• صفحه اصلی
  • بررسی و مقایسه سیستم‌های متداول ارزیابی پایداری محلات

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-2007-5112 (R5) بازدید : 159 صفحه: 73 - 87

10.30495/jest.2022.53961.5112

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

بررسی و مقایسه سیستم‌های متداول ارزیابی پایداری محلات

محورهای موضوعی : شهرهای پایدار

سما براتی 1 , کیانوش ذاکرحقیقی 2 , آرش بغدادی 3

1 - دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، واحد شهر قدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 - دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
3 - استادیار گروه شهرسازی، واحد شهر قدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/04/23 تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/07/22 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/10/01

کلید واژه: توسعه پایدار محلی, ابعاد و شاخص‌های پایداری, مطالعه انطباقی سیستم‌ها, سیستم ارزیابی پایداری,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: بسیاری از جوامع، به طور عمده در جهان توسعه یافته از برنامه ها و سیستم های ارزیابی پایداری محلات برای سنجش میزان موفقیت خود در نزدیکی به اهداف توسعه پایدار استفاده می کنند. ویژگی ها و موفقیت این سیستم ها در میزان پوشش ابعاد مختلف پایداری موضوعی است که باید مورد توجه برنامه ریزان و طراحان شهری قرار گیرد. در این پژوهش با هدف شناخت، بررسی و مقایسه محدودیت ها و قابلیت های سیستم های ارزیابی پایداری محلات به بررسی انتقادی چهار مورد از سیستم های شناخته شده در این زمینه یعنی LEED-ND،BREEAM-Communities ، CASBEE-UD و DGNB-NSQ پرداخته شده است. روش بررسی: در این پژوهش با بررسی گسترده متون و قیاس تطبیقی از چهار سیستم ارزیابی پایداری محلات و با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوا به مسائلی از قبیل مقایسه ساختار و طبقه بندی، وزن موضوعات و معیارها، میزان پوشش پایداری و غیره پرداخته شده است. پس از مقایسه کلی سیستم های ارزیابی پایداری محلات، چارچوب مقایسه ای بر مبنای چهار بعد توسعه پایدار شهری در قالب 8 موضوع شکل‌گرفته است. لازم به ذکر است این پژوهش در سال 1399 انجام شده است. یافته ها: علی رغم مشاهده ساختار درخت مانند در سیستم ها، تفاوت در اهمیت موضوعات و میزان پوشش پایداری قابل مشاهده است. بررسی ها نشان داد بیش از 68% معیارهای ارزیابی بر بعد محیطی تأکید داشته و دو موضوع کاربری اراضی- بافت شهری- چیدمان ساختمان ها با بیش از 20% و منابع (انرژی، آب، مصالح) با بیش از 13%، موضوعات مهم و تأثیرگذار در روند ارزیابی محلات شناخته شدند. این در حالی است که در خصوص سایر موضوعات رویکرد سیستم ها متفاوت بوده است. بحث و نتیجه گیری: نتایج پژوهش نشان داد سیستم های مورد بررسی علی رغم ارائه روش های عملیاتی مفید در راستای ارزیابی پایداری به دلیل تمرکز بیش از حد بر بعد محیطی و به همان نسبت غفلت از سایر ابعاد پایداری، در ارزیابی پایداری محلات به صورت یکپارچه کارا نبوده و نیاز به بلوغ بیشتری دارند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Many communities, mainly in the developed world, use neighborhood sustainability assessment programs and systems to measure their success near proximity to sustainable development goals. The characteristics and success of these systems in covering the various dimensions of sustainability is an issue that should be considered by urban planners and designers. In this research, to recognize and identify the limitations and capabilities of the neighborhood sustainability assessment systems; four known systems in this field, namely LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities, CASBEE-UD, and DGNB-NSQ, have been critically reviewed. Material and Methodology: In this research, with a broad review of texts and a comparative study of four neighborhood sustainability assessment systems, using content analysis method to issues such as comparing structure and classification, the weight of topics and criteria, the amount of sustainability coverage and so on have been addressed. After comparing the general comparison of neighborhood sustainability assessment systems, a comparative framework based on four dimensions of urban sustainable development has been created in the form of 8 issues. Findings: Despite observing the treelike structure in the systems, differences in the importance of the subjects and the degree of sustainability coverage are noticeable. Studies have shown that more than 68% of the evaluation criteria emphasize the environmental dimension and the two issues of land use-urban context-building layout with more than 20% and resources (energy, water, materials) with more than 13%, were recognized as important and influential subjects in the process of evaluating neighborhoods. However, the approach of systems has been different on other issues. Discussion and Conclusion: The results showed that the systems under study, despite providing useful operational methods to assess sustainability due to excessive focus on the environmental dimension and the same neglect of other dimensions of sustainability, have not been effective in assessing the sustainability of neighborhoods as a whole And they need more maturity.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Lányi, E. 2012. Sustainable development, sustainable construction, definitions. See information in http://epszerk.bme.hu/index.php?id=C0108.
