Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of an Educational Model Based on the Development of Sustainable Competencies in Basic Teacher Training in Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Scaling-up Strategy as an Appropriate Approach for Sustainable New Town Development? Lessons from Wujin, Changzhou, China
Previous Article in Journal
Meeting the Electrical Energy Needs of a Residential Building with a Wind-Photovoltaic Hybrid System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping: A New Framework for Innovation-Based Regional Development
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context

1
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
2
School of Planning and Surveying, University of Technology MARA, Seri Iskandar, Bandar Baru Seri Iskandar, Perak 32610, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2015, 7(3), 2570-2602; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su7032570
Submission received: 12 December 2014 / Revised: 14 February 2015 / Accepted: 16 February 2015 / Published: 3 March 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Planning, Development and Management of Sustainable Cities)

Abstract

:
Rapid urbanization, improved quality of life, and diversified lifestyle options have collectively led to an escalation in housing demand in our cities, where residential areas, as the largest portion of urban land use type, play a critical role in the formation of sustainable cities. To date there has been limited research to ascertain residential development layouts that provide a more sustainable urban outcome. This paper aims to evaluate and compare sustainability levels of residential types by focusing on their layouts. The paper scrutinizes three different development types in a developing country context—i.e., subdivision, piecemeal, and master-planned developments. This study develops a “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment” tool and applies it to compare their sustainability levels in Ipoh, Malaysia. The analysis finds that the master-planned development, amongst the investigated case studies, possesses the potential to produce higher levels of sustainability outcomes. The results reveal insights and evidence for policymakers, planners, development agencies and researchers; advocate further studies on neighborhood-level sustainability analysis, and; emphasize the need for collective efforts and an effective process in achieving neighborhood sustainability and sustainable city formation.

1. Introduction and Background

Sustainability has been a contested concept with many definitions since Brundtland report and hardly any consensus over a single term that can facilitate an easy measurement of the concept [1,2]. Consequently, the concept has been expanded with various disciplinary scopes [3,4]. In this paper, neighborhood sustainability is defined as the process of developing a neighborhood level urban form or built environment that meets the needs of its residents whilst avoiding unacceptable social and environmental impacts both locally and in a broader context [5]. By urban form, we refer to the spatial distributions of different land uses connected together with physical infrastructures and associated transport networks [6]. The way these features are distributed within a neighborhood has profound impact on sustainability both locally and globally. For example, research has shown that the availability of goods and services (e.g., diverse land uses) within local areas enables residents to participate fully in society (i.e., meets the local needs for jobs, recreation, social, health activities), and in turn, contributes to economic and social sustainability locally [7]. In contrast, a lack of local opportunities encourages motorized travel and thereby affects the environmental sustainability both locally (e.g., noise, habitat fragmentation, increased impervious surface and consequent damages in water quality and the formation of urban heat island) and globally (e.g., air pollution and climate change) [8,9]. Therefore, different urban forms contribute differently to sustainability and research studies around the globe have indicated that the built environment is the most promising sector for a rapid transition to sustainability [10].
The need for a sustainable urban form at the local level has long been advocated by the United Nations [11] through its “Local Agenda 21” programs. Neighborhoods are considered as the building blocks of cities where most development (e.g., new buildings) takes place, and therefore, the overall sustainability of a city depends on the sustainability of its neighborhood [12]. However, past studies on sustainability assessment have focused on either the city level e.g., [13,14] or building level e.g., [15]; whereas the assessment of neighborhood sustainability, an intermediate level, has received very little attention in general and in the context of developing countries in particular [10,16].
Limited research to-date suggests that sustainable neighborhoods have a significant positive impact on property prices [17], and that people living in sustainable neighborhoods are happier [18] and enjoy a better quality of life and place [13]. Consequently, neighborhoods are increasingly gaining attention as planning units of great potential for contribution to sustainable urban development [19]. At the same time, an increasing urge for tools to assess their sustainability is recorded worldwide [10]. Neighborhood sustainability assessment (NSA) tools are defined as a set of criteria and themes; and are used to: (a) Evaluate and rate the performance of a given neighborhood; (b) Assess the neighborhoods’ position on the way towards sustainability, and; (c) Specify the extent of neighborhoods’ success in approaching sustainability goals [16].
NSA tools have conveniently been used to benchmark the sustainable efficiency of neighborhood developments [20]. For example, Han et al. [21] estimated sustainability level of an eco-community (i.e., Xihe in China), and found that it achieved only a moderate sustainability level despite the community was built to become a sustainable neighborhood. NSA tools have also been used to provide greenness certificates of neighborhoods by respective authorities [17,22]. Using a NSA tool, Li et al. [23] compared the sustainability levels of 52 mining communities and found that four of them have reached a strong level of sustainability, 11 have achieved a satisfactory level, and the remaining 37 are still weak in their sustainability endeavors. More importantly, the availability of a NSA tool helps authorities to focus development towards sustainable outcomes. For example, after analyzing 19 housing developments throughout England, Smith et al. [22] found that in the absence of appropriate NSA tools, even where there is a desire to create a more sustainable solution, many schemes are falling short of their potential.
A number of NSA tools are currently operational around the world. The well-known ones include but not limited to the followings: LEED ND, UK; BREEAM for Communities, UK; CASBEE-UD, Japan; ECC, USA; HQE2R, European Union; Ecocity, European Union; SCR, Australia; QSAS, Qatar; Green Mark for Districts, Singapore; NSF, New Zealand; HK-BEAM, Hong Kong; EcoEffect, Sweden; EcoProfile, Norway, and; Escale, France (see, [10,16,20,22] for a review). These tools have broadly been categorized into: (a) Third-party assessment tools, which are spin-offs of building assessment tools and assess the sustainability beyond a single building (see, [22]), and; (b) Tools, which are embedded into neighborhood-scale plans and sustainability initiatives to assess their sustainability performance [16]. After critical reviews of these tools, researchers have raised several concerns about their methodology, applicability and transferability to another context. Sharifi and Murayama [16] found that most of them are weak in taking into account the different dimensions of sustainability (e.g., economic, social, environmental, and institutional). They have also noted that most of these tools possess ambiguities in terms of criteria weighting, scoring, and rating system with no mechanism for local adaptability and participation.
Furthermore, the transferability of NSA tools has been questioned particularly with respect to the selection of sustainability assessment criteria [24]. This is particularly true in case of new residential development. For example, Säynäjoki et al. [20] assessed the applicability of the LEED-ND, BREEAM for Communities, and CASBEE-UD tools in the context of new residential development in Finland and found that the consideration of some of the suggested mandatory criteria of the tools are not feasible and relevant in the local context. In addition, many internationally available NSA tools do not sufficiently explain how and why the criteria were chosen, and the methodology used to determine the requirements is also not clear [20]. For example, Smith et al. [22] have identified that the inclusion of landscape related criteria are often ignored in these tools. The issue of transferability exacerbates due to the complexity associated with defining a neighborhood in different contexts [10]. These findings imply that any realistic and reliable assessment should take account of the specificities of local context and varying needs of different stakeholders [19].
The quest for sustainability of residential neighborhoods is more than a century old [25], and mostly relates to integrating land use, transport systems and the environment [26,27,28]. The Garden City movement led by Sir Ebenezer Howard is considered as an early initiative and emerged as a response to unsustainable condition of the then residential neighborhoods; and consequently, the concept of the three magnets was developed to combine the nature and environment with economic and social life [29]. Since then various neighborhood development models have emerged and practiced in different contexts and branded as, for example, cohousing, the common interest development, the gated community, the smart community, traditional neighborhoods, neo-traditional neighborhoods, conventional suburban neighborhood, eco-community, ranchette development, subdivision development, piecemeal development, and master-planned development [21,25,30,31,32]. Although the main purpose of all these models is to provide housing, their urban forms differ significantly, particularly in terms of layout design (e.g., density, street network, pedestrian access to transit and commercial stores, land use mix, gardens, parks and other attributes that characterizes spaces between homes) [30,33]. Relatively recent research has shown that these features significantly contribute to sustainable urban development [34,35]. Although a residential neighborhood is an outcome of the synergy and combination of these individual features, scant evidence was found in the literature investigating the overall impacts of these residential models on sustainability. Rather research studies to date have focused on analyzing the sustainability of two broad classes of urban forms—i.e., compact and sprawling developments. As a result, a growing interest is evident in the literature on the increased importance of identifying various urban form typologies and their inter- and intra-urban scale interactions [36].
Against the backdrop of above urgencies, Frame and Vale [35] (p. 287) have stated that “there is a dearth of design and assessment tools for the residential built environment and of indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development”. House building industries have already been criticized for their “build and walk away” trading ethos where the emphasis is predominantly on manufacturing rather than design and planning, and thereby, very little response to the sustainability agenda [25]. The problem is even more severe in the context of developing countries where most of the residential development models are borrowed from the developed nation and are being implemented and marketed as sustainable model without being assessed their sustainability outcome in a local setting [37,38]. A World Bank report shows that some 90% of global urban growth now takes place in developing countries—and between the years 2000 and 2030, developing countries are projected to triple their entire built-up urban areas [39]. This unprecedented urban growth possesses great concerns for policymakers on how to steer growth in a sustainable way in future, because urban growth is attractive as it leads economic growth of cities [14,40]. Despite some similarities in sustainability principles of neighborhoods between developed and developing countries, the differences are even larger and the resources to deal with them are considerably scarce in developing countries. Nevertheless, the urbanization can provide an opportunity for developing countries by practicing sustainability principles in their residential developments and thereby avoiding problems that experienced by the developed nations [41].
The research reported in this paper aims to contribute to the efforts in bridging the sustainability assessment knowledge gap by investigating the sustainability outcomes of three popular residential development models (i.e., subdivision, piecemeal, and master-planned developments) from an exemplar developing country context—i.e., Malaysia. This way the paper contributes to the sustainability assessment literature in the mostly neglected geographic lacuna of developing countries. Malaysia is a representative case study from the developing country context as it has been suffering from high population increase, rural to urban migration, and deforestation with major causes from large-scale land development, mining and dam construction and logging. Much like the rest of the developing countries, these have caused loss of biodiversity, erosion, wildlife being threatened, siltation of rivers and water pollution. As stated by Sumiani et al. [42], “Malaysia, being one of the Asian countries that is rapidly developing, increasingly facing the tension between the economic incentives and the claim for ethical consciousness with regard to accounting for the environment” (p. 897).
The study develops a NSA tool to assess and/or compare sustainability levels of abovementioned residential development models. The main rationale behind developing a new assessment tool is to factor in local characteristics most appropriately—by involving a mixture of local and international experts in the formation of the tool—in sustainability evaluation, and thus provide a more reliable output to inform decision makers for effective and efficient actions and solutions. The tool is not only helpful in assessing the sustainability of current practices, but also potentially can act as an integrated residential design and development guide and expedites a fundamental shift in where and how people live in developing countries.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Frameworks and Tools

