Approaches to Sustainable Buildings and Cities: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Fanny Huang and Version 1 by Lina Seduikyte.

The assessment of the sustainability of buildings and cities is at the forefront of the environmental analysis of the built environment. Buildings are essential components of cities, where people spend a substantial part of their lives living, working, studying or relaxing. However, the same buildings and the whole construction industry are also responsible for considerable energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. Sustainable development seeks to find “a balance between economic development, environmental protection and social improvement”, and the main aim of sustainable urban development is to create “beautiful, distinctive, secure, healthy and high-quality places for people to live and work in that foster a strong sense of community, pride, social equity, integration and identity”.

  • sustainable buildings and cities
  • digital buildings and cities

1. Introduction

The assessment of the sustainability of buildings and cities is at the forefront of the environmental analysis of the built environment. At this point, at the European and World level, a significant number of research projects, standards and methods have been developed, to assess the sustainability aspects. At the same time, all techniques to assess buildings are digitized, as we are moving fast to the Industry 4.0 era, where all buildings-related information should be easily communicated among designers, users and stakeholders.
Buildings are essential components of cities, where people spend a substantial part of their lives living, working, studying or relaxing. However, the same buildings and the whole construction industry are also responsible for considerable energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. Therefore, how the buildings and entire cities are designed, constructed and configured to operate is crucial for reducing the environmental impact of urbanization, improving the health and well-being of the population and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [1] adopted by 193 countries.
The concept of sustainable cities has evolved over time and has been defined in different ways by different scholars and organizations. According to one of the initial explanations of sustainable development, it is “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. In other words, sustainable development seeks to find “a balance between economic development, environmental protection and social improvement” [3[3][4],4], and the main aim of sustainable urban development is to create “beautiful, distinctive, secure, healthy and high-quality places for people to live and work in that foster a strong sense of community, pride, social equity, integration and identity” [5]. Recently, there has been a growing recognition that achieving this certain objective is not solely reliant on tangible measures but “based on the principles of democracy, gender equality, solidarity, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, including freedom and equal opportunities for all” [6].

