europe and the United States. On a global scale, the importance of urban redevelopment will increase tremendously in the years to come. Our case study establishes an example for such a project. The objective of the competition for Reykjavík Vatnsmýri (Geirsson 2007) was to gather ideas for the urban development potential on the site of the Reykjavík City Airport, which occupies a central location in the city of approximately 150 ha. A new and modern airport with potential for expansion outside of Reykjavík has been available for operation for a number of years now (Fig. 1). Therefore, the question arises as to whether the few existing flight connections that use the city airport should be relocated to the new airport. This change would make the site of the city airport available to satisfy the intense pressure for more commercial research and development and residential and educational growth. This pressure has now diminished because of the current financial crisis. At the time of the call for ideas, no final decision had yet been taken with regard to the relocation of the airport. The outcome of the competition was therefore intended to assist in this decisionmaking process. In the brief list of requirements for the competition, the objective of sustainability was explicitly linked to the aim of achieving a “vibrant city,” in other words an animated, sophisticated city. A substantial expansion of the city at its geographic center should also help enliven the historical city center, located immediately adjacent to the area to which the planning relates, thereby strengthening the identity of the city as a whole, and helping to achieve a new balance between the center and the periphery. By undertaking a major project in the heart of the city, it was also hoped that this would improve suboptimal structures which are part of the infrastructure of the city as a whole, such as the local public transportation system, bringing them up to an entirely new level. In 2005, a consultation process was undertaken by the city of Reykjavík, involving citizens, the immediate neighbors, and other stakeholders of the site, querying the public’s opinion regarding the urban environment, and the allocation of the site in Vatnsmýri. The consultation confirmed the authorities’ objective of achieving a lively and sophisticated city, and the integration of new elements as part of a seamless and coherent urban context. The competition itself took place between August and October 2007. Methodology for Prioritizing Sustainability Criteria To cover all requirements for SUD included in the competition brief, and because of the lack of previously established sustainability instruments for the urban planning process, the SBTool 07 was adapted for this particular task (iiSBE 1996–2007). However, with its 121 criteria, the SBTool 07 is too comprehensive to be used to its full extent during the initial stages of a planning process. Reducing its use to the material issues that form part of this phase will have a substantial effect on ensuring that the submission for the competition does not attempt to respond to a multiplicity of questions of lower priority with regard to sustainable development. It is also important to first address all of those aspects that are of the greatest
22 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 1. Aerial view of the planned area, showing the boundaries of the individual plots of the stakeholders (Geirsson 2007, with permission from the city of Reykjavík)
relevance in the case of a unique project in a specific, regional context. Aspects that are at a lower level of priority need not be left out as they can be taken into account in a later phase of the planning process without compromising the level of sustainability achieved by the project as a whole. To identify the material issues that apply to the urban development project at the Vatnsmýri site in Reykjavík, a materiality matrix was used. The planning team was composed of three architects, two landscape architects, an urban planner, a traffic planner, and two sustainable development consultants, who assigned priorities from the perspective of the city of Reykjavík (client) and the external stakeholders to each criterion listed in the SBTool 07, and determined their relevance to different stages of the project. In the strategic planning stage of the project, neither developers nor end-users acted as clients. Because of the anonymous character and short timeline of the competition design process, the prioritizing of
the criteria had to be estimated by the planning team itself. Further, a stakeholder consultation for the assignment of priorities would have been too costly in the context of the competition phase and may be used during a later phase in the planning or execution process. The prioritization took place on the basis of the information given in the accompanying documents of the site visits and the competition (Geirsson 2007), among which were the results of the consultation process undertaken in 2005. The process of prioritization is shown in Table 2. The criteria selected as relevant for the specific project appear in bold type. The material issues have been identified in line with 28 areas and 121 criteria that form part of the SBTool 07. All classifications are made with subdivisions of the items into four categories (low, medium, high, very high) or are not applicable (n/a) at this point. The planning team had to agree as to whether the relevant criterion provides a low or a high sustainability potential for the project, even
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 23
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. Process of Prioritization of SBTool 07 Criteria for the Specific Project 1
2
Area
3
Criteria
A1
4 Priority for client (city of Reykjavík)
5 Priority for external stakeholder
6 Relevance for the project over the whole life cycle
7 Relevance at present stage
Medium n/a Medium High
High n/a Medium Very high
High n/a High High
Very high n/a High High
Medium Medium Medium
High High High
High Very high Medium
N/a (high) Very high N/a (medium)
Medium Medium
High High
Medium Medium
N/a (high) N/a (low)
Very high Medium Medium
High Medium High
High Low Medium
Medium High High
Site selection A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6 A1.7 A1.8 A1.9
A2
Predevelopment ecological value or sensitivity of land Predevelopment agricultural value of land Vulnerability of land to flooding Potential for development to contaminate nearby bodies of water Predevelopment contamination status of land Proximity of site to public transportation Distance between site and centers of employment or residential occupancies Proximity to commercial and cultural facilities Proximity to public recreation areas and facilities Project planning
A2.1 A2.2 A2.3
Feasibility of use of renewables Use of integrated design process Potential environmental impact of development or redevelopment
if it is not of any particular relevance to the phase that the project is currently in. For example, if the need for heating and cooling energy for buildings (aspect B1.2) forms an important requirement within the context of sustainable development, this aspect should be taken into account before the current phase. This may become part of the remittance of the urban planning competition, to take the orientation of buildings into account to increase their intake of solar energy and avoid casting shadows on itself. Nevertheless, this aspect is not of high priority during the present phase.
Results The outcomes of the analysis of stakeholder priorities and the relevance to sustainability across the entire life cycle are presented in Table 3. In light of the fact that various groups of stakeholders with very different interests were accounted for in the prioritization process, the evaluation of external stakeholders always ends up being higher than the classification of the client. To extract the high priority criteria, a materiality matrix (Fig. 2) is drawn up. The y-axis shows the criteria which, from the point of view of the stakeholders, were classified as “high” or “very high.” For this purpose, an aggregated evaluation based on columns 4 and 5 of Table 2 is used. In the event that the evaluations differ, the higher value is plotted. This approach ensures that unbiased but relevant criteria are included in the planning approach. The x-axis reflects the criteria which, if viewed in the context of a defined stage in the life cycle, were classified as “high” or “very high.” All other criteria were not taken into consideration at this point to enable the necessary focus on the material issues. For this particular purpose, a realistic approach comprises a life cycle between 20 and 30 years, as this can be evaluated with a relatively high degree of accuracy with regard to ecological, economic, and social aspects. For the materiality matrix, a total of 48 out of 121 criteria were identified as relevant or very relevant, corresponding to 39.67% of
the total number of criteria. Fig. 3 depicts the relative frequency with which each of the criteria was taken into account for the materiality matrix, in relation to the total number of criteria (light gray), and in relation to the relevant group of criteria (A1–G1) (dark gray). Therefore, 63% of all criteria in groups A1–A3 were identified as relevant or very relevant. If this is related to all 121 criteria, this is equivalent to 14%. With 57% in relation to the criteria group and 10% of all criteria, the criteria groups E1–E6 have achieved the second-highest proportion. The criteria that form part of criteria groups C1–C6 and D1–D5 were considered to be of lesser importance. In a final step, the 48 criteria identified as “relevant” or “very relevant” were evaluated once again in Table 3 with regard to their relevance to the current phase of the project (column 7). This resulted in the selection of 19 final criteria (10 of which are of high relevance and 9 of lesser relevance) in bold type in Table 2. At least these 19 of these criteria should be addressed during the compilation of the planning documentation, to comprehensively account for all aspects of SUD. The 10 criteria A1.1, A1.4, A1.6, A2.9, A3.1, A3.6, B4.1, E2.1, E2.2, and F2.2 should be addressed with the highest priority. These priorities are characterized by four topics: general spatial aspects and interlinkages with the surrounding natural and built environments (A1.1, A1.4, A1.6, A3.1, E2.1), volumetric and orientation considerations (A2.9, E2.2), economical consumption of resources in terms of money and material (B4.1, F2.2), and provision for services to the larger context of the city, such as green spaces (A3.6). A special emphasis is given to general spatial aspects and interlinkages with the surrounding environment with five criteria addressing this topic, which is understandable considering the early planning phase that the project was in. The remaining nine criteria, which are of secondary priority, namely, A1.3, A2.3, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, C5.1, G1.1, G1.2, and G1.3, should then be addressed in sequence, in the event of sufficient resources (Table 3).