Few studies have indicated that a good NSA tool should possess the following characteristics: (a) Sustainability coverage—consideration of the major themes of sustainability of neighborhoods based on which their performance to be measured in a comprehensive and integrated way; (b) Inclusion of pre-requisites—benchmark strategies to assure the achievement of a certain level of performance; (c) Adaptation to locality—consideration of the context-specific needs and priorities in the assessments; (d) Scoring and weighting—rigorous methods to be used to score and weigh different criteria; (e) Participation—mechanisms to involve different stakeholders during the development and operational stages; (f) Presentation of results—reporting of assessment results in a way meaningful to decision makers, and; (g) Applicability—practicability of the NSA tools and strategies to increase their applicability (see [16,23]). Gibson et al. [43] provides a similar criteria and processes for sustainability assessment. Furthermore, Reith and Orova [44] provide an extensive comparison of the existing five assessment systems, CASBEE-UD, the 2009 and 2012 versions of the BREEAM Communities, LEED-ND, and DGNB-UD. They criticize these tools by stating, certain areas of sustainable urban development are not covered or do not get enough attention by the NSA systems, thus, further studies can discuss the possibilities and methods for including new indicators that broaden their coverage area.

2.1.1. Themes and Coverages

Themes are considered as the high-level issues or concerns of sustainability. Common themes of neighborhood-wide sustainability assessment includes building energy and water efficiency, energy production and supply, water and waste management systems, transportation solutions and footpaths that discourage personal car-use, promote walking and cycling, connectivity, urban density, site ecology, mixed use, health and well-being (e.g., quality of life of residents), and involvement of the public [20,22]. Again, each theme can have one or more criteria to evaluate. Each criterion including context-specific criteria has, in turn, one or more indicators, which are variables that provide specific measurements [16].

2.1.2. Indicators and Indices

Three levels of indicators are used in NSA tools, which correspond to the level of themes—i.e., individual indicator; thematic indicators; and composite indicators [23]. Individual indicators form the first step in aggregating quantitative information. They include large lists of indicators covering a wide range of issues to improve the integration of environmental concerns into policies. Thematic indicators are individual indicators grouped around a specific theme. Composite indicators are formed when thematic indicators are compiled into a synthetic index, and presented as a single composite measure.
Five important characteristics of the different indicators used in the NSA tool include: (a) Policy relevance (monitor key outcomes, policy or legislation and measure progress towards goals); (b) Analytical validity (accessible and measurable, clearly defined and reproducible, representative of the system being assessed); (c) Systematic (capture systems information, including system variables, system levels and component systems); (d) Simplicity and operability (unambiguous, understandable, practical, clearly display the extent of the sustainability, appeal to the public and reflect the interests of different stakeholders, contain as few indicators as possible, but no fewer than necessary), and; (e) Cost effectiveness (require a limited number of parameters to be established, use existing data and information wherever possible) [23].
The process used to develop sustainability indicators has been debated in the literature—from the top, initiated primarily by governments and based on expert input (expert-led), or from the bottom (citizen-led) drawing on local networks and involving the public voice. These tensions between expert-led versus citizen-led processes of sustainability assessment seemed to be solved through the integration of the two approaches—so called joined-up approach. Finally, previous research has also shown that the assessor, his/her point of view and time of assessment often play a prime role in the assessment results, because they influence the criteria and benchmarks that are considered. Consequently, a transparent, objective and plural (or promoted in a multi-agent contest) assessment has recently been found necessary [10]. In addition to the indicator development process, citizens can also involve in the development of NSA tools in other three stages. Firstly, at the time of defining the sustainability targets and identifying the core criteria and indicators are going to be assessed. Secondly is during weighing different criteria. Having a consensus based weighting for different categories of indicators, can improve the assessment process. Finally, citizens can participate by providing feedbacks that help planners update the system [16].

2.1.3. Criteria Scoring, Weighting, Normalization, and Aggregation

Criteria scoring and weighting are often a controversial issue in the NSA process [22]. Criteria weighting implies the significance of a criterion amongst all the criteria used within a theme despite this has been identified to be an extremely difficult task and involves subjectivity. This subjectivity also frequently holds during the scoring process of a criterion. The subjectivity associated with scoring and weighting of different criteria has made this practice vulnerable to ambiguity. When subjectivity exists, research studies often used an expert-led approach such the Analytic Hierarchy Process [21,23]; and Delphi [21]. Recently, studies have highlighted that a consensus-based approach is helpful in such a situation in order enhance the transparency, which is pointed out to be an essential characteristic of scoring and weighting systems [16]. Standardization or normalization of criteria score is also a common practice in the NSA process, which helps to make the criteria comparable. Different normalization techniques have been used in the literature including standard deviation, min-max, categorical scale, and above and below mean [21,45]. In the NSA system, the weighted sum method is usually used for the derivation (aggregation) of composite or thematic scores based on normalized criteria scores and criteria weights [21,22]. Sometimes, the composite score is again classified (e.g., equal interval classification) to denote the level of sustainability of a neighborhood in a more understandable Likert-scale format (e.g., excellent, good, average, poor, bad) [21,23].

2.2. Characteristics of Residential Development Models

This section reviews literature on the sustainability issues of residential development types or models. However, the review is limited to only the three types of models that were adopted as case studies in this research—i.e., piecemeal, subdivision and master-planned developments. Piecemeal development refers to houses that are developed in a piecemeal way and adds to the existing building clusters of a neighborhood. These are small-scale residential construction on vacant lot or a series of lots adjacent to existing residential development [46]. Such development takes the form of duplex, triplex or quadruplex on a single lot or single-family houses or townhouses on a number of lots. These provide potential buyers with a variety of options, vitality, viability and access to existing facilities such as schools, parks and emergency services. A major difference between piecemeal developments and infill developments is that the former bears no formal objectives of infill development [47]. Such an objective is important to create a complete, well-functioning neighborhood, and with attention to the essential design elements that fits the existing context in order to gain neighborhood acceptance. Piecemeal development is often not considered as a desirable feature for a neighborhood, because it lacks the coherence of a neighborhood. However, many argue that such limitation can be overcome with proper planning; and thereby, piecemeal development provides opportunities for residents to live close to existing amenities and workplace and consequently support local commercial establishments.
Residential subdivision refers to the division of a land into two or more residential lots, permitting the construction of buildings as stipulated in the building codes. Residential subdivisions take a number of different forms, ranging from large lots (over 0.4 ha), standard lots (0.27 ha), and small lots (less than 450 m2) [48]. Developers of a subdivided lot usually provide infrastructure to the lot including streets, sewers, and water mains [49]. Standard subdivisions involve sub-dividing a site with the primary goal of maximizing the number of lots conditional on local regulations. However, such arrangements disregard site-specific features and thereby, detrimental to natural landscape. An alternative is to subdivide a certain portion of land for residential development and keeping aside the remaining lands to protect natural areas and green spaces [50]. However, the appeal of subdivision development lies to its low-density arrangements that provide rural style living, flexible building-design with increased privacy.
Master-planned developments are defined as large scale integrated housing developments on large tracts of undeveloped, suburban green field land, with mixed housing types, landscape, recreational, commercial, and service facilities [51]. They are developed based on a mechanism of planning control over an entire project site, underpinned by a particular vision for the completed development [52]. Located on the growth frontier of a city’s fringe, they sometimes occur on renewal or infill sites, whose essential features include a definable boundary and fairly uniform character [53]. A master-planned development, also referred as master-planned estate or community, requires a larger land for development—in Malaysia usually larger than 800 ha—and includes a balanced mix of land uses for residents to live, work, shop, play, and learn [53,54].
Although a master-planned development provides better amenities that support sustainability compared to piecemeal and subdivision developments, there are buyers who do not opt to buy houses under the master-planned concept for variety of reasons. For instance, although the increased density is compensated for by high quality physical infrastructures and amenities in a master-planned development [52], it has invited criticism relating to loss of privacy and private space. Even though living in an enclosed community can create strong bonding between residents and increase support for each other, it can also create social exclusion with people outside of their boundaries [55]. In terms of socioeconomic characteristics, Ross et al. [56] point out that residential segregation by income could promote distrust between groups and decline in overall social connection within communities. Such segregation, no matter how subtle, has the tendency to undermine social cohesion as well as increase social exclusion and is, therefore, detrimental to achieving a socially sustainable society [57]. These issues have been reported to be limited in subdivision developments where the distribution of dwellings is more dispersed and less compact compared to master-planned, which leads to increased privacy.
The appeal of subdivision developments belongs to its low-density arrangements that offer attractive, countryside or rural-style living with increased privacy. However, this has huge implications on the infrastructure and servicing costs, which are increased due to the extensive infrastructure network and municipal amenities serving residential areas with lower densities. The infrastructure and associated public facilities that need to coincide with the entire neighborhood pattern cause inefficiency in the provision. For example, subdivisions that are built further into the countryside not only diminish the rural character of the entire neighborhood, but also increase automobile related travel activities, and its associated monetary costs and environmental externalities. It seems that master-planned developments do not face the critical sustainability issues in a physical context as much as subdivision developments, but rather in respect of socioeconomic issues.

3. Empirical Investigation

3.1. Overview of Residential Development in the Case Study Context

This research operationalizes a NSA tool using three residential development models selected from Malaysia as a representative of developing countries. Like most of the other developing countries, urban population in Malaysia has increased tremendously in the last four decades, from slightly over five million (38.8% of total population) in 1980 to nearly 20 million (72.2% of total population) in 2010 [58]. During this period, population growth in urban areas had taken place at a much faster rate than that of rural population. This was largely due to the availability of vast employment opportunities, which fuelled migration of people from rural areas in searching for better quality of life [59]. Population migration has become one of the contributing factors to the speedy progress of urbanization, in the form of rapid development of residential neighborhoods to accommodate the increasing number of urban dwellers. In addition, the expansions of city-regions, increases in the standard of living, and changing lifestyles have collectively led to an increase in housing demand. New residential areas are encroaching onto city fringes towards suburban and green field areas. Both large and small-scale developers have been actively building dwellings in these areas ranging from a few blocks to large master-planned style projects. These residential developments, particularly in major urban areas, represent a large portion of urban land use in Malaysia, and, thus, have become a major contributor to overall urban (un)sustainability. Amongst the various types of residential development, three types have been found to be dominant in prior studies including subdivision, piecemeal, and master-planned developments [60,61]. Table 1 lists the salient characteristics of these developments.
In Malaysia, both piecemeal and subdivision residential developments occur in an ad-hoc manner in the absence of an overall blueprint plan for the residential zone with a minimum development size of 0.4 ha. Master-planned developments on the other hand are based on pre-drawn overall master plan or blueprint plans, typically with a minimum development size of 100 ha. The small-scale piecemeal and subdivision residential developments have created disadvantages to residents because developers can get away from providing basic amenities (such as open spaces and community center), should the number of dwellings fall under 30 units [62]. In contrast, master-planned developments (relatively large in scale) have to provide the necessary amenities as required by the planning standards. Sustainable urban development practice in our case developing country context of Malaysia is extensively reported in the literature [63,64,65,66,67,68]. Rather than repeating what have been already said, we focus on residential sustainability assessment in a case study location in Malaysia.
Table 1. Salient characteristics of residential development types in Malaysia.
Table 1. Salient characteristics of residential development types in Malaysia.
Subdivision DevelopmentPiecemeal DevelopmentMaster-Planned Development
LocationSuburban areaCity fringesGreenfields
Development sizeMinimum 0.4 haMinimum 0.4 haBetween 100 and 500 ha
Layout plans prepared byLocal planning authorities and private developersSmall scale private developersLarge scale private developers
Sale typeVacant lot for single dwellingLot and building as completed house unitsLot and building as completed house units
Type of housesDetached dwellingDetached, semi-detached, terrace dwellingsDetached, semi-detached, terrace dwellings
Provision of amenitiesNot required if less than 30 dwellingsNot required if less than 30 dwellingsProvided by developers as per planning guidelines
House design and constructionBuyersDevelopersDevelopers
Planning controlGeneral development guidelinesGeneral development guidelinesGeneral and master-planned estate specific guidelines

3.2. Selection of Case Studies

The research develops a NSA tool to evaluate the sustainability of three most common residential development models from Malaysia. To operationalize the NSA tool, this study requires three representative residential developments, one from each development model type—i.e., subdivision, piecemeal, and master-planned. The following criteria were used for the selection of case studies: (a) Located in the same local government area—to make sure they are subjected to the same planning and development regulations, and also have access to the same municipal services and amenities; (b) An appropriate case of the residential development type—to make sure the representativeness of each cases; (c) Have a minimum of 80% completion and take up rate—to make sure the maturity of developments—and; (d) Have data and information availability, local council support and body corporation collaboration with the research team—to make sure access to adequate data for a sound analysis. After a thorough examination of the potential cases all across Malaysia, we selected the following three residential developments from Ipoh City, Perak, Malaysia (Figure 1)—i.e., Kampung Tersusun Batu 5 (subdivision development), Taman Canning or Canning Garden (piecemeal development), and Bandar Seri Botani (master-planned development).
Figure 1. Location of the case study areas in Malaysia.
Figure 1. Location of the case study areas in Malaysia.
Sustainability 07 02570 g001

3.2.1. Subdivision Development

The first case study is a subdivision development, named “Kampung Tersusun Batu 5”, located about 5 km to the Northeast of Ipoh (Figure 1). This is a 96.5 ha standard subdivision layout development that sits on a flat area of land bounded by a local highway and pockets of other residential development. The case study comprises 1181 parcels of single story detached houses and associated amenities including pockets of neighborhood parks, open spaces, shop lots and places of worship, and a primary school. The residential parcels were drawn up by the local planning authority in 1998 and were sold to individuals who then built their own houses, subject to local planning standards and guidelines. The typical parcel size is a 500 m2 rectangular lot shape while corner parcels have an additional 10%–20% extra space. Owing to the type of dwelling, it has an average density of 14.6 dwellings per ha. In this development site, members of the Malay community own most of the houses. Figure 2 illustrates the layout and land use of the development.
Figure 2. Land use classification of the subdivision development.
Figure 2. Land use classification of the subdivision development.
Sustainability 07 02570 g002

3.2.2. Piecemeal Development

This second case study is a piecemeal development called “Taman Canning or Canning Garden”, located 3 km to the East of Ipoh (Figure 1). Developed during the mid-1980s, this mixed dwelling type residential area comprises 1555 residential parcels spread on 100.2 ha of relatively flat land. Single and double story terrace houses occupy a total of 44% of the residential parcels. Semi-detached houses occupy 16% of the residential stock, and single story detached houses inhabit 40%. Other land uses include two centralized neighborhood shop blocks, a farmers market, two primary schools, a large neighborhood playfield and pockets of neighborhood parks. The site is surrounded by piecemeal residential developments to the North, military land use to the East and a cemetery to the South. A federal highway separates the site from a large commercial land use to the East of the site. Development of the site took place in a number of stages by three different developers and spanning over six years. Providing mixed housing options, the site is occupied by the mixed ethnic and cultural groups (i.e., Malay, Chinese, and Indian) and socioeconomic backgrounds. The typical parcel size is 500 m2 for a detached house, 240 m2 for a semi-detached house, and 185 m2 for a terrace house. The high number of terrace houses contributes to its higher average density of 28.3 dwellings per ha. Figure 3 displays the layout and land use of the development.
Figure 3. Land use classification of the piecemeal development.
Figure 3. Land use classification of the piecemeal development.
Sustainability 07 02570 g003

3.2.3. Master-Planned Development

The final case study area sits on a 108 ha former oil palm plantation located 7 km to the South of Ipoh (Figure 1). This is a typical example of large-scale integrated green field development that exists all across Malaysia. This case occupies the first of a three-phase, large 312 ha, self-sustained residential, and light industrial master-planned development project. A total of 74.6 ha (69.2%) of the case study site is allocated to residential and supporting uses including neighborhood parks, roads and public amenities. A commercial precinct, a large local park and an education precinct present the next significant land uses. With an estimated population of 9048 residing in 2262 residential dwellings (1928 terrace houses and 334 semi-detached houses), it is the largest of the three cases in terms of physical size, population and number of residential dwellings. Parcel sizes for terraces house range between 100 and 145 m2, while for semi-detached houses, the parcel size is 300 m2. Being developed on a green field site, the master-planned development is still surrounded by agricultural land use and forest areas. Even though the original topography was undulating, the majority of the residential, commercial and education precincts have been flattened. This is typical of any housing developments in Malaysia. The purpose of flattening the land is to optimize time and construction cost, especially the terrace houses dominating the case study landscape. This case study recorded the highest dwelling density among all cases with an average density of 30.3 dwellings per ha. This is not surprising given that terrace houses dominate nearly 90% of the development. Figure 4 shows the layout and land use of the development site.
Figure 4. Land use classification of the master-planned development.
Figure 4. Land use classification of the master-planned development.
Sustainability 07 02570 g004

3.3. Development of a Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tool

The research develops a NSA tool to investigate sustainability levels of the selected three residential development models. A four-step process was followed for the development of the NSA tool in this research as outlined below.

3.3.1. Formation of a Set of Sustainability Indicators

A thorough review of the literature was conducted in order to identify a pool of relevant indicators as used in prior studies for the measurement of neighborhood level sustainability. A similar method was used in a number of previous research studies (e.g., [21,69,70,71,72,73,74]). The initial search identified a total of 128 sustainability indicators in three major sustainability categories of environmental, social and economic (see Table A1). The use of such a vast array of indicators is not uncommon in the literature. However, Frame and Vale [33] have suggested that the use of such a big number of indicators is difficult to interpret and integrate. Consequently, the list was reduced to 38 indicators (see Table A2). In this reduction process, we evaluated each of the 128 indicators based on the criteria of soundness, measurability, robustness, relevance, resilience, availability, and cost-effectiveness in consideration to our case study local context [23].

3.3.2. Delphi Study to Select the Most Relevant Indicators and Their Weights

Delphi method is a critical part of the development of indicator base of the NSA tool in order to make it a local context sensitive tool—in this application local context is Malaysia as a representative example of developing countries. A three round Delphi study was conducted to select the most relevant indicators from the originally selected 38 indicators. A total of 60 experts were involved in the Delphi study—i.e., 29 from Malaysia and 31 from abroad. This balanced distribution of local and international experts—i.e., almost 50% each—assures both local and universal characteristics to be factored in the analysis. The representation of such a large number of experts in the Delphi process was found to be representative of previous studies see [21]. This composition both local and international experts also meets the contextual criterion as discussed previously. Given that sustainability is a complex issue comprising of multiple dimensions, consideration was given to select the experts from diverse background so that the dimensional issues are properly represented in the measurement process. The experts were selected from both private and academic sectors with expertise in urban/environment/social/community planning/science, project management, architecture/design, housing/neighborhood/transport/infrastructure development, civil engineering, sustainability assessment, and policymaking. Upon consensus, the three round Delphi study enabled to reduce the number of indicators from 38 to 18. The indicator reduction process was undertaken as explained below.
In Round I, the indicator number was brought down from 38 to 24 based on a minimum of 75% expert agreement on the relevance and suitability of indicators. In Round II, the number was brought down from 24 to 18 based on a minimum of 75% expert agreement on relevance and suitability. In Round III, experts were given a final chance to reevaluate the shortlisted 24 indicators, and provide the level of importance of each indicator on a 7-point Likert scale (from “1 = very low” to “7 = very high”) in terms of their contribution to sustainability in the Malaysian context (see Table A3). The importance scores are used as weighting of the indicators. The weight of indicators ranges between 4.19 and 6.22, when 24 indicators are considered, and 5.08 and 6.02, when 18 indicators are considered. This is to say, if a weighting assignment was requested from the experts for the entire indicator pool (128 indicators) or Round I indicators (38 indicators), the weighting scheme would surely show a distribution with wider in range. In other words, the current flat weighting scheme has no negative impact on the reliability of the results. Table 2 lists the categories, indicators, calculation methods, measurement units of indicators and their weights.
Table 2. Categories, indicators, measures, units and weights of neighborhood sustainability assessment (NSA) index.
Table 2. Categories, indicators, measures, units and weights of neighborhood sustainability assessment (NSA) index.
CategoriesIndicatorsCalculationsUnitsWeights
EnvironmentalLand use mixTotal land use mix (LUM) value/Total parcel area Where total LUM = Σk(pk ln pk)/ln N, k = Category of land use; p = proportion of land area devoted to specific land use; N = # of land categoriesIndex value5.83
Dwelling densityDwelling units/Residential area Where: Residential area include internal street + half width adjoining access roads)Dwelling unit Per ha.5.27
Impervious surfaces[Total impervious area (TIA)/Total neighborhood area] × 100 Where, TIA = roads, buildings, driveways, sidewalks, drainage, car parksPercentage5.21
Internal connectivityTotal Intersections/(Total Intersections + Cul-de-sac)Index value5.86
External connectivityTotal perimeter length/# entry and exit pointsMeter5.43
Open space provisionTotal open space/total residentsSquare meter per person6.02
Non-motorized transport[Total walkway + cycle length]/total street lengthPercentage5.77
SocialAccess to public transport(ΣDna/ΣDa) × 100 Where Dna = # of dwellings located within a 600 m of a bus stop; Da = Total dwellingsPercentage5.86
Access to education(ΣDna/ΣDa) × 100 Where Dna = # of dwellings located within a 600m of a educational facility; Da = Total dwellingsPercentage5.77
Access to local services(ΣDna/ΣDa) × 100 Where: Dna = # of dwellings located within a 600 m of a local service center; Da = Total dwellingsPercentage5.46
Access to recreational space(ΣDna/ΣDa) × 100 Where Dna = # of dwellings located within a 400 m of a park; Da = Total dwellingsPercentage5.64
Access to community centers(ΣDna/ΣDa) × 100, Where Dna = # of dwellings located within a 600 m of a community center; Da = TotalPercentage5.24
Access to emergency servicesAverage response distance from 3 types of emergency services (i.e., police, ambulance, fire department)Kilometers5.08
Crime prevention and safetyTotal length of blind frontage/total frontage lengthPercentage5.8
Traffic calmingStreets segments with traffic safety measures/total street segmentsPercentage5.14
EconomicCommercial establishment typesNumber of diverse types of business activitiesNumber of types5.51
Affordable housingTotal affordable houses/Total residential in study areaPercentage5.69
Housing option diversity1 − Σ(n/N)2, where n = total dwelling is a category, N = total dwellings in all categoriesIndex value5.42
In contrast with the rating system, the budget allocation method was applied to generate weight for the three categories—i.e., environmental, social and economic. The experts in Round II of the Delphi exercise were given 100 points to distribute across the three categories. The exercise constituted the following aggregate category scores: 39.27 for environmental category, 33.01 for social category, and 27.72 for economic category.

