Download Urban Sustainability Indicators: From Brundtland to Development Goals and more Lecture notes Sustainable Development in PDF only on Docsity!
Giulio Mondini* keywords: integrated evaluation, decision-making processes,
sustainable communities, urban transformations
Sustainability
Assessment:
from Brundtland
Report to Sustainable
Development Goals
1. INTRODUCTION
As it is well known, sustainable development has been defined in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission as the devel- opment that meets the needs of the present without com- promising the ability of future generations (UN, 1987).
The characterizing aspect that emerges from this defini- tion is the long-term vision, which implies the need of addressing a high degree of uncertainty (Munda, 1987).
Several dimensions have been identified in the concept of sustainable development (environmental, social, economic, cultural and technological dimension) which have to co-
exist within an integrated perspective (Bottero and Mondini, 2009). The Brundtland report represents a fundamental act for the introduction of the concept of sustainability in the leg- islative frameworks. Indeed, starting from this document a continuous process has been set up for the consideration of the sustainability as fundamental paradigm of action (Lafratta, 2004). A further step in the process for the achievement of sus- tainable development refers to the identification of the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). These objectives have been defined in the year 2000 and they define a com-
The increase in population, the urbanization processes and the heavy anthropic interventions are bringing new and differentiated stresses for environmental and urban systems, including socio-economic pressures and nat- ural disasters. The problems that societies have to address nowadays are numerous, ranging from environmental pollution to soil consumption, from the lack of water and food to the necessity of biodiversity protection and cli- mate change reduction. Immediate and efficient solutions are needed in order to avoid the achievement of an irreversible condition. In this context, the concept of sustainability has been pro-
posed since many years as an innovative paradigm of intervention, with the objective of limiting these prob- lems and to mitigate their effect in the long period. The paper aims at briefly illustrating the concept of sus- tainable development, focusing on its evolution over the years, from the Brundtland Report to Sustainable Devel- opment Goals that have been recently proposed by the United Nations. Particular attention will be devoted to the analysis of the relationship between sustainability and urban and territorial planning, trying to identify the main existing approaches for the introduction of sustainability as the fundamental paradigm for future development.
Abstract
In the previous paragraph, reference was made to the eleventh UN Sustainable Goal, dedicated to the theme of “ Sustainable cities and comminities ”. Cities are emblematic elements for the definition of sustainable development. In fact, cities are at the same time critical and cardinal elements for achieving sustainable devel- opment (Mi, 2019). Cities are complex systems charac- terized by a high environmental impact, as energy con- sumption and depretion of a high quantity of natural resources (Booth et al., 2011; IPCC, 2014; Mi et al., 2019. Cities are therefore built as key players in the field of urban sustainability, helping to contrast climate change and reduce emissions into the atmosphere (Amendola, 2016). Sustainability has been used for several decades as a par- adigm for territorial and urban transformations and designs in order to mitigate its impacts on the environ- ment, with the ultimate goal of creating sustainable com- munities in response to the ongoing process of urban- ization (Roberts and Hugh, 2000; Bottero and Ferretti, 2010; UN-Habitat, 2015; Habitat_III, 2016; UN-Habitat, 2016). In the context of urban sustainability assessment, differ- ent models and frameworks have been proposed in the last years in order to support designers, planners and Deci- sion Makers in the choices related to urban transforma- tions. Table 3 summarizes the main initiatives available in the field of urban sustainability assessment methods. As it is possible to see from Table 2, sustainability indica- tors are a proven method for driving sustainable urban development, and hundreds of different sets and frame- works exist. As cities vary greatly in terms of available resources, population size and urban metabolic process- es, this wealth of tools is useful. However, choosing appro- priate sustainability indicators can be difficult. Scientific research in this field has highlighted that effi- cient and science-driven governance is a critical compo- nent of sustainable development. As instruments for mea- suring progress or diagnosing urban sustainability, sus- tainability indicators provide the simple and measurable tests needed to create and maintain cities not only respecting the environment, but also promoting long- term economic productivity and health and the well- being of their citizens (Ameen et al., 2015).
3. TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
As already mentioned, the process towards the achieve- ment of SDG 11 requires innovative solutions based on the integration of the different dimensions and on the consideration of the citizens as key players of the oper- ation. In this perspective, a very important role is covered by urban regeneration programmes, meaning not only build- ing-restoration operations, but also programs aiming at eliminating social decline, increasing the quality of life
plex series of targets which range from halving extreme poverty rates to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and pro- viding universal primary education (UN, 2015a).
More recently, the United Nations defined 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In particular, the SDGs address the global challenges, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperi- ty, and peace and justice (Table 1). These objectives are strongly interconnected among them and involve all the sustainability dimensions at a planetary scale (Figure 1).
In the context of urban transformations, a particular role is played by the SDG 11 “Sustainable cities and communi- ties”, which explicitly considers the relationship that exists between communities and the spaces in which they live. According to the fundamental principles of this goal, future cities should aspire to social inclusion and have to be designed for being compatible with the surrounding envi- ronment (Bond et al, 2012; Mondini, 2016). Specific impor- tance is attached to:
- the availability of adequate, safe and affordable housing,
- the protection of natural and cultural heritage and 3. the adoption and implementation of integrated policies and plans towards inclusion,
resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change and resilience to disasters.
2. THE SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT
In terms of sustainability (maximizing and minimizing simultaneously in order to achieve a balanced develop- ment of the economic, social and ecological system), the evaluation process must be highly interdisciplinary, in order to identify possible synergies and develop “win – win” solutions (Kosko, 1986; Stellin and Rosato, 1998; Bot- tero et al., 2018a; Fattinnanzi, 2018). Given the growing interdependence between parties that characterizes the actual problems/contexts, the complexity notion became a crucial concept in sustainability evaluation and assess- ment (Figueira et al., 2015; Becchio et al., 2018; Bottero et al., 2018b.
In particular, with regard to issues related to develop- ment, in the processing and management of territorial and urban systems, the complexity of decision-making requires the adoption of four levels of analysis: meta- strategic, strategic, tactic and operational (Girard and Nikkamp, 1997; Mondini, 2010; Trossero and Lombardi, 2013).
Different methods can be employed for sustainability assessment and the choice of the method strictly depends from the phase in which the evaluation takes place:
- knowledge phase,
- concertation phase,
- strategic definition of objectives phase,
- systemic evaluation phase and
- monitoring phase (Tab. 2) (Mondini, 2009).
Figure 1 - Relationship between the 17 goals (SDG) and the three main dimensions of sustainability (source: elaboration by Costanza et al. , 2019)
Ecological Economics Framework
Figure 2 - Regeneration of urban spaces (source: author’s elaboration)
economy designed to be able to regenerate on its own. This definition is based on the existence of two types of material flows: biological ones, able to be reintegrated into the biosphere, and technical ones, destined to be revalued without entering the biosphere (Figure 3). This is an overall and radical rethinking, based on the over- exploitation of natural resources and oriented towards the objective of maximizing profits through the reduc- tion of production costs. Adopting a circular approach means reviewing all stages of production and paying attention to the entire supply chain involved in the pro- duction cycle, through the enhancement not only of nat- ural capital (primary resources and environmental impacts), but also of the social (work and wellness) and economic one (investments and revenues) (Enea, 2019; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019).
4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
It is clear that the concept of sustainable development has become the paradigm of development interventions since several decades, giving a centrality to environmental issues (Mondini, 2010).
of the inhabitants, supporting the valorization of cultur- al resources, protecting the environmental system, bring- ing economic development, and so on (Fig. 2) (Lombar- di, 2008; Haapio, 2012; Garsia, 2015; Ostanel, 2017; Brunet- ta et al., 2018).
A second perspective that appears useful for achieving objective 11 is the approach offered by ecosystem ser- vices, which allow us to understand the benefits that nat- ural systems offer to human society to satisfy their well- being in the form of goods and services (Caldarice and Salata, 2019). According to this point of view, the mea- surement and evaluation of the goods and services offered by the ecological-natural systems becomes very important, not only from the bio-physical point of view, but also from the economic point of view so that these val- ues are included and considered in decision-making processes concerning the transformation of the city (MEA, 2005; Angilella et al., 2016; Bentivegna, 2016; Diaz-Saracha- ga and Jato-Espino, 2019).
A third direction on which it is fundamental to reason is the one proposed by the circular economy.
