See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254243332

Assessing cities: A new system of cross-scale spatial indicators

Article  in  Building Research and Information · October 2012

DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2012.703488

CITATIONS READS

99 636

3 authors:

Loeiz Bourdic Serge Salat

Urban Morphology Institute Urban Morphology and Complex Systems Institute
12 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   395 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Caroline Nowacki
Stanford University
20 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban development led by Sovereign Development Funds View project

User value of AI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Loeiz Bourdic on 15 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2012) I FIRST

RESEARCH PAPER

Assessing cities: a new system

of cross-scale spatial indicators
Loeiz Bourdic, Serge Salat and Caroline Nowacki

Urban Morphology Lab, CSTB, 4 avenue Poincare¤, F-75016 Paris, France

E-mails: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]

Urban stakeholders require quantitative and robust tools to implement new paths to urban sustainability. Urban form,
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

the spatial distribution of activities and urban organization are crucial aspects of cities’ sustainability. Many tools and
assessment systems have been developed to improve cities’ energy efficiency and environmental footprint. However, most
of these tools are based on the building scale. Most urban stakeholders are now convinced that a building scale approach
is not sufficient: the scale of analysis should evolve from the building to the neighbourhood, district and city scales. An
innovative system of indicators is presented that answers the need for multi-scale and cross-scale indicators and
encompasses the intrinsic complexity of the city. Based on a morphologic approach, new mathematical formulas are
used to generate urban sustainability indicators. These indicators can assist with the comparison of urban projects by
using a structural point of view to assess the energy efficiency, social and environmental consequences of different
urban forms. A comprehensive table displays 60 indicators and methods to quantify them. Some of these indicators
have been quantified for real cities and are presented.

Keywords: built environment efficiency, environmental assessment, spatial indicators, sustainable cities, urban
efficiency, urban resilience, urban tools

Les acteurs du cadre urbain ont besoin de solides outils quantitatifs afin de mettre en oeuvre de nouvelles pistes pour
parvenir à la durabilité urbaine. La forme urbaine, la répartition spatiale des activités et l’organisation urbaine sont
des aspects déterminants de la durabilité des villes. De nombreux outils et systèmes d’évaluation ont été mis au point
pour améliorer l’efficacité énergétique des villes et l’empreinte environnementale. Cependant, la plupart de ces outils
reposent sur une approche à l’échelle du bâtiment. La plupart des acteurs du cadre urbain sont maintenant
convaincus qu’une approche à l’échelle du bâtiment n’est pas suffisante : l’échelle d’analyse devrait évoluer de
l’échelle du bâtiment à l’échelle du quartier, de l’arrondissement et de la ville. Il est présenté un système innovant
d’indicateurs qui répond aux besoins d’indicateurs multi-échelles et trans-échelles et qui englobe la complexité
intrinsèque de la ville. En se basant sur une approche morphologique, de nouvelles formules mathématiques sont
utilisées pour générer des indicateurs de durabilité urbaine. Ces indicateurs peuvent aider à comparer les projets de
construction urbains en utilisant un point de vue structurel pour évaluer l’efficacité énergétique, les conséquences
sociales et environnementales des différentes formes urbaines. Un tableau exhaustif affiche 60 indicateurs et les
méthodes pour les quantifier. Certains de ces indicateurs ont été quantifiés pour des villes réelles et sont présentés.

Mots clés: efficacité du cadre bâti, évaluation environnementale, indicateurs spatiaux, villes durables, efficacité urbaine,
résilience urbaine, outils urbains

Introduction need tools to measure the current performance of

Urban energy consumption is a growing concern due to their cities, to find the levers to reduce it and to
the acknowledged need to mitigate climate change and assess the efficiency of the actions engaged. This is
the large proportion of energy used in cities. While why assessment systems play such a key role.
some governments are committing themselves to redu- However, cities are incredibly complex systems,
cing energy consumption and carbon emissions, they made of components that can be identified using

Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2012 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandfonline.com ⁄journals
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.703488
 Bourdic et al.

different point of views. Assessments based on single or The last section is dedicated to presenting operational
simple metrics such as energy flows are insufficient to outputs of this assessment tool, with some benchmarks
address the wider socio-ecological aspects of cities. calculated on several cities.

An analysis underlining the different views and their

interactions is crucial to a better understanding of the
urban environment. The list of indicators presented Organization of the assessment system
here offers a new analysis of the layers of the city, of Existing assessment tools
its components and of the interactions between them. Many tools for assessing urban sustainability have
These indicators enable the built environment of differ- emerged recently, but most of them are based on the
ent cities in the world to be described and compared, building scale. However, according to Cole (2011)
along with an assessment of the energy consumption one of the most significant achievements of the past
and environmental consequences linked to urban few years has been the introduction of new versions
forms. Such an approach focusing on urban mor- of these tools for communities and urban design. The
phology at different scales is exceptional and promising. scale has increased from individual buildings to a
larger scale. Instead of looking only at the building,
The indicators were constructed using mathematical these methods started to take into account the
theories, and are embedded in the thought and work context of the building. Besides insisting on the need
of Ernst von Weizsäcker et al. (1997). Their approach for neighbourhood-, district- and city-scales assess-
to reducing resource consumption was based on the ment tools, Bourdic and Salat (2012) provide a
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

identification of key factors that played a significant review of neighbourhood, district and city scales sus-
role and should be targeted. Their idea of identifying tainability assessment tool, with a focus on building
essential factors and using them to reduce the energy energy consumptions. Urban assessment tools on
footprint has been a crucial move in the research on sus- these critical urban scales for the United States (Leader-
tainable development. Ratti et al. (2005) adapted this ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED),
concept specifically to the urban environment. Their 2009), Japan (Comprehensive Assessment System for
work is expanded in this paper, deepening the morpho- Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), 2007;
logical aspect and building on some of their mathe- Murakami et al., 2011), and Europe (Building
matical theories and equations. It is argued that the Research Establishment (BRE), 2011) reveal a lack of
focus on urban morphology can contribute to halving robustness. According to Bourdic and Salat (2012)
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. this problem is caused by a confusing use of qualitative
The current paper identifies the essential factors to and quantitative criteria, mixed into a unique aggre-
achieve this potential. gated rating. Building on these conclusions, the main
objective of this paper is to provide urban stakeholders
Governments, citizens, urban planners, architects, prop- with robust, quantitative, science-based and cross-
erty developers as well as other stakeholders could scale indicators for urban sustainability.
use this system to understand better the interactions
between built forms and energy consumption, and to
nurture a dialogue-based investigative approach. Three pillars
However, any attempt to use the indicators as absolute Sustainable development involves many disciplines and
target values would be misguided. Doing so would frag- it has become increasingly obvious that an innovative
ment the whole urban concept into a series of technical combination of these disciplines is necessary to reduce
targets, thereby losing the relation of the parts to the greenhouse gas emissions while improving quality of
whole. Instead of stipulating absolute targets for the indi- life. Urban forms influence the environmental, social
cators, a range of advisable values is advocated. This pro- and economic aspects of sustainable development, but
vides stakeholders with some latitude and to account for urban forms continue to maintain their own autonomy.
the complexity of urban issues. This system has to be Social and economic factors play a key role in the design
adapted to the specificity of the projects by changing of the city, but are not sufficient to explain it. The
the variables to reach the structural objectives defined dynamic of urban forms deserves to be set apart for pur-
by local governments and planning agencies. poses of analysis. The three pillars have thus been
retained: urban form; economic and social; and environ-
The next two sections present the method that has been ment. This organization thereby allows a variety of com-
used to implement this assessment tool, as well as the binations between the urban and the social, the urban
way it has been structured. Critical attention has then and the economic or the urban and the environmental.
been paid to some specific concepts for which quantifi-
cation raises important issues: urban morphology,
mixed-use and diversity. A comprehensive table then Major themes
displays 60 cross-scale spatial indicators, for which a A thematic layout makes the system easy to understand for
mathematical formula is provided in the Appendix. the reader. This grid has been incorporated in the system,
2
 Assessing cities

while detailing it by other classification means. Classical influenced by the form of streets (the height-to-width
parts have been chosen, inspired from the Canada Mort- ratio of urban canyons), their orientation to the sun
gage and Housing Corporation (Kellett, 2009a) assess- and dominant winds, etc. The indicators of mixed
ment tool: ‘land use’, ‘mobility’, ‘water management’, use get a different meaning on the smaller scale of the
‘biodiversity’, ‘energy’, ‘equity’, ‘economy’, ‘well-being neighbourhood. Segregation (social, residential, sec-
and culture’, ‘waste and materials’. toral) that may have been masked by this indicator
on the district scale may show up on the neighbour-
A set of indicators was then developed in this theme- hood scale. This is also an interesting scale to
based framework (land use, mobility, water, biodiver- measure proximity parameters: green spaces, public
sity, etc.), observing the nature, scope and role of each transport, public spaces and facilities, etc. This scale
indicator. The decisive questions were: Why choose it? corresponds to a selection of 200 × 200 m in the
What information does it provide? These were necess- Haussmannian fabric, or between one and four
ary to find the most appropriate name and mathemat- blocks. For an American grid, or for Brasilia, the
ical formula for each indicator. This forced the appropriate scale will be approximately 400 × 400 m
research team to think thoroughly about the to maintain the coherence of the urban fabric.
meaning of commonly used words, e.g. diversity. It
also led to an innovative classification based on Morphological parameters are particularly interesting
seven types: intensity, diversity, proximity, complex- on the block scale and in urban configurations consist-
ity, form, connectivity and distribution. Each type ing of adjoining or homogenous buildings (Salat,
defines the nature, the provided information and the 2009). The block area depends highly on local archi-
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

use of each indicator. tecture and on the form and relationships between
buildings. The block is a highly versatile form with a
millennia-old history, and looks different for each civi-
Spatial scales lization around the world. The block is the built part
Spatial scales specify the area for which each indicator framed by streets. In many historical cities, like Paris,
computation makes sense. These are the city, the dis- it corresponds to a series of buildings that usually sur-
trict, the neighbourhood, the block and the building. round courtyards. But for skyscrapers it corresponds to
Defining smaller scales than the entire urban area the building itself. It can be used notably to calculate
was necessary to ensure the best relevance of the heat energy needs on the district scale without having
results and effectiveness of recommendations, consid- to calculate it building by building, as is usually
ering data availability. done. It is possible to extend the results to the block
and even district scales, when buildings have the
The city scale is the most comprehensive. On this scale, same technology and level of insulation, in hom-
cities’ overall consumption per resident, energy and ogenous fabrics (buildings with similar envelope
resource consumption, and waste production can be area-to-volume ratio or adjoining walls).
compared. Streets can also be mapped, as well as con-
nectivity and road distribution between users. Public
transit networks and connections between different
transit modes can be analysed. A typology of indicators
The recurrent concepts are translated by seven types of
The district scale needs sufficient aggregated yield data indicators to evaluate the following aspects: intensity,
to take into account the structure, complexity and con- distribution, proximity, connectivity, complexity,
nectivity, in particular of the street networks (for ped- diversity and form. These concepts constitute an analy-
estrians, bikes, cars, public transport). This scale also sis grid that serves to pinpoint the meaning of the indi-
enables one to examine diversity issues. This includes cator’s value and its objective.
social mix (diversity of housing sizes and prices), but
also sectoral mix (distribution and concentration of
different activities), and housing/office mix. These Indicators of intensity
issues can be examined within the boundaries of a dis- Intensity is an increasingly used type of indicator. It
trict or between several districts. can measure the density or concentration of an object
on a given scale. It can then describe a concentration
The city and district scales focus primarily on connec- of people or a density of housing. It implies a relation-
tivity, but this loses its significance at the neighbour- ship of efficiency between the result and the means
hood scale, save perhaps for the pedestrian and employed. This is the case for the carbon emissions
bicycle grids. On the other hand, morphology plays a intensity. It measures the amount of carbon emitted
significant role on the neighbourhood scale, as do phys- to achieve a result and allows one to compare the
ical phenomena within the urban fabric: wind speed, energy efficiency of activities. Some intensity indicators
wind directions, and solar potential (sky view factor) have already been published, notably by the Agència
(Oke, 1981, 1988). These physical parameters are d’Ecologia Urbana de Barcelona (2007) and the
3
 Bourdic et al.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Kellett, theoretically but are rarely found in practice. The indi-
2009a, 2009b). cators of proximity are fairly intuitive and provide
average travel distances, which remain relatively easy
for readers to imagine and transpose. On the other
Indicators of spatial distribution hand, the indicators of diversity are almost never
Indicators of spatial distribution give the relative con- used and cover different meanings and computation
centration or dispersion of objects on a given scale formulas. The indicators of distribution are sometimes
compared with all known objects on a bigger scale – conflated with those of diversity, which is why it
for instance, the distribution of parks or social seemed appropriate to expand at greater length on
housing in specific districts compared with the whole these two types of indicators.
city. The point is to quantify the distribution of
objects in order to evaluate the equitability. Usually a
good distribution is homogenous. This is sometimes Focus on a few concepts
conflated with an indicator of diversity, which is why Parameters of urban form
these indicators will be described below. Indicators of the urban form type describe the com-
ponents of the urban fabric. These indicators give
details on the morphology of buildings, streets and
Indicators of proximity urban networks.
Proximity corresponds to the distance between two
elements, e.g. between homes and leisure activities or
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

Volumetric Compactness is one of the most useful indi-

between offices and public transit stations. This dis- cators to analyse heating needs. There are three var-
tance must be minimized to reduce travel needs for ieties of compactness, shown in Table 1: Traditional
day-to-day activities. Compactness, equal to the surface area, S, of the build-
ing’s envelope over the volume of the building; the Size
Factor, corresponding to the equivalent cube of its
Indicators of connectivity length; and the Form Factor, which is adimensional
Connectivity corresponds to the relative accessibility and from which the bias introduced by the different
or spatial interconnection of a system or a network size of the analysed objects has been removed.
(network of streets, for example). It describes the
number of different ways to go from one point to Other relevant indicators shown in Table 2 assess
another, which makes the network more resilient: if the morphology of streets and the verticality. For
one way is blocked, alternate ways can be used. example, the Index of Street Form is a determining
factor for the wind flow throughout the city, impacting
as much natural cooling as the dispersion of pollutants.
Indicators of diversity The Verticality Index simply measures the city’s verti-
Diversity refers to the mix and variety of objects of a cality: the higher the index, the more vertical the city.
similar type on a given scale, e.g. the diversity of land
use or of housing size on the scale of a district.
Unlike spatial distribution, diversity focuses on the Mixed-use, diversity and variety
proportion of different objects but not on their more Mixed use and diversity have been advocated by
or less homogenous location in space. numerous authors. Breheny (1992) argues in favour
of mixed use, and suggests that zoning should be
avoided and discouraged for more sustainable cities.
Indicators of form According to Jabareen (2006), numerous authors
Indicators of form refer to the geometry of elements, have shown the impact of mixed-use on transportation
their volume and their footprint in space. They take patterns and on associated energy consumptions. By
this information into account as a basis for building decreasing the travel distances between activities
formulas that describe energy consumption or the (Parker, 1994), it decreases car use (Alberti, 2000;
relationship of people to their environment. Van and Senior, 2000) and encourages cycling and
walking (Thorn and Filmer-Sankey, 2003). Kenworthy
Ongoing issues
Indicators of intensity are increasingly applied in most Table 1 Three formulas for building compactness
of urban sustainability assessment systems, be it in the
United States (LEED, 2009), in Japan (CASBEE, 2007; Traditional compactness Size factor Form factor
Murakami et al., 2011) or in Europe (BRE, 2011).
They are often defined by a ratio, and are easy to C = VS V 1/3 C = VS2/3
understand and compute. The indicators of form and
connectivity have been more and more developed Note: C ¼ compactness, S ¼ surface,V ¼ volume

4
 Assessing cities

Table 2 Indexes for streets morphology economic levels, households, and age groups to
live in a community.
Street form index Verticality index (USGBC, 2011)
2
H H
W S The more equitable the distribution, the closer to 1 it is.
where H designates the height where H designates the height If the households belong to only one category, the
of buildings; and W is street of buildings; and S is the index equals zero. The project is granted points if
width surface area of the selection this index is greater than 0.5. This index is maximal
(building, district or city)
and equal to 1 for an isodistribution: there is the
same number of housing for each category. The use
of this type of index can be widened to many other
(2006) presents it as the first key dimension for sustain- fields of urban sustainability, notably to assess the
able city, along with compactness. spatial distribution of elements in the city.

Jane Jacobs has popularized diversity as an essential Spatial distribution

aspect of urban sustainability: The spatial distribution of urban elements such as parks,
shops or amenities is a fundamental aspect of urban
In dense, diversified city areas, people still walk, an equity. Spatial distribution stands for the way these
activity that is impractical in the suburbs and in elements are – equitably or inequitably – distributed
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

