INDICATORS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATING GREEN CITY DEVELOPMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
green cities; sustainability indicators; urban assessment; green infrastructure; MCDA; GIS; smart urbanism; environmental governanceAbstract
The rapid global trend toward urbanization has intensified demands for sustainable, livable, and resilient cities. Green city development has emerged as a pivotal framework for addressing environmental degradation, resource inefficiency, and social inequality in urban areas. However, the absence of a universally accepted evaluation system creates significant challenges for policymakers, urban planners, and researchers seeking to benchmark progress. This study conducts a systematic review of existing indicators and methodologies employed in assessing green city development across global contexts. Drawing upon peer-reviewed literature, international frameworks, and case studies from 2010 to 2024, this paper identifies five core indicator domains: environmental quality, energy efficiency, transport and mobility, green infrastructure, and governance and social equity. Moreover, it critically examines quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method assessment approaches, including composite index construction, Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based spatial analysis, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Findings reveal significant methodological heterogeneity, data gaps in developing regions, and the underrepresentation of socio-cultural dimensions in current frameworks. The study proposes an integrated evaluation framework adaptable to diverse urban contexts and calls for greater standardization to enable cross-city comparisons.
Downloads
References
1.Beatley, T. (2012). Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism. Island Press.
2.Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016275505152
3.Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Flynn, A., Joss, S., & Yu, L. (2017). Smart-eco cities in the UK: Trends and city profiles 2016. University of Exeter.
4.Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., & Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1
5.Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., & Xue, B. (2013). Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: An evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.005
6.Huang, L., Wu, J., & Yan, L. (2020). Defining and measuring urban sustainability: A review of indicators. Landscape Ecology, 30(7), 1175–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0208-2
7.ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2018). ISO 37120:2018 — Sustainable cities and communities: Indicators for city services and quality of life. ISO.
8.Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2016). Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Management & Research, 34(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15622828
9.Litman, T. (2022). Sustainable transportation indicators, strategies, and performance evaluation. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
10.Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., & Meléndez-Frigola, J. (2015). Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.012
11.Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
12.Shen, L., Kyllo, J. M., & Guo, X. (2018). An integrated model based on a hierarchical indices system for monitoring and evaluating urban sustainability. Sustainability, 5(2), 524–559. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020524
13.United Nations. (2018). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://population.un.org/wup/
14.WHO (World Health Organization). (2016). Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
15.Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough.' Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
16.Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., Da Costa, E., & Ioppolo, G. (2020). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.033
17.Zhao, M. Y., Cheng, C. T., Chau, K. W., & Li, G. (2021). Multiple criteria data envelopment analysis for full ranking units associated to environment impact assessment. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 28(3–4), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2006.011222
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India