24 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 3. Criteria Classified as Key Issues Based on Stakeholder Priorities and Relevance to Sustainability across the Entire Life Cycle 1
2
3
Area
Criteria
A1
4 Priority for client (city of Reykjavík)
5 Priority for external stakeholder
6 Relevance for the project over the whole life cycle
7 Relevance at present stage
Medium
High
High
Very high
Medium High
Medium Very high
High High
High High
Medium
High
Very high
Very high
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
High
Very high
High High Medium Medium High
High High Medium Medium High
High Medium High High High
Very high High Very high Very high Very high
Medium
High
High
Very high
Medium
High
Medium
Very high
High Medium
High High
High High
Very high Very high
High
Very high
High
High
High High
High High
Medium Medium
High High
High
High
Medium
High
Site selection A1.1 A1.3 A1.4 A1.6
A2
Predevelopment ecological value or sensitivity of land Vulnerability of land to flooding Potential for development to contaminate nearby bodies of water Proximity of site to public transportation Project planning
A2.3 A2.9 A3
Potential environmental impact of development or redevelopment Site orientation to maximize passive solar potential Urban design and site development
A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A3.4 A3.6 B4
Development density Provision of mixed uses within the project Encouragement of walking Support for bicycle use Provision of project green space Materials
B4.1 C5
Reuse of suitable existing structure(s) Impacts on site
C5.1 E2
Impact of construction process on natural features of the site Functionality and efficiency
E2.1 E2.2 F2
Spatial efficiency Volumetric efficiency Cost and economics
F2.2 G1
Minimization of construction cost Culture and heritage
G1.1 G1.2 G1.3
Relationship of design with existing streetscapes Compatibility of urban design with local cultural values Maintenance of heritage value of existing facility
Discussion and Conclusions Based on the results obtained via the prioritization and interpretation of the materiality matrix, the following conceptual strategies could be recommended for the use of the site in Vatnsmýri: • To create a highly attractive, dense, mixed-use, and cosmopolitan site located centrally, to avoid further suburbanization (criteria A1.6, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, E2.1); • To utilize the large-scale dimension of the project to introduce a new, state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure (elevated railway) into the city (criterion A1.6); and • To integrate the project within the context of the entire conurbation, in such a manner that it enables the entire conurbation to be
used more efficiently (criteria A1.1, A3.1, A3.2, B4.1, E2.1, G1.1, G1.2, G1.3). The itemization of sustainability aspects and the weighing of the numerous individual parameters via the materiality matrix appeared to simplify discussions between planners and specialists. It also made a considerable contribution toward placing the problem of evaluating a planning approach in an objective light. In the discussions, the results obtained from our method made clear that individual measures, such as large-scale land reclamation projects or the demolition of existing buildings could form part of a coherent solution even if, regarded in isolation, they might appear questionable. A lesson we learned in this study is that too little time is available during the competition process to reflect in great detail on the
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 25
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
A1.4 A2.1
Level of concerns to stakeholders
very high
F2.2
high
A1.7 C5.1 G1.1
A1.1 B1.2 E2.1 E6.8
A1.6
A1.8 F1.1 G1.2
A1.5 B3.1 E2.2 F2.1
E6.5
A1.9 F1.2 G1.3
A2.9 B4.1 E3.1 F2.5
A2.3 F1.5
A3.1 B4.4 E5.1
A3.2 F2.4
A3.6 C1.2 E6.3 A1.3 D4.1 E4.5
F2.3
A3.3 E4.1 A3.4 E4.2
medium
A3.5 E4.3 B4.10 E4.4
low
low
high
medium
very high
Level of current or potential impact on city of Reykjavik (over the whole life cycle)
Fig. 2. Materiality matrix for the first stage of a planning process
Percentage of criteria per criteria group considered as relevant Percentage of relevant criteria per criteria group relating to all 121 criteria 100%
67%
63%
57%
29% 14% 4%
A1-A3
B1-B5
10%
10% 2%
C1-C6
5%
1%
D1-D5
E1-E6
7%
F1-F2
2%
G1
Fig. 3. Percentage distribution of the criteria considered as relevant per criteria group or related to the total number of criteria
effects of a plan in relation to sustainability. At the same time, it is necessary to make fundamental decisions during this particular phase. This stage is also characterized by the considerable potential that exists to produce a plan that is highly appropriate to the required type of urban development. This particular problem cannot be solved by means of the preceding methodological approach. The observation does, however, underline the significance of a new approach to the planning process in which emphasis is given to the early planning stages. The proposed methodology forms an approach that enables sustainability to be more firmly and more objectively embedded into early stages of the planning process than is currently practiced. Its appeal is the provision of a tool that allows for prioritization of aspects in a complex system to remain capable of acting. In this way, various solutions can be compared with one another, without losing sight of important points. The methodology is easily transferable to other projects, however, our specific results (the prioritized criteria) cannot be referred by other projects. The concept of SUD is based on norms and
values, and thus local solutions (and a local inclusion of internal and external stakeholders) are required. There are several necessary elements of a future research agenda to enhance the background knowledge concerning our method to SUD in an early planning stage. First, criteria group F, “social aspects” and “costs and economics,” as well as criteria group G, “cultural heritage” of the SBTool 07, need to be expanded in accordance with the triple bottom line, as they are underrepresented, with only 15 of the total number of 121 criteria. Second, the method should be used in other urban planning projects, to gain further information as to whether it is capable of making a substantial contribution toward the achievement of SUD. It would be especially interesting to observe several cases studies of this method applied in a number of different countries. And finally, single tools used for SUD are most effective if applied in combination with other instruments. The method developed and tested could be combined with further assessment methods focusing on different aspects of the urban planning process, e.g., models trying to forecast the development of cities or city areas in the context of SUD or models designed to support the process of optimizing the sustainability of a master plan proposal. A combined use of instruments will ensure the trend liability of decisions taken on the basis of those instruments.