most grey areas. The more intensely various and on a given zone. To assess a spatial distribution, one
close-grained the diversity in an area, the more needs to choose a couple of scales: a city and its districts;
walking. Even people who come into a lively, or a district and its neighbourhoods, for instance. An
diverse area from outside, whether by car or by equitable spatial distribution is achieved when the
public transportation, walk when they get there. quantity of elements (e.g. the area of parks) on the
(Jacobs, 1961, p. 230) wider scale (e.g. the city) is distributed equitably
among districts. If there are 100 ha of parks within a
According to Wheeler (2002), it is a key point to city constituted of ten districts of the same area, an equi-
produce attractive urban landscapes. Diversity is even table spatial distribution is 10 ha in each district.
promoted by the Congress for the New Urbanism
and US Department of Housing and Urban Develop- Simpson’s index provides a mathematical formula for
ment (2000) that advocates for greater variety of this. Assume that Q districts exist in the city, each
housing types, building densities, household sizes, having an overall area of Si (m2) and Ai of green
ages, cultures and incomes. areas (m2). This index quantifies how evenly the
green areas are distributed within a city. The bigger
Assessing mixed use, variety and diversity within a city the index, the better the distribution. The ratio in
though is a complex task, and very little literature front of the formula aims at normalizing the indicator
tackles this issue properly. This section aims to dis- to allow comparisons more easily (Salat et al., 2010):
tinguish between the different concepts and finds the
appropriate tool for each.   2 
Q Q Ai
Ispatial distribution = 1 − Sdistrict=1 (2)
Q−1 Si
Mixed use and diversity
The LEED Neighborhood Development (US Green
Building Council (USGBC), 2011) grants points for Structural objective
mixed-use projects. One of the criteria is to locate However, Simpson’s index is not adequate in many
50% of the dwelling units within a quarter mile walk cases. It notably fails for situations in which an even-
distance of the number of diverse amenities. To distribution is not a good objective. For a wide range
assess the diversity of households, it uses Simpson’s of situations indeed, the ‘right’ distribution of elements
index, given by equation (1): is not the isodistribution that is implicitly targeted
by Simpson’s index. The optimal distribution often
 n 2 relies on a wide range of constraints: socio-economic,
i
ISimpson = 1 − S20
i=1 (1) policy orientations, etc. Consider the mix between
N
offices, shops and housings within a district. Using
where ni is the number of households of the ith cat- Simpson’s index boils down to recommend an isodis-
egory; and N is the total number of households. The tribution: 33% offices, 33% shops and 33% housing.
diversity of households aims at promoting: This would be absolutely arbitrary. In this case, the
building-use mix may instead be decided by taking
socially equitable and engaging communities into account numerous socio-economic factors. An
by enabling residents from a wide range of objective has to be set by policy-makers and local
5
 Bourdic et al.

authorities, for instance 25% of offices, 25% of shops one is calculated as follows:
and 50% of housing as a ten-year objective. The index
proposed is a steering tool for such policy, quantifying  A 2
the distance of the current distribution (ni) to the tar- 1 Cat ni − xmi
Cpxscale = S
geted distribution (niobj). The smaller this indicator, Cat i=1 A
xmi (5)
the closer is the distribution to the target:  2
1 Cat ni xm
  = Si=1 1 − i
obj 2 Cat A
1 Cat ni − ni
Iobj = S
Cat i=1 nobj where Cat is the number of scale categories within the
i
 2 (3) urban structure analysed. The smaller the index, the
1 Cat ni closer the distribution is to a scale-hierarchic distri-
= S 1 − obj
Cat i=1 n bution. This complexity index is for instance useful
i
to quantify the efficiency of street networks, urban
An example of this follows. If the 2020 objective is the parcels distributions, urban projects financing, etc.
arbitrary example cited above (25%, 25%, 50%) and
if the 2010 current distribution is 50%, 25%, 25%,
then the index assesses the relative deviation of the
Indicator system
actual distribution to the objective:
Table 3 provides the system of spatial indicators
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

⎡  2   2   2 ⎤ described above, ranging from classic intensities

1 1 1
1⎣ ⎦ (energy intensity, job intensity, etc.) to more specific
Iobj 2010 = 2
1− 1 + 1− 1
4
+ 1− 41
3 indexes dealing with urban complexity:
4 4 2

= 0.42 . the first column of Table 3 indicates the theme of

the indicator: land use, mobility, etc.

If the distribution improves to 33%, 33%, 33% in . the second column stands for the three pillars of
2015, the index decreases (the deviation is smaller): urban sustainability: socio-economic, environment
and urban form.
Iobj 2015 = 0.11
. the third column stands for the type of indicator:
intensity, distribution, proximity, etc.; a brief
explanation of the indicators is given in the third
column
Scale hierarchy
The last situation concerns objects with different . the scale on which the indicator should be calculated
spatial scales. Several papers have stressed the role of stands in the fourth column; five scales are used: the
scale hierarchic structures on the structural efficiency city scale (City), district scale (D), neighbourhood
of cities (Salingaros and West, 1999; Salat and scale (N), block scale (bl) and building scale (B)
Bourdic, 2011a, 2011b). The scale hierarchy of urban
structures and networks has a tremendous influence The full system is given in the Appendix, with all math-
on energy efficiency. Following Alexander’s et al.’s ematical formulas to calculate the indicators’ values.
(1987) recommendations, it also has a significant role
in urban projects financing.