    2.
  2. Marvuglia, A., Havinga, L., Heidrich, O., Fonseca, J., Gaitani, N. 2020. Advances and challenges in assessing urban sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 124- 109788, pp. 1-12.
    3.
  3. Cohen, M. 2017. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature. Furman University. See information in https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2048.
    4.
  4. Reith, A., Orova, 2014. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability? Ecological Indicators, Vol 48, pp. 660–672. See information in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.005.
    5.
  5. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Faehnle, 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Environ. Manag, Vol.146, pp. 107-115.
    6.
  6. Zeev, S., Meidad, K., Avinoam, M. 2014. A multi-spatial scale approach to urban sustainability An illustration of the domestic and global hinterlands of the city of Beer-Sheva. Land Use Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 498-505.
    7.
  7. Huang, L. Zheng, W. Hong, J. Liu, Y. Liu, G. 2020. Paths and strategies for sustainable urban renewal at the neighbourhood level: A framework for decision-making. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 55. 102074, pp. 1-12.
    8.
  8. Balouktsi, M. 2018. Principles and Tools for Designing Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development: A Process-based and Actionoriented Approach at Neighbourhood Level. pp. 1-350
    9.
  9. Shi, Q., Yu, T., Zuo, J., Lai, X. 2017. Challenges of developing sustainable neighborhoods in China. Journal of Cleaner Production xxx pp. 1-12
    10.
  10. Lützkendorf,T. Balouktsi,M. 2016. Sustainability Assessment Systems for New and Existing Neighbourhoods. Designing Sustainable Urban Futures Concepts and Practices from Different Countries. see information in https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/daf2/10bd6d538e99bc38a1cf24294963­3c3f9259.pdf#page=40.
    11.
  11. Kawakubo, S., Murakami, S., Ikaga, T., & Asami, Y. 2017. Sustainability assessment of cities: SDGs and GHG emissions. Building Research & Information. see information in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2017.1356120.
    12.
  12. Choguill CL. 2008. Developing sustainable neighborhoods. Habitat, Vol. 32. Pp.41-48.
    13.
  13. Seltzer, E., Smith, T. W., Cortright, J., Bassett, E. M., & Shandas, V. 2010. Making ecodistricts: Concepts and methods for advancing sustainability in neighborhoods. Portland State University, see information in https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/iss_pub/36/.
    14.
  14. Sharifi, A., Murayama, A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38. Pp.73–87.
    15.
  15. Berardi, U. 2011. Beyond Sustainability Assessment Systems: Upgrading Topics by Enlarging the Scale of Assessment. Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2(4). pp. 276–282.
    16.
  16. Bird, k. 2015. Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment: Connecting Impact with Policy Intent, Simon Fraser University.
    17.
  17. Deakin, M. 2011. Meeting the challenge of learning from what works in the development of sustainable communities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1 (4), pp. 244–251.
    18.
  18. Dias, M. 2015. Development of a Community Embedded Sustainable Urban Design Process Framework for Neighbourhood Context, UK. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.
    19.
  19. Falk, N., Carley, M. 2012. How can local government build sustainable urban neighbourhoods? See information in www.jrf.org.uk.
    20.
  20. Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M. Malmqvist, T., Finnveden, G. 2016. Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify? Environmental Impact Assessment, pp. 200-213.