Acknowledgments We would like to express our thanks to all of the partners who were involved in the administration of the competition, especially Klaus E. Krauss of Cologne, Lützow7 Landschaftsarchitekten of Berlin and Verkehrsplanung Link of Stuttgart. Our thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript, whose suggestions helped us improve it substantially. Further, we thank the City of Reykjavík for the permission to publish Fig. 1. The assistance of Liliana Wild, Brigitte Cuperus and Nathan Barnhart in the preparation of the manuscript is greatly appreciated.
26 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
References Baum, H. S. (2003). “Community and consensus: Reality and fantasy in planning.” Readings in planning theory, S. Campbell and S. S. Fainstein, eds., Blackwell, Malden, MA, 275–295. Baycan-Levent, T., and Nijkamp, P. (2009). “Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: Comparative analysis.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 135(1), 1–12. Birkeland, J. (2005). Design for sustainability: A sourcebook of integrated eco-logical solutions, Earthscan Publications, London. Brearley, S., and Curry, C. (2006). “The Freeport regional water project— from public conflict to consent.” Operations Management Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, 111–118. Brebbia, C. A., Ferrante, A., Rodriguez, M., and Terra, B. (2000). “The sustainable city: Urban regeneration and sustainability.” Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on the Sustainable City, Wessex Institute of Technology Press, Wessex, UK. Campbell, S. (2003). “Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development.” Readings in planning theory, S. Campbell and S. S. Fainstein, eds., Blackwell, Malden, MA, 435–458. Cullingworth, B., and Caves, R. W. (2003). Planning in the USA. Policies, issues and processes, Routledge, London, 20. Daigger, G. T. (2007). “Wastewater management in the 21st century.” J. Environ. Eng., 133(7), 671–680. E.on AG. (2008). “Corporate responsibility 2007: Part of the problem or part of the solution? Addressing our energy challenges.” 〈http://www .eon.com/en/downloads/E.ON_CR_US.pdf〉 (Feb. 7, 2009). Ford Motor Company. (2007). “Blueprint for Sustainability: 2007/8 Sustainability Report.” 〈http://www.ford.com/doc/sr07-ford-sustainability .pdf〉 (Jan. 8, 2010). Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach, Pitman, Boston. GE. (2010). “GE citizenship—Priorities & engagement: GE citizenship matrix.” 〈http://www.ge.com/citizenship/priorities_engagement/index .jsp#/matrix〉 (Jan. 8, 2010). Geirsson, Á., ed. (2007). Vatnsmýri, Reykjavík. A call for ideas, Reykjavík, City of Reykjavík. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2007). “G3 guidelines,” 〈http:// www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines/〉 (Feb. 6, 2009). Henry, E., and Paris, M. (2009). “Institutional dynamics and barriers to sustainable construction in France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.” Sustainable urban development. Changing professional practice, M. Symes and I. Cooper, eds., Routledge, London, 171–196. Hermelin, B. (2009). “Spatial strategic planning in the Stockholm region. Discourses on the space-economy and growth factors.” Eur. Plan. Stud., 17(1), 131–148. Hoffman, A. J., and Henn, R. (2008). “Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building.” Organ. Environ., 21(4), 390–419. Holcim Group. (2008). “Corporate sustainable development report 2007.” 〈http://www.holcim.com/gc/CORP/uploads/Holcim_Corporate_SD_ Report_2007.pdf〉 (Feb. 7, 2009). Howard, T. L. J., and Gaborit, N. (2007). “Using virtual environment technology to improve public participation in urban planning process.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 133(4), 233–241. Intel Corporation. (2009). “2008 Corporate Responsibility Report: What can we make possible?” 〈http://download.intel.com/intel/cr/gcr/pdf/ Intel_CSR_Report_2008.pdf〉 (Jan. 8, 2010). International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE). (1996-2007). “SBTool07.” Johnson, G., Scholes, K., and Whittington, R. (2006). Exploring corporate strategy, Pearson, Harlow, UK. Juan, Y.-K., Kim, J. H., Roper, K., and Castro-Lacouture, D. (2009). “GA-based decision support system for housing condition assessment and refurbishment strategies.” Autom. Constr., 18(4), 394–401. Junnila, S., Horvath, A., and Guggemos, A. A. (2006). “Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 12(1), 10–17.