2. Approaches to Sustainable Buildings and Cities

Several approaches towards sustainable buildings and cities were identified throughout the analyzed literature, depending on the context, priorities and resources available. The most common approaches are presented below.
Compact city: it is one of the leading paradigms of both sustainable development [7] and the New Urbanism movement [8]. The compactness of the city can be defined in the following three aspects [9]. Firstly, the urban form should be defined by high-density settlements, fewer dependences on automobiles and clear boundaries from the surrounding areas. Then spatial features should encourage mixed land use, diversity of life as well as clear and unique identities. Finally, social functions should aim for social equality, self-sufficiency in daily life and independence of government. The main critique of this approach is that compact cities, in order to reduce sprawl and minimize environmental impact, promote densification, whereas low-density urban forms are often considered to be more livable. However, that critique has been denied [10] as residents from compact cities are more satisfied with their neighborhood because, despite high density, this model also provides a better public transport network, accessibility and a variety of land uses.
Eco-city: the concept of eco-city is also broad; there are many overlaps with other approaches. Still, the following ten critical eco-city dimensions can be distinguished [11]: compact and mixed-use urban form, an abundance of the natural environment, walking and cycling infrastructure, extensive environmental technologies for water, energy and waste management, the central city with subcenters, high-quality public realm, human scale physical environment, innovation and driven economy, visionary—“debate and decide” and sustainability-based decision making. Essentially, eco-cities focus on environmental sustainability, promoting green infrastructure, renewable energy and zero-waste strategies while addressing social and economic issues [12,13,14,15][12][13][14][15].
Resilient city: resilience, in terms of cities, refers to the ability to absorb, adapt and respond to changes in an urban system. For this reason, cities should be conceptualized as complex adaptive systems and divided into components and analytical elements. Hence, this systematic approach allows a better understanding of how urban system design, planning and management work towards resiliency enhancements [16]. Overall, resilient cities focus on the adaptation to the challenges posed by climate change, such as extreme weather, natural disasters or sea-level rise, ensuring the continuity of essential services and minimizing the impact on the population [17,18,19,20][17][18][19][20].
Digital city: offer innovative services based on broadband communication and service-oriented computing [21]. Digital cities were built and made operational throughout the developed countries between the 1990s and the 2000s. Digital cities are distinguished by activities based on online services [22]. The fast spread of developing digital technologies, digital service creation and delivery necessitate new and more organized approaches to service design, development and management. There are numerous perspectives and strategic elements for developing digital services from diverse stakeholders, with different solutions stating how to design the digital service inside IT infrastructures or how to reuse design techniques learnt from prior Digital City initiatives [23,24,25][23][24][25].
According to a literature review, Digital City and Smart City are the most commonly used terms to describe a city’s smartness. Smart cities appear to be the inevitable successors of digital cities.
Smart city: there are many definitions of smart cities. The reason for that is the application of the term for two different kinds of domains: “hard” and “soft” [26]. The “hard” one includes buildings, energy grids, natural resources, water and waste management and mobility, while the “soft one” covers culture, education, policy innovations, social inclusion and governments. Depending on the domain, the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is also different—decisive for the “hard” and not so much in the “soft” domain. Anyway, the common conception of smart cities is the use of digital technologies to optimize urban systems, such as transport, energy, water and waste management, improving efficiency, reducing costs and enhancing citizens’ quality of life [27,28,29][27][28][29].
Healthy city: the World Health Organization (WHO) evolved the concept of “Healthy Cities” to improve city-based public health and environmental hygiene with a special focus on marginalized urban areas [30]. “Healthy Cities Project” was launched in Europe in the 1980s and has spread globally. The main principle of the initiative was that “health can be improved by modifying living conditions, namely, the physical environment and the social and economic conditions of everyday life” [31]. Eventually, the tools to measure the index of healthy cities were developed [32], and the index’s indicators fall into four main sectors: health, health services, socioeconomic indicators and environmental indicators. The latter is strongly dependent on urban development strategies. To succeed in the creation of healthy and sustainable cities, urban development has to promote access to green spaces, sports and leisure facilities, mitigation measures of air, water and noise pollution, walkability and cycling and public transportation modes. The observed spatial inequality can also reveal the existence of social inequality [33].
Differences in various approaches to sustainable buildings and cities are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Differences in various approaches to sustainable buildings and cities. Note: Approaches are not totally exclusive, there are overlaps in their goals, features and measures.
Approach Goal Conceptual Features Measures
Urban Form Land Use Social Realm Governance Technologies
Compact city to reduce sprawl, minimize car dependency and promote walkability and public transportation Compact, high-density Mixed use Social equality, self-sufficience Ingtegrating planinng Intelligent transport population density, mixed land use ratios, walkability indices, public transportation usage, etc.
Eco-city to achieve environmental sustainability, conserve resources and promote ecological balance. Compact, sustainable Mixed use, green infrstructure Community-based Sustainable policies Environmental technologies green space coverage, energy consumption per capita, waste management practices, sustainable building certifications, etc.
Resilient city to enhance adaptability and resilience to climate change, natural disasters and social challenges Adaptive Green infrastruture Social cohesion Collaborative-particiaptory Resilient infrastruc-ture climate adaptation plans, disaster preparedness indicators, social cohesion indices, infrastructure robustness, etc.
Digital city to improve connectivity, access to digital services and enhance efficiency in urban operations Digitallyconnected Varied Online communities E-governance Digital platforms digital service accessibility, e-governance adoption and digital literacy rates
Smart City to enhance quality of life, optimize resource management and foster innovation and economic development Technologically advanced Efficient Data-driven Smart governance IoT, AI, sensors IoT infrastructure deployment, data analytics usage, smart grid implementation and citizen engagement in smart initiatives
Healthy City to improve public health, promote well-being and create a supportive and inclusive environment. Health-oriented Green infrastructure Social wellbeing Collaborative-particiaptory Health monitoring public health indicators, access to healthcare services, air and water quality and community engagement in health initiatives
This review aims to analyze patterns and trends of the scientific research related to sustainable, healthy and digital buildings and cities. Quantitative literature analysis and graphical visualization and analysis—knowledge mapping—were applied to understand better the current research situation and research frontiers [34] in the mentioned areas. According to Chen [35], the frontier of research reveals the emergence of theoretical trends and new topics. According to Price [34], the research frontier is the dynamic nature and ideological status of the research field; generally, the research frontier consists of approximately 40 or 50 recently published scientific papers. Knowledge mapping is part of the broader field of science metrology and is defined as a cross-disciplinary field of applied mathematics, information science and computer science; the purpose of it is to extract and visually reorganize the knowledge from a large number of previously published scientific research documents and to carry out knowledge discovery [36,37][36][37]. This study provides insights into research trends, identifies gaps and opportunities for multidisciplinary integration and highlights the global importance of sustainability science. By quantitatively analyzing the scientific literature, this analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of such areas as healthy, digital and sustainable buildings and cities and informs future research directions. 