This formula quantifies the distance of the actual distri- Some benchmarks
bution of elements (ni elements of size xi) to the This section provides further details on several indi-
optimal scale hierarchic distribution pi which is given cators. The objective of each indicator is explained,
by the following formula from Salingaros and West as well as the method to quantify it. Eventually, bench-
(1999): marks of these indicators have been calculated for
existing cities and displayed in Figures 1– 3.
A
pi = (4)
xm
i The connectivity of the street network is a critical
aspect of transport resilience. Creating enough inter-
where A is a constant; and m is the exponent of the sections multiplies the number of possible routes,
inverse power law distribution. Salat et al. (2010) reduces distances and traffic jams, and makes places
provides detailed calculations for A and m parameters. more easily accessible to pedestrians. This connectivity
The deviation of the actual distribution to this optimal of the street network can be assessed using the
6
 Assessing cities

Table 3 New system of spatial indicators for urban sustainability

Theme Concepts of triptych Indicator type Name Scale

Land use Urban form Intensity Human density D/N

Building density D/N
Housing density D/N
Density of legal entities D/N
Job density D/N
Coe⁄cient of land occupancy D/N
Subdivision intensity D/N
Diversity Diversity of subdivisions size D/N
Diversity of land use (road network, built environment, D/N
courtyards, green spaces)
Diversity of subdivision use (housing, o⁄ces, shops, D/N
public facilities, etc.)
Mobility Urban form Intensity Surface occupied by pedestrian and bicycle paths D/N
Surface occupied by the road network City/D
Proportion of the road network dedicated to public transport D
Connectivity Connectivity of the pedestrian/bike grid D/N
Connectivity of the car grid D
Cyclomatic complexity of the car grid D
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

Cyclomatic complexity of the pedestrian/bike grid N

Average distance between intersections D/N
(bike/pedestrian grid)
Average distance between intersections (car grid) D
Proximity Percentage of the population more than 300 m away City/D
from a public transport stop
Diversity Number of public transport modes accessible within of D
300 m
Complexity Scale hierarchy of the street network City/D
Water Environmental Intensity Hydrological intensity D
Impermeability of land D
Intensity of water treatment: rate of wastewater collection City/D
and treatment
E⁄ciency of water use City
Accessibility of drinking water City/D
Biodiversity Environmental/ Intensity Proportion of agricultural surfaces City/D
urban form Proportion of green fabric D
Connectivity Connectivity of green habitats D
Distribution Distribution of green spaces (distance from an even City/D
distribution)
Equity Socio-economic Intensity Proportion of jobs in relation to housing D/N
Proportion of social housing D/N
Diversity Diversity of ages (structural distribution) D/N/bl
Diversity of incomes (structural diversity) D/N/bl
Economy Socio-economic Intensity Resource productivity City
Intensity of learning activities D
Job potential D
Diversity Structural diversity of jobs
Structural diversity of uses (shops, o⁄ces, housing, City/D
public buildings: schools, administrations, etc.)
Urban form/ Proximity Percentage of residents living less than x from a D
socio-economy convenience store
Distribution Distance of the distribution of each district from the global City
distribution of shops, o⁄ces, housing or public buildings
Waste Environmental Intensity Proportion of recycled materials in the construction of new City/D
buildings
Productivity of urban metabolism City/D
Intensity of greenhouse gas emissions per resident City/D
Intensity of emissions to produce wealth City/D
Culture/well- Social Intensity Noise pollution D/N
being Intensity of cultural activities City/D
Urban/social Proximity Proximity of leisure facilities D
(Table continued)

7
 Bourdic et al.

Table 3 Continued

Theme Concepts of triptych Indicator type Name Scale

Energy and Environmental Intensity Energy intensity per resident D/N

bioclimatic Surface energy intensity D/N
Proportion of local production D/N
Rate of renewable energy used City D
Rate of energy reuse City D
Urban form Form Volumetric compactness N/B
Size factor N/B
Form factor N/B
Rate of passive volume N/B
Energy consumed for heating D/N/
bl/B
Energy consumed for air-conditioning D/N/
bl/B

Note: City ¼ city scale; D ¼ district scale; N ¼ neighbourhood scale; and B ¼ block scale.

intensity of intersections. Having numerous intersec- instead of using another mode of transportation if
tions points in a street network increases the number their destination is less than 500 m away, on
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

of possible ways and reduces the distances to go average. To increase the number of destinations
from one point to another, since the traveller’s that can be reached by walking, cities have to be
journey is closer to a diagonal. In a circle with a dense, but distances between intersections must be
radius of 500 m, if there are many close intersections, reduced. Figure 2 displays this indicator (in metres)
the number of accessible places is greater as compared for several cities.
with a star-shaped configuration of roads with no
intersections. Consequently, minimizing the number
The cyclomatic number is another indicator of connec-
of intersections does not necessarily help the flow of
tivity. It is linked to the number of existing roads to go
traffic. But maximizing it is not the solution either. It
from one point to another. In this sense, it is a good
would turn the city into a maze, and increase the
way to quantify redundancy in a transport network,
area occupied by the streets at the expense of build-
be it a street network or a public transport network.
ings, parks and green spaces.
The cyclomatic number represents the number of
primary loops in the network. The greater the
The indicator can be calculated using the following
number of loops, the greater the number of possible
formula:
routes in the city. Having straight roads to make
travel as direct as possible and to accommodate as
number of intersections many vehicles as possible would seem to be the best
Connectivity = (6)
seletion area (km2 ) way to resolve traffic problems. This configuration,
however, tends to lead to increasingly wide roads and
Figure 1 displays this indicator for several cities, from quickly reaches its limits. In actual fact, since particular
car-oriented cities (low values), to pedestrian friendly travel routes are varied, it is more efficient to propose a
cities like central arrondissements in Paris, Tokyo or multiplicity of smaller roads so users can choose and
Venice. spread over these paths, which are ultimately better
suited to the variety of their destinations. The cyclo-
The average distance between intersections is also a matic number refers to this multiplicity of loops that
proxy of how pedestrian-friendly a city is. It ulti- increase the number of possible paths. In a public
mately determines the distances to be crossed and transport network with a high cyclomatic number, a
the sense of whether or not it is possible to walk failure in one station will not freeze an entire zone.
to one’s destination. People will decide to walk Instead, the high redundancy will allow users to take

Figure 1 Street network connectivity for several cities (connexions per km2)

8
 Assessing cities

Figure 2 Average distance (m) between intersections for several cities

Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

Figure 3 Cyclomatic number for several cities (for a 800×800 m mesh)

one of the various other paths to join their destination. The presented research addresses a wide range of
This indicator is calculated using the following common sustainable development issues, while identi-
formula: fying new categories to describe the urban built
environment. Urban morphology has an impact on
m=L−N+1 (7) the three common dimensions of sustainable develop-
ment: economics, environment and society. It has
where L is the number of links, corresponding to the also its place in each of their subgroups, very often
different sections of streets between every intersec- identified in other assessment systems such as ‘land
tions; and N is the number of nodes, corresponding use’, ‘mobility’, ‘water management’, ‘biodiversity’,
in road networks to intersections. ‘energy’, ‘equity’, ‘economy’, ‘well-being and culture’,
‘waste and materials’. These indicators can therefore
This number is an adimensional parameter, but it easily complement other systems while offering inno-
cannot serve as a basis for a comparison of cities, vative subcategories based on the underlying math-
unless identical surfaces are being compared. Either ematic formula.
the same size selections have to be analysed, or this
indicator has to be divided by the area, leading to a In fact, indicators used so far in most of the assess-
cyclomatic number per km2. In Paris, for instance, ment systems can be confusing. They mix different
the cyclomatic number of the street network is mathematic equations without revealing them or
approximately 80 on the district scale (of 800 × explaining in detail what exact information they
800 m). The cyclomatic number in a mixed-used city give. The categorization separating between ‘inten-
designed for pedestrians is between 40 and 100 on sity’, ‘spatial distribution’, ‘proximity’, ‘connectivity’,
the district scale. Figure 3 displays the cyclomatic ‘diversity’ and ‘urban form’ enables one to specify the
number for several cities. meaning of the indicator, revealing what is computed
in the indicator formula. Taking these variations into
account, a weighting can be applied to the indicators,
depending on chosen social, economic or environ-
Conclusions mental priorities, and on the study scale. However,
Urban sustainability is deeply rooted in urban it should not be forgotten that any weighting and
morphology. Although density is the most popular aggregation of indicators into one global sustainabil-
issue when it comes to urban form, this factor is ity indicator would lead to a dramatic loss of infor-
only the visible part of the much larger iceberg. mation. The user can therefore balance the results
Urban morphology is significant for both socio- and comprehend the converging or contradictory
economic as well as environmental issues. It offers a forces linking the indicators in the system. Highly
point of view favouring an integrative and systemic flexible, without sacrificing details and precision in
approach, necessary to face and adapt to the chal- the analysis, this system offers an innovative view
lenges to come. on urban sustainability.
9
 Bourdic et al.

These spatial indicators are useful tools to assess exist- Kellett, R. (2009b) Sustainability Indicators for Computer-based
ing urban neighbourhood and districts, but they also Tools in Community Design, Volume 2. Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, ON.
provide beneficial insights for new urban develop- Kenworthy, J. (2006) The eco-city: ten key transport and plan-
ments. They do not aim at being prescriptive but ning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ-
should foster the policy-making and communication ment and Urbanization, 18, 67–85.
process. No exact target values should be given. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (2009)
LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System,
Trying to optimize every indicator is inappropriate,
Congress for the New Urbanism, Natural Ressources Defense
as some of them are conflicting. Instead of exact Council and the US Green Building Council, Washington, DC.
target values, prescriptive ranges are preferred. Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S. and Asami, Y. (2011) Development
Finally, this system of multiple scales and categories of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City.
provides insights into today’s urban world, while Building Research & Information, 39(3), 195–210.
Oke, T. (1981) Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat
being flexible and empowering people to question island: comparison of scale model and field observation.
and adapt it everywhere in the world. Internal Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237–254.
Oke, T. (1988) Street design and urban canopy layer climate.
Energy and Building, 11(1–3), 103–113.
Parker, T. (1994) The Land Use–Air Quality Linkage: How
Land Use and Transportation affect Air Quality, California
Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
References Ratti, C., Baker, N. and Steemers, K. (2005) Energy consump-
Agència d’Ecologia Urbana de Barcelona (2007) Plan Especial de tion and urban texture. Energy and Buildings, 37(7),
indicadores de Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Actividad 762–776.
Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

Urbanistica de Sevilla, Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, Seville. Salat, S. (2009) Energy loads, CO2 emissions and building stocks:
Alberti, M. (2000) Urban form and ecosystem dynamics: empiri- morphologies, typologies, energy systems and behavior.
cal evidence and practical implications, in K. Williams, E. Building Research & Information, 37(5/6), 598–609.
Burton and M. Jenks (eds): Achieving Sustainable Urban Salat, S. and Bourdic, L. (2011a) Power laws for energy efficient
Form, E&FN Spon, London, pp. 84–96. and resilient cities. Procedia Engineering, 21, 1193–1198.
Alexander, C., Neis, H. and Anninou, A. (1987) A New Theory of Salat, S. and Bourdic, L. (2011b) Scale hierarchy, exergy maximi-
Urban Design, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. sation and urban efficiency, Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
Bourdic, L. and Salat, S. (2012). Building energy models and national Exergy, Life Cycle Assessment, and Sustainability
assessment systems at the district and city scales: a review. Workshop & Symposium (ELCAS-2), 19– 21 June,
Building & Research Information, 40(4), 518–526. Nisyros, Greece.
Breheny, M. (ed.) (1992) Sustainable Development and Urban Salat, S., Bourdic, L. and Nowacki, C. (2010) Assessing urban
Form, Plon, London. complexity. SUSB, 1(2), 160–167.
Building Research Establishment (BRE) (2011) BREEAM Salingaros, N. and West, B. (1999) A universal rule for the distri-
for Communities: Stage 2. Technical Guidance Manual: bution of sizes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Version 1, BRE, Watford. Design, 26, 909–923.
Cole, R. (2011) Envromental issues past, present & future: chan- Thorn, R. and Filmer-Sankey, W. (2003) Transportation, in T.
ging priorities & responsibilities for building design. Keynote Randall and M. Fordham (eds): Sustainable Urban Design,
Introduction presented at SB11 Conference, Helsinki, Spon, London, pp. 25–32.
Finland, 18 October, 2011. US Green Building Council (USGBC) (2011) LEED Neighbor-
Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental hood Development. LEED Rating System 2nd Public
Efficiency (CASBEE) (2007) CASBEE UD (available at: Comment Draft, USGBC, Washington, DC.
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/download.htm) Van, U.-P. and Senior, M. (2000) The contribution of mixed land
(accessed on 12 November 2011). uses to sustainable travel in cities, in K. Williams, E. Burton
Congress for the New Urbanism and US Department of Housing and M. Jenks (eds): Achieving Sustainable Urban Form.
and Urban Development (2000) Principles for Inner City E&FN Spon, London, pp. 139–148.
Neighborhood Design (availableat: http://www.huduser.org/ Von Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A. and Lovins, L. (1997) Factor
Publications/pdf/principles.pdf) (accessed on 24 April 2012). Four, Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use – A Report
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, to the Club of Rome, Earthscan, London.
Random House, New York, NY. Wheeler, S. (2002) Constructing sustainable development/
Kellett, R. (2009a) Sustainability Indicators for Computer-based safeguarding our common future: rethinking sustainable
Tools in Community Design, Volume 1. Canada Mortgage development. Journal of the American Planning Association,
and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, ON. 68(1), 110–111.

10
 Assessing cities

Appendix: Spatial cross scale indicators

Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

11
 Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

12
Bourdic et al.
 Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

Assessing cities

13
 Downloaded by [Loeiz Bourdic] at 01:47 22 July 2012

14

View publication stats

Bourdic et al.