According to the definition of the Ellen MacArthur Foun- dation, circular economy is a generic term to define an
Sustainability Assessment: from Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals
Figure 3 - The concept of circular economy (source: elaboration by Iveroth et al. , 2013)
Sustainability Assessment: from Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals
Table 3 - Main systems for assessing sustainability at the urban level (source: elaboration by Science for Environment Policy, 2018) Evaluation system Organization References
BREEAM Communities Building Research Establish- ment Environmental Assess- ment Methodology (BREEAM)
https://www.breeam.com/
China Urban Sustainability Index Urban China Initiative http://www.urbanchinainitiative.org/en/resour- ces/report.html
City Blueprint Waternet Amsterdam; KWR Water Cycle Research Institute
https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/tools-producten/city- blueprint/
Eco^2 Cities Initiative World Bank^ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBAN- DEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387- 1270074782769/Eco2CitiesBookWeb.pdf
EEA Urban Metabolism Fra- mework
European Environment Agency http://ideas.climatecon.tu-berlin.de/documents/wpa- per/CLIMATECON-2011-01.pdf
European Green Capital Award European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/environment/european- greencapital/about-the-award/
European Green City Index Economist Intelligence Unit; Sie- mens
https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/c orporate/2009-12- Cop15/European_Green_City_Index.pdf
European Green City Tool European Union http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/tool.htm
European Green Leaf Award European Union http://ec.europa.eu/environment/european- greencapital/europeangreenleaf/
Eurostat Sustainable Development Indicators
Eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/sustaina- ble-cities-and-communities
Global City Indicators Program Global City Indicators Facility https://www.citiesalliance.org/
Green Cities Programme OECD http://www.oecd.org/regional/greening-cities- regions/46811501.pdf
Green Star Green Building Council of Aus- tralia
https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/
Indicators for Sustainability Sustainable Cities International https://sustainablecities.net/
LEED for Neighbourhood Devel- opment (LEED-ND)
Leadership in Energy and Envi- ronmental Design (LEED)
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/citi- zens_guide_LEED-ND.pdf
National Australian Built Environ- ment Rating System (NABERS)
Government of Australia https://www.nabers.gov.au/
Reference Framework for Sus- tainable Cities (RFSC)
RFSC http://rfsc.eu/
SDEWES Index International Centre for Sustain- able Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SDEWES) Index
http://www.piran2016.sdewes.org/sdewes_index.p hp
A fundamental effective response to this need is repre- sented by the continuous training of practitioners work- ing in this field. This could be made possible by focusing on greater collaboration between professional associations and universities, in order to provide experts able to address these issues with awareness and with adequate knowledge of the evaluation methodologies. The ultimate goal must be to create a network for the pro- vision of knowledge and skills to achieve the common goal of this development.
The sustainable development approach, applied to urban and territorial planning and transformations, brings impli- cations and needs to which correct and effective answers are not always given.
First of all, the need to assess sustainability. As seen in the paper, the assessment of sustainability must be carried out in an interdisciplinary perspective. In fact, only with the support of integrated approaches, the level of uncer- tainty in these contexts can be reduced, making it possi- ble to make more conscious decisions about possible long-term impacts (Cecchini and Blecic, 2016).
Table 3 - Main systems for assessing sustainability at the urban level (source: elaboration by Science for Environment Policy, 2018)
Evaluation system Organization References
STAR Community Rating System Sustainability Tools for Assess- ing and Rating Communities (STAR)
http://www.starcommunities.org
Urban Audit Cities Statistics Eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/regions-and- cities
Urban Ecosystem Europe – Informed Cities
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); Ambiente Italia
http://informedcities.eu/
Urban Indicators Guideline UN Human Settlements Pro- gramme
https://unhabitat.org/urban-indicators-guidelines- monitoring-the-habitat-agenda-and-the-millennium- development-goals/
Urban Sustainability Indicators European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ ef_files/pubdocs/1998/07/en/1/ef9807en.pdf
* Giulio Mondini, Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning (DIST), Politecnico di Torino e-mail: giulio.mondini@polito.it
Bibliography
AMEEN R.F.M., MOURSHED M., LI H., A critical review of envi- ronmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design , Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 55, 2015, pp. 110-125.
ANGILELLA S., BOTTERO M., CORRENTE S., FERRETTI V., GRECO S., LAMI I.M., Non Additive Robust Ordinal Regression for urban and territorial planning: an application for siting an urban waste landfill, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 245, n. 1-2, 2016, pp. 427-456. doi: 10.1007/s10479-015-1787-
AMENDOLA G., The Just City , Valori e Valutazioni, n. 17, 2016, pp. 13-14.
BECCHIO C., BOTTERO M., CORGNATI S., DELL’ANNA F., Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrat-
ed evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin , Land Use Policy, Vol. 78, 2018, pp. 803-817. BENTIVEGNA V., Dialogue and transparency in decision-making , Valori e Valutazioni, n. 17, 2016, pp. 25-28. BOND A., MORRISON-SAUNDERS A., POPE J., Sustainability assess- ment: the state of the art , Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 30, n. 1, 2012, pp. 53–62. BOOTH C., HAMMOND F N., LAMOND J., DAVID G., Solutions for Cli- mate Change Challenges in the Built Environment , John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2011. BOTTERO M., MONDINI G., Valutazione e Sostenibilità. Piani, Programmi e Progetti , Valori e Valutazioni, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 125-126.
