MEASURING NEIGHBOURHOOD SUSTAINABILITY: A...

MEASURING NEIGHBOURHOOD

SUSTAINABILITY: A

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF

RESIDENTIAL TYPES IN MALAYSIA

SUHARTO TERIMAN

BA (Hons) Town and Regional Planning

MSc GIS and Remote Sensing

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Civil Engineering and the Built Environment

Faculty of Science and Engineering

Queensland University of Technology

August 2012

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia i

Keywords

Assessment framework, Delphi technique, key indicators, master-planned

development, piecemeal development, neighbourhood layout, residential

development, sub-division development, sustainable development,

sustainability assessment, sustainability levels

ii Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

Abstract

The expansion of city-regions, the increase in the standard of living and changing

lifestyles have collectively led to an increase in housing demand. New residential

areas are encroaching onto the city fringes including suburban and green field areas.

Large and small developers are actively building houses ranging from a few blocks to

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 sustainability. There are three main types

that comprise the mainstream, and form integral parts to contemporary urban

residential developments, namely, subdivision developments, piecemeal

developments, and master-planned developments. Many new master-planned

developments market themselves as environmentally friendly, and provide layouts that

encompass sustainable design and development. To date, however, there have been

limited studies conducted to examine such claims or to ascertain which of these three

residential development layouts is more sustainable. To fill this gap, this research was

undertaken to develop a framework for assessing the level of sustainability of

residential developments, focusing on their layouts at the neighbourhood level.

The development of this framework adopted a mixed method research strategy and

embedded research design to achieve the study aim and objectives. Data were

collected from two main sources, where quantitative data were gathered from a three-

round Delphi survey and spatial data from a layout plan. Sample respondents for

surveys were selected from among experts in the field of the built environment, both

from Malaysia and internationally. As for spatial data, three case studies – master-

planned, piecemeal and subdivision developments representing different types of

neighbourhood developments in Malaysia have been selected. Prior to application on

the case studies, the appropriate framework was subjected to validation to ascertain its

robustness for application in Malaysia.

Following the application of the framework on the three case studies the results

revealed that master-planned development scored a better level of sustainability

compared to piecemeal and subdivision developments. The results generated from this

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia iii

framework are expected to provide evidence to the policy makers and development

agencies as well as provide an awareness of the level of sustainability and the

necessary collective efforts required for developing sustainable neighbourhoods.

Continuous assessment can facilitate a comparison of sustainability over time for

neighbourhoods as a means to monitor changes in the level of sustainability. In

addition, the framework is able to identify any particular indicator (issue) that causes a

significant impact on sustainability.

iv Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

Table of Contents

KEYWORDS .......................................................................................................................................... I ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. VIII LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. XI STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ............................................................................................ XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... XV PUBLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................. XVI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS ...................................................................................... 2 1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 4 1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 5 1.5 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................................................... 5 1.6 DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 6 1.7 OUTLINE OF THESIS .................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 9

2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Sustainable urban planning and development approaches .......................................... 9

2.2.1 Rational Planning approach ...................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Event-based Development approach ......................................................................... 13

2.2.3 Ecosystem approach .................................................................................................. 15

2.3 SUSTAINABLE URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ............................................... 18 2.4 SUSTAINABILITY AT PLANNING STAGE ..................................................................................... 22 2.5 LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PRACTICE IN MALAYSIA ......................... 24 2.6 PLANNING AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN

MALAYSIA ............................................................................................................................... 26 2.7 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 27

2.7.1 Definition and characteristics of neighbourhood ...................................................... 28

2.7.2 Neighbourhood types ................................................................................................ 29

2.8 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT IN MALAYSIA ....................................................... 37 2.8.1 Malaysia Quality of Life Index ................................................................................. 38

2.8.2 Malaysian Urban Indicator Network ......................................................................... 38

2.8.3 Green Building Index ................................................................................................ 39 2.9 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

IN MALAYSIA ........................................................................................................................... 40 2.10 KEY FINDINGS AND RESEARCH GAPS ........................................................................................ 43 2.11 A FRAMEWORK FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................... 44

2.11.1 Basis for framework development ............................................................................ 44

2.11.2 Triple bottom line and assessment of sustainability .................................................. 46

2.11.3 Multi-attribute evaluation of plans ............................................................................ 48

2.12 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ................................................................................................ 49 2.13 INDICATORS AND SUSTAINABILITY MEASUREMENTS ................................................................ 51

2.13.1 Definitions of indicators ............................................................................................ 51

2.13.2 Development of indicators ........................................................................................ 52

2.13.3 Indicators in physical planning ................................................................................. 53

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia v

2.14 INDICATORS FOR MEASURING RESIDENTIAL SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................54 2.15 SELECTION OF POTENTIAL INDICATORS ....................................................................................58

2.15.1 Environmental sustainability .....................................................................................60

2.15.2 Social sustainability ..................................................................................................62

2.15.3 Economic sustainability ............................................................................................63

2.16 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................64

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 69

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................69 3.2 RESEARCH STRATEGY ..............................................................................................................69 3.3 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE STUDY .....................................................................71 3.4 COLLECTION OF DATA FOR DELPHI SURVEY .............................................................................73

3.4.1 Questionnaire design .................................................................................................75

3.4.2 Pilot test.....................................................................................................................77

3.4.3 Sample selection of Delphi respondents ...................................................................77

3.4.4 The administration of the Delphi survey ...................................................................79

3.5 COLLECTION OF SPATIAL DATA ................................................................................................85 3.5.1 Case study selection ..................................................................................................85

3.5.2 Case study profile ......................................................................................................87

3.6 ANALYSIS OF DELPHI SURVEY AND SPATIAL DATA ..................................................................92 3.6.1 Analysis to identify relevant indicators to measure sustainability ............................92 3.6.2 Analysis to identify key indicators in contributing to the level of

sustainability .............................................................................................................93

3.6.3 Analysis for normalisation of indicators ...................................................................94 3.6.4 Analysis for assigning indicator weighting and category aggregate for

measuring sustainability ............................................................................................95 3.6.5 Analysis to validate the development of the framework for measuring the

level of sustainability of the neighbourhood .............................................................96 3.6.6 Analysis for comparing the sustainability composite index among the three

types of residential development ...............................................................................97

3.7 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................98

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY KEY INDICATORS FOR

MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................. 99

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................99 4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF RELEVANT INDICATORS AND THEIR RELATIVE CATEGORIES

FOR MEASURING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD

DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................................................99 4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF KEY INDICATORS FOR MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY .............................. 107 4.4 FINAL LIST OF KEY INDICATORS ............................................................................................ 110 4.5 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 111

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF INDICATOR MEASUREMENT SCORES .......................... 113

5.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 113 5.2 MEASUREMENT EQUATIONS OF KEY INDICATOR SET ............................................................. 113 5.3 CALCULATION OF MEASUREMENT OUTPUT OF KEY INDICATOR SET ....................................... 117

5.3.1 Land use mix .......................................................................................................... 117

5.3.2 Residential dwelling density .................................................................................. 118

5.3.3 Impervious surfaces ............................................................................................... 119

5.3.4 Internal connectivity ............................................................................................... 119

5.3. 5 External connectivity ............................................................................................. 122

5.3.6 Open space provision ............................................................................................. 124

vi Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

5.3.7 Non-motorised transport ......................................................................................... 126

5.3.8 Access to public transport facilities ........................................................................ 127

5.3.9 Access to education facilities .................................................................................. 131

5.3.10 Access to local services ........................................................................................... 135

5.3.11 Access to recreation parks ....................................................................................... 138

5.3.12 Access to community centre ................................................................................... 142

5.3.13 Access to emergency services ................................................................................ 146

5.3.14 Crime prevention and safety .................................................................................. 148

5.3.15 Traffic calming ....................................................................................................... 149

5.3.16 Commercial establishments .................................................................................... 149

5.3.17 Affordable housing ................................................................................................. 150

5.3.18 Housing option diversity ......................................................................................... 151

5.4 SUMMARY OF INDICATOR MEASUREMENT SCALES AND SCORES ............................................ 152 5.5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 154

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF NORMALISATION, WEIGHTING,

AGGREGATION AND SENSITIVITY ..................................................................................... 155

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 155 6.2 NORMALISATION TECHNIQUES FOR ALL INDICATORS ............................................................. 155

6.2.1 Normalisation procedure based on the categorical scale technique ........................ 156 6.2.2 Normalisation procedure and score based on the above and below mean

technique ................................................................................................................. 160

6.3 INDICATOR WEIGHTING AND CATEGORY AGGREGATE ............................................................ 162 6.3.1 Assignment of indicator weighting ......................................................................... 164

6.3.2 Assignment of category aggregate .......................................................................... 166

6.3.3 Formulation of sustainability composite index calculation ..................................... 167 6.4 OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT FRAMEWORKS DEVELOPED BASED ON DIFFERENT

TECHNIQUES........................................................................................................................... 168 6.5 UNCERTAINTY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS........................................................................... 170

6.5.1 Uncertainty analysis between different groups of experts ...................................... 170

6.5.2 Sensitivity analysis between two normalisation techniques .................................... 174

6.6 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 176

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................ 177

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 177 7.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................. 177

7.2.1 Identification of the environmental, social and economic indicators which

can be used to evaluate the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts ......... 178 7.2.2 Development of a valid assessment framework based on the indicators

identified for measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood

layouts ..................................................................................................................... 181 7.2.3 Application of the assessment framework to different types of

neighbourhood developments in order to determine their level of

sustainability ........................................................................................................... 186 7.3 APPLICATION OF ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK WITHIN THE MALAYSIAN PLANNING

SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................. 192 7.3.1 The need for assessment framework ....................................................................... 192

7.3.2 Application at planning approval stage ................................................................... 193

7.3.3 Application at post occupation stage ....................................................................... 194

7. 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 195 7.4.1 Case study findings ................................................................................................. 195

7.4.2 Overall findings ...................................................................................................... 196

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia vii

7.5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 197 7.6 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................... 198 7.7 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................... 201 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 221

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... 221

Appendix B .......................................................................................................................... 222

Delphi round one survey questionnaire ................................................................................ 222

Appendix C .......................................................................................................................... 226

Delphi round two survey questionnaire ................................................................................ 226

Appendix D .......................................................................................................................... 230

Delphi round three survey questionnaire .............................................................................. 230

viii Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Traditional rational planning process ......................................................... 12

Figure 2-2: A pipeline, event-based model of development process ............................ 14

Figure 2-3: Tansley‘s ecosystem view .......................................................................... 16

Figure 2-4: Interdependent components of ecosystem approach .................................. 18

Figure 2-5: Relationship among planning, development and ecosystem ...................... 19

Figure 2-6: Sustainable urban planning and development process ............................... 20

Figure 2-7: Administration of land use planning system in Malaysia .......................... 25

Figure 2-8: Linkage between residential development and the three sustainability

elements ................................................................................................... 27

Figure 2-9: Typical traditional village houses in Malaysia ........................................... 30

Figure 2-10: An example of residential neighbourhood developed in piecemeal

fashion ...................................................................................................... 31

Figure 2-11: Examples of detached houses built by lot owners on subdivided lot

parcels ...................................................................................................... 33

Figure 2-12: A typical master-planned residential development in Malaysia .............. 37

Figure 2-13: Six different typological frameworks for sustainability development ..... 45

Figure 2-14: The three pillars of sustainability model .................................................. 47

Figure 2-15: The circle of strategic planning and performance measurement .............. 50

Figure 2-16: Domain-based framework utilising environmental, social and

economic sustainability ............................................................................ 65

Figure 2-17: Conceptual framework of the study developed based on the triple

bottom line sustainability ......................................................................... 66

Figure 2-18: Potential indicators within the conceptual framework of the

research .................................................................................................... 67

Figure 3-1: Research design for the study ..................................................................... 72

Figure 3-2: Case study locations within the city council area ....................................... 87

Figure 3-3: Land use classification of subdivision development case study ................ 89

Figure 3-4: Land use classification of piecemeal development case study ................... 90

Figure 3-5: Land use classification of master-planned development case study .......... 91

Figure 4-1: The structure of Chapter Four .................................................................. 100

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia ix

Figure 5-1: The structure of chapter five .................................................................... 114

Figure 5-2: Internal connectivity of CS1 (subdivision development) ......................... 120

Figure 5-3: Internal connectivity of CS2 (piecemeal development) ........................... 121

Figure 5-4: Internal connectivity of CS3 (master-planned development) .................. 121

Figure 5-5: External connectivity of CS1 (subdivision development) ....................... 122

Figure 5-6: External connectivity of CS2 (piecemeal development) .......................... 123

Figure 5-7: External connectivity of CS3 (master-planned development) ................. 123

Figure 5-8: Public open spaces in CS1 (subdivision development) ............................ 125

Figure 5-9: Public open spaces in CS2 (piecemeal development) .............................. 125

Figure 5-10: Public open spaces in CS3 (master-planned development) ................... 126

Figure 5-11: Output of Origin-Destination Matrix analysis showing residential

parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS3 (subdivision

development) ......................................................................................... 128


parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS2 (piecemeal

development) ......................................................................................... 129


parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS3 (master-planned

development) ......................................................................................... 130

Figure 5-14: Output from Origin-Destination Matrix analysis of residential

parcel distance to nearest school in CS1 (subdivision development) .... 132


parcel distance to nearest school in CS2 (piecemeal development) ...... 133


parcel distance to nearest school in CS3 (master-planned

development) ......................................................................................... 134


parcel distance to local services in CS1 (subdivision development) ..... 136


parcel distance to local services in CS2 (piecemeal development) ....... 137


parcel distance to local services in CS3 (master-planned

development) ......................................................................................... 138

x Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia


parcel distance to parks in CS1 (subdivision development) .................. 140


parcel distance to recreation parks in CS2 (piecemeal development) ... 141


parcel distance to recreational parks in CS3 (master-planned

development) .......................................................................................... 142


parcel access to community centres in CS1 (subdivision

development) .......................................................................................... 144


parcel access to community centres in CS2 (piecemeal

development) .......................................................................................... 145


parcel access to community centres in CS3 (master-planned

development) .......................................................................................... 146

Figure 6-1: The illustration of the relationship between indicator weighting and

aggregation category on composite sustainability index ....................... 163

Figure 7-1: Final list of sustainability indicators according to category ..................... 180

Figure 7-2: Sensitivity index of two normalisation techniques .................................. 184

Figure 7-3: The neighbourhood layout sustainability assessment (NLSA)

framework developed in this study ........................................................ 185

Figure 7-4: Implementation of NSLA at planning approval stage .............................. 193

Figure 7-5: Implementation of NSLA at post completion / occupation stage ............ 194

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia xi

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Typologies of master-planned communities ............................................... 36

Table 2-2: Population growth in Malaysia 1980 -2010 ................................................ 40

Table 2-3: Characteristics of the three different types of residential development

in Malaysia ................................................................................................. 41

Table 2-4: Compilation of 80 environmental indicators related to residential

development ............................................................................................... 56

Table 2-5: Compilation of 37 social indicators related to residential development ..... 57

Table 2-6: Compilation of 11 economic indicators related to residential

development ............................................................................................... 57

Table 2-7: Potential indicators for assessing the levels of sustainability of

residential development layouts ................................................................. 59

Table 3-1: Strengths and weaknesses of Delphi technique ........................................... 74

Table 3-2: List of potential respondents for Delphi survey .......................................... 79

Table 3-3: Delphi experts‘ profile for round one .......................................................... 80

Table 3-4: Profile of expert participants in round two of the Delphi survey ................ 80

Table 3-5: Expert participants in round three of the Delphi survey .............................. 81

Table 3-6: The categories and their respective indicators for the Delphi round

one survey .................................................................................................. 83

Table 3-7: General description of case study areas ....................................................... 88

Table 4-1: Delphi round one result ............................................................................. 101

Table 4-2: Combining and rephrasing existing indicators .......................................... 104

Table 4-3: Rephrasing existing indicators .................................................................. 105

Table 4-4: Additional new indicators suggested by experts ....................................... 105

Table 4-5: Final indicators derived from the Delphi round one survey ...................... 106

Table 4-6: Delphi round two results ........................................................................... 108

Table 4-7: Final indicators for iteration into Delphi round three ................................ 109

Table 4-8: Delphi round three results ......................................................................... 109

Table 4-9: Final list of sustainable neighbourhood assessment indicators ................. 111

Table 5-1: Description, measurement equation and units of indicator set .................. 115

Table 5-2: Average LUM index for the three case studies ......................................... 118

xii Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

Table 5-3: Residential density calculation of the case studies .................................... 118

Table 5-4: Impervious surface calculation .................................................................. 119

Table 5-5: Internal connectivity calculations .............................................................. 120

Table 5-6: Calculation of external connectivity and sustainability benchmark

score.......................................................................................................... 124

Table 5-7: Calculation of open space provision and sustainability score ................... 124

Table 5-8: Non-motorised transport facilities indicator and sustainability score ....... 127

Table 5-9: Calculation and scores for access to public transport stops ....................... 131

Table 5-10: Calculation and scores of access to education facilities indicator ........... 132

Table 5-11: Access to local services within 600m network coverage ........................ 135

Table 5-12: Calculation and scores of access to parks indicator ................................. 139

Table 5-13: Calculation and scores of access to community centre indicator ............ 143

Table 5-14: Distances from emergency services to case study area ........................... 147

Table 5-15: Calculations of crime prevention and safety indicator ............................ 148

Table 5-16: Traffic calming indicator of residential streets ........................................ 149

Table 5-17: Diversity of commercial establishment types .......................................... 150

Table 5-18: Calculations of affordable housing indicator and sustainability levels ... 151

Table 5-19: Calculations of housing option diversity and benchmark scores............. 152

Table 5-20: Summary of measurement scales and scores of indicators ...................... 153

Table 6-1: The indicator original score and its respective normalised scale .............. 157

Table 6-2: Normalisation scale based on the categorical scale technique .................. 158

Table 6-3: Normalised score based on categorical scale technique ............................ 159

Table 6-4: Normalisation scale based on the above and below mean technique ........ 161

Table 6-5: Normalised score based on above and below technique ........................... 162

Table 6-6: Regional profile of expert respondents in Delphi round two .................... 164

Table 6-7: Regional profile of expert respondents in Delphi round three .................. 164

Table 6-8: Indicator weightings for the three groups of expert respondents .............. 165

Table 6-9: Aggregate category between the three groups of expert respondents ....... 166

Table 6-10: Six frameworks derived from different combinations of

development techniques ........................................................................... 168

Table 6-11 Composite index derived from six frameworks for case study 1

(CS1), case study 2 (CS2) and case study 3 (CS3) .................................. 169

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia xiii

Table 6-12 Differences in ranking between three groups of experts based on

categorical scale normalisation ................................................................ 171


above and below normalisation ................................................................ 172

Table 6-14 Differences in ranking between categorical normalisation and above

and below mean normalisation technique based on all experts ............... 173

Table 6-15: Sensitivity index of two normalisation techniques .................................. 175

Table 7-1: Normalised indicator scores derived from category scale and above

and below normalisation techniques ........................................................ 182

Table 7-2: Six frameworks derived from different combinations of development

techniques ................................................................................................. 183

Table 7-3: Sustainability composite index and rank between different types of

residential neighbourhood development .................................................. 187

Table 7-4: Sustainability level of different indicators of the Master-planned

development ............................................................................................. 188

Table 7-5: Sustainability level of different indicators of the subdivision

development ............................................................................................. 190

Table 7-6: Sustainability level of different indicators of the piecemeal

development ............................................................................................. 191

xiv Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

Statement of original authorship

___________________________

SUHARTO TERIMAN

Date: ____/____/_____

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to

meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education

institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains

no material previously published or written by another person except

where due reference is made.

Suharto

Pencil

Suharto

Pencil

Suharto

Pencil

Suharto

Pencil

Suharto

Pencil

Suharto

Pencil

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia xv

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deep appreciation and sincere gratitude to my principal

supervisor, Associate Professor Dr Tan Yigitcanlar, and associate supervisor, Dr

Severine Mayere. Their vast experience in this field of research has proved invaluable,

and their constructive advice and guidance has enabled my PhD research to come to

fruition. I will always remember their kindness and encouragement, which keep me

going strong right till the end of this PhD journey.

I am very blessed to be surrounded by individuals who have provided me with a

supportive atmosphere during my PhD journey. I would like to thank my beloved

wife, Wan Rabiah Wan Omar, for her patience, unending encouragement and for

believing in me; my wonderful children – Auni Batrisyia and Ahmad Asma‘an – for

always being there for me. Their love, care and patience provided me with the strength

to remain focused in my study. Special thanks to my mother and my late father (whose

presence I will always miss), and my parents in law, whose words of inspiration

provided me with the courage to keep my spirit going. My sincere gratitude also

extends to my fellow research students, especially Fatih Dur, who taught me a lot

during the analysis stage of my study.

I am also indebted to my employer in Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi MARA, and the

Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, for providing me with invaluable financial

support to pursue my PhD here in Australia. Studying in a foreign environment has

provided me with a great opportunity to learn from other perspectives and experiences

and has taught me to become a more independent and resilient person.

xvi Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia

Publications

Journal papers:

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2009). Urban sustainability and growth

management in South-East Asian city-regions: A comparative policy analysis of

Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, Vol 7,

47-68

Teriman, S., & Yigitcanlar, T., (2011). Social infrastructure planning and sustainable

communities: Experience from South East Queensland, Australia. World Journal of

Social Sciences, Vol 1, No 4, 23-32

Book chapters:

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2010). Sustainable urban infrastructure

development in South East Asia: Evidence from Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and

Singapore. In T. Yigitcanlar (Eds.), Sustainable urban and regional infrastructure:

Technology, planning and management. New York: IGI Global.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2011). Sustainable urban development: An

integrated framework for urban planning and development In T. Yigitcanlar (Eds.),

Rethinking sustainable development: Urban management, engineering, and design.

New York: IGI Global.

Refereed conference papers:

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2008). Promoting sustainable urban

development in fast growing city-regions: Practices from Kuala Lumpur and Hong

Kong. Paper presented and accepted into Conference Proceedings: International

Subtropical Cities Conference, 3-6 September 2008, Brisbane, Australia.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2009). Sustainable urban development: A

quadruple bottom line assessment framework. Paper presented and accepted into

Conference Proceedings: Postgraduate Infrastructure Conference, 26 March 2009,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2009). Urban growth management for

sustainable urbanisation: Examples from Asia-Pacific city-regions. Paper accepted

into Conference Proceedings: International Postgraduate Conference, 5-6 June 2009,

Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2010). Sustainable urban development:

Formulation of indicator-based residential sustainability assessment framework for

local level. Paper presented and accepted into Conference Proceedings: Knowledge

Cities World Summit, 16-18 November 2010, Melbourne, Australia.

Measuring neighbourhood sustainability: A comparative analysis of residential types in Malaysia xvii

Teriman, S., & Yigitcanlar, T., & Severine Mayere (2011). Social infrastructure

planning and sustainable communities: Experience from South East Queensland,

Australia. Paper presented and accepted into Conference Proceedings: Business and

Social Science Research Conference, 3-4 January 2011, Dubai, UAE

Chapter 1 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

Land uses contribute to the sustainability of urban development and their collective

contribution towards achieving urban sustainability has attracted the attention of

scholars to investigate the links between urban development and sustainability (Berg

& Nycander, 1997; Brandon & Lombardi, 2005; Blumenthal & Martin, 2007;

Choguill, 2008; Winston & Eastaway, 2008; Winston, 2010). Whilst urbanisation is

inevitable, growing concern about its undesirable impact has led to an increased

awareness that the development of urban land use should be carefully managed in

order to be sustainable (Bebbington & Gray, 2001; Teriman, Yigitcanlar, & Mayere,

2009). Such impacts arise because of the continued urbanisation and population

growth that increasingly depleting the natural resources and threaten the continued

existence of our balanced ecosystems (Marcotullio, 2004; Becker, 2005; Frame &

Vale, 2006; Jabareen, 2006; Karol & Brunner, 2009).

The sustainability level of urban living spaces has become a major contributor to the

overall sustainable urban development (Choguill, 2008). At the local level, the

concept of sustainability is increasingly influencing the planning of residential

developments. In this respect, residential developments should be a cause of concern

because they constitute a major component of urban land use (Muoghalu, 1990).

There are three main types that comprise the mainstream, and form integral parts of

contemporary residential neighbourhood developments in Malaysia, namely,

subdivision, piecemeal, and master-planned developments. A piecemeal residential

development is characterised by a small scale, normally mixed type housing scheme,

each constructed by different, smaller scale developer in the absence of an overall

blueprint plan for the residential zone. Over time, the whole residential zone will be

fully occupied with various residential projects, each developed independently of the

other, and hence, termed as ‗piecemeal development‘.

Another type of residential is the traditional subdivision developments, which is also

devoid of an overall blueprint plan. This type of development has, over many decades,

been synonymous with the provision of single family housing in suburban areas. The

2 Chapter 1

developer or owner subdivided the land into small parcels (for detached dwellings)

and upon approval from the land department, the developer/owner sells the parcels

and the buyers are free to build the house at any time and with their own designs but

subject to planning approvals. The appeal of subdivision developments belongs to

their low-density arrangements that offer attractive, rural-style living and added

privacy. Meanwhile, since the mid-1990s, mega developers in the country have been

developing master-planned housing estates, which consist of large scale mixed types

of housing development on green field agricultural land. The mix of land use in

master-planned developments not only supports and enhances each element within the

development, but also gives residents a rich and diverse environment in which to live,

work, shop, play and learn (ULI, 2003).

Given the impact of residential development on sustainability is important and

together with the rapid progress of residential development, this study is inspired to

investigate the level of sustainability of the three different types of residential

development. Such investigation in Malaysia is new and the finding of this study can

provide fundamental information for planning and developing future residential

neighbourhoods that are more sustainable.

1.2 Research problems and questions

In most Asian countries, the rapid progress of urbanisation, fuelled by migration from

rural areas, has altered traditional land use components (Teriman et al., 2009).

Residential land use is increasingly impacting on sustainability, along with

commercial and industrial uses. Since residential neighbourhoods constitute an

important element of urban sustainability, development decisions during the early

phase of development, especially at layout planning, will have a far reaching effect on

the level of sustainability of neighbourhoods (Friedman, 2005). These decisions range

from, among other things, deciding on the internal circulation and external

accessibility of the neighbourhood, placing of infrastructure and amenities and types

and orientation of residential dwellings in respect of the site characteristics. In this

regard, this research has identified literature gaps in two aspects. First, despite the

importance of neighbourhood layouts on the level of sustainability, limited measures

are available to assess the level of sustainability of residential developments, and

empirical studies to assess the sustainability performance of residential developments

Chapter 1 3

are few and far between (Blair et al., 2003). Secondly, of the existing sustainability

assessment frameworks, most of them focus on measuring sustainability at the

regional, national and international levels (Winston & Eastaway, 2008; Winston,

2010).

Given the impact of residential development on sustainability is important and

together with the rapid progress of residential development, this study is inspired to

investigate the level of sustainability of the three different types of residential

development that comprise the mainstream, and form integral parts of contemporary

residential neighbourhood developments in Malaysia (subdivision, piecemeal, and

master-planned developments). Due to these variations, it is unknown which types of

development offer more sustainability value.

As for Malaysia, such investigation is new because no definitive measures have

evolved to gauge the sustainability of layouts at the neighbourhood level. This

deficiency creates a gap that this research attempts to bridge, that there is no way to

measure the sustainability performance of neighbourhood development layouts, which

could provide a basis for comparative analysis between subdivision developments,

piecemeal developments and master-planned developments. The finding of this study

can provide fundamental information for planning and developing future residential

neighbourhoods that are more sustainable. Given the enormous contribution that

residential developments make to urban sustainability (Choguill, 2008), especially in

developing countries such as Malaysia, which record high levels of urbanisation

(Government of Malaysia, 2007; Teriman et al., 2009), it is surprising that such

consideration has taken so long to occur. In light of this scenario, this research

investigates three inherent problems.

First, the findings from the literature suggest that despite relatively advanced

sustainable development policies referring to the importance of residential

developments, indicator sets focusing on residential sustainability are surprisingly

limited, and research into this area is still underdeveloped (Winston & Eastaway,

2008; Winston, 2010). Of those few indicators that could be considered for measuring

residential neighbourhood sustainability, limited knowledge is available concerning

which indicators are most relevant and most important to use in the measurement. The

4 Chapter 1

literature findings prompted this research to use the Delphi survey technique to

identify important indicators to measure the level of sustainability of neighbourhoods.

Second, most existing sustainability assessment frameworks focus on measuring

sustainability at the regional, national and international levels. These frameworks use

indicators and benchmark levels as a means to measure progress towards achieving

development sustainability for dimensions, such as economic, environment and social.

Even though it is best to face sustainability issues from a local perspective (Garde,

Saphores, Matthew, & Day, 2010), where most sustainability issues originate from,

limited frameworks, are, however, available to assess the level of sustainability of

residential developments in the subdivision, piecemeal and master-planned

developments.

Lastly, many new master-planned developments market themselves as

environmentally friendly, and provide layouts that encompass sustainable design and

development. However without any form of assessment on its development, it still

remains unknown whether in terms of physical layout design, they are in fact more

sustainable compared to other forms of residential developments.

1.3 Research aim and objectives

The broad research question related to the three aforementioned issues is how to

measure the level of sustainability of different types of neighbourhood developments

in Malaysia? In order to answer this question, a broad aim and specific research

objectives are developed for this research. The broad aim of this research is to develop

a framework for measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood developments

and apply it to the three types of residential developments in Malaysia. The specific

objectives of the research are:

i. to identify environmental, social and economic indicators which can be used to

evaluate the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts;

ii. to develop a valid assessment framework based on the indicators identified for

measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts;

iii. to apply the assessment framework to different types of neighbourhood

developments in order to determine their level of sustainability.

Chapter 1 5

1.4 Research methodology

This research employed a mixed-method research strategy and applied an embedded

research design. The use of a mixed method research strategy enables the application

of quantitative and geospatial data to generate important output for analysis.

Embedded research design involves embedding one dataset within the other (in this

case embedding quantitative data into geospatial analysis) so that one type of data

provides a supportive role for the other dataset (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). These

sequential stages begin with generating a list of indicators suitable for measuring the

sustainability of residential development layout, and include these indicators in a

sustainability assessment framework. The second stage involves testing the framework

for measuring the sustainability levels of three selected residential neighbourhood

layouts in Malaysia.

1.5 Research significance

This research is seen to be significant and important in respect to its theoretical and

practical contributions. This research contributes to the body of literature by extending

the triple bottom line (environmental, social and economic) sustainability approach in

terms of identifying the set of indicators for the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood development layout in Malaysia. It also expands the literature

concerning the level of sustainability of subdivision, piecemeal and master-planned

developments, as well as the usage of these indicators to the assessment.

This research contributes practically by developing an assessment framework

comprising the environmental, social, and economic indicators specifically to measure

the sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. The framework provides fundamental

information and guidance to policy makers and development agencies when

evaluating and quantifying the level of sustainability of neighbourhood developments.

The framework can also facilitate sustainability comparisons over time in respect of

the neighbourhoods as a means to monitor changes in the level of sustainability. The

sustainability composite index generated from this framework provides evidence to

the policy makers and development agencies as well as raising awareness concerning

the need to develop and maintain a sustainable neighbourhood.

6 Chapter 1

1.6 Delimitation of the research

The research was delimited to three selected case studies of different types of

residential developments which are subdivision, piecemeal and master-planned

neighbourhood developments. The proposed assessment framework was

operationalised to determine the levels of sustainability of these residential

developments in terms of their layout design. In identifying the most suitable

indicators for measuring residential layout sustainability, this research also sought

assistance from selected international and local Malaysian experts with professional

knowledge and expertise in sustainability planning within the built environment field.

Although the results are based on the level of sustainability within the three case

studies, these results could only be generalised to the study area municipality. Any

generalisation to other similar neighbourhood developments in other areas in Malaysia

should take into account differences in development guidelines applicable to the

particular areas.

1.7 Outline of thesis

This thesis is organised into seven chapters, which includes an introduction, literature

review, methodology, results from the Delphi survey, results from spatial analysis,

and, finally, a discussion of the results and implications, followed by a conclusion.

Chapter one provides an introduction and overview for this study. Included in this

chapter is a discussion of the background to the research, research problem, aim and

objectives of the research, overview of the methodology used, the significance of the

study, as well as the scope of the study.

This chapter presents a review of related literature. It begins with a discussion of the

literature on sustainable urban development and sustainability considerations in

residential developments. The next section discusses sustainability assessment and the

methods currently in use. The following section reviews sustainability indicators and

lists potential indicators for assessing the level of sustainability of neighbourhoods.

The chapter concludes with a brief summary.

Chapter three provides a detailed description of the research methodology and

discusses how the research was developed and conducted. A description of the

methodology used to address the study objectives is also provided. The choice of an

Chapter 1 7

embedded mixed methods approach (Delphi survey and spatial data from layout

analysis) is explained, and each of the method phases is described.

Chapter four identifies the important indicators for measuring sustainability of

residential development layout, and followed by normalisation procedures for the use

in the assignment of indicator weightings. Chapter five presents the analysis carried

out to assign indicator weightings and category aggregate and followed by uncertainty

and sensitivity analyses to ascertain the robustness of the assessment framework in

Chapter six.

Chapter seven presents a discussion of the results and conclusions of the findings. The

findings are discussed according to the research objectives presented in Chapter 1.

The implications of the research include the study‘s contribution to the body of

knowledge and practice. The limitations of the study and recommendations for future

research are also outlined. The chapter finally concludes with an overall comment on

this study.

Chapter 2 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature relevant to this research, and is organised into

fourteen sections. Following the introduction, the second and third sections highlight

the concept of sustainable urban development and its relationships to urban planning

and its development process. Sections four to six provide an overview of land use

planning and development control regulations in Malaysia. Section seven describes

residential neighbourhood developments and descriptions of the main neighbourhood

types, namely, traditional village development, subdivision development, piecemeal

development, and master-planned development. Section eight describes sustainability

issues among the different types of residential developments in Malaysia. Section nine

highlights the key findings and gaps arising from the literature search, followed by a

description of the framework development in section ten. Sections eleven and twelve

discuss about indicators, their use as a performance measure in sustainability

assessment and potential indicators for assessing the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood developments. Sections thirteen and fourteen discuss indicators for

measuring sustainability levels of residential developments identified from the

literature and the selection of potential indicators this research. Section fifteen

describes the conceptual framework used for this research, while the last section

concludes the chapter with a summary of the main literature.

2.2 Sustainable urban planning and development approaches

Urban land use comprises three main components, commercial, residential and

industrial. As urbanisation grows, competition for urban land use has driven

residential and industrial use away from city centres into the suburbs. Whilst it is

crucial to the process of development and creating a modern state (McGhee, 2008), it

is argued that urban growth, especially residential sprawl, is at the forefront of

environmental damage through the depletion of natural resources to accommodate

development (Karol & Brunner, 2009). In light of these issues, and the fact that

residential use will continue to play an important role in land use planning and

10 Chapter 2

distribution, coordination is increasingly viewed as essential to ensure that the

negative impacts of residential sprawl can be minimised and that urbanisation can take

place in a sustainable manner without having to sacrifice the quality of life.

It is acknowledged that urban planning can play this coordination role, because it is

designed to regulate land use activities and ensure adequate provision of necessary

infrastructure and amenities to support the population. It guides these activities

through spatial planning, which has been viewed by experts in the built environment,

especially planners as a key to achieve sustainability at the local level (WHO, 1999;

Ministry of Environment, 2001). This way, planners are in the ideal position to

address development needs and improve the social, ecological, spatial and economical

components towards sustainable future planning.

Since the evolution of urban planning, a number of planning approaches have been

advocated to guide urban planning activities, from top-down rational planning to

participatory and collaborative planning. The evolution of these different planning

approaches through time occurred due to the awareness that ultimately urban planning

needs to make ‗the best decision possible with the resources available‘ (UN-Habitat,

2010, p. 7) including working towards achieving sustainable development. The

following section explains three main approaches/theories that are commonly applied

in the urban planning and development processes in relation (but not limited) to

spatial planning: rational planning theory, the event based development concept, and

the ecosystem approach.

2.2.1 Rational Planning approach

The public authority-oriented urban planning of the 1950s is based on rational

planning, one of the major traditions in planning theory. It refers to a set of planning

processes for selecting and implementing the best possible plan from a number of

alternatives. This concept, which was pioneered by Edward Benfield (1955), sets out a

formal planning process in plan making denoted by a number of steps or courses of

action. According to Schonwandt (2008), Benfield‘s model constitutes four essential

steps: (a) analysing the situation, (b) establishing goals, (c) formulating possible

courses of actions, and (d) comparing and evaluating the consequences of the actions.

The rational model represents what planners believe is rational or to plan with reason.

Chapter 2 11

According to Hoch (2007), rationality refers to how we use reasons to guide choices.

Furthermore he argued that people would not support plans lacking reason, because

such reason justifies the content of the plans, and offers rational advice about what to

do for the future.

Lawrence (2000) argued that the rational planning concept has been central to the

evolution of modern urban planning; and its application has resulted in the

development of master planning or comprehensive planning. This concept offers a

systematic forward progression from goal setting to forecasting the impact of

alternatives; and from the selection of alternatives that best achieve public goals to

implementation; and then back again through a feedback loop (Lawrence, 2000;

Berke, Godschalk, & Kaiser, 2006). Using the same basic principles, various authors

have designated these steps in different ways, some refining them more acutely

(Schonwandt, 2008). Berke et al. (2006) for example, discussed the model as an eight-

step process involving: issues identification, goals formulation, alternative

considerations, objectives determination, plan evaluations, plan selection, plan

implementation and finally outcome monitoring (Figure 2-1).

Since its inception in the 1950s, the rational planning model has been a dominant

planning paradigm and received widespread support and application (Lawrence, 2000;

Schonwandt, 2008). The authors also claimed that over time the application of the

model was not limited to physical planning but could be extended to include social

and economic, as well as public policy, politics and corporate planning. It provides

systematic and consistent connection and relationships between each step of the

process, utilising logic and evidence in analysing planning issues and proposals, as

well as providing a common sense way of anticipating the future through its

continuous review along the process (Lawrence, 2000; Berke, et al., 2006).

Proponents of rational planning also point out other characteristics of this model,

including systematic applications of reasoning, bringing forth unitary public interests,

providing a controllable environment and enabling the implementation of the final

plan making process. One characteristic that stands out, especially among

practitioners, is that the role of planners as expert advisors is well defined (Lawrence,

2000). Owing to these practicalities, rationalism is currently being applied in most

12 Chapter 2

Figure 2-1: Traditional rational planning process (adapted from Benfield, 1955 and

Berke et al., 2006)

general and sectoral plans, where it takes into account the descriptive courses of action

that ought to be taken during the process and allows for the inclusion of various

facilities and land requirements to accommodate changes or forecast variables

including population, economy, natural resource conditions and housing needs (Berke,

et al., 2006).

Opponents of the rational planning model, however, have listed a number of criticisms

of the model. Wachs (2001), for example, argued that in considering alternative plans,

the use of assumptions and logic based on expert opinions, and when not being

disclosed to the public, will have a tendency to invite public opposition as these plans

may not be compatible with public concerns and values. Furthermore, Lawrence

(2000) purports that rationalism is weakened when implemented because it neglects

the central role of dialogue in planning and fails to integrate substantive issues, such

as social and environmental needs in the design process. He adds that the model tends

to overestimate the ability to predict and control the environment, as it relies on the

Chapter 2 13

consequences of trends and emerging conditions to give numerical projections of

future accounts, and not the more meaningful, mental picture or inspirational view of

what the future is going to be (Lawrence, 2000; Berke, et al., 2006).

Despite these criticisms, rational planning concepts still prevail, especially in planning

practice. One explanation for the renewed interests in the concept is attributed to the

fact that psychologically, it provides reassurances to planners and practitioners as part

of the decision-making process. In consideration of the advantages and shortcomings

of the model, it is understood that some form of stakeholder input should be

embedded into the model to create a publicly acceptable form of urban development

process. Berke et al. (2006, p. 48) contended that the criticisms directed at rationalism

―could not be justified if the rational planning model were to incorporate various

aspects of consensus building and the participatory design models of planning‖. These

arguments have led to the following discussion on the relationship between planning

and implementation.

2.2.2 Event-based Development approach

Clarke (1995) argued that the traditional, comprehensive master-planning approach to

urban planning and implementation has often been ineffective because too much

emphasis has been put on plan-making, whilst on the implementation (or development

side), the emphasis has been comparatively less. In attempting to highlight the

importance of the implementation issue, Healey (2008) identified four different types

of model to represent the general development process. These included the

equilibrium model of neo-classical economies, the event-sequence model from an

estate management perspective, the agency model from an institutional perspective

and the structure model which is grounded in urban political economy. However,

when considering the land development process, these models lack specific focus on

planning related implementation. Gore and Nicholson (1991) intimated that the nature

of the land development process is very complex and no single model can entirely

represent such a process. Notwithstanding, one interesting model that depicts the

relationship between the planning and development process, and focuses on the

sequence of events of this process, is the event-based development model (Adams,

1994).

14 Chapter 2

Barrett et al. (1978) developed an event-based approach to the development process

that can be divided into four distinct phases: evaluation, preparation, implementation

and disposal. According to Adams (1994), one of the best event-based models is the

development pipeline concept (Figure 2-2). This model reduces the multiplicity of the

development process into three broad events, starting with development pressures,

subsequently, development feasibility, and finally implementation, which includes

construction and transfer of completed development. In practice, the model operates

as a spiral, producing a fresh pattern of land use at the end of each cycle, therefore,

highlighting the dynamic nature of the development process.

Figure 2-2 shows that the initial development pressures and prospects all constitute

part of the planning stage. In fact, the implementation process starts towards the end

of the development feasibility section, involving evaluation of physical and market

conditions, and proceeds with legal and administrative procedures prior to

construction on the ground. In the case of residential developments, the construction

may be undertaken by the developers themselves; however, commercial developers

Figure 2-2: A pipeline, event-based model of development process (adapted from

Barrett, 1978 and Adams, 1994).

Chapter 2 15

more commonly reassign the jobs to building contractors, under the supervision of a

professional team comprising among others, architects, engineers and quantity

surveyors (Adams, 1994).

Upon completion of the construction phase, the project moves into the final stages of

delivery and onto purchasers for occupation. This completes the full cycle of the

implementation process. With sustainability concerns currently in advanced stages,

especially, in developed countries, sustainable urban development has become a major

influence in the physical planning of the built environment and should be looked at

more closely. This will be elaborated upon in the following section.

2.2.3 Ecosystem approach

Spatial planning was traditionally carried out to achieve economic and social

objectives. It has long been observed that the promotion of a sustainable urban future

was not often incorporated into the process. As a result, it is argued that the planning

process did not provide a satisfactory means of protecting the environment, especially

from the negative cumulative environmental effects of development and expansion of

urban areas (Neufeld, Cockfield, Fox, & Whitelaw, 1994). Attempts to include

planning with ecological principles and green design have been around for four

decades and were obvious in the work of Ian McHarg‘s (1969) Design with Nature

and Frederick Steiner‘s The Living Landscape (1991). Additionally, Arendt (2004)

also introduced the basic principles of green neighbourhood design into local planning

and ordinances. However, as Berke et al. (2006, p. 393) argued, these ideals of green

communities of the early twentieth-century did not take root in contemporary planning

practice. The author also contended that even though the increasing consensus pointed

to the positive effects of the green dimension towards sustainable urban form, efforts

to integrate the dimension into the building of human settlements is far from effective.

Notwithstanding, the drive towards a sustainable urban future must also take account

of our ecosystem, upon which we ultimately depend. The importance of a functioning

ecosystem including for human life is well recognised within the concept of

sustainability and ecological integrity (Rainham, McDowel, & Krewski, 2008).

However, there is always the tendency that attempts to improve human well-being

will threaten this integrity. As highlighted by McGranahan et al. (2001), the urban

16 Chapter 2

environmental transition theory suggests that urban development expansion leads to a

series of environmental challenges, which are often localised, immediate and health-

threatening. However, as cities expand and increase in affluence, these challenges

become global, long-term and ecosystem threatening, and may jeopardise the future

sustainability or healthy existence of the world ecosystem (McGranahan, et al., 2001).

The transition of ecological planning, from nature to community, was first recognised

by Arthur Tansley, who, in 1935, proposed the ecosystem concept, which incorporates

components from all plant communities, the biotic environment and the physical

environment (Vasishth, 2008; Pickett & Grove, 2009) (Figure 2-3). In other words,

Tansley expounded that it is the relationships between organisms and their

environment that provides the perspective for ecology (Yang & Lay, 2004).

Figure 2-3: Tansley‘s ecosystem view (adapted from Vasishth, 2008)

Odum (1989) enhanced the ecosystem concept to the whole environment, including

urban system, and argued that the human man-made environment received energy and

material flows at a faster rate than the natural environment. Lyle (1985) made Odum‘s

concept more operational in a planning sense by introducing the ‗human ecosystem‘ in

Chapter 2 17

which he maintained that human advancement has compromised nature, and is

continuously replacing the efficient ecosystem with an inefficient system that

threatens our source of sustenance. He introduced what he called regenerative

technology (Lyle, 1994), which replaces and alters the materials and energy that

humans use, and integrates art and science to optimise nature‘s ability to regenerate.

An ecosystem approach to land-use planning processes provides systematic guidance

on the interrelationship between human activities and ecosystem health. This approach

places an importance on the ecological context in decision-making and the evaluation

of the human-natural relationship. In other words, it treats ecological goals equally to

and simultaneously with economic and social goals, and, further, acknowledges that

there are limits to the degree of stress ecosystems can accommodate before they are

irreversibly degraded or destroyed (Neufeld, et al., 1994). An important aspect of this

approach is the ‗adaptive management‘ strategy: rule and management criteria flexible

enough to handle changing biophysical and human-related events, and shifting goals

(Marcotullio, 2004).

Neufeld et al. (1994) said that the ecosystem approach, as illustrated in Figure 2-4,

includes five major, interdependent components: (a) boundaries for planning purposes

(use of biophysical boundaries within which human-nature interaction is assessed), (b)

environmental objectives and targets (focusing on protection and natural regeneration

of ecosystem), (c) evaluation of cumulative environmental effects, (d) information

collection and management, and (e) monitoring (objective achievements and

effectiveness of planning decisions). The ecosystem approach provides a promising

technique: it uses ecosystems as the regional units for planning, and integrates

biophysical issues with social and economic issues. Moreover, a more efficient

development review process (evaluation) can be realised through the ecosystem

planning approach because it delivers better up-front guidance on the location, type,

and timing of development.

18 Chapter 2

Figure 2-4: Interdependent components of ecosystem approach (adapted from

Neufeld, et al., 1994)

Neufeld et al. (1994) believe that the integration of ecosystem considerations into

planning will promote urban sustainability initiatives because it will prevent

development decisions from jeopardising the future ecosystem and human health.

Therefore, where the ecosystem and human health remain intact, potential costly and

difficult remedial actions can be avoided. Neufeld‘s argument is also supported by

Niemela (1999) who emphasised that ecological information needs to be seriously

considered in urban planning to ensure the sustainable development of urban areas.

2.3 Sustainable urban planning and development process

Based on reviews of these three approaches, it can be seen that the rational planning

(Figure 2-1) and the event-based development approaches (Figure 2-2) fundamentally

involve two distinct but interrelated cycles. The ecosystem approach (Figure 2-4), on

the other hand, reflects the growing concern for the sustainability of the urban

development process. Proponents of ecosystem theory believe that the development

process should take place within the limit of what the ecosystem can withstand. In

other words, urban planning and development processes should operate within the

limits of the ecosystem boundary in order to achieve sustainability in the long run.

Therefore, it is possible to integrate these three important components–planning,

implementation and ecosystem sustainability–into urban planning and development

Chapter 2 19

process to create a sustainable-oriented urban planning and development culture

(Figure 2-5). In this regard, planners (who historically see themselves as defenders of

socio-economic equality) will see their roles further enhanced–as reconciling agents in

promoting economic growth; in ensuring physically balanced growth distributions;

and, at the same time, in ensuring the protection of the ecosystem (Campbell, 2003).

However, this is challenging as planners need some form of sustainability assessment

mechanism integrated into the planning process. The purpose of such assessment is to

determine whether the activities undertaken within each stage in the development

process contribute to the targeted sustainability goals.

Figure 2-5: Relationship among planning, development and ecosystem

Collectively, the components illustrated in Figure 2-5 contribute to the outcome of the

final concept of sustainable-oriented development process which involves planning,

implementation, and sustainability evaluation to achieve a desired future settlement

(Figure 2-6).

Each component in the process includes a list of criteria or variables, some of which

may require particular evaluation techniques. This integrated planning and

implementation process begins with defining the planning issues and goals, which

may involve any one or all three aspects (environmental, social and economic). Once

identified, the goals and objectives are refined in step 2, taking into account the

priority ones. In step 3, alternatives are generated, and based on the achievement of

selected goals and intended objectives. In step 4, these alternatives are thoroughly

assessed, subsequent to a collaborative understanding between experts and the

stakeholders. Sustainability is among the criteria of the assessment.

20 Chapter 2

Figure 2-6: Sustainable urban planning and development process

Chapter 2 21

Once the best alternative is selected, it goes through the first round of sustainability

evaluation, with the purpose of ensuring that it meets the sustainability criteria or

levels being set. In the case that it falls short of this assessment, the selected

alternative/plan will be returned to the stage(s) where the shortfall occurs. If however,

it meets the evaluation requirement, the alternative/plan will go to the beginning of the

implementation process (step 5), involving a feasibility evaluation of the proposed

development. It will then proceed to the construction stage (step 6), where various

administrative procedures and funding arrangements will have to be met and

organised. Construction progress is regularly monitored to ensure compliance with the

development plans and financial resources. In step 7, the construction project will

have been completed and upon finalisation of paperwork and administrative

procedures, it is delivered to the buyers or stakeholders. Finally, in step 8, a fixed

period is set for monitoring the just delivered/commissioned project to ensure any

defects/deficiencies arising from the construction of the project are remedied.

The second round of sustainability assessment takes place after this stage, but not until

the project has been occupied or is in operation for a certain acceptable period, where

the owners/occupiers have been well adapted to the development and environment

around them. Compliance with sustainability evaluation characteristics means such

projects are contributing towards a sustainable urban future whilst non-compliant

projects will be subject to a re-evaluative process, for future project improvement. For

existing projects, the re-evaluation may require retrofitting be undertaken where

applicable.

It should be noted, however, that in consideration of the differing views on planning

and development processes put forward by the various researchers, the addition of

consensus building and participatory design efforts is necessary to rectify the

shortfalls of the rationalist philosophy. Indeed, consensus building has become the

reigning paradigm in planning theory since the 1990s as it brings together major

stakeholders to address controversial issues and to reach an agreement on these issues.

Furthermore, this approach supports a shift in the role of planners, from one of merely

providing expert opinion and technical leadership, to another important role of

mediating between and communicating with stakeholders (Innes & Booher, 1999;

Healey, 2006). Planners listen, provide information, and foster convergence among

22 Chapter 2

the different interests and ensure no parties are disadvantaged during the process

(Healey, 2006).

In the era of increasing concern for sustainability in the built environment, an

integrated framework that incorporates both rationalised planning and development

processes, executed within the limitations of the ecosystem, can be seen as one way of

continuing the urbanisation process in a sustainable manner. In addition, by having

some form of sustainability assessment throughout the process, people would be able

to know whether sustainability elements exist in the planning and implementation

stages and, if so, whether they, have really been achieved and implemented, and

appreciated by the end user. Furthermore, such an integrated framework would enable

the community to create, implement and adapt plans that progressively guide change

in ways that balance the multiple goals of sustainable urban development (Berke, et

al., 2006). Any shortcomings identified in the assessment stage can be rectified by re-

evaluating the specific stage of the development process where the shortcomings

emerge.

This research focuses only on both sustainability assessment aspects of the

development process shown in Figure 2-6, on residential development layouts because

of its great impact on sustainability. Not only does it occupy an increasing percentage

of urban land uses, its location and design also bring about environmental, social and

economic implications (Choguill, 1996; Ekins, 2000).

2.4 Sustainability at planning stage

Urban planning originated as a response to the appalling living conditions that were

widespread throughout the cities of the nineteenth-century (Adams, 1994; Barton,

2009). From this public health-oriented beginning, planning began to shift towards

promoting a more efficient use of land for human settlement and activities. In serving

the improvement of a state of affairs, planners proposed certain actions or measures to

achieve a desired outcome (Schonwandt, 2008). Intentional intervention by planners

in the development process is undertaken using a variety of mechanisms involving

regulations, collective choice, and stakeholder participation (Hopkins, 2001). In

spatial planning, examples of the techniques used by planners during the early

planning stage include such things as the traditional general plans and the zoning of

Chapter 2 23

land use. During the implementation and development stages, development standard

and guidelines are used to facilitate and guide the development process.

Increasingly, sustainable development concept has become an important element in

the field of urban development planning within developed nations in particular, where

sustainability issues and awareness are quickly gaining recognition (Choguill, 2008)

and is promoted at various levels of the administration system. Based on the iconic

definition ‗development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs‘ (WCED, 1987, p8), Dresner

(2008, p 70) considers sustainable development as ‗a meeting point for

environmentalists and developers‘. Bell and Morse (2003) on the other hand sum up

the definition as comprising two elements, namely making settlement better

(development) and maintaining such development (sustainability), which was

classically being portrayed as encompassing environmental, economic and social

interfaces. According to Dresner (2008), the concept of sustainable development was

initialised to incorporate environmental considerations into development policy,

which has always been an economic-led affair. Apart from that, the author also added

that sustainable development should also encompass the concept of equity, that is a

moral obligation to ensure future generations enjoys the opportunities and privileges

of consuming the world‘s resources.

Even though the concept of sustainability planning has been rigorously promoted

within almost all levels of government machinery, a few authors argue that the

implementation progress of sustainable development is less than impressive (Lafferty

& Eckerberg, 1998; Mog, 2004; Wallbaum, Krank, & Teloh, 2011). Among the

reasons lie in the complexity of its meaning and difficulty to operationalise due to its

highly dynamic and contested nature, as well as it is difficult to obtain and integrate

the views and priorities of the different actors and stakeholders into a single solution

(Mog, 2004; Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders, 2004; Carmona & Sieh, 2005,

2008; Wallbaum, et al., 2011). The most obvious difficulty, if not impossible to

address in sustainability at the planning stage, is the need to balance the three

competing nature of economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice

(Campbell, 2003; Bell & Morse, 2008; Mori & Christodoulou, 2012).

24 Chapter 2

While interest in urban sustainability was mainly generated from global and national

perspectives, the locality theorem (Camagni, 1998) suggests that it is better to face

these issues from local perspectives (Garde, et al., 2010) from which most

sustainability issues originate. As a result, spatial planning and development process

increasingly require the inclusion of statement justification on how proposed

developments will contribute or enhance sustainability within the local context.

2.5 Land use Planning and development control practice in Malaysia

Modern town planning in Malaysia has its roots from the United Kingdom planning

system (Taib & Ho, 2008), which consists of development plans and development

control procedures for matters related to planning considerations (Lee, 1996; Bruton,

2007). Town planning legislation in the country has its beginning as early as 1923

with the Town Planning Bill (Lee Lik, 1991; Taib & Ho, 2008). It underwent various

reviews and royal commission inquiries and upgrades from ordinance to a planning

bill, before it was finally enacted as the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976. Since

its inception, the act has undergone two revisions (1995 and 2001) and becomes the

main legal reference for the spatial planning and development management in the

country (DTCP, 2010a).

The administration of land use planning system in Malaysia consists of a three-tier

system of federal, state and local planning (Figure 2-7). At the federal level, the

National Physical Plans (NPP) are prepared to govern a five year spatial planning of

the country (DTCP, 2005). These plans are interpreted at the state level in the form of

Structure Plans, which translate the national policies into individual states‘ priorities

(Zakaria, 2007) and provide a framework for development planning at the local level.

Here, local plans and special area plans are produced to guide the spatial development

in these local areas. The hierarchy of plans shows that there is a coordinated and

guided approach to urban planning and developments in Malaysia (Goh, 1988).

Chapter 2 25

Figure 2-7: Administration of land use planning system in Malaysia (adapted from

DTCP, 2005)

The legal foundation for the NPP and all other statutory plans mentioned above is the

Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) (revised in 2001) (DTCP, 2010a).

The Federal Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) is responsible for

drafting all these plans. However since all matters pertaining to land are governed by

individual states, the DTCP can only advise state authorities to implement structural

and local plans. There are cases in which due to local needs and requirements, the

state may not act in tandem with federal advice as spelt out in the development plans.

Such planning issues are resolved through consultations between the two parties in

order to avoid delays in the development process (Mohamed, 2002).

Development control practice in Malaysia involves the regulation and control

mechanism prior to the commencement of development projects. With regard to land

use planning, development plans act as important control mechanisms for the

development and management of land. Apart from environmental management, these

plans also assist in translating socio-economic objectives into spatial and physical

developments (Pereira, Tiong, & Komoo, 2010). At the state levels, the state, through

its state planning committee can endorse local plans and special area plans, after

which the respective local authorities must implement these plans. Development

26 Chapter 2

guidelines and standards are also produced at the state levels and add to these control

mechanisms to further detail out and guide development planning applications and

approval processes. Throughout these processes, local authorities will consult relevant

technical departments before granting planning permission for the commencement of

development projects or conversion of land for development.

2.6 Planning and regulations governing residential developments in

Malaysia

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) oversees the nation‘s

housing development, in line with the national housing policy initiated since the

1960s, which is to provide access for all Malaysians to adequate and affordable

shelter. The majority of residential properties in Malaysia is constructed by housing

developers. They are licensed developers and their activities are regulated by the

MHLG through the Housing Developers and Control Act 1966. This Act defines

housing developers as:

Businesses developing or providing monies for developing, or purchasing or of

partly developing and partly providing monies for purchasing, more than 4

units of housing accommodation which will be or are erected by such

development (Government of Malaysia, 1966).

In terms of the legal process of residential development in Malaysia, it is governed by

a number of provisions, including the Town and Country Planning Act (1976), Street,

Drainage and Building Act (1974) and Local Government Act (1976). In terms of

technical details, all types of residential development must adhere to the DTCP‘s

Planning Standard and Guidelines, as well as other guidelines enforced by individual

states through their local planning authorities. In this regard, developers are free to

develop any housing scheme of any size, subject to adherence to the development

plans and planning guidelines.

Besides the general Planning Standard and Guidelines, the federal government,

through the DTCP also produces specific planning guidelines for housing

developments such as guidelines for the development of affordable housing schemes

(DTCP, 2006), gated community and guarded neighbourhoods (DTCP, 2010b), and

Chapter 2 27

guidelines for the optimum layout of housing developments ((DTCP, 2003). Other

residential development types such as master-planned developments and subdivisions

follow these general planning standards and guidelines wherever applicable and any

other specific guidelines of the respective state and local authorities.

2.7 Residential Neighbourhood Development

Choguill (2008, p. 42) acknowledged that Howard‘s garden cities had transformed

"urban planning from public health exercise to one which considered the detailed

spatial arrangement of urban activities... for the first time, the neighbourhood became

an integral part of urban planning activity." The author also argues that cities and

regions cannot be considered sustainable if their component parts, such as

neighbourhoods, do not meet the sustainability criteria. Edwards (2000, p. 12)

considered residential development as being the central element linking together the

triple bottom line of economic development, environment and social welfare and that

it is ―the agent that cements communities‖ in the sense that it acts to these elements to

create a sustainable community (Figure 2-8). The sustainability is about a compromise

between environmental, economic and social objectives, and stands for a better quality

of life for everyone, now and for generations to come within the limits of permissible

environmental impact (Pike, Tomaney, & Rodrigues, 2006).

Figure 2-7: Linkage between residential development and the three sustainability

elements (Edwards, 2000)

28 Chapter 2

2.7.1 Definition and characteristics of neighbourhood

The United States Green Building Council‘s LEED-2009 defines a neighbourhood as

‗an area of dwellings, employment, retail, and civic places and their immediate

environment that residents and/or employees identify with in terms of social and

economic attitudes, lifestyles, and institutions‘ (USGBC, 2009, p. xvi). In addition, the

Charter of New Urbanism (CNU) characterises a neighbourhood as a compact,

pedestrian friendly and mixed-use area (CNU, 1996). Meanwhile, Jenks and Dempsey

(2008) describe a neighbourhood as comprising both the physical and social elements:

a district, representing an area where people live, and a community, representing the

people themselves, who live in that particular area. On the other hand, Girling and

Kellet, (2005) describe a good neighbourhood is a place that offers good homes,

availability of nearby shops, local services, amenities and infrastructure, education

facilities, job opportunities as well as being safe from crime and traffic. In order to

develop a good neighbourhood that most people want to live in, the size of

neighbourhood is crucial to ensure that it is capable of accommodating all the

necessary elements for it to be considered sustainable (Girling & Kellett, 2005; Jenks

& Dempsey, 2007).

The typical way of making a rough estimation of a good neighbourhood size is based

on a comfortable distance for walking from the centre of the neighbourhood to its

edge. Clarence Perry, for example, outlined a neighbourhood as a centre surrounded

by civic uses, parks, residential uses, a school, and retail at the edge, all within one-

quarter mile (400 metres) from the centre, or about a 5-minute walk. This amounts to

an area or pedestrian ‗shed‘ of 125 acres, or, if the land area is a square, 160 acres

(USGBC, 2009). In terms of population, most industry standards in the USA propose

a minimum of 1,500 households (3,000–3,500 people) to support a neighbourhood‘s

commercial establishments (Girling & Kellett, 2005).

Additionally, the completeness of a neighbourhood refers to the extent to which daily

and weekly needs are close to homes. Examples include grocery stores, banks,

medical facilities, coffee shops, restaurants, hair salons, day-care centres, schools and

parks. Compatible civic uses (schools and places of worship) should also be located

nearby. For local stores and services to thrive, potential customers must be close

Chapter 2 29

enough to sustain them economically. The term close should mean it is easily

accessible from home, within a 5 to 10 minute walking distance.

2.7.2 Neighbourhood types

Currently, there are four main types of residential neighbourhood development in

Malaysia namely the traditional village, piecemeal, subdivision and master-planned

developments. Given this scenario, it is believed to be necessary to evaluate which of

these development types are more sustainable. This evaluation helps to provide

fundamental information in improving sustainability of housing supply. The following

section describes the characteristics of these different types of residential

development.

2.7.2.1 Traditional village development

The traditional village is among the oldest forms of settlement in modern human

history. Although called by different names in different countries from hamlet in UK

to tsuen in China, traditional villages comprise of clusters of human settlements of up

to 1,000 people. Such figure however varies among countries. In most cases the

houses are located close to each other and surrounded by subsistence agriculture.

In the Malaysian case, a village is called kampong, located outside built up areas and

generally have around 100 houses. In some cases, a kampong can have as few as 10

houses. These houses, which are normally made of hard timber and wooden planks,

and sit on timber or concrete stilts, are located close to each other (Figure 2-9). In

some other cases however, the houses are scattered and interspersed with paddy fields,

rubber smallholdings or palm oil plantations. In terms of planning and development

control, these houses are generally located on agricultural land and hence do not

require planning permission.

30 Chapter 2

Figure 2-8: Typical traditional village or kampong houses in Malaysia

2.7.2.2 Piecemeal development

Development that occurs in a piecemeal way normally exists in parts which add to the

existing bigger development (Oxford Dictionary). In residential development

planning, this refers to houses which are developed in a piecemeal way and adds to the

existing clusters of neighbourhood development. In the Canadian experience, such

piecemeal development fits the description of small scale residential construction on a

vacant lot or a series of lots adjacent to existing residential development (IBI Group,

2011). Such development can take 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. In the USA experience, such

piecemeal developments also fall within the suburban infill development category,

which refers to the development of land within existing suburban areas which was left

vacant during the development of the suburb (Farris, 2001).

With regard to the Malaysian circumstance, piecemeal residential developments take

the form of blocks or clusters of houses that are developed in stages on a vacant lot or

a series of vacant lots, by different developers at different times (Figure 2-10). Each

stage of the development takes place with proper planning approval and conditions set

by the local planning authority. In terms of locations, piecemeal developments take

place within the city fringe or suburbs. The main reasons are the ready market for the

developments and the opportunity to utilise existing facilities and amenities available

within the existing adjacent or nearby neighbourhoods.

Chapter 2 31

Figure 2-9: An example of residential neighbourhood developed in piecemeal fashion

which consists of up to four different housing types developed at

different times by different developers (older terrace houses on the

foreground, stretches of detached houses next to it, and newer terrace

housing on the background)

A significant amount of vacant land exists within urban residential zones in Malaysia.

Under the country‘s National Land Code (Government of Malaysia, 2007) local

authorities cannot force landowners to develop such land, unless the landowner wishes

to do so. The majority of the land is owned either individually or by developer

companies. Such land is retained for various reasons including for business

speculation, as land banks for future development when the time comes, or to be

developed in a piecemeal way avoid providing amenities (such as open space) should

the land be developed as a whole (Zulkarnain, personal communication, April 4,

2011). When all or the majority of the land has been fully developed for residential

use, the local authority is required to allocate spaces for the provision of amenities.

The difference between piecemeal developments with the general concept of infill

development is that it does not have the formal objectives of infill development, which

give attention to creating a complete, well-functioning neighbourhood, and with

attention to the essential design element that fits the existing context, in order to gain

neighbourhood acceptance (Listokin & Walker, 2007). Piecemeal development is not

seen as desirable because it is considered as lacking the overall planning of the

neighbourhood. For example, by developing in a piecemeal way, the entire

32 Chapter 2

neighbourhood is devoid of the optimum provision of amenities. However, it is argued

that with a proper planning, piecemeal development can still 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 (IBI Group, 2011).

2.7.2.3 Subdivision development

Most local ordinances define subdivision as the division of land into two or more

parcels, whether for immediate or future use (Shellharbour City Council, 2004;

McDermott, 2008). In the case of residential subdivisions, it refers to the division of

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 lot subdivisions (more than 0.4 ha), standard minimum lot subdivision

(0.27ha) (Austin, 2004), or small lot subdivisions (smaller than 450 square metres)

(Shellharbour City Council, 2004). People may purchase the residential lots from

developers who sub-divide unimproved parcels of land into building lots, and provide

within-subdivision infrastructure (Thorsnes, 2000), including streets, sewers and water

lines (McDermott, 2008).

Typical lot sizes for subdivision developments, however, vary between countries; they

range between a minimum one-eighth of an acre for a standard subdivision in

Malaysia to half acre lots in Australia and the USA (DTCP, 1995; Arendt, 2004). In

terms of lot layout, standard subdivisions usually involve sub-dividing a site with the

primary goal of maximising the number of lots of the minimum size according to local

regulations (Pelchar et al., 2007). However, it is often argued that such arrangements

often disregard the site‘s original natural features (Pelchar et al., 2007). In the USA,

another form of subdivision, although not very common, involves clustering homes on

certain parts of the subdivision land while setting aside the remaining land for use as

protected communal natural areas and green spaces (Austin, 2004; Bowman et al.,

2009). It is argued that such an arrangement, which is called open space or

conservation subdivision (Arendt, 2004) is appealing to modern subdivision as it

incorporates elements of environmental sustainability into its design at the preliminary

stage (Bowman et al., 2009).

Chapter 2 33

In the case of Malaysia, subdivision developments are generally located within

suburban areas. In contrast to the western definition of subdivision which generally

refers to lot parcels with buildings, residential subdivision in Malaysia typically

consists of vacant lot parcels with basic infrastructure such as road, sewerage,

drainage, water and electricity supply. Individual parcel owners or buyers are

responsible to build their dream houses according to their own designs (Figure 2-11).

They are also responsible to get all necessary documentations and approvals prior to

building the houses. A standard form of subdivision is represented by a small lot

measuring 20 metres by 30 metres or slightly smaller in areas of high development

pressures or of higher land prices. The major providers of subdivision lots are the

local authorities and individual landowners who subdivide their land into small

residential parcels and sell them individually.

Figure 2-10: Examples of detached houses built by lot owners on subdivided lot

parcels

The appeal of subdivision developments belongs to its low-density arrangements that

offer attractive, rural-style living and added privacy. In terms of general building

regulations, subdivision developments have a standard on the developable area that

ensures adequate spacing between neighbouring structures and access. A number of

general regulations are regarded as similar between countries, such as flexible house

designs and compliance with the standard building and safety regulations. This form

of development must also comply with other general regulations including lot size and

layout, open space and infrastructure, and utility provision. For example, subdivisions

in Australia and the USA offer large private front or backyards for the family, while

the smaller subdivisions in Malaysia limit such private areas to outside the house.

34 Chapter 2

2.7.2.4 Master-planned development

Master-planned developments (MPDs) are increasingly becoming an integral part of

residential developments (McGuirk & Dowling, 2009). Drawing from the North

American perspective, MPDs are defined as large scale integrated housing

developments on large tracts of undeveloped, suburban greenfield land, with mixed

housing types, landscape and recreational, commercial and service facilities (ULI,

1998). It is developed based on ‗a mechanism of planning control over an entire

project site, underpinned by a particular vision for the completed development‘

(Gwyther, 2005, p. 58). Located on the growth frontier of city fringe, they sometimes

occur on renewal or infill sites, whose essential features include a definable boundary

and fairly uniform character, and with the provision of physical and social

infrastructure (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999; Gwyther, 2005; Goodman & Douglas,

2008).

In their study on selected Australian MPDs, Yigitcanlar et al. (2007) differentiated

MPDs with other developments based on the size of the population it contains.

According to Ewing (2009), a MPD should be larger than 800 hectares, which

distinguishes MPDs from other developments, whilst Minnery and Bajracharya (1999)

identified MPDs as having a total area of over 1000 hectares. Apart from a large area,

Minnery and Bajracharya (1999) asserted that common features of MPDs include a

balanced mix of uses controlled by a master developer; and are master-planned early

in the development process. The development of MPDs not only combines a

complementary mix of land use but is also held together by a unifying set of design

elements gives residents a rich and diverse environment in which to live, work, shop,

play and learn (ULI, 1998, 2003). These design elements include the natural

environment, landscape, streetscape, site layout, built form and heritage

considerations (AMCORD, 1997) that also emphasise sustainable development

characteristics and appeal to a particular market segment (Goodman & Douglas,

2008). These distinct characteristics are valued by residents of the MPD because they

inculcate a sense of place within MPD.

For its beginning in the USA in the 1960s, the MPD concept has been gaining

popularity among developers from many countries including Australia (Goodman,

Chapter 2 35

2008). In Australia, MPDs, better known as master-planned communities (MPCs),

have been gaining popularity, particularly on the urban fringe (Costley, 2006;

Goodman & Douglas, 2008). Their definition of MPCs takes a broader perspective, in

the form of a large-scale, integrated housing development by a single development

entity. According to Blair et al. (2003), MPCs have become the dominant form of

urban expansion, whether on greenfield sites or brownfield development, and have

won a large segment of house buyers over from traditional subdivision developments.

It is observed that this trend represents comprehensive place making, a particularly

obvious shift from traditional house building (Goodman & Douglas, 2008). However,

according to McGuirk and Dowling (2009), many emerging MPCs, especially in

Sydney, fall within Blakely and Snyder‘s (1997) broad category of lifestyle preference

and/or life-cycle stage, and are considered as permeable development, with the

absence of gating, other than decorative entrances, at most of these MPCs. There is

also an increasing recognition among developers of MPCs, albeit weakly expressed, to

promote self-containment in newly developed MPCs (Yigitcanlar, et al., 2007). This

refers to people working and living in the same locally-defined area, such as within an

MPC, hence, reducing the need for long distance travel to work and promoting

environmental sustainability. However, a recent study by Yigitcanlar et al. (2007)

shows that the idea of self-containment is still yet to trickle down to the ground, and

MPCs in Australia are not as self-contained as many would have claimed.

MPDs have many additional elements considered as part of the design process

including solar access, community facilities, landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular

traffic, and building form. These elements and issues are normally tackled in a

comprehensive manner during the planning and design stage of MPD (Blair, et al.,

2003). Schmitz (1998) concluded that MPDs offer bargained packages with benefits

ranging from lifestyle, security and sense of community. Schmitz‘s assertion is

supported by McGuirk and Dowling (2009) who identified and differentiated these

various characteristics of MPD development based on the descriptive typology drawn

by Blakely and Snyder (1997). Using this well-established typology, McGuirk and

Dowling (2009) categorise the MPD developments into three types: lifestyle

communities, prestige communities and security zone communities (Table 2-1).

36 Chapter 2

Table 2-1: Typologies of master-planned communities (McGuirk & Dowling, 2009)

Types Features Characteristics

Lifestyle

Emphasis on common amenities for a

leisure class of common interests;

maybe reminiscent of small town,

urban village or luxury village.

Master-planned project with

suite of amenities and facilities.

Shared access to amenities for

an active lifestyle

Prestige

Reflect the desire for image, privacy

and control; focus on exclusivity over

community; a few shared facilities

and amenities.

Restricted access; usually

without guards.

Secured and guarded privacy

Attractive locations.

Security Zone

Reflect fear of crime; involve

retrofitting fences and gates on public

streets; controlling access.

Restricted access to limit crime

or traffic.

Closed access to some streets to

limit through traffic.

Lifestyle oriented MPDs draw residents by the use of common amenities and facilities

supporting healthy and active living. Developments focusing on prestige are

characterised by their perceived status or reputation, where developers create MPDs

with a certain image that appeals to certain segments of the population (Grant, 2004).

MPDs with limiting access characteristics belong to the security conscious type,

probably for fear of crimes originating from outside of the community. This type of

development, however, is more reminiscent of the gated-style communities.

In Malaysia, the development of master-planned developments did not begin until the

late 1990s, following rapid urbanisation and a surge in demand for housing. Such

development is also called a new township development. It is usually built by a master

developer on greenfield areas, including on ex-oil palm plantations. The master

developer advances the MPD in stages, based on pre-drawn master plans of the

respective local authorities. The overall size of MPDs in Malaysia, between 100

hectares and 500 hectares, is smaller in comparison to those in Australia or the USA

but the components are generally similar. Figure 2-12 shows an example of a typical

MPD in Malaysia, with terrace houses normally comprise a majority of its

development.

Chapter 2 37

Figure 2-11: A typical master-planned residential development in Malaysia

Planners have long held that such comprehensive development of MPD by a single

developer has the advantages of providing greater design flexibility, better

neighbourhood environments, exclusive open spaces, and community facilities for the

residents (Suen & Tang, 2002).

2.8 Sustainable development assessment in Malaysia

Malaysia has undergone rapid environmental, economic and social transformations for

the last five decades, which have been accompanied by an unprecedented rate of

change in the natural environment (Hezri, 2004; Hezri and Hasan, 2006).

Consequently, as with many other developing countries, it faces a continuous conflict

between economic growth and conservation of its environment (Saadatian et al.,

2012). Following calls for the promotion of sustainable development concept by the

World Commission on Environment and Development through its publication of Our

Common Future (WCED, 1987), Malaysia has recognised the concept as central to its

national development (Hezri and Hasan, 2006). As a result, the country has included

the principles of Agenda 21 as an important part in drafting policies and plans for its

physical development (Bakhtiar and Ibrahim, 2007). However, in terms of local

sustainability monitoring, it has unfortunately faced an uphill task, not only by the

absence of a comprehensive framework of sustainable development but also the lack

of explicit and sufficient sustainable development strategy and indicators

(Papargyropoulou et al., 2012; Saadatian et al., 2012).

Having said that however, the ministry responsible for environmental management

does have a National Policy on the Environment that incorporates eight necessary

38 Chapter 2

principles to balance economic development with environmental conservation and

sustainable resource use (MOSTE, 2002). In addition, the ministry also developed the

country‘s green strategies for six areas including integrated development planning and

pollution prevention (Papargyropoulou et al., 2012). In terms of the assessment

framework focusing on sustainable development, Malaysian scholars and agencies did

manage to devise a number of assessment framework focusing on sustainable

development in general. The following is selected assessment developed by agencies

and scholars in response to the sustainable development agenda initiated earlier by the

government.

2.8.1 Malaysia Quality of Life Index

The Malaysian Quality of Life Index (MQLI) was developed by the Economic

Planning Unit in 1999 (EPU, 1999). The purpose of this national level evaluation is to

provide an aggregate measure of quality of life of the general population based 14

criteria (air quality, deforestation, clean water, income, working life, transport and

communication, health, education, housing, environment, family life, social

participation, public safety and culture and leisure) (EPU, 1999; Saadatian et al.,

2012). In 2002, the Economic Planning Unit again developed the Malaysian Urban

Quality of Life (MUQL), with a similar purpose as the MQLI but narrowing its target

to include only the population in major Malaysian cities (EPU, 2002). This time the

MUQL incorporates 19 indicators under 14 criteria (income, working life,

transportation and communication, health, education, housing, environment, family

life, community participation, public safety, culture and leisure, urban service, river

quality, and solid waste per capita) (EPU, 2002; Saadatian et al., 2012). Even though

these assessments represent a huge effort by the government towards sustainable

development, only about one third of the criteria used represents the sustainability of

biophysical, the rest are more towards socioeconomic well-being (Hezri, 2004).

2.8.2 Malaysian Urban Indicator Network

The Malaysian Urban Indicator network (MURNINet) is a computer network

designed to assess the sustainability levels of Malaysian cities and towns based on

selected performance-indicators developed by the Federal Department of Town and

Country Planning (DTCP). The development of these indicators started in 1998,

Chapter 2 39

following the endorsement of urban indicator programmes by the HABITAT Agenda

two years earlier. Initially a total of 56 performance-based urban indicators were

selected for the MURNINet project. These performance indicators are categorised into

11 components (demography, housing, economy, utility and infrastructure, public

facility, environment, social impact, land use, tourism, accessibility and

transportation, and management and finance), with data obtained from existing

sources of relevant government agencies and local authorities (Hezri, 2004). The

outcome from MURNINet is a ranking of participating cities and towns based on the

aggregated sustainability score of all 11 components with cities achieving more than

80% score are deemed as sustainable, while those achieving below 50% score are

considered as unsustainable.

It is envisaged that the use of MURNINet will benefit all levels of the government. At

the Federal level, MURNINet contributes towards achieving sustainable urban

development objectives of the Malaysian government. At the state level, it helps the

state identifying cities and towns with low sustainability levels and providing financial

assistance to improve the levels. This is important so that they can enhance their

services to the public. For the local authorities, from which the majority of

MURNINet indicators is generated, they can use the indicators to identify issues

associated with urban quality and public services, hence providing opportunities to

rectify these issues and improve service levels to the public.

2.8.3 Green Building Index

The Green Building Index (GBI) represents an effort by Malaysian experts to develop

a local level assessment of the sustainability of buildings. This effort came in light of

the increasing demand for green-rated buildings that would minimise destruction of

the environment (PAM, 2009). GBI Malaysia was introduced in January 2009 with the

main purpose to reduce building impact on human health and the environment through

environmental friendly design and construction (Tan Loke Mun, 2009). GBI rating is

awarded to buildings designed and constructed in an environmentally friendly way

based on six criteria (energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, sustainable site

planning and management, materials and resources, water efficiency and innovation)

(PAM, 2009; Saadatian et al., 2012). The ratings are based on the number of points

awarded for incorporating specific aspects related to these six criteria, with the rating

40 Chapter 2

ranging from standard (lowest) to platinum (highest) certification in the GBI category

(Malaysia Productivity Corporation, 2010).

2.9 Sustainability issues among different types of residential

development in Malaysia

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 twenty

million (72.2% of total population) in 2010 (Department of Statistics, 2000; 2010)

(Table 2-2). 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 in-migration of people from rural

areas in search of better quality of life (Jamaliah, 2004).

Table 2-2: Population growth in Malaysia 1980 -2010 (Department of Statistics, 2000;

2010)

Population (million) 1980 1990 2000 2010

Urban population 5.10 8.89 13.72 19.90

Rural population 8.04 8.67 8.48 7.66

Total population 13.14 17.56 22.20 27.56

Percentage of urban

population 38.80 50.62 61.80 72.20

Population in-migration has become one of the contributing factors to the rapid

progress of urbanisation, in the form of rapid development of residential

neighbourhoods to accommodate the increasing urban dwellers. In addition, the

expansion of city-regions, the increase 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

constructed on vacant land, which is owned by individuals, developer companies or

the government. Such land is retained for various reasons including for business

speculation or as land banks for future development. Local authorities have no right to

force landowners to develop such land, unless the landowner wishes to do so.

Chapter 2 41

Large and small-time developers are actively building houses ranging from a few

blocks to 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 sustainability. There are three

main types that comprise the mainstream, and form integral parts to contemporary

urban residential developments, namely, piecemeal developments, subdivision

developments and master-planned developments (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3: Characteristics of the three different types of residential development in

Malaysia

Item Development types

Subdivision Piecemeal Master-planned

Location Suburban area City fringes Greenfields

Development

size Minimum 1 acre Minimum 1 acre 100 to 500 hectares

Layout plans

Local planning

authorities and private

developers

Private developers Private master

developers

Sale type Vacant lot for single

dwelling

Lot and building

(completed house unit)

Lot and building

(completed house unit)

Type of

houses Detached dwelling

Mixed dwelling

(detached, semi-

detached, terrace)

Mixed dwelling

(detached, semi-

detached, terrace)

Provision of

amenities

Not required if less

than 30

Not required if less than

30

Provision according to

planning guidelines

House design

and

construction

Buyers Developers Developers

Planning

control

General development

guidelines

General development

guidelines

General and additional,

specific guidelines

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 one acre. Master-planned developments on the other hand are

based on pre-drawn overall master plan/blueprint plans, typically with a minimum

development size of 100 hectares (250 acres). The small-scale residential development

of piecemeal and subdivision has created disadvantages to residents because

developers can get away from providing basic amenities (such as open spaces and

community centre), should the number of dwellings fall under 30 units (DTCP, 1995).

42 Chapter 2

In contrast, master-planned developments, which involve a larger scale, have to

provide the necessary amenities as required by the planning standards. In addition,

because master-planned developments comprise a large number of houses, for the

purpose of marketing, developers are willing to provide additional facilities to attract

buyers. Indirectly, this creates a better quality of life for the residents. Many new

master-planned developments market themselves as environmentally friendly, and

provide layouts that encompass sustainable design and development.

Although master-planned developments provide 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 other reasons.

Although the increased density is compensated for by the physical infrastructure and

amenity (Gwyther, 2005), it has invited criticism relating to loss of privacy and

private space. Even though living in a closed community can create strong bonding

between residents and increase support for each other, it can also create social

exclusion with people outside their boundaries (Costley, 2006). In terms of

socioeconomic characteristics, Ross et al. (2002, p. 118) pointed out that, ―residential

segregation by income can promote distrust between groups and decline in overall

social connection within metropolitan communities‖. Such segregation, no matter how

subtle, has the tendency to undermine social cohesion as well as increase social

exclusion (Ross, Houle, Dunn, & Aye, 2004) and is therefore detrimental to achieving

a socially sustainable society.

These issues have been found 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, rural-style living and

added privacy. However, this has huge implications on the infrastructure and servicing

costs, which are increased due to the longer streets. The infrastructure and associated

public facilities that need to coincide with the entire neighbourhood 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 neighbourhood, but also

increase automobile related travel activities and its associated monetary and

environmental costs. It seems that MPDs do not face sustainability issues in a physical

Chapter 2 43

context as much as subdivision developments, but rather in respect of social and

economic issues.

2.10 Key findings and research gaps

Despite the importance of residential development in human settlement, studies

determining the level of sustainability have been limited. There are three reasons

attributed to this: first, although occupying an increasing percentage of urban land use,

only recently has sustainability been actively considered in residential developments

(Choguill, 1996, 2008). This comes following evidence that expansion of the urban

housing stock is rapidly depleting natural resources, especially urban land (Frame &

Vale, 2006). Second, even though the local housing developments are at the forefront

of sustainability efforts, the inadequate attention to conceptualising its sustainable

nature (Priemus, 2005) and lack of commitment to gauging its progress towards

sustainability (Winston, 2009), further exacerbates this already difficult effort. Third,

in most cases, professionals and academics are only embracing some aspects of

residential development issues. Even less take into consideration all the components

of residential sustainability in a holistic manner (Turcotte, 2006).

It is envisaged that piecemeal, subdivision and master-planned developments will

continue to contribute to the new housing stock in Malaysia because different buyers

have different preferences and limitations. As Malaysia is a democratic country where

residential developments are influenced by market demand, it means that as long as

there is a demand, developers who are business opportunists will try to fulfil that

demand. In respect of local authorities that are responsible managers of urban land

use, they need to play their role to encourage the provision of sustainable houses for

better quality of life. To date however, no studies have been conducted in Malaysia to

examine or to ascertain which of these three residential development layouts is more

sustainable.

To fill this gap, this research is being undertaken to develop a framework for assessing

the level of sustainability of these different types of mainstream residential

developments in Malaysia, focusing on their layouts at the neighbourhood level. The

results generated from this framework are expected to provide evidence to the policy

makers and development agencies as well as provide an awareness of the level of

44 Chapter 2

sustainability, and the necessary collective efforts required for developing sustainable

neighbourhoods. It will also guide policy makers and environment agencies in their

decision making process as well as provide continuous monitoring and assessment

which can facilitate a comparison of sustainability over time for neighbourhoods as a

means to monitor changes in the level of sustainability. In addition, the framework is

able to identify a particular indicator (issue) that has a significant impact on

sustainability.

2.11 A framework for neighbourhood sustainability assessment

Sustainability assessment is being viewed as an important impact assessment tool to

aid the move towards sustainability, or sustainable development (Pope, et al., 2004;

Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu, Anderberg, & Olsson, 2007). Pope et al. (2004) describe

sustainability assessment as a process by which evaluations are conducted on the

implication of planning initiatives on sustainability. According to Ness et al. (2007),

such assessment allows goals, objectives or dimensions to be assessed as part of the

transition to sustainability. The sustainability assessment mechanism adopted in this

research follows a framework-based approach, which involves the use of indicators

for measuring sustainability (Maclaren, 1996; Pope, et al., 2004; Mori &

Christodoulou, 2012).

While a framework in itself can assist in the indicator selection process, it cannot

decide what should or should not be selected as an indicator (Hardi, Barg, Hodge, &

Pinter, 1997). Instead, it is the structured evaluation method within the framework that

influences the indicator selection and reliability of the framework (Becker, 2005). The

function of a framework helps increase this reliability by only selecting those

indicators that fall within the framework‘s boundaries and interpretations. Such a

framework, according to Olalla-Tarraga (2006, p. 4), ‗helps to structure indicator sets

in a coherent manner, promotes interpretation and integration, reveals data gaps and

guides the overall data collection effort‘.

2.11.1 Basis for framework development

Bell and Morse (2003) argue that indicator-based assessment has been the most

widely used approach to measure development sustainability. However, since

Chapter 2 45

sustainable development should encompass the three dimensions of environmental,

social and economic, the authors suggest that the normal approach in measuring

development sustainability is to develop a framework of indicators that covers these

three dimensions, and interpret all three with an index value. This value can then be

presented in visual forms using geographical information technology. Values of other

indicators within the three dimensions can then make up a scenario of overlaid GIS

maps of individual indicators, which is very useful in scenario planning. Maclaren

(1996) develops six general typological frameworks as a basis for developing

indicator-based sustainability evaluations. These frameworks are the domain-based

frameworks, goal-based frameworks, issue-based frameworks, causal frameworks,

sectoral frameworks and combination frameworks (Figure 2-13).

Figure 2-12: Six different typological frameworks for sustainability development

(adapted from Maclaren, 1996)

According to the author, a domain-based framework contains three main categories of

sustainability (environment, economy and society) and identifies indicators for each.

This domain-based framework is also consistent with the triple-bottom line

sustainability concept. A goal-based framework identifies sustainability goals and then

creates one or more indicators for each goal or combination of goals. A sectoral

framework considers different sectors of economics or land use, including its indicator

46 Chapter 2

selection. A causal framework introduces the notion of cause and effect, similar to the

pressure-state-response framework, with indicators classified into cause and effect. An

issue-based framework works by identifying and listing key sustainability issues that

the community faces and uses the issue, or a combination of issues, as indicators. A

combination framework encompasses other frameworks and can help to create a

conceptual assessment model by bringing together two or more of the other general

sustainability frameworks. Another approach to assess sustainability is the Triple

bottom line (TBL), which is presented in the following section.

2.11.2 Triple bottom line and assessment of sustainability

The triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability, known as the TBL accounting and

reporting frameworks, has a dominant popularity in the corporate world and is used by

business owners and managers to reflect their corporate reporting beyond the financial

bottom line to include environmental impact and social contribution (Elkington, 1998;

Christchurch City Council, 2003; Pope, et al., 2004; Coffman & Umemoto, 2010).

This is a huge shift from conventional, economic focused business bottom line

sustainability, which limits the assessment to only finance and profitability (Blair, et

al., 2003). The TBL ultimately assumes that there are environmental, economic and

social ‗bottom-lines‘ which should be incorporated into any business and financial

reporting (Coffman & Umemoto, 2010).

In urban planning discourse, the TBL is also based on the three pillars comprising

environmental, social and economic sustainability (Pope, et al., 2004; Mori &

Christodoulou, 2012). The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development

(United Nations, 2002) for example explains that the TBL sustainability has three

mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development, namely, economic

development, social development and environmental protection. At this juncture,

sustainability is perceived as the position where these three pillars interact and create a

common platform (Figure 2-14) from which sustainable development can be attained

or exercised to achieve common benefits for all (ICLEI, 1996; Pope, et al., 2004).

Increasingly, the TBL is used as an assessment to direct planning and decision-making

towards sustainable development goals (Pope, et al., 2004; Hacking & Guthrie, 2008).

TBL evaluation has been applied to the sustainability assessment of human

Chapter 2 47

settlements, and this study has been extended to the assessment of residential

development layouts. Blair et al. (2003), for example, uses the TBL framework,

employing a number of TBL indicators to assess the affordability and sustainability

outcomes of master-planned communities. Zakaria and Yang (2004) have also applied

the principles reminiscent of sustainable TBL to identify strategies for smart and

sustainable housing developments in industrial areas. According to Kavaliauskas

(2008), TBL sustainability interest, which includes environmental, economic and

social categories, can be designed through the coordination of the land use

management and spatial planning.

Figure 2-13: The three pillars of sustainability model derived from ICLEI, (1996)

From the spatial planning point of view, the TBL assessment, along with assessment

approaches by other names such as integrated assessment, sustainability assessment

and extended impact assessment refers to evaluation techniques which incorporate,

combine or extend the different types of categories or impacts (Hacking & Guthrie,

2008). Even though the delineation between each assessment approach is not clear, the

TBL and other assessment approaches have the same aim of promoting, evaluating or

directing planning and decision making towards achieving sustainable development

(Pope, et al., 2004; Hacking & Guthrie, 2008).

48 Chapter 2

However, according to Hacking and Guthrie (2008) the use of TBL assessment

terminology is inconsistent and, sometimes, confusing because of the variety of

acronyms and terms in use and the meaning can differ not only between countries but

also between assessment levels. Pope et al, (2004) also argue that even if theoretically

TBL may sound feasible, in practice it should be applied with caution because if the

interrelations between the three pillars are not adequately understood, sustainability

would be reduced to three separate factors rather than the whole. Despite these

criticisms, the TBL inclusion in sustainability agenda is fundamental because it forms

one of the two main elements of sustainability and assessment including at the local

level, the other one being ‗over time preservation or intergenerational equity‘ (Mori &

Christodoulou, 2012, p. 96). The following section describes sustainability indicators

and their use in measuring sustainability.

2.11.3 Multi-attribute evaluation of plans

Many evaluation studies, including plan evaluation adopt performance assessment

methods across multiple indicators of differing measurement units. When used to

make comparisons among alternative projects, it is helpful to summarise the indicator

scores in a single aggregate value or index to allow meaningful comparison among

these alternatives. Such complex evaluation studies can be made simple using multi-

attribute evaluation or multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT). It is a decision

analysis technique that offers a structured way to weight, evaluate and make a

selection from a range of options or alternatives using a quantifiable method

(Edwards, 1982; Dawes et al., 2003; Frowein et al., 2004). In other words, it measures

how well attributes of a given alternative fare against a predefined set of evaluation

criteria.

MAUT utilises the importance value or weight assigned to each criterion on a given

alternative, and transforms these measures to a common scale (Frowein et al., 2004).

The score from all relevant criteria for each alternative are summed up to a single

aggregate value. Normally an alternative with the highest score will be selected as the

best or the winning alternative (Dawes et al., 2003). Generally, a MAUT process takes

six stages to complete (Hajkowicz, 2005), namely;

Chapter 2 49

a) Identifying the indicators which will form a part of the evaluation framework.

b) Identifying the set of actions, projects or programs being evaluated.

c) Weighting the importance of each indicator.

d) Converting the scores of indicators initially measured in different units into a

common scale.

e) Combining the converted scores and weights using an aggregation technique in

order to measure the outcome of each alternative.

f) Performing sensitivity analysis on the weights, indicator scores, conversion

methods and aggregation techniques.

One advantage of this evaluation technique lies in the evaluation of alternatives. Since

the criteria selection normally involves a consensus-based approach and rigorously

assessed prior to being selected, it reflects a structured and solid evaluation against

these alternatives (Dawes et al., 2003). Another advantage of MAUT is on the

practical side where the evaluation can be transformed into a standardised, logical

numerical score. This facility enables an analyst ‗to safely add apples and oranges‘

(Hajkowicz, 2005, p 59), hence can minimise what would have been a complex

comparison between alternatives. However some authors argue that MAUT tend to

invite conflicts and contention particularly in the discussion of attribute specifications,

making it hard to reach a consensus (Dawes et al., 2003). This has resulted in others

considering MAUT as time consuming and at times, it is almost impossible for all

parties to come to an agreement that satisfies everyone involved, especially those

involving controversial studies.

2.12 Performance measurement

Traditionally, performance measurement has been limited to finance, manufacturing

and organisational systems (Pawar and Driva, 1999). Following sustainability concern

about the environment, growing public pressure has seen organisations increasingly

assessing the performance of development, particularly involving physical and land

use developments (Lundberg et al., 2009). According to Becker (2005), such

measurement evaluates the human influence on the environment by comparing a

descriptive indicator with a reference value or target to determine progress towards

50 Chapter 2

sustainability. The author argues that the ability to measure progress is crucial because

it operationalises and raises sustainable development concepts to another level.

Hopkins (2012) argues that in assessing plans, planners should not only look into the

performance of plans, but also the conformance of the plans as well. According to

Dusenbury (2000), performance measurement provides or reports feedback on results

of strategic planning or activities, as shown in Figure 2-15. The feedback is then

utilised to adjust and strengthen the strategic plans to be on track towards achieving

desired goals, for example sustainable development.

Figure 2-14: The circle of strategic planning and performance measurement

(Dunesbury, 2000)

Despite the increasing importance of measuring performance in spatial planning, little

has been written in this area, especially to address emerging issues of

operationalisation (Planning Officer‘s Society, 2000; Carmona and Sieh, 2005; 2008).

Morrison and Pearce (2000) argue that many planning objectives are often difficult to

describe with measurable connotation because their processes reflect some kind of

intervention in the free market that would continue to operate even if such

intervention does not occur. In their study of performance measurement innovation in

English planning authorities, Carmona and Sieh (2005) highlight the difficulties but

promising initiatives in developing a holistic performance measurement. Part of these

difficulties stem from the complex nature of planning as both regulatory and

visionary, politically inclined and legally defined, long term and short term, and

having to mediate between the environmental, social, and economic outcomes of

development (Carmona and Sieh, 2008).

Chapter 2 51

Despite these difficulties, their subsequent study revealed that there is a strong belief

in the importance of performance measurements, especially within local authority

level. They strongly believe it is highly legitimate to measure performance in

planning, and the ultimate goal in their planning activities is to achieve sustainable

development, which they consider as a measurement of success (Carmona and Sieh,

2008). In addition, while the best way to understand any indicator is by expressing it

in its absolute value (Jasch, 2009), using indicators in performance measurements

requires a comparison of its value in relation to denominators also used by other

indicators. This will provide an initial common platform for performance

measurement to take place.

From its absolute value, an indicator can be expressed in relative figures, percentages,

aggregate and finally weighted value (Jasch, 2009, p. 56), and it is this final

expression that makes performance evaluation possible. In the case of this research on

residential developments sustainability, such evaluation would help gauge the level of

sustainability being achieved by residential neighbourhoods. In this research, a set of

indicator list will be derived from a review of existing research, and verified by local

experts from the development field, before being included in a proposed assessment

framework.

2.13 Indicators and sustainability measurements

2.13.1 Definitions of indicators

Almost all assessment methods whether single or integrated, or using qualitative or

quantitative data, adopt some form of indicators to assist in measuring output (Becker,

2005; Olalla-Tárraga, 2006). Of the many definitions of indicators which have been

put forward in various literature and studies (Maclaren, 1996; UNDP, 2001; World

Bank, 2002; Winston & Eastaway, 2008; Mori & Christodoulou, 2012), the best

working definition of an indicator is perhaps by OECD (2001, p. 8), which states that,

‗An indicator can be defined as a parameter, or a value derived from parameters which

provides information about a phenomenon‘. It is a tool or instrument that

‗communicate[s] information…[and] transcend[s] the direct meaning of data‘ (Olalla-

Tárraga, 2006, p. 3) or is a ‗representation of a measure…to indicate a condition‘

(Becker, 2005, p. 205). They are widely used for their capability in transforming

52 Chapter 2

meaningless data into information (Hak, Moldan, & Dahl, 2007), as well as complex

systems of information into ordinary simplified expressions. In the field of urban

development, Sustainable Seattle (1993, p. 4) defined urban sustainability indicators

as ‗reflect[ing] something basic and fundamental to the long term economic, social or

environmental health of a community over generations‘.

Maclaren (1996) cautioned, however, that indicators are mostly simplified versions of

complex phenomena; hence, should only be treated as something that gives an

indication of a situation. Additionally, it should be noted that there is no such thing as

a ‗one-size-fits-all‘ indicator. Unfortunately, while much has already been written

about the sustainability concept of human settlements, a shortage of research

contributions exists on the reflective experience of sustainability indicator use, as well

as lessons pertaining to its experience (Bell & Morse, 2008, Choguill, 2008).

2.13.2 Development of indicators

Since the early 1980s, and in particular after the launch of Agenda 21, the importance

of indicators in the development of human settlements at the national and international

levels has been well defined. For example, the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) produced the Human Development Report, which used social

and economic indicators to measure human development and health between countries

called the human development index (UNDP, 2001). However, it does not measure

the sustainability of human settlements. The World Bank produced the World

Development Indicators comprising 600 indicators under six themes (world view,

people, environment, economy, state and markets and global links) (World Bank,

2002). However, only environmental has a general classification related to land use.

The United Nations Commissions on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) was the

first organisation to develop an indicator set in 1996 (UNCSD, 1996). This indicator

set, which was revised in 2001, comprised 58 core indicators pertaining to

environmental, economic, social and institutional. However, it has limited indicators

in relation to residential development and only includes five general housing related

indicators. Nonetheless, it has become a starting point for many countries to start their

national indicator programmes (Haas, Brunvoll, & Hoie, 2002). Although the

European Common Indicators (ECI) project has released general environmental,

Chapter 2 53

economic and social indicators, it also has very limited indicators on housing that

include availability, affordability and access to council housing (Winston & Eastaway,

2008). The European System of Social Indicators (EUSI) produced an indicator set

that includes housing as one of a number of life domain indicators. These indicators

include, among others, availability and size of dwellings, amenities and facilities,

tenure, housing conditions, safety of residential area and energy consumption

(Winston & Eastaway, 2008). It can be concluded that even though indicator

development for sustainability has been around for a long time, they are mostly

developed and used at international level. Indicators applicable at national level are

limited, let alone those focusing at local level.

2.13.3 Indicators in physical planning

The strength of indicators lies in their usefulness in specifying measures, such as in

terms of desired outcomes, and based on an agreed policy. Maclaren (1996) outlined

four key characteristics that urban sustainability indicators should possess: ability to

be integrated, forward-looking, distributional and multi-stakeholder input. The author

stated that integrating indicators should work to provide good linkages among the

dimensions of sustainability. Forward-looking indicators should indirectly inform on

the potential future sustainability of a development path through the use of indicator

targets and thresholds. Distributional indicators should be able to account for the

distributive effects of domain conditions across a geographical context. Additionally,

they should also differentiate between local and non-local sources of environmental

effects. The final key characteristic that all sustainability indicators must have, and the

one that identifies it from other types of indicators, is the stakeholders‘ input in

developing the indicators (Maclaren, 1996). The basic nature of indicators is that most

are value-laden, and obtaining involvement from stakeholders is the best way of

soliciting the most reliable and valid indicators.

In physical planning, indicators are crucial as they help decision-makers transform

broad sustainability concepts into specific measures from which development progress

can be evaluated. Indicators serve three main purposes, namely, to (a) link objectives

to policy and improve decision-making, (b) provide report of an assessment, and, (c)

generate a consensus. The key purpose of indicators in physical planning is for

reporting the measurement of environmental, social and economic trends or

54 Chapter 2

phenomenon (Maclaren, 1996). In this respect, there are three related purposes for the

reporting the measurement of sustainability indicators: planning tools for policy

process, communication tools for policy assessment and performance and assessment

tools for evaluating development progress (Hardi, et al., 1997; Hezri, 2004; Carmona

& Sieh, 2005, 2008; Winston & Eastaway, 2008; Winston, 2009). Among these three,

performance measurement or indicators have been widely used in planning

applications because it provides a sound basis for measuring the success of planning

projects or actions.

2.14 Indicators for measuring residential sustainability

At the national level, the United States Green Building Council produced the LEED

for the Neighbourhood Development Rating System, which is a national standard for

assessing and rewarding environmentally superior neighbourhood development

practices by placing emphasis on site selection, design and construction (USGBC,

2009). It comprises 31 indicators under three themes (smart location and linkages,

neighbourhood pattern and design and green infrastructure. The rating system works

by awarding credit weightings on projects or neighbourhoods that perform well in

terms of smart growth, urbanism and green building (USGBC, 2009). These are

elements that contribute to sustainability. Another assessment criterion called the

green building index was developed for residential new construction (PAM, 2009).

The rating system, divided into six themes (energy efficiency, indoor environmental

quality, sustainable site planning and management, material resources, water

efficiency, and innovation), was mainly created for defining a standard of

measurement for green buildings. However, some of the indicators used in this rating

system also apply to general residential development. The Hunter New England

Population Health (HNEPH) developed a liveability index, which comprises 17

liveability indicators categorised under 4 themes (accessibility, connectivity,

sustainability and flexibility) (HNEPH, 2011). Most of these indicators are related to

access to neighbourhood facilities.

Aurbach (2005) developed the Design Rating Standards, which consist of 9 indicators

for the neighbourhood evaluation system. The standards mainly comprise

environmental and social indicators that focus on general layout design evaluation.

Chapter 2 55

Hart (2006) compiled a comprehensive list of sustainable community indicators,

which encompass economic, social and environmental aspects, and are intended as a

guide to measure progress towards becoming more sustainable. Other indicator studies

include those by Fahy and Ó Cinnéide (2007) on quality of life, which include

transport, community and environment; Halme et al. (2006), which include indicators

on environmental, social and economic aspects of household services; and Blair et al.

(2003), which has a number of highly relevant indicators concerning residential

sustainability, which his team used in an interesting study on housing affordability and

sustainability of master-planned communities in Australia.

Tables 2-4 to 2-6 show compilation of indicators generated from the literature search

from various reports, empirical and theoretical studies which are related to residential

developments. These include established general residential assessment tools such as

the LEEDS for neighbourhood development (USGBC, 2009), TND ratings (Aurbach,

2005), and the Smart Growth INDEX (USEPA, 2002). These indicators are divided

into three categories (environmental, social, and economic) to reflect the three

sustainability domains adopted for the proposed sustainability assessment framework.

56 Chapter 2

Table 2-4: Compilation of 80 environmental indicators related to residential

development (adapted from USEPA, 2002; Aurbach, 2005; Halme et

al., 2006; Hart, 2006; HNEPH, 2011; PAM, 2009; USGBC, 2009)

Preferred 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 (EE) Residential energy consumption

Renewable energy Imperviousness

Minimum air quality performance Stormwater runoff

Daylighting 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 neighbourhood 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

Chapter 2 57

Table 2-5: Compilation of 37 social indicators related to residential development

(adapted from USEPA, 2002; Aurbach, 2005; Halme et al., 2006; Hart,

2006; HNEPH, 2011; PAM, 2009; USGBC, 2009)

Mixed-use neighbourhood centres 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

Neighbourhood schools Housing proximity to education

Existing building reuse Housing proximity to key amenities

District heating and cooling Dwellings within 1/8 miles 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

Table 2-6: Compilation of 11 economic indicators related to residential development

(adapted from USEPA, 2002; Aurbach, 2005; Halme et al., 2006; Hart,

2006; HNEPH, 2011; PAM, 2009; USGBC, 2009)

Housing jobs proximity Jobs/houses- workers balance

Local food production Conforming employment density

Affordable housing Non-conforming employment density

Housing Choice Employment proximity to transit

Housing proximity to employment centre Locations with reduced automobile dependence

Employment opportunity

The tables however may consist of similar indicators which are used in different

studies or projects. The table shows that environmental category has the most

indicators (80), followed by social (37), and economical (11). These give a total of

128 indicators to be considered for further selection.

58 Chapter 2

2.15 Selection of potential indicators

The process of selecting indicators is generally complex and takes time (Hemphill,

Berry, & McGreal, 2004) because there is no standard practice and consistency in

selecting indicators regardless of the types of studies undertaken (Green & Champion,

1991; Hemphill, et al., 2004). Nevertheless, a few authors have listed down the

general guiding criteria for the selection process, including the number of indicators

that can be selected. Hatry et al. (1977) argue that when selecting indicators, they

ought to have the following criteria: valid and appropriate, reliable and accurate,

complete and comprehensive, cost effective and have short feedback time. Hemphill

(2004, p. 733) also stresses that each potential indicator should be assessed against

‗data availability, geographical specification, time-series prospects, implementation

and interpretability‘. The DETR (1998) lists down a more specific criteria that should

be taken into account in selecting indicators, namely, scientifically sound, measurable,

technically robust, easily understood, sensitive to change, and capable of being

regularly updated. With regard to the number of indicators that can be selected, Bell

and Morse (2008) suggest that 20 indicators is manageable for any study, whereas

Moles (2008) suggests up to 40 indicators can be used if time and resources are

available. It can be concluded that although there is no specific methodology for

selecting indicators, the process still follows scientifically acceptable steps to meet the

requirements of a specific study.

Biehl (1986) acknowledges that in any study, most indicators have a high possibility

of being considered as potentially relevant, and therefore, its selection must be

assessed rigorously. Hence, using the DETR recommendation for selecting the

indicators and applying it to a list of indicators derived from reviews of the related

literature on sustainable development, housing studies, and on assessment tools

focusing on residential development as identified in Tables 2-4 to 2-6, this research

identifies 38 potential indicators for assessing the levels of sustainability of residential

development layouts (Table 2-7).

Chapter 2 59

Table 2-7: Potential indicators for assessing the levels of sustainability of residential

development layouts

Potential indicators

1. Land use mix diversity

2. Residential dwelling density

3. Impervious surfaces

4. Street connectivity

5. Street route directness

6. Pedestrian accessibilities

7. Pedestrian network coverage

8. Vehicular entry and exit routes

9. Non-motorised transport facilities

10. Open space/active greens per dwelling

11. Open space/active greens per development area

12. Natural topography preservation

13. Sensitive areas/natural environment preservation

14. Vegetation retained to create the development

15. Storm water retention/detention system

16. Tree planting for shades/wind-break

17. Building exposure to natural ventilation (non-disastrous winds)

18. Proximity to public transit nodes/system

19. Resident‘s vehicle kilometre travel (VKT)

20. Motor vehicle ownerships

21. Proximity to recreation facilities (parks/open space)

22. Proximity to education facilities

23. Proximity to local services (e.g.: grocery shops, nursery)

24. Availability of dedicated spaces for public amenities (e.g.: childcare, community centre,

place of worship)

25. Existence of well-defined boundary

26. Existence of neighbourhood central place

27. Availability of existing amenities and services (e.g.: schools, medical clinics, banks)

28. Provision of community centres

29. Provision of religious centres

30. Provision of common recreation facilities for all ages

31. Provision of safety elements in crime prevention (e.g.: street lighting, perimeter fence,

CCTV)

32. Traffic calming measures

33. Separation between pedestrian and motorised traffic

34. Availability of commercial establishments

35. Diversity of housing option

36. Provision of affordable housing

37. Employment opportunities within immediate vicinity

38. Avoidance of high grade land

60 Chapter 2

These indicators are derived either wholly or from a group of indicators which has

similar purposes. The following section describes this potential indicator set according

to three categories (environmental, social and economic) for further consideration in

this research to develop a framework for measuring the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood layout in Malaysia.

2.15.1 Environmental sustainability

Dale (2001) argues that sustainable development can be seen as the reconciliation of

three imperatives — environmental, social, and economic — so that the natural

environment can thrive while human needs are met while promoting social equity.

Issues of environmental sustainability relate to how the development process affects

utilisation of natural resources and biodiversity of habitats (Deakin, Curwell, &

Lombardi, 2002). This research defines environmental sustainability as the quality

arrangement of physical attributes and neighbourhood design which are capable of

providing for and supporting the existence of a healthy neighbourhood environment

for the residents and surrounding habitat. Reviews of the literature identify a total of

17 potential indicators which can be grouped under the environmental category. These

indicators are as follows:

A land use mix indicator describes the mixing or distribution of different land uses

within a neighbourhood (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Aurbach, 2005). These

include residential, commercial, recreation, education and public amenities. The

incorporation of non-residential (retail, business and community facilities) within

residential development can reduce reliance on private vehicles, provide for local

working opportunities and enhance the interaction between residents. This further

enhances the livability and sustainability of the neighbourhood and its surroundings.

A dwelling density indicator describes the average density of dwelling units (in this

case residential units). This includes internal public streets plus half the width of

adjoining access roads of a designated residential area (AMCORD, 1997). Higher

densities are generally preferred because it minimises cost of providing infrastructure

and allow for utilisation of amenities in a given neighbourhood (Fleissig & Jacobsen,

2002).

Chapter 2 61

An impervious surface indicator describes the imperviousness or surfaces covered by

impermeable materials such as roads, buildings, car parks, sidewalks and drainage

(Brabec, Schulte, & Richards, 2002; Stone, 2003; Brabec, 2009). An area with low

impervious levels can absorb more surface water and minimise the risk of flash floods

in a neighbourhood development.

Street connectivity describes street design that affects the overall neighbourhood

layout, and determines the densities that can be accommodated within a given layout

design (Dill, 2004). Street route directness, on the other hand, indicates the efficiency

of travel or directness of a route within a neighbourhood road network (Mackay, 2001;

Boer, Zheng, Overton, Ridgeway, & Cohen, 2007). External connectivity describes

the ease of connection between the neighbourhood and its surrounding developments.

This indicator which reflects the ease of movement in and out of the neighbourhood is

determined by the number of entry and exit points of the neighbourhood (Aurbach,

2005). Pedestrian accessibility indicator describes the ease of walking between points

of interests within the neighbourhood, and is important in determining whether a

neighbourhood has high accessibility or otherwise (Jones, 2001). While pedestrian

accessibility measures ease of walking, pedestrian network coverage indicates how

much developed land or how many dwellings in the neighbourhood are actually within

walking distance from the neighbourhood centre (Handy & Clifton, 2001; Mackay,

2001). Typical walking distances range between 400m (Giles-Corti et al., 2006;

Pikora et al., 2006) and 1000 metres (Frank, 2004; Hoehner, Brennan Ramirez, Elliott,

Handy, & Brownson, 2005). Non-motorised transport facilities indicator refers to

length of sidewalks and cycleway in the neighbourhood (PAM, 2009). This indicator

reflects the extent to which a neighbourhood is provided with facilities that encourage

sustainable form of transport.

Eight indicators are identified to represent natural and built form. These are open

space/active greens per dwelling, which refers to provision of green space for each

residential dwelling, and open space per development area, which refers to the

provision of total green space for each residential development (DTCP, 2003). Natural

topography preservation describes the retention of the original topography alongside

residential development (DTCP, 1995), while sensitive area preservation refers to

neighbourhood location that are away from any sensitive areas such as river banks,

62 Chapter 2

catchment or floodplain (Houlahan & Findlay, 2004; PAM, 2009; USGBC, 2009).

Two indicators relate to vegetation, the first is the amount of original vegetation

retained in the completed development and provision of tree planting for shades or

protection from excessive wind (Redwood, 1994). The last potential indicator is

proportion of solar oriented lot, which refers to the exposure of building façade with

good solar orientation. Proper orientation with the sun exposure will generate

maximum use of natural forms of lightings (Clark, 2001; Saville-Smith, Lietz, Bijoux,

& Howell, 2005).

2.15.2 Social sustainability

The word ‗‗sustainability‘‘ has begun to move from an environmental focus away to

embrace economic viability and social equity (Coffman & Umemoto, 2010; Teriman

& Yigitcanlar, 2011). The objective of achieving sustainable community is enhancing

its human, economic, social and environmental quality. According to Deakin (2002),

social issues in human settlements concern among other things about access to

services, safety and security, and overall human health. Therefore, social sustainability

is defined in this research as the quality of being in a place (neighbourhood) that is

capable of providing and maintaining quality of life (equity of access to key services),

safety, and community cohesion. Reviews of literature identify 16 potential indicators

that can be grouped under the social category. These indicators are as follows:

Layout design that incorporates good proximity to amenities and services will benefit

residents because they do not need to travel to great distances to get the service

(Soltani, Primerano, Allan, & Somenahalli, 2006). This research uses five potential

proximity indicators: proximity to public transit node/system (Aurbach, 2005;

Friedman, 2005), proximity to recreation facilities (Cohen et al., 2007; Brown et al.,

2009; Cutts, Darby, Boone, & Brewis, 2009), proximity to education facilities

(Aurbach, 2005; Bigotte & Antunes, 2007); proximity to local services (Pikora, et al.,

2006) and proximity to neighbourhood central place (Mackay, 2001).

The provision of amenities in a neighbourhood is an important contribution towards

creating a socially sustainable neighbourhood because it offers quality of life to

residents. Indicators for three types of amenities are included under this social

Chapter 2 63

sustainability: provision of community centres (Mackay, 2001), provision of religious

centres (DTCP, 2003), provision of sports and recreation facilities (Mackay, 2001;

DTCP, 2003; Government of Malaysia, 2007).

A socially sustainable neighbourhood includes elements of safety and security among

its residents. Three indicators related to this issue are identified: provision of safety

elements in crime prevention (Mackay, 2001; Foster, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2010),

traffic calming measures (DTCP, 2003), the separation between pedestrian and

motorised traffic (DTCP, 2003).

2.15.3 Economic sustainability

Economic sustainability in urban planning relates to issues about the financing of the

infrastructures, transport and utilities required for the built environment to

accommodate the urban development process and employment of resources associated

with this (Deakin, et al., 2002). In neighbourhood planning, it is about utilising the

available resources as efficient as possible and providing options for people with

diverse economic background. In this regard, economic sustainability is defined in this

research as the quality of being in a place (neighbourhood) where resources are

efficiently used, economic capital is provided and maintained, and human capital is

utilised.

Reviews of literature identify five potential indicators under the economic category.

Although not directly related to the neighbourhood layout, the existence of these

indicators contributes to enhancing the sustainability of neighbourhood. First is the

availability of diverse range of commercial establishments. This refers to the different

types of business activities in the neighbourhood such as convenience store, laundry,

restaurants etc. (USGBC, 2009). Second is the diversity of housing option, which

refers to residential developments that offer variety of housing choice that people from

different economic background can choose from (Aurbach, 2005). Third is the

provision of affordable housing, which refers to the availability of housing types that

can be afforded by people within the low income group (DTCP, 1995; KLCH, 2003).

The fourth potential indicator refers to the availability of employment opportunities

within immediate vicinity (Mackay, 2001). The last indicator is avoidance of high

64 Chapter 2

grade soil, which refers to avoiding as much as possible from constructing

development on land of high grade due to its potential for agricultural activities.

Development on lower grade soil is preferred over higher grade that is most beneficial

for agricultural purpose.

2.16 Conceptual framework

This research aims to develop a comprehensive set of indicators and put forward a

new evaluation framework for assessing the sustainability levels of residential

development layouts. This is because although the significance of residential

development in contributing towards sustainability is enormous (Friedman, 2005;

Choguill, 2008; Winston, 2010), there have been limited indicators and assessment

methods for determining the sustainability levels of residential development focusing

on neighbourhood layouts. Despite the need to also look into the conformance part as

well as its performance when evaluating plans (Hopkins, 2012), this research focuses

only on the performance-based indicators, to measure the performance of plans in

terms of its sustainability levels. This is because of the increasing importance of

performance measurements, especially within a local authority level, where it is

considered as highly legitimate to measure performance in planning, and to achieve

sustainable development (Carmona and Sieh, 2008).

Cauwenbergh et al. (2007) highlight that many of the existing indicator sets and

frameworks suffer from a common drawback of only partially covering sustainability

issues. Hurley et al. (2008) add that another limitation of assessment frameworks also

includes its inadequacies in describing their context clearly, thus losing their essential

functional properties. In order to avoid these deficiencies, this research therefore

follows the Triple bottom line (TBL) approach as described earlier because the TBL

incorporates the three main sustainability pillars (environmental, social and economic)

for selecting indicators (ICLEI, 1996; Pope, et al., 2004; Coffman & Umemoto, 2010;

Mori & Christodoulou, 2012). By incorporating and describing these three pillars

clearly, issues of partial coverage and ambiguities in selecting potential indicators can

be largely avoided.

Chapter 2 65

In terms of formulating the assessment framework, this research adopts the suggestion

by Bell and Morse (2003) on the advantage of having a framework of indicators to

measure development sustainability. This research also uses Maclaren‘s (1996)

guidelines for developing the sustainability assessment mechanism, and adopts her

domain-based framework which also utilises three categories – environmental, social

and economic – to evaluate the level of sustainability of residential development

layouts (Figure 2-16).

Figure 2-15: Domain-based framework utilising environmental, social and economic

sustainability

The research selects the domain-based framework because it is closer to the TBL

approach, in terms of putting great importance on the use of domains or pillars for

specifying sustainability efforts. It is also in line with current trends in sustainability

planning and operationalization including in physical planning which incorporates the

three main pillars of sustainability.

From the combination of the domain-based framework and the triple bottom line

sustainability, this research generates a conceptual framework for measuring the

sustainability levels of residential development layouts (Figure 2-17). In this

conceptual framework, the determination of indicators is based on the three categories

of environmental, social and economic, which are independent of each other. Each of

these categories will have its own indicators that will be used in the assessment

66 Chapter 2

process to determine its score. The combined scores of the indicators will be used in

the calculation of overall sustainability levels of the residential development layouts.

As shown in Figure 2-17, the link between the indicators (indicator scores & indicator

weighting) and category aggregate will be utilised to generate the sustainability

composite index (SCI) for the case studies (Nardo, Saisana, Saltelli, & Tarantola,

2005).

Figure 2-16: Conceptual framework of the study developed based on the triple bottom

line sustainability

Because there are currently no assessment tools for measuring the sustainability of

residential layouts in Malaysia, this study develops the initial indicator set from

existing literature on sustainability assessment, including assessment tools which are

applicable to the general assessment of residential development. The reviews of

literature generate 38 potential indicators for measuring the levels of sustainability of

neighbourhood layouts. Figure 2-18 presents the scenario when these potential

indicators are absorbed onto the conceptual framework.

Chapter 2 67

Figure 2-17: Potential indicators within the conceptual framework of the research

2.17 Summary

While current residential development is increasingly promoting the master-planned

based development concept as superior to other forms of residential development,

there is little evidence that their physical layouts are better than conventional

residential development layouts. This research focuses on residential development

68 Chapter 2

because of its great impact on sustainability. Not only does it occupy an increasing

percentage of urban land use, its location and design have environmental, social and

economic implications.

The literature search on potential sustainability indicators represents a significant step

forward towards realising a useful way to assess the sustainability levels of residential

developments and to fill this research gap. Based on the research aims and objectives,

and the gaps identified in this research, the reviews of literature generate 38 potential

indicators for measuring the levels of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts.

Following the reviews, a conceptual framework is developed to show the relationships

between the potential indicators and the triple bottom line sustainability approach to

be used as a basis for undertaking this research.

The conceptual framework also guides the formulation of the assessment method for

determining the sustainability levels of residential development layouts. By having

some form of sustainability assessment, planners and stakeholders would be able to

determine whether sustainability elements exist at the planning stages of residential

development or whether certain types of existing residential developments are

sustainable, or more sustainable than the others. The applicability of this framework

will be tested in case studies involving residential neighbourhood developments.

Details of the associated methodological approach used in this research are discussed

in the following chapter.

Chapter 3 69

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter justifies the methodology adopted in this research in order to achieve the

research aim and objectives. This study aims to develop a framework for measuring

the level of sustainability of neighbourhood development layouts and test it to the

three types of residential developments in Malaysia. The specific objectives are to

investigate indicators for the development of the framework to measure the level of

sustainability of the neighbourhoods, to establish measurement and scale, as well as

weighting of indicators and aggregation of categories for the development of the

framework, to validate the development of the framework for measuring

neighbourhood sustainability, and, finally, to test the framework to the three types of

residential development to determine their level of sustainability.

This chapter is organised into seven main sections. Following introduction, the second

section discussed the research strategy, and justifications for adopting the selected

research strategy for this study. The third section explains the research design for the

study to answer these research objectives, which includes research instrument design,

sampling selection procedures. The fourth and fifth sections describe the collection of

data for Delphi survey and the digital spatial data respectively. The sixth section

outlines the procedure for analysing the data to answer each research objectives, and

the development of the framework for measuring the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood developments. The final section concludes with a summary of the

chapter.

3.2 Research strategy

The purpose of the research strategy is to provide a direction to guide this study. This

research aims to develop a framework for measuring the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood developments and later to apply it to the three types of residential

development in Malaysia. Several approaches provide the necessary steps in

answering the research objectives, such as the quantitative method, qualitative

method, and mixed method. The quantitative research strategy places emphasis on

70 Chapter 3

quantification of data and its analysis (Bryman, 2006) and uses experiments, surveys,

or an explanatory study to answer the research questions (Babbie, 2005, 2008) .

In contrast, the qualitative research strategy utilises the power of words rather than

figures in data collection and analysis (Bryman, 2006). The data collection format

includes documentation of real events, records of what people say, or the study and

interpretation of written documents or visual images (Baker, 1999; Neuman, 2006b).

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the mixed methods approach,

which uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative research strategies (Bryman,

2004; Halcomb, Andrew, & Brannen, 2009; Kroll & Neri, 2009; Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). These different research strategies

have different strengths. Creswell et al. (2007) suggested that several aspects need to

be considered: the skills that are possessed by the researcher (quantitative and

qualitative), the availability of resources (time, and funding), the expectations of the

audience for the study, and the selected research design should match the research

questions. Importantly, Creswell (2009) pointed out that the researcher should choose

the research strategy that best suits the needs and purpose of the research in order to

obtain research outcomes that have real world practice value.

Taking into account these considerations, a mixed methods research strategy through

the use of embedded research design was considered to be the best choice to answer

the four research objectives for this study. Embedded research design involves

embedding one dataset within the other so that one type of data provides a supportive

role for the other dataset (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). This sequential approach

benefits this study as this study needs quantitative data to develop the framework and

requires spatial data to validate the framework before its application. In respect of the

application of the framework, further quantitative data extracted from spatial analysis

needs to be inserted into the framework to determine the level of sustainability of the

case studies. The next section elaborates upon the research design that has been

chosen for this study.

Chapter 3 71

3.3 Overview of research design of the study

Following identification of the research strategy and prior to the commencement of

data collection or analysis, a research design (or research plan or structure) needs to be

constructed (Blaike, 2000; Vaus, 2001). The research design is typically a procedure

or process to answer the research questions with the most appropriate and feasible

methods (Sproull, 1995), and as unambiguously as possible (Blaike, 2000). Having a

research design serves to clarify the logic of the research and avoid any discrepancy

between the empirical evidence and the initial research questions. This is achieved by

specifying the way data in a research study is collected, analysed, interpreted and

reported (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Therefore, setting a sound research design

that will hold together all of the elements in a research project is a very important step

in order to achieve the best outcomes for the research project. Figure 3-1 shows the

overall research design adopted in this study.

The overview of the research design for the study covers a breakdown of the research

process, showing the aim and objectives, the methods and sources of data collection,

the types of analysis involved and the interpretation of findings. The main aim of this

study is to measure the level of sustainability of the residential neighbourhood

development layout, which requires an investigation to identify relevant and important

indicators for use in this measurement, developing the assessment framework and

applying the indicator based framework to case studies of different neighbourhood

developments. In order to achieve the research aim and objectives, this study adopted

an embedded research design, and employed two types of data collection procedures –

quantitative Delphi survey and spatial data.

In this study, the first type of data collection involves the use of a three-round

modified Delphi technique to elicit consensus opinion from a selected group of

experts. The second type of data collection is the digital spatial data of three selected

cases of different types of neighbourhood development. The following two sections

present detailed procedures of the data collection and analysis adopted in this study.

72 Chapter 3

Figure 3-1: Research design for the study

Chapter 3 73

3.4 Collection of data for Delphi survey

A Delphi survey approach is used for data collection to investigate relevant indicators,

and to establish the indicator weighting and aggregate category for the development of

the framework to measure the level of sustainability of neighbourhood development

layout. A Delphi survey is one of the judgment techniques that have been found

appropriate for developing rank evaluation criteria or indicators. This survey

technique involves an iterative process of collecting and modifying judgments from

experts via a series of questionnaires and controlled feedback (Powell, 2003; Hung,

Altschuld, & Lee, 2008; Grisham, 2009; Landeta & Barrutia, 2011). Much has been

said about the usefulness of the Delphi technique as a data collection instrument

(Dalkey, 1972; Mitchell, 1991; Rowe, Wright, & Bolger, 1991; Adler & Ziglio, 1996;

Rowe & Wright, 1999; Powell, 2003; Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Grisham,

2009; Landeta, Barrutia, & Lertxundi, 2011). Reviews by Mitchell (1991) and Powell

(2003) on the methodological approaches and a range of Delphi studies revealed that

Delphi is an established technique for harnessing the opinions of diverse groups of

experts on practice-related problems. It has the flexibility of being a judgement and

decision-aiding tool in cases where a consensus decision is difficult to obtain or where

a clear-cut decision is difficult to achieve (Rowe & Wright, 1999).

One powerful advantage is its ability to provide hindsight and garner consensus where

the knowledge or evidence about the issue of interest is lacking or even unknown

(Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Murphy et al., 1998). Other advantages include, but are not

limited to, the Delphi‘s superior accuracy (Dalkey, 1972; Riggs, 1983; Mitchell,

1991), preserving anonymity of respondents (Vidal, Marle, & Bocquet, 2011) and

reducing time and cost constraints, especially when the experts are geographically

dispersed (Mitchell, 1991; L. Green & Kreuter, 1999). Due to these advantages, the

Delphi technique has been used in numerous fields including health, business,

engineering and project management (Vidal, et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the technique

has also attracted its fair amount of criticism including poor results due to poor choice

of experts (Gupta & Clarke, 1996), the subjective definition of expertise and expert

selection bias (Mitchell, 1991), and the fact that it cannot produce ‗clinical-type

accuracy‘ of results (Grisham, 2009, p. 125). Hung et al. (2008) made a useful

summary of the typical strengths and weaknesses of the Delphi technique, as

74 Chapter 3

highlighted in Table 3-1. Despite these criticisms, Delphi‘s powerful flexibility and its

ability to shed light on issues, where knowledge in neighbourhood sustainability

assessment is less than clear, warrant the use of this technique more than other

consensus seeking techniques for the first stage of this study.

Table 3-1: Strengths and weaknesses of Delphi technique (Hung et. al., 2008, p. 63)

Strengths Weaknesses

Consensus-building

Future forecasting

Bring geographically dispersed panel

experts together

Anonymity and confidentiality of responses

Limited time required for respondents to

complete surveys

Quiet, thoughtful consideration

Avoids direct confrontation of experts with

one another (encourage honest opinion, free

from group pressure)

Structured/organised group communication

process

Decreasing somewhat a tendency to follow

the leader

Focussed, avoids unnecessary side-tracking

of panellists

Ties together the collective wisdom of

participants

Possibly motivational and educational for

participants

Cost effective and flexible/adaptable

Validity, as the content is driven by

panellists

Fairly simple to use

Beneficial for long-range educational

planning and short-term decision making

Applicable where there is uncertainly or

imperfect knowledge, providing data where

little exists before

Best used as establishing the basis for future

studies

Accommodates a moderately large group

Group pressure for consensus – may not

be true consensus

Feedback mechanism may lead to

conformity rather than consensus

No accepted guidelines for determining

consensus, sample size and sampling

technique

Outcomes are perceptual at best

Requires time/participant commitment

Possible problems in developing initial

questionnaires to start the process

May lead to hasty, ill-considered

judgement

Requires skill in written communication

Potential danger of bias – surveys are

open to manipulation by researcher

Selection criteria for panel composition

Time delays between rounds in data

collection process

May force a middle-of-round consensus

Concerns about the reliability of the

techniques

Drop-outs, low response rate

Chapter 3 75

3.4.1 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire for this study was designed primarily to guide data collection from

expert respondents. The input from experts from the three Delphi rounds helped to

identify relevant indicators that influence neighbourhood sustainability, and to

generate the weighting for each indicator. The questionnaire was designed to be

consistent with Neuman‘s (2006a) suggestion that they include introductory remarks

on instructions for clarification, and questions to measure each variable. The

questionnaire for all three Delphi rounds was listed in Appendix B, C and D. The

questionnaire used the English language because all the expert respondents

(Malaysian and international) were expected to fully understand English.

The Delphi survey questionnaire was designed individually for each round because

the different rounds served a different purpose. The round one questionnaire was to

examine relevant indicators for measuring the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts and to ascertain the content validity of indicators according to

their category based on expert perceptions (Pikora, et al., 2006). The round two

questionnaire aimed to identify only the key indicators from a list of indicators

identified in the round one of the survey. Meanwhile, the round three questionnaire

was to finalise the respondent‘s selection on any remaining indicators which were yet

to achieve a group consensus, whether it is important or otherwise. With regard to the

measurement scale, the researcher used a five-point Likert scale for the round one

survey. However the researcher realised that a more detailed rating scale was required

for the rounds two and three because the rating would be used to generate the

indicator weightings. Therefore a seven-point Likert scale of measurement was used

in rounds two and three of the survey.

In the first Delphi round, the questionnaire was to identify relevant indicators among

the three categories (environmental, social and economic) for measuring the

sustainability of residential neighbourhood layouts. In this round, the questionnaires

contained a list of 38 potential indicators from three categories (environmental, social

and economic), which was used as a basis for the experts to select relevant indicators.

76 Chapter 3

The question was ―Please rate the level of relevance of the following indicators for use

in measuring the sustainability levels of residential neighbourhood layouts‖. The five-

point Likert scale used in this round of questionnaire ranged from 1 (very low

relevance) to 5 (very high relevance).

This second Delphi round was to obtain consensus on the level of importance of each

category and their indicators for measuring sustainability of residential development

layouts (Veal, 2006). The questions in this round asked expert respondents to rate the

level of importance of each indicator that contributes to the level of sustainability of

residential neighbourhood development layouts. The question was ―Please rate the

level of importance (7-point scale from very low to very high) of the following

indicators that contribute to the sustainability assessment of residential neighbourhood

layouts‖. Results from the importance levels assigned by the experts were used to

measure the relative weighting of each indicator. In addition, a question was also

designed to ask respondents to allocate a relative importance score for each

sustainable category based on a total of 100 points. The question was ―Please allocate

based on a combined total of 100 points the relative importance of each sustainability

category‖. This second question was to measure the relative weighting of each

category to help develop the framework.

In round three of the Delphi survey, the purpose was to reconsider those indicators

which were rated as important but did not achieve consensus in the previous Delphi

round (round two). In other words, the remaining indicator(s) were unable to generate

the required 75% agreement of relevance. The question asked was ―Based on the

group mean result from the Delphi round two, would you like to reconsider your

previous answer on the following indicators and follow the average group score? If so,

please rate the level of importance of the following remaining indicators which

contribute to the sustainability assessment of residential neighbourhood layouts‖. The

rating used for this round was similar to the previous round (round two using 7-point

scale from very low to very high).

Chapter 3 77

3.4.2 Pilot test

The first and second rounds of the Delphi draft questionnaire were subjected to the

pilot survey because there were differences in the questions and measurement used.

This pilot testing of the questionnaire was mainly to check possible ambiguities that

might affect the intended meaning (Jairath & Weinstein, 1994; Wyatt, 2000; Bryman

& Cramer, 2001). Thus, the questionnaire was tested in a pilot study to ascertain the

reliability before use with a larger sample of respondents. The sample respondents for

this pilot survey were obtained from a number of PhD postgraduates in Australia and

planners from local academic institutions. The researcher was present on most

occasions when the questionnaire was answered by the pilot survey respondents.

These pilot respondents were asked to provide feedback on questions that might have

used poor wording and created confusion in respondents, as they might have not

understood the questions asked (deVaus, 2001). The feedback obtained from the pilot

survey was utilised to make the necessary amendments and modifications to the

questionnaire design. The most frequent feedback obtained from the respondents was

some of the indicators used technical terminology and required explanation to clarify

its meaning and intention. Based on this feedback, a statement was added to each

indicator using simple English to describe its meaning and purpose in this study.

3.4.3 Sample selection of Delphi respondents

The procedures of selecting potential expert respondents are important in a Delphi

exercise in order to ascertain the potential respondents belong to the groups of experts

that are related to the study and the number is sufficient to represent the study. In this

study, snowball and convenience sampling methods were used to identify potential

respondents and followed by criterion sampling to select the Delphi panel of experts.

Patton (1990) stated that the logic of using this type of sampling is down to the fact

that participants should hold some predetermined criterion of importance. The

selection of experts was based on their knowledge and expertise in the built

environment and sustainability field.

78 Chapter 3

As sustainable development and assessment involves many disciplines, experts for

this study were drawn from planning, urban design, environmental and the general

built environment fields both locally (Malaysia) and internationally with at least 5

years of experience in at least one of these fields. Local experts were to provide

avenues for these experts to not only identify indicators but also to suggest any

suitable indicators for the local context that are not highlighted in the survey.

Meanwhile, the main purpose of including international experts was because they

have extensive knowledge and awareness concerning sustainability at the international

level. Their expert knowledge and vast contributions in academic or professional

fields are important requirements.

Specifically, all potential respondents must meet at least one of the following criteria:

(1) established academics who have either published their work in international

journals or have lectured in the fields of sustainable settlements or neighbourhood

planning; (2) established practitioners from the built environment field who have

extensive experience in residential planning or management or community

infrastructure planning; (3) officers from state and local government who have been

involved in decision making or in promoting sustainable living or in charge of

development applications of residential developments; and (4) learned public from

non-governmental organisations who have been involved in community development

or promoting sustainable living.

Using these sampling techniques, a total of 60 potential respondents comprising 29

local (Malaysia) and 31 international experts were identified for the survey (Table 3-

2). A majority of researchers use Delphi sample size ranging between 10 and 60

(Dalkey, 1972; Reid, 1988; Hasson, Keeney, & McKenna, 2000; Czinkota &

Ronkainen, 2005; Jeste, Ardelt, Blazer, & Meeks, 2010). In addition, the number of

respondents can vary according to the scope of the issues being researched and the

resources available (Hasson, et al., 2000; Powell, 2003). Thus taking into account the

likelihood that a few would be unwilling to participate, 60 respondents were

considered reasonable for this survey and fulfilled a Delphi survey criterion (Jeste et

al., 2010).

Chapter 3 79

Table 3-2: List of potential respondents for Delphi survey

Field of expert/knowledge International Local Total

Urban planning 3 7 10

Environment planning 4 4 8

Housing/Neighbourhood 7 5 12

Project management 1 1 2

Architecture 2 1 3

Social planning 3 2 5

Transport/Infrastructure 3 2 5

Sustainability planning 4 4 8

Policy planning 2 2 4

Community planning 2 1 3

Total 31 29 60

3.4.4 The administration of the Delphi survey

i. Respondent profile of the three-round Delphi survey

A formal letter of invitation was sent out via email to each of the 60 potential

respondents identified earlier in the sample selection process. The use of email is well

suited with the Delphi technique because it allows greater convenience to respondents

as well as reducing time and cost of data collection (Cramer, Klasser, Epstein, &

Sheps, 2008). The letter of invitation included an explanation on the purpose of the

research, a request for participation as expert, and a feedback notification whether the

potential respondent agreed or disagreed to this request. After one week of the first

email invitation, another email was sent to each potential respondent reminding about

the earlier invitation. Within two weeks after the email reminders were sent, a total of

46 experts gave their consent to participate. Taking into account the potential dropout

rate, this number was within the reasonable number for a Delphi study.

80 Chapter 3

The round one survey questionnaire was sent to the 46 experts who have agreed to

participate. This round of survey received a total of 40 responses, giving a response

rate of 86.9%. The respondents consisted of 52.5% (21) academicians, 27.5% (11)

practitioners and the remaining 20% (8) were state and local government agencies

(Table 3-3). Of the total experts, 47.5% (19) were at the international level while

52.5% (21) others were recruited from local, Malaysian experts.

Table 3-3: Delphi experts‘ profile for round one

Division International Local Total %

Academics 13 8 21 52.5

Practitioners 3 8 11 27.5

Government 3 5 8 20.0

Total 19 21 40 100

Table 3-4 described the background and experience of the experts who participated in

this round of the survey. The majority of experts (28 or 67.5%) have their background

in urban and land use planning, 5 (12.5%) in transportation planning, 4 (10%) in

environmental management, 2 in architecture and the rest were from the project

management field. In terms of expert experience, the majority (23 or 57.5%) have

been involved in the fields of sustainability or sustainable development for more than

20 years, as either academics or professionals. Another 9 experts (22.5%) have

between 15 and 20 years, while the rest have between 5 and 14 years experience. This

implies that the majority of experts have wide experience in their fields.

Table 3-4: Profile of expert participants in round two of the Delphi survey

Division >20yrs 15-20yrs 5-14yrs %

Urban and land use planning 15 6 6 67.5

Transportation planning 3 1 1 12.5

Environmental management 3 1 0 10.0

Architecture 1 1 0 5.0

Project management 1 0 1 5.0

Total 23 9 8 100

Chapter 3 81

The final (third) round of survey questionnaire was sent to all 32 experts who have

previously participated in the Delphi round two survey. In return, a total of 29

completed responses were received from these experts, of which 24 (75.7%) responses

were received at the end of the 3-week period whilst the remainder were received at

the end of a 2-week extension period that was given to boost returns of the survey

forms (Table 3-5). In this third Delphi round, 44.8% (13) of respondents were

academics, 31% (9) were professional practitioners and 24.2% (7) were professionals

from state and local government agencies. When looking at the regional level, 58.6%

(17) of respondents were local Malaysian experts whilst the remaining 41.4% (12)

were international experts. The following section describes the techniques used to

determine consensus agreement among experts on the relevant indicators.

Table 3-5: Expert participants in round three of the Delphi survey

Division International Local Total %




Total 12 17 29 100

ii. Determining consensus of agreement

In respect of the Delphi survey approach, the selection of indicators (items) was based

on consensus among the experts. There are several techniques for determining

consensus namely based on (a) cut-off points either at 66.7%, 75%, 80% and 100%

agreement (Dobbins, 1999; Boyd, 2003; Tigelaar, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Vleuten,

2004; Harrison, 2005; Pulcini, Wilbur, Allan, Hanson, & Uphold, 2006), (b)

interquartile range (Beattie, Hek, Ross, & Galvin, 2004; Nelson, 2006), (c) standard

deviation (Scott, 2002; Seibert, 2004; Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006), or (d) group

mean (Brown, Crawford, Carley, & Mackway-Jones, 2006).

Among these techniques, this research uses percentage agreement, specifically a 75%

agreement of relevance as the cut-off point for selecting the indicators to be included

into the subsequent Delphi rounds. Percentage agreement of relevancy refers to the

82 Chapter 3

percentage of respondents who rate the indicators as either relevant (score of 4) or

extremely relevant (score of 5) (Tigelaar, et al., 2004; Basinger, 2009). The following

three sections describe the procedures to determine the key indicators for measuring

sustainability.

iii. Delphi survey Round One

In this first Delphi round survey, the questionnaire was administered via email to 46

expert respondents who had agreed to participate. The purpose of this round was to

identify relevant indicators for measuring the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts. The questionnaire contained a selected list of 38 potential

indicators from previous research studies concerning the field of sustainable

development and sustainability assessment within the international and Malaysian

context (Table 3-6).

Based on their perception and experience, the expert respondents were asked to rate

the relevancy of each indicator in terms of its potential use in assessing the level of

sustainability of neighbourhoods. The ratings range on a five-point Likert scale (level

of relevance) from ‗1=Very Low‘, ‗2=Low‘, ‗3=Medium‘, ‗4=High‘ and ‗5=Very

high‘. In order to reduce the error in identifying indicators, participants were

encouraged to modify or delete any indicator that they believed duplicated another

indicator and to suggest new indicators that they believed were important but not

included in the list (Tigelaar, et al., 2004). Such a practice of soliciting comments and

suggestions from respondents would increase the richness of the data (Murphy, et al.,

1998; Hasson, et al., 2000; Giles-Corti, Macintyre, Clarkson, Pikora, & Donovan,

2003; Pikora, Giles-Corti, Bull, Jamrozik, & Donovan, 2003).

Chapter 3 83

Table 3-6: The categories and their respective indicators for the Delphi round one

survey

Item

Environmental



3. Impervious spaces


5. Street route directness



8. Vehicular entry and exit routes

9. Non-motorised transport facilities

10. Open space/active greens per dwelling

11. Open space/active greens per development area

12. Natural topography preservation


14. Vegetation retained to create the development

15. Storm water retention/detention system

16. Tree planting for shade/wind-break

17. Building exposure to natural ventilation (non-disastrous winds).

Social

1. Proximity to public transit nodes/system

2. Resident‘s vehicle kilometre travel (VKT)

3. Motor vehicle ownership

4. Proximity to recreation facilities (parks/open space)

5. Proximity to education facilities.

6. Proximity to local services (grocery shops, place of worship, nursery)

7. Availability of dedicated spaces for public amenities (e.g.: childcare, community centre,

place of worship)

8. Existence of well-defined boundary


10. Availability of existing amenities and services

(e.g.: schools, medical clinics, banks)

11. Provision of community centres

12. Provision of religious centres

13. Provision of common recreation facilities for all ages

14. Provision of safety elements for crime prevention (e.g.: street lighting, perimeter fence,

CCTV)

15. Separation between pedestrian and motorised traffic


Economic


2. Diversity of housing option

3. Provision of affordable housing.

4. Employment opportunities within immediate vicinity.

5. Avoidance of high grade soil

84 Chapter 3

Together with the questionnaire, the respondents were also provided with an

information sheet and instructions, and a reminder note asking them to return the

completed questionnaire within a 3-week period. After four weeks of the

questionnaire being sent, 32 completed survey forms were received from respondents.

In order to encourage participation, the researcher sent a friendly reminder to

respondents who were yet to return the survey form and asked them to return the

survey form within two weeks. Following this reminder, at the end of two weeks, the

researcher received another eight completed survey forms, which brought the overall

total to 40 completed questionnaire for this round.

iv. Delphi survey Round Two

After the completion of round one of the Delphi survey and analysis, all indicators

which achieved 75% agreement were included in the round two Delphi survey for

further investigation. The questionnaire was sent via email to all 40 respondents who

had successfully completed the first Delphi round. Each questionnaire contained a list

of the selected indicators and a summary of their respective group mean scores from

the previous round (round one). The respondents were asked to identify based on a

seven point scale of importance, those indicators that they believed to be important for

measuring the sustainability of residential neighbourhood layouts. A notification of a

3-week period for the return of the completed questionnaire was also attached to the

survey form.

A total of 32 completed questionnaire from a possible 40 participants were returned. A

total of 22 questionnaire (68.8%) were received within the initial 3-week period while

another eight (25%) were received after a 2-week extension was given to complete the

questionnaire. Two questionnaire, which were received two days after the extension

deadline, were also accepted into the survey after the researcher was notified

beforehand of the expected delay. These extensions have boosted the response rate in

this Round two to achieve an average of 80%.

Chapter 3 85

v. Delphi survey Round Three

Any remaining indicators yet to reach a consensus in the second round of the Delphi

survey of data collection were iterated in the third and final Delphi round. The third

round questionnaire containing these remaining indicators was sent to all 32 experts

who had successfully completed the previous round (round two). The respondents

were also provided with the group mean scores for each of these remaining indicators.

They were asked to consider the group scores and their own score and decide whether

to stand firm or defer and follow the average group score (Cramer, et al., 2008). A

seven point scale of importance similar to round two survey was used in this third and

final Delphi round.

A total of 29 completed responses were received from these experts of which 22

(75.7%) completed forms were received within the original 3-week deadline whilst the

remaining 7 were received at the end of a one week extension period. Attempts to

obtain the remaining three completed questionnaire by giving a three day special

extension however was not successful. Therefore, this gave a final response rate in

this third and final Delphi round to 90.5%, which was considered as a very good

outcome.

3.5 Collection of spatial data

The second type of data used in this research was the digital spatial data of typical

residential neighbourhood layouts generally found in in Malaysia. Through these

layouts, quantitative data can be extracted through spatial analysis and used to validate

the proposed framework. In addition, the layouts were also used as a platform to

investigate the differences in sustainability between the different types of residential

neighbourhood development in Malaysia.

3.5.1 Case study selection

Generally, the selection of case studies for this research was based on three criteria.

First, the case studies represented different types of neighbourhood developments in

Malaysia. Second, each case study has more or less the same size as the others, and

third, the availability of digital spatial data. Taking into account these criteria, this

study selected three different residential types, namely, subdivision development as

86 Chapter 3

case study 1, piecemeal development as case study 2 and master-planned development

as case study 3.

Originally, the case studies were to be selected from different local planning authority

(LPA) areas so as to provide rich contextual and administrative variations. A total of

15 potential neighbourhood developments that fulfill the selection criteria were

identified from nine LPAs through a series of discussions with planners from three

states. Formal requests for digital data of the potential case studies were sent to the

offices of these local planning authorities. Follow-up verbal requests through phone

and physical appointments were made to these LPAs. However, technical and

administrative difficulties hampered the initial case study selection of this study.

These difficulties ranged from the local planning authorities still waiting to switch to a

digital database, having no updated data and difficulty in obtaining approvals for the

release of the digital spatial data. Of the nine LPAs involved in this digital data

requisition, only one local authority gave permission to the researcher to use the

digital database of its entire administrative area. Due to time and other technical

constraints, and after discussion with the supervisory committee, all three case studies

were eventually drawn from this single local planning authority, the Ipoh City

Council, located in the state of Perak, Malaysia. Ipoh, which is also the capital of the

Perak state (4º 36' 32" N and 101º 6' 54" E) is approximately 200 kilometres to the

north of Kuala Lumpur, the country‘s capital city (Figure 3-2).

Following identification of the case studies, data were formally requested from the

city council planning department, with detailed specifications for the required

information for each case study and its buffer areas. These included zoning and land

use classifications, road and infrastructure networks, details of parcel-based spatial

and attribute data, building and residential type. Other more general data concerning

the surrounding environment were also requested to facilitate the digital spatial and

network analysis. Following this request, MapInfo based digital land use data of the

city council area was provided to the researcher.

Chapter 3 87

Figure 3-2: Case study locations within the city council area (adapted from Ipoh

City Council, 2010)

3.5.2 Case study profile

Table 3-7 shows the general characteristics of the three case studies. The size of each

case study is determined by its administrative boundary, which explains the slight

differences between the cases. The subdivision case study is among the largest of its

kind in the local authority area. It is characterised by larger parcel sizes, with each

parcel typically around 500 square metres (sqm). The master-planned development

has twice the number of residential dwellings than the subdivision case study and sits

on a smaller lot size averaging 130 sqm. The piecemeal development looks to be the

average sitting in the middle of the spectrum in all categories. The following

subsection describes each case study area in detail.

(CASE STUDY 1)

(CASE STUDY 2)

(CASE STUDY 3)

88 Chapter 3

Table 3-7: General description of case study areas

Case Study Size (ha) Population Total

Dwellings

Population

density

(/ha)

Dwelling

Density(/ha)

Subdivision development 96.5 4724 1181 49 14.6

Piecemeal development 100.2 6220 1555 62 28.3

Master-planned

development 107.8 9048 2262 84 30.3


The first case study (CS1) is a subdivision development called Kampung Tersusun

Batu 5, located about five kilometres to the north east of the city of Ipoh (refer Figure

3-2) with a geographic coordinates of 4º 37' 34" N and 101º 37' 56" E. This is a 96.5

hectare standard subdivision layout development that sits on a flat area of land

bounded by a local highway and pockets of other residential development (Figure 3-

3). The case study comprises 1181 parcels of single storey detached houses and

associated amenities including pockets of neighbourhood 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 sqm rectangular lot shape

while corner parcels have an additional 10 to 20 per cent extra space. Owing to the

type of dwelling, it has an average density of 14.6 dwellings per hectare (dph). Most

of the houses are owned by the Malay community, the largest of the three main races

in Malaysia.

Chapter 3 89

Figure 3-3: Land use classification of subdivision development case study, (Ipoh City

Council, 2010)


This second case study (CS2) is an early piecemeal development project called Taman

Canning or Canning Garden, located three kilometres to the east of the city (Figure 3-

2) with a geographic coordinates of 4º 35' 15" N and 101º 6' 42" E. Developed during

the mid-1980s, this mixed dwelling type residential area comprises 1555 residential

parcels spread on 100.2-hectare of relatively flat land. A total of 44% of the residential

parcels is occupied by single and double storey terrace houses, 16% is occupied by

semi-detached houses and 40% is occupied by single storey detached houses. Other

land uses include two centralised neighbourhood shop blocks, a wet market, two

Kampung Tersusun

Batu 5

90 Chapter 3

primary schools, a huge neighbourhood playfield and pockets of neighbourhood parks

(Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4: Land use classification of piecemeal development case study (Ipoh City

Council, 2010)

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 6 years.

Being a mixed type housing area, the site is occupied by mixed groups of races and

socioeconomic background. The typical parcel size is 500 sqm for a detached house,

240 sqm for a semi-detached house and 185sqm for a terrace house. The high number

of terrace houses contributes to its higher average density of 28.3 dwellings per

hectare.

Taman Canning

Chapter 3 91


This third case study (CS3) is called Bandar Seri Botani and it sits on a 107.8-hectare

former oil palm plantation located seven kilometres to the south of Ipoh City with a

geographic coordinates of 4º 31' 48" N and 101º 6' 5" E (refer Figure 3-2). This is a

typical example of a large-scale integrated green field development that also exists in

other states in Malaysia. The case study occupies the first of a 3-phase, 311.6-hectare

large scale, self-sustained residential and light industrial master-planned development

project. A total of 74.6 hectares (69.2%) of the case study site is dedicated to

residential and supporting uses including neighbourhood parks, roads and public

amenities. A commercial precinct, a huge local park and an education precinct present

the next significant percentages of the case study land use (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5: Land use classification of master-planned development case study (Ipoh

City Council, 2010)

Bandar Seri Botani

92 Chapter 3

With an estimated population of 9048 residing in 2262 residential dwellings (1928

terrace houses and 334 semi-detached houses), it is the biggest of the three case

studies in terms of physical size, population and number of residential dwellings (refer

Table 3-4). Parcel sizes for terraces house range between 100 sqm and 145 sqm, while

for semi-detached houses, the parcel size is 300 sqm. Being developed on a green field

site, the master-planned development is still surrounded by agricultural land use and

secondary forest. 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 the country. The purpose of flattening the land

is to optimise time and construction cost, especially the terrace houses dominating the

case study landscape. This case study recorded the highest dwelling density among the

three case studies with an average density of 30.3 dwellings to the hectare. This is not

surprising given that nearly 90% of its development patterns are dominated by terrace

houses.

3.6 Analysis of Delphi survey and spatial data

3.6.1 Analysis to identify relevant indicators to measure sustainability

The identification of relevant indicators to measure sustainability was based on data

collected in the round one of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to rate a list

of 38 potential indicators concerning the relevancy in assessing neighbourhood

sustainability levels. The ratings ranged on a five-point Likert scale (level of

relevance) from ‗1=Very Low‘, ‗2=Low‘, ‗3=Medium‘, ‗4=High‘ and ‗5=Very high‘.

SPSS 17 statistical software was used to run a descriptive analysis to identify the

relevant indicators. The identification of these indicators (items) was based on

consensus among the experts using percentage agreement of relevance. Consistent

with the various percentage cut-off points for determining agreement of consensus as

suggested in the literature (Dobbins, 1999; Boyd, 2003; Tigelaar, et al., 2004;

Harrison, 2005; Pulcini, et al., 2006), this research used 75% agreement of relevance

as the cut-off point for selecting the indicators. The percentage agreement of

relevancy refers to the percentage of respondents who rated the indicators either

relevant (score of 4) or extremely relevant (score of 5), (Tigelaar, et al., 2004;

Basinger, 2009). Indicators that achieved the 75% cut-off points were included in in

Chapter 3 93

round two of the Delphi survey, which was to select only the key indicators for the

proposed assessment framework.

In addition, participants were asked to modify or delete any indicator that they

believed duplicated another indicator. The experts were also encouraged to suggest

new indicators that they believed were important but not included in the list. Twenty-

two experts took the opportunity to modify existing indicators and suggest a number

of new potential indicators that they believe were important to consider but were not

highlighted in the existing indicator list. The results indicate that the suggestion of

modifications from experts ranged from rephrasing the indicators to combining two or

more indicators. In order to ascertain the importance of these suggested indicators in

contributing to the level of sustainability of the residential neighbourhood

development layouts, the indicators were also included in round two of the Delphi

survey, which is described in the following section.

3.6.2 Analysis to identify key indicators in contributing to the level of

sustainability

An analysis to identify key indicators that contribute to sustainability was conducted

based on data from rounds two and three of the Delphi survey. In these Delphi rounds,

participants were asked to rate the importance of each indicator (total indicators=24)

for assessing the level of sustainability of the neighbourhood layouts. A seven-point

Likert scale, ranging from ‗very low‘ to ‗very high‘ levels of importance was used to

rate each of the indicators. A ‗very low‘ rating was given when an indicator gave least

contribution when used to assess the sustainability levels of residential layouts. In

contrast, a ‗very high‘ rating suggests that the indicator makes a crucial contribution to

the sustainability assessment. A 75% agreement of importance (scores of 5 to 7) was

used to determine a consensus for each indicator.

A descriptive analysis was conducted to identify the mean score and percentage of

importance of each indicator in the round two data. Indicators which surpassed 75%

agreement were classified as key indicators. Consistent with Cramer et al (2008),

indicators which achieved adequate consensus were considered no longer requiring

further investigation, and thus omitted from the subsequent Delphi round. However,

those indicators which had not reached a consensus were included in the round three

94 Chapter 3

(final) survey. As in round two, similar descriptive analyses were conducted for round

three, and only indicators which achieved a minimum of 75% consensus of agreement

were selected. Other remaining indicator(s) which failed to generate adequate

consensus in this third and final Delphi round (where the respondents considered the

indicator as neither important of not important) were removed from this study.

3.6.3 Analysis for normalisation of indicators

Once the final list of important indicators had been identified from the Delphi process,

the study proceeded with a procedure to normalise the indicators. Three case studies in

Malaysia were used as a basis to generate a normalisation procedure for the selected

indicators prior to indicator weighting. Normalisation is required prior to any indicator

weighting because these indicators have different measurement scales (Nardo, et al.,

2005). Normalisation refers to the procedure undertaken to produce/create the same

normalized value of the indicators irrespective of their original measurement scale.

Nardo et al. (2005) list nine techniques for normalisation – ranking, standardisation,

min-max normalise, distance to a reference, categorical scale, indicator above or

below mean, cyclical indicator, special case of balance of opinion and percentage of

annual differences.

This study applied two techniques for normalisation procedures – the categorical

scale, and the above and below mean technique. The purpose of having two

procedures was to ascertain which one is more robust and suitable for residential

development in Malaysia. The categorical scale can be numerical (1, 2, 3) or

qualitative (partly achieved, achieved, not achieved); this study used the numerical

scale (5 point-unit from 1 to 5). The normalisation procedure based on the above and

below mean refers to transforming the original score unit to a normalised score around

the mean (Nardo, et al., 2005). The scale was set based on the score value around the

mean with a certain threshold (±10%). The original indicator with a score less than the

mean receives -1, the original indicator score around the mean receives 0 and an

indicator score of more than the mean receives +1. Using this normalised scale, the

original score of each indicator was converted to a normalised score.

Chapter 3 95

3.6.4 Analysis for assigning indicator weighting and category aggregate for

measuring sustainability

The aim of indicator weightings was to ascertain the impact value of each indicator on

sustainability. Meanwhile, category aggregate was to ascertain the impact value of

each category (environment, social and economic) on sustainability. The assignment

of indicator weighting and category aggregation was based on the results of the Delphi

survey, which is consistent with the budget allocation process (BAP) (Nardo, et al.,

2005). The assignment of indicator weighting and category aggregate was conducted

separately according to the respondent‘s regional location. This was to examine

whether there were any differences in opinion and judgement concerning the level of

importance of the indicator in contributing to sustainability. The first group was the

overall expert respondents who were local (Malaysian) and international, the second

group was formed by local expert respondents only and the third group was the

international experts only.

Indicator weightings were generated from the importance values rated by the experts

in rounds two and three of the Delphi survey. Experts were asked to rank the level of

importance for each indicator category from ‗1=very low‘, ‗2=low‘, ‗3=medium low‘,

‗4=medium‘, ‗5=medium high‘, ‗6=high‘ and ‗7=very high‘ in terms of contribution

to sustainability. Descriptive analysis was conducted to generate group mean value.

Weightings for each indicator were calculated by dividing indicator group mean with

the total indicator group mean as shown below:

Indicator weightings=

Each indicator weighting was multiplied with category aggregate to generate the

composite index of the overall level of sustainability of a neighbourhood

development. The aggregate category was generated from the important points

allocated by the experts in round two of the Delphi survey. The experts were asked to

allocate the relative importance for each category based on one hundred points to the

total category set (a total of 100 points for all three categories). The points for each

category were based on the expert respondents‘ experience and subjective judgement

of the relative importance of the respective category in contributing to sustainability.

96 Chapter 3

The group mean of the important points was calculated to generate an aggregate for

each category (environmental, social and economic) between the three groups, using

EQ1:

Aggregate category=

(EQ1)

3.6.5 Analysis to validate the development of the framework for measuring

the level of sustainability of the neighbourhood

The development of the framework is not a straightforward process and requires

validation before applying on site. It is subject to errors due to the indicator values and

assumptions, and sensitivity analysis is important for validating the framework

(Pannel, 1997). The framework to measure sustainability composite index (SCI) of

residential neighbourhood layouts was generated using the normalised scores of the

case studies, indicator weighting, and category aggregate as shown by EQ2 (Nardo, et

al., 2005):

Sustainability composite index (SCI)=

(EQ2)

where k=indicator, t=indicator category, a=indicator normalised score of case study,

b= indicator weighting, and c= category aggregate score

As explained earlier, this study constructs the framework using two normalisation

techniques: the categorical scale techniques and the above and below mean technique

for normalisation; and the budget allocation process derived from expert Malaysian

and international respondents for indicator weighting and category aggregation.

Therefore, possible errors could result in dubious analytic rigour of the framework,

which might be expected to come from the normalisation technique or expert group

respondents (Nardo, et al., 2005). In order to examine these errors, uncertainty and

sensitivity analysis were conducted on the framework.

The purpose of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis was to examine the consistency of

(a) the techniques used in normalisation and weighting, and (b) the expert

𝑎𝑘𝑏𝑘𝑐𝑡 𝑘 = 1,2,… ,18 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 1,2,3

𝑘 ,𝑡

Chapter 3 97

respondents‘ opinion in assessing the sustainability of the residential neighbourhood

layout. Uncertainty analysis examined the input factors that propagate through the

structure of the composite indicator index (rank). The results indicate that both the

Malaysian and international experts were consistent and shared a common opinion

and judgement in measuring the sustainability of the residential neighbourhood

layouts. However, there was inconsistency between the two normalisation techniques.

Following that, sensitivity analysis between the two normalisation techniques was

conducted to determine how differences in the values associated with an independent

variable affect the dependent variable (Pannel, 1997). It is helpful in determining the

uncertainty in the model prediction through variations in model inputs (Lilburne &

Tarantola, 2009). This study adopted the sensitivity index calculation, which is based

on the variations of the indicator input on the variation of output (Hoffman and

Gardner, 1983; Hamby, 1994; Chen, Yu, & Khan, 2010). The sensitivity index

compares the output differences of each indictor using EQ3 (Hamby, 1994):

SIk=

(EQ3)

where SI=sensitivity index, k=indicator, Dmax=Composite index when k is set to

maximum normalised scale, and Dmin=composite index when k is set

to a minimum normalised scale.

The outcomes of both uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were used to determine and

select the most appropriate normalisation technique (the above and below mean

technique or categorical scale normalisation technique) for use in developing the

sustainability assessment framework.

3.6.6 Analysis for comparing the sustainability composite index among the

three types of residential development

After the normalisation process and sensitivity analysis had been completed, an

analysis was conducted to determine the sustainability levels of residential layouts by

applying the framework on three case studies. The framework contains all selected

sustainability indicators derived from the previous stage of the Delphi analysis which

were grouped into three sustainability categories (environmental, social and economic

98 Chapter 3

sustainability). The framework indicators were applied to the three cases of different

types of neighbourhood development (subdivision, piecemeal and master-planned

developments) located in a city council area in the state of Perak, Malaysia.

The application of this framework aimed to generate a sustainability composite index

(SCI) to determine the ranking order of the case studies, namely master-planned

development, sub-division development and piecemeal development. The generation

of the SCI served three purposes. The first was to identify which among the three

types of development layouts was the most sustainable, second, to determine the

indicators and their respective scores in these different types of residential layouts,

and finally to identify which indicators contributed significantly over the others to

help increase the sustainability levels of these residential developments further.

3.7 Summary

This chapter discusses and justifies the methodological issues and research strategies

adopted in this study. This study determined that a mixed method research strategy

and embedded research design were the most appropriate to achieve the study aim and

objectives. The selected research design required the collection and sequential use of

two types of data: quantitative data gathered from the three-round Delphi survey and

spatial data from the three case study areas. The study revealed that the use of a three

round Delphi survey was the most appropriate to select the most important indicators

for measuring the sustainability levels of neighbourhood layouts.

Since the selected indicators have different measurement units, the normalisation

process was a necessary step before any weighting can be assigned to the indicators.

The validation of the framework was a final step in the framework development and

this was undertaken using the three case studies of residential neighbourhoods. Once

the validation process was completed, the selected framework was used to measure

their sustainability levels of the three case studies and to generate their sustainability

composite index. The results of the analysis are presented in the following Chapters

four, five and six according to the research objectives.

Chapter 4 99

Chapter 4: Analysis to identify Key Indicators

for Measuring Sustainability

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an analysis of the results to achieve the first research objective,

that is, to identify environmental, social and economic indicators that can be used to

evaluate the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. The analysis was based on

a three-round Delphi survey. The chapter is divided into four main sections. Following

the introduction, the second section provides the analysis of data to identify relevant

indicators and their relative categories for measuring neighbourhood sustainability. In

this stage, only indicators that achieved 75% agreement of relevancy were selected and

further analysed. Following this analysis, section three outlines the analysis of results in

determining the final list of indicators to measure neighbourhood sustainability. Section

four provides the final list of indicators for measuring the sustainability levels of

neighbourhood layouts. Finally, section five provides a summary of the processes and

outcomes of the chapter. An overview of this chapter is presented in Figure 4-1.

4.2 Identification of relevant indicators and their relative categories for

measuring the sustainability of residential neighbourhood

development

The strength and weakness of composite indicators is largely derived from the quality of

the underlying variables and should be selected on the basis of their relevance and

analytical soundness (Nardo, et al., 2005). This study identified relevant indicators for

measuring sustainability, which were identified from the three rounds of the Delphi

survey. The round one survey was to examine relevant indicators and to ascertain the

content validity of the indicators according to their category based on the perceptions of

experts (Pikora, et al., 2003). At this stage, only relevant indicators were selected to be

included in the next stage of the survey, round two. The round two and three surveys

were for selecting only important indicators among the relevant indicators identified in

the round one survey for measuring the sustainability of residential neighbourhood

developments.

100 Chapter 4

Figure 4-1: The structure of Chapter Four

Investigation of relevant indicators and validation of indicators according to their

categories (internal validity) were based on the Delphi round one analysis (Pikora, et al.,

2003). A list of 38 potential indicators from four categories was included in round one of

the Delphi survey. Based on perception and experience, expert respondents were asked

to rate the relevancy of each indicator in terms of its potential use in assessing

neighbourhood sustainability levels. The ratings ranged on a five-point Likert scale

(level of relevance) from ‘1=Very Low’, ‘2=Low’, ‘3=Medium’, ‘4=High’ and ‘5=Very

high’. In order to reduce error in identifying indicators, participants were encouraged to

modify or delete any indicator that they believed duplicated another indicator and to

suggest new indicators that they believed were important but not included in the list. It is

claimed that such a practice increases the richness of the data (Murphy, et al., 1998;

Hasson, et al., 2000; Pikora, et al., 2003).

Upon completion of the Delphi round one survey, descriptive analyses were conducted

to identify indicators which the group of experts considered as relevant for measuring

the level of sustainability of residential neighbourhood developments. Table 4-1 shows

Chapter 4 101

the results of all 38 potential indicators in the three sustainability categories

(environmental, social and economic) and their respective mean scores, standard

deviation and percentage agreement. The percentage agreement of relevance ranged

from the lowest: 28.5% agreement of relevance (resident’s vehicle kilometre travel:

social category) to the highest, 100% (proximity to public transit nodes: social

category). Based on the cut-off point of 75% agreement of relevance, the results indicate

that out of 38 indicators examined in this survey, 28 (73.7%) indicators achieved

consensus among experts, and, thus, were selected as relevant for measuring the

sustainability of residential neighbourhood developments.

Table 4-1: Delphi round one result

Item (N=45) Mean SD %

agreement

Environmental category (17 indicators)

1. Land use mix diversity 4.62 0.539 97.3

2. Residential dwelling density 4.19 0.594 90.5

3. Impervious surfaces 4.31 0.643 90.5

4. Street connectivity 4.40 0.587 95.2

5. Street route directness 3.81 0.740 71.4

6. Pedestrian accessibilities 4.50 0.595 95.3

7. Pedestrian network coverage 4.36 0.759 88.1

8. Vehicular entry and exit routes 4.00 0.911 79.0

9. Non-motorised transport facilities 4.40 0.831 80.0

10. Open space/active greens per dwelling 3.83 0.961 59.6

11. Open space/active greens per development area 4.52 0.671 90.5

12. Natural topography preservation 4.50 0.595 95.3

13. Sensitive areas/natural environment preservation 4.51 0.457 90.0

14. Vegetation retained to create the development 3.36 0.879 38.1

15. Storm water retention/detention system 2.67 0.954 52.4

16. Tree planting for shades/wind-break 3.74 0.857 57.1

17. Building exposure to natural ventilation (non-disastrous

winds) 2.74 1.149 26.1

102 Chapter 4

Table 4-1 (cont‘d)


agreement

Social category (16 indicators)

18. Proximity to public transit nodes/system 4.74 0.445 100.0

19. Resident‘s vehicle kilometre travel (VKT) 2.81 1.234 28.5

20. Motor vehicle ownerships 2.92 1.112 34.6

21. Proximity to recreation facilities (parks/open space) 4.67 0.612 92.8

22. Proximity to education facilities 4.40 0.627 92.8

23. Proximity to local services (e.g.: grocery shops, nursery) 4.43 0.630 92.9

24. Availability of dedicated spaces for public amenities (e.g.:

childcare, community centre, place of worship) 4.40 0.627 92.8

25. Existence of well-defined boundary 3.17 0.881 33.3

26. Existence of neighbourhood central place 4.26 0.587 92.8

27. Availability of existing amenities and services (e.g.:

schools, medical clinics, banks) 4.52 0.634 92.8

28. Provision of community centres 4.33 0.721 90.4

29. Provision of religious centres 4.12 0.889 81.0

30. Provision of common recreation facilities for all ages 4.48 0.552 97.6

31. Provision of safety elements for crime prevention (e.g.:

street lighting, perimeter fence, CCTV) 4.26 0.767 80.9

32. Traffic calming measures 4.35 0.820 81.2

33. Separation between pedestrian and motorised traffic 4.60 0.587 95.3

Economical category (5 indicators)

34. Availability of commercial establishments 4.06 0.834 80.2

35. Diversity of housing option 4.05 0.936 78.6

36. Provision of affordable housing 4.17 0.824 83.3

37. Employment opportunities within immediate vicinity 4.07 0.745 76.2

38. Avoidance of high grade land 3.14 0.926 30.9

Chapter 4 103

Looking at each of the four indicator categories, the results show that the environmental

category has 11 of its 17 indicators (64.7%) selected as relevant. These selected

indicators have achieved a minimum of 75% agreement of relevance ranging between

the lowest 79.0% (vehicular entry and exit routes) to the top of 97.3% (land use mix

diversity). The social category, however, recorded the highest number of indicators

selected for the second round of the Delphi survey, with 13 of the 16 indicators (81.3%)

surpassing the pre-set cut-off point with agreement of relevance ranging between the

lowest 81.0% for provision of religious centres and a high of 100% for proximity to

public transit nodes.

Although the economical category only has 5 indicators included in the iteration, 4 of

them (80%) were selected, with their percentage agreement above the cut-off points

represented by the lowest agreement of 78.6% (variety of housing option) to the highest

of 83.3% (provision of affordable housing). Overall, analysis of the results shows that 11

indicators in the environmental category, 13 indicators in the social category and 4

indicators in the economic category were relevant to measure sustainability of residential

neighbourhood development layout. The following analyses the new indicators

suggested by the experts that they believed were relevant but were not included in the

survey.

The experts were encouraged to modify or delete any indicator that they believed

duplicated another indicator, and also to suggest new indicators that they believed

important but were not included in the list to increase the richness of the data. Out of 40

respondents, 22 experts took the opportunity to modify the existing indicators and

suggest a number of new potential indicators. The results show that the suggestions for

modification from the experts ranged from rephrasing the indicators to combining two or

more indicators. The experts suggested combining and rephrasing 15 indicators

(environment and social categories) into six indicators (Table 4-2). The main reason for

combining these indicators were due to duplication.

104 Chapter 4

Table 4-2: Combining and rephrasing existing indicators

Existing indicators Combined and rephrased

Environmental

1. Internal connectivity




4. Natural topography preservation 2. Preservation of

environmentally

sensitive areas


Social

3. Access to recreation

space

6. Proximity to recreation facilities

7. Proximity to recreation facilities for all ages

8. Proximity to local services

4. Access to local services 9. Availability of dedicated space for public amenities


11. Availability of existing amenities and services

12. Provision of community centres 5. Access to community

centres 13. Provision of religious centres

14. Provision of safety elements for crime prevention 6. Crime prevention and

safety 15. Separation between pedestrian and motorised traffic

The experts also suggested some modifications to the existing indicators (Table 4-3).

They suggested that in the environmental category, the indicators ‘vehicular entry and

exit routes’ and ‘open space/active greens per development area’ should be rephrased to

‘external connectivity’ and ‘open space provision’, respectively. In the social category,

instead of the terms ‘proximity’, the terms ‘access’ should be used for the four

indicators, because, in this instance, ‘access’ actually reflects the ability of residents to

both obtain and utilise a given facility or services, rather than just having one in close

proximity but without access to the said facility or services.

Chapter 4 105

Table 4-3: Rephrasing existing indicators

Existing indicators Rephrased

Environmental

1. Vehicular entry and exit routes External connectivity

2. Open space/active greens Open space provision

Social

3. Proximity to public transit nodes/system Access to public transit

nodes/system

4. Proximity to recreation facilities Access to recreation facilities

5. Proximity to education facilities Access to education facilities

6. Proximity to local services Access to local services

Finally, experts took the opportunity to suggest five new potential indicators which they

believe were important to consider but were not included in the existing indicator list.

Table 4-4 shows a shortlist of these new indicators and the respective general

descriptions derived from a pool of suggestions from these experts. The environmental

category has an additional indicator added to the list whilst the social and economic

categories each have two new indicators in addition to the existing list.

Table 4-4: Additional new indicators suggested by experts

New indicators Category

1. Solar-oriented lot parcels Environmental

2. Access to health facilities Social

3. Access to emergency services

4. Skills development centres Economics

5. House price diversity

The analysis from the round one survey was based on criteria including a cut-off point

value of 75% agreement of relevance and also combining existing indicators and adding

new indicators as suggested by experts. These various criteria generated a consensus list

of 24 indicator items (Table 4-5). These indicators were sent out to all 40 expert

participants who had successfully completed the previous round one of the Delphi

106 Chapter 4

survey for further analysis. The next section explains the processes and analysis

undertaken in determining important indicators for measuring sustainability.

Table 4-5: Final indicators derived from the Delphi round one survey

Items (N=40)

Environmental





5. External connectivity

6. Open space provision

7. Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas

8. Non-motorised transport

9. Solar-oriented lot parcels*

Social

10. Access to public transport facilities

11. Access to education facilities

12. Access to health facilities*

13. Access to recreation space

14. Access to local services

15. Access to community services

16. Access to emergency services*

17. Crime prevention and safety


Economical


20. Employment self-containment

21. Housing option diversity

22. Provision of affordable housing

23. Availability of skilled development centres*

24. Diversity of house prices*

* Additional new indicator suggested by experts

Chapter 4 107

4.3 Identification of key indicators for measuring sustainability

Following identification of the relevant indicators in round one, this stage aims to

examine these relevant indicators in terms of their importance for measuring the

sustainability of residential neighbourhood development. Analysis of these key

indicators was based on rounds two and three of the Delphi survey. Participants were

asked to rate the importance of each indicator based on a seven-point scale of

importance from ‗1=very low‘, ‘2=low‖, 3=medium low‘, 4=medium‘, 5=medium high‘,

‘6=high‘ and ‘7=very high‘. The selection of indicators was based on a cut-off point of

75% agreement of importance. The percentage agreement refers to the combined top two

scores of either a 6 (relevant) or 7 (extremely relevant) given by the participants to each

item. Therefore, indicators that surpassed a minimum of 75% agreement of importance

were considered as key indicators. These indicators have achieved consensus among

expert respondents for measuring the level of sustainability of residential neighbourhood

developments.

Using SPSS 17, a descriptive analysis was conducted to identify these key indicators.

The analysis results from this second round of the Delphi survey are presented in Table

4-6, showing their respective mean values, standard deviation and percentage of

agreement importance. The results indicate that the agreement of importance ranged

from the highest of 100% (availability of sustainable oriented design guidelines:

environmental category) to the lowest of 37.5% (availability of skills development

centres: economical category). Out of 24 indicators, 17 indicators (68.0%) from all three

categories achieved consensus. Looking at each indicator, the analysis shows that the

environmental category has seven of its nine indicators surpassing the minimum

consensus requirements. Similarly, the social category has seven of its ten and the

economic category has three of its six fulfilling the consensus requirements.

108 Chapter 4

Table 4-6: Delphi round two results

Item (N=32) Mean SD % agreement

Environmental


2. Dwelling density 5.47 0.983 81.3


4. Internal connectivity 6.06 0.914 90.7

5. External connectivity 5.63 0.833 87.6


7. Environmentally sensitive areas 5.06 1.480 59.4

8. Open space provision 6.22 0.751 96.9

9. Solar orientation 4.88 1.185 62.5

Social

10. Access to public transport facilities 6.06 0.914 93.8

11. Access to education facilities 5.97 0.967 93.9

12. Access to health facilities 4.78 1.211 53.2

13. Access to local services 5.66 0.827 93.7

14. Access to recreational space 5.84 0.808 97.0

15. Access to community centre 5.44 0.878 87.6

16. Access to emergency services 5.16 1.139 71.9

17. Crime prevention and safety 6.00 0.762 96.9

18. Traffic calming 5.34 0.937 81.2

Economic

19. Commercial establishments 5.50 0.880 93.8

20. Skills development centres 4.19 1.306 37.5

21. Employment self-containment 4.66 1.260 53.2

22. Housing option diversity 5.41 0.946 87.6

23. Housing prices diversity 5.28 1.224 68.8

24. Affordable housing 5.69 0.998 81.3

Table 4-7 below shows all seven indicators from all three categories that failed to reach

consensus in this Delphi round. These indicators were included in the third and final

rounds of the Delphi survey to determine whether a consensus can be achieved.

Chapter 4 109

Table 4-7: Final indicators for iteration into Delphi round three


agreement

Environmental



Social



Economic




The results from the descriptive analysis of data from the second Delphi round reveal

that only one of the seven remaining indicators, access to emergency services (social

category) managed to achieve consensus, with a 79.3% agreement of relevance (Table 4-

8).

Table 4-8: Delphi round three results


agreement

Environmental



Social



Economic




110 Chapter 4

As for the remaining seven indicators which failed to achieve consensus for this second

time, the results reveal that most of the experts appeared to maintain their previous

decisions, hence, resulting in only slight changes in their importance preferences. The

fact that experts can reflect or recall their previous round preferences through the

supplied feedback also helps them in maintaining their preferences. This is consistent

with previous Delphi studies which showed that the accompanying feedback result from

the previous round tends to lead to a consensus of opinion on each of the remaining

indicators (Jairath & Weinstein, 1994). Such consensus refers to whether to accept or

reject a potential indicator, with lesser dispersion of opinions among the panellists with

increasing rounds (Powell, 2003).

4.4 Final list of key indicators

After performing the analysis of the results from three Delphi rounds involving experts

from the local Malaysian and international scene, the results indicate that 18 indicators

have been identified as the key indicators for assessing the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood development layouts. This indicator set provides primary information

prior to determination of the measurement scale for the development of the framework

(Table 4-9).

Chapter 4 111

Table 4-9: Final list of sustainable neighbourhood assessment indicators

Indicators

Environmental





5. External connectivity

6. Open space provision

7. Non-motorised transport

Social

8. Access to public transport facilities

9. Access to education facilities

10. Access to local services

11. Access to recreational space

12. Access to community services

13. Access to emergency services

14. Crime prevention and security


Economic


17. Housing option diversity

18. Affordable housing

4.5 Summary

The chapter gives an account of the descriptive statistical analysis performed on the data

obtained from the three rounds of Delphi survey. The analysis has revealed a total of 18

key indicators which were considered as the most important for measuring the

sustainability levels of neighbourhood layouts. These key indicators formed the main

component of the assessment framework to be developed in this research. The next stage

of the research is to calculate the measurement output of each key indicator, using

quantitative data derived from the spatial analysis. These processes are described in the

following chapter.Chapter 5: Analysis of Indicator Measurement Scores

Chapter 5 113

Chapter 5: Analysis of Indicator Measurement

Scores

5.1 Introduction

Analysis from expert surveys has identified 18 key indicators within three categories

(environmental, social, and economic) for measuring the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood development layouts. This indicator set will be used to help design a

framework to assess neighbourhood development layouts, which is to achieve

research objective 2: to develop a valid assessment framework based on the indicators

identified for measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. The

purpose of this chapter is to calculate the measurement output, a prerequisite to the

normalisation procedures that will be discussed in the next chapter. This chapter is

presented in five sections. Following the introduction, the second section provides a

description of the each measurement, formulae, scale and unit used in this research.

Section three presents the calculation of the measurement output of these 18 indicators

for the three case studies. Section four presents a summary of the measurements, their

formulas and their respective measurement output. Finally, the chapter concludes with

summary remarks. An overview of this chapter is presented in Figure 5-1.

5.2 Measurement equations of key indicator set

Expert respondents have identified 18 key indicators as being important and were

included in the assessment framework for measuring the sustainability of the

development layouts. In order to measure these indicators, it is important to establish a

measurement scale for each indicator. Table 5-1 presents a list of the selected key

indicators, their descriptions, measurements equation and their sources, and their

respective measurement units. The measurements and units were derived from the

relevant literature and studies in the field of built environment and sustainability.

114 Chapter 5

Figure 5-1: The structure of chapter five

Chapter 5 115

Table 5-1: Description, measurement equation and units of indicator set

Indicator Description Measurement equation Unit

Land use mix (LUM)

Diversity of compatible land use serving local

neighbourhood needs (housing, retail, food,

educational, recreation, offices, services, civic

spaces).

LUM=∑k(pk ln pk)/ln N

where: k=Category of land use; p=proportion of land area

devoted to specific land use; N=# of land categories)

(Frank et al, 2004; Duncan et al 2010 p785)

Index value

Dwelling density (Density) Total dwelling units per designated residential

area

Density=Dwelling units/Residential area (ha)

Where: Residential area include internal public street + half

width adjoining access roads). (Boer et al., 2007)

Dwelling unit per

hectare (dph)]

Impervious surfaces (IS) Surface covered by roads, buildings, parking,

sidewalks, drainage, etc.

IS=(Total impervious area (TIA)/Total neighbourhood

area)*100

Where, TIA=roads, buildings, driveways, sidewalks, drainage,

car parks (Brabec, 2002, 2009, p427)

Percentage

Internal connectivity (IC) Efficiency of travel, expressed in terms of

route directness within the neighbourhood.

IC= Total Intersections/(Total Intersections + Cul-de-sac)

(Criterion Planners, 2011) Index value

External connectivity (EC)

Ease of street connection to surrounding

developments. Expressed in terms of average

distance to next exit point.

EC=Total perimeter length/# entry and exit points

(Aurbach, 2005, p9). Metre

Open space provision (OS) Gross areas designated for open space/active

greens per person OS=Total open space/total residents (DTCP, 1995)

Square

metre/person

Non-motorised transport

(NMT)

Residential area coverage with walkway/cycle

lane

NMT= (Total walkway/cycle length)/total street length

(PAM, 2009) Percentage

Access to public transport Number of houses within 600 m distance of a

transit stop

Transit stop adjacency: (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

Where Dna= # of dwellings for area a within distance of

service points; Da=Total dwellings in study area

(Criterion Planners, 2005)

Percentage

Access to education facilities Number of houses within 600 m distance of a

school

Facilities adjacency= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

Where Dna=# of dwellings for area a within distance of

facility; Da=Total dwellings in area (Criterion Planners, 2011)

Percentage

116 Chapter 5

Table 5-1 (cont‘d)

Indicator Description Measurement equation Unit

Access to recreational space Number of houses within 400 m distance from

recreation space

Space adjacency= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100


recreation space; Da=Total dwellings in area


Percentage

Access to community centres Number of houses within 600 m distance from

community centre

Centre adjacency= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100


community centre; Da=Total dwellings in area


Percentage

Access to emergency

services (ES)

Availability of three main ES (police, fire &

rescue, hospital) within 5 minutes response

distance (4km) to centre of neighbourhood

Average response distance of 3 ES

(Ministry of Health, Malaysia, 2011) Kilometre

Crime prevention and safety Design with minimum blind frontage for safe

physical environment Total blind frontage/total frontage length, (Mackay, 2001) Percentage

Traffic calming

Provision of safety features on street or junction

design (speed humps, pedestrian crossings,

traffic lights, target hardening)

Streets segments with traffic safety measures/total street

segments Percentage

Commercial establishment

types

Diverse types of business activities (restaurants,

bank, post office, convenience store, pharmacy,

hardware, hair care, laundry, retail)

Number of diverse types of business activities

(Modified from Boer et al, 2007) Types of activities

Affordable housing Availability of (subsidised) affordable housing

per total residential units

Total affordable houses/Total residential in study area,

(DTCP, 1995) Percentage

Housing option diversity

Availability of diverse dwelling types ranging

from detached, semi-D, terrace to multi-storey

units

Simpson diversity index: 1- ∑(n/N)2

where n=total dwelling is a category, N= total dwellings in

all categories (Aurbach, 2005)

Index

Chapter 5 117

5.3 Calculation of measurement output of key indicator set

Following identification of the measurement, units and scale, the measurement output

for each of the 18 key indicators are calculated. These calculations are prerequisite to

the normalisation procedures that will be discussed in the next chapter. In this regard,

three case studies in Malaysia have been selected as a basis to generate the

measurement output for all the selected indicators. These measurement output will be

used to generate a normalisation procedure for the indicator set prior to indicator

weighting. The following subsections present the calculation of the measurement

output of each of the 18 indicators for the three case studies.

5.3.1 Land use mix

Land use mix (LUM) refers to a mix of uses within a neighbourhood that enhances the

liveability and sustainability of the neighbourhood and its surroundings. The

incorporation of various non-residential uses, such as retail, business and community

facilities, within the residential development, can reduce reliance on private vehicles,

provide for local working opportunities and enhance the interaction between residents.

In this study, the land use mix (LUM) indicator describes the distribution of different

land uses in the case study areas, namely, residential, commercial, recreation,

education and public amenities.

LUM for each case study was measured based on an average entropy measure

(evenness of distribution of land-use types) derived from Frank and colleagues (2004),

as shown below:

Average LUM =Total LUM value/Total parcel area

Total LUM value=[∑k(pk ln pk)/ln N] × parcel area] (EQ4)

where: k= land use type; p=percentage of land use type; N=number of land use

types

The calculation for total LUM value was generated by GIS spatial analysis using EQ4

and total parcel area was generated by GIS query instruction. This generates the

average LUM index value from zero to one where a higher LUM index value

118 Chapter 5

represents a better sustainability. The results found that CS3 scored an average index

value of 0.587 followed by CS1 with 0.471 and CS2 with 0.296 (Table 5-2).

Table 5-2: Average LUM index for the three case studies

Item CS1 CS2 CS3

Total LUM value (m2) 317171 292517 445400

Total parcel area (m2) 673401 989290 758623

Average LUM index 0.471 0.296 0.587

5.3.2 Residential dwelling density

Residential dwelling density was measured by dividing the number of dwellings in

each case study with their respective total area dedicated to residential zones, which

include internal public streets and amenities. A higher density represents a better

sustainability. The equation is shown below (EQ5) (Boer et al., 2007):

Density =Dwelling units/Residential area (ha) (EQ5)

Table 5-3 presents the density calculation of the three case studies. The table shows

that CS3 recorded an average of 30.3 residential dwellings per hectare (dph), the

highest among the three case studies. Meanwhile CS2 was second with 28.3 average

dph and the subdivision development of CS1 recorded the lowest average density at

14.0 dph.

Table 5-3: Residential density calculation of the case studies

Item Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total residential dwellings 1,181 1,555 2,262

Total size of residential zones (ha) 84.6 86.3 74.6

Density (dwelling/ha) 14.0 28.3 30.3

Chapter 5 119

5.3.3 Impervious surfaces

An impervious surface refers to a surface covered by man-made structures including

roads, buildings, parking, sidewalks, drainage, etc. The measurement was derived by

extracting all the surfaces covered by impermeable elements including roads, building

footprints, car parks and driveways on the land use parcels. The calculations to obtain

the impervious surfaces were conducted by multiplying land use impervious values

generated from spatial analysis and fieldwork measurements, with all land use parcels

in the case study area. A lower percentage of impervious surfaces represent a better

sustainability. The equation is (Brabec, 2002, 2009):

Impervious surfaces= [Total impervious area/Total neighbourhood area]*100

(EQ6)

Table 5-4 shows the impervious surfaces of the case studies. The results indicate that

CS1 has the lowest percentage of imperviousness (43.8%), followed by CS3 (49.4%)

and CS2 (54.5%).

Table 5-4: Impervious surfaces calculation

Land uses Impervious surfaces (ha)

CS1 CS2 CS3

Residential 26.1 24.3 21.4

Commercial 1.0 2.3 1.7

Recreation and green spaces 0.3 10.4 3.4

Public amenities 0.73 0.7 1.7

Education 1.67 0.5 4.8

Roads and infrastructure 12.5 17.4 20.3

Total impervious surfaces (ha) 42.3 55.6 53.3

Study area (ha) 96.5 100.2 107.8

Percentage imperviousness 43.8 54.5 49.4

5.3.4 Internal connectivity

Internal connectivity refers to the efficiency of travel, or route directness between two

points in the neighbourhood. A higher value of internal connectivity represents a

120 Chapter 5

better sustainability. The Internal connectivity indicator was calculated using EQ7

(Criterion Planners, 2011):

Internal connectivity= Total Intersections/(Total Intersections+Cul-de-sac) (EQ7)

Spatial analysis was used to extract and count the total 4-way and 3-way road network

intersections and cul-de-sacs (Figure 5-2 to 5-4). Table 5-5 presents the results of the

analysis. It shows that the internal connectivity index for CS3 was 1.0, CS1 was 0.95

and CS2 was 0.89.

Table 5-5: Internal connectivity calculations

Items CS1 CS2 CS3

4-way intersection 6 7 11

3-way intersection 125 103 159

Cul-de-sac 7 13 0

Connectivity index value 0.95 0.89 1.00

Figure 5-2: Internal connectivity of CS1 (subdivision development)

Chapter 5 121

Figure 5-3: Internal connectivity of CS2 (piecemeal development)

Figure 5-4: Internal connectivity of CS3 (master-planned development)

122 Chapter 5

5.3. 5 External connectivity

External connectivity refers to the ease of street connection between the case study

and surrounding developments. A lower value of external connectivity represents a

better sustainability. This indicator measurement was determined by generating the

average distance between each main entry and exit point around the neighbourhood

perimeter according to the equation below (Aurbach, 2005):

External connectivity=Total perimeter length/ # of entry and exit points (EQ8)

Although the actual distances between entry and exit points are subject to variations in

terms of location and layout design of neighbourhoods, average distances of between

110m to 250m to the next entry/exit point is considered to be acceptable (Aurand,

2010). Figures 5-5 to 5-7 show the spatial distribution of entry and exit points within

the case study perimeters.

Figure 5-5: External connectivity of CS1 (subdivision development)

Chapter 5 123

Figure 5-6: External connectivity of CS2 (piecemeal development)

Figure 5-7: External connectivity of CS3 (master-planned development)

Table 5-6 presents the results of the external connectivity for the three case studies.

Overall the results found that CS1 has an average of 349 metres between entry and

exit points, CS3 scored 398 metres while CS2 scored 382 metres.

124 Chapter 5

Table 5-6: Calculation of external connectivity and sustainability benchmark score

Items Case studies*

CS1 CS2 CS3

Study area (ha) 96.5 100.2 107.8

Total perimeter (m) 4,891 4,204 5,183

Number of entry/exit points 20 11 13

Average entry/exit distance (m) 349 382 398

5.3.6 Open space provision

An open space provision refers to the availability of open or active green spaces

designated for passive or active recreation, excluding incidental spaces. The indicator

was determined based on the average size of open space provided for each

neighbourhood resident. A higher percentage of open space provision represents a

better sustainability. The equation is as shown below (EQ9) (DTCP, 1995):

Open space provision=Total open space/total residents (EQ9)

Figure 5-8 to 5-10 shows the distribution of open spaces for the three case studies. The

analysis of this indicator was conducted by generating the total open space from the

spatial data and generating the average size of open space per person (Table 5-7). The

results show that CS3 has the largest open space for its residents with 17.5sqm per

person, followed by CS1 with 14.8sqm and CS3 with 5.0sqm per person.

Table 5-7: Calculation of open space provision and sustainability score

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Study area (ha) 96.5 100.2 107.8

Total population 4720 6220 9040

Number of open space 7 7 7

Total open space area (ha) 7.0 3.1 15.9

Open space per person (sqm) 14.8 5.0 17.5

Chapter 5 125

Figure 5-8: Public open spaces in CS1 (subdivision development)

Figure 5-9: Public open spaces in CS2 (piecemeal development)

126 Chapter 5

Figure 5-10: Public open spaces in CS3 (master-planned development)

5.3.7 Non-motorised transport

Non-motorised transport (NMT) refers to the availability of sidewalks or cycleways in

the study area. Such availability was determined based on the ratio of sidewalks of

cycleways and street networks in which a higher ratio indicates better availability. A

higher non-motorised transport facility value indicates a better sustainability. The

equation for non-motorised facilities is (EQ10) (PAM, 2009):

Non-motorised transport)=[length of sidewalks+cycleways]/total street length

(EQ10)

These facilities were generated from spatial data and groundtruthing, and the

calculation indicates that all three case studies achieved a very poor in non-motorised

transport provision with only12.3% % in CS2, 14.8% in CS3, and none in CS1 (Table

5-8).

Chapter 5 127

Table 5-8: Non-motorised transport facilities indicator and sustainability score

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total street length (m) 17,222 17,216 26,144

Sidewalk length 0 2,120 1,550

Cycleway length 0 0 2,550

Total NMTF length 0 2,120 4,100

Percentage NMT length 0 12.3 14.8

5.3.8 Access to public transport facilities

Access to public transport facilities refers to the availability of public transport

facilities that are within 600-metres of the residents‘ homes. Since buses and taxis are

the only public transport services plying through the case study areas, the only facility

included in the analysis is residents‘ access to bus stops. This is determined based on

the number of houses within a 600-metre distance to the nearest transit (bus) stop. The

600-metre distance was decided as the maximum threshold that residents in the

neighbourhood are willing to walk. The 600m distance threshold was selected after

taking into account the local environment, social context, and the existing facilities

available that support walking. The equation (EQ11) to calculate access to public

transport is shown below (Criterion Planners, 2005):

Access to public transport= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100 (EQ11)

where: Dna= number of dwellings for area a within distance of service points;

Da=Total dwellings in study area

A higher percentage of coverage is associated with better access to the facility.

Figures 5-11 to 5-13 show the GIS network analysis conducted using ArcMap‘s

Origin Destination Cost Matrix (OD Cost Matrix) to identify and calculate residential

parcels within the specified network distance from the nearest transit stop.

128 Chapter 5


parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS3 (subdivision

development)

Chapter 5 129


parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS2 (piecemeal

development)

130 Chapter 5


parcel distance to nearest transit stop in CS3 (master-planned

development)

Chapter 5 131

Table 5-9 illustrates the results obtained from the spatial analysis where CS1 scored

the highest transit access coverage with 59.6%, followed by CS3 at 57.2% and CS2

with 47.7%.

Table 5-9: Calculation and scores for access to public transport stops

Dwellings within 600m network

distance

Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

0 and 200m distance 40 140 90

201 to 400m distance 271 313 637

401 to 600m distance 393 288 566

Total 704 741 1,293


Transit access coverage (%) 59.6 47.7 57.2

5.3.9 Access to education facilities

Access to education facilities refers to the extent residential dwellings is located

within 600 metres of the nearest primary or secondary school. The indicator is

determined by calculating the number and percentage of houses within a 600-metre

distance to the nearest school using the given equation (EQ12) (Criterion Planners,

2011). A higher percentage of coverage is associated with better accessibility for the

neighbourhood. Figures 5-14 to 5-16 illustrate the results of the spatial analysis to

generate residential parcel distances from the nearest schools anywhere inside a 600-

metre buffer area of the case studies.

Access to education= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100 (EQ12)

where: Dna= number of dwellings for area a within distance of service points;

Da=Total dwellings in study area

Based on the map illustrations there appears to be a significant variation between the

three case studies in the number of residential dwellings within the 600-metre distance

coverage. Table 5-10 shows the calculations for the residential dwellings located

within 600-metres of the nearest education facilities. The results illustrate a variation

132 Chapter 5

in the percentage between the case studies where CS3 has a very high percentage of

dwellings (96.4%), CS1 has 68.6% and CS2 has 54.2%.

Table 5-10: Calculation and scores of access to education facilities indicator

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Schools within buffer (600m) 4 7 3

Dwellings within network distance (600m) 810 842 2,180


Access coverage (%) 68.6 54.2 96.4

Figure 5-14: Output from Origin-Destination Matrix analysis of residential parcel

distance to nearest school in CS1 (subdivision development)

Chapter 5 133


distance to nearest school in CS2 (piecemeal development)

134 Chapter 5


distance to nearest school in CS3 (master-planned development)

A B C D E

5

4

3

2

1

Legend

Distance to schools

0 - 200m

201 - 400m

401 - 600m

601 - 800m

School

Other land uses

Road network

Buffer area (600m)

0 210 420105Meters

¯

Chapter 5 135

5.3.10 Access to local services

Access to local services refers to the extent that a residential dwelling is located within

600-metres from these services. Local services are defined as local serving

establishments that residents need to visit almost regularly or on a daily basis. These

include shops, day care centres and health care facilities. Access to these services was

determined based on the percentage of residential parcels located within 600-metres of

these establishments, as shown by EQ13 below (Criterion Planners, 2011):

Access to local services= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100 (EQ13)

where: Dna=number of dwellings for area a within distance of services;

Da=Total dwellings in area

Spatial analysis was conducted to extract the number of residential parcels that are

within 600-metres from any local services inside the case study and its 600-metre

buffer area (Figure 5-17 to 5-19). The result shows that all three case studies scored a

high percentage of coverage of local services with CS3 scoring full coverage (100%),

followed by CS1 with 91.4% coverage and CS2 with 83.6% coverage (Table 5-11).

Table 5-11: Access to local services within 600m network coverage

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total residential dwellings 1181 1555 2262

Local services within buffer (600m) 30 240 84

Dwellings within network distance

(600m) 1080 1299 2262

Access coverage (%) 91.4 83.6 100

136 Chapter 5


distance to local services in CS1 (subdivision development)

Chapter 5 137


distance to local services in CS2 (piecemeal development)

138 Chapter 5


distance to local services in CS3 (master-planned development)

5.3.11 Access to recreation parks

Access to recreation parks are spaces designated for passive or active recreation, and

may or may not have resting places (e.g., park benches), playgrounds or any form of

exercise facilities. In this study, only parks with a minimum size of 0.4 hectares (1

acre) are included in the analysis. The indicator was determined based on the

percentage of residential parcels located within 400 metres of these parks, with a

Chapter 5 139

higher percentage being associated with better access. The 400-metre distance was

used in this analysis because park visitations are normally engaged by children or

adults accompanied by children. Due to their young age, these children need shorter

maximum walking distance thresholds; hence, the 400-metre distance was used for

this calculation. Figures 5-20 to 5-22 show the results of the OD Cost Matrix analysis

of access to these parks located within the case study buffers. The analysis was

conducted by generating the number of residential parcels that are within 400 metres

from the nearest park and calculating the percentage outcomes using EQ14 (Criterion

Planners, 2011):

Access to recreation park= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100 (EQ14)

where: Dna=number of dwellings for area a within distance of recreation space;

Da=Total dwellings in area

Table 5-12 shows the percentage of residential parcels within the 400-metre distance

of the nearest park generated from the GIS analysis. The results reveal that CS1 and

CS3 recorded the highest percentages (94.8% and 94.3%, respectively) while CS2 had

67.5% of residential parcels within the specified park distance.

Table 5-12: Calculation and scores of access to parks indicator

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Local parks within buffer (400m) 22 12 7


(400m)

1,119 1,049 2,133



140 Chapter 5


distance to parks in CS1 (subdivision development)

Chapter 5 141


distance to recreation parks in CS2 (piecemeal development)

142 Chapter 5


distance to recreational parks in CS3 (master-planned development)

5.3.12 Access to community centre

Access to community centres refers to places that offer residents the opportunity to

congregate, socialise or perform activities that generate mutual or community benefits.

Such places identified in this research are neighbourhood centres and places of

worship. Access to community centres was determined based on the percentage of

Chapter 5 143

residential parcels located within a 600-metre network distance from these centres; the

calculation is based on EQ15 (Criterion Planners, 2011):

Access to community centre= (∑Dna/∑Da)*100 (EQ15)

where: Dna=number of dwellings for area a within distance of community centre;

Da=Total dwellings in area a

Figures 5-23 to 5-25 indicate the results of the OD Cost Matrix analysis showing these

network distances. The analysis was conducted by generating the number of

residential parcels within a 600-metre distance from any community centre within the

case study and buffer area and calculating their percentage outcomes. Table 5-13

illustrates the percentage coverage of residential parcels within 600 metres from the

nearest community. It shows that CS1 recorded the highest percentage access

coverage at 96.9%, followed by CS3, also with a very high percentage, of 90.2%

while CS2 scored a modest 66.5% access coverage.

Table 5-13: Calculation and scores of access to community centre indicator

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Community centres within buffer

(600m)

6 8 6


(600m)

1144 1027 2041

Total residential dwellings 1181 1555 2262


144 Chapter 5


access to community centres in CS1 (subdivision development)

Legend

Distance to community centres

0 - 200m

201 - 400m

401- 600m

601 - 800m

Community centre

Other land uses

Road network

Case study border

Buffer area (600m)

0 190 38095

Meters

¯

Chapter 5 145


access to community centres in CS2 (piecemeal development)

146 Chapter 5


access to community centres in CS3 (master-planned development)

5.3.13 Access to emergency services

Access to emergency services refers to the availability of hospital, fire and rescue, and

security (police) services to the neighbourhood area within a 5-minute response time.

The response time is defined as the elapsed time from the notification to the

emergency crew to the arrival at the scene, with a shorter response time associated

with better access. A 5-minute response time was chosen in this study because this is

Chapter 5 147

the international, commonly used benchmark to assess service efficiency in built up

areas, including in Malaysia.

The response time was converted into road distance that can be covered by the

emergency crew travelling at an average speed of 50km per hour (equivalent to a

maximum speed of 60km/hr). In this research, the 5-minute response time was

equated to a response distance of 4 kilometres. The indicator was measured based on

the combined average of the response distance of the three emergency services to

reach the centre of each case study area during an emergency situation. A shorter

average distance from emergency services indicates better sustainability. The

calculation is as shown in EQ16 (Ministry of Health, 2011):

Access to emergency services=Average response distance of 3 emergency services

(EQ16)

The results show the average distances of the case studies to the emergency services.

Based on the 5-minute response time, CS2 scored the shortest average distance at

1.7km while CS3 had the longest distance of 5.9km (Table 5-14).

Table 5-14: Distances from emergency services to case study area

Nearest emergency services (km) Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Nearest hospital 3.8 1.5 11

Nearest fire and rescue station 1.3 1.5 6.4

Nearest police station 6.6 2.0 0.3

Average distance (km) 3.9 1.7 5.9

148 Chapter 5

5.3.14 Crime prevention and safety

Crime prevention and safety are described as the physical neighbourhood design

measures that help provide for a safe physical environment. As suggested by MacKay

(2001), this research used ‗free from blind frontage‘ as the measurement. Free from

blind frontage refers to neighbourhood spaces that have some form of passive

surveillance, for example, fronting windows or passing motorists, hence, limiting

unsurveilled areas or blind frontage. The amount of blind frontages was determined by

calculating the ratio of blind frontage length to total street frontages. A lower

percentage of blind frontages indicate better sustainability. The calculation is as in

EQ17 (Mackay, 2001):

Blind frontage=Total blind frontage/total frontage length EQ17

Table 5-15 shows the percentages of blind frontages and streets with lights generated

from spatial analysis and groundtruthing (field verification) for the three case studies.

The results reveal that CS1 scored the lowest percentage of blind frontage (3.8%)

compared with CS2 (24.7%) and CS1 (33.8%).

Table 5-15: Calculations of crime prevention and safety indicator

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total frontage (m) 18702 21778 34425

Blind frontage (m) 680 4307 8695

Percentage blind frontage 3.6 19.8 25.3

Chapter 5 149

5.3.15 Traffic calming

Traffic calming refers to safety features constructed on or along neighbourhood streets

to help reduce motor vehicle speeds and increase pedestrian safety. These include

speed humps, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and narrow lane design. The traffic

calming indicator was analysed by calculating the ratio of street segments installed

with at least a traffic calming feature, as shown by EQ18 (Mackay, 2001).

Traffic calming=Streets segments with traffic safety measures/total street segments

(EQ18)

Table 5-16 shows traffic calming features as generated from groundtruthing. The

results reveal that all three case studies had a very low provision of traffic calming

features on their streets with CS3 having close to 20% of its street segments with

traffic calming measures installed, while CS1 had close to 9% and CS2 had the least

percentage with less than 3% of its street segments having traffic calming measures.

Table 5-16: Traffic calming indicator of residential streets

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total residential street segments 203 184 277

Street segments with Length traffic

calming measures

18 5 55

Percentage length traffic calmed 8.9 2.7 19.9

5.3.16 Commercial establishments

Commercial establishment refers to the availability of diverse types of businesses

offering goods or services to the neighbourhood residents. The more establishments

the area has, the better the indicator score. The analysis was conducted by calculating

the establishments from spatial attribute records of the case studies by the EQ19 (Boer

et al., 2007):

150 Chapter 5

Commercial establishment types=Number of diverse types of business activities

(EQ19)

Table 5-17 shows the number of diverse establishment types generated from the GIS

attribute data of the case studies. The results show that CS2 and CS3 have the highest

number of diverse establishment types (14 each) while CS1 only has 5 diverse types.

Table 5-17: Diversity of commercial establishment types

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Number of shops 8 30 72

Total establishments=Total diverse

types

5 14 14

5.3.17 Affordable housing

Affordable housing refers to the availability of housing types that can be afforded by

people within the low income group, who were defined as having a monthly

household income of under RM3,000.00 (KLCH, 2007). Affordable houses were

priced between RM50,000.00 and RM60,000.00 (AUD18,300.00 and AUD20,000)

(NAPIC, 2010). The affordable housing indicator was calculated based on the number

of affordable houses that each case study has; and the higher the number the better the

indicator score, as shown by EQ20 (DTCP, 1995):

Affordable housing= Total affordable houses/Total residential in study area

(EQ20)

The analysis was conducted by generating the percentages of affordable housing

category from attribute records of the three case studies. Table 5-18 shows affordable

housing derived from the attributes data of these case studies. The results indicate that

CS3 recorded the highest number of affordable houses built within the neighbourhood

(25.9%) compared with CS2 (19.6%). CS1, however, has none built within its

neighbourhood.

Chapter 5 151

Table 5-18: Calculations of affordable housing indicator and sustainability levels

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total housing units 1,181 1,555 2,262

Affordable housing units 0 305 586

Percentage affordable housing 0 19.6 25.9

5.3.18 Housing option diversity

Housing option diversity refers to residential developments that offer a variety of

housing choice that people from different economic backgrounds can choose from.

These include type (detached, semi-detached, terrace or apartment), price (low,

medium or high) and number of storeys (one or two storeys). This research only uses

housing types in the calculation because it also indirectly reflects price and floor

space. The indicator was calculated based on the number of house types extracted

from attributes of the case studies. Calculation of the indicator or the diversity index

was then conducted using the Simpson diversity index by generating the square roots

ratio of each dwelling type to the total number of dwellings in the case study area, as

shown by EQ21 (Aurbach, 2005):

Housing option diversity=Simpson diversity index: 1- ∑(n/N)2 (EQ21)

where: n=total dwelling in a category, N= total dwellings in all categories

Table 5-19 presents the calculation of the indicator based on analysis of the housing

attributes and Simpson diversity index. The results reveal that both CS2 and CS3

scored a high diversity index of 0.737 and 0.725, respectively, on the Simpson

diversity scale, indicating the existence of diverse housing options in the

neighbourhoods.

152 Chapter 5

Table 5-19: Calculations of housing option diversity and benchmark scores

Items Case studies

CS1 CS2 CS3

Total housing units 1,181 1,555 2,262

Ratio detached 1.00 0.403 0

Ratio semi detached 0 0.160 0.148

Ratio terrace A (double storey) 0 0.073 0.366

Ratio terrace B (single storey) 0 0.226 0.227

Ratio terrace C (single storey affordable) 0 0.138 0.259

Sum of square root of ratios 1.00 0.263 0.274

Diversity index (1-sum of square root) 0 0.737 0.725

5.4 Summary of indicator measurement scales and scores

The calculation and score for each indicator to measure the sustainability of the three

development layouts have been described and established in the preceding sections.

The following table (Table 5-20) presents the summary of measurement scales

(equations) and their respective scores for each case study. Since the indicator scores

have different scales (units), they require normalisation to standardise their scales in

order to generate an overall composite index score.

Chapter 5 153

Table 5-20: Summary of measurement scales and scores of indicators

Indicator Measurement scale (equation) Measurement score

CS1 CS2 CS3 Unit

Land use mix

Total LUM value/Total parcel area

Where total LUM=∑k(pk ln pk)/ln N, k=Category of land use; p=proportion of land area

devoted to specific land use; N=# of land categories

0.471 0.296 0.587 Index value

Dwelling density Dwelling units/Residential area

Where: Residential area include internal street + half width adjoining access roads) 14.03 28.3 30.3

Dwelling unit/

ha

Impervious surfaces [Total impervious area (TIA)/Total neighbourhood area]*100

Where, TIA=roads, buildings, driveways, sidewalks, drainage, car parks 43.8 54.5 49.4 Percentage

Internal connectivity Total Intersections/(Total Intersections + Cul-de-sac) 0.95 0.89 1.00 Index value

External connectivity Total perimeter length/# entry and exit points 349 382 398 Metre

Open space provision Total open space/total residents 14.8 5.0 17.5 m2/ person

Non-motorised transport [Total walkway + cycle length]/total street length 0 12.3 14.8 Percentage

Access to public transport (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

Where Dna= # of dwellings for area a within distance of service points; Da=Total dwellings 59.6 47.7 57.2 Percentage

Access to education (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

Where Dna=# of dwellings for area a within distance of facility; Da=Total dwellings 68.6 54.2 96.4 Percentage

Access to local services (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

where: Dna=# of dwellings for area a within distance of services; Da=Total dwellings 91.4 83.6 100 Percentage

Access to recreational space (∑Dna/∑Da)*100

Where Dna=# of dwellings for area a within distance of recreation space; Da=Total dwellings 94.8 67.5 94.3 Percentage

Access to community centres (∑Dna/∑Da)*100,

Where Dna=# of dwellings for area a within distance of community centre; Da=Total 96.9 66.5 90.2 Percentage

Access to emergency services

(ES) Average response distance of 3 ES 3.9 1.7 5.9 Km

Crime prevention and safety Total blind frontage/total frontage length, (Mackay, 2001) 3.6 19.8 25.3 Percentage

Traffic calming Streets segments with traffic safety measures/total street segments 8.9 2.7 19.9 Percentage

Commercial establishment

types Number of diverse types of business activities 5 14 14 # of types

Affordable housing Total affordable houses/Total residential in study area 0 19.6 25.9 Percentage

Housing option diversity 1- ∑(n/N)2 ,

where n=total dwelling is a category, N= total dwellings in all categories 0 0.737 0.725 Index value

154 Chapter 5

5.5 Summary

The chapter describes the equations used, and the subsequent calculations of the

output of each key indicator with the aid of spatial analysis procedures on data from

the three case studies. Since each key indicator has different measurement units, the

next stage in this framework development process is to standardise the different scores

of the key indicators to a normalised scale, to assign weightings to the individual

indicators and the category aggregate, and to run a sensitivity analysis to identify the

most appropriate framework for this research. These procedures will be discussed in

the following chapter.

Chapter 6 155

Chapter 6: Analysis of Normalisation,

Weighting, Aggregation and

Sensitivity

6.1 Introduction

A total of 18 key sustainability indicators within the three categories have been

measured for all the case studies. This information provides basic input in the

assessment framework to generate sustainable composite index. However since the

units of measurement scales of these indicators differ from one another, it requires

normalisation, prior to weighting and aggregation, before finally validating the

framework using sensitivity analysis. This chapter is divided into six main sections.

Following the introduction, the second section describes the normalisation procedure

for all indicators where there are differences in the scales. The third section outlines

the procedures for assigning indicator weighting and aggregate category to form a

sustainability composite index. The fourth section describes the possible assessment

frameworks generated from a combination of the different normalisation techniques.

Following this overview, the fifth section describes the uncertainty and sensitivity

analysis conducted on the frameworks to identify the most appropriate framework for

measuring the sustainability levels of neighbourhood layouts. The final section gives a

brief summary of the chapter.

6.2 Normalisation techniques for all indicators

Indicator scores provide basic input to the assessment framework to generate

sustainable composite index (SCI). However if the measurement unit of the indicators

differed from one another, it requires normalisation prior to the calculation of SCI

(Nardo, et al., 2005). Normalisation refers to the procedure undertaken to standardise

the original measurement score to a normalised scale. Nardo et al. (2005) has listed

nine techniques for normalization – ranking, standardisation, min-max, distance to a

reference, categorical scale, indicator above or below, cyclical indicator, special case

of balance of opinion and percentage of annual differences.

156 Chapter 6

Different normalization techniques produce different results for the composite

indicator, and, therefore, the robustness test will be carried out to assess their impact

on outcomes. This study used two techniques, namely, categorical scale and indicator

above or below the mean to normalise all indicators. The following section describes

both techniques and the normalised scales of each indicator for the three case studies.

6.2.1 Normalisation procedure based on the categorical scale technique

The categorical scale technique can be numerical (1, 2, 3) or qualitative (partly

achieve, achieved, not achieved) and this study used the numerical scale ranging from

1 to 5. Indicator original scores of less than 30% received a normalised scale of 1,

indicator original scores between 30% and 50% received a normalised scale of 2,

indicator original scores between 50% and 70% received a normalised scale of 3,

indicator original scores between 70% and 90% received 4 and indicator original

scores of 90% and higher received a scale of 5. In order to apply the normalised scales

in the case studies, the normalised scale was set within the range of the dissemination

(between minimum and maximum score) from original measurement score of each

indicator across the three case studies. The equation used to generate the five

normalised scales for each indicator is:

Categorical scale normalisation (EQ22)

Normalised scale 1, if =k<Dbase × 30%+Dmin

Normalised scale 2, if=Dbase × 30%+Dmin < k< Dbase ×50+Dmin

Normalised scale 3, if=Dbase × 50%+Dmin < k< Dbase × 70+Dmin

Normalised scale 4, if=Dbase ×70%+Dmin < k< Dbase ×90+Dmin

Normalised scale 5, if = k>Dbase × 90%+Dmin

where k= original indicator score, Dmin=original indicator minimum score;

Dmax=original indicator maximum score; Dbase=difference between

Dmin and Dmax;

The equation can also be illustrated in a simple format as shown in Table 6-1, where

higher normalised scale indicates better sustainability.

Chapter 6 157

Table 6-1: The indicator original score and its respective normalised scale

Indicator original score Normalised scale

< 30% 1

30% - 50% 2

50% - 70% 3

70% - 90% 4

More than 90% 5

For a majority of indicators, the relationship between original score and sustainability

is positive and thus a higher original score received higher normalised scale. However,

for four indicators namely, impervious surfaces, external connectivity, access to

emergency services and crime prevention and safety, the relationship is negative

(opposite) where a lower original score represents better sustainability and thus lower

original scores received higher normalised scale. Based on the normalised equation

(EQ22), and with consideration of the direction of relationship between original score

and sustainability, the original score of each indicator was converted to a normalised

score, and the result is shown in Table 6-2.

158 Chapter 6

Table 6-2: Normalisation scale based on the categorical scale technique

Indicators Original indicator score

Dmin* Dmax* Dbase*

Normalised scale

1 2 3 4 5

CS1 CS2 CS3 <30 30-50 51-70 71-90 >90

Land use mix 0.471 0.296 0.587 0.296 0.587 0.291 <0.383 0.383-0.441 0.442-0.500 0.501-0.558 >0.558

Dwelling density 14.03 28.3 30.3 14.03 30.3 16.27 <18.91 18.91-22.16 22.17-25.42 25.43-28.65 >28.65

Impervious surfaces 43.8 54.5 49.4 43.8 54.5 10.70 >53.45 51.31-53.45 49.16-51.30 47.01-49.15 <47.01

Internal connectivity 0.95 0.89 1.00 0.89 1 0.110 <0.923 0.923-0.945 0.946-0.967 0.968-0.990 >0.990

External connectivity 349 382 398 349 398 49.00 >393.10 383.31-393.10 373.51-383.30 363.70-373.50 <363.70

Open space provision 14.8 5.0 17.5 5 17.5 12.50 <8.75 8.75-11.25 11.26-13.75 13.76-16.25 >16.25

Non-motorised transport 0 12.3 14.8 0 14.8 14.80 <4.44 4.44-7.40 7.41-10.35 10.36-13.30 >13.30

Access to public transport facilities 59.6 47.7 57.2 47.7 59.6 11.90 <51.27 51.27-53.65 53.66-56.00 56.01-58.50 >58.5

Access to education facilities 68.6 54.2 96.4 54.2 96.4 42.20 <66.86 66.86-75.30 75.31-83.75 83.76-92.00 >92.00

Access to local services 91.4 83.6 100 83.6 100 16.40 <88.52 88.52-91.80 91.81-95.00 95.01-98.35 >98.35

Access to recreational space 94.8 67.5 94.3 67.5 94.8 27.30 <75.69 75.69-81.15 81.16-86.60 86.61-92.00 >92.00

Access to community centres 96.9 66.5 90.2 66.5 96.9 30.40 <75.62 75.62-81.70 81.71-87.80 87.81-93.85 >93.85

Access to emergency services 3.9 1.7 5.9 1.7 5.9 4.20 >5.48 4.65-5.48 3.81-4.64 2.96-3.80 <2.96

Crime prevention and safety 3.6 19.8 25.3 3.6 25.3 21.70 >23.10 18.81-23.10 14.46-18.80 10.11-14.45 <10.11

Traffic calming 8.9 2.7 19.9 2.7 19.9 17.20 <7.86 7.86-11.30 11.31-14.74 14.75-18.15 >18.15

Commercial establishments 5 14 14 5 14 9.00 <7.70 7.70-9.50 9.51-11.30 11.31-13.10 >18.15

Affordable housing 0 19.6 25.9 0 25.9 25.90 <7.77 7.77-12.95 12.96-18.13 18.14-23.30 >13.10

Housing option diversity 0 0.737 0.725 0 0.737 0.737 <0.221 0.2211-0.369 0.370-0.516 0.517-0.663 >23.30

*Dmin= minimum original indicator score across three case studies, Dmax= maximum original indicator score across three case studies, Dbase=Dmax–Dmin

Chapter 6 159

Table 6-3 shows the results of the differences between the original diverse scoring

scales of the indicators to a normalised score. This normalised score will provide input

to be used together with indicator weighting and category aggregate to generate

sustainability composite index of each case study.

Table 6-3: Normalised score based on categorical scale technique

Indicator Original indicator score

Normalised indicator

score

CS1 CS2 CS3 Unit CS1 CS2 CS3

Land use mix 0.471 0.296 0.587 Index 3 1 5

Dwelling density 14.03 28.3 30.3 Dwelling

unit/ ha 1 4 5

Impervious surfaces 43.8 54.5 49.4 Percentage 5 1 3

Internal

connectivity 0.95 0.89 1.00 Index 3 1 5

External

connectivity 349 382 398 Metre 5 3 1

Open space

provision 14.8 5.0 17.5 m

2/ person 4 1 5

Non-motorised

transport 0 12.3 14.8 Percentage 1 4 5

Access to public

transport 59.6 47.7 57.2 Percentage 5 1 4

Access to education 68.6 54.2 96.4 Percentage 2 1 5

Access to local

services 91.4 83.6 100 Percentage 2 1 5

Access to

recreational space 94.8 67.5 94.3 Percentage 5 1 5

Access to

community centres 96.9 66.5 90.2 Percentage 5 1 4

Access to

emergency services 3.9 1.7 5.9 Km 3 5 1

Crime prevention

and safety 3.6 19.8 25.3 Percentage 5 2 1

Traffic calming 8.9 2.7 19.9 Percentage 2 1 5

Commercial

establishment 5 14 14 # of types 1 5 5

Affordable housing 0 19.6 25.9 Percentage 1 4 5

Housing option

diversity 0 0.737 0.725 Index 1 5 5

160 Chapter 6

6.2.2 Normalisation procedure and score based on the above and below

mean technique

The normalisation procedure based on the above and below mean refers to

transforming the original score to a normalised score around the mean (Nardo, et al.,

2005). The scale was set based on the score value around the mean with a certain

threshold (±10%). For a majority of indicators, a higher original indicator score

indicates a better sustainability, but for four indicators (impervious surfaces, external

connectivity, access to emergency services and crime prevention and safety) the

relationship is negative (opposite) where a lower original score represents better

sustainability and thus lower original scores received higher normalised scale. The

original indicator score less than the mean (lower sustainability) receives -1, the

original indicator score around the mean receives 0 and indicator scores that are more

than the mean (higher sustainability) receive +1. The normalisation considers the

indicators that are above and below an arbitrarily defined threshold around the mean.

This transformation technique is simple and not affected by outliers (Nardo, et al.,

2005). The formula for this transformation is explained by EQ23:

Above and below mean normalisation (EQ23)

Scale -1, if k < (a-p)

Scale 0, if (a-p) <k< (a+p)

Scale 1, if k> (a+p)

Where k= original indicator score, p=±10%×average indicator mean across case

studies

The results of transformation create three normalised scores ranging from -1 to 1, as

shown in Table 6-4. The normalised scores are used together with indicator

weightings and category aggregate to calculate the sustainability composite index of

each case study. Table 6-5 shows the results on the conversion from the original

diverse scoring units of the indicator to a normalised score using the below and above

mean technique.

Chapter 6 161

Table 6-4: Normalisation scale based on the above and below mean technique

Indicator Original score ±10%

thresholds (p) Average score (a)

Normalised scale

CS1 CS2 CS3 -1 0 +1

1. Land use mix 0.471 0.296 0.587 0.0291 0.451 <0.422 0.422-0.480 >0.480

2. Dwelling density 14.03 28.3 30.3 1.627 24.210 <22.583 22.583-25.387 >25.837

3. Impervious surfaces 43.8 54.5 49.4 1.07 49.233 >50.303 48.163-50.303 <48.163

4. Internal connectivity 0.95 0.89 1 0.011 0.947 <0.936 0.936-0.958 >0.958

5. External connectivity 349 382 398 4.9 376.333 >381.233 371.433-381.233 <371.433

6. Open space provision 14.8 5 17.5 1.25 12.433 <11.183 11.183-13.683 >13.683

7. Non-motorised transport 0 12.3 14.8 1.48 9.033 <7.553 7.553-10.513 >10.513

8. Access to public transport 59.6 47.7 57.2 1.19 54.833 <53.643 53.643-56.023 >56.023

9. Access to education 68.6 54.2 96.4 4.22 73.067 <68.847 68.847-77.287 >77.287

10. Access to local services 91.4 83.6 100 1.64 91.667 <90.027 90.027-93.307 >93.307

11. Access to recreational space 94.8 67.5 94.3 2.73 85.533 <82.803 82.803-88.263 >88.263

12. Access to community centres 96.9 66.5 90.2 3.04 84.533 <81.493 81.493-87.573 >87.573

13. Access to emergency services 3.9 1.7 5.9 0.42 3.833 >4.253 3.413-4.253 <3.413

14. Crime prevention and safety 3.6 19.8 25.3 2.17 16.233 >18.403 14.063-18.403 <14.063

15. Traffic calming 8.9 2.7 19.9 1.72 10.500 <8.780 8.780-12.220 >12.220

16. Commercial establishment 5 14 14 0.9 11.000 <10.100 10.100-11.900 >11.900

17. Affordable housing 0 19.6 25.9 2.59 15.167 <12.577 12.577-17.757 >17.757

18. Housing option diversity 0 0.737 0.725 0.0737 0.487 <0.414 0.414-0.561 >0.561

162 Chapter 6

Table 6-5: Normalised score based on above and below technique

Indicator Indicator original score Normalised indicator score

CS1 CS2 CS3 Unit CS1 CS2 CS3

Land use mix 0.471 0.296 0.587 Index 0 -1 1

Dwelling density 14.03 28.3 30.3 Dwelling

unit/ ha -1 1 1

Impervious surfaces 43.8 54.5 49.4 Percentage 1 -1 0

Internal connectivity 0.95 0.89 1 Index 0 -1 1

External connectivity 349 382 398 Metre 1 -1 -1

Open space provision 14.8 5 17.5 m2/ person 1 -1 1

Non-motorised

transport 0 12.3 14.8 Percentage -1 1 1

Access to public

transport 59.6 47.7 57.2 Percentage 1 -1 1

Access to education 68.6 54.2 96.4 Percentage -1 -1 1

Access to local

services 91.4 83.6 100 Percentage 0 -1 1

Access to recreational

space 94.8 67.5 94.3 Percentage 1 -1 1

Access to community

centres 96.9 66.5 90.2 Percentage 1 -1 1

Access to emergency

services 3.9 1.7 5.9 Km 0 1 -1

Crime prevention and

safety 3.6 19.8 25.3 Percentage 1 -1 -1

Traffic calming 8.9 2.7 19.9 Percentage 0 -1 1

Commercial

establishment 5 14 14 # of types -1 1 1

Affordable housing 0 19.6 25.9 Percentage -1 1 1

Housing option

diversity 0 0.737 0.725 Index -1 1 1

6.3 Indicator weighting and category aggregate

Indicator weighting refers to assigning weighting to reflect the relative impact of

indicators in contributing to sustainability level of residential neighbourhood layouts.

Meanwhile, category aggregate refers to assigning aggregate to reflect the relative

impact of each category in sustainability level. Indicator weightings and category

aggregate will be used together with indicators normalised score to form a composite

index for sustainability levels. The relationship between indicator normalised score,

indicator weighting category aggregate, and on sustainability composite index is

shown in Figure 6-1.

Chapter 6 163

Figure 6-1: The illustration of the relationship between indicator weighting and

aggregation category on composite sustainability index

The assignment of weighting and aggregation was based on the results of the Delphi

survey, which is consistent with the budget allocation process (BAP) (Nardo et al.,

2005). According to the author, BAP has four phases: a) selection of experts for the

valuation, b) allocation of budgets to the individual indicator/individual category, c)

calculation of weighting/aggregate, and d) iteration of the budget allocation until

convergence is reached (optional). The assignment of weighting and aggregate were

conducted separately according to the respondent‘s regional location. This was to

examine whether there is any difference in opinion and judgement concerning the

importance level of the indicator in contributing to sustainability. As a result, three

groups of experts were created. The first group was the overall expert respondents

who were local (Malaysian) and international, the second group consisted only the

local expert respondents and the third group consisted only the international experts.

164 Chapter 6

The expert respondents consisted of diverse backgrounds in the built environment,

academicians, practitioners and state and local government agencies, both from

Malaysia and internationally. Tables 6-6 and 6-7 show the regional location of the

expert respondents of Delphi round two and three. Round two of the Delphi survey

consisted of 18 local (Malaysian) and 14 international expert respondents (Table 6-6),

while round three consisted of 17 local (Malaysian) and 12 international respondents

(Table 6-7).

Table 6-6: Regional profile of expert respondents in Delphi round two

Division International Local Overall %




Total 14 18 32 100

Table 6-7: Regional profile of expert respondents in Delphi round three

Division International Local Overall %




Total 12 17 29 100

The following two sections present the procedure underlying the assignment of

weighting and aggregation for the indicator set respectively according to these three

groups of expert respondent.

6.3.1 Assignment of indicator weighting

The assignment of indicator weighting was generated from the importance values

rated by the experts in rounds two and three of the Delphi survey. The experts were

asked to rank the level of importance for each indicator category from ‗1=very low’,

2=low’, ‘3=medium low’, ‘4=medium’, ‘5=medium high’, ‘6=high’ and ‘7=very

high’ in terms of contribution to sustainability. The group importance mean (average)

Chapter 6 165

was calculated for each indicator to generate weighting for the indicator according to

the three groups; the overall group of respondents, Malaysian respondents and

international respondents.

The results of the total mean score for all the indicators between the three groups are

displayed in Table 6-8. For overall respondents, the indicator weightings ranged from

the lowest of 5.28 (access to emergency services) to the highest of 6.26 (open space

provision). For the Malaysian experts, the indicator weightings ranged from the lowest

of 5.18 (commercial establishments) to the highest of 6.22 (open space provision).

Meanwhile, for international experts, the indicator weightings ranged from the lowest

of 5.11 (impervious surfaces) to the highest of 6.30 (access to public transport

facilities).

Table 6-8: Indicator weightings for the three groups of expert respondents

Indicators (k) Group important mean(

Overall Malaysian International

Environmental


2. Dwelling density 5.47 5.64 5.27


4. Internal connectivity 6.06 6.00 6.12

5. External connectivity 5.63 5.59 5.67

6. Open space provision 6.22 6.29 6.15


Social

1. Access to public transport facilities 6.06 5.82 6.30

2. Access to education facilities 5.97 6.00 5.94

3. Access to local services 5.66 5.41 5.91

4. Access to recreational space 5.84 5.70 5.98

5. Access to community centres 5.44 5.53 5.34


7. Crime prevention & safety 6.00 6.06 5.93

8. Traffic calming 5.34 5.47 5.20

Economic

1. Commercial establishments 5.50 5.18 5.82

2. Affordable housing 5.69 5.58 5.80

3. Housing option diversity 5.41 5.29 5.53

166 Chapter 6

6.3.2 Assignment of category aggregate

Category aggregate refers to the impact value of each category: environmental, social

and economic in contributing to the level of sustainability of a neighbourhood

development. Aggregation was generated from the important points allocated by the

experts in round two of the Delphi survey, which involved a total of 32 respondents,

of whom 18 were Malaysians (local experts) and 14 were international experts. These

experts were asked to allocate the relative importance for each category based on one

hundred points for the total category set (a total of 100 points for all three categories).

The point for each indicator was based on the expert respondents‘ experience and

subjective judgement of the relative importance of the respective category in

contributing to sustainability.

The group mean of the important points was calculated to generate the aggregate for

each category (environmental, social and economic) between the three groups (Table

6-9). The results show that the overall respondents scored a group mean of 39.28 for

environmental, 33.00 for social and 27.72 for economic. The Malaysian respondents

scored 39.02 for environmental, 32.46 for social and 28.52 for economic. Meanwhile,

the international respondents scored 39.58 for environmental, 33.61 for social, and

26.81 for the economic category.

Table 6-9: Aggregate category between the three groups of expert respondents

Categories Group important mean(

Overall Malaysian International

Environmental 39.28 39.02 39.58

Social 33.00 32.46 33.61

Economic 27.72 28.52 26.81

Total 100 100 100

Chapter 6 167

6.3.3 Formulation of sustainability composite index calculation

This study uses two normalisation techniques, the categorical scale (with five

normalised benchmark scales) and the above or below mean (with three normalised

benchmark scales). The purpose of using more than one normalisation technique was

to ascertain the most appropriate one for application in Malaysia. This is because

different techniques have different strengths that affect the composite index (Nardo, et

al., 2005). Following normalisation, the indicator weighting and aggregation category

were conducted by applying the budget allocation process (BAP) in which weighting

and aggregate were based on the mean of the expert respondent group. The group

mean of the indicator and category were calculated to generate the indicator weighting

and aggregate category between the Malaysian and international experts.

Assigning a normalised scale, indicator weighting and aggregate category is the

principal task of formulating a sustainability composite index (SCI). Once these tasks

were completed the sustainability composite index was generated using the following

formula (EQ24):

Sustainability composite index (SCI) =

(EQ24)

where k=indicator, t=indicator category, a=indicator normalised score of case

study,

b= indicator weighting, and c= category aggregate score

The formula has been used to generate the SCI of the different sustainability

frameworks based on the possible combination of normalisation techniques and the

grouping of experts, as described in the following section.

𝑎𝑘𝑏𝑘𝑐𝑡 𝑘 = 1,2,… ,18 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 1,2,3

𝑘 ,𝑡

168 Chapter 6

6.4 Overview of different frameworks developed based on different

techniques

This study applied two normalisation techniques and three groups of expert

respondents (all experts, Malaysian only and international only), which created a

possible of six different frameworks for calculating the sustainability index of

residential neighbourhood development layouts. The different combinations of

techniques for the different frameworks are shown in Table 6-10. Each of these

frameworks was then tested on the three case studies to generate a respective

composite index, and the results were as shown in Table 6-11.


techniques

Framework Normalisation

Technique

BAP* weighting and aggregation

from different groups of experts

A Categorical All experts

B Categorical Malaysian experts

C Categorical International experts

D Above and below mean All experts

E Above and below mean Malaysian experts

F Above and below mean International experts

*BAP= Budget allocation process technique

By generating these results, this section had provided an avenue to check for possible

sources of uncertainty in the development of the framework. This was done using

uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, in order to identify the sources of uncertainty that

influence the scores of the composite index. These analyses are described in the

following section.

Chapter 6 169

Table 6-11 Composite index derived from six frameworks for case study 1 (CS1), case study 2 (CS2) and case study 3 (CS3)

Indicators Framework A Framework B Framework C Framework D Framework E Framework F

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3

Environmental

1. Land use mix diversity 711 237 1184 695 232 1159 727 242 1211 0 -237 237 0 -232 232 0 -242 242

2. Dwelling density 215 859 1074 220 880 1100 209 834 1043 -215 215 215 -220 220 220 -209 209 209

3. Impervious surfaces 1063 213 638 1114 223 668 1011 202 607 213 -213 0 223 -223 0 202 -202 0

4. Internal connectivity 714 238 1190 702 234 1171 727 242 1211 0 -238 238 0 -234 234 0 -242 242

5. External connectivity 1106 663 221 1091 654 218 1122 673 224 221 -221 -221 218 -218 -218 224 -224 -224

6. Open space provision 977 244 1222 982 245 1227 974 243 1217 244 -244 244 245 -245 245 243 -243 243

7. Non-motorised transport 235 938 1173 230 921 1151 239 956 1195 -235 235 235 -230 230 230 -239 239 239

8. Access to public transport 1000 200 800 945 189 756 1059 212 847 200 -200 200 189 -189 189 212 -212 212

9. Access to education facilities 394 197 985 390 195 974 399 200 998 -197 -197 197 -195 -195 195 -200 -200 200

10. Access to local services 374 187 934 351 176 878 397 199 993 0 -187 187 0 -176 176 0 -199 199

11. Access to recreational space 964 193 964 925 185 925 1005 201 1005 193 -193 193 185 -185 185 201 -201 201

12. Access to community centres 898 180 718 898 180 718 897 179 718 180 -180 180 180 -180 180 179 -179 179

13. Access to emergency services 523 871 174 526 876 175 520 867 173 0 174 -174 0 175 -175 0 173 -173

14. Crime prevention & safety 990 396 198 984 393 197 997 399 199 198 -198 -198 197 -197 -197 199 -199 -199

15. Traffic calming 352 176 881 355 178 888 350 175 874 0 -176 176 0 -178 178 0 -175 175

16. Commercial establishments 152 762 762 148 739 739 156 780 780 -152 152 152 -148 148 148 -156 156 156

17. Affordable housing 158 631 789 159 637 796 155 622 777 -158 158 158 -159 159 159 -155 155 155

18. Housing option diversity 150 750 750 151 754 754 148 741 741 -150 150 150 -151 151 151 -148 148 148

Composite index 10976 7935 14657 10866 7891 14494 11092 7967 14813 342 -

1400 2169 334 -1369 2132 353 -1438 2204

2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1

*Framework: A=categorical+all experts, B=categorical+Malaysian experts, C= categorical+international experts, D= below/above mean+all experts,

E=below/above mean+Malaysian experts and F= below/above mean+international experts

170 Chapter 6

6.5 Uncertainty and Sensitivity analysis

As explain earlier, this study constructs the framework using two normalisation

techniques: the categorical scale techniques and the above and below mean technique

for normalisation; and the budget allocation process derived from expert Malaysian

and international respondents for indicator weighting and category aggregation.

Therefore, the possible error could result in dubious analytic rigour of the framework,

which might be expected to come from the normalisation technique or expert group

respondents (Nardo, et al., 2005). In order to examine these errors, uncertainty and

sensitivity analyses were conducted on the framework. The purpose of these two

analyses was to examine the consistency of (a) the techniques used in normalisation

and weighting, and (b) the expert respondents‘ opinion in assessing the sustainability

of the residential neighbourhood layout. The following two subsections described

these two analyses with further details.

6.5.1 Uncertainty analysis between different groups of experts

Uncertainty analysis examines the input factors that propagate through the structure of

the sustainability composite indicator index (ranking order). Since there were three

case studies, the ranking order is 1, 2 3. The highest sustainability index received rank

1, while the lowest received rank 3. This study addresses the source of uncertainty due

to differences between the groups of experts. This was to examine the consistency of

a) the expert respondents‘ opinion in assessing the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts and b) techniques used in normalisation and weighting. The

first uncertainty analysis involved comparing ranking differences (derived from

composite index) between different groups of experts; all experts, Malaysian, and

international were based on the categorical scale technique. Similarly, the second

analysis compared the differences between the different groups of expert but was

based on the above and below mean technique of normalisation.

Chapter 6 171

Table 6-12 presents the sustainability rank of the three case studies based on the

categorical scale normalisation. The results show that both the Malaysian and

international experts ranked case study 3 (Master-planned development) the first, case

study 1 (sub-division development) second, and case study 2 (piecemeal development)

third.


categorical scale normalisation

Indicators All Malaysian International

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3

1. Land use mix diversity 711 237 1184 695 232 1159 727 242 1211

2. Dwelling density 215 859 1074 220 880 1100 209 834 1043

3. Impervious surfaces 1063 213 638 1114 223 668 1011 202 607

4. Internal connectivity 714 238 1190 702 234 1171 727 242 1211

5. External connectivity 1106 663 221 1091 654 218 1122 673 224

6. Open space provision 977 244 1222 982 245 1227 974 243 1217

7. Non-motorised transport 235 938 1173 230 921 1151 239 956 1195

8. Access to public transport 1000 200 800 945 189 756 1059 212 847

9. Access to education facilities 394 197 985 390 195 974 399 200 998

10. Access to local services 374 187 934 351 176 878 397 199 993

11. Access to recreational space 964 193 964 925 185 925 1005 201 1005

12. Access to community centres 898 180 718 898 180 718 897 179 718

13. Access to emergency services 523 871 174 526 876 175 520 867 173

14. Crime prevention & safety 990 396 198 984 393 197 997 399 199

15. Traffic calming 352 176 881 355 178 888 350 175 874

16. Commercial establishments 152 762 762 148 739 739 156 780 780

17. Affordable housing 158 631 789 159 637 796 155 622 777

18. Housing option diversity 150 750 750 151 754 754 148 741 741

Total 10976 7935 14657 10866 7891 14494 11092 7967 14813

Rank 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1

CS1=Subdivision development; CS2=Piecemeal development; CS3=Master-planned development

172 Chapter 6

When comparing the rank order based on the above and below normalisation

technique (Table 6-13), the results were found consistent between the Malaysian and

international experts. Both groups ranked case study 3 as first, case study 1 as second

and case study 2 as third. These results (Table 6-12 and Table 6-13) demonstrate that

both groups of experts share common opinion and judgement in assessing the

sustainability of all three residential neighbourhoods.

Table 6-13 Differences in ranking between three groups of experts based on above and

below normalisation

Indicators

All Malaysian International

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3

1. Land use mix diversity 0 -237 237 0 -232 232 0 -242 242

2. Dwelling density -215 215 215 -220 220 220 -209 209 209

3. Impervious surfaces 213 -213 0 223 -223 0 202 -202 0

4. Internal connectivity 0 -238 238 0 -234 234 0 -242 242

5. External connectivity 221 -221 -221 218 -218 -218 224 -224 -224

6. Open space provision 244 -244 244 245 -245 245 243 -243 243

7. Non-motorised transport -235 235 235 -230 230 230 -239 239 239

8. Access to public transport 200 -200 200 189 -189 189 212 -212 212

9. Access to education facilities -197 -197 197 -195 -195 195 -200 -200 200

10. Access to local services 0 -187 187 0 -176 176 0 -199 199

11. Access to recreational space 193 -193 193 185 -185 185 201 -201 201

12. Access to community centres 180 -180 180 180 -180 180 179 -179 179

13. Access to emergency services 0 174 -174 0 175 -175 0 173 -173

14. Crime prevention & safety 198 -198 -198 197 -197 -197 199 -199 -199

15. Traffic calming 0 -176 176 0 -178 178 0 -175 175

16. Commercial establishments -152 152 152 -148 148 148 -156 156 156

17. Affordable housing -158 158 158 -159 159 159 -155 155 155

18. Housing option diversity -150 150 150 -151 151 151 -148 148 148

Total 342 -1400 2169 334 -1369 2132 353 -1438 2204

Rank 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1


Since the preceding analyses have found out that there is no difference in the ranking

order for the three case studies among the three expert groups, the analysis to examine

the consistency of the normalisation techniques is conducted based on all respondents

(a combination of both Malaysian and international). The results indicate that the

ranking order of the three case studies is consistent between the two techniques, as can

Chapter 6 173

be seen in Table 6-14, where both techniques ranked CS3 first, CS1 second and CS2

third. Generally, these uncertainty analyses have shown the potential input factors

from respondent groups and both techniques used in normalisation to generate

sustainability composite indicator index are consistent. This also indicates that all

frameworks are robust. However, it is necessary to select only one framework that is

the most suitable for use in Malaysia. Pertaining to this, sensitivity index between two

normalisation techniques is calculated to examine the level of sensitivity of each

indicator.

Table 6-14 Differences in ranking between categorical normalisation and above and

below mean normalisation technique based on all experts

Indicators Categorical Above and below mean

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3

1. Land use mix diversity 711 237 1184 0 -237 237

2. Dwelling density 215 859 1074 -215 215 215

3. Impervious surfaces 1063 213 638 213 -213 0

4. Internal connectivity 714 238 1190 0 -238 238

5. External connectivity 1106 663 221 221 -221 -221

6. Open space provision 977 244 1222 244 -244 244

7. Non-motorised transport 235 938 1173 -235 235 235

8. Access to public transport 1000 200 800 200 -200 200

9. Access to education facilities 394 197 985 -197 -197 197

10. Access to local services 374 187 934 0 -187 187

11. Access to recreational space 964 193 964 193 -193 193

12. Access to community centres 898 180 718 180 -180 180

13. Access to emergency services 523 871 174 0 174 -174

14. Crime prevention & safety 990 396 198 198 -198 -198

15. Traffic calming 352 176 881 0 -176 176

16. Commercial establishments 152 762 762 -152 152 152

17. Affordable housing 158 631 789 -158 158 158

18. Housing option diversity 150 750 750 -150 150 150

Total 10976 7935 14657 342 -1400 2169

Rank 2 3 1 2 3 1


174 Chapter 6

6.5.2 Sensitivity analysis between two normalisation techniques

Sensitivity analysis is a technique used to determine how differences in the values

associated with an independent variable will affect the dependent variable (Pannel,

1997). It is helpful in determining the uncertainty in the model prediction through

variations in model inputs (Lilburne & Tarantola, 2009). This study adopted the

sensitivity index, which is based on the variations of the indicator input on the

variation of output (Hoffman and Gardner, 1983; Chen, et al., 2010). The sensitivity

index compares the output differences of each indictor using EQ21:

SIk=

(EQ21)

where SI=sensitivity index, k=indicator, Dmax=Composite index when k is set to

maximum normalised scale, and Dmin=composite index when k is set

to a minimum normalised scale.

The composite index values for these calculations are derived from Table 6-14. As an

example, the SI for land use mix diversity indicator for categorical scale normalisation

will be as follows: SI land use mix diversity=(1184-237)/1184 which is equivalent to 0.8.

Table 6-15 presents a list of the sensitivity index (SI) for all indicators based on the

above and below mean normalisation and categorical scale normalisation techniques.

The results demonstrate that the SI for the categorical scale ranged from 0.8 to 1.0

where 10 indicators scored 0.8 and eight indicators scored 1.0. Meanwhile, the SI for

the above and below mean technique ranged from 0 to 2.0 where three indicators

scored 0, seven indicators scored 1.2 and six indicators scored 2.0.

Chapter 6 175

Table 6-15: Sensitivity index of two normalisation techniques

Indicators Sensitivity index

Above and below mean Categorical scale

1. Land use mix 2.0 0.8

2. Dwelling density 2.0 0.8

3. Impervious surfaces 2.0 0.8

4. Internal connectivity 2.0 0.8

5. External connectivity 2.0 0.8

6. Open space provision 2.0 0.8

7. Non-motorised transport 2.0 0.8

8. Access to public transport facilities 1.2 1.0

9. Access to education facilities 1.2 1.0

10. Access to local services 1.2 1.0

11. Access to recreational space 1.2 1.0

12. Access to community centres 1.2 1.0

13. Access to emergency services 1.2 1.0

14. Crime prevention and safety 1.2 1.0

15. Traffic calming 1.2 1.0

16. Commercial establishments 0.0 0.8

17. Affordable housing 0.0 0.8

18. Housing option diversity 0.0 0.8

SI with a lower value indicates that the indicator is less sensitive over the composite

index. This shows that three indicators (commercial establishments, affordable

housing and housing option diversity) are less sensitive, and, therefore, less reliable

for measuring residential development layouts when used with the above and below

mean technique. However, these three indicators are found to be reliable when used

with the categorical scale technique. Thus, in comparing between these two

techniques, this study found that the categorical scale normalisation technique is more

appropriate for the development of the framework because all indicators are sensitive

and reliable for measuring sustainability.

176 Chapter 6

6.6 Summary

The construction of a framework for calculating a composite index is subject to error

due to the indicator values and assumptions, and, therefore, requires validation

(Pannel, 1997; Nardo, et al., 2005). This study constructs the framework for the

sustainability composite index for residential neighbourhood layouts, which has

applied two normalisation techniques – categorical scale techniques and above and

below mean technique, and one weighting and aggregation technique, the budget

allocation process (BAP). The normalisation procedures are based on three different

types of residential neighbourhood in Malaysia and weighting and aggregation are

derived from expert surveys (Malaysians and internationals).

Both uncertainty and sensitivity analysis are techniques used to determine the

behaviour and magnitude of indicators that would affect the composite index (Pannel,

1997; Lilburne & Tarantola, 2009). The source of uncertainty is examined based on

the consistency of (a) the consistency of techniques used in normalisation and

weightings, and (b) the expert respondents‘ opinion in assessing the sustainability of

residential neighbourhood layouts. The results of uncertainty analysis showed that

both techniques are consistent in giving similar rankings to the case studies, and this

also indicates that consistency is also evident in regards to the opinions and judgement

given by all experts. This also indicates that all frameworks are robust. When looking

at the sensitivity analysis, the sensitivity index (SI), which compares the output

differences of each indicator demonstrated variations between the two techniques. The

indicators were found to be reliable when used with the categorical scale technique.

Based on results from both analyses, the categorical scale normalisation technique is

the most suitable and appropriate for the development of the framework.

Chapter 7 177

Chapter 7: Discussion, Implications and

Conclusion

7.1 Introduction

The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap that have been identified earlier

regarding the need to have a mechanism within which sustainability levels of existing

residential development layouts can be quantified in a practical and systematic way.

This chapter discusses the significant research findings, the implications of the study

in respect of the body of knowledge and current practice, the limitations of the study,

recommendations for further research, and final concluding comments. Following the

introduction, the second section presents the discussion on the findings according to

the research objectives. The objectives which propelled this research are (1) to

identify environmental, social and economic indicators that can be used to evaluate

the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts; (2) to develop a valid assessment

framework based on the indicators identified for measuring the level of sustainability

of neighbourhood layouts, and, (3) to apply the assessment framework to different

types of neighbourhood developments in order to determine their level of

sustainability. The fourth section discusses the implications of this research both in

terms of theoretical and practical aspects. The fifth section explains the limitations of

this research and recommendations for future research stemming from the findings

highlighted in this research and the chapter concludes with an overall summary of the

research.

7.2 Discussion of findings in relation to the research objectives

Each indicator in the assessment framework is measured against the case studies to

determine the scores which are combined to ultimately determine the sustainability

levels of the case studies. As such the conduct of this research is in line with others

such as Becker (2004, 2005) who compares the indicator with a reference value or

target, and Dusenbury (2000) who uses such performance measurement to provide

feedback to adjust and strengthen the strategic plans towards achieving sustainable

development. In this research, based on the indicator measurement scores, planners

178 Chapter 7

would be able to identify areas which need improvements to enhance the sustainability

further.

In line with the methodology of this research, the analyses are undertaken and

presented in sequence according to each research objective. As far as the discussion is

concerned this sequential approach enhances the understanding of the research, which

also adopts the embedded research design, whereby one dataset is embedded within

the other so as to provide a supportive role for the other dataset (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2007). It is also believed that by relating the discussion according to the actual

steps that have to be followed in the framework formulation process, potential errors

can be minimised. The following sections discuss the findings from the analysis in

line with objectives listed in the previous section.

7.2.1 Identification of the environmental, social and economic indicators

which can be used to evaluate the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood layouts

The first research objective is to identify environmental, social and economic

indicators that can be used to evaluate the level of sustainability of neighbourhood

layouts. The development of urban sustainability indicators was initiated in the early

1980s. However, many of these indicators focus on assessment at national and

international levels, and indicators focusing on sustainability assessment at local level,

including on neighbourhood development are limited (UNCED, 1992; UNDP, 2001;

Winston & Eastaway, 2008). The selection of relevant and appropriate indicator sets is

vital because the strengths and weakness of the framework are largely dependent on

the quality of the underlying indicators (Nardo, et al., 2005). Using the Triple bottom

line sustainability approach and the domain-based framework by Maclaren (1996) to

frame this research, a total of 128 potential indicators are identified from the relevant

literature but not limited to the field of sustainability and residential development.

Consistent with the conceptual framework, the classification of the indicators under

the three categories – environmental (80 indicators), social (37 indicators) and

economic (11 indicators) reflects the relative importance of environmental and social

indicators in the sustainability research and development fields. After undergoing a

selection process involving conditions set by Hatry et al. (1977), DETR (1998) and

Hemphill et al. (2004), a total of 38 initial indicator set has been identified as having

Chapter 7 179

the potential for measuring the sustainability levels of residential development

layouts. This filtering process is an effective way to separate indicators which do not

fulfil the requirements of this study.

The Delphi study is used in this research because findings from the literature conclude

that it is the most appropriate technique for such research to gather consensus opinion

(Dalkey, 1972; Mitchell, 1991; Rowe, et al., 1991; Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Rowe &

Wright, 1999; Powell, 2003; Skulmoski, et al., 2007; Grisham, 2009; Landeta, et al.,

2011). It is also found that the Delphi technique has the ability to provide hindsight

and garner consensus where the knowledge or evidence about the issue of interest is

lacking or even unknown (Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Murphy, et al., 1998). This is in line

with the limited studies conducted on using indicators for measuring neighbourhood

layouts. It is even more appropriate for the Malaysian case because such study

involving the use of indicators for measuring sustainability levels has not been

conducted in Malaysia.

The use in this study of the three-round Delphi survey on the 38 indicators in this

study is an important step to identify the most relevant and appropriate sustainability

indicators. All three Delphi rounds have their own importance, from ascertaining the

content validity of indicators according to their category based on the perceptions of

experts (Pikora, et al., 2003), to selecting important indicators based on an agreed cut-

off point (for example 75% agreement of importance). The involvement of expert

respondents with diverse backgrounds in the built environment, academicians,

practitioners and state and local government agencies both from Malaysia and abroad

is another important approach adopted in this research. It enables the researcher to get

the best out of these two groups of experts in regard to both local and international

sustainability knowledge and experience respectively.

The use of a cut off-point for determining consensus is adopted in this research

because it enables the researcher to delineate indicators which are considered more

important than others which are considered to show less importance. This research

uses 75% agreement of relevance as the cut-off point for selection of the key

indicators. As indicated in the literature, this was among the widely used cut-off point

in studies involving consensus of agreement (Tigelaar, et al., 2004). Based on the

180 Chapter 7

three-round Delphi survey and using the 75% agreement of relevance as the cut-off

point, 18 of the 38 relevant indicators were identified by the panel of expert

participants the key indicators for assessing the sustainability of neighbourhood

layouts (Figure 7-1) This indicator set, grouped under three categories: environmental

(seven indicators), social (eight indicators) and economical (three indicators) provides

the primary information for the development of the framework, which is in line with

the first objective of this research.

Figure 7-1: Final list of sustainability indicators according to category

The outcome also reveals that the number of final indicators in each group is

proportionately consistent with the initial amount of indicators selected prior to the

Delphi rounds. However, it should be cautioned that the result could be different if

other consensus techniques as highlighted in the literature were used, for example

interquartile range (Beattie, et al., 2004; Nelson, 2006), standard deviation (Scott,

2002; Seibert, 2004; Brill, et al., 2006), or group mean (Brown, et al., 2006).

Chapter 7 181

7.2.2 Development of a valid assessment framework based on the indicators

identified for measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood

layouts

The second objective of this research seeks to develop a valid assessment framework

based on the indicators identified for measuring the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood layouts. This objective involves a two-stage process. The first stage is

to establish the normalised indicator scores, indicator weighting as well as the

category aggregate prior to the development of the framework. Once the framework is

established, the second stage comes into play, which is to validate the framework for

measuring the sustainability of neighbourhood layouts.

The normalisation of the indicator scores is important to enable the generation of a

composite index. The normalised indicator scores are derived from spatial data of

three different types of residential development in Malaysia (master-planned,

piecemeal, and sub-division developments). The justification for using these three

residential types is because they are representative of the major types of housing

development in Malaysia.

The normalised scores for these key indicators are generated from two normalization

techniques, the categorical scale and the above or below mean (Nardo et. al., 2005).

The purpose of using more than one normalisation techniques in this research is to

ascertain the most appropriate one for application in Malaysia. This is because

different techniques have different strengths that affect the composite index (Nardo, et

al., 2005). Table 7-1 shows normalised indicator scores derived from category scale

and above and below normalisation techniques. These normalised indicator scores

provide fundamental input information about the case studies and together with the

indicator weighting and category aggregate, are utilised to generate the sustainability

composite index of the case studies.

182 Chapter 7

Table 7-1: Normalised indicator scores derived from category scale and above and

below normalisation techniques

Indicator Category scale Above and below mean

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS1 CS2 CS3

1. Land use mix 3 1 5 0 -1 1

2. Dwelling density 1 4 5 -1 1 1

3. Impervious surfaces 5 1 3 1 -1 0

4. Internal connectivity 3 1 5 0 -1 1

5. External connectivity 5 3 1 1 -1 -1

6. Open space provision 4 1 5 1 -1 1

7. Non-motorised transport 1 4 5 -1 1 1

8. Access to public transport 5 1 4 1 -1 1

9. Access to education 2 1 5 -1 -1 1

10. Access to local services 2 1 5 0 -1 1

11. Access to recreational space 5 1 5 1 -1 1

12. Access to community centres 5 1 4 1 -1 1

13. Access to emergency services 3 5 1 0 1 -1

14. Crime prevention and safety 5 2 1 1 -1 -1

15. Traffic calming 2 1 5 0 -1 1

16. Commercial establishment 1 5 5 -1 1 1

17. Affordable housing 1 4 5 -1 1 1

18. Housing option diversity 1 5 5 -1 1 1

Once the normalised indicator scores are established, the assignment of indicator

weighting and category aggregate is carried out. The procedures for assigning

indicator weighting and category aggregate involve various techniques and this study

applies the budget allocation process (BAP), which totally relies on expert opinion

and judgement (Nardo et. al., 2005). The expert respondents are selected from diverse

backgrounds in the built environment – academicians, practitioners and planners in

state and local government agencies, both from Malaysia and abroad. The assignment

of weighting and aggregate is conducted separately according to the respondent‘s

regional location in order to examine whether there are any differences in opinion and

judgement of the level of importance of indicators in contributing to sustainability.

The group mean of importance was calculated to generate the indicator weighting and

category aggregate between all experts, Malaysian experts only and international

experts only. The establishment of the normalised indicator scores, indicator

Chapter 7 183

weighting and aggregate category is the principal task in development of framework

for measuring a sustainability composite index of development layouts.

This study applies two normalisation techniques and uses three groups of expert

respondents (all experts, Malaysians only, and international only), which created six

possible assessment frameworks for calculating the sustainability index of residential

neighbourhood development layouts (Table 7-2). The purpose of developing the six

possible frameworks in this research is to ascertain the most appropriate framework

for Malaysia. By selecting the most appropriate framework, this research ensures that

a reliable outcome of assessment on the sustainability levels of residential

development layouts in Malaysia can be obtained.


techniques

Framework Normalisation

Technique

Expert group

A Categorical

All

B Categorical Malaysian

C Categorical International

D Above and below mean All

E Above and below mean Malaysian

F Above and below mean

International

Once the most appropriate assessment framework measuring the sustainability of

neighbourhood layouts has been selected, the second stage towards developing it into

a valid framework is to validate it. The validation procedure is vital in this research

because it helps to identify any possible sources of uncertainty which influence the

framework. The sources of uncertainty are examined based on the consistency of (a)

the expert respondents‘ opinion in assessing the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts and (b) techniques used in normalisation and weightings. The

results show that both Malaysian and international experts are consistent in their

opinion and judgement in measuring residential neighbourhood development layouts

where both groups rank case study 3 (master-planned development) in first place, case

study 1 (sub-division development) the second place and case study 2 (piecemeal

development) the third place. Consistency is also found between the two

normalisation techniques.

184 Chapter 7

The validation procedure continues with a sensitivity analysis to determine how

differences in the values associated with a normalised indicator score (independent

variable) affect the sustainability composite index (dependent variable) (Pannel,

1997). It is helpful in determining the uncertainty in the framework prediction through

variations in framework inputs (Lilburne & Tarantola, 2009). This study adopts the

sensitivity index (SI), which is based on the variations of the indicator input on the

variation of output (Chen, et al., 2010). The results demonstrate that the SI for the

categorical scale ranges from 0.8 to 1.0 where 10 indicators score 0.8 and eight

indicators score 1.0 (Figure 7-2). Meanwhile, the SI for the above and below mean

technique ranges from 0 to 2.0 where three indicators score 0, seven indicators score

1.2 and six indicators score 2.0.

Figure 7-2: Sensitivity index of two normalisation techniques

Looking at the above and below mean technique, three indicators (commercial

establishments, affordable housing and housing option diversity) score an SI of zero

and are found to be less sensitive, and therefore are less reliable to measure residential

development layouts. However, these three indicators are more sensitive and reliable

Chapter 7 185

when used with the categorical scale technique. Thus, comparing between these two

techniques, this study finds that the categorical scale normalisation technique is more

appropriate for the development of the framework because all the indicators are

sensitive and reliable for measuring sustainability.

Therefore, taking into account the findings of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses, this

research suggests the framework that used the normalised indicator scores based on

category scale technique and incorporated with indicator weighting and category

aggregate based on a combination of expert respondents (both Malaysian and

international) as the most suitable to measure the sustainability composite index of

residential development layouts in Malaysia. The selected framework is called the

neighbourhood layout sustainability assessment (NLSA), as shown in Figure 7-3. The

framework shows the relationship among the indicator normalized score, indicator

weighting and aggregate category which contribute to the overall sustainability index.

Figure 7-3: The neighbourhood layout sustainability assessment (NLSA)

framework developed in this study

186 Chapter 7

While acknowledging the view of Carmona and Sieh (2005, 2008) that the complexity

and multi-objective nature of planning has resulted in a few attempts being made to

conceptualise a performance measurement framework, concern for sustainability in

the built environment has made such framework an important element in measuring

sustainability. This research has shown that such quantitative-based measurement

framework is feasible and can have a practical application in local sustainability

efforts.

7.2.3 Application of the assessment framework to different types of

neighbourhood developments in order to determine their level of

sustainability

The third and final research objective is to test the framework on the three types of

residential development and to determine their level of sustainability. Based on the

literature description, master-planned development seems to offer the best option for

creating sustainable layouts. However since there is no previous studies to ascertain

this claim, this research has developed the neighbourhood layout sustainability

assessment (NLSA) framework (Figure 7-3). The framework can be used to validate

such claim by determining the sustainability level of not only master-planned

development but also other development types. This is achieved by calculating their

sustainability index. The relationship between the indicator normalized score,

indicator weighting and aggregate category that contributes to the sustainability index

is shown using the equation below:

Sustainability composite index (SCI)=

where k=indicator, t=indicator category, a=indicator normalised score of case

study, b= indicator weighting, and c= category aggregate score

Following application of the framework on the three case studies used in this research,

Table 7-3 shows a composite sustainability index and the order of ranking of the case

studies. The normalised indicator scores of 4 and 5 indicates higher sustainability,

score of 3 indicates acceptable sustainability while score of 1 and 2 indicates lower

sustainability level.

𝑎𝑘𝑏𝑘𝑐𝑡 𝑘 = 1,2,… ,18 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 1,2,3

𝑘 ,𝑡

Chapter 7 187

Table 7-3: Sustainability composite index and rank between different types of residential neighbourhood development

Indicator (k) **Normalised indicator score (a) Indicator

weighting (b) Aggregate

category (c)

Indicator composite index

CS1* CS2* CS3* CS1 CS2 CS3

1. Land use mix 3 1 5 6.03

39.28

711 237 1184

2. Dwelling density 1 4 5 5.47 215 859 1074

3. Impervious surfaces 5 1 3 5.41 1063 213 638

4. Internal connectivity 3 1 5 6.06 714 238 1190

5. External connectivity 5 3 1 5.63 1106 663 221

6. Open space provision 4 1 5 6.22 977 244 1222

7. Non-motorised transport 1 4 5 5.97 235 938 1173

8. Access to public transport facilities 5 1 4 6.06

33.00

1000 200 800

9. Access to education facilities 2 1 5 5.97 394 197 985

10. Access to local services 2 1 5 5.66 374 187 934

11. Access to recreational space 5 1 5 5.84 964 193 964

12. Access to community centres 5 1 4 5.44 898 180 718

13. Access to emergency services 3 5 1 5.28 523 871 174

14. Crime prevention and safety 5 2 1 6.00 990 396 198

15. Traffic calming measures 2 1 5 5.34 352 176 881

16. Commercial establishment 1 5 5 5.50

27.72

152 762 762

17. Affordable housing 1 4 5 5.69 158 631 789

18. Housing option diversity 1 5 5 5.41 150 750 750

Sustainability composite index 10976 7935 14657

Rank 2 3 1

* CS1=Subdivision development, CS2=Piecemeal development, CS3=Master-planned development

**1=Very low; 2=Low; 3=Acceptable; 4=Good; and 5= Very good

188 Chapter 7


Based on the overall normalised indicator scores generated from spatial data analyses

as shown in Table 7-4, master-planned development (MPD) 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. Looking

at the indicator sustainability levels, a good sustainability achieved by the MPD 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-motorised 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 centres.

Table 7-4: Sustainability level of different indicators of the Master-planned

development

Indicator Indicator

normalised

score

Sustainability

level

1. Land use mix 5

High

2. Dwelling density 5

3. Internal connectivity 5

4. Open space provision 5

5. Non-motorised transport 5

6. Access to education facilities 5

7. Access to local services 5

8. Access to recreational space 5

9. Traffic calming measures 5

10. Commercial establishment 5

11. Affordable housing 5

12. Housing option diversity 5

13. Access to public transport facilities 4

14. Access to community centres 4

15. Impervious surfaces 3 Acceptable

16. External connectivity 1

Low 17. Access to emergency services 1

18. Crime prevention and safety 1

Chapter 7 189

On the other hand, the MPD achieves low sustainability level at three indicators

namely, external connectivity, access to emergency services and crime prevention and

safety. Consistent with Gwyther (2005), the MPD 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 MPD community, which is equally important for

market appeal.

The results from this study indicate that master-planned development is the most

sustainable neighbourhood 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 neighbourhood 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

neighbourhoods to be developed based on the master-planned concept (Suen & Tang,

2002). This finding also justifies the claims by planners that such comprehensive

development of MPD by a single agent has the advantages of providing greater design

flexibility, better neighbourhood environments, exclusive open spaces, and

community facilities for the residents (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999; Suen & Tang,

2002).

Another reason explaining the higher score of MPD lies in the stringent development

control mechanism that large scale developments, including residential MPD 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 hectares. Due to its sheer size, MPD in Malaysia

generally fall within this category and are therefore subject to EIA and SIA approval

from the relevant ministries. As the reports need to justify that the proposed MPD

fulfils the criteria required of the reports, this helps explain why MPD is generally

190 Chapter 7

well-developed compared to the smaller sized piecemeal and subdivision

developments.


The results show that subdivision development (SDD) is ranked second, with

sustainability composite index of 10976. Based on the overall normalised indicator

scores generated from spatial data analyses as shown in Table 7-5, SDD 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. The indicator sustainability levels indicate that SDD

achieves high sustainability on its 7 indicators comprising impervious surfaces,

external connectivity, access to public transport facilities, access to recreational space,

access to community centres, crime prevention and safety, and finally open space

provision.

Table 7-5: Sustainability level of different indicators of the subdivision development

Indicator Indicator normalised

score Sustainability level

1. Impervious surfaces 5

High

2. External connectivity 5

3. Access to public transport facilities 5





8. Land use mix 3

Acceptable 9. Internal connectivity 3

10. Access to emergency services 3


Low








Chapter 7 191

On the other hand, the SDD achieves low sustainability level due to lacking in access

to education facilities, access to local services, traffic calming measures, dwelling

density, non-motorised transport, commercial establishment, affordable housing and

housing option diversity. The results indicate that in the Malaysian scenario, SDD is

still regarded as having a fairly acceptable level of sustainability, especially in terms

of providing for common neighbourhood facilities and access to open space. This is

helped by its typically small parcel size configuration of 500 sqm, creating an average

density of over 14 dwellings per hectare (dph). Such size is lower than typical SDD

lots in the American or Australian examples (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999;

Goodman & Douglas, 2008).


Results show that piecemeal development (PMD) scores third place with a composite

index of 7935. PMD 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 10 (majority) indicators (Table 7-6).

Table 7-6: Sustainability level of different indicators of the piecemeal development

Indicator Indicator normalised

score Sustainability level

1. Access to emergency services 5

High






7. External connectivity 3 Acceptable


Low

9. Land use mix 1

10. Impervious surfaces 1

11. Internal connectivity 1


13. Access to public transport

facilities 1






192 Chapter 7

Looking at the indicator sustainability levels, the PMD achieves high sustainability on

access to emergency services, commercial establishment, housing option diversity,

dwelling density, non-motorised transport and affordable housing. However, the PMD

achieves low sustainability levels on a majority of its indicators (11) 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 centres and

traffic calming measures.

Within the Malaysian context, the development of residential neighbourhoods in a

piecemeal approach is not seen as desirable because it is considered as lacking in

overall planning of the neighbourhood 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 western

experience as argued by IBI Group (2011) 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.

7.3 Application of assessment framework within the Malaysian planning

system

7.3.1 The need for assessment framework

Even though sustainability issues and awareness at the international arena have been

around for nearly three decades, the local sustainability awareness and initiatives and

achievements in Malaysia still lag behind compared to the developed nations. This is

more apparent in the built environment field where most physical development takes

place. However, the existence of a structured development control practice and

mechanism in the country provides a potential avenue for introducing the

sustainability assessment framework in the country. The assessment framework will

not only complement the planning and development system in Malaysia but also

enhance the sustainability drive across the residential development sector, which

constitutes a large proportion of urban land use in the country.

Chapter 7 193

7.3.2 Application at planning approval stage

Consistent with the urban planning and development process identified in Figure 2-6

in the literature, implementation of the neighbourhood layout sustainability

assessment (NLSA) framework can take place prior to development, or after

development has been completed and occupied. For implementation on new

development, the NSLA can be undertaken during planning approval stage of a new

residential planning layout (Figure 7-4). Once an application for residential

development is submitted, it is passed through the NSLA and evaluated by a planner.

If the outcome from the evaluation shows that the proposal achieves the sustainable

level set by the authority, the application will be taken to the next stage in the

approval process. If however the layout proposal does not meet the pre-set

sustainability requirement, it will be returned to the applicant for amendments based

on the planner‘s recommendations to meet the sustainability standard. Once the

amendments are completed and resubmitted, the sustainability assessment process is

repeated, until the application is either accepted or rejected.

Figure 7-4: Implementation of NSLA at planning approval stage

194 Chapter 7

7.3.3 Application at post occupation stage

Another way of using the NSLA is to gauge the sustainability levels of existing,

completed and occupied neighbourhood developments. The purpose of undertaking

such assessment is to identify the extent to which existing neighbourhood

developments meet the sustainability requirements as envisaged in the framework. If

the NSLA is to be implemented after development has been completed and occupied,

then it should follow the flowchart as shown in Figure 7-5. This is a straightforward

process whereby the assessment is conducted based on the neighbourhood layouts

which have actually been developed on the ground. Compliance with sustainability

evaluation characteristics means such projects are contributing towards the long term

vision of creating a sustainable residential development. On the other hand, existing

layouts or projects which are judged as unsustainable or non-compliant to the

sustainability assessment will be subject to a re-evaluative process, which may require

retrofitting where applicable to ensure they fulfil the sustainability assessment criteria.

Figure 7-5: Implementation of NSLA at post completion / occupation stage

Chapter 7 195

7. 4 Summary of findings

7.4.1 Case study findings

Within the Malaysian context, the findings from the case studies have demonstrated

master-planned residential development (MPD) as the most sustainable followed by

subdivision (SDD) and piecemeal (PMD) development. This has been justified by the

ranking as well as the indicator‘s composite index score. This provides justification

for the policy makers and built environment agencies to encourage more future

residential neighbourhoods to be developed based on the master-planned concept.

This finding also justifies the claims by planners that such comprehensive

development of MPD by a single agent has the advantages of providing greater design

flexibility, better neighbourhood environments, exclusive open spaces, and

community facilities for the residents (Minnery & Bajracharya, 1999; Suen & Tang,

2002).

The concept of MPD in Malaysia is still new but the continuing national economic

growth has encouraged its development. Although MPD scores a high overall

sustainability ranking, there is still room for improvement to increase its sustainability

further. For example, the MPD can learn from SDD experience especially with regard

to the provision of external connectivity, crime prevention and safety, and access to

emergency services.

With regard to the development of residential neighbourhoods in a piecemeal

approach, a new innovative strategy is needed to improve its sustainability level. The

findings show it is not seen as a desirable development and attention needs to be given

to the issue of lacking in overall planning of the neighbourhood that supports

sustainability. Particular attention needs to be given especially on 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 centres and traffic

calming measures.

196 Chapter 7

7.4.2 Overall findings

The development of the NSLA framework has bridged the gaps highlighted earlier

this research which is to examine or to ascertain which of the three residential

development layouts (master-planned, subdivision or piecemeal developments) is

more sustainable. Not only it provides an opportunity for evaluating the sustainability

levels of neighbourhood development layouts in Ipoh City Council areas, which are

well-known for its low-rise residential developments, the framework also has a great

potential to be applied in neighbourhood layouts of similar nature in other local

authority areas in Malaysia. Such application is feasible as long as it takes into

account any possible variations in the local planning guidelines currently in force in

these areas. This flexibility paves the way for a nationwide application of the

framework to gauge the sustainability levels of these neighbourhood layouts at a

national level. Such information will provide an awareness of the level of

sustainability of each neighbourhood, facilitate a comparison of sustainability over

time for neighbourhoods, provide continuous monitoring and assessment, and guide

policy makers and environment agencies in their decision making process to improve

the sustainability further.

The integrative aspects of sustainability indicators are seen as a powerful way to

portray the link between environmental, social and economic dimension of

sustainability. This link can also be shown by combining these indicator dimensions

into a composite figure. Following the guidelines by Nardo et al. (2005), the research

has managed to design methods and calculations for generating the composite

indicator score. It must be noted however that there are difficulties which need to be

overcome before the indicators can be combined into a single number. These include

giving weightings to the individual indicators, normalising the different measurement

units, and aggregation issues.

This research reveals that there is a lack of sustainability assessment mechanism

targeted at local level of planning, including assessment on neighbourhood

sustainability. This deficiency has led to the investigation of a possible indicator-based

framework to measure the sustainability of residential neighbourhood layouts. The

final 18 indicators identified through the three-round Delphi process in this study have

provided an important input for the proposed assessment framework. It reflects a

Chapter 7 197

sound indicator set due to the nature of its selection process by those who are

knowledgeable in their field of studies. The selection process reveals the useful

contribution of the Delphi technique in areas such as the research, where concrete and

complete information about the most suitable set of neighbourhood sustainability

assessment indicators are not known.

7.5 Implications of the research

The implications of this research are in terms of both the theoretical and practical

aspects. A review of the literature highlights the awareness to promote sustainability

levels, however, there have been limited research conducted to investigate the

sustainability of residential development layouts. This research makes a contribution

to the body of knowledge by identifying specific indicators for measuring the level of

sustainability of residential development layouts. In addition, the findings from this

research have added to the existing body of knowledge concerning the level of

sustainability of subdivision developments, piecemeal developments and master-

planned developments. Thus, this research validates the view that master-planned

developments are more sustainable compared to subdivision and piecemeal

developments. Generally, this research does not only extend the literature on

sustainability but also provides a new perspective in assessing the level of

sustainability for residential layouts.

This research contributes practically through the development of a neighbourhood

sustainability assessment framework, which is relatively new, particularly in

Malaysia. This framework helps to provide policy makers and development agencies

with useful guidance to evaluate and determine the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood developments. The framework can also facilitate sustainability

comparisons over time concerning the neighbourhoods as a means to monitor changes

in the level of sustainability, and, whether it heads towards a better level or otherwise.

Thus, the results generated from this framework are expected to provide evidence for

the policy makers and development agencies and develop an awareness of the level of

sustainability, which needs collective effort towards developing a sustainable

neighbourhood.

198 Chapter 7

The framework also has a huge potential for helping to promote sustainable planning

of physical developments at local level, which currently is still limited. The proposal

to include the assessment framework into the existing planning and development

control mechanisms within the local planning authority represents a noble approach to

introduce sustainability elements within the local planning system. This is a huge

challenge because it involves not only legal consideration but also acceptance of the

sustainability drive within the local community.

7.6 Limitations and recommendations for future research

The first limitation is that this research covers only three sustainability categories

(environmental, social and economic) because it only measures neighbourhood

layouts using spatial data. The literature, however, also highlights the increasing

importance of the institutional dimension in sustainability measurement. Therefore, it

is recommended that future research should also include this institutional domain in

the assessment of sustainability. However, this would be time consuming to undertake

because the institutional dimension involves considerable non-spatial data from

interviews, content analyses and document study. Due to these technical difficulties, it

is recommended that such a study be undertaken periodically.

The second limitation is that during the development of the framework, the study used

two normalisation techniques. This option limits the possibility of testing the

framework against various testing scenarios. Therefore, future research should extend

this study using similar indicators but including various other normalisation

techniques. Such approach will increase the possible testing scenarios and hence

provide a rich comparison between scenarios.

The third limitation is that the case studies in this research are limited to one local

authority in Malaysia. Therefore, it limits generalisation to within that particular local

authority context. Even any generalisation to other local authority areas in different

states in Malaysia should take into account the possible differences in the guidelines

of the local authorities in question. This is because all matters pertaining to land fall

under the particular state‘s prerogative. Future studies should look into these possible

differences and refine the framework to accommodate for a generalisation within the

Malaysian context. In addition, the framework can also be applied at the international

Chapter 7 199

level with case studies selected from various countries to enable international

comparisons in terms of the achievement of sustainability levels.

7.7 Conclusion

To summarise, this research has established three main findings in relation to the

objectives which underpin this research. First, the research has generated the 18 key

indicators for use in evaluating the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts.

The generation of these indicators within the three sustainability categories has

answered the first research objective, that is, to identify environmental, social and

economic indicators that can be used to evaluate the level of sustainability of

neighbourhood layouts. Second, the research has established indicator weightings and

category aggregate to be incorporated into the assessment framework. It has also

managed to select and validate the most suitable sustainability assessment framework

for use in Malaysia by subjecting all potential frameworks to the normalisation

techniques and uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. These procedures and

achievements have answered the third research objective, that is, to develop a valid

assessment framework based on the indicators identified for measuring the level of

sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. Third, using case studies of different

neighbourhood types, the framework reveals that master-planned development

achieves a higher level of sustainability in terms of its layout design compared to

piecemeal development and subdivision development. This finding has successfully

answered the third and final research objective, that is, to apply the assessment

framework to different types of neighbourhood developments in order to determine

their level of sustainability.

The findings of the study show that the framework developed in this study provides

necessary guidance to quantify the level of sustainability of neighbourhood

developments at the layout stage. Importantly, the output from the assessment will

provide an insight into the level of sustainability of a particular neighbourhood

development. More importantly, it can be used to support responsible decisions of

development agencies and policymakers in mitigating and improving the level of

sustainability of existing neighbourhood developments and any future development

before it commences.

200 Chapter 7

This research has demonstrated the value of the Delphi study and GIS analysis as

potential tools for generating important sustainability indicators and helped in

generating indicator scores. While the specific example given in this research is for

assessing the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts in one local authority

area in one state, this research has shown a path that can be replicated in other

neighbourhood developments in other states in Malaysia, subject to changes to suit

local planning standards and guidelines. The framework may even be replicated in

other countries, albeit subject to modification to the types of indicator and weighting

deemed important in the respective country.

Bibliography 201

Bibliography

Adams, D. (1994). Urban planning and the development process. London: Routledge.

Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its

application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.

AMCORD. (1997). A national resource document for residential development.

Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Arendt, R. (2004). Linked landscapes: Creating greenway corridors through

conservation subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central

United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 241-269.

Aurand, A. (2010). Density, housing types and mixed land use: Smart tools for

affordable housing. Urban Studies, 47(5), 1015-1036.

Aurbach, L. (2005). TND design ratings standards: Version 2.2. Retrieved August

19, 2010, from http://www.tndtownpaper.com

Austin, M. (2004). Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision

in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 245-

253.

Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (Third ed.). Belmont, Ca: Thompson

Wadsworth.

Babbie, E. (2008). The Basics of Social Research (Fourth ed.). California: Thompson

Higher Education.

Baker, T. (1999). Doing Social Research (Third ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Bakhtiar, B., & Ibrahim, R. (2007). Identifying affordable quality housing components

for developing a Smart Growth model. International Journal of Sustainable

Tropical Design Research & Practice, 2(1), 41-48.

Barrett, S., Stewart, M., & Underwood, J. (1978). The land market and the

development process Occasional Paper 2: School for Advanced Urban

Studies, University of Bristol.

Barton, H. (2009). Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy,

26(Supplement 1), S115-S123.

Basinger, R. (2009). Competencies for a United States Horticulture undergraduate

major: A national Delphi study. HortTechnology, 19(2), 452-458.

http://www.tndtownpaper.com/

202 Bibliography

Beattie, A., Hek, G., Ross, K., & Galvin, K. (2004). Future career pathways in nursing

and midwifery: A Delphi survey of nurses and midwives in South West

England. NT Research, 9(5), 348-364.

Bebbington, J., & Gray, R. (2001). An account of sustainability: Failure, success and

reconceptualisation. Critical Perspective on Accounting, 12, 557-605.

Becker, J. (2004). Making sustainable development evaluations work. Sustainable

Development, 12(4), 200-211.

Becker, J. (2005). Measuring progress towards sustainable development: An

Ecological framework for selecting indicators. Local Environment, 10(1), 87-

101.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: Learning by doing. London:

Earthscan.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability: Measuring the immeasurable. London:

Earthscan.

Benfield, E. (1955). Note on conceptual scheme. In M. Meyersen & E. Benfield

(Eds.), Politics, planning and the public interest (pp. 303-336). Glencoe: Free

Press.

Berg, P., & Nycander, G. (1997). Sustainable neighbourhoods—a qualitative model

for resource management in communities. Landscape and Urban Planning,

39(2-3), 117-135.

Berke, P., Godschalk, D., & Kaiser, E. (2006). Urban land use planning (Fifth ed.).

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Biehl, D. (1986). The contribution of infrastructure to regional development: Final

report the Commission of the European Communities. Luxembourg: Office for

Official Publications of the European Communities.

Bigotte, J., & Antunes, A. (2007). Social infrastructure planning: A location model

and solution methods. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,

22(8), 570-583.

Blaike, N. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Maden, MA:

Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Blair, J., Fisher, M., Prasad, D., Judd, B., Soebarto, V., Hyde, R., et al. (2003).

Affordability and sustainability outcomes of 'greenfield' suburban development

and master-planned communities - A case study approach using triple bottom

line assessment. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

(AHURI).

Blakely, E., & Snyder, M. (1997). Fortress America: Gated communities in the United

States. Washington DC.

Bibliography 203

Blumenthal, D., & Martin, E. (2007). Urban sustainable development, lower income

communities, and transorganizational public administration. International

Journal of Public Administration, 30(1), 95 - 107.

Boer, R., Zheng, Y., Overton, A., Ridgeway, G., & Cohen, D. (2007). Neighbourhood

design and walking trips in ten U.S. metropolitan areas. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 298-304.

Bowman, T., Thompson, J., & Colletti, J. (2009). Valuation of open space and

conservation features in residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental

Management, 90(1), 321-330.

Boyd, B. (2003). Identifying competencies for volunteer administrators for the coming

decade: A national Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(4), 47-

56.

Brabec, E. (2009). Imperviousness and land-use policy: Toward an effective approach

to watershed planning. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(4), 425-433.

Brabec, E., Schulte, S., & Richards, P. (2002). Impervious surfaces and water quality:

A review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning.

Journal of Planning Literature, 16(4), 499-514.

Brandon, P., & Lombardi, P. (2005). Evaluating sustainable development in the built

environment. Victoria: Blackwell Science.

Brill, J., Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). The competencies and characteristics

required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study.

Educational Technology Research and Development 54(2), 115-140.

Brown, B., Yamada, I., Smith, K., Zick, C., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Fan, J. (2009).

Mixed land use and walkability: Variations in land use measures and

relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health & Place, 15(4), 1130-

1141.

Brown, N., Crawford, I., Carley, S., & Mackway-Jones, K. (2006). A Delphi-based

consensus study into planning for biological incidents. Manchester: Faculty of

Public Health.

Bruton, M. (2007). Malaysia: Planning of a nation. Kuala Lumpur: Persada.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?

Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS Release 10

for Windows: A guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

204 Bibliography

Camagni, R. (1998). Sustainable urban development: definition and reasons for a

research programme. International Journal of Environment and Pollution,

10(1), 6-27.

Campbell, S. (2003). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the

contradictions of sustainable development. In S. Campbell & S. Fainstein

(Eds.), Readings in planning theory (pp. 435-458). Malden: Blackwell

Publishing.

Carmona, M., & Sieh, L. (2005). Performance measurement innovation in English

planning authorities. Planning Theory & Practice, 6(3), 303-333.

Carmona, M., & Sieh, L. (2008). Performance measurement in planning - towards a

holistic view. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2),

428-454.

Cauwenbergh, V., K., B., C., B., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Cidad, V., et al.

(2007). SAFE - A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of

agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 20, 229-242.

Chen, Y., Yu, J., & Khan, S. (2010). Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria

weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environmental Modelling

and Software, 25(12), 1582-1591.

Choguill, C. (1996). Ten steps to sustainable infrastructure. Habitat International,

20(3), 389-404.

Choguill, C. (2008). Developing sustainable neighbourhoods. Habitat International,

32(1), 41-48.

Christchurch City Council. (2003). Triple bottom line measures (financial plan and

programme 2003). Retrieved 20th January, 2009, from

http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/annualplan/2003/triplebottomline/

Clark, M. (2001). Domestic futures and sustainable residential development. Futures,

33(10), 817-836.

Clarke, G. (1995). Re-appraising the urban planning process as an instrument for

sustainable urban development and management. In A. C. Mosha (Ed.), A

reappraisal of the urban planning process. New York: UN Habitat.

Coffman, M., & Umemoto, K. (2010). The triple-bottom-line: Framing of trade-offs in

sustainability planning practice. Environment, Development and Sustainability,

12(5), 597-597-610.

Cohen, D., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Lurie, N., & McKenzie, T.

(2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of

Public Health, 97(3), 509-514.

CNU (Congress of New Urbanism). (2002). Charter of the new urbanism. Retrieved

20th November, 2009, from http://www.cnu.org/cnu_reports/Charter.pdf

Bibliography 205

Costley, D. (2006). Master-planned communities: Do they offer a solution to urban

sprawl or a vehicle for seclusion of the more affluent consumers in Australia?

Housing, Theory and Society, 23(3), 157-175.

Cramer, C., Klasser, G., Epstein, J., & Sheps, S. (2008). The Delphi process in dental

research. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 8(4), 211-220.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed

methods research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Criterion Planners. (2011). Index PlanBuilder planning support system: Indicator

dictionary. Retrieved 20th June, 2011, from

http://www.crit.com/documents/indicatordictionary.pdf

Cutts, B., Darby, K., Boone, C., & Brewis, A. (2009). City structure, obesity, and

environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to

walkable streets and park access. Social Science & Medicine, 69(9), 1314-

1322.

Czinkota, M., & Ronkainen, I. (2005). A forecast of globalization, international

business and trade: report from a Delphi study. Journal of World Business,

40(2), 111-123.

Dale, A. (2001). At the edge. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dalkey, N. (1972). The Delphi Method: An experimental study of group opinion. In

N. Dalkey, D. Rourke, R. Lewis & D. Snyder (Eds.), Studies in the quality of

life: Delphi and decision-making (pp. 13-54). Toronto: Lexington Books.

Dawes, S., Pardo, T. Simon, S., Cresswell, A., LaVigne, M., Andersen, D., et al.,

(2004). Making smart IT choices: Understanding value and risk in government

IT investments, Center for Technology in Government, University of Albany.

Deakin, M., Curwell, S., & Lombardi, P. (2002). Sustainable urban development: the

framework and directory of assessment methods. Journal of Environmental

Assessment Policy and Management, 4(2), 171-197.

Dempsey, N. (2008). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining

urban social sustainability Sustainable Development, 1-12.

Department of Statistics. (2000). Population and housing census of Malaysia 2000.

Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics Malaysia.

Department of Statistics. (2010). Population and housing census of Malaysia 2010.

Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics Malaysia.

206 Bibliography

DETR. (1998). Sustainability counts. London: Department of the Environment,

Transport and Regions.

deVaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage Publications.

Dill, J. (2004). Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. Paper

presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,

Washington DC.

Dobbins, T. (1999). Clinical experiences for agricultural teacher education programs

in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Unpublished doctoral thesis.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Dresner, S. (2008). The Principles of Sustainability (Second ed.). London: Earthscan.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (1995). Planning standards and

guidelines. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (2003). Planning guidelines:

Optimum layout for housing areas. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and

Local Government.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (2005). National Physical Plan.

Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (2006). Guidelines for the

development of affordable housing schemes. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of

Housing and Local Government.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (2010a). 2nd National Physical

Plan. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). (2010b). Gated community and

guarded neighbourhood. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local

Government.

Dusenbury, P. (2000). Strategic planning and performance measurement. Washington

DC: The Urban Institute.

Edwards, B. (2000). Sustainable Housing: Architecture, Society and Professionalism.

In B. Edwards & D. Turrent (Eds.), Sustainable Housing: Principles and

practice. London: E & F Spoon.

Edwards, W. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Ekins, P. (2000). Economic growth and environmental sustainability: The prospects

for green growth. New York: Routledge.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of the 21st century.

Gabriola: New Society Publisher.

Bibliography 207

EPU (Economic Planning Unit). (1999). Malaysian Quality of Life Index.

Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur.