3.3.3. Indicator Scoring

“Land use mix” (LUM) score was derived using an entropy equation developed by Frank et al. [75] based on five land use classes—i.e., residential, commercial, recreation, education, and public amenities. The criteria score ranges from 0 to 1 in which a higher score represents a better sustainability. “Dwelling density” score was calculated based on number of dwelling density located within a unit of residential land [76]. Like LUM, a higher density represents better sustainability of neighborhoods. A neighborhood with higher LUM and density reduces car-dependency (thereby less emissions) and enhances walking and cycling (thereby better health and wellbeing of residents) [77]. “Impervious surface” area was calculated based on proportion of neighborhood lands covered by impermeable materials (e.g., roads, buildings, car park, and driveways). A lower value of impervious surface represents a higher sustainability level. This is due to the fact that an increase of impervious surfaces result in flash flood due to increased storm-water runoff peaks [35]. “Internal connectivity” refers to the connectedness between two points within a neighborhood. A higher intersection density represents higher connectedness and supports walking and thereby more favorable for a sustainable development whereas a higher cul-de-sac density represents an advance in design efficiency for automobile movement but a retrograde step in design efficiency for pedestrian or transit movement [78]. “External connectivity” of neighborhood eases its connection with surrounding areas refers to the ease of street. In this research, external connectivity was calculated by measuring distance between two entry/exit points around a neighborhood. Therefore, a higher value represents less connectivity in this measure and consequently a lower level of sustainability. The other two environmental indicators used in this research are self-explanatory—i.e., “open space provision” and “non-motorized transport”.
In the social dimension, indicators associated with “access to different opportunities and services” (e.g., public transport) were measured by calculating the percentage of dwelling units of a neighborhood that are located within a certain distance from respective services as outlined in Table 2. The distance bands were determined based on the literature. If a higher proportion of dwelling units are located within the specified distance in a neighborhood, that neighborhood possesses a higher sustainability level. In contrast, a shorter average response distance from emergency services indicates a better sustainability level. In this research, the crime prevention through environmental design principle was adopted to assess sustainability level in the “crime prevention and safety” indicator. As suggested by Mackay [79], this research used free from blind frontage as the indicator. The amount of blind frontage was determined by calculating the ratio of blind frontage length to total street frontages. Therefore, a lower percentage of blind frontages indicate better sustainability of a neighborhood. The “traffic-calming” indicator was derived as a result of calculating the ratio of street segments that are equipped with at least a traffic-calming feature [77].
Three criteria were identified to be important by the experts in the economic dimension of sustainability including the “types of commercial establishments” exist, availability of “affordable housing”, and the “diversity of housing stock” within a neighborhood. A higher diversity of commercial establishments and housing stocks represents a higher sustainability of neighborhoods. Housing affordability was determined based on the local context and affordable house price was considered between RM 50,000 and RM 60,000—about US$14,000–17,000 [80].

3.3.4. Normalization of the Indicator Scores

The indicator scores were normalized based on the categorical normalization technique [43]. Using the technique, each indicator score was transformed into a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 5. Indicator values of less than 30% received a normalized scale of 1, indicator values between 30% and 50% received a normalized scale of 2, indicator values between 50% and 70% received a normalized scale of 3, indicator values between 70% and 90% received a 4, and values of 90% and higher received a scale of 5.

3.3.5. Calculating Indicator, Category and a Composite Sustainability Score

The weighted sum aggregation method was used to calculate category sustainability level of each case study neighborhood Equation (1). The category scores were subsequently aggregated (weighted) to form a composite sustainability score.
Y j = W i X i
where Yj is the aggregated score of category j, Xi is the normalized value of indicator i under Yj, Wi is the weight of indicator i.

4. Results

The results of our empirical analysis backs up the literature findings of master-planned developments offering a better option for creating sustainable layouts in urban areas [51]. Table 3 displays the raw scores of the indicators, normalized and index scores along with the composite index scores for the three development types, where these findings are further discussed below.
Table 3. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Index (NSAI) raw values/scores of the criteria, their normalization, and weighted scores.
Table 3. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Index (NSAI) raw values/scores of the criteria, their normalization, and weighted scores.
CategoriesCategory WeightsIndicatorsIndicator WeightsRaw Indicator Scores of the CasesNormalized Indicator Scores of the CasesWeighted Indicator Score of the Cases
SDDPMDMPDSDDPMDMPDSDDPMDMPD
Environmental39.27Land use mix5.830.470.30.5931517.495.8329.15
Dwelling density5.2714.0328.330.31455.2721.0826.35
Impervious surfaces5.2143.854.549.451326.055.2115.63
Internal connectivity5.860.950.89131517.585.8629.3
External connectivity5.4334938239853127.1516.295.43
Open space provision6.0214.8517.541524.086.0230.1
Non-motorized transport5.77012.314.81455.7723.0828.85
Environmental category total scores of the cases (weighted-sum of the indicators) 123.3983.37164.81
Social33.01Access to public transport5.8659.647.757.251429.35.8623.44
Access to education5.7768.654.296.421511.545.7728.85
Access to local services5.4691.483.610021510.925.4627.3
Access to recreational space5.6494.867.594.351528.25.6428.2
Access to community centers5.2496.966.590.251426.25.2420.96
Access to emergency services5.083.91.75.935115.2425.45.08
Crime prevention and safety5.83.619.825.35212911.65.8
Traffic calming5.148.92.719.921510.285.1425.7
Social category total scores of the cases (weighted-sum of the indicators) 160.6870.11165.33
Economic27.72Commercial establishment types5.51514141555.5127.5527.55
Affordable housing5.69019.625.91455.6922.7628.45
Housing option diversity5.4200.740.731555.4227.127.1
Economic category total scores of the cases (weighted-sum of the indicators)16.6277.4183.1
Total100 100
Composite sustainability scores of the cases (weighted-sum of the categories)10,610.287734.07614,233.16
Note: SDD = subdivision development, PMD = piecemeal development, MPD = master-planned development.

4.1. Subdivision Development

The results indicate that subdivision development is ranked second with an index score of 10,610. Based on the overall normalized indicator scores generated from spatial data analyses, subdivision development records full score of 5 (very good) on six indicators, score of 4 (good) on one indicators, score of 3 (acceptable) on three indicator, score of 2 (low) on three indicators and score of 1 (very low) on five indicators—see the normalized scores in Table 3. The indicator sustainability levels indicate that subdivision development achieves high sustainability on its seven indicators comprising impervious surfaces, external connectivity, access to public transport facilities, access to recreational space, access to community centers, crime prevention and safety, and finally open space provision. On the other hand, the subdivision development achieves low sustainability level due to lacking in access to education facilities, access to local services, traffic calming measures, dwelling density, non-motorized transport, commercial establishment, affordable housing and housing option diversity. The results indicate that in the Malaysian scenario, subdivision development is still regarded as having a fairly acceptable level of sustainability, especially in terms of providing for common neighborhood facilities and access to open space. This is supported by its typically small parcel size configuration of 500 m2, creating an average density of over 14 dwellings per ha. Such size is much lower than typical subdivision development lots in the North American or Australian examples [62,81].

4.2. Piecemeal Development

The results show that piecemeal development sits on the third place with an index score of 7734 with a much poorer performance compare to the other two development types. Piecemeal development records a full score of 5 (very good) on three indicators, score of 4 (good) on three indicators, score of 3 (acceptable) on one indicator, score of 2 (low) on one indicator and score of 1 (very low) on ten indicators—see Table 3. Looking at the indicator sustainability levels, the piecemeal development achieves high sustainability on access to emergency services, commercial establishment, housing option diversity, dwelling density, non-motorized transport and affordable housing. However, the piecemeal development achieves low sustainability levels on a majority of its indicators (11 indicators) namely, crime prevention and safety, land use mix, impervious surfaces, internal connectivity, open space provision, access to public transport facilities, access to education facilities, access to local services, access to recreational space, access to community centers, and traffic calming measures. Within the Malaysian context, the development of residential neighborhoods in a piecemeal approach is not seen as desirable, because it is considered as lacking in overall planning of the neighborhood that supports and influence sustainability. This explains why the outcomes of the sustainability assessment among the three case studies put piecemeal development in third place, after master-planned and subdivision developments. This is in contrast with the literature findings from the Western experience suggest that with a proper planning, piecemeal development can become a well-functioning residential development and provide opportunities for residents to live close to existing amenities and workplace as well as providing better support for local commercial establishments [82].