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/9814 (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  2. World Commission on Environment and Development (Ed.) Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
  3. Council of Europe. The European Urban Charter; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 1992; p. 60.
  4. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I.; Seduikyte, L.; Teixeira-Gomes, A.; Mendes, A.; Borodinecs, A.; Buzinskaite, D. Aging, living environment, and sustainability: What should be taken into account? Sustainability 2020, 12, 1853.
  5. Commission of the European Communities. Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. COM 2004, 60, 57.
  6. Council of European Union. Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (No. 10917/06; p. 29). 2006. Available online: https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010917%202006%20INIT (accessed on 10 April 2023).
  7. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J.; Kärrholm, M. Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Dev. Built Environ. 2020, 4, 100021.
  8. Duany, A.; Sorlien, S.; Wright, W. The SmartCode Version 9.2; The TownPaper Publisher: Orlando, FL, USA, 2003.
  9. Dantzig, G.B.; Saaty, T.L. Compact City: A Plan for a Liveable Urban Environment; W. H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
  10. Mouratidis, K. Is compact city livable? The impact of compact versus sprawled neighbourhoods on neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 2408–2430.
  11. Kenworthy, J.R. The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ. Urban. 2006, 18, 67–85.
  12. Caprotti, F. Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China. Cities 2014, 36, 10–17.
  13. Caprotti, F.; Springer, C.; Harmer, N. ‘Eco’ For Whom? Envisioning Eco-urbanism in the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, China: ‘ECO’ FOR WHOM? Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2015, 39, 495–517.
  14. Cugurullo, F. How to Build a Sandcastle: An Analysis of the Genesis and Development of Masdar City. J. Urban Technol. 2013, 20, 23–37.
  15. Shwayri, S.T. A Model Korean Ubiquitous Eco-City? The Politics of Making Songdo. J. Urban Technol. 2013, 20, 39–55.
  16. Desouza, K.C.; Flanery, T.H. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities 2013, 35, 89–99.
  17. Andersson, E.; Langemeyer, J.; Borgström, S.; McPhearson, T.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J.; Barton, D.N.; Davis, M.; Naumann, S.; Röschel, L.; et al. Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems. Bioscience 2019, 69, 566–574.
  18. Ernstson, H.; Van Der Leeuw, S.E.; Redman, C.L.; Meffert, D.J.; Davis, G.E.; Alfsen, C.; Elmqvist, T. Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human-Dominated Ecosystems. AMBIO 2010, 39, 531–545.
  19. Kutty, A.A.; Wakjira, T.G.; Kucukvar, M.; Abdella, G.M.; Onat, N.C. Urban resilience and livability performance of European smart cities: A novel machine learning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 378.
  20. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49.
  21. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291.
  22. Ishida, T. Digital City, Smart City and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2017 International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2), published under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 License, Perth, Australia, 3–7 April 2017.
  23. Keenahan, J.; MacReamoinn, R.; Paduano, C. Sustainable Design using Computational Fluid Dynamics in the Built Environment—A Case Study. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2017, 19, 92–103.
  24. Štěpánek, P.; Ge, M.; Walletzký, L. IT-Enabled Digital Service Design Principles—Lessons Learned from Digital Cities. In Information Systems. EMCIS 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing; Themistocleous, M., Morabito, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 299.
  25. Pupeikis, D.; Morkūnaitė, L.; Daukšys, M.; Navickas, A.A.; Abromas, S. Possibilities of Using Building Information Model Data in Reinforcement Processing Plant. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2021, 28, 80–93.
  26. Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21.
  27. Lim, C.; Kim, K.-J.; Maglio, P.P. Smart cities with big data: Reference models, challenges, and considerations. Cities 2018, 82, 86–99.
  28. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Foth, M.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.; Ioppolo, G. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 348–365.
  29. Goli, S.; Arokiasamy, P.; Chattopadhayay, A. Living and health conditions of selected cities in India: Setting priorities for the National Urban Health Mission. Cities 2011, 28, 461–469.
  30. Werna, E.; Harpham, T.; Blue, I.; Goldstein, G. From healthy city projects to healthy cities. Environ. Urban. 1999, 11, 27–40.
  31. Webster, P.; Sanderson, D. Healthy Cities Indicators—A Suitable Instrument to Measure Health? J. Urban Health 2013, 90, 52–61.
  32. Shen, J.; Cheng, J.; Huang, W.; Zeng, F. An Exploration of Spatial and Social Inequalities of Urban Sports Facilities in Nanning City, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4353.
  33. Price, D.J.D.S. Networks of scientific papers. Science 1965, 145, 510–515.
  34. Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 359–377.
  35. Chen, C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers; Springer-Verlag: London, UK, 2003.
  36. Su, X.; Li, X.; Kang, Y. A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using CiteSpace. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019840119.
  37. Chen, C. How to Use CiteSpace; Leanpub: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2015.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback