Sustainability Assessment Approach: An Alternative

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Brief definition
Methodology
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

This research paper explores an alternative model of sustainability assessment. Specifically, it highlights a sustainability assessment model adopted in brownfields, greenfields, and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) as applied in Bowden-Brompton community development.

A discussion of method

Currently, all major cities in Australia are experiencing intensifying pressure due to urban development. Hence, a new alternative model of sustainability is required for brownfields, greenfields and TODs.

This would ensure that old buildings and neighbourhoods are renovated, reworked and retrofitted to attract new businesses and reclaim brownfields and greyfields with the aim of rejuvenating defunct sections of the city through TODs for enhanced accessibility.

This alternative shall curb notable sprawling of the city into outer greenfields and make extensive use of brownfields, inner city greenfields and TODs.

In addition, it would restore public infrastructures, reduce costs, reduce car dependency, enhance accessibility, create space for recreation, and leave agricultural land in city outskirts (Newton 2012).

According to Newton (2012), the NSW and Victoria governments have missed the concept of urban planning and sustainability development. In the recent past, these governments announced that they would continue to ensure “the development of new housing on the fringes of Sydney and Melbourne” (Newton 2012, para. 1).

This approach shows that the current sustainable urban planning in Australia cannot offer the required solutions to sustainability development and therefore sustainable urban development constitutes a critical challenge in contemporary cities (Newton et al. 2012).

There is a need for urban planning to exploit brownfields, greenfields and TODs within the middle suburbs of the Australia’s largest and fastest growing cities.

An urban regeneration model that focuses on brownfields, greenfields and TODs provides an effective approach to inner city development. Australia has an existing model for inner city development known as the Better Cities.

However, Newton (2012) has observed that a brownfields, greenfields and TOD model, in itself, is likely to fail in the provision of housing required to cater for growing populations and ensure sustainability if there are no effective approaches.

This approach offers sustainable urban development. Lombardi et al. (2011) noted that the concept of sustainability is popular and widely used in the UK, but it has not achieved much in urban regeneration. In fact, urban regeneration has failed to challenge the status quo because of ineffective policy and lack of implementation.

The regeneration of brownfields, greenfields and TODs offers an alternative solution to urban sustainability development. These are ageing areas within inner cities. They have physically deteriorated, not environmental-friendly and technologically backward.

In addition, they are underdeveloped parts of cities. Nevertheless, state governments have attempted to improve housing, business activities and employment and enhance TOD projects. In most cases, these attempts have not succeeded specifically outside the central business districts.

The success of Bowden-Brompton community shows that brownfields and greenfields offer viable alternatives to sustainable urban developments.

TODs must focus on improving transportation corridors in brownfields and greenfields for accessibility.

Brief definition

The redevelopment of old urban structures, removal of waste, establishment of new structures and transport corridors to meet the rising needs of expanding citizens in the urban age has been a major issue for the government (Gleeson 2012). Policies and implementation efforts are the major challenges.

Consequently, it is imperative to develop new tools for assessment of urban development and sustainability. These new assessment tools are necessary to ensure that urban developments have better environmental, social and economic impacts (Davidson & Wilson 2008).

The major areas of focus include resource consumption (energy, land, water and construction materials) and lessen impacts on the environment without affecting the community adversely (Davidson & Wilson 2008).

Typically, brownfields are often found within high-density urban areas, which are mainly economically viable parts of cities.

They provide cost-effective methods to reuse previously alienated locations, enhance social well-being of residents while improving public activities through TODs, renewal and redevelopment. The redevelopment of poorly utilised urban areas leads to improved business activities.

Brownfields, greenfields and TODs will directly curb urban sprawling and development of new housing on the fringes of cities, limit migration and preserve urban open spaces.

Typology/tools of sustainability

An alternative tool for assessing regeneration of brownfields, greenfields and TODs requires new policy formulation. The policy must focus on a critical objective of regeneration and sustainability of brownfields, greenfields and TODs.

The tool for sustainability addresses regenerated or redeveloped centres, transport network and greenfields residential precincts.

*Figure 1: A new logic for urban development – (Newton 2012).*

Indicators to be developed for assessing sustainability

Indicators to be developed reflect characteristics of brownfields, greenfields and TODs (dilapidated residential units in inner cities with obsolete physical, technological and environmental attributes, low economic activities and undercapitalised assets). Assessment indicators will reflect:

Environmental sustainability.
Technological/innovative approaches.
Physical housing and infrastructure redevelopment.
Improved economic activities.
Enhanced social activities.

Methodology

The method for assessing sustainability will include reviews of current documents and different analytical approaches to assess and prioritise actions for brownfields, greenfields and TODs. Outcomes will guide decision-making processes and help in reviewing sustainability tools, indicators and performance measures.

Justification for brownfields, greenfields, and TODs sustainability assessment model

An alternative model for assessing brownfields, greenfields and TODs regeneration offers innovative capabilities for urban transformation (Newton 2013). Currently, available infrastructures are stretched because of rising populations and increased levels of consumption, demographic factors and changes in the economy.

Given these challenges, Cervero and Sullivan (2011) have observed that TODs have gained popularity because of their roles in promoting urban sustainable growth. TODs ensure an integrated development with a mix of high-rise buildings, transport networks and pedestrians’ amenities and eliminate much dependence on cars.

Sustainable regeneration aims to lessen pollution, energy use, ensures green architecture and sustainable community designs (Cervero & Sullivan 2011). Regeneration normally considers the use of renewable energy sources and environmental-friendly building materials.

Overall, TODs and sustainable urban regeneration provide energy efficient, low waste city and highly sustainable transport network (Cervero & Sullivan 2011).

It is simple to regenerate greenfields on the periphery. However, brownfields could be expensive to regenerate based on their previous usages. Nevertheless, Farrelly (2014) has noted that governments’ current approaches to sustainability could ensure that regeneration of brownfields, greenfields and TODs become more competitive.

Brownfields and greenfields sites are the best alternatives to new buildings because of their proximity to urban sites, as well as the available transport networks.

Farrelly (2014) has shown that brownfields regeneration has also worked globally. Cities have been redeveloped and new cultural sites created. This has transformed the surrounding economy positively.

Architectural and urban contexts of brownfields, greenfields and TODs show how governments can transform aging locations into new homes, allow them flourish and offer new opportunities for residents.

Governments have noted that regeneration of brownfields and greenfields offers viable alternatives for addressing environmental health and social challenges. At the same time, such activities also contribute to improved economic activities and community revitalisation.

Based on the relevance of land value and reuse in urban centres, researchers and city planners have focused on redevelopment of brownfields and greenfields to ensure economic viability and protect city fringes (Newton 2010).

For instance, the UK government has embarked on several integrated programmes to regenerate land use and promote environmental cleanup (Lombardi et al. 2011).

However, the government’s activities in certain brownfields have been minimal. In most cases, private developers are responsible for major activities in brownfields because of tax credits offered.

A study by Ernst & Young (2013) highlighted that there was a marked decrease of governments and multilateral organisations involvement in sustainability efforts. The challenges often result from muddled policy implications, which create difficult conditions for some organisations to embark on any meaningful investments.

Nevertheless, some investors and NGOs have stepped in to fill the void. They often exert greater influences than governments and demand transparency and disclosure of sustainability issues and related risks. Still, corporate risk management strategies cannot adequately address sustainability issues.

For instance, many organisations are yet to perform and understand scenario analyses of critical raw material resources. Such analyses are vital for sustainability efforts (Ernst & Young 2013).

On this note, Davidson (2011) has pointed out how “typologies of sustainability typically lack epistemological consistency or logical arguments to order the categorisation process” (Davidson 2011, p. 1).

Consequently, different actors advocate for ideologies that can meet their environmental needs. Besides, there are fragmented approaches to sustainability, which fail to provide the required policies or results.

Therefore, a well-defined policy for brownfields, greenfields and TODs can promote urban regeneration, sustainability and curb the sprawling of cities.

Moreover, one can understand the nature of government practices and policies, influences of housing demands and community needs, and neighbourhood characteristics (McGuirk & Dowling 2007).

A discussion of the approach differs from other approaches to assessing sustainable urban development

Literature suggests that effective sustainability models must be based on a mode of operationalising sustainability indicators to ensure that a sustainability decision-making framework is effective (Davidson & Venning 2011).

This approach will be based on a system approach to ensure effective decision-making. Davidson and Venning (2011) have noted that the “failure to take advantage of systems thinking results in decision-making processes being less effective than they could be” (p. 213).

Still, the alternative will recognise escalating pressures from human populations, climate change and resource efficiency. Hence, it will provide a more robust framework with technological, socio-economic and physical indicators to assess brownfields, greenfields and TODs.

This model would ensure informed decision-making processes for regeneration and urban sustainability development.

The use of system thinking in this alternative model will offer a framework that ensures all key critical aspects of the system are included in the decision-making processes. The model aims to offer a robust mapping exercises to avoid simplicity and therefore it will capture indicators that inform decision-making (Davidson 2011).

Specifically, this model will rely on innovation to regenerate brownfields, greenfields and TODs.

The new urban policy will have long-term strategies for regenerating identified inner city areas.
An urban regeneration agency will monitor improvements on brownfields, greenfields and TODs.
Digital spatial information may be deployed to locate areas for regeneration and enhance stakeholders’ engagement in decision-making processes.
It will provide new urban designs for both low rise and high-rise medium density areas with emphasis on high environmental performance.
Innovation will guide construction processes and workforce activities with the focus on offering affordable and attractive solutions to housing demands. For instance, prefabricated materials may be used as alternatives for the current low-density housing. They shall offer fast turnaround. In addition, it highlights how cities can rely on innovative approaches to promote sustainability and housing infill. Innovation would promote urban planning processes, specifically in areas that require redevelopment, regeneration and retrofit. This will support movement and investment in inner cities. This new model shall support the regeneration of greenfields and brownfields in Australia (Newton 2013).
The alternative would support different financial models, including profit-driven and not-for-profit models.
It recognises proactive roles of communities in regeneration and avoids the radical approaches that have characterised previous redevelopments.
It would promote a new regeneration planning code to enhance compact city development strategies.

The alternative model highlights critical infill aspects of brownfields, greyfields and TODs. It recognises distinct characteristics in these unique areas and patterns of development, which governments must understand through various indicators for successful urban regeneration of economically viable, liveable and sustainable cities.

However, Newton and Glackin (2014), Lombardi et al. (2011) and Newton (2012) have noted that current urban policies, programmes and practices do not have effective responses to redevelopment of greenfields and brownfields.

As a result, the alternative model can provide a solution for this inadequacy and define the role of aging areas in urban sustainability and redevelopment (Mehdipour & Rashidi 2013).

A discussion of methods to implement the assessment

Stage 1

Identify current logic

This defines elements of urbanism and sprawl (aging and fragmented brownfields, greenfields and TODs)

Stage 2

Define context of operation

It entails current policies, brownfields, greenfields and TODs conditions and identifies problem context

Stage 3

Define goals and objectives

The alternative model will focus on urban land use alternatives and policy alternatives with the aim of creating smart, sustainable development and regeneration

Stage 4

Determine required inputs

Data gathered to aid in decision-making processes

Stage 5

Process evaluation

An impact assessment will be conducted

Stage 6

Outputs and feedback for sustainability indicators and performance measures to drive decision-making

Alternative Model implementation plan — *Fig 2: Alternative model implementation plan.*

Conclusion

The research has explored an alternative model of sustainability assessment for brownfields, greenfields and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). The previous alternatives have not managed to solve the current urban problems and improved sustainability efforts.

Therefore, the alternative model will regenerate brownfields, greenfields and TODs to curb urban sprawl, expansion to city fringes and offer competitive, viable, liveable and environmentally sustainable cities.

The alternative assessment model entails a system thinking approach to ensure that all relevant elements for sustainability and decision-making are included in all processes. It would ensure that regeneration and sustainability measures reflect current situations and future goals.

Governments and other stakeholders must not neglect brownfields, greenfields and TODs to ensure sustainability and competitive future smart cities. This requires effective formulation and implementation of urban regeneration and redevelopment policies alongside ongoing monitoring and evaluation of outcomes.

Reference List

Cervero, R & Sullivan, C 2011, ‘Green TODs‘, Urban Land. Web.

Davidson, K 2011, ‘A Typology to Categorize the Ideologies of Actors in the Sustainable Development Debate’, Sustainable Development, pp. 1-14. Web.

Davidson, K & Wilson, L 2008, ‘A Model to Identify the Risks to Sustainable Urban Development’, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 161-167.

Davidson, K & Venning, J 2011, ‘Sustainability decision-making frameworks and the application of systems thinking: an urban context’, Local Environment, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 213–228.

Ernst & Young 2013, 2013 six growing trends in corporate sustainability, EYG Limited, London.

Farrelly, L 2014, ‘Industrial sites of old can be the cities of the future‘, The Conversation. Web.

Gleeson, B 2012, ‘Critical Commentary. The Urban Age: Paradox and Prospect’, Urban Studies, pp. 1–13. Web.

Lombardi, R, Porter, L, Barber, A & Rogers, C 2011, ‘Conceptualising Sustainability in UK Urban Regeneration: a Discursive Formation’, Urban Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 273–296. Web.

McGuirk, P & Dowling, R 2007, ‘Understanding Master-Planned Estates in Australian Cities: A Framework for Research’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 21-38. Web.

Mehdipour, A & Rashidi, H 2013, ‘The Role of Brownfield Development in Sustainable Urban Regeneration’, Journal of Sustainable Development Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 78-87.

Newton, P 2010, ‘Beyond greenfields and brownfields: The challenge of regenerating Australia’s greyfield suburbs’, Built Environment, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 81–104.

Newton, P 2012, ‘Unlocking the greyfields to inhibit urban sprawl‘, The Conversation. Web.

Newton, P 2013, ‘Regenerating cities: technological and design innovation for Australian suburbs’, Building Research & Information, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 575-588. Web.

Newton, P & Glackin, S 2014, ‘Understanding Infill: Towards New Policy and Practice for Urban Regeneration in the Established Suburbs of Australia’s Cities’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 121-143. Web.

Newton, P, Newman, P, Glackin, S & Trubka, R 2012, ‘Greening the Greyfields: Unlocking the Redevelopment Potential of the Middle Suburbs in Australian Cities’, International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 481-500.

Click Here To Order Now!