EPU (Economic Planning Unit). (2002). Malaysian Quality of Life Index.

Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur

Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities

related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84.

Fahy, F., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2007). Developing and testing an operational framework

for assessing quality of life. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, In

Press, Corrected Proof.

Farris, T. (2001). The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart

growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), 1-30.

Fleissig, W., & Jacobsen, V. (2002). Smart Scorecard for developing projects.

Retrieved 12 January, 2010, from http://www.cnu.org/cnu_

reports/Scorecard_exp.pdf

Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2010). Neighbourhood design and fear of

crime: A social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents' fear in

new suburban housing developments. Health & Place, 16(6), 1156-1165.

Frame, B., & Vale, R. (2006). Increasing uptake of low impact design and

development: the role of sustainability assessment systems. Local

Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 11, 287-

306.

Frank, D. (2004). Economic determinants of urban form: resulting trade-offs between

active and sedentary forms of travel. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 27, 146-153.

Frank, L., Andresen, M., & Schmid, T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community

design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of


Friedman, A. (2005). Sustainable residential development: Planning and design for

green neighbourhoods. Washington: Island Press.

Frowein, H., Folstad, A., & Schliemann, T. (2004). Applying Multi-Attribute Utility

Technique to assess alternative communication media. Proceedings of the

human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, New York: Sage

Publication.

Garde, A., Saphores, J.D., Matthew, R., & Day, K. (2010). Sustainable neighbourhood

development: missed opportunities in Southern California. Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 387-407.

http://www.cnu.org/cnu_

208 Bibliography

Giles-Corti, B., Macintyre, S., Clarkson, J., Pikora, T. J., & Donovan, R. (2003).

Environmental and lifestyle factors associated with with overweight and

obesity in Perth, Australia. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 93-

102.

Giles-Corti, B., Timperio, A., Cutt, H., Pikora, T., Bull, F., Knuiman, M., et al.

(2006). Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the

local neighborhood: RESIDE's Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire.


Girling, C., & Kellett, R. (2005). Skinny streets and green neighbourhoods: Design

for environment and community. Washington DC: Island Press.

Goh, B. (1988). The future of urban planning in Malaysia. Habitat International,

12(4), 5-12.

Goodman, R. (2008). The truth about sustainability. Planning, 74(5), 12-15.

Goodman, R., & Douglas, K. (2008). Privatised communities: The use of owners

corporations in master-planned estates in Melbourne. Australian Geographer,

39(4), 521-536.

Gore, T., & Nicholson, D. (1991). Models of the land development process: A critical

review. Environment and Planning A, 23(5), 705-730.

Government of Malaysia. (1966). Housing Developers and Control Act. Kuala

Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Grant, J. (2004). Sustainable urbanism in historical perspective. In A. Sorensen, P. J.

Mrcotullio & J. Grant (Eds.), Towards sustainable cities: East Asian, North

American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions (pp. 24-

37). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Green, E., & Champion, A. (1991). The booming town studies: methodological issues.

Environment and Planning A, 23, 1393-1408.

Green, L., & Kreuter, M. (1999). Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and

Environmental Approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and

multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,

2(1), 112-130.

Gupta, U., & Clarke, R. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A

bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

53(2), 185-211.

Gwyther, G. (2005). Paradise planned: Community formation and the master-planned

estate. Urban Policy and Research, 23(1), 57 - 72.

Bibliography 209

Haas, L., Brunvoll, F., & Hoie, H. (2002). Overview of sustainable development

indicators used by national and international agencies: OECD.

Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple

bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 28(2–3), 73-89.

Hak, T., Moldan, B., & Dahl, A. (2007). Sustainability indicators: A scientific

assessment. Washington DC.

Hajkowicz, S. (2005). Evaluating natural resource management investment

performance with multi-attribute utility theory. In J. Bellamy (Eds.), Regional

Natural Resource Management Planning: the challenges of evaluation as seen

through different lenses, Occasional Symposium Monograph Series, CSIRO,

Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Halcomb, E., Andrew, S., & Brannen, J. (2009). Introduction to mixed methods

research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. In S. Andrew & E. Halcomb

(Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 1-12).

Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing.

Halme, M., Anttonen, M., Hrauda, G., & Kortman, J. (2006). Sustainability evaluation

of European household services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1529-

1540.

Hamby, D. (1994). A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity: Analysis of

environmental models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 32, 135-

154.

Handy, S., & Clifton, K. (2001). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile

travel. Transportation, 28(4), 317-346.

Hardi, P., Barg, S., Hodge, T., & Pinter, L. (1997). Measuring sustainable

development: review of current practice. Ottawa: Industry Canada.

Harrison, J. (2005). Future attributes and job competencies needed by the Texas

Department of State Health Services (DSHS), State Hospital Section,

registered nurse managers: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Texas

A&M University.

Hart, M. (2006). Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (Second ed.). Hartford:

Sustainable Measures.

Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi

survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015.

Hatry, P., Blair, L., & Fisk, M. (1977). How effective are your community services?

Procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of municipal services. Washington

DC: The Urban Institute.

210 Bibliography

Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented society.

Hampshire: Pelgrave Macmillan.

Healy, G. N., Dunstan, D. W., Salmon, J., Cerin, E., Shaw, J. E., Zimmet, P. Z., et al.

(2008). Breaks in sedentary time. Beneficial associations with metabolic risk.

[10.2337/dc07-2046]. Diabetes Care, 31, 661-666.

Hemphill, L., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2004). An Indicator-based approach to

measuring sustainable urban regeneration performance: Part 1, conceptual

foundations and methodological framework. Urban Studies, 41(4), 725-755.

Hezri, A. (2004). Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: a

framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental

Management, 73(4), 357-371.

Hezri, A. & Hasan, M. (2006). Towards sustainable development? The evolution of

environmental policy in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum, 30(1), 37-50.

HNEPH (Hunter New England Population Health). (2011). Gunnedah Liveable

Communities Assessment: Final Report: Hunter New England Population

Health. Retrieved 18 October, 2011, from http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/

_data/assets/pdf_file/0010/88669/Gunnedah_Liveable_Communities_Assessm

ent_Final_Report_22_Nov.pdf

Hoch, C. (2007). Making plans: Representation and intention. Planning Theory, 6(1),

16-35.

Hoehner, C., Brennan Ramirez, L., Elliott, M., Handy, S., & Brownson, R. (2005).

Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among

urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 105-116.

Hoffman, F., & Gardner, R. (1983). Evaluation of uncertainties in environmental

radiological assessment models. In J. Till & H. Meyer (Eds.), Radiological

assessments: A textbook on environmental dose assessment. Washington DC.

Hopkins, L. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans. Washington:

Island Press.

Hopkins, L. (2012). Plan assessment: Making and using plans well. In R. Crane and R

Weber (Eds.), Oxford handbook of urban planning. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Houlahan, J., & Findlay, C. (2004). Estimating the ‗critical‘ distance at which adjacent

land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology,

19(6), 677-690.

Hung, H., Altschuld, J., & Lee, Y. (2008). Methodological and conceptual issues

confronting a cross-country Delphi study of educational program evaluation.

Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(2), 191-198.

http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/

Bibliography 211

IBI Group. (2011). Small scale ground oriented residential infill. Smart choice for

developing our community Retrieved 20 December, 2011, from

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/InfraPlan/SmartChoices/OnlineShowcaseIdea4Sm

allScaleGroundOrientedResidentialInfill.pdf

ICLEI (International Council for Local Environment Initiatives). (1996). Local

Agenda 21 planning guide. Toronto: ICLEI.

Innes, J., & Booher, D. (1999). Consensus building and complex system adaptive.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.

Ipoh City Council. (2010). Ipoh draft local plan 2020: Executive summary. Kuala

Lumpur: Ipoh City Council.

Jabareen, Y. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts.

Journal of Planning Education and Research 26, 38-52.

Jairath, N., & Weinstein, J. (1994). The Delphi methodology: a useful administrative

approach. Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration. Canadian Journal of

Nursing Administration, 7, 29-42.

Jamaliah, J. (2004). Emerging trends of urbanisation in Malaysia. Statistics Malaysia,

1, 43-54.

Jasch, C. (2009). Environmental and material flow cost accounting: Principles and

procedures. Vienna: Springer.

Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (2007). Defining the neighbourhood: Challenges for

empirical research. The Town Planning Review, 78(2), 153.

Jeste, D., Ardelt, M., Blazer, D., & Meeks, T. (2010). Expert consensus on

characteristics of wisdom: A Delphi method study. Gerontologist, 50(5), 668-

680.

Jones, E. (2001). Liveable Neighbourhood. Paper presented at the Australia: Walking

the 21st Century.

Karol, E., & Brunner, J. (2009). Tools for measuring progress towards sustainable

neighbourhood environments. Sustainability, 1(3), 612-627.

Kavaliaukas, P. (2008). A concept of sustainable development for regional land use

planning: Lithuanian experience. Technological and Economic Development of

Technology, 14(1), 51-63.

KLCH (Kuala Lumpur City Hall). (2003). Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020

(KLSP2020). Kuala Lumpur: Federal Town and Country Planning Department.

KLCH, (Kuala Lumpur City Hall). (2007). Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020 (KL

CityPlan2020). Kuala Lumpur: Federal Town and Country Planning

Department.

212 Bibliography

Kroll, T., & Neri, M. (2009). Design for mixed methods research. In S. Andrew & E.

Halcomb (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences

(pp. 31-49). Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing.

Lafferty, W., & Eckerberg, K. (Eds.). (1998). From the Earth Summit to Local

Agenda 21: Working towards sustainable development. London: Earthscan.

Landeta, J., & Barrutia, J. (2011). People consultation to construct the future: A

Delphi application. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(1), 134-151.

Landeta, J., Barrutia, J., & Lertxundi, A. (2011). Hybrid Delphi: A methodology to

facilitate contributions from experts in professional contexts. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Lawrence, D. (2000). Planning theories and environmental impact assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 607-625.

Lee, B. T. (1996). Emerging urban trends and the globalising economy in Malaysia. In

F.-C. Lo & Y.-M. Yeung (Eds.), Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia. New

York: United Nations University Press.

Lee Lik, M. (1991). Town planning law in Malaysia: Politics, rights and jealousies.

Habitat International, 15(4), 105-114.

Lilburne, L., & Tarantola, S. (2009). Sensitivity analysis of spatial models.

International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(2), 151-168.

Listokin, D., & Walker, C. (2007). Infill development standards and policy guide.

New Jersey: Centre for Urban and Policy Research.

Lyle, J. (1985). Design for human ecosystems: Landscape, land use, and natural

resources. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lyle, J. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Lundberg, K., Balfors, B., & Folkeson, L. (2009). Framework for environmental

performance measurement in a Swedish public sector organization. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 17(11), 1017-1024.

Mackay, M. (2001). Which Suburbs Work: A comparison between traditionally

planned suburbs and conventional suburban development. Perth: Ministry of

Planning, WA.

Maclaren, V. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 62(2), 184-202.

Malaysia Productivity Corporation. (2010). Productivity report 2009. Kuala Lumpur:

Malaysia Productivity Corporation.

Bibliography 213

Marcotullio, P. (2004). Why the Asian urbanisation experience should make us think

differently about planning approaches. In A. Sorensen, P. J. Marcotullio & J.

Grant (Eds.), Towards sustainable cities: East Asian, North American and

European perspectives on managing urban regions (pp. 38-58). Aldershot:

Ashgate.

McGhee, T. (2008). Managing the rural-urban transformation in East-Asia in the 21st

century. Sustain Sci, (3), 155-167.

McGranahan, G., Jacobi, P., Songsore, J., Surjadi, C., & Kjellen, M. (2001). The

citizen at risk: from urban sanitation to sustainable cities. London: Earthscan.

McGuirk, P., & Dowling, R. (2009). Master-planned residential developments:

Beyond iconic spaces of neoliberalism? Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(2), 120-

134.

McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. Philadelphia: Natural History Press.

Ministry of Environment. (2001). Spatial planning as an instrument for promoting

sustainable development in the Nordic countries: Action programme for 2001–

2004. Copenhagen: Ministry of the Environment.

Minnery, J., & Bajracharya, B. (1999). Visions, planning process and outcomes:

master-planned communities in South East Queensland. Australian Planner,

35, 33-41.

Mitchell, V. (1991). The Delphi technique: an exposition and application. Technology

Analysis & Strategic Management, 3(4), 333 - 358.

Mog, J. (2004). Struggling with sustainability: A comparative framework for

evaluating sustainable development programmes. World Development, 32(12),

2139-2160.

Mohamed, E. (2002). Macro economic impact on urbanisation process in Malaysia.

Retrieved from http://www.asian-forum.net/conference/paper/08-

2002PaperMalaysia8EE.pdf

Moles, R., Foley, W., Morrissey, J., & O'Regan, B. (2008). Practical appraisal of

sustainable development - Methodologies for sustainability measurement at

settlement level. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2-3), 144-165.

Mori, K., & Christodoulou, A. (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators:

Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 32(1), 94-106.

MOSTE (Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment). (2002). National

policy on the environment. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Science, Technology

and the Environment.

Muoghalu, L. (1990). Measuring housing and environmental quality as indicator of

quality of urban life. Social Science & Medicine, 25(1), 63-98.

214 Bibliography

Murphy, M., Black, N., Lamping, D., McKee, C., Sanderson, C., Askham, J., et al.

(1998). Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline

development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3), 1-88.

NAPIC (National Property Information Centre). (2010). Property market report.

Kuala Lumpur: NAPIC.

Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Tools for composite

indicators building. Ispra, Italy.

Nelson, A. (2006). Exploring a competency model for distributed learning leaders.

Unpublished doctoral thesis. Capella University.

Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools

for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498-508.

Neufeld, D., Cockfield, R., Fox, B., & Whitelaw, G. (1994). Towards an ecosystem

approach to land-use planning. Ontario: Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Neuman, L. (2006a). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. New York: Pearson Education.

Niemela, J. (1999). Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8,

119-131.

Odum, E. (1989). Ecology and our endangered life support systems. Massachusetts:

Sinauer Associates.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2001).

Environmental indicators: OECD Core Sets. Paris: OECD.

Olalla-Tárraga, M. (2006). A conceptual framework to assess sustainability in urban

ecological systems. International Journal of Sustainable Development and

World Ecology, 13(1), 1-15.

PAM (Persatuan Arkitek Malaysia). (2009). Green building index for residential new

construction. Kuala Lumpur: PAM.

Pannel, D. J. (1997). Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: Theoretical

framework and practical strategies. Agricultural Economics, 16, 139-152.

Papargyropoulou, E., Padfield, R., Harrison, O., & Preece, C. The rise of

sustainability services for the built environment in Malaysia. Sustainable

Cities and Society (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.008

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, (Second ed.).

Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Pawar, K., & Driva, H. (1999). Performance measurement for product design and

development in a manufacturing environment. International Journal of

Production Economics, 60-61, 61-68.

Bibliography 215

Pelchar, L., Morgan, P., Caldwell, M., Palmer, C., & Daily, G. (2007). Evaluating the

potential for conservation development: Biophysical, economic, and

institutional perspectives. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 69-78.

Pereira, J., Tiong, T., & Komoo, I. (2010). Mainstreaming climate change adaptation

and disaster risk reduction: A Malaysian approach. In R. Shaw, J. Pulhin & J.

Pereira (Eds.), Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: An

Asian perspective (Vol. 5, pp. 147-167): Emerald Group Publishing.

Pickett, S., & Grooge, J. (2009). Urban ecosystems: What would Tansley do? Urban

Ecosystem, 12, 1-8.

Pike, A., Tomaney, J., & Rodrigues, A. (2006). Local and regional development.

London: Routledge.

Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., & Donovan, R. (2003). Developing

a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and

cycling. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1693-1703.

Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., & Donovan, R.

(2006). Neighbourhood environmental factors correlated with walking near

home: Using SPACES. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38(4),

708-714.

Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising

sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6),

595-616.

Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 41(4), 376-382.

Priemus, H. (2005). How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 5-19.

Pulcini, J., Wilbur, J., Allan, J., Hanson, C., & Uphold, C. (2006). Determining

criteria for excellence in nurse practitioner education: Use of the Delphi

technique. Nursing Outlook, 54(2), 102-110.

Rainham, D., McDowel, I., & Krewski, D. (2008). A sense of possibility: What does

governance for health and ecological sustainability look like? In C. Soskolne

(Ed.), Sustaining life on earth: Environmental and human health through

global governance (pp. 171-193). Lanham: Lexington Books.

Redwood, T. (1994). Tree time. Planning, 60(9), 13-15.

Reid, N. (1988). The Delphi technique: its contribution to the evaluation of

professional practice. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Professional competence and quality

assurance in the caring professions (pp. 230-254). London: Chapman & Hall.

Riggs, W. (1983). The Delphi technique: An experimental evaluation. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 89-94.

216 Bibliography

Ross, N., Houle, C., Dunn, R., & Aye, M. (2004). Dimensions and dynamics of

residential segregation by income in urban Canada. The Canadian

Geographer, 48, 433-445.

Ross, N., Norbrega, K., & Dunn, J. (2002). Income segregation, income inequality and

mortality in North American metropolitan areas. GeoJournal, 53, 117-124.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and

analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375.

Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F. (1991). Delphi: A re-evaluation of research and

theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235-251.

Saadatian, O., Haw, C., Mat., S., & Sopian, K. (2012). Perspective of sustainable

development in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy and Environment,

6(2), 260-267.

Saville-Smith, K., Lietz, K., Bijoux, D., & Howell, M. (2005). Neighbourhood

sustainability framework: Prototype. Auckland: Beacon Pathway Limited.

Schmitz, A. (1998). New visions in community design. In Urban Land Institute. (Ed.),

Trends and innovations in master-planned communities (pp. 83-98).

Washington DC: Urban Land Institute.

Schonwandt, W. (2008). Planning in crisis? Theoretical orientations for architecture

and planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Scott, C. (2002). Competencies needed by business teachers to work with students

who have disabilities. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Seibert, J. (2004). The identification of strategic management counselling

competencies essential for the small business and technology development

centre: A modified Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. North Carolina

State University.

Shellharbour City Council. (2004). Residential subdivision development control plan.

Retrieved 28 August 2009, from Shellharbour City Council:

http://www.shellharbour.nsw.gov.au/FileData/pdf/Residential_Subdivision_D

CP_Am_1.pdf

Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate

research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21.

Soltani, A., Primerano, F., Allan, A., & Somenahalli, S. (2006). Design for movement:

linking non-work travel and activity level to local urban design dimensions.

Urban Design International, 11(3-4), 173-173-186.

Sproull, N. (1995). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and

students in the social sciences. New Jersey: Scarecrow Press.

Bibliography 217

Steiner, F. (1991). The living landscape: An ecological approach to landscape

planning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Stone, B. (2003). Paving over paradise: How land use regulations promote residential

imperviousness. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 101-113.

Suen, W., & Tang, B. (2002). Optimal site area for high-density housing development.

Habitat International, 26(4), 539-552.

Sustainable Seattle. (1993). Indicators of sustainable community. Seattle: Sustainable

Seattle.

Taib, M., & Ho, C. (2008). Planning system in Malaysia. Paper presented at the

Seminar of sustainable development and governance. Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia.

Tan Loke Mun. (2009). The development of Green Building Index Malaysia (GBI).

GBI, 15, 1-8.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research:

integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and

behavioural sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Teriman, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Mayere, S. (2009). Urban sustainability and growth

management in South-East Asian city-regions: A comparative policy analysis

of Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of

Planners, 7, 47-68.

Teriman, S., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2011). Social infrastructure planning and sustainable

communities: Example from South East Queensland, Australia. World Journal

of Social Sciences, 1(4), 23-32.

Thorsnes, P. (2000). Internalizing neighbourhood externalities: The effect of

subdivision size and zoning on residential lot prices. Journal of Urban

Economics, 48(3), 397-418.

Tigelaar, D., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., & Vleuten, C. (2004). The development and

validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education.

Higher Education, 48(2), 253-268.

Turcotte, D. (2006). A framework for sustainable housing development in the United

States. Unpublished Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

ULI (Urban Land Institute). (1998). Trends and innovations in master-planned

communities. Washington DC: ULI.

ULI (Urban Land Institute). (2003). The new shape of suburbia: Trends in residential

development. Washington DC: ULI.

UN-Habitat. (2010). Planning for climate change: A Strategic, values-based approach

for urban planners. Nairobi.

218 Bibliography

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). (1992).

Earth Summit 92 (Agenda 21). London: UNCED.

UNCSD (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development). (1996).

Indicators of sustainable development: Framework and methodologies. New

York: UNCSD.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2001). Human Development

Report: Making new technologies work for human development. New York:

UNDP.

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

York: United Nations Division on Sustainable Development.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). Smart growth

INDEX: A sketch tool for community planning New York: USEPA.

USGBC (United States Green Building Council). (2009). LEED 2009 for

neighbourhood development. New York: USGBC.

Vasishth, A. (2008). A scale-hierarchic ecosystem approach to integrative ecological

planning. Progress in Planning, 70(3), 99-132.

Vaus, D. d. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage Publications

Ltd.

Veal, A. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (Third

ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Vidal, L., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J. (2011). Using a Delphi process and the Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert

Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5388-5405.

Wachs, M. (2001). Forecasting versus envisioning: A new window on the future.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(4), 367-372.

Wallbaum, H., Krank, S., & Teloh, R. (2011). Prioritizing sustainability criteria in

urban planning processes: Methodology application. Journal of Urban

Planning & Development, 37(1), 20-28.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our

Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

WHO (World Health Organisation). (1999). Towards a new planning process: A

guide towards reorienting urban planning towards Local Agenda 21. New

York: WHO.

Winston, N. (2009). Urban regeneration for sustainable development: The role of

sustainable housing? European Planning Studies 17(12), 1781-1796

Bibliography 219

Winston, N. (2010). Regeneration for sustainable communities? Barriers to

implementing sustainable housing in urban areas. Sustainable Development,

18(6), 319-330.

Winston, N., & Eastaway, M. (2008). Sustainable housing in the urban context:

International sustainable development indicator sets and housing. Social

Indicators Research, 87(2), 211-221.

World Bank. (2002). Environmental indicators: An overview of selected indicators at

the World Bank. Washington: World Bank.

Wyatt, J. (2000). When to use web-based surveys. Journal of the American Medical

Informatics Association, 7, 426-430.

Yang, P., & Lay, O. (2004). Applying ecosystem concepts to the planning of

industrial areas: a case study of Singapore's Jurong Island. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 12(8-10), 1011-1023.

Yigitcanlar, T. & Dur, F. (2010). Developing a sustainability assessment model: the

sustainable infrastructure, land-use, environment and transport model.

Sustainability, 2, pp. 321-340.

Yigitcanlar, T., Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., & Sipe, N. (2007). Travel self containment in

master-planned estates: Analysis of recent Australian trends. Urban Policy and

Research, 25(1), 133-153.

Zakaria, R. (2007). Sustainable housing for residential-industrial neighbourhood in

Malaysia- A study on the indoor environmental quality in Malaysia.

Unpublished PhD, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Zakaria, R., & Yang, J. (2004). Smart and sustainable inhabitations in residential-

industrial neighbourhood. Paper presented at the International Engineering

Management Conference - Innovation and Enterpreneurship for Sustainable

Development, Singapore.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38638/

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38638/

Appendix A 221

Appendices

Appendix A

Letter of invitation to expert respondents

Dear (expert‘s name),

My name is Suharto Teriman and I am currently undertaking PhD study with Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane, Australia. My research project focuses on sustainable residential development

with an overall aim to establish a framework to assess the sustainability levels of residential

neighbourhood site layouts. This framework will utilise a set of indicators from the literature and

suggestions from experts in the sustainable development fields, such as yourself. A total of 38 indicators

have been shortlisted for its potential use in the proposed assessment framework.

This letter invites you, as an expert in design, sustainability, and/or planning, to participate in this

research by answering our upcoming 3-round survey. The objective is to seek your expert opinion to

ascertain the importance of potential indicators (or criteria) mentioned above, for assessing/evaluating

the sustainability levels of residential site layouts. One-week duration will be allocated to complete the

questionnaire. After each iteration, a quantitative feedback report, including group analysis and

comments, will be sent to you.

Please be assured that all information collected will remain confidential and will only be used to calculate

group averages. Your name or organisation will not be attached to any comments you provide. In

addition, you will not be referred to by name or organisation in the feedback reports and research write-

up. The success of our research depends on your insights and that of the other participants. By sharing

your expertise, you can help establish and advance the body of knowledge related to the development of

sustainable neighbourhoods. This study adheres to the ethical procedures and requirements of Queensland

University of Technology (QUT). If you have any further queries concerning your participation in this

research, please contact QUT Research Ethics Officer on +61 73138 2091 or [email protected].

Please email Mr Teriman at [email protected] at your earliest possible convenience to

notify him of your potential participation in the study. In return for the generous donation of your time,

Mr Teriman, the final author of this research project, will provide you with a digital copy of the executive

summary of his dissertation. If you have any further questions concerning this survey please do not

hesitate to contact Mr Teriman on +614 38128402 or via the above email.

Thank you very much and we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Suharto Teriman

School of Urban Development


[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



222 Appendix B

Appendix B

Delphi round one survey questionnaire

DELPHI ROUND ONE

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter invites you to participate in this Round 1 survey. The objective is to seek your expert opinion to

ascertain the importance of a list of indicators for measuring the level of sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts. The survey should take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete, as most of the survey

requires only a checkmark in the appropriate box. This questionnaire consists of two sections: section A

consists of 38 indicator items from which you will determine the level of relevance; section B requests

information about your professional/working experience and contact information. After each iteration, a

quantitative feedback report, including group analysis and comments, will be sent to you.

I would appreciate it if you could email the completed questionnaire at [email protected]

within two weeks of receiving this questionnaire. If you have any further questions concerning this survey

please do not hesitate to contact the researcher on +614 38128402 or via the above email.


Best regards,

Suharto Teriman



[email protected]

Section A: Indicators & Rankings

The following section contains a list of 38 indicators classified under 3 categories (environmental, social

and economic). Based on your expert knowledge and opinion, please rate the relevance of each indicator

for measuring the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. Please indicate your choice by clicking

the option button to the right of each indicator. You are encouraged to suggest other indicators that you feel

are relevant but not included in the list. You can also make recommendations to delete/combine/rephrase

any indicators that you believe will improve the understanding and quality of the overall questions.

Please use the following rating scale when indicating your preference:

Rating and

percentage score Description

1 Very low Not relevant at all for measuring neighbourhood

sustainability levels

2 Low Least relevant for measuring neighbourhood sustainability

levels

3 Medium Moderately relevant for measuring neighbourhood

sustainability levels

4 High Relevant for measuring neighbourhood sustainability levels

5 Very high Very relevant for measuring sustainability levels



Appendix B 223

Environmental Sustainability

The quality of neighbourhood layouts where the physical arrangement/design and ecological attributes

are capable of providing for and supporting the existence of a healthy environment for the community

and surrounding habitat. Please rank the level of relevance of the following indicators that

contribute to the assessment of the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts.

1 2 3 4 5 Very

Low

Low Medium High Very

high

Land use mix Diversity of compatible land use (housing, retail, food, educational,

recreation, offices, services, civic spaces).

Dwelling density Net dwelling density per designated residential parcel (including

internal public streets).

Impervious surfaces Amount of land surface covered by roads, buildings, car parks,

sidewalks, drainage.

Street connectivity

Street route directness

Pedestrian accessibility Ease of walking within the neighbourhood, expressed as ped-shed or

pedestrian catchment (areas actually within walking distance from

home/centre).

Pedestrian network coverage

Vehicular entry and exit routes

Non-motorised transport Availability of dedicated walkways and cycleways within the

neighbourhood.

Open space/active green per dwelling Amount of gross areas designated for open space, including play

areas/active greens.

Open space/active green per development area Amount of gross areas designated for open space, including play

areas/active greens.

Natural topography preservation

Sensitive areas/natural environment preservation Proximity to riverbanks/catchment and/or within

floodplain/excessive slopes.

Vegetation retained to create the development

Storm water retention/detention system Tree planting for shade/wind-break

Building exposure to natural ventilation (non-disastrous

winds)

Additional indicators or comments Please include other indicator(s), if any, that you believe are relevant but not listed above. Comments are welcome.

224 Appendix B

Social Sustainability

The quality of neighbourhoods capable of building and maintaining social capital, including quality of

life (e.g., equity of access to key services), safety, cohesion and cultural integration, and participation of

citizens. Please rank the level of relevance of the following indicators that

contribute to the assessment of the sustainability of residential

neighbourhood layouts.

1 2 3 4 5 Very

Low

Low Medium High Very high

Proximity to public transit nodes/system Number of houses within a 400 m walking catchment distance to

bus stops.

Resident’s vehicle kilometre travel (VKT) Motor vehicle ownership..

Proximity to recreation facilities (parks/open spaces) Walkable catchment of functional local/neighbourhood parks or

active greens.

Proximity to education facilities Walkable catchment of local primary or secondary schools. Proximity to local services Walkable catchment of neighbourhood services providing daily

needs (grocery shops, day care centres) and other necessary local

services.

Existence of well-defined boundaries

Existence of neighbourhood central place Availability of amenities and services Availability of emergency services (police, fire & rescue, hospital)

within an acceptable service distance.

Provision of community centre Walkable catchment of neighbourhood centre providing

community services for residents.

Provision of religious centre Walkable catchment of venues for performing religious services

and activities that foster personal beliefs.

Provision of common recreation facilities for all ages

Provision of safety elements in crime prevention Natural or passive surveillance observation where public spaces are

visible from passing traffic and from surrounding homes (e.g.,

windows facing public domains).

Traffic calming measures

Separation between pedestrian and motorised traffic

Additional indicators or comments Please include other indicator(s), if any, that you believe are relevant but not listed above. Comments are welcome.

Appendix B 225

Economic Sustainability

The quality of neighbourhoods where resources are efficiently used, economic capital is provided and

maintained and human capital (skills, knowledge) is utilised. Please rank the level of relevance of the following indicators

that contribute to the assessment of the sustainability of

residential neighbourhood layouts.

1 2 3 4 5 Very

Low

Low Medium High Very high

Availability of commercial establishments Availability of establishments providing a various range of

commercial services (restaurants, banks, post offices,

convenience stores, pharmacies, hardware stores, hair care

stores, laundrettes, retail stores, etc.).

Diversity of housing options Availability of various types of houses and floor space. Provision of affordable housing Availability of houses in various price ranges Employment opportunity within the immediate vicinity Availability of local employment opportunities within the

immediate vicinity of the neighbourhood.

Soil quality

Additional indicators or comments Please include other indicator(s), if any, that you believe are relevant but not listed above. Comments are

welcome.

Section B:

This section requests information about your professional working experience and contact information.

Please select the option that best describes your

primary area of expertise:

Please state the length of your working

experience/involvement in this field:

__________________________________________

Please provide your email address (Note: your email address will only be used to send you the group

result of this survey and to send you the final round of the survey):

Once completed, please save this document and kindly email it to the researcher at

[email protected]

Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire. We will send you the group

findings of this questionnaire and the final round questionnaire.

Please select Please select


226 Appendix C

Appendix C

Delphi round two survey questionnaire

DELPHI SURVEY ROUND TWO

Dear Sir/Madam,

You have successfully participated in the Round 1 to identify the relevancy of indicators for measuring

the level of sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. This letter invites you to participate in this Round 2

survey.

The results from the Round 1 survey identified 24 relevant indicators, which are included in this second

round. This survey should take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete, as most of it requires only a

checkmark in the appropriate box.

The objective is to seek your expert opinion to ascertain the level of importance of these indicators for

measuring the level of sustainability of residential neighbourhood layouts. This questionnaire consists

of 2 sections: section A consists of all indicator items from which you will determine their level of

importance; and section B consists of three domains from which you will allocate points for each domain.

We would appreciate it if you could return the completed questionnaire to Mr Teriman at

[email protected] within one week of receiving this questionnaire. If you have any

further questions concerning this survey please do not hesitate to contact Mr Teriman on +614 38128402

or via the above email.

Please be assured that all information collected will remain confidential and will only be used to calculate

group averages. Your name, firm, school, or organisation will not be attached to any comments you

provide. In addition, you will not be referred to by name or organisation in the feedback reports and

research write-up. If you have any further queries concerning your participation in this research, please

contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on +61 73138 2091 or [email protected].


Yours sincerely,

Suharto Teriman


Queensland University of

Technology

[email protected]




Appendix C 227

Section A: Indicator importance & Rankings This section contains a list of 24 indicator items belonging to 3 categories (environmental, social, and

economic). Based on your expert knowledge and opinion, please rank the importance of each indicator item in

terms of its contribution to the sustainability assessment exercise. Please indicate your choice by clicking the

Option button to the right of each indicator.

Please rank the level of importance of the following indicators that contribute to the assessment of the

sustainability of residential neighbourhood layouts. Please use the following ranking scale when indicating

your preference:

Ranking and percentage score Description 1 0 – 15% Very Low Least important contribution to the overall assessment score

2 16 – 30% Low Less important contribution to the overall assessment score

3 31 – 45% Medium Low Below average important contribution to the overall assessment score

4 46 – 55% Medium Average important contribution to the overall assessment score

5 56 – 70% Medium High Above average important contribution to the overall assessment score

6 71 – 85% High Very important contribution to the overall assessment score

7 86 – 100% Very High Extremely important contribution to the overall assessment score

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The quality of neighbourhood layouts where the physical arrangement/design and ecological attributes are

capable of providing for and supporting the existence of a healthy environment for the community and

surrounding habitat.

Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very

Low

Low Medium

Low

Medium High Medium

High

Very

High

Percentage score 0-15% 16-

30% 31-45% 46-55%

56-

70% 71-85%

86-

100%

Land use mix Diversity of compatible land use (housing, retail, food,

educational, recreation, offices, services, civic space).

Residential dwelling density Net dwelling density per designated residential parcel

(including internal public streets).

Impervious surfaces Amount of land surface covered by roads, buildings,

car parks, sidewalks, drainage.

Internal connectivity Efficiency of travel, expressed in terms of route

directness within the neighbourhood.

External connectivity Ease of street connection to surrounding developments.

Expressed in terms of average distance to next exit

point.

Open space provision Amount of gross area designated for open space,

including play areas/active greens.

Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas Proximity to river banks/catchment and/or within

floodplain/excessive slope.

Non-motorised transport Availability of dedicated walkways and cycleways

within the neighbourhood.

Solar orientation Amount of lot parcels with good solar orientation (as

close to cardinal compass points as possible.

Approximately 20-30% deviation acceptable).

228 Appendix C

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY:

The quality of neighbourhoods capable of building and maintaining social capital, including quality of life

(e.g., equity of access to key services), safety, cohesion and cultural integration, and participation of

citizens.


Very

Low

Low Medium

Low

Medium High Medium

High

Very

High


30% 31-45% 46-55%

56-

70% 71-85%

86-

100%

Access to public transport facilities Number of houses within a 400 m walking

catchment distance of bus stops.

Access to education facilities Walkable catchment of local primary or secondary

schools.

Access to health facilities Proximity to or acceptable distance from nearest

centres providing community (or private)

medical/health services.

Access to recreation space Walkable catchment of functional

local/neighbourhood parks or active greens.

Access to local services Walkable catchment of neighbourhood services

providing daily needs (grocery shops, day care

centres) and other necessary local services.

Access to community services Walkable catchment of neighbourhood centre

providing community services for residents.

Access to emergency services Availability of emergency services (police, fire &

rescue, hospital) within acceptable service distance.

Crime prevention and safety Natural or passive surveillance observation where

public spaces are visible from passing traffic and

from surrounding homes (e.g., windows facing

public domains).

Traffic calming measures Safety features on street or junction design (speed

humps, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, target

hardening

ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

The quality of neighbourhood where resources are efficiently used, economic capital is provided and

maintained and human capital (skills, knowledge) is utilised.


Very

Low

Low Medium

Low

Medium High Medium

High

Very

High


30% 31-45% 46-55%

56-

70% 71-85%

86-

100%

Availability of commercial establishments Establishments providing a range of commercial

services (restaurants, banks, post offices,

convenience stores, pharmacies, hardware stores,

hair care stores, laundrettes, retail stores, etc.).

Employment self-containment Availability of local employment opportunities

within the vicinity of the immediate

neighbourhood.

Appendix C 229

Economic sustainability (cont‘d)


Very

Low

Low Medium

Low

Medium High Medium

High

Very

High

Percentage score 0-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-55% 56-

70% 71-85%

86-

100%

Housing option diversity Availability of various types of houses and floor

space.

Provision of affordable housing Availability of affordable housing within the

neighbourhood.

Availability of skilled development centres Availability of centres providing training and

technical skills development services.

Diversity of housing prices Availability of houses in various price ranges.

Section B: Category importance

This section requests your expert opinion to allocate relative importance points of each category in

contributing to the level of sustainability based on a combined total of 100 points:

Indicator category Points

Environmental sustainability

Social sustainability

Economic sustainability

Total (100 points)


[email protected]

Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire. We will send you the group

findings of this questionnaire and the final round questionnaire.

0

0

0

0


230 Appendix D

Appendix D

Delphi round three survey questionnaire

DELPHI SURVEY ROUND THREE

Dear Sir/Madam,

You have successfully participated in the round one and two surveys to identify the relevancy and

importance of indicators for measuring the level of the sustainability of neighbourhood layouts. This letter

invites you to participate in this final Round 3 survey. Table 1 presents the group mean for all indicators

derived from the previous round two survey. The table indicates that seven indicators failed to achieve

consensus in the round two survey, and, therefore, are included in this third round survey to ascertain

their impact on the sustainability of residential development.

The survey should take about 5 minutes to complete, as most of the survey only requires a checkmark in

the appropriate box. The objective is to seek your expert opinion to reconsider or ascertain the level of

the importance of these remaining indicators for assessing/evaluating the level of the sustainability of

residential site layouts. Your individual round two answers are also attached as a guide in answering the

questions. You may stick to the answers that you provided in the previous round two or you may choose a

different level of importance closer to the group mean.

We would appreciate it if you could return the completed questionnaire to Mr Teriman at

[email protected] within one week of receiving this questionnaire. If you have any

further questions concerning this survey please do not hesitate to contact Mr Teriman on +614 38128402

or via the above email.


Yours sincerely,

Suharto Teriman



[email protected]



Appendix D 231

Table 1: Group mean derived from round two of the Delphi survey

Indicator Mean % agreement

Environmental

25. Land use mix diversity 6.03 87.5

26. Dwelling density 5.47 81.3

27. Impervious surfaces 5.41 84.4

28. Internal connectivity 6.06 90.7

29. External connectivity 5.63 87.6

30. Non-motorised transport facilities 5.97 90.7

31. Environmentally sensitive areas 5.06 59.4

32. Open space provision 6.22 96.9

33. Solar orientation 4.88 62.5

Social

34. Access to public transport facilities 6.06 93.8

35. Access to education facilities 5.97 93.9

36. Access to health facilities 4.78 53.2

37. Access to local services 5.66 93.7

38. Access to recreational space 5.84 97.0

39. Access to community centre 5.44 87.6

40. Access to emergency services 5.16 71.9

41. Crime prevention and safety 6.00 96.9

42. Traffic calming 5.34 81.2

Economic

43. Commercial establishments 5.50 93.8

44. Skills development centres 4.19 37.5

45. Employment self-containment 4.66 53.2

46. Housing option diversity 5.41 87.6

47. Housing prices diversity 5.28 68.8

48. Affordable housing 5.69 81.3

Instructions:

Based on your expert knowledge and opinion, please rank the importance of each indicator

item in terms of its contribution to the sustainability assessment exercise. Please indicate your

choice by clicking the Option button to the right of each indicator. Please use the following

ranking scale when indicating your preference:

Ranking and percentage score Description

1 0 – 15% Very Low Least important contribution to the overall assessment score

2 16 – 30% Low Less important contribution to the overall assessment score

3 31 – 45% Medium Low Below average important contribution to the overall assessment score

4 46 – 55% Medium Average important contribution to the overall assessment score

5 56 – 70% Medium High Above average important contribution to the overall assessment score

6 71 – 85% High Very important contribution to the overall assessment score

7 86 – 100% Very High Extremely important contribution to the overall assessment score

232 Appendix D

Please rank the level of importance of the

following indicators that contribute to the

assessment of the sustainability of

residential neighbourhood layouts.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very

Low

Low Medium

Low

Medium High Medium

High

Very

High


30% 31-45% 46-55%

56-

70% 71-85%

86-

100%

Environmental Sustainability

Environmentally sensitive areas Proximity to riverbanks/catchments and/or

within floodplain/excessive slope.

Solar orientation Amount of lot parcels with good solar

orientation (as close to cardinal compass points

as possible. About 20-30% deviation

acceptable).

Social Sustainability

Medical centre Proximity to or acceptable distance from nearest

centres providing community (or private)

medical/health services.

Emergency services Availability of three main ES (police, fire &

rescue, hospital) within 5 minutes response

distance (4km) to centre of neighbourhood

Economic Sustainability

Skills development Availability of centres providing training and

technical skills development services.

Employment self-containment Availability of local employment opportunities

within the immediate vicinity of the

neighbourhood.

Housing prices diversity Availability of houses in various price ranges.


[email protected]

Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire.


Date post:	22-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

MEASURING NEIGHBOURHOOD SUSTAINABILITY: A...

Documents