Recent SATs and Urban Apps
Future Generation Sustainability Assessment Tools and Applications into Urban Contexts
Abstract:Over the last two decades, the term "sustainability" has figured prominently in city planning discussions aiming to create comfortable urban spaces and places for people to live, work, and have fun. At the same time the “Science of Sustainability Assessment” flourished with more than 100 tools and models worldwide. GSAS, the “Global Sustainability Assessment System’ is emerging as the new Middle-Eastern and North African ‘glocal’ initiative that endeavors to sustain existing and planned architectural and urban structures. This paper aims to shed light on the use of Sustainability Assessment Models (SAMs) in measuring the sustainability levels of neighborhoods/urban districts. To do so an analytical review of major international SAMs (BREEAM and LEED) and regional ones (Estidama and GSAS) is conducted at early stages of this study. The core of the investigation develops an assessment on the pilot study of Lusail City, Qatar. Based on partial results obtained through this study, the paper finally concludes by establishing a set of design guidelines to enhance the sustainability levels of neighborhoods/urban districts in the region and internationally.
Abstract Summay Statement: This paper aims to shed light on the use of Sustainability Assessment Tools (SATs) in evaluating and measuring the sustainability levels of neighborhoods and urban districts.
Keywords:Sustainability, Assessment, MENA, Architectural-Urban, Applications, Modeling, SAMs.
Theoretical background: defining, understanding and assessing sustainability
Defining; There are as many definitions of sustainability and sustainable development as there are individuals and interest groups trying to define the term. All the definitions however, share a common concern for: i. Living within the limits, ii. Understanding the interconnections between economy, society, and environment, and iii. Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. The debate regarding the appropriate definition of Sustainability as a concept is still evolving, often with competing and sometimes contradictory interpretations. Sustainability refers to systems which ‘continue’ or ‘endure’ or ‘are maintained’. Sustainability branches into three major inter-linked dimensions forming the ‘triple bottom line’; environment, economic, and social sustainability (King Sturge, 2009). The complexity and interdependencies of these elements is not yet well understood.
Understanding;Why is there so much diversity in viewpoint regarding the meaning of sustainability? After all, Brundtland report definition of sustainable development appears to be a reasonable stance (WCED, 1987).
Figure1. System quality and sustainability – Author, 2013-adapted from Bell & Morse (2008) and Costanza, (2010)
Some of the fundamental reasons for this are illustrated in Figure 1, where sustainability is represented by a change in a property referred to as ‘system quality’. A term opened to various sort of value judgments. Sustainability equates to a situation where, quality remains the same or increases (Fig. 1- case a:1-2); or when quality declines (Fig 1-case a-3), then the system can be regarded as unsustainable. This may at first sight be clear, but there are numerous problems that arise even in this simple graph (Zinck & Farshad, 1995; Costanza & Patten, 1997; Costanza, 2010).
Assessing; In 1981, Malcolm Wells in his book “Gentle Architecture” suggested a matrix, which appears to be the first attempt to use indicators to help achieve sustainability. It was first published in Progressive Architecture, in June 1974 (Wells, 1974). Although, Wells’ matrix was invaluable, it was still far from comprehensive. It did not either elaborate real complexity or recognize value shifts and differences in the sustainable design process. In 1990, Kroner has further developed the matrix with categories and sub-categories, while Salem enlarged it by adding a priority tab. It was further refined during the last decade but remained limited to environmental factors mainly (Fadli, 2007). Assessments of sustainability can help inform the societal discussion and influence the environmental governance towards the main objectives of sustainability. The effectiveness of an assessment system in this regards requires that it matches up well against a number of requirements, in such a way that it can be seen to be: i. Hopeful, ii. Holistic; iii. Protective, iv. Harmonious, v. Participatory, vi. Habit forming (Author adapted from: Hardi & Zdan- BelaggioSTAMP, 2009; Brandon & Lombardi, 2011).
Figure 2.Sustainable Built Environment, a three-legged holistic system (Fadli, 2007, adapted from various)
Aim, design and approach of the study
The main aim of this study is to investigate the use of SATs in measuring the sustainability levels of neighborhoods/urban dsitricts. To do so an analytical review of major existing SAMs (BREEAM, LEED and Estidama) is conducted in order to enhance the capacities of GSAS/QSAS based on the initial results obtained through the use of Lusail-city pilot-study.
Figure 3. Study design process and stages (Author et al, 2014)
International overview of SAMs
The recent decades have witnessed a maturing of concern and interest in building performance that is increasingly evidenced in building design. Sustainable or green design is not simply about attaining higher environmental performance standards or investing in new values; it is also about rethinking design ‘intelligence’ and how it is placed in buildings. The distinction between the notions ‘‘Green’’, ‘‘Intelligent’’, “smart” and ‘‘Sustainable’’ is critical in what underlies valid sustainable buildings (Ashrea, 2006). Sustainability assessment is a procedure used to evaluate whether environmental, economic and societal changes arising from man’s activities and use of resources are decreasing or increasing our ability to maintain long-run sustainability (Forbes, 2008). Developers advised by local public authorities, increasingly undertake sustainability assessment prior to development and thereafter. For such reasons, the sustainability assessment tools used in building construction and project development have received huge attention recently. However assessing the impact of buildings upons sustainability is not straightforward. There are decisions to be made as to the scope of the assessment, the indicators used to measure and gauge the impacts, the interpretation of results, and the mitigation measures to be taken.
Figure 4: Sustainability assessment tools worldwide (Reed & al., 2009 based on WGBC data)
During the last two decades, the science of ‘assessing sustainability in the built environment’ has flourished and the number of assessment tools exploded dramatically to reach over 100 tools worldwide (Author, 2013). Local assessment systems have developed in different countries and regions; responding to perceptions of what is needed in their local conditions. These assessment systems and tools share much in common but also evidence differences of scope, approach, reporting and mitigation measures.
Table 1. System Maturity; a Comparative Review Summary (Author, 2012)
System Maturity / System Age / Years / Num. of Assessed Buildings / Factual actionsTOOL / Specs / Initiated / Available for use / Recent Updates / Completed & certified / Testing &
Development / System Revision
BREEAM / 1990 / 1990 / 2008 / 7,202* / X / X
LEED / 1998 / 1998 / 2009 / 2,852* / X / X
CASBEE / 2001 / 2002 / 2005 / 80* / X / X/O
Green Star / 2002 / 2003 / 2008 / 87* / X / X
PEARL (Istidama) / 2006 / 2008 / 2012 / 100** / X / O
QSAS / 2007 / 2009 / 2012 / 128** / X / X
Worldwide, there are many building evaluation tools that focus mainly on different areas of environmental performance and are designed for different types of projects. These tools include life cycle assessment and costing, energy systems design and performance evaluation, productivity analysis, indoor environmental quality assessment, operations and maintenance optimization, whole building design and operations tools (Fowler and Rauch, 2006). Commonly-used tools worldwide are performance and/or predicted performance based systems. Each features a suite of tools developed for different buildings and projects such as residential, commercial, industrial, retail and educational and health buildings.
Global Sustainability Assessment System GSAS (ex. Qatar-QSAS): mechanism and process
Looking beyond what could be achieved through the widely know, popular and widespread sustainability ratings systems of LEED or BREEAM, Qatar can be commended in its introduction of QSAS which aims to address Qatar’s individual environmental, social and economic impact areas so that Qatar’s final building products achieve much higher standards than those embedded in LEED and BREEAM rating system.
Figure 5: QSAS indicators and criteria summary (GORD, 2011b)
However, and like any other building rating system, QSAS has room for improvement through cyclic upgrades. Other primary QSAS system mechanism process are shown in figure5, and are described as…“all categories, criteria and measurements are defined to be performance-based and quantifiable; a flexible scoring method which has overcome the limitations of other international rating systems; complete control over the development, customization and future modifications or expansion of the QSAS system” (GORD, 2011a).
The Assessment phases
A-Screening
Districts have to be designed as healthy liveable places for the end-users. Hence, a set of guidelines has to be elaborated in order to provide guidance for the effective implementation of sustainable urban districts. In a developing country like Qatar, the need of investigating the emerging districts is very important. Data availability has directed the study present study based on the author’s supervised work of Masters students Sobhey, M; Asadi, R; Khalfani, F.
Selected Key Indicators (KIs)
-New infrastructures: New districts should be studied with relation to adjacent infrastructure, their mutual effects and demands on the available resources.
-Quality of Urban life: Public spaces, walkable areas, mix used facilities and parking footprint are issues to be considered.
-Outdoor environments: Buildings do not exist alone, they are a part of a holistic built environment where the environmental quality shall be monitored to macro and meso-scale factors such as thermal comfort, and air quality.
-Cultural and Economic values: The districts’ design shall enhance the cultural values of the existed community.
-Materials: Material extraction, processing and manufacturing are important stages to be looked at on a wider scale, the site scale.