4.3. Master-Planned Development

This development type receives the highest index score of 14,233 as the best performing development site and type. Based on the overall normalized indicator scores generated from spatial data analyses, master-planned development records a full score of 5 (very good) on 12 indicators, score of 4 (good) on two indicators, score of 3 (acceptable) on one indicator and score of 1 (very low) on three indicators—see Table 3. Looking at the indicator sustainability levels, a good sustainability achieved by the master-planned development is due to its high scores on 14 indicators, which involves large scale integrated housing developments with mixed of land uses, dwelling density, internal connectivity, open space provision, non-motorized transport, access to education facilities, access to local services, access to recreational space, traffic calming measures, commercial establishment, affordable housing, housing option diversity, access to public transport facilities and access to community centers. On the other hand, the master-planned development achieves low sustainability level at three indicators namely, external connectivity, access to emergency services and crime prevention and safety. Consistent with the literature [83], the master-planned development concept should be consistently promoted throughout the country not only because of its good sustainability but also because it serves as a mechanism of planning control over an entire project site, underpinned by a particular vision for the completed development. Moreover, sustainable residential design helps to shape strong characters, identity and perception of a place, and create a distinctive master-planned development community, which is equally important for market appeal. The results from this study indicate that master-planned development is the most sustainable neighborhood in Malaysia compared to subdivision and piecemeal developments. However, the result does not indicate in any way the degree to which master-planned development layouts is better than the others. This is because the research only seeks to identify which one of the three types of neighborhood layouts typically found in low-rise residential developments in Malaysia is the most sustainable. Having said that however, the finding provides justification to the policy makers and built environment agencies to encourage more future residential neighborhoods to be developed based on the master-planned concept. This finding also justifies the claims by planners that such comprehensive development of master-planned development by a single agent has the advantages of providing greater design flexibility, better neighborhood environments, exclusive open spaces, and community facilities for the residents [60]. Another reason explaining the higher score of master-planned development lays in the stringent development control mechanism for large-scale developments, including residential master-planned development must adhere to, in the form of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) requirements. EIA and SIA reports are required for residential development of more than 50 ha. Due to its sheer size, master-planned development in Malaysia generally fall within this category and are, therefore, subject to EIA and SIA approval from the relevant Ministries [60]. The reports need to justify that the proposed master-planned development fulfills the criteria required by the relevant Ministries, which helps to explain why master-planned development is generally well-developed compared to the smaller size piecemeal and subdivision developments.

5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

The literature findings revealed that rapid urbanization has brought environmentally, socially, and economically great challenges to cities and societies. To build a sustainable neighborhood, these challenges need to be faced efficiently and successfully. In this regard the first step of action is to determine the sustainability levels of neighborhoods [84]. From this perspective the literature points to a number of NSA tools. However, as the critique of these tools suggests they have limitations in their indicator systems and adaptation in the developing country context is challenging.
This research contributes to the literature in two ways. A primary contribution of this research is the development of a NSA tool with an intention to be applied in the context of developing countries. Although there are quite a few NSA tools available in practice, these are built focusing on developed countries. As a result, their direct applications were found to be difficult in this research (i.e., developing country context) where the meaning and definition of sustainability vary substantially. For example, an affordable house in a developed country might be extremely unaffordable in this research. Similarly, a 1% reduction in car-based travel might be a significant shift towards sustainability in a developed country whereas this makes no difference in a developing country context where car is not the main mode of transport. In addition, currently available NSA tools often comprise of numerous indicators that requires the availability of extensive database to process and operationalize, which are rarely available to the researchers and/or planning authorities in developing countries. Moreover, research has highlighted several methodological weaknesses of the existing NSA tools as discussed earlier in the paper. These issues necessitate the development of a NSA tool suitable to operationalize in the context of this research.
The NSA tool was developed focusing on the assessment of certain aspect of a neighborhood in this research—namely the urban form of differential residential models/types in developing countries. As a result, the assessment focused only on the design aspects of residential neighborhood types (e.g., layout, road network, buildings, and community facilities). Consequently, some important themes that might be important for other type of assessment were ignored in this research—such as building energy and water efficiency, water and waste management. The NSA tools developed for this research contains only 18 criteria/indicators. They were selected based on a 3 round Delphi study involving both local and international experts. Therefore, although limited in scope, these 18 indicators consist of the most relevant factors associated with sustainability assessment in the context of this research as accepted by both local and international communities. This joined-up process thereby reduces the tensions between expert-led versus citizen-led processes of sustainability assessment in this research. In addition, the Delphi method reduces the subjectivity of the criteria weighting in this research by involving both experts and local citizens [21]. The robustness of the applied method was evident in the sensitivity analysis with no changes in the final results when various combinations of weightings were tested (e.g., weighting from local expert only, weighting from international expert only, and a combination of both—not reported in the paper though). Although these findings justify an initial validity, further research should seek to apply the developed NSA tool in another developing country context, or perhaps using a different weighting system (e.g., AHP), to investigate its wider validity.
The second major contribution of this research is to assess the sustainability of three prominent residential development models (i.e., master-planned, subdivision, and piecemeal developments) that are being adopted in an accelerated rate within the urban fabric of developing countries. Although residential sustainability is a century old concept and various residential models have been developed over the years aiming for sustainable outcome, any systematic method to assess an overall residential sustainability level is almost non-existent in the literature [35]. Unlike this research that incorporates an overarching framework of assessment, prior studies focuses only on a (or few) specific element of neighborhood feature (e.g., density) and its influence on certain outcome (e.g., car-ownership). The findings from this research robustly identified that master-planned communities provide option for more sustainable living in the context of this research over sub-division and piecemeal developments. Although these findings are in line with the scant evidence reported in the literature on this topic, which also justifies the validity of the developed tool, a more rigorous validation process by applying the tool against a gold standard (e.g., brown/green field development) is warranted. Note also that despite the results are presented in a quantifiable manner in this research, they represent sustainable utility/rating of a neighborhood, and therefore, cannot be mathematically traded-off (e.g., type A is two times better than type B). For example, although the experts rated the availability of open spaces highly (e.g., 6.02) compared to traffic calming measures (e.g., 5.14), this does not necessarily mean that one hectare of open spaces can be replaced by adding two traffic calming measure.
Despite master-planned communities out-performed in this research, local practitioners and policymakers must pay attention to make this neighborhood type more accessible to the wider communities (e.g., through provisioning of rapid transit system) in order to avoid social exclusion and car-dependency. Although the performance of piecemeal development was found to be poor, this research identified that ample opportunities exist to improve the sustainability performance of this neighborhood type if a focused policy is in place (e.g., in-fill development policy) through, which the development can be regulated or oriented towards important facilities.
This research develops a NSA tool and provides a comparison of sustainability performance of three residential neighborhood types. However, it neither provides an assessment of the neighborhoods’ position on the way towards sustainability nor specifies the extent of the neighborhoods’ success in approaching and achieving sustainability goals. Such assessment requires to set-up benchmark strategies to assure the achievement of a certain level of performance and the responsibility lies to the local planning authorities. However, the NSA tool developed in this research can be useful to serve as an integrated residential design and development guide and expedites a fundamental shift in where and how people live in developing countries—which was found to be a third policy related contribution of this research.
The findings, within Malaysia as a representative context for developing countries, demonstrated that master-planned development is the most sustainable residential development form followed by subdivision and piecemeal development models. This provides justification for policymakers and built environment (planning and development) agencies to encourage future residential neighborhoods to be developed based on the master-planned concept. The finding substantiates the claims by planners that such comprehensive development of master-planned estates or communities by a single agent has the advantages of providing greater design flexibility, better neighborhood environments, exclusive open spaces, various sustainable development practices, and community facilities for the residents [85]. Unlike many of the developed nations, the concept of master-planned development in Malaysia is still at its infancy, but the continuing national economic growth has encouraged its conception and wider practice. Although in our study master-planned development scores a high overall sustainability ranking in comparison to other two development types, there is surely room for improvement to increase the sustainability levels further. For example, master-planned development practices can learn from subdivision development experiences especially with regard to the provision of external connectivity, crime prevention and safety, and access to emergency services. With regards to the development of residential neighborhoods in a piecemeal approach, a new innovative strategy is needed to improve its sustainability level. The findings indicate that this development type is not seen as a desirable development form in Malaysia and attention needs to be given to the issue of lacking in overall planning of the neighborhood that supports sustainability.
In terms of research limitations, we highlight some of the critical issues as follows: (a) Sustainable urban development surely contains more features than of the physical neighborhood features and layouts that we mainly investigated in this research—especially energy consumption and pollution generated from each buildings; (b) Although the potential correlation between selected indicators may not have a significant impact on the results—due to the nature of investigation being a purely comparative one—it is still important to run appropriate statistical checks; (c) The weighting assignment is mainly based on Delphi expert suggestions, and alternative methods such as Factor Analysis can provide alternates; (d) Malaysia may not be a perfect representation for all of the developing countries—perhaps more suitable case for the developing countries from the Southeast Asia; (e) Based on three case study investigations, it is not possible to reach to a conclusion and claim that master-planned developments provide a more sustainable urban development form, and; (f) Direct replicability of the tool in a different context may be problematic—as the tool requires local experts contribution along international experts in the development of the indicator base. To address some of these research limitations and challenges, we are planning to expand our investigation including more case studies from different cities in Malaysia and other developing countries, incorporating various other aspects of sustainability in the analysis, such as building energy and water use, transport mode preferences of residents, recycling, air pollution and other socioeconomic dimensions of sustainability, and run a number of statistical tests to make sure of the reliability of the results.
Lastly, we underline that sustainability and development are contradicting terms or more correctly an oxymoron. However, this does not diminish the importance of efforts in minimizing the negative effects of urbanization in a rapidly developing world. Therefore, as a concluding remark of the paper we stress the following set of recommendations that are broad, but clearly describe the fundamental steps of an effective process in making a move towards a more sustainable urban neighborhood development also see [86]:
(a)
Looking for the big picture;
(b)
Understanding the sustainability phenomena clearly;
(c)
Understanding the drivers of urban sustainability, and determining key factors and indicators;
(d)
Collecting and accessing to the relevant data;
(e)
Adopting tools and models and modeling the data;
(f)
Defining quality targets for sustainable urban development;
(g)
Facilitating the creation of relevant knowledge in the area of sustainable urban development;
(h)
Formulating the urbanization policy from a sustainable development perspective;
(i)
Changing behaviors and including stakeholder and community views;
(j)
Forming collective efforts to develop sustainable urban neighborhoods;
(k)
Planning dynamically for sustainable urban development;
(l)
Translating the sustainability agenda into a number of strategic initiatives for implementation;
(m)
Enhancing the control and monitoring mechanisms, and;
(n)
Enabling an iterative policy and plan making process.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of University of Technology MARA and Queensland University of Technology for jointly supporting the research upon which this paper is based. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers, who provided constructive comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Author Contributions

