land
Article
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Sustainability
Assessment Systems from the USA (LEED–ND),
Germany (DGNB–UD), and India (GRIHA–LD)
Swati Bahale and Thorsten Schuetze *
Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea;
swatib@g.skku.edu
* Correspondence: t.schuetze@skku.edu
Citation: Bahale, S.; Schuetze, T.
Comparative Analysis of
Neighborhood Sustainability
Assessment Systems from the USA
Abstract: Neighborhood sustainability assessment systems support the planning of sustainable and
resilient cities. This research analyses, compares, and evaluates three neighborhood sustainability assessment systems (NSA) of (i) the German Sustainable Building Council for Urban Districts
(DGNB–UD), (ii) the USA Leadership in energy and environmental design for Neighborhood Development (LEED–ND), and (iii) the Indian Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment for Large
Developments (GRIHA–LD). The theoretical background, certification types, process, and evaluation
methods of the three NSAs are discussed. The qualitative and quantitative comparative analysis
and evaluation methods of the NSAs included identifying and assessing ten weighted essential
urban sustainability themes. Indicators under each theme were identified and compared in the
NSAs. The comparison showed the importance of particular themes based on assigned weights.
LEED–ND focuses on “transportation” and “site planning”, while DGNB–UD addresses all dimensions of sustainability in a balanced manner. GRIHA–LD has limitations concerning social, economic,
and governance concerns. The research results define differences and similarities in international
neighborhood sustainability assessment and illustrate the quality and quantity differences of sustainability and resilience aspects addressed by the three existing NSA systems as a starting basis
for the future improvement of existing and development of new land sustainability and resilience
assessment systems.
Keywords: sustainability; resilience; urbanized land; neighborhood; assessment systems
(LEED–ND), Germany (DGNB–UD),
and India (GRIHA–LD). Land 2023,
12, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land12051002
Academic Editors: Lorenzo
Ros-McDonnell and Nir Y. Krakauer
Received: 13 March 2023
Revised: 20 April 2023
Accepted: 24 April 2023
Published: 3 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
Land use changes through urbanization and the construction and operation of cities
are profoundly altering the relationship between society and the environment at accelerated rates, with hazardous effects, such as excessive nonrenewable resource consumption,
resulting in polluting emissions and climate change. As per the UN Habitat, more than 68%
of the world’s population will be accommodated in cities by 2050, mainly in developing
countries [1]. Urban expansions will put pressure on potable water supplies, energy, food,
urban mobility, air condition, health, quality of life, and waste treatment [2]. Moreover,
urbanization leads to social, environmental, economic, institutional, and cultural transformations; therefore, it is necessary to understand the form and content of urbanization to
reduce carbon emissions. Climate change is contributing to increasing the frequency and
intensity of natural hazards. Concerns regarding public health implications of urbanization
have arisen with recent COVID-19 outbreaks [3]. Consequently, a range of urban risks
is accumulating, and cities in the developing world urgently need a mechanism for risk
reduction and resistance planning [1].
The concept of “sustainability” was initiated in the 17th century [4]. The concept
of sustainable development was articulated by the World Conservation Strategy of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 1980).
Land 2023, 12, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051002
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2023, 12, 1002
2 of 25
In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland report defined sustainability as “meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” [5,6]. Sustainability in urban areas refers to planning for the future of urban
development, as well as redeveloping existing settlements in an ecofriendly and resourceefficient manner [4]. Resilience can be defined as the ability of a system, community, or
society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration
of its essential basic structures and functions [7–9]. Resilience and sustainability are also
associated with global political trends, where global frameworks and multilateral agendas
are being developed to promote sustainability and resilience in urbanization [10]. Strong
sustainable development needs to address ecological, social, and economic challenges in
a balanced way [11]. The need for a sustainable urban form at the local level has been
advocated by the United Nations through its “Local Agenda 21” programs [12]. The 2030
Agenda for sustainable development discussed the determination to take the bold and
transformative steps that are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and
resilient path [13]. Sustainable development at the local level has also been recognized
through the formulation of a separate goal under the Sustainable Development Goals for
2030, specifically Goal 11: “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient,
and sustainable” [13,14]. To overcome the challenges of sustainable development, the
understanding of sustainability in a holistic sense requires proper understanding of the
concepts, approaches, methods, tools, and techniques used to evaluate the sustainability of
urban development [15–17].
1.1. Neighborhoods and Urban Districts
A neighborhood or an urban district is urbanized land of a specific size, accommodating multiple buildings with single or different uses, such as housing, education, and
commercial. According to the UN, the neighborhood is an area where people can easily
meet their daily needs, socialize, and feel safe [18]. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED–ND) 2009 states that the neighborhood is
an area of dwellings, employment, retail, and civic places and their immediate environment
that residents and employees identify in terms of social and economic attitudes, lifestyles,
and institutions [19,20]. According to the German Sustainable Building Council–Urban
Districts (DGNB–UD) system, an urban district is an urban area of a minimum of two
hectares consisting of a number of buildings and at least two development sites having public and publicly accessible spaces and related infrastructure and has a gross floor residential
area that should not be less than 10% and not more than 90% [21]. In the Green Rating
for Integrated Habitat Assessment for Large Development (GRIHA–LD) the term “Large
Development” is used, specifying that the area of development be equal to or greater than
one hectare. Various typologies of “Large Development” are stated in GRIHA–LD as per
land use and building use, including mixed-used township, institutional campuses, and
special economic zones [22].
Sustainability principles suggest that the neighborhood scale is an appropriate level to
better analyze socioeconomic impacts, and more easily and meaningfully facilitate citizen
involvement. Neighborhoods have gained considerable attention, since they are small
enough to efficiently and effectively experiment with innovative sustainable planning
and design initiatives, while they are simultaneously large enough to take account of
complex interrelationships with different urban components [23]. When the focus is only
on smaller scales, such as buildings and building blocks, such complexities are often
not considered [24].
Neighborhoods are subdivisions of cities. All neighborhoods within a city form the
city with all developments, activities, and processes. Therefore, the overall sustainability
of a city depends on the sustainability of its neighborhoods [25]. An urban neighborhood
can be defined by the utilization of multiple themes and indicators referring to topics such
as social, economic, and ecological, topography, land use, infrastructures, and administra-
Land 2023, 12, 1002
3 of 25
tion [26]. The most sustainable neighborhoods tend to exhibit high levels of walkability, a
sense of place, social cohesion and stability, and neighborhood resiliency amidst changing
economic and sociopolitical conditions. With regard to the urban environment, investigating sustainable and resilient urban neighborhood principles are crucial, as they provide
general insights into the desirable development paths for neighborhoods [27].
A seminal work on the perceptual form of urban environments found that sustainable
neighborhoods are defined by limits having various community mixed housing, offices,
retailers, leisure activities, civic centers, schools, medical care centers, and parks interconnected by a network of streets that assigns priority to public spaces, and to the appropriate
placement of institutional structures [18]. Neighborhood sustainability can be investigated
using various assessment methods and techniques. A neighborhood sustainability assessment (NSA) system is a tool that facilitates neighborhood sustainability and resilience
capacity identification.
1.2. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment (NSA) Systems
NSA systems are standards that evaluate the surrounding environment of buildings,
and indicators that are associated with various themes, such as society, transportation,
water, waste management, and the economy on larger scale [28]. In 1990, the Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) system was the
first multicriteria system developed for the sustainability assessment of buildings [29].
Multicriteria sustainability assessment systems allow a stepwise implementation for each
theme [30] and provide a third-party evaluation based on several predefined sustainability
themes, providing credibility for the planning project. NSA systems provide a common
platform and standardized terminology for various stakeholders involved in urban development projects [31–33]. NSA systems were designed to assist decision-makers in evaluating
global to local integrated nature–society systems in the short and long term to assist them
in making appropriate decisions to make society sustainable [34]. Assessment systems
facilitate decision-making and outcome evaluation, and guide future development [35].
Therefore, NSA systems support the improvement of neighborhood sustainability. A certified neighborhood can gain recognition, and developers can promote certified projects,
which results in potential increase of the project’s value. Among various NSA systems,
some exemplary and well-known systems—the Comprehensive Assessment System for
Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE–UD) of Japan [36], DGNB–UD of Germany [21],
LEED–ND of the USA [37], BREEAM communities of the United Kingdom [38], Green
Mark of Singapore [39], and The Ecological Community Evaluation System (EEWH–EC) of
Taiwan, are used for assessment and certification.
Based on research and developments progress and expert input, NSA systems are
generally regularly updated, further developed, and improved. However, update periods
are inconsistent among NSA systems. Comparing and evaluating the most actual versions
of comprehensive NSA systems facilitated this up-to-date neighborhood sustainability
and resilience assessment research. Further research is needed to investigate if and how
regular updates of NSA tools have resulted in structural and procedural improvements [23].
The NSA systems selected for the comparative analysis in this research address social,
environmental, economic, and institutional dimensions of sustainability and resilience.
Quantitative assessment by scoring or weighting is part of the evaluation process of
comprehensive and recognized NSA systems. Furthermore, these systems’ assessment
methods and manuals are publicly accessible.
This research selected the LEED–ND and DGNB–UD for comparative analyses because
LEED–ND and DGNB–UD are the most comprehensive and internationally recognized
second- and third-generation neighborhood and urban district assessment systems developed in the USA and Germany, respectively. Literature studies on comparative analysis of
NSA systems proved that LEED–ND and DGNB–UD have the most comprehensive, established sustainability assessment framework [40,41]. In contrast, GRIHA−LD is a system
designed to assess extensive developments’ environmental performance, developed in and
Land 2023, 12, 1002
4 of 25
used exclusively in India. In this research, the authors aimed to compare the Indian
NSA system GRIHA–LD with the most recognized, globally used neighborhood sustainability assessment systems. Literature studies confirmed missing research about developing
countries’ NSA systems. [42,43]. GRIHA–LD was formulated to develop a consolidated
framework for assessing the environmental impacts of large-scale urban developments [22],
but comparative analysis demonstrates that the NSA system should encompass economic,
social, and institutional aspects equitably, in addition to environmental impact evaluation.
This comparison could contribute to the improvement of existing systems, and the analysis
will assist in the development of new neighborhood sustainability assessment systems.
1.3. General Description of LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD
1.3.1. LEED–ND
In 2009, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), Congress for New Urbanism (CNU), and National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) launched the Leadership
in Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED–ND) as a voluntary
sustainability assessment system to guide sustainable neighborhood development [20].
The LEED–ND for the “neighborhood development built project” is applicable for a
fully completed neighborhood or one in the completion stage, whereas the LEED–ND for
the “neighborhood development plan” can be applied to a neighborhood in the construction
phase when less than 75% of the area is constructed. In this research, the latest version of
“LEED v4” for neighborhood development built project was considered for the analysis.
Table 1 shows that the LEED–ND is assessed on the basis of five credit categories, the
most important of which are “smart location and linkage (SLL)”, “neighborhood pattern
and design (NPD)“, and “green infrastructure and buildings (GIB)“, which are assigned
prerequisites and credit points, while the “innovation and design process (IDP)” and
“regional priority (RP)” categories are also assigned importance in the LEED–ND v4 version
with credit point allocation [37,44]. Table 1 shows the score allocation in LEED–ND to all
five credit categories: “SLL” receives 25% points, “NPD” receives 37% points, and “GIB”
receives 28% points. “IDP” receives 6% of the total points, while “RP” receives 4% of the
total points [37].
Table 1. Assessment and structure of the LEED v4 for neighborhood development with the specification of credit categories, credits and prerequisites, absolute and normalized credit points, and credit
categories percentages [44].
Credit Categories
Smart location
and linkage
Credits and Prerequisites
Credit Points/110
Normalized
Credit Points/100
Smart location
Imperiled species and
ecological communities
Wetland and water body conservation
Agricultural land conservation
Floodplain avoidance
Preferred locations
Brownfield remediation
Access to quality transit
Bicycle facilities
Housing and job proximity
Steep slope protection
Site design for habitat or wetland and
water body conservation
Restoration of habitat or wetlands and
water bodies
Long-term conservation management of
habitat or wetlands and water bodies
Required
-
Required
-
Required
Required
Required
10
2
7
2
3
1
9.1
1.82
6.35
1.82
2.69
0.91
1
0.91
1
0.91
1
0.91
Credit
Categories (%)
25.42
Land 2023, 12, 1002
5 of 25
Table 1. Cont.
Credits and Prerequisites
Credit Points/110
Normalized
Credit Points/100
Walkable streets
Compact development
Connected and open community
Walkable streets
Compact development
Mixed used neighborhood
Housing types and affordability
Reduced parking footprint
Connected and open community
Transit facilities
Transportation demand management
Access to civic and public space
Access to recreation facilities
Visitability and universal design
Community outreach and involvement
Local food production
Tree-lined and shaded streetscapes
Neighborhood schools
Required
Required
Required
9
6
4
7
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
8.18
5.45
3.64
6.36
0.91
1.82
0.91
1.82
0.91
0.91
0.91
1.82
0.91
1.82
0.91
Required
Required
Required
Required
5
2
1
2
1
4.55
1.82
0.91
1.82
0.91
Green infrastructure
and building
Certified green building
Minimum building energy performance
Indoor water use reduction
Construction activity pollution prevention
Certified green buildings
Optimize building energy performance
Indoor water use reduction
Outdoor water use Reduction
Building reuse
Historic resource preservation and
adaptive reuse
Minimized site disturbance
Rainwater management
Heat island reduction
Solar orientation
Renewable energy production
District heating and cooling
Infrastructure energy efficiency
Wastewater management
Recycled and reused infrastructure
Solid waste management
Light pollution reduction
2
1.82
1
4
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
0.91
3.63
0.91
0.91
2.73
1.82
0.91
1.82
0.91
0.91
0.91
Innovation and
design process
Innovation
LEED® -accredited professional
5
1
4.55
0.91
5.46
1
1
1
1
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
3.64
110
100
100
Credit Categories
Neighborhood
pattern and design
Regional priority
credit
-
Regional priority credit:
Regional priority credit:
Regional priority credit:
Regional priority credit:
region defined
region defined
region defined
region defined
Total credit
Credit
Categories (%)
37.28
28.2
The “prerequisites” are mandatory to achieve certification, while the credit measures
are optional, and measured by the allocation of weighted point values that signify the
relative importance of each measure. Prerequisite and credit measures are described
through supporting information in the documentation. The “intent” of each indicator
identifies the main goals of the measure. “Requirement” indicates the specifications that
are needed to fulfil the goals.
Land 2023, 12, 1002
6 of 25
As a result of the assessment, neighborhood development is certified using LEED–ND,
with four certification levels based on points earned. Certified status can be achieved
with a score of 40–49 points; silver certification with 50–59 points; gold certification with
60–79 points; and platinum certification with more than 80 points [37].
1.3.2. DGNB–UD
The German Sustainable Building Council assessment system for urban districts,
DGNB–UD, was launched in Germany by DGNB in 2011 and consists of a complex point
impact factor and percentage-based assessment criteria certification system for urban
districts. Table 2 shows the structure of the DGNB–UD system, assessment criteria, and
the scores of respective criteria. In the DGNB–UD system, the concept of sustainability is
defined and extended beyond social, environmental, and economic sustainability, as the
DGNB–UD includes “process quality” and “technical quality” [45]. Table 2 also illustrates
the distribution of credit score percentages in each domain of the most recent version, 2020
of DGNB–UD [46], used for this research.
Table 2. Assessment and structure of the DGNB–UD system with the specification of domains, criteria
groups, criteria, and weighting of the urban district assessment criteria [46].
Domain
Criteria Group
Environmental
quality (ENV)
Effect on global
and local
environment
(ENV1)
Resource
consumption
(ENV2)
Economic
quality (ECO)
Life-cycle costs
(ECO1)
Economic
development
(ECO2)
Sociocultural
and functional
quality (SOC)
Health, comfort,
and
user satisfaction
(SOC1)
Functionality
(SOC2)
Sociocultural
quality
(SOC3)
Technical
infrastructure
(TEC 2)
Technical
quality (TEC)
Criteria
Relevance
Factor
Share of Total
Score (%)
8
6.4
-
-
ENV 1.5
ENV 2.2
ENV2.3
ENV 2.4
Lifecycle assessment
Pollutants and hazardous
substances
Urban climate
Water cycle systems
Land use
Biodiversity
5
4
4
4
4.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
ECO1.1
Lifecycle costs
4
5.6
ECO2.1
ECO2.3
ECO2.4
ECO2.5
Resilience and adaptation
Land Use efficiency
Value stability
Environmental risks
3
3
2
2
4.3
4.3
2.9
2.9
SOC1.1
SOC1.6
SOC1.8
Thermal comfort in open space
Open space
Workplace comfort
Noise, exhaust, and light
emission
3
4
-
2.6
3.5
-
3
2.6
ENV1.1
ENV 1.2
SOC1.9
SOC2.1
Barrier-free design
3
2.6
SOC3.1
SOC3.2
Urban design
Social and functional mix
Social and commercial
infrastructure
3
4
2.6
3.5
3
2.6
Energy infrastructure
Resource management
Smart infrastructure
Mobility
infrastructure—motorized
transportation
Mobility
infrastructure—pedestrians
and cyclists
4
2
2
4.4
2.2
2.2
5
5.6
5
5.6
PRO1.2
PRO1.7
PRO1.8
PRO1.9
PRO1.10
Integrated planning
Participation
Project management
Governance
Safety concepts
3
2
2
2
-
5.0
3.3
3.3
3.3
-
PRO2.1
Construction site/construction
process
1
1.8
PRO3.5
Quality assurance
and monitoring
2
3.3
Total
92
100
SOC3.3
TEC2.1
TEC2.2
TEC2.4
TEC3.1
Mobility (TEC3)
TEC3.2
Planning quality
(PRO1)
Process quality
(PRO)
Construction
quality
(PRO 2)
Quality
assurance in
the use phase
(PRO3)
Domain
Score (%)
20
20
20
20
20
100
Land 2023, 12, 1002
7 of 25
In the DGNB–UD system, the evaluations are always based on the entire life cycle of a
district. The DGNB system uses quantitative performance indices to grade a neighborhood.
The overall performance index is calculated from the five topic areas, according to their
weights. The total performance index is insufficient to gain the certification. To receive
the respective award; the performance index must reach the minimum performance index
in the result-relevant topic areas. The maximum percentage that can be achieved by a
project is 100%. Assessment through certification is based on three certification categories:
silver, gold, and platinum. Platinum is the highest certification level which requires a
minimum performance index for each domain of 65% and a total performance index of
80% and above. The DGNB certificate in gold is awarded for a minimum domain-related
performance index of 50% and a total performance index of 65% and above. The basic silver
DGNB certification requires a minimum domain-related performance index of 35% and a
total performance index of 50% [46]. NSAs, which were developed as important part of the
sustainable development goals (SDGs) at global scale, cannot be developed independently
from neighborhood conditions [28]. The DGNB–UD supports achieving the SDGs [14–16]
and demonstrates the system’s constructive contribution to achieving SDGs [46].
1.3.3. GRIHA−LD
In 2008, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and GRIHA Council, in association
with the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), launched the Green Rating for
Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) and Simple Versatile Affordable GRIHA (SVA
GRIHA) to address and promote green buildings in India. The GRIHA system was limited
“
to the building rating and assessment. Due to the need to formulate the framework for the
”
“
”
“
”
assessment of sustainability at a larger scale, in 2013 the GRIHA council, along
with TERI,
“
”
developed the certification system entitled “GRIHA–LD for Large Developments”. In this
research, the revised version GRIHA–LD 2015 is used [47].
A GRIHA–LD rating can be applied for a project with a site area of 1–50 hectares.
Projects of more than 50 hectares need to pay extra assessment charges. The assessment is
”
made to the ongoing development stage of neighborhood development and“is evaluated
in
–
six different sections: 1. site planning, 2. energy, 3. water and waste water, 4. solid waste
– 5. transport, and 6. social. Figure–1 shows the percentage assigned to−each of
management,
–
the subsections.
GRIHA-LD
6%
8%
6%
18%
27%
35%
Site Planning
Solid Waste Management
Energy
Tranposrt
Water
Social
Figure 1. Pie chart showing the distribution of credit score percentage to each subsection (site
–
planning, energy, water, solid waste management, transport, social) as per the GRIHA–LD.
The GRIHA–LD is a scoring-based system;
a score can be awarded out of a total
–
score of 100. Each section is evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative parame-
Land 2023, 12, 1002
8 of 25
ters. Table 3 shows the evaluation subsections of GRIHA–LD. Qualitative parameters for
evaluation are designated as “development quality”, while quantitative are designated
as “self-sufficiency”. The social aspect is only evaluated based on qualitative parameters.
The rating is based on the overall evaluation of the subsections “development quality”
and “self-sufficiency”. Each subsection received a maximum score out of 100. The overall
weights assigned to the subsection demonstrate the impact of that subsection’s sustainability contribution. Figure 1 shows the distribution of credit score percentage to each
subsection. The “process” section describes the method used to obtain the masterplan
and phased development certified by an external evaluator. The “commitment” section
of the GRIHA–LD document discusses the issues and future vision for sustainability of
large developments. The “compliance” section contains a list of documents that must be
submitted during the certification process. Each subsection has “appraisal-development
quality” specifications, which represent the “mandatory” and “optional” indicators. It is
necessary to fulfill “mandatory” indicators before the assessment of optional indicators [47].
A weighted score is calculated for each subsection by multiplying the maximum score of
100 by the overall weights. The total score is 100, which is the addition of all subsection
scores. The overall rating for the project is awarded based on the overall assessment of
all appraisals from all sections. Certification is awarded as a “rating” in the GRIHA–LD.
Scores greater than 85 receive a 5-star rating, a 4-star rating is awarded for a score of 71–85,
a 3-star rating for a score of 56–70, a 2-star rating for a score of 41−55, and a 1-star rating
for a score of 25–40.
Table 3. The evaluation subsections of GRIHA–LD for the subsections self-sufficiency appraisals and
development quality with the specification of overall weights, maximum subsection score, weighted
score, and subsection score [47].
Subsection
Self-sufficiency
appraisals
Development
quality
Subsection
Overall Weights (A)
Maximum
Subsection Score (B)
Weighted Score
(C) = (A) × (B)
Subsection
Score (%)
Energy
0.18
100
18
-
Water
0.23
100
23
-
Organic solid waste
Treatment
0.12
100
12
-
Site Planning
0.08
100
8
8
Energy
0.09
100
9
27 *
Water
0.12
100
12
35 *
Solid waste
management
0.6
100
6
18 *
Transport
0.06
100
6
6
Social
0.06
100
6
6
Total
1
100
100
100
* Addition of percentage score of self-sufficiency and development quality for respective categories.
The GRIHA–LD rating can be awarded to various large-scale development typologies:
(i) large (mixed-use) townships: housing complexes by builders, housing complexes by
urban development organizations, housing boards and public sector undertaking townships; (ii) smart city neighborhoods; (iii) educational, medical, and institutional campuses;
(iv) special economic zones; and (v) hotels and resorts.
2. Materials and Methods
Various sustainability assessment methods have been proposed [48–50]. Therefore, a
comparative literature analysis of NSA systems was conducted between the most recognized and comprehensive systems from developed and emerging systems from developing
countries [43], including the application and comparison of neighborhood sustainability
Land 2023, 12, 1002
9 of 25
rating systems in areas with diverse local conditions [15,51], and the analysis of NSA
systems’ success factors [24].
This research on comparative NSA system analysis contributed to defining and understanding differences and similarities in assessing the sustainability and resilience of
neighborhoods in different countries. Urban sustainability is an integral part of urban
resilience, and resilience-oriented actions need to be integrated into sustainable development [11]. As climate change advances, resilience becomes an even more important
topic in the science and policy circles that influence future urban development. Resilience
indicators, in particular, will be essential for helping planners and decision-makers to
understand the resilience capacities of neighborhoods and develop strategies and action
plans for creating more resilient cities. Therefore, urban sustainability and resilience assessment tools were developed with both single and multisectoral approaches and addressing
different environmental, social, economic, and institutional aspects of urban sustainability
and resilience [52].
NSA systems were reviewed and compared based on the available literature. Further
analysis was performed by formulating of a number of matrices to examine the themes
and indicators covered in selected NSA systems. Kaur et al. [15] developed three levels
of matrices: (i) Twenty-three themes were selected, and indicators associated with all
dimensions of sustainability under the twenty-three themes were identified. Afterward,
(ii) all indicators and their percentage weights amongst identified themes were redistributed
and compared. Finally, (iii) a context-specific matrix of six themes and indicators was
developed. Additional studies analyzing and comparing NSA systems were carried out
with variations in the type and number of themes and indicators. [32,43,53].
This research investigated the framework of the three NSA systems: LEED–ND,
DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD, using analysis of the literature and online databases [20–22,37,44–47]. This study demonstrates that the neighborhood sustainability was
evaluated based on the measurement of the indicators under various themes, as seen in
Tables 1–3. The LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD use “categories”, “criteria”, and
“subsections”, respectively, to define the term “themes” used in this research. Indicatorbased systems are useful in the process of planning, assessing, and managing urban
development [54,55]. The selection of appropriate sustainability themes and indicators
for monitoring sustainable urban development is a challenge for policymakers [14]. A
theme evaluates the objectives of NSA systems, while the indicator is a variable providing
specific measurement [43]. Tables 1–3 illustrate the lack of homogeneity in themes and
indicators of the three NSA systems. Hence, the authors identified the most common
and essential assessment themes covering all dimensions of sustainability and resilience
of neighborhoods based on literature analysis on urban sustainability and resilience and
the investigation of the three NSA systems. As the evaluation of NSA is based on the
measurement of the indicators, the indicators also need to be normalized. Normalizing
measures different units, bringing them into a similar range for comparison [56]. The
normalization of indicators was conducted in two parts: (i) The existing indicators of each
theme in the original documentations of the systems were rearranged according to the
10 identified themes, and (ii) the original indicator’s weights were normalized to be out of
100. The summation of normalized weights of all indicators under the identified theme of
one system was compared with the total weight of similar themes of the other systems.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the overall method of analysis of the NSA system.
Selection of Themes for Comparative Analysis
The authors identified themes for comparison from (i) the literature study on the
sustainability dimensions; (ii) the literature studies on urban sustainability, urban resilience,
and comparison of NSA systems. The literature on sustainability explores the sustainability
dimensions (social, environmental, economic, and institutional) using different models. AliToudert et al. reviewed the dimensions of sustainability using the twelve different models
and concluded that the conceptualization and categorization of the NSA systems follow the
Land 2023, 12, 1002
10 of 25
four sustainability dimensions [57,58]. UNEP’s integrated guidelines for the sustainable
neighborhood 2021 described the synergies of governance, economic, environmental, and
social context for a sustainable neighborhood [18]. According to the literature and the LEED–
ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD NSA systems’ analysis, ten themes for comparative NSA
system analysis associated with the four dimensions of sustainability were identified and
selected within this research. The selection of ten themes for the comparative analysis was
identified from the thematic categories of LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD and the
comparison studies of NSA Systems. The literature on the comparative analysis of NSA
systems was reviewed, and the number and type of themes are summarized in Table 4.
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the overall method of comparative analysis of the three
— SLL—smart location and linkage;
—
NSA systems.
NPD—neighborhood pattern and —design;
—
—
—
GIB—green infrastructure and building; IDP—innovation and design process; RP—regional priority;
—
—
—
ENV—environmental quality; ECO—economic quality; SOC—sociocultural and functional qual—
—
—
—
—
ity; TEC—technical quality;
PRO—process
quality; SP—site planning; EN—energy; WA—water;
—
—
SWM—solid waste management; TR—transport; SO—social.
As indicated in Table 4, most of the comparative studies were conducted with the
environment, social and cultural aspects, economy, transport, site planning, energy, building, and resource management themes of sustainability. In contrast, less preference was
assigned to the themes of governance and innovation. However, in this research, the
authors included “innovation” and “governance and monitoring” as individual themes.
Energy, water, and waste management themes were addressed as one theme, for instance,
by Happio and Sharifi et al., as resource or infrastructure themes. In the present research,
. UNEP’s
integrated
for the
the authors aimed to assess the sustainability and
resilience
indicatorguidelines
themes “energy”,
“water,” and “waste management” separately. Furthermore, essential themes for urban
development sustainability assessment were included to facilitate the assessment of specific
– keep the–number of themes– as small
NSA as
systems’
analysis,
ten themes
relevant indicators and
possible.
Accordingly,
“site
planning and ecology” were included as one theme, and “buildings”, “economy”, “transport,” and “community”, were addressed as separate themes. Accordingly, the following
10 themes for the comparative analysis of the three NAS systems were selected:
–
–
–
1.
Site planning and ecology
2.
3.
4.
5.
Buildings
Water
Waste management
Energy
Land 2023, 12, 1002
11 of 25
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Economy
Transport
Community
Innovation
Governance and monitoring
Table 4. Number and specification of themes used in the associated literature on urban sustainability,
urban resilience, and comparative analysis of NSA systems.
Author/Authors
Year
Number of Themes
Themes
10
1. Healthy environment, 2. pollution and risks, 3. water efficiency
and waste management, 4. material, 5. energy efficiency, 6. ecology,
7. the sustainable site, 8. management and quality of services,
9. economic aspect, and 10. community
13
1. Social and cultural aspects, 2. innovation, 3. design and planning,
4. process and construction management, 5. infrastructure,
6. business and economy, 7. transportation, 8. ecology and
environment, 9. buildings, 10. location of new and existing
communities, 11. resource efficient use, 12. water, 13. management
energy efficiency
10
1. Smart green site, 2. smart green transportation, 3. smart green
economy, 4. smart green building, 5. smart green infrastructure,
6. smart green community, 7. smart green ecology, 8. smart green
program, 9. smart green water, and 10. smart green innovation
Kamble, T.; Bahadure, S.
2021 [43]
8
1. Social, 2. site and site planning, 3. energy, 4. water and
wastewater, 5. material and resources, 6. environmental,
7. transportation, 8. others (innovation and design, stakeholder’s
engagement, historic preservation, etc.)
Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. 2013
[53]
6
1. Resource and environment, 2. transportation, 3. social,
4. economic, 5. location site selection, 6. pattern and design
9
1. Site location/site ecology; 2. land use, urban form-building;
3. infrastructure, transport; 4. urban climate, climate change;
5. resources (energy, water, materials); 6. society, culture;
7. economy; 8. management, quality of services; 9. bonus
Deng, W.
2011 [33]
9
1. Environmental quality within site, 2. neighborhood layout and
facilities, 3. infrastructure, 4. transport, 5. economy, 6. resources
and energy, 7. environmental impact, 8. site ecology,
9. sustainable management
Haapio, A.
2012 [32]
7
1. Infrastructure; 2. transportation; 3. location; 4. resources and
energy; 5. ecology; 6. business, economy, and employment;
7. wellbeing
Yıldız, S.; Yılmaz, M.; Kıvrak,
S.; Gültekin, A.B.
2016 [28]
6
1. Environment and land usage, 2. economic development,
3. transportation, 4. social development, 5. design and
management, 6. resources and energy
Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y.
2016 [52]
5
1. Materials and environmental resources, 2. society and wellbeing,
3. economic, 4. built environment and infrastructure, 5. governance
and institution
Orova, M.; Reith, A. 2019 [59]
Hamedani, A.Z; Huber, F.
2012 [41]
Lee, J.; Park, J.; Schuetze, T.
2015 [40]
Ali-Toudert, F.; Ji, L. 2017 [58]
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Theme-Based Comparison of LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD
3.1.1. Site Planning and Ecology
Sustainable approaches to site planning attempt to minimize the negative development
impacts both onsite and offsite. Ecology and site have a complex and inevitable relationship.
Land 2023, 12, 1002
12 of 25
During site planning, the primary concern is to conserve the ecosystems [60]. Existing
ecological conditions are significantly altered during the site planning process.
Table 5 illustrates that the DGNB–UD and LEED–ND both assign importance to the
“site planning and ecology” theme, with around 21%, but the GRIHA–LD only assigns
8%, which is less than the former two NSAs. Nevertheless, the LEED–ND emphasizes
this theme by creating a separate category, called “site planning”. The LEED–ND has
five prerequisite indicators that need to be fulfilled before the assessment, of “wetland
and waterbody conservation”, “agriculture land conservation”, “floodplain avoidance”,
“imperiled species and ecological communities”, and “construction activity pollution prevention”. LEED–ND focuses more on “preferred location” and “housing and job proximity”
because the site location is regarded as important from connectivity and compact development points of view. DGNB–UD emphasizes the importance of “land use and land use
efficiency”, “water and soil protection”, “energy-efficient development layout”, “urban
design”, and “resource-efficient infrastructure earthwork management” in the site planning
theme. Indicators included in “land use” and “urban design” facilitate the assessment
of resource security and resource management and resilience against impacts caused, for
instance, by extreme weather events such as flooding, droughts, and heat waves [61].
GRIHA–LD focuses mostly on the existing environmental condition of the site, with emphasis on the “existing trees”, “site features”, and “construction activities on site”, etc., because
mostly large greenfield urban developments are established by appropriating agriculture
land or environmentally sensitive areas. Environmental issues are a prime concern in the
GRIHA–LD. Environmental resources play a significant role in enhancing the resilience
of communities. Wetlands are necessary for absorbing the impacts of disasters such as
floods and improving recovery [48]. LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD systems
address environmental sustainability and resilience-related issues by including indicators
associated with site planning and the ecology theme.
3.1.2. Buildings
Buildings are an integral component of neighborhoods. A sustainable and resilient
neighborhood cannot be realized without sustainable and resilient buildings. Throughout
their entire lifecycle, buildings are the main contributors to the global consumption of
resources, and the generation of waste and pollution of the environment, associated with
their construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition. Accordingly, “buildings” is an
important theme for the NSA evaluation process.
Table 6 shows that DGNB–UD has only one indicator, “noise, exhaust, and light
emission”, which is associated with sustainable and resilient building and surrounding has
been assigned a score of 2.6%; but the indicator “life cycle assessment”, which is part of
the site planning and ecology theme, includes sub-indicator “special construction”, which
discusses “sustainable buildings” and “sustainable building materials” in the DGNB–UD.
The LEED–ND places more emphasis on the sustainable buildings in a neighborhood by
assigning a 10% score that includes “certified green buildings” and “minimum building
energy performance” as prerequisite sub-indicators. The sub-indicator “certified green
building” is also included in the optional scoring. Similarly, “building reuse”, “optimizing
building energy performance”, “historic resource preservation”, and “adaptive reuse” are
included in the “building” theme of the LEED–ND. In contrast, the GRIHA–LD has no
building-specific credits. One of the reasons for assigning less credit to the “building” theme
is that LEED, DGNB, and GRIHA developed separate building sustainability assessment
systems. The NSAs focus mainly on neighborhood-level indicators.
3.1.3. Water
Accessibility and the protection of safe, clean, and freshwater resources and proper sanitation is crucial for human survival, socioeconomic development, and healthy ecosystems.
This plays a significant role in reducing the global burden of disease, and improving the
health, welfare, and productivity of populations. Water is also at the heart of adaptation to
Land 2023, 12, 1002
13 of 25
climate change, serving as the crucial link between the climate system, human society, and
the environment. Strategies for the conservation, recycling, and reuse of water resources at
the neighborhood level are vital contributions at the city level, and ultimately at the global
scale. Resilient water system construction, operation, and maintenance must be based on
iterative, inclusive, and integrated planning, engaging multiple stakeholders [62].
Table 5. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD, based on the theme
“site planning and ecology”.
No.
LEED-ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Wetland and
water body
Conservation
Pre *
Pre
Land use
4
3.2
Clearance for
construction
Ma *
2
Agricultural land
conservation
Pre
Pre
Lifecycle
assessment
8
6.4
Storm water
management
Ma
3
Floodplain avoidance
Pre
Pre
Urban design
3
2.6
Tree cover on site
Ma
4
Imperiled species
and
ecological
communities
Pre
Pre
Urban climate
5
4
Storm water
management
3
5
Construction activity
pollution prevention
Pre
Pre
Biodiversity
4
3.2
Maintain existing
site features
3
1
1.7
Manage construction
activities in
management to
reduce
environmental
damage
2
6
Preferred locations
10
9.1
Construction site
solar orientation/
construction
process
7
Steep slope
protection
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
8
Solar orientation
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
9
Site design for
habitat or
wetland and
water body
conservation
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
10
Housing and job
proximity
3
2.72
-
-
-
-
-
11
Brownfield
eemediation
2
1.82
-
-
-
-
-
12
Long-term
conservation
management of
habitat or wetlands
and water bodies
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
13
Heat island reduction
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
14
Restoration of
habitat or
wetlands and
water bodies
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
15
Minimized site
disturbance
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
16
Regional priority
credit:
Region defined
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
Total
23
20.92
Total
25
21.1
Total
8
Pre *: prerequisite indicator; Ma *: mandatory indicator.
Table 7 compares all three rating systems under the “water” theme. In defining
the “water” theme, the LEED–ND includes the prerequisite indicators “indoor water use
reduction” and “rainwater management”, which are associated with closing the water
cycle of a neighborhood. Meanwhile, the DGNB–UD includes the “water cycle systems”
indicator. The GRIHA–LD includes the “water self-sufficient development” and “capturing
and storing rainwater on site for reuse” mandatory indicators. Moreover, the GRIHA–LD
Land 2023, 12, 1002
14 of 25
places emphasis on maintaining the “natural water cycle”, “monitoring water use”, and
“using efficient fixtures” indicators. During the analysis, the GRIHA–LD received the
highest score of 35%, followed by the LEED–ND and DGNB–UD, which received scores of
6.36% and 3.2%, respectively.
Table 6. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the
“buildings” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Certified green buildings
Pre
Pre
Noise, exhaust,
and light
emissions
3
2.6
-
-
2
Minimum building
energy performance
Pre
Pre
-
-
-
-
-
3
Certified green buildings
5
4.54
-
-
-
-
-
4
Optimize building energy
performance
2
1.82
-
-
-
-
-
5
Building reuse
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
6
Historic resource
preservation and
adaptive reuse
2
1.82
-
-
-
-
-
7
Regional priority credit:
region defined
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
Total
11
10.00
Total
3
2.6
Total
0
Table 7. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the
“water” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Indoor water use
reduction
Pre
Pre
Water cycle
systems
4
3.2
Water self-sufficient
development
Ma
2
Indoor water use
reduction
1
0.91
-
-
-
Capturing and storing rain
water on site for reuse
Ma
3
Outdoor water use
reduction
2
1.82
-
-
-
Monitoring and audits and
operation and maintenance
-
-
Reduction of the
total amount
of water required from the
local municipal grid/ground
water by 25 percent
-
-
4
Rainwater
management
4
3.63
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rainwater falling on site
(besides that is being stored
for use) is recharged using
appropriate filtration
measures
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
All low flow fixtures
35
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
Remote monitoring,
operation and maintenance
Total
7
6.36
Total
4
3.2
Total
3.1.4. Waste Management
Increase in population and living standards accelerate the waste generation in a
developing country [63]. Waste reduction, separation, and recycling are the most preferred
practices in sustainable waste management. Sustainable waste management solutions help
Land 2023, 12, 1002
15 of 25
to reduce pollution and energy consumption, and conserve natural resources. Local waste
management solutions reduce the burden of waste transportation costs and the infill area.
Therefore, the waste management theme is essential for assessing neighborhood sustainability.
Table 8 shows that the waste management theme is covered in the DGNB–UD under
the “resource management” indicator, including the “use of recyclable materials” and
“waste management facilities”, but is only assigned a 2.2% score. Meanwhile, in the
LEED–ND, the “waste management” theme accounts for about 3.64% of the total score, and
includes “wastewater management”, and “recycled and reused infrastructure”, as well as
“solid waste management”. In the GRIHA–LD, “waste management” is represented by the
highest score 18%, which shows the waste management theme has more impact on the overall score of the GRIHA–LD. The GRIHA–LD has an indicator specifying that “centralized
or decentralized STP on site” and “recycling of STP water” are mandatory indicators.
Table 8. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD in the “waste management” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Wastewater
management
2
1.82
Resource
management
2
2.2
Centralized or
decentralized STP
on site.
Ma
2
Recycled and
reused
infrastructure
1
0.91
-
-
-
Recycling STP water
for reuse on site.
Ma
3
Solid waste
management
1
0.91
-
-
-
STP/wastewater
treatment
facility should meet
the CPCB norms.
-
Total
4
3.64
Total
2
2.2
Total
18
3.1.5. Energy
Energy conservation and generation are important indicators that play a main role in
establishing the sustainability and resilience of a neighborhood. Energy consumption and
energy prices have a direct relationship with the economic growth of an area. Developing
countries are facing high growth rates along with high urbanization. This results in high
energy demands, making energy a prime objective for nations [64]. The expanding urban
infrastructure has contributed to high energy needs, and existing energy systems are
insufficient, which has turned the goal of sustainable energy cycle development into a
necessity [28]. A sustainable and resilient urban energy system needs to develop effective
strategies to ensure the availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability of energy
over time and under uncertain conditions [65].
Table 9 demonstrates that the DGNB–UD emphasizes the energy efficiency of the
neighborhood with an integral energy concept, such as the establishment of coherent
supply structures, synergies between generation and use, energy management, and passive
system design. Out of 100, the energy theme in the DGNB–UD received a 4.4% score, while
the LEED–ND was allotted a 6.37% score, with the emphasis on “minimum building energy
performance” as mandatory points, with evaluation, “renewable energy production”,
“district heating and cooling”, “infrastructure energy efficiency”, and “light pollution
reduction”, also counting in the credit designation for energy. While the GRIHA–LD
assigned 27% of its score to the energy theme, it mostly focused on energy savings by
specifying that the outdoor lighting should meet particular lux levels and use automatic
switching and dimming controls. Similarly, energy can be generated using smart minigrids, heat island reduction, and other passive design strategies that should be used at the
neighborhood scale to limit energy consumption.
Land 2023, 12, 1002
16 of 25
Table 9. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD in the “energy” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Minimum
building energy
performance
Pre
Pre
Energy
infrastructure
4
4.4
Outdoor road
lighting meets
the required
lux levels
Ma
2
Renewable
energy
production
3
2.73
-
-
-
Automatic
switching/
dimming controls
Ma
3
District heating
and cooling
2
1.82
-
-
-
Smart mini-grids
-
4
Infrastructure
energy efficiency
1
0.91
-
-
-
Passive urban design
strategies, heat
island calculation
-
5
Light pollution
reduction
1
0.91
-
-
-
Operation and
maintenance
-
Total
7
6.37
Total
4
4.4
Total
27
3.1.6. Economy
Since the inception of the sustainability concept, the economy has been a key pillar of
sustainability [57]. Job opportunities and sources of income for neighborhoods can contribute to the overall economic growth of a country. The key to long-term economic success
lies in focusing on the microcosm of neighborhoods and subregions and addressing their
needs and assets. By generating accurate information about neighborhood-based resources
and capabilities, and about current and future demand, specific development initiatives
can be launched that meet identified needs, create employment, improve residents’ quality
of life, and advance long-term sustainability. As a result, when assessing neighborhood
sustainability, the economy theme must be considered. The economic resilience of a community depends on the capacity and skillfulness of its working population to support the
dependent population. The availability of jobs within proximity can also be associated
with resilience [66].
Table 10 compares the DGNB–UD, LEED–ND, and GRIHA–LD with one another to
illustrate the economic aspects covered within all three systems. Differentiation shows
that the DGNB–UD rating system prioritizes “economy” as its main assessment theme,
allocating 20.5% of the district’s overall score to it. The DGNB–UD emphasizes “lifecycle
cost” as a major indicator under the “economy” theme to address the present challenges of
climate change, while the “resilience and adaptability” indicator receives major focus in the
economy theme of the DGNB–UD. The following sub-indicators define the “resilience and
adaptability” indicator in DGNB–UD: “security of supply of drinking water”, “security of
supply of wastewater”, “flexibility and expansion reserves of the technical district infrastructure and buildings, “redundancy and resilience of transportation system”. Similarly,
“land use efficiency” has received special attention. “Value stability” and “environmental risks” also receive priority during the sustainability and resilience of neighborhood
assessments. Environmental risk indicators include sub-indicators associated with natural
calamities. Hazard levels of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, avalanches, storms, heavy
rain, hail, landslides or soil subsidence, storm surge/tsunami, temperature extremes, forest
fire, radon, and provision for compensation due to these calamities are also included.
The DGNB–UD prioritizes the district economy 20 times more than the other two
systems. In comparison, the LEED–ND assigns a score of 1.82% to the economic aspect of
neighborhood sustainability, while GRIHA–LD assigns only 1%. The lowest score assigned
to the economy theme in both systems demonstrates that the economic sustainability needs
at the neighborhood scale are not well considered. “Local food production” is the only
indicator included in the economy theme of GRIHA–LD.
Land 2023, 12, 1002
17 of 25
Table 10. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the
“economy” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
1
Local food
production
1
0.91
Lifecycle cost
4
5.7
Food
production
onsite
2
Regional
priority credit:
region defined
1
0.91
Resilience and
adaptability
3
4.3
-
3
-
-
-
Land use
efficiency
3
4.3
-
-
-
-
Value stability
2
2.9
-
-
-
-
Environmental
risks
2
2.9
-
Total
2
1.82
Total
14
20.1
Total
Score
/100
(Score
included in site
planning)
1
3.1.7. Innovation
Innovation is seen as a core element of all sustainability strategies [54,67]. Innovation
improves adaptability, flexibility, and a tool’s capability for incremental improvement [53].
The neighborhood sustainability assessment system is also one of the innovative approaches
to formulating strategies for sustainable and resilient neighborhood development. Improvement of sustainability and resilience assessment systems has led to better consideration of locally specific issues, improved transparency, and further attention to promoting
innovation [23]. In the near future, innovative approaches will be required to deal with
upcoming stainability and resiliency challenges. The use of ICT was a significant innovation
for neighborhoods.
Table 11 compares the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD with one another to
illustrate the “innovation” theme impact within all three systems. The DGNB–UD and
LEED–ND both include an innovation theme. Meanwhile, the GRIHA–LD has limitations
on including the innovation theme in neighborhood sustainability assessments, because it
was developed in 2015; at that time, advanced technology and an innovative approach were
not implemented, and the mechanisms to apply technological aspects were at a primitive
stage. In the DGNB–UD, around 2.2% of the score is assigned to “smart infrastructure”,
because it makes neighborhoods sustainable and resilient. A 5.46% score in the LEED–ND
indicates that the “innovation” theme is important, as the LEED–ND includes “innovation”
as a separate theme during evaluation. The LEED–ND system is also an innovation
for sustainable and resilient neighborhoods, so we have included a “LEED-accredited
professional” indicator in the innovation theme.
Table 11. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the
“innovation” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/ 100
1
Innovation
5
4.55
Smart
infrastructure
2
2.2
-
-
2
LEED® -accredited
professional
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
Total
6
5.46
Total
2
2.2
Total
0
3.1.8. Transport
Transport is central to sustainable and resilient development, and provides universal
access, enhanced safety, reduced environmental and climate impact, improved resilience,
and enhanced efficiency [68]. Transportation and information sharing are fundamental for
Land 2023, 12, 1002
18 of 25
enhancing resilience. Transport offers accessibility to vital resources for daily activities,
accessibility in emergencies, rescue operations, reconstruction, and recovery [69].
Apart from providing services and infrastructure for the mobility of people and goods,
sustainable transport is a cross-cutting accelerator that can fast-track progress toward other
crucial goals, such as eradicating poverty in all its dimensions, enabling access to jobs,
reducing inequality, empowering women, minimizing carbon and other emissions, and
combating climate change [68]. The spatial distributions of different land uses connect
together with physical infrastructures and associated transport networks [70].
Table 12 illustrates that the overall score assigned to the “transport” theme in the
LEED–ND is higher than in the DGNB–UD and GRIHA–LD. LEED–ND assigns approximately 27% to the “transport” theme, while the DGNB–UD gives 11% and GRIHA–LD only
6%. The comparison shows that the LEED–ND assigned more than twice the percentage
compared to the DGNB–UD. The importance of the transport theme in LEED–ND emphasizes the need for compact neighborhood developments in US American cities, which are
mostly car-dependent, have poor public transport connectivity, and are facing the issue of
urban sprawl.
Table 12. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the
“transport” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
5.6
Provision of
footpaths and
bicycling tracks
and safe
interaction of
NMT traffic
with motorized
traffic
Ma
-
Pre
Mobility
infrastructure—motorized
transportation
Pre
Pre
Mobility
infrastructure—pedestrian
and cyclists
5
5.6
Supporting
infrastructure:
bicycle parking,
landscaping, public
conveniences, etc.
Connected and
open community
Pre
Pre
-
-
-
Safety measures:
railing,
non-slippery
surfaces
-
4
Walkable streets
9
8.18
-
-
-
Parking for
two-wheelers
-
5
Compact
development
6
5.45
-
-
-
Road network
planning
-
6
Reduced parking
footprint
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
7
Transit facilities
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
8
Transportation
demand
management
2
1.81
-
-
-
-
-
9
Bicycle facilities
2
1.81
-
-
-
-
-
10
Access to
quality transit
7
6.36
-
-
-
-
-
11
Tree-lined and
shaded
streetscapes
2
1.81
-
-
-
-
-
Total
30
27.24
Total
10
11.2
Total
6
1
Walkable streets
2
Compact
development
3
Pre
5
3.1.9. Community
Creating an inclusive community is another crucial factor in a sustainable neighborhood development. The community can be formed though social ties and interaction,
communal involvement, community cohesion, security and safety, etc. [71]. The objective is
to create a vibrant social community with active public participation [72]. The social dimen-
Land 2023, 12, 1002
19 of 25
sion has a strong influence on the achievement of community self-sufficiency and resilience.
Indicators associated with safety and wellbeing improve the stability of communities. Safe
and healthy communities are more capable of withstanding and responding to shocks [73].
The DGNB–UD, LEED–ND and GRIHA–LD assign scores of 18.1% and 17.28%, and
6% to the “community” theme, respectively. Table 13 illustrates that the DGNB–UD
and LEED–ND both assign importance to the “community” theme. Nevertheless, the
DGNB–UD emphasizes this theme by including “thermal comfort in open spaces”, “open
spaces”, “barrier-free design”, “social and functional mix”, and “social and commercial
infrastructure” participation indicators. The LEED–ND assigns more importance to indicators to develop the mixed-use neighborhood with various housing typologies to develop
a versatile and inclusive community that can be livable for all age groups, genders, and
income groups. The LEED–ND also includes indicators such as “neighborhood schools”,
“historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse”, “access to civic and public space”,
“access to recreational facilities”, “visitability and universal design”, and “community
outreach and involvement”. The GRIHA–LD contributes to improving inclusion and the
conditions of vulnerable and marginalized communities by including the indicators “facilities for construction workers”, “social infrastructure in development”, and “planning for
low-income group populations”.
Table 13. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the “community” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Mixed-use
neighborhoods
4
3.64
Thermal Comfort
in open spaces
3
2.6
Facilities for
construction workers
Ma
2
Housing types
and affordability
7
6.36
Open space
4
3.5
Social infrastructure
in development
-
3
Neighborhood
schools
1
0.91
Barrier-free
design
3
2.6
Planning for
low-income
group population
-
4
Historic resource
preservation and
adaptive reuse
2
1.82
Social and
functional mix
4
3.5
-
-
5
Access to civic
and public space
1
0.91
Social and
commercial
infrastructure
3
2.6
-
-
6
Access to
recreation
facilities
1
0.91
Participation
2
3.3
-
-
7
Visitability and
universal design
1
0.91
-
-
-
-
-
8
Community
outreach
and involvement
2
1.82
-
-
-
-
-
Total
19
17.28
Total
19
18.1
Total
6
3.1.10. Governance and Monitoring
Governance is one of the domains in the definition of sustainability [9]. Monitoring is
necessary to ensure the proper implementation of the project, and to evaluate its impact
in achieving sustainability. The governance theme is included in the assessment process,
as it plays a significant role in decision making, and policy formulation, implementation,
and monitoring. The literature on NSAs illustrated that there were limitations in assessing
the performance of governmental and nongovernmental neighborhood institutions in
many NSA systems. Accordingly, assessment indicators associated with governance,
decentralization, legal framework and instrumentation, information systems, research, and
education need to be revised and improved [53].
Effective governance can create progressive change in urban development. Local
governance at the neighborhood level involves public participation, understanding, and
Land 2023, 12, 1002
20 of 25
the conveying of grassroot-level issues. To create effective policies and actions to steer
cities toward sustainability, cooperation between various governance levels is necessary.
Government and institutional regulations communicate about the various activities and
mechanisms, formulated a contingency and mitigation plan, and make sure to implement it in case of any emergency situations. Strong governing capacity and leadership
enhance resilience by strengthening linkages between various elements of the systems and
empowering social bonding [74].
Table 14 shows that the DGNB–UD assigns importance and a total score of 14.9%
to the “governance and monitoring” theme by including specifically a “governance” indicator along with “integrated design”, “project management”, and “quality assurance
and monitoring”. The “project management” indicator in DGNB–UD includes the “risk
management” sub-indicator associated with resilient construction management practices.
The LEED–ND and GRIHA–LD do not assign scores to the governance and monitoring
theme. However, In the comparative assessment of the three NSA systems, a score for the
“regional priority” credit was assigned to LEED–ND because regional governance plays a
crucial role in urban development. The GRIHA–LD does not assign a score to this theme,
showing its limitations in addressing the governance and monitoring theme.
Table 14. Comparative analysis of the LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD based on the “governance and monitoring” theme.
No.
LEED–ND
Weighted
Score/110
Score
/100
DGNB–UD
Weighted
Score/92
Score
/100
GRIHA–LD
Score
/100
1
Regional priority credit:
region defined
1
0.91
Integrated design
3
5
-
-
2
-
-
-
Governance
2
3.3
-
-
3
-
-
-
Project management
2
3.3
-
-
2
3.3
-
-
9
14.9
Total
0
4
-
-
-
Quality assurance
and monitoring
Total
0
0.91
Total
The three NSA systems overall comparison was carried out by comparing the summation of the total weight of all indicators obtained for each theme of the three NSA systems.
Table 15 lists the specific percentage scores for each sustainability domain and associated
theme for the three NSAs. The resulting scores assigned to each theme by the three NSAs
are illustrated in a bar chart in Figure 3.
Table 15. Comparison of the percentage score assigned to all 10 themes in terms of the LEED–ND,
DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD.
No.
Sustainability Domain
Themes
LEED–ND
DGNB–UD
GRIHA–LD
1
Environmental
Site planning and ecology
20.92
21.1
8
2
Social
Building
10.00
2.6
0
3
Environmental
Water
6.36
3.2
35
4
Environmental
Waste management
3.64
2.2
18
5
Environmental
Energy
6.37
4.4
27
6
Economic
Economy
1.82
20.1
0
7
Institutional
Innovation
5.46
2.2
0
8
Environmental
Transport
27.24
11.2
6
9
Social
Community
17.28
18.1
6
10
Institutional
Governance and monitoring
0.91
14.9
0
Total
100
100
100
Land 2023, 12, 1002
21 of 25
LEED-ND
35
DGNB-UD
GRIHA-LD
30
25
20
15
10
5
Governance and Monitoring
Community
Transport
Innovation
Economy
Energy
Waste Management
Water
Building
Site planning and Ecology
0
–
–
Figure 3. Bar chart showing the comparative analysis of the three LEED–ND,
DGNB–UD,
and
–
GRIHA–LD NSA systems with the percentage score assigned to all 10 sustainability themes.
3.2. General Comparison of the LEED–ND,
DGNB–UD,
and GRIHA–LD
–
–
–
The indicators under each theme needed to be analyzed while comparing the systems.
A detailed study of the systems demonstrated that the LEED–ND–and GRIHA–LD –only
have indicators with their respective assigned weights. However, the DGNB–UD
– has a
structural framework, including indicators and sub-indicators. In the DGNB–UD,
the
–
overall weightage of indicators is determined by the assessment of sub-indicators having their
separate
Indicators
“lifeassessment”,
cycle assessment”,
“lifecost”,
cycle“land
cost”,use”,
“land
use”,
their
separate
score.score.
Indicators
“life cycle
“life cycle
“valu
“value stability”,
“environmental
risk”, climate”,
“urban climate”,
“participation”,
“neighborhood
stability”,
“environmental
risk”, “urban
“participation”,
“neighborhood
safety”,
safety”, “quality
assurance
and monitoring”,
and “smart
infrastructure”
includedininthe
the
“quality
assurance
and monitoring”,
and “smart
infrastructure”
areare
included
DGNB–UD,
but
the
LEED–ND
and
GRIHA–LD
are
limited
in
addressing
all
these
indica–
–
–
tors. The LEED–ND
and GRIHA–LD
heat
island”
indicator,
which
is not
–
–LDinclude
includethe
the“urban
“urban
heat
island”
indicator,
which
is
included in the DGNB–UD–system. The indicators and their assigned weights vary from
system to system and are, accordingly, difficult to compare. Furthermore, it is required to
investigate
the NSA systems’
their interrelation
and potential
synergies
rered to investigate
the NSAindicators
systems’ and
indicators
and their interrelation
and
potential
ferring to resilience, health, climate change mitigation, and climate adaptation [23]. Critical
analysis and comparison based on the indicators and sub-indicators involved in systems
are also crucial to analyzing the efficiency of the NSA system, considering present and
future urban sustainability and resilience challenges.
4. Conclusions
Achieving neighborhood sustainability is indispensable for the development of sustainable and resilient cities. NSA systems were developed to assess the sustainability
and resilience of the neighborhood both qualitatively and quantitatively by measuring
specific indicators. The three NSA systems, LEED–ND (USA), DGNB–UD (Germany),
– the general goal of
and GRIHA–LD (India), were analyzed and –compared. Even though
–
achieving neighborhood sustainability and resilience is the same in the three NSAs, the
assessment and certification of neighborhood sustainability and resilience varies between
the three systems. The comparison between LEED–ND, DGNB–UD, and GRIHA–LD
Land 2023, 12, 1002
22 of 25
shows that the scoring assigned to indicators was based on the importance of distinct
indicators. The decisions about the significance of the indicators were subjective and varied
from system to system. The overall weight of the specific theme was based on the number
of indicators and the individual weights of indicators assigned under the theme. “Site
planning and ecology” had more indicators, so the score received for the site planning and
ecology theme was comparatively higher than other themes. The overall weight assigned
to the “innovation” theme was relatively minor, as “innovation” has few indicators in
LEED–ND and DGNB–UD. The prerequisite indicators from LEED–ND and mandatory
indicators from GRIHA–LD were difficult to evaluate or compare during comparative
analysis. If sustainability and resilience dimensions were not addressed comprehensively
and balanced, a certified neighborhood might acquire the certification without adequately
addressing all dimensions of sustainability and resilience. Themes not addressed in the
comparative analysis indicated that improvements in the missing thematic areas were
required in the respective assessment system. The interrelationship and interdependencies
between various themes and indicators are complex to interpret. Along with the themes
and indicators, sub-indicators were also essential to evaluate the qualitative aspects of
indicators and themes.
The LEED–ND prioritizes “transportation” (27.24%), “site planning and ecology”
(20.92%), “community” (17.28%), and “building” (10%) themes. Meanwhile, the DGNB–UD
prioritizes “site planning and ecology” (21.1%), “economy” (20.1%), and “community”
(18.1%) themes. Additionally, “transport” (11.2%) and “governance and monitoring”
(14.9%) receive considerable scores in the DGNB–UD. The themes “water” (35%), “energy”
(27%), and “waste management” (18%), receive the highest scores from the GRIHA–LD,
while “site planning and ecology” (8%), “community” (6%), and “transportation” (6%) have
less significance in defining a neighborhood’s sustainability. Moreover, the GRIHA–LD has
limitations in considering indicators related to the “building”, “economy”, “innovation”,
and “governance” themes.
The DGNB–UD is the only NSA system that was designed by analyzing the multidimensional aspects of sustainable neighborhood development based on the 10 identified
themes. Core issues, such as climate action, climate adaptation, and resilience to climate change, are addressed by the DGNB–UD through the inclusion of bonus points,
indicators, and sub-indicators associated with core issues, while the LEED–ND has limited indicators associated with resilience, and GRIHA–LD has limitations in addressing
resilience-associated issues. LEED–ND and GRIHA–LD do not have any provisions for
bonus points. In comparing the systems, the content and qualitative aspects of the indicators and sub-indicators are also crucial to understanding the efficiency of the NSA systems.
NSA systems require statistical indicator-related data as input for sustainability evaluation. Hence, international standard protocols need to be provided for data collection,
measurement units, and data output, increasing the reliability of data input, update, and
result interpretation and comparison. NSA systems are formulated with a top-down approach. Successful application of NSAs in various contexts requires a bottom-up approach
with the participation of local stakeholders. NSAs require the involvement of third parties
and investment in human and financial resources. Hence, the application is unpopular
among building owners and investors, unaware of the benefits and profits achievable by
NSA application and certification during the planning phases. In particular, governing
authorities in developing countries are not encouraging the application of NSAs. Incentive
schemes need to be introduced in the assessment mechanism to encourage the application
of NSAs. Integration of NSAs into planning systems is crucial for applying NSA systems
with inclusive governance mechanisms to ensure appropriate indicators and methods for
funding neighborhood development.
The future development of the three NSA could address the differences and limitations
identified within this research by redefining and extending the sustainability and resilience
assessment themes and indicators. Accordingly, a new international context-based system
could be developed by taking into account the limitations of the existing assessment systems
Land 2023, 12, 1002
23 of 25
to evaluate and compare urban neighborhood sustainability and resilience, particularly in
and between developing countries.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B. and T.S.; methodology, S.B. and T.S.; validation, S.B.
and T.S.; formal analysis, S.B.; investigation, S.B.; resources, S.B. and T.S.; data curation, S.B. and
T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B. and T.S.; writing—review and editing, S.B. and T.S.;
visualization, S.B.; supervision, T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding. The study is part of a PhD research program
being carried out at SKKU, Korea. No funding was provided for conducting and publishing this
research.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data and materials are available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
Akinsemolu, A.A. The role of microorganisms in achieving the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 139–155.
[CrossRef]
Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design,
and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Du Pisani, J.A. Sustainable development—Historical roots of the concept. Environ. Sci. 2006, 3, 83–96. [CrossRef]
United Nations. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; United Nations: New York,
NY, USA, 1987.
United Nations. United Nations Sustainability. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability
(accessed on 25 February 2023).
United Nations. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/terminology/
resilience (accessed on 23 February 2023).
Amirtahmasebi, R. The New Urban Agenda; United Nations Human settlement program, 978-92-1-132869-1; UN Habitat: Nairobi,
Kenya, 2020; Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/12/nua_handbook_14dec2020_2.pdf (accessed on
15 February 2023).
Romero-Lankao, P.; Gnatz, D.; Wilhelmi, O.; Hayden, M. Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 1224. [CrossRef]
Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 2002, 31, 437–440. [CrossRef]
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide; The International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): Toronto, ON, Canada, 1996.
United Nations. Report of the United Nations conference on Environment and development. In Proceedings of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992.
United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Michalina, D.; Mederly, P.; Diefenbacher, H.; Held, B. Sustainable Urban Development: A Review of Urban Sustainability
Indicator Frameworks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9348. [CrossRef]
Kaur, H.; Garg, P. Urban Sustainability Assessment Tools: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 146–158. [CrossRef]
Deakin, M.; Curwell, S.; Lombardi, P. Bequest: Sustainability assessment the framework and directory of methods. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2001, 6, 373–390. [CrossRef]
Brandon, P.S.; Lombardi, P. Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2011.
Salat, S. Integrated Guidelines for Sustainable Neighbourhood Design; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021.
Mumford, L. The Neighbourhood and the Neighbourhood Unit. Town Plan. Rev. 1954, 24, 256–270. Available online: http:
//www.jstor.org/stable/40101548 (accessed on 15 February 2023). [CrossRef]
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2009 for Neighborhood Development;
U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen—DGNB e.V. (German Sustainable Buildings Council), Certification Requirements
for Urban Districts. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/districts/certification-requirements/ (accessed on 15
February 2023).
Land 2023, 12, 1002
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
24 of 25
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) Council 2021, GRIHA for
Large Development. Available online: https://www.grihaindia.org/griha-large-developments (accessed on 15 February 2023).
Sharifi, A.; Dawodu, A.; Cheshmehzangi, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment tools: A review of success factors.
J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125912. [CrossRef]
Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in action: Cross-evaluation of three assessment systems and
their cases from the US, the UK, and Japan. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 243–258. [CrossRef]
Marchese, D.; Reynolds, E.; Bates, M.E.; Morgan, H.; Clark, S.S.; Linkov, I. Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and
differences in environmental management applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 1275–1283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dehghanmongabadi, A.; Hoşkara, Ş.Ö.; Shirkhanloo, N. Introduction to achieve sustainable neighborhood. Int. J. Arts Commer.
2014, 3, 16–26.
Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.J.; Von Wehrden, H. A systematic review of guiding principles for sustainable urban neighborhood
development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 118, 40–52. [CrossRef]
Yıldız, S.; Yilmaz, M.; Kivrak, S.; Gültekin, A.B. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools and a Comparative Analysis of
Five Different Assessment Tools. J. Plan. 2016, 26, 93–100. [CrossRef]
Sharifi, A. Sustainability at the Neighborhood Level: Assessment Tools and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, Nagoya
University, Nagoya, Japan, 2013.
Berardi, U. Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20,
411–424. [CrossRef]
Bond, A.J.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 2011, 31, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 165–169. [CrossRef]
Deng, W. Improving Sustainability Decision-Making at Neighbourhood Level: A New Framework for Performance Assessment
Based on China’s Small Residential District. Ph.D Thesis, The University of New South Wales: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2011.
Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508.
[CrossRef]
Hurley, J.; Horne, R. Review and analysis of tools for the implementation and Assessment of Sustainable Urban Development.
In Proceedings of the 2006 Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 17–20
September 2006.
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) and Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC).
Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) Family and Tools. Available online: https:
//www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/toolsE_urban.htm (accessed on 25 February 2023).
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC,
USA, 2018.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
Communities. Available online: https://bregroup.com/products/breeam/breeam-technical-standards/breeam-communties/
(accessed on 25 February 2023).
Building and Construction Authority. Green Mark-2021. Available online: https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/
green-mark-certification-scheme/green-mark-2021 (accessed on 15 February 2023).
Lee, J.; Park, J.; Schuetze, T. Comparative Analysis of LEED–ND & DGNB–UD Rating System. In Proceedings of the 8th
Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IfoU), Incheon, Republic of Korea, 22–24 June 2015; pp. 235–248. [CrossRef]
Hamedani, A.Z.; Huber, F. A Comparative Study Of DGNB, LEED And BREEAM Certificate Systems in Urban Sustainability.
WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 155, 121–132. [CrossRef]
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F. Developing a Sustainability Assessment Model: The Sustainable Infrastructure, Land-Use, Environment
and Transport Model. Sustainability 2010, 2, 321–340. [CrossRef]
Kamble, T.; Bahadure, S. Neighborhood sustainability assessment in developed and developing countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2019, 22, 4955–4977. [CrossRef]
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Checklist: LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development. Available online: https://www.
usgbc.org/resources/checklist-leed-v4-neighborhood-development (accessed on 26 February 2023).
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen—DGNB e.V. (German Sustainable Buildings Council), Planning and Certification
of Sustainable Districts. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/districts/ (accessed on 26 February 2023).
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen—DGNB e.V. (German Sustainable Buildings Council). DGNB-Criteria-Set-DistrictsVersion-2020; German Sustainable Buildings Council (DGNB): Stuttgart, Germany, 2020.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). GRIHA LD for Large Development; GRIHA Council-Teri Initiative: New Delhi,
India, 2015.
Curwell, S.R.; Deakin, M.; Symes, M. (Eds.) Sustainable Urban Development: The Framework and Protocols for Environmental
Assessment; Routledge: London, UK, 2005.
Organisation for Economic Corporation Development (OECD). OECD Key Environmental Indicators; Organisation for Economic
Corporation Development Press: Paris, France, 2004.
Land 2023, 12, 1002
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
25 of 25
Foley, B.A.; Daniell, T.M. A sustainability tool for intrasectoral and intersectoral water resources decision making. Australas. J.
Water Resour. 2015, 8, 11–19. [CrossRef]
Säynäjoki, E.; Kyrö, R.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. An assessment of the applicability of three international neighbourhood sustainability rating systems to diverse local conditions, with a focus on Nordic case areas. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev.
2012, 3, 96–104. [CrossRef]
Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. Urban Resilience Assessment: Multiple Dimensions, Criteria, and Indicators. In Urban Resilience;
Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 259–276.
Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 73–87. [CrossRef]
Horbach, J. (Ed.) Indicator Systems for Sustainable Innovation; Physica-Verlag HD/Springer Science & Business Media:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005.
Huovila, A.; Bosch, P.; Airaksinen, M. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What
indicators and standards to use and when? Cities 2019, 89, 141–153. [CrossRef]
Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology Methods and Techniques; New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers: New Delhi, India, 2004.
Ali-Toudert, F.; Ji, L.; Fährmann, L.; Czempik, S. Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development
(CAMSUD)—A New Multi-Criteria System for Planning, Evaluation and Decision-Making. Prog. Plan. 2020, 140, 100430.
[CrossRef]
Ali-Toudert, F.; Ji, L. Modeling and measuring urban sustainability in multi-criteria based systems—A challenging issue.
Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 597–611. [CrossRef]
Orova, M.; Reith, A. Multiscalarity in International Sustainable Assessment Systems: A Qualitative Comparison of LEED,
CASBEE, BREEAM, DGNB and ESTIDAMA on Building, Neighbourhood and City Scale. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019,
290, 012056. [CrossRef]
LaGro, J.A., Jr. Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and Site Design; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2008.
Yamagata, Y.; Maruyama, H. (Eds.) Urban Resilience A Transformative Approach; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016.
Brears, R.C. (Ed.) Resilience and Water Resources Management. In Climate Resilient Water Resources Management; Palgrave Studies
in Climate Resilient Societies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 15–30.
Minghua, Z.; Xiumin, F.; Rovetta, A.; Qichang, H.; Vicentini, F.; Bingkai, L.; Giusti, A.; Yi, L. Municipal solid waste management
in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1227–1233. [CrossRef]
Asafu-Adjaye, J. The relationship between energy consumption, energy prices and economic growth: Time series evidence from
Asian developing countries. Energy Econ. 2000, 22, 615–625. [CrossRef]
Sharifi, A.; Yamagata, Y. Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy resilience: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 60, 1654–1677. [CrossRef]
Burton, C.G. A Validation of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Hazards and Disasters Using the Recovery from
Hurricane Katrina as a Case Study. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2014, 105, 67–86. [CrossRef]
Von Gleich, A. Comment: Innovation Ability and Innovation Direction. In Innovations Towards Sustainability; LehmannWaffenschmidt, M., Ed.; Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 141–153. [CrossRef]
United Nations. Sustainable transport, sustainable development, Interagency Report. In Proceedings of the Second Global
Sustainable Transport Conference, Beijing, China, 14–16 October 2021.
Faturechi, R.; Miller-Hooks, E. Measuring the Performance of Transportation Infrastructure Systems in Disasters: A Comprehensive Review. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014025. [CrossRef]
Bertolini, L.; le Clercq, F.; Kapoen, L. Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use
plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transp. Policy 2005, 12, 207–220.
[CrossRef]
Shirazi, M.R.; Keivani, R. Social Sustainability of Compact Neighbourhoods Evidence from London and Berlin. Sustainability
2021, 13, 2340. [CrossRef]
Khatibi, M.; Khaidzir, K.A.M.; Syed Mahdzar, S.S. Measuring the sustainability of neighborhoods: A systematic literature review.
iScience 2023, 26, 105951. [CrossRef]
Chandra, A.; Acosta, J.; Howard, S.; Uscher-Pines, L.; Williams, M.; Yeung, D.; Garnett, J.; Meredith, L.S. Building community
resilience to disaster. Rand Health Q. 2011, 11, 6. [CrossRef]
Frankenberger, T.; Mueller, M.; Spangler, T.; Alexander, S. Community Resilience: Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed the
Future Learning Agenda; Westat: Rockville, MD, USA, 2013.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.