    21.
  21. Dawodu A, Cheshmehzangi A, Akinwolemiwa B. 2018. The Systematic Selection of Headline Sustainable Indicators for the development of Future Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools for Africa, Sustainable Cities and Society.see information in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.03­3.
    22.
  22. Synjoki ,E., Kyr, R. Heinonen, J. Junnila, S. 2012. An assessment of the applicability of three international neighbourhood sustainability rating systems to diverse local conditions, with a focus on Nordic case areas, Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 3:2, pp. 96-104.
    23.
  23. Oswald, M.R. McNeil,S. 2010. Rating sustainability: Transportation investments in urban corridors as a case study, J. Urban Plan. D. 136, pp. 177–185.
    24.
  24. Codoban, N. Kennedy, C.A. 2008. Metabolism of neighborhoods, Urban Plan. D134,pp. 21–31.
    25.
  25. Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Von Wehrden, H. 2013. A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape Urban Plan.Vol 118, pp. 40–52.
    26.
  26. Hurley J, Horne R. 2006. Review and analysis of tools for the implementation and assessment of sustainable urban development. EIANZ. Adelaide: Environmental Institute of Australian and New Zealand.
    27.
  27. Hurley J. 2009. Sustainable or status-quo: investigating sustainability assessment of residential estate development. In: State of Australian cities conference. Perth.
    28.
  28. Blum, A. 2007. HQE2R-research and demonstration for assessing sustainable neighborhood developmentو the environmental assessment methods. New York: Routledge; pp. 412–28.
    29.
  29. Coplak J, Raksanyi P. 2003. Planning sustainable settlements. Bratislava: Slavak University of Technology.
    30.
  30. Garde, A. 2009. Sustainable by design: insights from U.S. LEED-ND pilot projects. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 75 (4), pp. 424–440. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01944360903148174.
    31.
  31. Haapio, A. 2012. Towards Sustainable Urban Communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 32, pp. 165–169.
    32.
  32. Oliver, , Pearl, D. 2017. Rethinking sustainability frameworks in neighbourhood projects: a process-based approach, Building Research & Information, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2017.1358569.
    33.
  33. Tam, V., Karimipoura, Lea, KH. Wang, J. 2018. Green neighbourhood Review on the international assessment systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, pp. 689–699.
    34.
  34. Lee, J. Park, J. Schuetze, T. 2015. Comparative Analysis of LEED-ND & DGNB-UD Rating System. Proceedings of the 8th Conf. Int. Forum Urban., C004, doi: 10.3390/ifou-C004.
    35.
  35. Komeily A, Srinivasan RS. 2016. What is neighborhood context and why does it matter in sustainability assessment? Procedia Engineering.Vol. 145. pp. 876-883.
    36.
  36. Yildiz, S. Yilmaz, M. Kivrak, S. Gultekin, A. 2016. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools and a Comparative Analysis of Five Different Assessment Tools. Planlama; 26(2). pp. 93–100.
    37.
  37. Menting, J. 2016. The comparison of LEED and BREEAM to find a universal way of rating sustainable buildings. Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture Explorelab Studio 21.
    38.
  38. Ali-Toudert, F., Ji, L. 2017. Modeling and measuring urban sustainability in multi-criteria based systems-A challenging issue, Ecological Indicators, Vol.73. pp. 597–611.
    39.
  39. BRE Global. 2012. BREEAM Communities: Technical Manual SD202-0.2:2012. See information in breeam.com.
    40.
  40. Callway, R. Dixon, T. Nikolic, D. 2016. BREEAM Communities: challenges for sustainable neighbourhood evaluation. Royal Institution of Chartered SurveyorsCOBRA, Toronto, Canada.
    41.
  41. CASBEE for Urban Development. Technical manual .2007. Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation.
    42.
  42. DGNB–German Sustainable Building Council. 2011. Excellence defined, sustainable building with a systems approach. See information in http://www.dgnb.de/en/shop/dgnb-bro-schueren.
    43.
  43. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development. 2009. The U.S Green Building Council. see information in: https://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.
    44.

 

 




 



 

_||_

  1. Lányi, E. 2012. Sustainable development, sustainable construction, definitions. See information in http://epszerk.bme.hu/index.php?id=C0108.
    2.
  2. Marvuglia, A., Havinga, L., Heidrich, O., Fonseca, J., Gaitani, N. 2020. Advances and challenges in assessing urban sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 124- 109788, pp. 1-12.
    3.
  3. Cohen, M. 2017. A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature. Furman University. See information in https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2048.
    4.
  4. Reith, A., Orova, 2014. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability? Ecological Indicators, Vol 48, pp. 660–672. See information in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.005.
    5.
  5. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Faehnle, 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Environ. Manag, Vol.146, pp. 107-115.
    6.
  6. Zeev, S., Meidad, K., Avinoam, M. 2014. A multi-spatial scale approach to urban sustainability An illustration of the domestic and global hinterlands of the city of Beer-Sheva. Land Use Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 498-505.
    7.
  7. Huang, L. Zheng, W. Hong, J. Liu, Y. Liu, G. 2020. Paths and strategies for sustainable urban renewal at the neighbourhood level: A framework for decision-making. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 55. 102074, pp. 1-12.
    8.
  8. Balouktsi, M. 2018. Principles and Tools for Designing Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development: A Process-based and Actionoriented Approach at Neighbourhood Level. pp. 1-350
    9.
  9. Shi, Q., Yu, T., Zuo, J., Lai, X. 2017. Challenges of developing sustainable neighborhoods in China. Journal of Cleaner Production xxx pp. 1-12
    10.
  10. Lützkendorf,T. Balouktsi,M. 2016. Sustainability Assessment Systems for New and Existing Neighbourhoods. Designing Sustainable Urban Futures Concepts and Practices from Different Countries. see information in https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/daf2/10bd6d538e99bc38a1cf24294963­3c3f9259.pdf#page=40.
    11.
  11. Kawakubo, S., Murakami, S., Ikaga, T., & Asami, Y. 2017. Sustainability assessment of cities: SDGs and GHG emissions. Building Research & Information. see information in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2017.1356120.
    12.
  12. Choguill CL. 2008. Developing sustainable neighborhoods. Habitat, Vol. 32. Pp.41-48.
    13.
  13. Seltzer, E., Smith, T. W., Cortright, J., Bassett, E. M., & Shandas, V. 2010. Making ecodistricts: Concepts and methods for advancing sustainability in neighborhoods. Portland State University, see information in https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/iss_pub/36/.
    14.
  14. Sharifi, A., Murayama, A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38. Pp.73–87.
    15.
  15. Berardi, U. 2011. Beyond Sustainability Assessment Systems: Upgrading Topics by Enlarging the Scale of Assessment. Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2(4). pp. 276–282.
    16.
  16. Bird, k. 2015. Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment: Connecting Impact with Policy Intent, Simon Fraser University.
    17.
  17. Deakin, M. 2011. Meeting the challenge of learning from what works in the development of sustainable communities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1 (4), pp. 244–251.
    18.
  18. Dias, M. 2015. Development of a Community Embedded Sustainable Urban Design Process Framework for Neighbourhood Context, UK. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.
    19.
  19. Falk, N., Carley, M. 2012. How can local government build sustainable urban neighbourhoods? See information in www.jrf.org.uk.
    20.
  20. Wangel, J., Wallhagen, M. Malmqvist, T., Finnveden, G. 2016. Certification systems for sustainable neighbourhoods: What do they really certify? Environmental Impact Assessment, pp. 200-213.
    21.
  21. Dawodu A, Cheshmehzangi A, Akinwolemiwa B. 2018. The Systematic Selection of Headline Sustainable Indicators for the development of Future Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Tools for Africa, Sustainable Cities and Society.see information in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.03­3.
    22.
  22. Synjoki ,E., Kyr, R. Heinonen, J. Junnila, S. 2012. An assessment of the applicability of three international neighbourhood sustainability rating systems to diverse local conditions, with a focus on Nordic case areas, Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 3:2, pp. 96-104.
    23.
  23. Oswald, M.R. McNeil,S. 2010. Rating sustainability: Transportation investments in urban corridors as a case study, J. Urban Plan. D. 136, pp. 177–185.
    24.
  24. Codoban, N. Kennedy, C.A. 2008. Metabolism of neighborhoods, Urban Plan. D134,pp. 21–31.
    25.
  25. Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Von Wehrden, H. 2013. A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape Urban Plan.Vol 118, pp. 40–52.
    26.
  26. Hurley J, Horne R. 2006. Review and analysis of tools for the implementation and assessment of sustainable urban development. EIANZ. Adelaide: Environmental Institute of Australian and New Zealand.
    27.
  27. Hurley J. 2009. Sustainable or status-quo: investigating sustainability assessment of residential estate development. In: State of Australian cities conference. Perth.
    28.
  28. Blum, A. 2007. HQE2R-research and demonstration for assessing sustainable neighborhood developmentو the environmental assessment methods. New York: Routledge; pp. 412–28.
    29.
  29. Coplak J, Raksanyi P. 2003. Planning sustainable settlements. Bratislava: Slavak University of Technology.
    30.
  30. Garde, A. 2009. Sustainable by design: insights from U.S. LEED-ND pilot projects. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 75 (4), pp. 424–440. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01944360903148174.
    31.
  31. Haapio, A. 2012. Towards Sustainable Urban Communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 32, pp. 165–169.
    32.
  32. Oliver, , Pearl, D. 2017. Rethinking sustainability frameworks in neighbourhood projects: a process-based approach, Building Research & Information, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2017.1358569.
    33.
  33. Tam, V., Karimipoura, Lea, KH. Wang, J. 2018. Green neighbourhood Review on the international assessment systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, pp. 689–699.
    34.
  34. Lee, J. Park, J. Schuetze, T. 2015. Comparative Analysis of LEED-ND & DGNB-UD Rating System. Proceedings of the 8th Conf. Int. Forum Urban., C004, doi: 10.3390/ifou-C004.
    35.
  35. Komeily A, Srinivasan RS. 2016. What is neighborhood context and why does it matter in sustainability assessment? Procedia Engineering.Vol. 145. pp. 876-883.
    36.
  36. Yildiz, S. Yilmaz, M. Kivrak, S. Gultekin, A. 2016. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools and a Comparative Analysis of Five Different Assessment Tools. Planlama; 26(2). pp. 93–100.
    37.
  37. Menting, J. 2016. The comparison of LEED and BREEAM to find a universal way of rating sustainable buildings. Delft University of Technology Faculty of Architecture Explorelab Studio 21.
    38.
  38. Ali-Toudert, F., Ji, L. 2017. Modeling and measuring urban sustainability in multi-criteria based systems-A challenging issue, Ecological Indicators, Vol.73. pp. 597–611.
    39.
  39. BRE Global. 2012. BREEAM Communities: Technical Manual SD202-0.2:2012. See information in breeam.com.
    40.
  40. Callway, R. Dixon, T. Nikolic, D. 2016. BREEAM Communities: challenges for sustainable neighbourhood evaluation. Royal Institution of Chartered SurveyorsCOBRA, Toronto, Canada.
    41.
  41. CASBEE for Urban Development. Technical manual .2007. Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation.
    42.
  42. DGNB–German Sustainable Building Council. 2011. Excellence defined, sustainable building with a systems approach. See information in http://www.dgnb.de/en/shop/dgnb-bro-schueren.
    43.
  43. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development. 2009. The U.S Green Building Council. see information in: https://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148.
    44.

 

 




 



 

سکوی نشر دانش

سند یا سکوی نشر دانش ،سامانه ای جهت مدیریت حوزه علمی و پژوهشی نشریات دانشگاه آزاد می باشد

پیوندهای سایت

مراکز مرتبط

پشتیبانی

صفحات رسمی

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]