QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

This is the accepted version of this conference paper. Published as: Teriman, Suharto and Yigitcanlar, Tan and Mayere, Severine (2009) Sustainable urban development : a quadruple bottom line assessment framework. In: The Second Infrastructure Theme Postgraduate Conference : Conference Proceedings, 26 March 2009, Queensland University of Technoogy, Brisbane.

© Copyright 2009 Please consult the authors.

This publication documents conference proceedings. Reproduction, but not modification, is permissable without the authors' consent but must be referenced appropriately. No modification of this publication's contents is allowed.

1

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT: A QUADRUPLE BOTTOM LINE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

 Suharto Teriman1, Tan Yigitcanlar2, Severine Mayere3

Abstract Sustainable development has long been promoted as the best answer to the world’s environmental problems. This term has generated mass appeal as it implies that the development of the built environment and its associated resource consumption can both be achieved without jeopardising the natural environment. In the urban context, sustainability issues have been reflected in the promotion of sustainable urban development, focusing on sensible exploitation of scarce natural resources for use in the process of urbanisation in a manner that allows future generations to repeat this process. This paper attempts to highlight an increasing urgency in formulating a suitable model for assessing sustainability at urban level, because this is where the bulk of a nation’s population reside, and where sustainability problems mostly occur. It will also point out to the increasing importance of governance in facilitating urban sustainability process and promotes its inclusion in the quadruple bottom line sustainability assessment developed in this research. This assessment involves the use of physical, social, environmental and governance aspects in assessing the extent to which development of an urban settlement is sustainable. Specifically, this assessment model is carried out to determine whether or not sustainable urban development practice is implemented in the provision of residential development, and in particular whether the development of master-planned residential communities have more desirable outcomes compared to traditional residential subdivision. Keywords Sustainable urban development, quadruple bottom line assessment, urban governance, master planned communities, traditional residential subdivision.

Introduction As more than 50 percent of the world population are currently urban, the concept of sustainable development and the examination of human settlement problems involve looking deeply into urban issues and seeking solutions that can facilitate the establishment of urban sustainability (Devuyst et al., 2001). Concerns for the unsustainability of modern urban development patterns have been around since early 19th century, when rapid growth in industrial cities had been responsible for unsustainable consumption of the world’s scarce resources (Wheeler & Beatley, 2004). From growth of these industrial cities in Europe through to current urbanisation trends in Asia, continuous expansions of cities and human settlements consumed increasing amount of resources, some renewable while others such as land and minerals are not. These trends also generated waste and pollution which further increase environmental stress (WCED, 1987). The term ’sustainable development’, even though it has been used since early 1970s, its wider application into the urban planning profession was only recognised less than two decades ago (Choguill, 1993), following the Brundtland Report which states that humankind is consuming the world’s resources unsustainably and calls for more egalitarian and sustainable use of existing resources.

1 PhD Student, School of Urban Development, QUT 2 Senior Lecturer, School of Urban Development, QUT 3 Lecturer, School of Urban Development, QUT

2

For the past three decades however, the notion of sustainable urban development has become central in planning and managing urban development in Europe and North America. The turning point of this sustainability trend was the1992 United Nation Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit. The Summit produced four treaties: the Rio Declaration (a statement of 27 principles to guide national conduct on environmental protection and development), the Forest Principles (protection of global forest), the Biodiversity Treaty (the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity) and Agenda 21 (priorities and goals embracing the environment and development agenda) (Owen & Videras, 2008). Agenda 21 is the only document that attempts to embrace the entire environment and development agenda. It also acknowledged the importance of urban areas within the sustainability agenda (Choguill, 1993) and support strategies and measures for creating sustainable urban development (UNCED, 1992; Jansen, 2003).

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined sustainable development as the “development that meets the need for the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). With this iconic definition, the WCED has managed to push sustainable development into the mainstream of policy debate and actions, yet its definition has also been criticised on many grounds particularly in the difficulty to define and determine the concept of ‘needs’ (Choguill, 1993; Wheeler & Beatley, 2004; Brandon & Lombardi, 2005). Although this rather vaguely descriptive statement was short on details and specifics (Portney, 2003), it remains the most adequate definition of sustainable development (Jepson, 2004). Cobb et al. (1995), considers sustainable development as a concept encompassing the integration of economic development, social concern and environment protection (or the triple bottom line sustainability) in a mutually reinforcing manner. Other researchers however perceived this concept as a compromise between the fundamental, interconnecting elements of environmental, economic and social objectives; it stands for a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come within the limits of permissible environmental impacts (Bond et al., 1998; Pike et al., 2006).

Urbanisation process has brought together various players in the development process including citizens, professionals, governments, agencies and the political dimension into shaping the physical, economic and social environment of urban settlements. There is a strong belief that urbanisation is a crucial and an inevitable process of developing a modern state (McGhee, 2008), and no country in the industrial age can achieve favourable economic growth without urbanization (UNPFA, 2007). Whilst urbanisation is inevitable, growing concern about its undesirable effects however has led to an increased awareness that this urban development has to be carefully managed to be sustainable. Managing urban growth and development process involves not only with formulating strategies and programmes for future development but also aligning political decisions and community demands toward a consensus, and then implementing this consensus to achieving the stated management goals (Porter, 2002). This complex task has to be handled by public officials, and planners in particular have a leading role in search for this consensus.

This paper attempts to highlight one of the emerging issues of sustainable urban development practice involving the provision of urban shelter or residential

3

development, and in particular whether the development of master-planned residential communities have more desirable outcomes compared to traditional residential subdivisions. The paper is structured as follows: the first section highlights the notion of sustainable urban development concept and its integration with urban planning and how these two processes can be combined, and integrated with an innovative sustainability assessment mechanism. The second section highlights the importance of governance and how it can be integrated with existing triple bottom line sustainability to create a more concerted sustainability assessment called the Quadruple bottom line (QBL) sustainability. The third section illustrates the methodological approach of the study with the concluding part again highlighting the importance of the sustainable urban development concept as well as understanding of the proposed model.

Sustainable Urban Planning and Development Sustainable development is “a process of change in which exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological developments and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (WCED, 1987, p. 47). This term has generated mass appeal as it implies that the development of the built environment and its associated resource consumption can both be achieved without jeopardising the natural environment (Berke et al., 2006). In physical planning context, sustainable development concept is strongly absorbed in the urban framework, which is regarded as centres of active economic, social and cultural development. At the core of this urban framework is where cities lie, with most strongly transformed natural environment and highly developed complexes of infrastructure, a common facet of urbanised settlements (Kavaliaukas, 2008).

The Brundtland report has generated a huge literature on urbanisation, yet despite its centrality, urbanisation is considered only as a contributory factor to the world’s environmental problems. Again, there are still relatively limited literature directed towards sustainable urban development (SUD), even though environmental movement has largely been urban related (Drakakis-Smith, 1995). Not only that, Serageldin (1993) argued that there exists conflicts between ecologists, economists and sociologists in interpreting sustainable urban development. Choguill (1993, p. 3) argues that the definition of sustainable urban development should include “the minimisation in the use of non-renewable resources, the achievement of the sustainable use of renewable resources, staying within the absorptive capacity of local and global waste absorption limits, and meeting basic human needs”. This definition has strong ecological underpinnings, yet as author argues, the importance of social, economic and environmental implications should not be underestimated. On the more economic perspectives, sustainable urban development is defined as the maximisation of “economic efficiency in the use of development resources (including goods and services provided by the natural environment); maintaining natural resource stock at or above their present level; social equity in the distribution of development benefits and costs, and avoidance of unnecessary foreclosure of future development options” (Clarke, 1995, p. 17). Looking from planning perspectives, Wheeler (1998) provides a helpful differentiation between process-oriented definition of sustainable development, in which he described sustainable development as “development that improves the long-term health of human and

4

ecological systems” to that of sustainable urban development as development that “improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities and towns.”

Urban planning can be defined as the intentional interventions by local authority in the urban development process using a variety of mechanisms involving regulations, collective choice, and stakeholder participation (Hopkins, 2001). Examples of techniques used include the traditional general plans and zoning of land use. Urban development on the other hand reflects expansion of a city or town to accommodate population increase and the growing demand for goods and services. In essence, urban planning and urban development involve two distinct but interrelated cycles, one occurring after the other. Each cycle can be illustrated using the social marketing wheel, involving the analysis, planning, execution, and evaluation of programmes or plans designed to improve the sustainability of the planned development (Figure 1). The continuous interaction between planning and development over space and time and incorporating an assessment mechanism is expected to improve urban development outcomes and benefitting stakeholders and citizens.

Figure 1: Social Marketing Wheel of Urban Development (derived from Rimer & Glanz, 2005)

It is argued that both planning and implementation cycles however can be integrated into a single, urban development process for creating an urban development or settlement. This process consists of two stages; the early, planning stage and the follow-up, implementation stage, with a sustainability assessment at the end of each stage. These assessments will determine whether the activities undertaken within each stage do contribute to the sustainability outcome or otherwise. Each component in the process has a list of criteria or variables that need to be looked into and some variables may require particular techniques. Collectively these

5

components contribute to the outcome of the final, desired future urban settlement (Figure 2). To this end, this research will investigate the application of these assessments on urban settlements at neighbourhood level, involving master planned communities and the traditional residential subdivisions. Specifically, the research will investigate and assess the extent to which existing residential developments are sustainable and then develop a practical model of sustainable urban development assessment by employing innovative sustainability elements.

.Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Urban Development Process (developed by author for this research)

Master planned communities (MPC) or master planned estates are defined as large scale integrated housing developments on suburban greenfield, with mixed housing types, landscape and recreational, commercial and service facilities (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999). The development of MPC has been quite rapid in recent years. The concept which originated from the USA has been getting positive responses from developers from many countries including Australia (Goodman & Douglas, 2008). It is argued that developers simply responding to the market conditions and changing consumer preferences by changing the traditional house-building to more comprehensive style of master plan living (Gwyther, 2004; Costley, 2006; Goodman & Douglas, 2008). While traditional residential subdivision (TRS) offer vast private front or back yard for the family and flexible house designs and basic infrastructure such as open space, road and utility services, MPC offer bargained package with benefits ranging from lifestyle, security and sense of community. Residents within the MPC experience a strong bonding between themselves which encourage connection and community support. It is argued however that such strong bonding

6

can also create social exclusion with people outside their boundaries (Costley, 2006).

Quadruple Bottom Line Sustainability Assessment Quadruple bottom line (QBL) sustainability is a term derived based on the triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability which has a root in the business field. The TBL has a dominant popularity in the corporate world, and known as the TBL accounting and reporting frameworks, and used by business owners and managers to reflect their corporate reporting beyond the financial bottom line to include environmental impact and social contribution (Elkington, 1998; Christchurch City Council, 2003). This is a huge shift from conventional, economic focused business bottom line sustainability, which limits the assessment only on finance and profitability (Blair et al., 2003). From sustainable urban development perspective, the TBL approach encompasses a much bigger picture, and includes a broader focus on economic sustainability than the mere financial feasibility. On the broader sustainability platform, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2002) explains that the TBL sustainability has three mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development namely economic development, social development and environmental protection. At this juncture, sustainability is perceived as the position where these three pillars interact and created a common platform from which sustainable development can be attained or exercised to achieve common benefits for all (Figure 3).

Figure 3: The three pillars of sustainability model (derived from ICLEI, 1996)

7

When discussing urban development sustainability at the local or even national level, the involvement of governance aspect in facilitating urban development however should not be underestimated. Goss (2001, p. 11) describes governance as “emerging forms of collective decision-making at local level, which led to the development of different relationships, not simply between public agencies but between citizens and public agencies”. This implies that the governance framework goes beyond mere relationships between officials in the local government and other stakeholders, into a more concerted effort of decision-making, incorporating elements such as participation and collaboration. The governance theme is embedded within the institutional capital of a local government. This institutional capital or capacity is described as the “basic monetary and human resources, existing and working structures and networks within (local) government, as well as with organised interests and individuals outside the government” (Evans et al., 2005). Nolmark (2007, p. 18) refers to this as the “cross-cutting theme of governance and institutions that includes issues such as government, democracy, decision-making, involvement of citizens in urban politics, but also to institutional capacity of organisations and the instruments such as law, regulations and planning systems.”

The preceding discussion highlights the fact that the functioning of governance is central in the process towards achieving urban sustainability (Evans et al., 2006). It is therefore argued in this research that governance should be integrated within the existing TBL mechanism for assessing urban sustainability. Thus, a model incorporating the function of governance in sustainable urban development assessment, known as the Quadruple Bottom Line Sustainability (QBL) assessment has been proposed for this research, and will be tested against four case studies of residential development in Malaysia (Figure 4). The purpose of such assessment is to determine the extent to which existing, different types of residential development (MPC and TRS) fulfil the criteria of sustainable urban development.

Methodology The research is undertaken to investigate and assess the extent to which existing residential development are sustainable and then develop a practical assessment model for Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) by employing the quadruple bottom line (QBL) sustainability elements. It employs the following objectives:

a. Overview of the different types of SUD assessment methods and their effectiveness

b. Identifying the indicators for QBL sustainability assessment for the differing land development types

c. Developing and refining the best approach for achieving urban sustainability goals with the use of QBL sustainability assessment

d. Testing the QBL sustainability assessment of master planned communities and traditional subdivision residential communities

8

Figure 4: Quadruple bottom line sustainability assessment model (developed by author for this research)

The research will adopt a case study approach involving two different residential developments namely the traditional residential subdivisions (TRS) and also the master planned community (MPC) development. MPC have many additional elements considered in the design including solar access, community facilities, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and building forms. These elements and issues are normally tackled in a comprehensive manner during the MPC’s planning and design stage (Blair et al., 2003). Traditional regulatory subdivision (TRS) communities on the other hand take the form of houses developed on individual lots. There are limited restrictions on house design, but it has to comply with other form of general regulation including lot size and layout, open space and infrastructure and utility provision.

The QBL assessment will use a set of indicators to be developed for this research based on existing literature on sustainable development assessment, including the TBL sustainability assessment project developed for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), which will be carefully selected to suit local conditions. Indicators are generally known as measurement or assessment of qualities of an item of interest, for example the achievement of a set target or policy aim. The use of this assessment tool for sustainable urban development is well supported by scholars for its ability to “...provide crucial guidance for decision-making in a variety of ways... translate physical and social science knowledge into manageable units of information that can facilitate the decision-making process…help to measure and calibrate progress towards sustainable development goals” (United Nations, 2001). The way to use indicators as a basis for strategic management is by specifying measures, for example in terms of desired outcomes, and based on an agreed policy. The use of performance measures can then assess

9

the degree of success of the actions taken against the intended policy. Mitigating measures can then be initiated if the performance result shows that performance achieved is not within acceptable level (Miller, 2004).

The research will examine four case studies from Malaysia, two for each types of residential development. Both sets of case studies will be selected from two different local authorities located in the Klang Valley region in Malaysia; one is from Putrajaya area and the other one from Shah Alam. Klang Valley was chosen to select the case studies from because of the rapid development currently taking place within the region and that concerns for sustainable development are more evident in this part of the country.

Conclusion The theoretical aspects underpinning sustainable urban development discourse have shown that this concept has been one of the most important contributors to the sustainable development agendas of contemporary urban planning. This research will look into the importance of combining the two core processes involved in urban development namely planning and development to create a continuous, integrated sustainable urban development process. In the course of creating a sustainable urban future, this integration however is not meaningful unless accompanied by a form of innovative sustainability assessment mechanism that can determine the extent to which the development will be considered sustainable. In relation to this, a new, practical approach for assessing urban sustainability, known as the QBL sustainability assessment framework will be developed. The importance of such integrations as well as the assessment mechanism is enormous, given its significant potentials to continually improving the overall sustainability of urban development process and achieving the goals of creating a sustainable urban future.

Apart from this integration, the research will also highlight the increasingly important contribution of urban governance and the need to incorporate this factor into the QBL sustainability assessment framework alongside the economic, environmental and social development factors. The existence of good governance in this assessment model will provide a strong platform not only for the integrated sustainable urban development process itself but also on the overall implementation of sustainable urban development initiatives. The QBL assessment model will be tested against an important sector in urban development, involving residential development of master planned communities and traditional residential subdivisions. These two are considered as the mainstream type residential development in urban areas. The use of a number well chosen indicators representing all components in the QBL assessment model will provide a strong mechanism for determining the extent of overall sustainability achievements of each of these urban residential developments in the study areas. The use of a strong QBL assessment mechanism will be a good start towards achieving long term sustainability goals beyond the state and even national level. This in the end will give hope for future generations to repeat this process, for their future generations.

10

REFERENCES Berke, P., Godschalk, D., & Kaiser, E. (2006). Urban Land Use Planning (Fifth ed.).

Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Blair, J., Fisher, M., Prasad, D., Judd, B., Soebarto, V., Hyde, R., et al. (2003).

Affordability and Sustainability Outcomes of 'Greenfield' Suburban Development and Master-Planned Communities - A Case Study Approach Using Triple Bottom Line Assessment. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

Bond, A. J., Mortimer, K. J., & Cherry, J. (1998). Policy and Practice: The Focus of Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(6), 767-776.

Brandon, P. S., & Lombardi, P. (2005). Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Victoria: Blackwell Science.

Choguill, C. L. (1993). Editorial: Sustainable Cities: Urban Policies for the Future. Habitat International, 17(3), 1-12.

Christchurch City Council. (2003). Triple Bottom Line Measures (Financial Plan and Programme 2003). Retrieved 20th January, 2009, from http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/annualplan/2003/triplebottomline/

Clarke, G. (1995). Re-Appraising the Urban Planning Process as an Instrument for Sustainable Urban Development and Management. In A. C. Mosha (Ed.), A Reappraisal of the Urban Planning Process. New York: UN Habitat.

Cobb, C., Halstead, T., & Rowe, J. (1995). The Genuine Progress Indicator Summary of Data and Methodology. San Francisco: Redefining Progress.

Costley, D. (2006). Master planned communities: Do they offer a solution to urban sprawl or a vehicle for seclusion of the more affluent consumers in Australia? Housing, Theory and Society, 23(3), 157-175.

Drakakis-Smith, D. (1995). Third World Cities: Sustainable Urban Development, 1. Urban Studies, 32(4-5), 659-677.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Gabriola: New Society Publisher.

Evans, B., Joas, M., Saundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2005). Governing LocalSustainability. London: Earthscan.

Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2006). Governing Local Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(6), 849-867.

Goodman, R., & Douglas, K. (2008). Privatised communities: The use of owners corporations in master planned estates in Melbourne. Australian Geographer, 39(4), 521-536.

Goss, S. (2001). Making Local Government Work. Basingstoke: Pelgrave. Gwyther, G. (2004). Paradise Planned: Community Formation and the Master

Planed Estate. Paper presented at the Mission imPossible. Hopkins, L. (2001). Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans. Washington:

Island Press. ICLEI, (International Council for Local Environment Initiatives). (1996). Local Agenda

21 Planning Guide. Toronto: ICLEI. Jansen, L. (2003). The Challenge of Sustainable Development. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 11, 231-245. Jepson, E. J. (2004). Human Nature and Sustainable Development: A Strategic

Challenge for Planners. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(1), 3-15.

11

Kavaliaukas, P. (2008). A Concept for Sustainable Development for Regional Land Use Planning: Lithuanian Experience. Technological and Economic Development of Technology, 14(1), 51-63.

McGhee, T. G. (2008). Managing the Rural-urban Transformation in East-Asia in the 21st Century. Sustain Sci(3), 155-167.

Miller, D. (2004). Developing and Employing Sustainability Indicators as a Principal Strategy in Planning: Experiences in the Puget Sound Urban Region of Washington State. In A. Sorensen, P. J. Marcotullio & J. Grant (Eds.), Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions (pp. 112-131). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Minnery, J., & Bajracharya, B. (1999). Visions, Planning Process and Outcomes: Master Planned Communities in South East Queensland. Australian Planner, 35, 33-41.

Nolmark, H. (2007). Re-thinking Sustainable Urban Development in an Era of Globalisation, Resource Constraints and Climate Change. Salford: Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, University of Salford.

Owen, A. L., & Videras, J. (2008). Trust, cooperation, and implementation of sustainability programs: The case of Local Agenda 21. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 259-272.

Pike, A., Tomaney, J., & Rodrigues, A. (2006). Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.

Porter, D. R. (2002). Making smart growth work Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

Portney, K. E. (2003). Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Develpment, Environment and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rimer, B., & Glanz, K. (2005). Theory at a Glance. Washington: National Cancer Institute.

Serageldin, I. (1993). Making Development Sustainable. Finance and Development, 30(4), 6-7.

UNCED, (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). (1992). Earth Summit 92 (Agenda 21). London.

United Nations. (2001). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development.

United Nations. (2002). Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations Division on Sustainable Development.

UNPFA, (United Nations Population Fund). (2007). State of the World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential for Urban Growth. Retrieved 24th June 2008: http://www.unfpa.org/publications/detail.cfm?ID=334&filterListType=

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, S. (1998). Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities. In R. T. LeGates & F.

Stout (Eds.), The City Reader (pp. 434-445). London: Routledge. Wheeler, S., & Beatley, T. (Eds.). (2004). The Sustainable Urban Development

Reader. New York: Routledge.