-Energy Consumption: On a district scale, the energy consumption becomes a critical issue, where the depletion of fossil energy over the multiple services should be monitored and reduced.
-Water Consumption: Water preservation is required with implementing new means of strategies for supplying and treating the several types of water.
B- Scoping;this phase is conducted upon the following ítems:
- Scale of the development should be in harmonywith surrounding urban setting(s).
- The developments have modern architectural style buildings with high-tech design.
- Developments with unique and new infrastructure, for example: district cooling technique.
- Developed on new lands on the periphery of the city, minor adjacent developments…
- Design should comply with the characteristics of the hot arid zone climate conditions.
C- Impact Assessment, Analysis/Synthesis and Pilot study (Lusail City) initial results-The impact assessment, analysis and synthesis has been developed upon GSAS model and its major KIs.
Urban Connectivity [UC] (Weight-10%)The Urban Connectivity category consists of factors associated with the urban environment such as zoning, transportation networks and loadings. Environmental impacts resulting from unsustainable urban practices include: Climate Change, Fossil Fuel Depletion, Water Depletion, Materials Depletion, Land Use & Contamination, Water Pollution, Air Pollution, Human Comfort & Health (GORD, 2013).
Table 2: Urban Connectivity Criteria (Author et al, 2014)
No. / Criteria / Min. Score / Max. ScoreUC.1 / Transportation Load / 0 / 3
UC.2 / Proximity to Existing Districts / 0 / 3
UC.3 / Acoustics Conditions / 0 / 3
UC.4 / Solid Waste load / 0 / 3
Total possible / 0 / 12
[UC.2] Proximity to Existing Districts: This criterion encourages developments near existing urban areas to maximize shared use of infrastructure.Measurement: All projects will complete the Proximity to Existing Districts Calculator and identification on a site map developed, un-developed, and non-developable land plots that are located within 1 km of the site boundary GORD [5]. Score (% of Development area X): 0=X<45%, 1=45%≤X<60%, 2=60%%≤X<75%, 3=X≥75%
SITE [S]: (Weight 20%) The Site category consists of factors associated with land use such as land conservation or remediation, site selection, planning and development. Environmental impacts resulting from improper land use and unsustainable practices include: Climate change, Fossil fuel depletion, Water depletion, and Human comfort & health (GORD, 2013).
Table 3: Site Criteriameasurements (Author, ibid)
No. / Criteria / Min. Score / Max. ScoreS.1 / Land Preservation / -1 / 3
S.2 / Water Body Preservation / -1 / 3
S.3 / Habitat Preservation / -1 / 3
S.4 / Vegetation / -1 / 3
S.10 / Crime Prevention / -1 / 3
S.11 / Public Space / -1 / 3
S.12 / GSAS Rated Typologies / -1 / 3
Total Possible / -12 / 36
SITE: [S.5] Walkability: Supports sustainable infrastructure through development of efficient, user-friendly pedestrian pathways. Measurement: The project will determine the ratio of pedestrian pathway length (meters) to vehicular roadway length (meters) to evaluate the extent of pathways within the development. Additionally, the project will perform a shading simulation to compute the percent of applicable pedestrian pathways shaded by both landscape features and buildings in order to determine the usability of pathways within the development (GORD, 2013). Score (ratio of pedestrian pathway length to vehicular roadway length [a]): -1=a<1.25, 0=1.25≤a≤1.5, 1= 1.5≤a≤1.75, 2=1.75≤a≤2, 3=a≥2. Score (% of pedestrian pathway shaded [b]): -1=b<60%, 0=60%≤b≤70%, 1=70%≤b≤80%, 2=80%≤b≤90%, 3=b≥90%.
ENERGY [E]: (Ct-Weight 18%) The Energy category consists of factors associated with the efficiency of energy delivery and the use of fossil energy sources. that result in harmful emissions and pollution. Negative impacts resulting from energy use and unsustainable practices include: Climate Change, Fossil Fuel Depletion, Air Pollution, and Human Comfort & Health. Factors that could mitigate environmental impacts due to energy use include: Selecting efficient building systems, Lowering the demand on non-renewable sources of energy, thereby reducing the depletion of fossil fuels, Reducing harmful emissions, and Minimizing the amount of harmful substances produced by the energy delivery systems and the energy supply network (GORD, 2013).