This paper represents a result of teamwork. Tan Yigitcanlar and Suharto Teriman designed the research; Suharto Teriman collected data and conducted empirical analyses; Tan Yigitcanlar and Md. Kamruzzaman reviewed the literature, and wrote and revised the paper. All three authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Appendix

Table A1. Indicator pool related to residential development compiled from the literature.
Table A1. Indicator pool related to residential development compiled from the literature.
Indicator CategoriesIndicators
Environmental indicators related to residential developmentPreferred locations
Population density
Brownfields redevelopment
Use mix
Bicycle network and storage
Average parcel size
Steep slope protection
Developed acres per capita
Site design for habitat or wetland
Conforming dwelling density
Restoration of habitat or wetland
Non-conforming dwelling density
Conservation management for habitat or wetland
Single-family housing share
Walkable streets
Mobile home housing share
Compact development
Multi-family 2–4 housing share
Reduce parking footprint
Multi-family 5+ units housing share
Street network
Group quarters housing share
Tree-lined and shaded streets
Residential water consumption
Certified green building
Residential energy consumption
Building energy efficiency
Population density
Building water efficiency
Use mix
Water efficient landscaping
Average parcel size
Resource preservation and adaptive reuse
Developed acres per capita
Stormwater management
Conforming dwelling density
Heat island reduction
Non-conforming dwelling density
Solar orientation
Single-family housing share
On-site renewable energy sources
Mobile home housing share
Infrastructure energy efficiency
Multi-family 2–4 housing share
Recycle content in infrastructure
Multi-family 5+ units housing share
Light pollution reduction
Group quarters housing share
Energy efficiency
Residential energy consumption
Renewable energy
Imperviousness
Minimum air quality performance
Stormwater runoff
Day lighting
Total suspended solids
Site selection
Open space
Public transport access
Park space availability
Open spaces, landscaping and heat island effect
Residential wastewater production
Stormwater management
Street centerline distance
Avoiding environmentally sensitive areas
Sidewalk completeness
Access to quality physical activity promoting environment
Pedestrian route directness
Connectivity through neighborhood design
Street network density
Sustainability of the physical environment
Street connectivity
Flexibility of public spaces
Bicycle network
Mixed use
Residential water consumption
Connectivity
Non-residential wastewater production
External connections
Brownfields redevelopment
Location
Societal indicators related to residential developmentMixed-use neighborhood centers
Connectivity through feeling of safety
Mixed-income diverse communities
Sustainability of transport
Transit facilities
Proximity (school/parks/transit)
Access to civic and public space
Housing proximity to transit
Access to recreation facilities
Housing proximity to recreation
Neighborhood schools
Housing proximity to education
Existing building reuse
Housing proximity to key amenities
District heating and cooling
Dwellings within 1/8 mi. of 3+ modes
Wastewater management
Transit stop coverage
Solid waste management infrastructure
Regional accessibility
Sustainable maintenance
Home-based vehicle trips
Community services and connectivity
Non home-based vehicle trips
Access to education
Home-based vehicle miles travelled
Access to childcare/services
Non home-based vehicle miles travelled
Access to health services
Parking demand
Access to communication
Parking supply
Access to quality community facilities
Transit service density
Connectivity through public transport
Rail transit boarding
Connectivity through place/social cohesion
Economic indicators related to residential developmentHousing jobs proximity
Jobs/housed workers balance
Local food production
Conforming employment density
Affordable housing
Non-conforming employment density
Housing choice
Employment proximity to transit
Housing proximity to employment center
Locations with reduces automobile dependence
Employment opportunity
Table A2. Delphi Round I indicators.
Table A2. Delphi Round I indicators.
Indicators
  • Land use mix diversity
  • Residential dwelling density
  • Impervious surfaces
  • Street connectivity
  • Street route directness
  • Pedestrian accessibilities
  • Pedestrian network coverage
  • Vehicular entry and exit routes
  • Non-motorized transport facilities
  • Open space/active greens per dwelling
  • Open space/active greens per development area
  • Natural topography preservation
  • Sensitive areas/natural environment preservation
  • Vegetation retained to create the development
  • Storm water retention/detention system
  • Tree planting for shades/wind-break
  • Building exposure to natural ventilation
  • Proximity to public transit nodes/system
  • Resident‘s vehicle kilometer traveled
  • Motor vehicle ownerships
  • Proximity to recreation facilities
  • Proximity to education facilities
  • Proximity to local services
  • Availability of dedicated spaces for public amenities
  • Existence of well-defined boundary
  • Existence of neighborhood central place
  • Availability of existing amenities and services
  • Provision of community centers
  • Provision of religious centers
  • Provision of common recreation facilities for all ages
  • Provision of safety elements for crime prevention
  • Traffic calming measures
  • Separation between pedestrian and motorized traffic
  • Availability of commercial establishments
  • Diversity of housing option
  • Provision of affordable housing
  • Employment opportunities within immediate vicinity
  • Avoidance of high grade land
Table A3. Delphi Round II indicators, and Round III weights and consensus level.
Table A3. Delphi Round II indicators, and Round III weights and consensus level.
IndicatorsWeightsConsensus Levels (%)
1. Land use mix diversity6.0387.5
2. Dwelling density5.4781.3
3. Impervious surfaces 5.4184.4
4. Internal connectivity 6.0690.7
5. External connectivity 5.63 87.6
6. Non-motorized transport facilities 5.97 90.7
7. Environmentally sensitive areas 5.06 59.4
8. Open space provision 6.22 96.9
9. Solar orientation4.88 62.5
10. Access to public transport facilities6.06 93.8
11. Access to education facilities 5.97 93.9
12. Access to health facilities 4.78 53.2
13. Access to local services 5.66 93.7
14. Access to recreational space 5.84 97.0
15. Access to community center 5.44 87.6
16. Access to emergency services 5.16 71.9
17. Crime prevention and safety 6.00 96.9
18. Traffic calming 5.34 81.2
19. Commercial establishments 5.50 93.8
20. Skills development centers 4.19 37.5
21. Employment self-containment 4.66 53.2
22. Housing option diversity 5.41 87.6
23. Housing prices diversity 5.28 68.8
24. Affordable housing 5.69 81.3