Kassab, M., Hipel, K., and Hegazy, T. (2006). “Conflict resolution in construction disputes using the graph model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(10), 1043–1052. Lafferty, W. M. (2006). Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of adapting form to function, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Lee, G. K. L., and Chan, E. H. W. (2008). “Factors affecting urban renewal in high-density city: Case study of Hong Kong.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 134(3), 140–148. Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. (2006). “Managing transitions for sustainable development.” Environ. Policy, 44, 187–206. Maclaren, V. W. (1996). “Urban sustainability reporting.” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 62(2), 184–202. Martin, M. (2008). “Drei neue Werkzeuge.” TEC21, 134(49/50), 31–33 (in German). Meins, E., Wallbaum, H., Hardziewski, R., and Feige, A. (2010). “Sustainability and property valuation: A risk-based approach.” Build. Res. Inf., 38(3), 281–301. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis, Island, Washington, DC. Miller, J. S., Hoel, L. A., Dalton, F. T., and McCray, D. R. (2008). “Linking transportation planning to program implementation.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 134(2), 88–95. Nemry, F., and Uihlein, A. (2008). “Environmental improvement potentials of residential buildings (IMPRO-Building).” European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg. Norman, J., MacLean, H. L., and Kennedy, C. A. (2006). “Comparing high and low residential density: Life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 132(1), 10–21. Nunn, S. (2004). “Public and private built investment in the new economy: Exploring regional differences, 1990–2000.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 130(3), 125–132. Ochoa, L., Hendrickson, C., and Matthews, H. S. (2002). “Economic input-output life-cycle assessment of U.S. residential buildings.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 8(4), 132–138. O’Connor, M., and Spangenberg, J. H. (2008). “A methodology for CSR reporting: Assuring a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues.” J. Cleaner Prod., 16(13), 1399–1415. Oreszczyn, S., and Lane, A. (2000). “The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management.” J. Environ. Manage., 60(1), 101–118. Roloff, J. (2008). “Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management.” J. Bus. Ethics, 82(1), 233–250. Sanders, S. R., and Eskridge, W. F. (1993). “Managing implementation of change.” J. Manage. Eng., 9(4), 365–381. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., and Blair, J. D. (1991). “Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders.” Acad. Manage. Exec., 5(2), 61–75. Seiss, R. (2007). Wer baut Wien? Verlag Anton Pustet Salzburg, Munich (in German). Sharrard, A. L., Matthews, H. S., and Ries, R. J. (2008). “Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input-output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 14(4), 327–336. Steemers, K., and Manchanda, S. (2010). “Energy efficient design and occupant well-being: Case studies in the UK and India.” Build. Environ., 45(2), 270–278. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA). (2004). Dokumentation SIA D 0200 SNARC – Systematik zur Beurteilung der Nachhaltigkeit von Architekturprojekten für den Bereich Umwelt, Zurich, Switzerland (in German). Tam, C. M., Zeng, S. X., and Tong, T. K. L. (2009). “Conflict analysis in public engagement program of urban planning in Hong Kong.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 135(2), 51–55. Tiwari, P. (2003). “Sustainable practices to meet shelter needs in India.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 129(2), 65–83.
JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 27
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Tseng, C.-M., Fang, W.-T., Chen, C.-T., and Loh, K. D. (2009). “Case study of environmental performance assessment for regional resource management in Taiwan.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 135(3), 125–131. Wallbaum, H. (2008). “Sustainability indicators for the built environment —The challenges ahead.” World Sustainable Building Conf., G. Foliente, T. Luetzkendorf, P. Paevere, eds., CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, 1292–1298. Warszawski, A. (2003). “Analysis of costs and benefits of tall buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(4), 421–430. Welford, R., Chan, C., and Man, M. (2007). “Priorities for corporate social
responsibility: A survey of businesses and their stakeholders.” Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., 15(1), 56–62. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future, United Nations, New York. World Resources Institute (WRI). (2003). World resources 2002–2004: Decisions for the earth, Washington, DC. Yeang, K. (2006). Ecodesign: A manual for ecological design, Wiley, Sussex, UK. Ziara, M. M., and Ayyub, B. M. (1999). “Decision analysis for housingproject development.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 125(3), 68–85.
28 / JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT © ASCE / MARCH 2011
Downloaded 04 Mar 2011 to 129.132.209.154. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