Table 4: Energy criteria measurement (Author et al, ibid)
No. / Criteria / Min. Score / Max. ScoreE.2 / Energy Delivery Performance / -1 / 3
E.3 / Fossil Fuel Depletion / -1 / 3
E.4 / CO2 Emission / -1 / 3
E.5 / NO2, SO2, & Particulate Matter / -1 / 3
Total possible / -4 / 12
ENERGY: [E.2] Energy Delivery performance: Establishes energy delivery performance of all systems that serve the district. Measurements: All projects will complete the District Energy Performance Calculator to determine the District’s Delivered Energy Performance Coefficient (EPCdel). The district’s energy delivery performance (Edel) is based on several input parameters including, but not limited to: 3. Infrastructure Delivered Energy: Water supply energy performance, WwT energy performance, District cooling PP energy performance, Irrigation energy performance, Park lighting energy performance, Traffic lighting energy performance, Street lighting energy performance. Score (EPCdel Value): -1=EPC>1, 0=0.8<EPC≤1, 1=0.7<EPC≤0.8, 2=0.6<EPC≤0.7, 3=EPC≤0.6. More criteria measurements will be delivered during the oral presentation.
Results Interpretation, Recommendations and Conclusion
This study successfully opens new horizons for sustainability assessment at the urban districts and neighbourhood levels as shown in figure 6 where a SWOP analysis evaluation is expressed compared to other major SAMs. Furthermore through the detailed measurement and assessment developed in this research, the initial results are encouraging and supportive of developing such innovative emerging tolos in specific and generic contextes.
Figure 6: GSAS SWP-analysis evaluation based on the comparative analysis
Further research should emphasize on the macro and meso spatial levels but also targets snapshots and time trends together while evaluating sustainability at urban and city spatial scales. The evolution of how sustainability tools do not encompass the social aspects and qualitative criteria are alarming, and special emphasis should be puto n these importan but long neglected aspects of holistic sustainability. The study encourages and supports the development of further initiatives which would help translate and interpret the physical and meta-physical aspects in a unique holistic interactive measurement tool to be applied at divers locations, scales and temporal elements by enhancing flexibility in time and space.
References
AlHorr, 2011: QSAS A Sustainability Assessment System and Green Legacy. Lecture presentation at D-AUP, QU. 28th November 2011.
Bell, S.; Morse, S (2008)2nd Ed. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Routledge. UK.
Brandon, P. & Lombardi, P. ( 2011) 2nd Ed.Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Wiley-Blackwell, London. UK
Fadli, F, Sobhey, M, Asadi, R and E. Elserrag (2014), Environmental Impact Assessment of New Districts Development-in WIT Transactions on the Built Environment.142:517-528.Ashurst, UK.
Fadli, F (2014) New Generation Sustainability Assessment Models (SAMs)-Application for Urban Districts & Neighbourhoods,World Sustainable Building Congress WSB14-Oct 2014 Barcelona, Spain
Fadli, F (2014) Sustainability Assessment Vs Building Performance; An Innovative Review, PMA 2014-Aarhus-International Conference on Performance Management and Assessment-Aarhus 25-27th June 2014.
Fadli, F (2013)Emerging contextual tools SATS, focus on the MENA region.SB13 Munich-Sustainability barriers and chances, Munich Germany 23-26thApril 2013.
Fadli, F (2012) Emerging sustainability assessment tools in the MENA region: An analytical evaluation –QFARF 2012-QNCC, DOI:10.5339/qfarf.2012.EEP93
Fadli F, (2012) Assessment models in the MENA region: an analytical study of QSAS. In Amoeda, R et al. BSA 2012 – Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Building Sustainability Assessment.
Fadli , F. (2007) Measuring Sustainability Levels of Tourist Resorts: STAM and the Use of Radar Diagrams.In: CSAAR- The International Conference of the Center for the Study of Architecture in the Arab Region (CSAAR), Tunis pp 1315-1331.
Fadli, F. (2005) Sustainable development for coastal tourist resorts in the Western Mediterranean region : the development and application of a sustainability assessment method. The University of Huddersfield. (Unpublished PhD thesis, Nov 2005).
GORD-QSAS website, (2012) GORD-QSAS/ Apr, 2012)
Gulf Organization for Research and Development GORD (2013), Global Sustainability Assessment System-Design Guidelines, GORD: Doha, pp. 11-154, 2013.
Hardi, P. & Zdan, T. (2009) BelaggioSTAMP, Sustainability Assessment & Measurement Principles, IISD.
Hirigoyen ,J. et al. (2008) Green building rating systems: going beyond the labels.Jones Lang LaSalle.
1