An Indicator-based Approach to Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment for Urban Renewal

Decision-making Author1 (Wei Zheng),

Author1 Affiliation (Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (email: zheng.wei@connect.polyu.hk)

Author 2 (Geoffrey Shen), Author2 Affiliation (Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

(email: geoffrey.shen@polyu.edu.hk) Author 3 (Bingxia Sun),

Author3 Affiliation (Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (email: bingxiasun@hotmail.com)

Author 4 (Jingke Hong), Author4 Affiliation (Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

(email: hongjingke@gmail.com)

Abstract Urban renewal, as an opportunity of realizing sustainable development, can resolve numerous problems facing cities. Due to the linkage between sustainability and urban renewal, it is helpful to investigate sustainability in urban renewal context. Although there exists a consensus on the importance of sustainable development, this concept is still ambiguous, which may lead towards a deviated direction. In order to capture a better understanding on sustainability in urban renewal, thus making informed decision-making on sustainable urban renewal, some evaluation tools/methods have been proposed. However, most research focuses on a city scale or a renewal project. Sustainability assessment focusing on neighbourhood renewal is still a rarely touched area. With the aim of supporting decision-making in urban renewal, this paper proposed an indicator-based approach to neighbourhood sustainability assessment. Essential steps in this approach are introduced in detail. A case study on several neighbourhoods of Hong Kong is conducted to apply this indicator-based approach. This paper not only provides a better understanding on neighbourhood sustainability in urban renewal process, but also proposes a method of assessing sustainability of neighbourhood for supporting urban renewal.

Keywords: sustainability assessment, urban renewal, neighbourhood, decision-making

1. Introduction Urban renewal is regarded as a two-fold sword. It can deliver a positive opportunity for realizing sustainable development and act as an antidote for urban problems (Zheng et al., 2014). There also exists some criticism including fading of local culture, destruction of social network, and segregation. Facing different voices on urban renewal, it is important to integrate the concept of sustainability into urban renewal practice. Although the concept of sustainable is accepted widely, its application in practice is not always favouring (Hunt et al., 2008). To better deliver sustainable urban renewal, it is necessary to conduct urban renewal evaluation, especially when it comes to decision-making. For example, a systematic approach with evalation criteria on urban competitiveness quality and priority model for urabn renewal projects was

proposed to facilitate decision makers and developers in Taipei in reviewing urban renewal project selections (Juan et al., 2010). A model for measuring sustainability of urban regeneration at project level was proposed to assist decision-making (Peng et al., 2015). Urban regeneration performance was evaluated based on different categories (the economy and work, resource use, buildings and land use, transport an mobility, and community benefits) (Hemphill et al., 2004a; Hemphill et al., 2004b).

However, most studies on urban renewal evaluation focus on the impacts of urban renewal impacts, which are post-evaluation, minimizing the opportunities of promoting sustainability. It is more beneficial if pre-evaluation is included in urban renewal process. Pre-evaluation before urban renewal is crucial for regional policies (Greig et al., 2010). Only a few studies focusing on pre-assessment for urban renewal decision-making. For example, Ho et al. (2011) developed the Dilapidation Index under the context of Hong Kong to assess the building conditions for identifying potential renewal projects. But the Dilapidation Index only focuses on building conditions at building scale. The index of multiple deprivations, as a national matrix in the UK, is also for assessing the need for regeneration activities (Greig et al., 2010). This index is comparatively more comprehensive, yet its local context is in the UK.

Therefore, this research aims at proposing a universally indicator-based approach for sustainability assessment at neighbourhood scale for urban renewal decision-making. Four major steps are involved in the application of this approach. To better illustrate it, a case study on eight neighbourhoods of Hong Kong is employed to examine this indicator-based approach. The second section reviews previous work on neighborhood sustainability assessment and urban renewal assessment. The following section presents the conceptual framework of this approach. In further unravelling this approach, the fourth part shows the case study. The fifth section discusses limitations of this paper. And the final section concludes this paper.

2. Relevant Work 2.1 Neighborhood sustainability assessment

Sustainability has been an essential objective in city development. After it was firstly proposed in the Brundtland Report, it has been considered as a crucial issue for urban development. In order to transit to sustainable urban development, it is necessary to know where we are, what goals that we have met, and what to do next. This poses challenges and potentials on sustainability assessment. Devuyst et al. (2001) provided a definition of sustainability assessment: “a tool that can help decision-makers and policy-makers decide which actions they should or should not take in an attempt to make society more sustainable.” Sustainability assessment is useful for decision-makers on determining which actions should or should not be taken for realizing sustainable development (Ness et al., 2007).

There are some internationally well-known tools for sustainability assessment for neighbourhood, including but not limited to the following ones: Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method Communities (BREEAM Communities), CASBEE for Urban Development, The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighbourhood Development (LEED for Neighbourhood Development). Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency for Urban Development (CASBEE for Urban Development) addresses the assessment of urban areas by focusing on the phenomena of aggregation of buildings and the outdoor spaces (Haapio, 2012). BREEAM Communities focuses on the planning stage of the development process of large-scale project with the aim of making the project show their environmental, social and economic benefits to the local community (BREEAM, 2009).

LEED for Neighbourhood Developments was established as a U.S. national standard for neighbourhood design which focuses on green building and smart growth. It aims at assessing the impacts of development projects based on its standards (USGBC, 2006). Although different tools have different emphases and criteria, themes applied by most tools are involved with several aspects: resources and environment, transportation, economic, location, site selection pattern and design, and innovation (Sharifi and Murayama, 2013). Through analysis of existing systems of neighbourhood sustainability assessment, locality (e.g. local culture and laws) is emphasized as a necessary aspect for adaptability of existing systems (Berardi, 2013).

2.2 Urban renewal evaluation The importance of evaluating urban renewal/regeneration initiatives on monitoring current renewal/regeneration programs has been widely acknowledged (e.g. Peng et al., 2015; Kauko, 2012; Hemphill et al., 2004a; Hemphill et al., 2004b) . A large number of studies have been conducted in terms of urban renewal/regeneration impacts.

Some research only focuses on one certain aspect of impacts of urban renewal, like social or economic impact. For example, in order to identify social impacts of urban waterfront regeneration in Helsinki, four themes of social impacts (resources and identity, social status, access and activities and waterfront experience) were proposed (Sairinen and Kumpulainen, 2006). From economic perspective, the impacts of a public-sector-led urban renewal project on housing prices in Hong Kong were measured by a price gradient analysis (Lai et al., 2007). Some researchers explore several aspects together. Social and economic impacts of residential brownfield development in the most deprived urban neighbourhood were assessed in terms of changing housing market, residential density, population growth and economic deprivation (Bäing and Wong, 2012).

There are also studies comprehensively evaluating urban renewal initiatives. Impacts of urban renewal on socio-economic and spatial structure are often discussed together (e.g. Uzun, 2003; He and Wu, 2007; Wu and He, 2005), although different studies may use various indicators. Some scholars apply composite indicators to assess urban renewal comprehensively (Hemphill et al., 2004a; Hemphill et al., 2004b; Hunt et al., 2008; Pérez and Rey, 2013; Wedding and Crawford-Brown, 2007). To measure regeneration performance, a group of indicators under different categories (the economy and work, resource use, buildings and land use, transport an mobility, and community benefits) were proposed (Hemphill et al., 2004a; Hemphill et al., 2004b). While most studies assess urban renewal from the perspective of post-evaluation, only a few address pre-evaluation. To facilitate regeneration decision-making in Birmingham Eastside, Hunt et al. (2008) presented a series of indicators including social aspect (user comfort, form and space, access, amenity, inclusion), economic aspect (social benefits and cost, transport, employment, competition effects, viability), environmental aspect (air quality, land use, water, ecology and cultural heritage, design and operation, transport), and natural resources (materials, water, energy, land utilization, waste hierarchy).

3. Conceptual Framework This research develops an indicator-based approach to neighbourhood sustainability assessment with the purpose of providing references for urban renewal decision-making. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework. There are totally four steps, in which different methods could be applied. This section is to provide details in each step.

Figure 1: Major steps in the proposed approach

3.1 Step One Various indicators have been applied in studies on sustainability assessment at neighbourhood scale. The existing tools or research can be useful resources for identifying initial indicators and their calculation methods. During this process, two other aspects need to be considered. One is the local condition. Another is what is crucial for urban renewal. In summary, the initial indicator list is a comprehensive indicator system which integrates sustainability consideration, urban renewal focus, and local conditions. Different indicators should be categorized into different themes. A hierarchy framework of indicators then can be drawn. Figure 2 shows the hierarchy framework of indicators.

Sustainability Assessment at

Neighbourhood

Urban Renewal Consideration

Category One Category two

Local conditions

…………

Indicator 1

Indicator i

Indicator 1… Indicator

i… …

Category I

Indicator 1

Indicator i

Figure 2: The hierarchy framework of indicators

3.2 Step Two The selected indicators may be subjective, thus requiring adjustment of indicators. Focus group meeting is conducted to collect suggestions on existing indicators and to add ignored indicators selected during step one. After adjusting and improving the indicator list, it is necessary to determine calculation methods and thresholds of each indicator.

Under each category, weights of indicators is to be determined. There are different ways. For example, participants can pose specific weights for various indicators directly after discussion. Or participants judge the relative importance of each indicator, the results of which are then to be used for calculating weights by methods like analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP). The sum of weights for indicators in each category should be 1.

3.3 Step Three Potential neighbourhoods for renewal decision-making are to be determined during this step. Then relevant data is to be collected accordingly. The following actions include calculating values of each indicator and then obtaining the final value of each category.

Each indicator has its unique calculation method. The initial evaluation results of indicators are obtained by using different units and cannot be compared directly, thus requiring standardization before calculating values of different categories. Taking into account of the positive and negative effects of different indicators on sustainability, two formulas were applied for standardization (Pirrone et al., 2005).

Positive indicator: (1)

Negative indicator: (2)

The final value of each category is calculated by the formula below, in which SI stands for the final value of category I, vi represents value of indicator i, and wi is the weight of indicator i.

1

i

I i iS v w=∑ (3)

3.4 Step Four After obtaining values of various categories, relevant suggestions on urban renewal decisions can be proposed accordingly. This approach does not suggest calculating a total score of sustainability, but tends to compare each category among neighbourhoods, which can offer more detailed and specific strategies for neighbourhood renewal.

4. Case Study 4.1 Study Area and Data Preparation

Hong Kong is selected as the case study context because of its unique characteristics. Firstly, it is now facing serious urban decaying problems with approximate 4,000 buildings aged 50 years or above. Secondly, it is a typical high-density city in Asia, which experiences overcrowding and scarcity of land supply. Urban renewal can free some land for Hong Kong. Thirdly, various voices emerge in urban renewal process of Hong Kong, within which there are also some criticism such as profit-driven, fading of local culture and destruction of local network.

Eight tertiary planning units TPUs in Kowloon District of Hong Kong are selected in the case study to experiment the proposed approach (See figure 3). These TPUs, are applied by Planning Department of Hong Kong for planning purpose. A database for this research is prepared, in which both spatial and non-spatial data are included. Spatial data include land use map, road network map, the location of public facilities, and building distribution. Non-spatial data involves environmental and social aspects. The data

( min ) / (max min )ij ij ij ij ijy x x x x= − −(1 ,1 )i m j n≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

(max ) / (max min )ij ij ij ij ijy x x x x= − − (1 ,1 )i m j n≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

is from different governmental departments, including Planning Department, Lands Department, Building department, Hong Kong Housing Society, Environmental Protection Department, and Census and Statistics Department. Data processing actions involve digitalizing land use map and integrating data from different sources in ArcGIS software package.

2.2.1

2.2.9

2.2.7

2.2.5

2.4.1 2.4.2

2.8.5

2.4.4

Scale: 1:20,000

The Location of Tertiary Planning Units

Figure 3: The location of tertiary planning units (TPUs)

4.2 Application of the proposed approach Following the steps in the conceptual framework, the proposed approach was applied. Through literature review (e.g. Greig et al., 2010; Hemphill et al., 2004a; Hemphill et al., 2004b; Hunt et al., 2008; Boyko et al., 2012; Cheng and Lin, 2011), an initial list of indicators were proposed. This case categorized indicators into five themes, which are social aspect, environment and resources, economy and work, land use form and building conditions. Then in step two, two more indicators (Density of Small businesses with local characteristics and the fragment level of property rights) were added and calculation methods were confirmed for each indicator. To make it simple (because this study is a pilot one), each indicator is regarded contributing the same to the total value of each category; thus, the weights for indicators are the same. Several indicators were not included in the calculation because of lacking data at this scale. Additionally,

this is a pilot study for illustrating this approach, it is acceptable that several indicators are not included. Table 1 presents an adjusted indicator list, which can also be referred by other contexts. Table 2 shows the final scores of different categories. Figure 2 can clearly show the comparing results in space.

Base on the results, performance of each neighbourhood can be compared directly. In terms of social aspect, TPU 2.2.1 performs the best while TPU 2.4.1 has the lowest value. As for economy and work, TPU 2.4.4 stands out with its highest value while other TPUs have similarly low values. TPU 2.2.7 obtains the highest value for the performance of environment and resources. TUP 2.2.9 shows the best result for land use form while land use form of TPU 2.2.1 presents the worst one. Building conditions in both TPU 2.2.1 and TPU 2.2.7 are satisfactory and TPU 2.8.5 presents the most serious building condition.

From these results, some issues could be found. Although some TPUs perform well in certain aspects, they may face some problems in other aspects. This phenomena reminds of a fact that values of some positive aspects may offset those negatives ones if we only refer to the overall value of sustainability. Therefore, calculating different categories respectively can avoid this dilemma in this approach. Based on the results, corresponding strategies can be proposed for each neighbourhood. For example, for TPU 2.8.5 with higher value in land use form and comparatively lower values in other categories, building rehabilitation initiatives are urgent. Then for some decaying area, comprehensive redevelopment may be an alternative for addressing various problems. It is essential to include both physical and socio-economic improvement during renewal.

Table 1: A summary of indicators and their measurement

Category Indicator Measurement Remarks

Social aspect Human density Population/Area of the planning unit

Results can be obtained through normal calculation

Social aspect Age diversity _ _ 2

1 _ _

1 (1 )cat

cat age iobj

i cat age i

ncat n=

−∑

cat is the number of different age groups, _ _cat age in is the population belonging to age group i ,

_ _objcat age in refers to the objective

population in age group i

Social aspect Residential floor area per capita

Residential floor area/Population

Results can be obtained through normal calculation

Social aspect Public transport diversity _ _ 2

1 _ _

1 (1 )cat

cat trans iobj

i cat trans i

ncat n=

−∑

cat means the number of public transportation types, _ _cat trans in is the number of transportation points (stops/stations) in type i , _ _

objcat trans in is

the objective number of transportation points in type i .

Social aspect Facilities diversity _ _ 2

1 _ _

1 (1 )cat

cat faci iobj

i cat faci i

ncat n=

−∑

cat represents the number of facility types, _ _cat faci in is the number of

facility i , _ _objcat faci in is the objective

number of facility i .

Economy and work

Labor force participation rate

Labor force participation rate

Data can be obtained from statistical information

Economy and work

Disposable income per capita

Disposable income per capita

Data can be obtained from statistical information

Economy and work

Diversity of business activities _ _ 2

1 _ _

1 (1 )cat

cat busi iobj

i cat busi i

ncat n=

−∑

cat is the number of various business groups, _ _cat busi in is the population belonging to business category i ,

_ _objcat busi in refers to the objective

population in business category i

Economy and work

Density of Small businesses with local characteristics

The trade of small business with local characteristics/the area of planning unit

Data cannot be obtained;

This is a newly added indicator

Resources and environment

Waste generation Total waste generation/population

Data can be estimated

Resources and environment

Waste recycling Number of waste recycling facilities/area the planning unit

Data can be estimated

Resources and environment

Electricity consumption

Total electricity consumption/population

Data cannot be obtained

Resources and environment

Air quality Air quality index Data cannot be obtained

Resources and environment

Water consumption Total water consumption/population

Data cannot be obtained

Land use form Land use mix 1

ln lnni ii

l l n=

−∑ il is the area of land use type i , nmeans the number of land use types.

Land use form Accessibility to cultural facilities

Number of cultural facilities within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Accessibility to education services

Number of education facilities within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Accessibility to health care services

Number of health care facilities within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Accessibility to sport and leisure facilities

Number of sport and leisure facilities within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Accessibility to other facilities

Number of other facilities within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Accessibility to public transport

Number of public transport points within 300 meters

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Land use form Open space coverage ratio

Area of open space/Area of the planning unit

Results can be obtained through spatial analysis in GIS

Building condition

Average building age nii

age n∑ Results can be obtained through normal calculation

Building condition

Number of buildings aged 50 years or above

Number of buildings aged above 50 years

Data can be obtained directly from statistics

Building condition

Building maintenance Number of building repair cases/Number of buildings aged above 50 years

Data can be obtained through normal calculation

Building condition

Building density Floor area/Area of the planning unit

Data can be obtained through normal calculation

Building condition

The fragment level of property rights

The fragment level of property rights

Data cannot be obtained; This is a newly added indicator

Table 2: Values of neighbourhoods in different categories

Social aspect Economy and work

Environment and resources

Land use form Building condition

2.2.1 0.618491 0.261551 0.532039 0.231615 0.503037

2.2.5 0.38292 0.26032 0.537261 0.355585 0.353346

2.2.7 0.495204 0.175815 0.899771 0.513832 0.57359

2.2.9 0.569303 0.135118 0.720754 0.60348 0.496879

2.4.1 0.323248 0.236482 0.638122 0.268797 0.465472

2.4.2 0.419863 0.197809 0.590737 0.432339 0.306757

2.4.4 0.501843 0.600275 0.440865 0.505447 0.390898

2.8.5 0.387836 0.242227 0.396396 0.621737 0.286446

Social aspect Economy and work Environment and resources

Land use form Building condition

Legend

Low value

High value

Figure 4: Comparison of values for different categories

5. Discussion This paper proposed an indicator-based approach to assessing neigborhood sustainability for better urban renewal decision-making. Four steps are included in the assessment. Case study facilitates illustrating how to apply this approach in practice. This approach could be applied in different contexts but be adjusted based on specific conditions. The indicator list proposed on the basis of Hong Kong context can also be referred by other studies. Changes are suggested if necessary because different contexts face different challenges and issues in neighborhood renewal.

This research has some limitations. Due to data limitation, some calculation results are estimated, which may not be accurate. And data of several indicators cannot be obtained at this scale, thus ignoring their effects on the final results. Another limitation is that weights were not developed in step two. In order to further improve it, it is suggested to include as much data as possible. It would be of great use if the weights of various indicators were obtained in step two. This approach is not aiming at making decisions directly, but to provide useful references for decision-makers. Therefore, decision-makers should combine other information and approaches when applying this approach.

6. Conclusions With the aim of supporting urban renewal decision-making at neighbourhood scale, this paper presents an indicator-based approach for neighbourhood sustainability assessment. This approach involves four essential steps, which are illustrated in the case study. It has several shining points. Firstly, unlike some

studies on assessing urban renewal, it requires a more comprehensive perspective for indicator selection, which suggests sustainability, urban renewal and local context. Secondly, its focus is neighbourhood scale, which is a proper scale for initiating urban renewal activities. This scale is regarded as an important geographic and social unit for practicing planning activities (Rohe, 2009). Thirdly, with the fact that most studies on urban renewal evaluation focus on impacts of urban renewal (post-evaluation), the pre-assessment by this approach maximizes the opportunities of applying sustainability into renewal practice. The proposed approach can benefit both theory and practice.

References Bäing AS and Wong C. (2012) Brownfield residential development: what happens to the most deprived

neighbourhoods in England? Urban studies 49: 2989-3008. Berardi U. (2013) Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environment,

development and sustainability 15: 1573-1591. Boyko CT, Gaterell MR, Barber AR, et al. (2012) Benchmarking sustainability in cities: The role of

indicators and future scenarios. Global Environmental Change 22: 245-254. BREEAM. (2009) Technical Manual. BREEAM communities assessor manual development planning

application stage SD5065B, BRE Global Ltd. Cheng H and Lin C. (2011) Regeneration Model of Taiwan Old Urban Centers-A Research Framework of

a Performance Evaluation System for a Livable Urban District. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 10: 163-170.

Devuyst D, Hens L and De Lannoy W. (2001) How green is the city?: sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments: Columbia University Press.

Greig A, El-Haram M and Horner M. (2010) Using deprivation indices in regeneration: Does the response match the diagnosis? Cities 27: 476-482.

Haapio A. (2012) Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32: 165-169.

He S and Wu F. (2007) Socio-spatial impacts of property-led redevelopment on China’s urban neighbourhoods. Cities 24: 194-208.

Hemphill L, Berry J and McGreal S. (2004a) An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: part 1, conceptual foundations and methodological framework. Urban studies 41: 725-755.

Hemphill L, McGreal S and Berry J. (2004b) An indicator-based approach to measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 2, empirical evaluation and case-study analysis. Urban studies 41: 757-772.

Ho DCW, Yau Y, Poon SW, et al. (2011) Achieving sustainable urban renewal in Hong Kong: Strategy for dilapidation assessment of high rises. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 138: 153-165.

Hunt DV, Lombardi DR, Rogers CD, et al. (2008) Application of sustainability indicators in decision-making processes for urban regeneration projects. Proceedings of the ICE-Engineering Sustainability 161: 77-91.

Juan Y-K, Roper KO, Castro-Lacouture D, et al. (2010) Optimal decision making on urban renewal projects. Management Decision 48: 207-224.

Kauko T. (2012) End in sight? On the (un) sustainability of property development in the Budapest region. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 16: 37-55.

Lai LW, Chau KW, Yiu EC, et al. (2007) Measuring and interpreting the effects of a public-sector-led urban renewal project on housing pricesˆan empirical study of a comprehensive development area zone developed upontaking'in Hong Kong. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34: 524-538.

Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, et al. (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological economics 60: 498-508.

Pérez MGR and Rey E. (2013) A multi-criteria approach to compare urban renewal scenarios for an existing neighborhood. Case study in Lausanne (Switzerland). Building and Environment 65: 58-70.

Peng Y, Lai Y, Li X, et al. (2015) An alternative model for measuring the sustainability of urban regeneration: the way forward. Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 76-83.

Pirrone N, Trombino G, Cinnirella S, et al. (2005) The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for integrated catchment-coastal zone management: preliminary application to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone system. Regional Environmental Change 5: 111-137.

Rohe WM. (2009) From local to global: One hundred years of neighborhood planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 75: 209-230.

Sairinen R and Kumpulainen S. (2006) Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26: 120-135.

Sharifi A and Murayama A. (2013) A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 73-87.

USGBC UGBC. (2006) LEED for Neighborhood Developments. Washington, DC: US Green Building Council.

Uzun C. (2003) The impact of urban renewal and gentrification on urban fabric: three cases in Turkey. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 94: 363-375.

Wang X, Zhong X and Gao P. (2010) A GIS-based decision support system for regional eco-security assessment and its application on the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1981-1990.

Wedding GC and Crawford-Brown D. (2007) Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: A focus on sustainability and green building. Journal of Environmental Management 85: 483-495.

Wu F and He S. (2005) Changes in traditional urban areas and impacts of urban redevelopment: a case study of three neighbourhoods in Nanjing, China. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 96: 75-95.

Zheng HW, Shen GQ and Wang H. (2014) A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat International 41: 272-279.