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  2. Masnavi, M. Measuring Urban Sustainability: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Bridging the Gap between Theoretical Levels and the Operational Levels. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2007, 1, 188–197. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, X.; Yeh, A. Modelling Sustainable Urban Development by the Integration of Constrained Cellular Automata and GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2000, 14, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shatu, F.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Deilami, K. Did Brisbane Grow Smartly? Drivers of City Growth 1991–2001 and Lessons for Current Policies. Sage Open 2014, 4, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hamilton, A.; Mitchell, G.; Yli-Karjanmaa, S. The BEQUEST Toolkit: A Decision Support System for Urban Sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2002, 30, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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. Transport Policy 2005, 12, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hine, J.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Blair, N. Weekly activity-travel behaviour in rural Northern Ireland: Differences by context and socio-demographic. Transportation 2012, 39, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Jabareen, Y. Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Newman, P.; Kenworthy, J. The Land Use—Transport Connection: An Overview. Land Use Policy 1996, 13, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1573–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. United Nations. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
  12. Choguill, C. Developing Sustainable Neighbourhoods. Habitat Int. 2008, 32, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alshuwaikhat, H.; Aina, Y. GIS-based urban sustainability assessment: The case of Dammam city, Saudi Arabia. Local Environ. 2006, 11, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shen, L.-Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators: A comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ding, G. Developing a multicriteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance. Build. Res. Inf. 2005, 33, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 38, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mesthrige-Jayantha, W.; Sze-Man, W. Effect of green labelling on residential property price: A case study in Hong Kong. J. Facil. Manag. 2013, 11, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cloutier, S.; Larson, L.; Jambeck, J. Are sustainable cities “happy” cities? Associations between sustainable development and human well-being in urban areas of the United States. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 633–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sharifi, A.; Murayama, A. Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood sustainability assessment: Insights from a comparative case study. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 58, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Han, Y.; Dai, L.; Zhao, X.; Yu, D.; Wu, S. Construction and application of an assessment index system for evaluating the eco-community’s sustainability. J. For. Res. 2008, 19, 154–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Smith, C.; Dunnett, N.; Clayden, A. Residential Landscape Sustainability: A Checklist Tool; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, H. Assessment indicators and methods for developing the sustainability of mining communities. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2008, 15, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Clarke, R. Can The House Building Industry Create a Sense of Community? A Critique of Four Residential Development Models; University of London: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Investigating the interplay between transport, land use and the Environment: A Review of the literature. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 11, 2121–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kamruzzaman, M.; Hine, J.; Yigitcanlar, T. Investigating the link between carbon dioxide emissions and transport related social exclusion in rural Northern Ireland. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kamruzzaman, M.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Washington, S.; Currie, G. Australian baby boomers switched to more environmentally friendly modes of transport during the global financial crisis. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 11, 2133–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Howard, E. Garden Cities of To-Morrow; Swan Sonnenschein & Co: London, UK, 1902. [Google Scholar]
  30. Song, Y.; Quercia, R. How are neighbourhood design features valued across different neighbourhood types? J. Hous. Built Environ. 2008, 23, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Odell, E.; Theobald, D.; Knight, R. Incorporating ecology into land use planning: the songbirds’ case for clustered development. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2003, 69, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. An, L.; Brown, D.; Nassauer, J.I.; Low, B. Variations in development of exurban residential landscapes: Timing, location, and driving forces. J. Land Use Sci. 2010, 6, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Biddulph, M. Introduction to Residential Layout; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  34. Friedman, A. Sustainable Residential Development: Planning and Design for Green Neighborhoods; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  35. Frame, B.; Vale, R. Increasing uptake of low impact urban design and development: The role of sustainability assessment systems. Local Environ. 2006, 11, 287–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ghosh, S.; Vale, R. Typologies and basic descriptors of New Zealand residential urban forms. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 507–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yigitcanlar, T.; Teriman, S. Rethinking sustainable urban development: Towards an integrated planning and development process. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yigitcanlar, T.; Lee, S. Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding hoax? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Suzuki, H.; Dastur, A.; Moffatt, S.; Yabuki, N. Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities as Economic Cities; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kotharkar, R.; Bahadure, P.; Sarda, N. Measuring compact urban form: A case of Nagpur City, India. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4246–4272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vehbi, B.; Hoşkara, Ş. A model for measuring the sustainability level of historic urban quarters. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2009, 17, 715–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sumiani, Y.; Haslinda, Y.; Lehman, G. Environmental reporting in a developing country: A case study on status and implementation in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gibson, B.; Hassan, S.; Tansey, J. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  44. Reith, A.; Orova, M. Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability? Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 660–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S. Tools for Composite Indicators Building; European Commusion: Ispra, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  46. Farris, T. The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Hous. Policy Debate 2001, 12, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Listokin, D.; Walker, C. Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide; Centre for Urban and Policy Research: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  48. Austin, M. Resident perspective of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Thorsnes, P. Internalizing neighbourhood externalities: The effect of subdivision size and zoning on residential lot prices. J. Urban Econ. 2000, 48, 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Arendt, R. Linked landscapes: Creating greenway corridor through conservation subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 241–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Urban Land Institute. Trends and Innovations in Master-Planned Communities; Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gwyther, G. Paradise Planned: Community Formation and the Master-Planned Estate. Urban Policy Res. 2005, 23, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Minnery, J.; Bajracharya, B. Visions, planning process and outcomes: Master-planned communities in South East Queensland. Aust. Plan. 1999, 35, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ewing, R.; Handy, S. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Costley, D. Master-planned communities: Do they offer a solution to urban sprawl or a vehicle for seclusion of the more affluent consumers in Australia? Hous. Theor. Soc. 2006, 23, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ross, N.; Norbrega, K.; Dunn, J. Income segregation, income inequality and mortality in North American metropolitan areas. GeoJournal 2002, 53, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ross, N.A.; Houle, C.; Dunn, J.R.; Aye, M. Dimensions and dynamics of residential segregation by income in urban Canada. Can. Geogr. 2004, 48, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Department of Statistics. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia; Malaysian Government: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010.
  59. Jamaliah, J. Emerging trends of urbanisation in Malaysia. Stat. Malays. 2004, 1, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  60. Teriman, S. Measuring Neighbourhood Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis of Residential Types in Malaysia; Queensland University of Technology: Brisbane, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tan, T. Sustainability and housing provision in Malaysia. J. Strat. Innov. Sustain. 2011, 7, 62–71. [Google Scholar]
  62. Department of Town and Country Planning. Planning Standards and Guidelines; Malaysian Ministry of Housing and Local Government: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1995.
  63. Choon, S.; Siwar, C.; Pereira, J.; Jemain, A.; Hashim, H.; Hadi, A. A sustainable city index for Malaysia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2011, 18, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hezri, A. Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: A framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 73, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hezri, A.; Hasan, M. Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the State of Selangor, Malaysia. Ecol. Indic. 2004, 4, 287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Joseph, C. Understanding Sustainable Development Concept in Malaysia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hezri, A.; Hasan, M. Towards sustainable development? The evolution of environmental policy in Malaysia. Nat. Resour. Forum 2006, 30, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Noor, T.; Vijayaram, M. Need to implement the environmental governance and sustainability mechanisms for sustainable development in Malaysia. J. US-China Public Adm. 2011, 8, 800–807. [Google Scholar]
  69. Dur, F.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Bunker, J. A spatial-indexing model for measuring neighbourhood-level land-use and transport integration. Environ. Plan. B 2014, 41, 792–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F. Developing a sustainability assessment model: The sustainable infrastructure land-use environment and transport model. Sustainability 2010, 2, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Dizdaroglu, D.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Dawes, L. A micro-level indexing model for assessing urban ecosystem sustainability. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Dizdaroglu, D.; Yigitcanlar, T. A parcel-scale assessment tool to measure sustainability through urban ecosystem components: The MUSIX model. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 41, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, D.; Dizdaroglu, D. Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban sustainability assessment approach. Habitat Int. 2015, 45, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dur, F.; Yigitcanlar, T. Assessing land-use and transport integration via a spatial composite indexing model. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 803–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Frank, L.; Andersen, M.; Schmid, T. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2004, 27, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kamruzzaman, M.; Baker, D.C.; Washington, S.; Turrell, G. Advance transit oriented development typology: Case study in Brisbane, Australia. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 34, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kamruzzaman, M.; Washington, S.; Baker, D.; Brown, W.; Giles-Corti, B.; Turrell, G. Built environment impacts on walking for transport in Brisbane, Australia. Transportation 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cervero, R.; Gorham, R. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1995, 61, 210–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mackay, M. Which Suburbs Work: A Comparison between Traditionally Planned Suburbs and Conventional Suburban Development; Ministry of Planning: Perth, WA, USA, 2001.
  80. National Property Information Centre. Property Market Report; Malaysian Government: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010.
  81. Goodman, R.; Douglas, K. Privatised Communities: The use of owners corporations in master-planned estates in Melbourne. Aust. Geogr. 2008, 39, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baldwin, C.; Osborne, C.; Smith, P. Infill Development for Older Australians in South. East. Queensland: An Analysis of the Preferences of Older Australians in An Urban Environment; University of the Sunshine Coast: Brisbane, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  83. Tilt, J.; Cerveny, L. Master-Planned in Exurbia: Examining the Drivers and Impacts of Master-Planned Communities at the Urban Fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 114, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yigitcanlar, T.; Dizdaroglu, D. Ecological approaches in planning for sustainable cities: A review of the literature. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2015, 1, 71–94. [Google Scholar]
  85. Suen, W.; Tang, B. Optimal site area for high-density housing development. Habitat Int. 2002, 26, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Goonetilleke, A.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ayoko, G.; Egodawatta, P. Sustainable Urban Water Environment: Climate, Pollution and Adaptation; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Teriman, S. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2570-2602. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su7032570

AMA Style

Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Teriman S. Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context. Sustainability. 2015; 7(3):2570-2602. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su7032570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yigitcanlar, Tan, Md. Kamruzzaman, and Suharto Teriman. 2015. "Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Residential Development Sustainability in a Developing Country Context" Sustainability 7, no. 3: 2570-2602. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su7032570

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop