Deakin, M; Huovila, P; Rao, S; Sunikka, M and Vreeker, R (2002) The assessment of sustainable urban development. Building Research & Information, 30(2), pp. 95-108. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper describes the outcomes of a survey of assessment methods for sustainable urban development (SUD) undertaken by an international network called BEQUEST. It addresses aspects of good practice in terms of SUD, explores the range of methods available and explains the classification used in the directory of methods included in the BEQUEST Toolkit available on the web. An exercise undertaken to map the range of assessment methods to the various sustainability issues and development activities is described. The strengths and weakness and other deficiencies in current forms of sustainability assessment are explored. The key gaps in sustainability assessment are identified for further research and the importance of greater integration in assessment and evaluation, across professional and subject boundaries is emphasized.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | classification of assessment methods; evaluation; good practice protocol; sustainability assessment; sustainable urban development; urban development; urban planning |
| Index terms: | boundaries, survey, exercise, good practice, urban development, sustainable urban development, toolkit, integration, urban planning, sustainability assessment |
| Subjects: | property law, health behaviours and lifestyles, organizational analysis, sustainability and resilience, software systems, performance measurement, data collection methods, sustainability assessment, urban planning, urban design |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Governance, Quality Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here