Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS)-Neighborhood Development T

(ND) Assessment Model: Coupling green urban planning and green building
design
M. Salim Ferwatia, , Mahmoud Al Saeeda, Arezou Shafaghatb,c, , Ali Keyvanfarb,c,d
⁎ ⁎⁎

a
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, College of Engineering, Qatar University, 2713, Doha, Qatar
b
Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, United States
c
MIT-UTM MSCP Program, Institute Sultan Iskandar, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia
d
Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Calle Rumipamba s/n y Bourgeois, Quito 170508, Ecuador

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The green building rating systems endeavor to achieve the extent of sustainability in building scale; however,
Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS) they are lacking in assessing the urban scale. Few green building rating systems have developed the neigh-
Green Building Design borhood sustainability assessment (NSA) tools to this extent. Qatar has adopted some of these tools; while the
Green Urban Planning local tool is needed that fits government sustainability policies and international agendas. Hence, this research
Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment tool
developed the QSAS (Qatar Sustainability Assessment System) Neighborhood Development (ND) assessment
Analytical Network Process (ANP)
model. The main goal of QSAS-ND is to promote, enhance, and create a sustainable neighborhood in urban areas.
To develop QSAS-ND, the researchers applied the Waterfall Process method, and accordingly, has conducted
three phases; the requirement study, model design, and model validation. Phase one identified eight criteria for
sustainable neighborhood assessment using Compression Matrix Development (CMD) method. Phase two de-
signed the model and applied the Analytical Network Process (ANP) method to obtain the weights of criteria.
The ANP analysis determined that compactness has received the highest limited value (LVC2 = 0.30730) among
the criteria which is followed by urban connectivity (LVC1 = 0.29143). The model was implemented at Lusail
city for validation. The implementation resulted that Lusail city achieved grade A (Superior), means that it has
high performances in sustainable neighborhood design, but needs minor improvements regarding diversity and
transportation. Indeed, using the QSAS-ND model helps architects and urban planners to assess sustainability
accreditation of urban and neighborhood areas in Qatar.

1. Introduction planning authorities have worked tirelessly to generate the sustainable

In the past few years, the major cities in Middle East have trans-
formed from a small settlement to the fastest-growing economic centers
[41]. For instance, Doha in Qatar become a powerhouse in the world by
holding international events, such as FIFA World Cup 2022, that has led
Doha to the solid foundation for massive constructions and large-scale
investment projects [16] (see Fig. 1). Despite this promising evolution,
the major cities promise to apply the sustainability protocols and to
protect the environment [4]. Qatar's rapid development led to com-
prehensive master plans and frameworks to retain the growing needs of
sustainable development, including both physical and non-physical
pillars (i.e., the environment and economy [15,29]. As urban planning
and strategies are adapting sustainable development, the Qatar's
urban development [36]. The vision is to achieve the required sus-
tainable development, at both macro and micro scales, without com-
promising the Qatar's environment. Accommodating the sustainable
urbanization has led to establishment of Qatar National Vision 2030
and Qatar Development Framework 2032, that aim to the best practice
methods of green building design and green urban development in
Qatar [30,37].
The green building concept is one of the central pillars of sustain-
ability, which is mainly defined as a set of strategies and design stan-
dards working with each other to enhance the quality of life of users,
simultaneously, protect the environment of communities by reducing
the construction rate of natural resource consumption [3,7]. America,
Europe, and some Asian countries have developed successful green

⁎
Corresponding author.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author at: Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, United States.
E-mail addresses: sferwati@qu.edu.qa (M.S. Ferwati), arc.m.alsaeed@gmail.com (M. Al Saeed), arezou@utm.my (A. Shafaghat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.006
Received 10 April 2018; Received in revised form 4 December 2018; Accepted 6 December 2018
Available online 13 December 2018
2352-7102/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Ferwati et al.
Fig. 1. Transformation of Qatar's capital city of Doha; a) Theoretical background development process, b) New District of Doha plan, c) Llewellyn-Davies master plan.
Source: [1].
building rating systems which involve the recommended norms, stan-
dards and instructions for both sustainable design and construction
processes [13,43,44]. Qatar understood the necessity of sustainability
as early as 2001, then Qatar started to promote the espousal of inter-
national sustainable construction standards and green building rating
systems; such as LEED and BREEAM. After a while, Qatar has developed
the first comprehensive sustainability framework by the Qatar National
Vision (QNV) and Qatar Development Strategies (Qatar, 2008). And,
the Qatari Diar Investment company announced the first green building
rating system in 2004, so-called Qatar Sustainability Assessment System
(QSAS) [54,67]. The QSAS has currently become one of the major green
building rating systems in the Gulf region [18,2].
Few green building rating systems can cover both single building
and urban levels [45]. Since 21st century, the neighborhood sustain-
ability assessment (NSA) tools have been established and applied by
many countries (mainly by developed countries; the United States,
United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan) to measure the extent of
neighborhood's success in achieving sustainability goals. The NSA tools
are referred as; district sustainability assessment tools, neighborhood
sustainability rating tools, and sustainable community rating tools. The
NSA tools retain the Local Agenda 21 goals for pursuing local scale
sustainable development [46]. The NSA tools are classified into two
clusters; Spin off tools and Plan-embeded tools. The most well-known
spin off tools are; LEED-ND, Earth Craft Communities (ECC), BREEAM
Communities, CASBEE-UD, QSAS, Green Star Communities, Green
Mark for Districts, and Green Neigbourhood Index; and the most es-
tablished plan-embeded tools are Neighborhood Sustainability Frame-
work, HQE2R, Ecocity, SCR, EcoDistricts Performance and Assessment
Toolkit, Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR), One Planet
living (OPL), and Cascadia Scorecard. Few studies investigated im-
portance of adaptation to locality, importance of achieving sustainable
communities’ transferability, and selection of criteria in NSA tools (e.g.,
[47,48]), however, “there is still a lack of in-depth critical evaluation of
the NSA tools” [42].
These issues have motivated us to develop the QSAS-Neighborhood
Development (QSAS-ND) Assessment Model which focuses on green
neighborhood design and planning. To develop the QSAS-ND, the
Waterfall Process has been applied. The Waterfall Process is the earliest
method of structured model development which provides the theore-
tical fundamentals for model development by making a resemble
techniques [31]. Accordingly, the QSAS-ND has been developed in
three phases; i) requirement study (i.e., criteria identification), ii)
model design (i.e., model analysis and formulation), and iii) model
validation (i.e., model testing). Phase one is a requirement study to
conduct a literature review on the green building rating systems and
NSA tools adopted in Qatar using Compression Matrix Development
(CMD) method. Phase two designs the QSAS-ND and applies the
172
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180
Analytical Network Process (ANP) method to obtain the weights of
criteria, and phase three conducts a case study to validate the QSAS-ND.
2. Literature review
This section presents the current knowledge on the concept of sus-
tainable urbanism, green rating systems adopted in Qatar, and Qatar
Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS).
2.1. Sustainable urbanism
The growing need to develop responsible planning systems has led
scholars, planners, planning institutional bodies, and practitioners to
develop the concept of Sustainable Urbanism [19,35,65]. The term
Sustainable Urbanism is defined as a “focus on promoting their long-
term viability by reducing consumption, waste and harmful impacts on
people and place while enhancing the overall well-being of both people
and place” [25]. The urban sustainability is such spatial distributions of
diverse land uses in physical infrastructures that are associated with
transport networks [32,63,64]. For example, on the neighborhood's
social and economic sustainability, availability of goods and services
make residents to participate in society for different purposes, in-
cluding, recreation, health activities, jobs, and social activities, etc. On
the neighborhood's environment sustainability, the lack of local op-
portunities may cause to selecting the motorized transportation and
impervious surface development, in turn, reducing water quality and
climate changes [19,65,66]. The Ecocity (or Ecological Urbanism),
Resilient Cities, New Urbanism, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD),
and Smart Growth are such sustainable urbanism strategies that “fo-
cuses on creating urban environments based on ecological principles, …
addressing depleting resources by creating distributed local resources to
replace global supply chain in case of major disruption” [26]. These
strategies are dealing with mixed land use [28], public transportation
[22,72], density [19,65], diversity [79], passive solar design [38],
minimized automobile dependence, housing-job proximity, mix of
housing types, human-scaled and attractive streetscape, adequate open
space, walkable environment, and compactness [40] to evolve the
sustainable urbanism [33,34,71,73,74]. These criteria have been in-
cluded in the NSA tools as well.
2.2. Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS)
Since 2009, QSAS has certified over 128 buildings [10]. In 2010,
QSAS was adopted into the curriculum of faculty of the environmental
design, Qatar University and King Fahd University [69]. In 2011, the
QSAS has been integrated into the Qatar Construction Specifications
(QCS) for building development in Qatar [69]. In 2013, Kuwait and
M.S. Ferwati et al.
Fig. 2. QSAS rating system and certification: a) Stars measurement themes, b) Score board.
Source: GORD [17]
Saudi Arabia have also applied the QSAS. The main scope of QSAS is to
evaluate new buildings’ impact on the environment and urban fabric. It
aims to evaluate the various aspects of building design that may affect
the natural and built environment; the comparative enhancement re-
commended by QSAS is the most practical standard related to building
design. The system's remit has been expanded to include commercial
buildings, residential construction (single or group), education,
mosque, and industrial buildings (such as warehouse and factories).
The QSAS considers the specific needs of each building class and for-
mulates a mutual rating ground for all construction types. The QSAS's
rating type is based on the scoring of points which is equal to a star
rating in which each star refers to a specific level of certification from
non-certified to level six (see Fig. 2a). In general, the lowest star rating
that is accepted by certain investment authorities is two stars. The
QSAS criteria are measured on a scale of −1–3 (-1, 0, 1, 2, 3) (see
Fig. 2b). Star certification levels simulate the rating score. Some criteria
can score ‘0′ based on the level of impact on the environment and other
factors, meaning that every criterion is usually measured by its unique
effect on the environment and the predicted outcomes from the en-
hancement strategies [18].
2.3. Green building rating systems adopted in Qatar
The concept of green building has been expanding rapidly with
many countries [19,27,65]. The green buildings have a series of ben-
efits [19,65]; (1) low maintenance and life cycle costs; (2) low rate of
insurance fees; (3) increasing the building's value (in terms of the
economy (rent) and environment (life quality)); (4) increasing pro-
ductivity; (5) improving a unique image; (6) decreasing operational
risks; (7) improving health of tenants; (8) reducing impact on infra-
structure; and (9) in general, enhancing economic and environmental
attributes of the community. These advantages increase dramatically
when the building is operated for group of inhabitants rather than a
single user, and the efficiency rate rises even higher in the case of a
group of buildings working together against the various threats of the
environment and economic issues. Most of the green building rating
systems have been developed to be rated and prefabricated as: (1) tools
of assessment for design outcomes that perform at the location of ex-
ecution; (2) a means of supervising the process of construction to ensure
the best practice of pillars relating to green buildings (economic and
ecological balance and social sustainability); (3) a way of promoting
and enhancing the transformation of conventional construction
methods to address environmental issues [11,20,21]. Recently, Qatar
has also started to promote the green building concept by adopting and
learning from the well-established international green building rating
systems which have also focused on the green urban development as
present in follow;
• LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): LEED
is the most famous and active green rating system among the
173
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180
international rating systems, established by the United States Green
Buildings Council (USGBC) in 1998 [8]. LEED aims to evaluate the
environmental quality and performance of a building through its
entire lifecycle [80]. An operational analysis of buildings shows that
LEED's benefits include; reducing energy demand and consumption
by 10% in average which in some cases reached 30%; dropping the
water consumption radically by at least 35% compared to conven-
tional building consumption rates. The statistics shows that, in
2013, there were 1236 LEED-registered projects in the Gulf Co-
operation Council (GCC); 67% in the UAE, 16% in Qatar, 13% in
Saudi Arabia and a combined 4% in Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman
[70]. Currently, Qatar has 76 LEED registered and one LEED certi-
fied projects [10]. LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development) is such a
third-party NSA tool developed by USGBC in 2007, in partnership
with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Congress for
the New Urbanism (CNU) for sustainable neighborhood develop-
ment (specifically, for site selection, site design, and land con-
struction) [49]. LEED-ND merges building and infrastructure con-
struction and landscape in the local and regional context [50].
• BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method): It is one of the oldest green building rating
systems developed and launched by UK Building Research
Establishment (BRE) in 1990. The BREEAM sets the most practical
and comprehensive standards for design and construction, espe-
cially for Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumping (MEP) systems [6].
BREEAM Communities is the BREEAM's version for green neigh-
borhood assessment that was developed by BRE Global in 2009
[51]. It is such a third-party assessment tool aids urban developers
and planners to measure the planning's sustainability based on a
broad range of criteria [52].
• CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building
Environmental Efficiency): It is a semi-governmental, academic,
and industrial institution which operates under the Japan Green
Building Council (JaGBC). The new approaches introduced by
Building Environmental Efficiency (BEF) made it one of the unique
green systems to evaluate sustainability and green buildings. Based
on its semi-governmental institution, Japanese authorities en-
courage owners and developers to apply CASBEE certification and
methods of construction. CASBEE-UD (Urban Development) is one
of the versions of the CASBEE with reference to the LR3 (Off-site
Environment) and Q3 (Outdoor Environment on Site) assessment
scheme of CASBEE for new construction. CASBEE-UD is for housing
scale and urban scale compiled with building scale assessment [53].
• Estidama: Estidama is the first environmental assessment method
developed in the Arabian Gulf countries. It was developed by the
Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (AUPC) in 2008. The Estidama
ratings tool is called Pearl Rating System (PRS) which aims to assess
building sustainability based on four categories; economic, social,
cultural, and environment including sixty-six optional credits [68].
The Pearl Buildings Rating System (PBRS) is sharing some
M.S. Ferwati et al. Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180

Table 1
Green building rating systems adopted in Qatar and the assessment criteria (Adopted from Attia [69]).
Green Rating Assessment criteria (%)
Systems
Water Energy Urban connectivitya Sustainable site Materials Indoor environment Cultural & economic Management &
efficiency quality value operation

QSAS 48 72 – 51 24 42 39 24
LEED 35 10b – 26 14c 15 – –
BREEAM 6 19 NA 28 20 15 – 12
CASBEE 2 20 15 13 20 15 15
Estidama 43 44 NA 12 28 37 – 13

a
No data available for urban connectivity for the studies green building rating systems.
b
Energy division has been called by LEED as Energy and Atmosphere.
c
Materials division has been called by LEED as Materials and Resources.

similarities with LEED. In 2010, Abu Dhabi has developed the PBRS
based on LEED's main rating criteria, tailored to a unique environ-
mental assessment tool. PBRS aims to encourage the development of
sustainable buildings and enhance the quality of life of the users. It
includes all types of construction, such as hospitals, warehouses,
open sites, and hotels.
Table 1 presents the assessment criteria of the green building rating
systems that have been adopted in Qatar; QSAS, LEED, BREEAM,
CASBEE, and Estidama. As can be seen, these tools have common cri-
teria (included, Water Efficiency, Energy, Urban Connectivity, Sus-
tainable Site, Materials, Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ), Cultural &
Economic Value, Management & Operation). All these rating systems
can be applied for foot print minimization; however, they have assigned
different weights for the criteria, and emphasize on certain criteria
based on their local policies and protocols. Within these rating systems,
QSAS has the highest share in water efficiency (48%), energy (72%),
sustainable site (51%), IEQ (42%), and management & operation
(24%).
Fig. 3 shows the performance sensitivity of the green building rating
systems adopted in Qatar. Referring to this figure, the credits content
and classification of QSAS is so close to LEED, while Esdidama close to
BREEAM. Considerably, these rating systems do not have agreement on
the cultural and economic value. While energy is the primary concern
with all rating systems, comparably, the GSAS has a significant gap in
energy (and also in sustainable site) among other rating systems. Be-
sides, the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) is an essential criterion
with these rating systems which has the positive impact to user well-
being, particularly by QSAS. Noticeably, all these rating systems are
lacking with urban connectivity. This issue has extensively persuaded
us to develop the QSAS-ND.
Table 2 shows the NSA versions of the above-mentioned green
building rating systems. These NSA tools can be constructed to a variety
of themes; including site selection, transportation, resource efficiency,
economic quality, and innovation. These tools have the criteria that
architects and planners should consider them at the outset of design and
construction [5]. The tools have specific emphasis, and of course, dif-
ferent weightings for themes and criteria. For example, in LEED-ND
33% of total weighting has been assigned to the resources and en-
vironment theme which makes 18% of the total points. Table 2 shows
that these tools are not similar regarding social criteria; for example,
the CASBEE-UD covers the social and community well-being only by
6%. Moreover, these tools have significant differences in terms of in-
clusive communities and affordable/social housing; for instance,
CASBEE-UD and LEED-ND could not cover the inclusive communities
and affordable housing at all. Furthermore, the finances and business
criteria are the loopholes for these tools. Table 2 reveals that all these
tools consider the location criteria and smart growth (including,
brownfield and infill land development), job and housing proximity.
Particularly, the location it is a priority in LEED-ND as the United States
is suffering by sprawl development. Besides, while the innovation en-
hances flexibility, capability, and adaptability of these tools [55], LEED-
ND acknowledges the innovation by assigning two credits for a project
employed an accredited certified expert. Moreover, as mixed-use de-
velopment affects the other criteria (such as, transportation and en-
ergy), the weighting distribution of the tools shows this interrelation as
well. Also, these tools have a lack of institutional sustainability [42], as
the institutions (both governmental and non-governmental institutions)
can play an essential role in planning management, financial, and ad-
ministrative procedures, which affect the community's sustainability
[56].
3. Materials and methods
3.1. QSAS-ND assessment criteria

The main goal of QSAS-ND is to promote, enhance, and create

QSAS LEED BREEAM CASBEE Estidama
sustainable neighborhood in Qatar urban areas. The first phase of de-
Water Efficiency
80 veloping the QSAS-ND model is to identify the assessment criteria. The
Management &
70 research has investigated the physical and non-physical criteria for
sustainable neighborhood development. The research has applied the
60 Energy
Operation 50
40 Compression Matrix Development (CMD) method which is such a useful
and fast-tracking method for review and analysing the literature based
30
20
Cultural & Economic
10 on the specific codes (i.e., keywords) and aids the researchers to syn-
Urban Connectivity
thesize the documents systematically and logically [23,31].
0
Value

According to Table 3, QSAS involves a series of criteria for green

urban development (included, compactness, diversity, transportation,
Indoor Environment
Sustainable Site
density, passive solar design, mixed land use, and greening of the urban
Quality fabric); however, these criteria were not yet formulated as an NSA tool.
Materials
These criteria have overlaps with other NSA tools and will be involved
in the QSAS-ND model. In addition to these criteria, the urban con-
Fig. 3. Performance sensitivity of green building rating systems adopted in nectivity has been transferred from QSAS green building criteria to the
Qatar. QSAS-ND model as it is relevant to the urban scale. Referring to Table 3,

174
M.S. Ferwati et al. Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180

Table 2
Theme and criteria frequencies (%) of the NSA tools adopted in Qatar (Adopted from [75]).
Theme Criteria LEED-ND BREEAM community CASBEE-UD

CW TW CW TW CW TW

Location, site selection Mixed-use land develoepment 11 31 5 32 3 40

Green infrastructure, Compact development 2 2 0
Access, Urban design and planning standards, etc. 29 30 40
Transportation Social-cultural quality Affordable Housing 9 9 19 11 10 6
Inclusive communities 2 2 0
Safety, Community well-being 0 3 0
Community outrech, Heritage, Social networks, etc. 7 6 6
Resource efficiency, ecology, and environment Water 14 33 3 23 13 41
Energy 9 6 9
Materials, Ecosystem, Biodiversity, Resource conservation,etc. 10 14 19
Economic quality Local jobs and economy, Finance, Investment, Employment, Business 2 2 8 15 0 0
Innovation, design, infrastructure Accredited proffesional 2 5 0 2 0 0
Inovations 3 2 0

Note: CW; Criteria Weight, TW; Theme Weight.

green urban development has a long and complex procedure to attain
the maximum benefits for all residents and country visions, with many
criteria needing to be considered. The green urban strategies are a
group of pre-set regulations and standards that are created based on the
analysis of existing scenarios; in some cases, they cannot be generalized
and applied as benchmarks for all types of development and construc-
tions. Both green urban planning and green building are two-way
processes entail the planning for the future, implementing the vision,
and receiving the feedback.
The following presents the description of QSAS-ND criteria. The
second phase will determine the weight of these criteria through ANP
method.
• C1. Urban Connectivity (UC): The purpose of urban connectivity is
to enhance the urban environment and merge the plot with its
surroundings to reduce negative impacts such as traffic and land
pollution.
• C2. Compactness (C): As one of the favored methods of developing
sustainable urban, compactness promotes allocation of new urban
areas near to existing districts to spearhead the minimization of the
energy used on transportation, water consumption, material use,
and product sufficiency [40].
3.2. Analytic Network Process (ANP) method
• C3. Diversity (Di): In dense, diversified city areas, people still walk.
However, it is impractical in the suburbs and most grey areas.
People who come into a lively, diverse area from outside, whether
Analytic Network Process (ANP) method to understand the weight of
by car or public transportation, will walk when they get there.
each criterion. The ANP method is used for complex and complicated
• C4. Transportation (T): The definition of public transportation is
services that reduce environmental externalities and do not exceed
their carrying capacity while meeting the needs of accessibility,
environmental quality, and city livability [76].
• C5. Density (De): It can be defined by the number of inhabitants or
buildings (on a larger scale) in a given area of land. Increasing the
density will enhance the interaction between the inhabitants,
making the urban function active and viable [19,65].
• C6. Passive Solar Design (PSD): It is mainly to reduce the need for
energy and to relieve energy generators. Passive design provides
sustainable design measures, which directly affect the urban forms
and built environment [14,38].
• C7. Mixed Land Uses (ML): General agreement exists between
scholars and planners on the important role of mixed-use zoning.
This allows the allocation of functions near to each other, which will
reduce the consumption of energy used for transportation and travel
[28].
• C8. Greening the Urban fabric (GU): It is the potential contribution
of green surfaces (i.e., green lands, roofs, parks, facades, etc.) in
reducing CO2 and other hazardous gases [22].
For developing the QSAS-ND, the second phase has employed the

Table 3
QSAS Green Urban Development and Green Building Design Assessment Criteria.
Green urban development Green building design

Generation Time Relatively started in 1970s New approach started in 1990s

Responsible(s) Urban planning institutions Architectural and mechanical designers
Role/Scope Enhancing the general urban fabric of the city Enhancing the buildings atmosphere
Aims The treatment of the physical and non-physical aspects of the urban fabric, such The main idea of green buildings is to reduce the impact of single
as economic, culture, social, and green area within the city and for the construction on natural resources, and enhance the city sustainability
community. towards resource
Criteria •
Compactness •Site location
•
Diversity •Water consumption
•
Transportation •Energy consumption
•
Density •Urban Connectivity
•
Passive solar design •Materials used
•
Mixed land use •Quality of interior
•
Greening of the urban fabric •Cultural meanings
•Management and Operation
Field of operation • City scale •Building scale
• City landscape •Construction sites
• Urban area •Neighborhoods
• Urban suburb
175
M.S. Ferwati et al. Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180

Table 4 Arora [78] state that WSM is a simple way to convert multi-objective
The Weighted and Limited value supermatrix of QSAS-ND assessment criteria. optimization to a single-objective optimization. The WSM method deals
QSAS-ND criteria Normalized weighting Limited value well by multiplying each objective with a user-given weight Marler and
value (NWV) (LV) Arora, [78]. A WSM questionnaire was designed and filled up by the
experts. The experts have followed the WSM instructions, rating the
C1. Urban Connectivity (UC) 0.29144 0.29143
criteria based on a 5-point Likert scaling (1 for weak to 5 for excellent).
C2. Compactness (C) 0.30730 0.30730
C3. Diversity (Di) 0.02084 0.02083
The WSM has the following Eqs. 2 and 3.
C4. Transportation (T) 0.04774 0.04774
n
C5. Density (De) 0.06822 0.06821
C6. Passive Solar Design (PSD) 0.04926 0.04926
WSM (ai ) = wj ) ai (for i = 1, 2, 3, , m)
C7. Mixed Land Uses (ML) 0.10094 0.10094 j =1 (2)
C8. Greening the Urban (GU) 0.11425 0.11425
where,
*Inconsistency (CR) = 0.0612 (which is less than < 0.10). ‘wj ‘, referred to assigned weight by decision maker in close group
discussion for issue of discussion by expert number ‘j’; ‘ ai ’, is issue of
weight analysis problems [77]. It makes a connective network between discussion with the given ordering number of i ,
criteria and indicates the dependencies (either inner or outer de- WSM (ai )/WSM (amax ) = Consensus (3)
pendencies) [9]. The research has used the Super Decisions software to
construct the ANP decision model. Using the Super Decisions software, where, WSM (a)max , refers to maximum sum of possible weight that can
the pairwise comparison matrices was designed which have been pre- be given for one issue.
sented to the experts for ratings. A pairwise comparison questionnaires
in 9-point scaling (1 (Equally important) to 9 (Extremely important)) 3.4. Analysis and validation
was distributed between the experts. The survey was conducted by four
experts who have been invited based on purposive sampling method of The ANP has determined the weight of the QSAS-ND criteria. First,
GGDM (Grounded Group Decision-making) method [23]. According to the unweighted supermatrix has been computed, followed by the
Dehdasht et al. [12] ANP does not have a standardized rule on the weighted and then limited supermatrix. The limited value presents the
expert sampling size for the decision-making practice, and explicitly, final weight value of each criterion. According to Table 4, compactness
does not need a big sample size. The experts were invited from Qatar has received the highest limited value (LVC2 = 0.30730), followed by
University, University of California San Diego, and Universiti Te- urban connectivity (LVC1 = 0.29143). In contrast, diversity has re-
knology Malaysia (UTM). They had approximately ten years of ex- ceived the lowest limited value (LVC3 = 0.02083).
perience in green building rating systems, sustainable urban develop- Referring to the results shown in Table 4, the limited values have
ment, and decision support tools. In the close group discussions, we had indicated the co-efficients of the criteria, and then the QSAS-ND model
in-depth interviews with the experts. was developed (Eq. (4));
The research has followed the following ANP steps to measure the
weight of each criterion: QSAS ND = [(aUC XUC ) + (aC X c ) + (aDi XDi ) + (aT XT ) + (aDe XDe )
+ (aPSD XPSD ) + (aML XML) + (aGU XGU )]
Step 1: Pairwise comparison; This step conducts pairwise compar-
QSAS ND = [(0.29143XUC ) + (0.30730XC ) + (0.02083XDi )
isons for all criteria interactions using the ANP-based questionnaire.
The research has K respondent experts with n criteria. In this re- + (0.04774XT ) + (0.06821XDe ) + (0.04926XPSD )
search, the n value for the criteria is 8. A series of ANP pair com- + (0.10094XML ) + (0.11425XGU )]
parisons were conducted for the criteria comparisons. The experts’
(4)
outputs were plotted as a n × n matrix. In x ijk , ij is the influence level
of criterion i on criterion j . where,
Step 2: Supermatrix development; The first step outputs will develop
an unweighted supermatrix which indicates the priorities of all a, is the coefficient of criterion (extracted from Table 4)
pairwise comparisons. X, is the Limit value of the criterion (will be attained by the QSAS-
Step 3: Weighted supermatrix calculation; This step, firstly, will ND case implementation)
normalize the matrix by sum to the value of each column to get
unweighted supermatrix which the clusters are with equal weight Phase three of research has applied the QSAS-ND in Lusail city to be
(since the clusters usually are interdependent in a network and validated. The Lusail city was selected in this research while any cities
elements in the columns are separated by the number of clusters). in Qatar could be selected too. The Lusail city is a city of the future
Next, the weighted supermatrix will be calculated by multiplying where aims to create modern and creative communities. Lusail city is
the corresponding priority of each cluster to the unweighted values. the very first area to fully apply the principles of sustainability [39].
Step 4: Limit supermatrix calculation; As the final step, the weighted Lusail city's regulations contain a unique law in construction, whereby
supermatrix will be raised to the sufficient power k by using Eq. (1) all investors are required to achieve a minimum two star rating for
until stable enough to obtain overall priorities or donated ANP design and construction [24]. Its smart, ambitious, and innovative en-
weight. vironment merges with the artistic elements of its architecture, with
many practical and modern services, all coming together to fulfill the
lim w k
k (1) needs of residents [39]. In Lusail city, the eco-friendly environment
targets the creation of more open spaces, as well as encouraging a re-
sponsible water landscape which is planned to minimize the water
3.3. Weighted Sum Method (WSM) usage by planting local plants with a minimal lawn area. The Eco-Wadi
is one of the most common strategies to promote a sustainable land-
The research has validated the QSAS-ND through a case study (i.e., scape within the urban fabric (Fig. 4). This landscape strategy helps
Lusail city). The same experts (i.e., who involved in the ANP process) decrease desertification and prevent rain water runoff. Lusail city's
have been invited for the QSAS-ND validation. The experts had to assess tactic of construction impact reduction in on-site habitat is widely ap-
the Lusail city by using the Weighted Sum Method (WSM). Marler and plied in all construction sites where the planners force to protect the

176
M.S. Ferwati et al. Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180

Fig. 4. Lusail city; a) Master plan, b) Eco-Wadi.

Source: [18]

habitat and enhance their environment [24]. Lusail city has received Grade A; means that the city has excellent
In Table 5, the consensus column shows the weight of each QSAS- performance in neighborhood sustainability while some minor im-
ND criterion in the Lusail city. The consensus weights should be mul- provements are needed.
tiplied to the Limit values (extracted from Table 4) to get the final
Limited value of each criterion in the Lusail city. According to Table 5, QSAS ND Grading(g)
compactness has achieved the highest weight (0.2827) in the Lusail 0.80 < g 1.0: Grade A: Superior;
city, followed by urban connectivity (0.2797), while diversity received
Excellent performance in neighbourhood sustainability
the lowest weight (0.0191). These values have been transferred to the while some minor improvements are needed.
QSAS-ND model equation as following. The calculation indicated that
0.6 < g 0.8: Grade B
the Lusail city has received the final weight score 0.8717.
: Good; Good performance in neighbourhood
QSAS ND Implementation = [(0.29143XUC ) + (0.30730XC ) sustainability while
some major improvements are needed.
+ (0.02083XDi ) + (0.04774XT ) + (0.06821XDe )
: 0.4 < g 0.6: Grade C
+ (0.04926XPSD ) + (0.10094XML )
: Fair; Fair performance in neighbourhood sustainability
+ (0.11425XGU )] while
QSAS ND Implementation = [0.2797 + 0.2827 + 0.0191 + 0.305 + 0.0572 very major improvements are needed.

+ 0.0432 + 0.0726 + 0.0867] = 0.8717 0.0 < g 0.4: Grade D

: Poor; Poor performance in neighbourhood sustainability.
(5)
g = 0: Grade E: Very Poor; Non
QSAS-ND has a five-layer grading (A-Superior, B-Good, C-Fair, D- usable urban neighbourhood.
Poor, E-Very Poor) to interpret the final weight score. As the maximum
limited value of the criteria can be 1, and the minimum is 0, the model
indicates that the final weight score is between zero (0) to one (1).

Table 5
WSM evaluation results of QSAS-ND implementation in Lusail city.
QSAS-ND Model criteria Expert Panels WSM (a) max of criteria Cons. Limit value* Limit value in the case study

EX1 EX2 EX3 EX 4 EX5

C1. Urban Connectivity (UC) 5 5 5 4 5 25 0.96 0.2914 0.2797

C2. Compactness (C) 5 5 4 4 5 25 0.92 0.3073 0.2827
C3. Diversity (Di) 4 5 4 5 5 25 0.92 0.0208 0.0191
C4. Transportation (T) 3 4 3 2 4 25 0.64 0.0477 0.0305
C5. Density (De) 5 4 4 3 5 25 0.84 0.0682 0.0572
C6. Passive Solar Design (PSD) 5 5 3 4 5 25 0.88 0.0492 0.0432
C7. Mixed Land Uses (ML) 3 4 3 4 4 25 0.72 0.1009 0.0726
C8. Greening the Urban (GU) 3 3 5 4 4 25 0.76 0.1142 0.0867

Notes: EX: Expert; Cons.: refers to consensus calculated based on Eq. 3; Limit value*; it was extracted from Table 4.

177
M.S. Ferwati et al.
4. Discussion
Sustainability needs highly comprehensive plan that copes with
several physical and non-physical criteria. The urgent need for sus-
tainable development has been recognized by developing the green
building rating systems, while they are lacking with urban scale ap-
plication. On the shortcoming of green building rating systems Komeily
and Srinivasan [57] state that “existing building assessment tools are
unable to meaningfully capture the interaction between buildings and
their infrastructure.” Richardson and Cashmore [58] and Conte and
Monno [59] state that green building rating systems are not capable to
integrate the social and economic dimensions of sustainability and to
generate the complex building-urban relationship.
Recently, some of the green building rating systems have developed
a version for evaluating neighborhood sustainability so called NSA
tools. The QSAS-ND is one of the NSA tools applying in Gulf region. The
QSAS-ND combines the best approaches from the well-established
rating systems (i.e., LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE, Estidama), it was re-
sulted with an NSA tool fit to the Qatar's policies and needs (see Fig. 5).
QSAS-ND was mainly influenced by LEED and PRS to address the core
issues of sustainability. The QSAS-ND has a tight procedure for criteria
selection which adopted with urban context and policies of Qatar, while
Yigitcanlar et al. [63] state that some of the NSA tools do not explain
sufficiently why and how the criteria were selected. QSAS-ND uses
compactness, urban connectivity, transportation, density, mixed land
use, diversity, and greening of the urban fabric to assessing the neigh-
borhood sustainability. The certification types of QSAS-ND, as same as
QSAS, are for construction, design and build, and operation. In parti-
cular, the design and build type covers the urban related assessment
schemes; neighborhoods, residential, commercial, education, parks,
mosques, districts an infrastructure, railway, sports, and healthcare
[18]. QSAS-ND assesses mixed-use development (i.e. stores, commer-
cial, railway station, residential, hotels, etc.), as well as specific-use
development (e.g., supporting facilities for a residential neighborhood)
in a district. In addition, QSAS-ND can assess the urban development
under the districts and infrastructure scheme, railway scheme, and
parks scheme which cover mixed-used and specific use (e.g. media city,
entertainment city, entertainment city, open/public space, etc.).
Although the NSA tools have more than one-decade age, “there is a
scant amount of research evaluating their performance and effectivity”
[42]. Although the NSA tools are similar, they have some differences in
themes (i.e., topics) and assessment criteria. The NSA tools have a series
of strengths and weaknesses. Hence there is room to be enhanced fur-
ther in future [42]. Particularly, QSAS is the harbinger of this evolution,
as urban governance and management were involved in its sustain-
ability themes [42]. The issue of integrated sustainability (such as CEN/
TC 350 standards) was not well addressed by the NSA tools, as the
neighborhoods have lack of adaptation mechanism to its context and
Fig. 5. Developing the QSAS-ND assessment model based on the green building rating systems adopted in Qatar.
178
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180
fabric. Komeily and Srinivasan [57] state that “a sustainable neigh-
borhood should promote healthy social life and relationships as well as
bolstering local economy, production and economic power (i.e., from
household level to community and city level).” The NSA tools still have
the lack of attention to inclusive community, safe community, afford-
able housing, and local economy to address the socio-economic criteria
[57,60]. Hence, there is not the adequate knowledge on measuring the
economic, social, and institutional sustainability, and thus fully con-
ceptualization of sustainability. As each NSA tool has its certain inter-
pretation of sustainability, the outcome of the sustainability assessment
is depended on the vision implicit, and so, the different weightings of
criteria of that tool [61].
Moreover, the NSA tools have failed to cover all stakeholders,
especially, including the citizens in the assessment process [57] while
the citizen-based systems can be potentially used for measuring public
satisfaction and community activity with local area [57,62]. Atia
(2014) state that “there are currently no standardization efforts
working at local level to quantify and assess sustainability. Therefore,
those systems failed to attract local stakeholders to accredit and award
local sustainable buildings”. Indeed, the miss of applicability with the
international rating systems made QSAS more concern on local and
urban scales of sustainability accreditation.
In this research, the QSAS-ND was implemented at Lusail city for
validation. The implementation resulted that Lusail city achieved grade
A (Superior), means that it has high performances in sustainable
neighborhood design and planning. According to Lusail planning divi-
sions, the city implemented QSAS-ND criteria at all levels of planning
and construction phases. Lusail city's commitment to enhancing the
environment and promoting sustainability is clearly reflected in urban
connectivity by reducing the impact on the urban environment through
a set of strategies as follows: (1) decreasing the capacity of traffic and
private transportation, leading to a reduction in the demand for the
transportation infrastructure; (2) develop sufficiently effective public
roads and walkways that consider the needs of the inhabitants; (3)
setting a broad benchmark for all project development processes to
reduce the heat island effect; and (4) controlling and reducing water
contamination. However, according to the results of QSAS-ND im-
plementation, Lusail city needs substantial improvement in the di-
versity and the transportation criteria. Lusail city need to enhance the
site protection by maintaining the ecological systems and encouraging
biodiversity; also, effective land use to reduce travel distances.
5. Conclusion
The sustainability and sustainable development become relatively
critical in Qatar. The responsible authorities are needed to establish a
clear agenda for merging green building and green urban planning at
the same level and raising the awareness between planners and
M.S. Ferwati et al.
practitioners to realize the aims of sustainable urbanism. To achieve the
maximum impact and benefits to both the environment and quality of
life in Qatar, the process of green assessment should be expanded to the
urban scale including various levels of authorities. For that reason, all
authorities are required an easy and fast certification process that helps
the residents as well as the environment. Accordingly, this research has
developed QSAS-ND which is such an NSA tool translates the theore-
tical knowledge into practical recommendations for both green urban
planning and green building design.
To develop the QSAS-ND model, this research has conducted three
phases. Phase one was the requirement study using the CMD method,
and QSAS-ND has identified eight criteria potentially for sustainable
neighborhood design and planning; included, compactness, urban
connectivity, transportation, density, mixed land use, diversity, and
greening of the urban fabric. Phase two was model design using ANP
method. The ANP analysis has determined that compactness has re-
ceived the highest limited value (LVC2=0.30730) among the criteria
which is followed by urban connectivity (LVC1=0.29143) and greening
the urban (LVC8=0.11425). Phase three was model validation through
a case study. The QSAS-ND was implemented at Lusail city, and im-
plementation resulted that Lusail city achieved grade A (Superior). It
means Lusail city has excellent performance in sustainable neighbor-
hood design and planning, while some minor improvement needed in
diversity and transportation aspects.
Lastly, using the QSAS-ND helps architects and urban planners to
assess sustainability accreditation of the urban and neighborhood areas
in Qatar, while the QSAS-ND users have to remind that;
• The processes of urban planning and green building design must
have clear strategies, which can be formed by understanding the
differences in scale while merging the process by which both com-
plete each other, starting from the building scale and going into
urban fabric planning.
• The urban planners must consider the requirements of green
building construction at the planning stage to fashion an effective
infrastructure for the buildings; at the same time, green building
designers are required to look into the design process as a compre-
hensive procedure that considers the surroundings as well as the
building.
• The role of urban planning is much more significant and has a larger
impact on the environment, meaning that the urban planners are the
main responsible authorities for creating a sustainable environment.
Meanwhile, the work of green building pioneers can be described as
one of the tools with which to achieve the planners’ visions of sus-
tainable environments.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Malaysia Ministry of Science,
Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI) grant vote no.
R.J130000.7922.4S123.
References
[1] K. Adham, Rediscovering the island: doha's urbanity from pearls to spectacle, Evol.
Arab City (2008) 218–258.
[2] O. Awadh, Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, QSAS,
and Estidama critical analysis, J. Build. Eng. 11 (2017) 25–29.
[3] H. Bahadori, A. Hasheminezhad, A. Karimi, Development of an integrated model for
seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: application to Mahabad
City, Iran, J. Build. Eng. 12 (2017) 118–131.
[4] A.A. Bartlett, The meaning of sustainability, Teach. Clgh. Sci. Soc. Educ. Newsl. 31
(1) (2012) 1–14.
[5] U. Berardi, Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and
rated buildings, Sustain. Dev. 20 (6) (2012) 411–424.
[6] K.R. Bunz, G.P. Henze, D.K. Tiller, Survey of sustainable building design practices in
North America, Europe, and Asia, J. Archit. Eng. 12 (1) (2006) 33–62.
[7] J. Burnett, City buildings—Eco-labels and shades of green!, Landsc. Urban Plan. 83
(1) (2007) 29–38.
179
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180
[8] Council, U. G. B. Leadership in energy and environmental design. Building Design
and Construction, version, 4 (2004).
[9] P. Chemweno, L. Pintelon, A. Van Horenbeek, P. Muchiri, Development of a risk
assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: an ana-
lytic network process (ANP) approach, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 170 (2015) 663–676.
[10] G. Davis, Hill International MEP expert calls QSAS a success, Construction Week
Online, April 19, 2012.
[11] M. Deakin, Developing sustainable communities in Edinburgh's South East Wedge:
the settlement model and design solution, J. Urban Des. 8 (2) (2003) 137–148.
[12] G. Dehdasht, R. Mohamad Zin, M.S. Ferwati, M.A. Mohammed Abdullahi,
A. Keyvanfar, R. McCaffer, DEMATEL-ANP risk assessment in oil and gas con-
struction projects, Sustainability 9 (8) (2017) 1420.
[13] M.C. Dejaco, F.R. Cecconi, S. Maltese, Key performance indicators for building
condition assessment, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 17–28.
[14] H. Dumreicher, R.S. Levine, E.J. Yanarella, The Appropriate Scale for “Low Energy”:
Theory and Practice at the Westbahnhof, James & James, London, UK, 2000.
[15] R. El Samahy, K. Hutzell, . Closing the gap. Volume, 2, 182 (2010).
[16] R. Furlan, N. Sipe, Light rail transit (LRT) and transit villages in Qatar: a planning-
strategy to revitalize the built environment of Doha, J. Urban Regen. Renew. 10 (4)
(2017) 1–20.
[17] GORD. Gulf Organisation for Research & Development: Aims and Visions from
〈http://www.gord.qa/about-us〉.
[18] GORD, Gulf Orginaizaiton for research and development, Training Manual 1,2, Vol.
4 GORD, QATAR, 2015.
[19] Y.R. Jabareen, Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts, J.
Plan. Educ. Res. 26 (1) (2006) 38–52.
[20] A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, M.Z.A. Majid, H.B. Lamit, M.W. Hussin, K.N.B. Ali,
A.D. Saad, User satisfaction adaptive behaviors for assessing energy efficient
building indoor cooling and lighting environment, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39
(2014) 277–295.
[21] A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, M.A. Majid, H. Lamit, K.N. Ali, Correlation study on
user satisfaction from adaptive behavior and energy consumption in office build-
ings, J. Teknol. 70 (7) (2014) 89–97.
[22] A. Keyvanfar, A. Shafaghat, N.Z. Muhammad, M.S. Ferwati, Driving behaviour and
sustainable mobility—policies and approaches revisited, Sustainability 10 (4)
(2018) 1152.
[23] H. Lamit, A. Shafaghat, M.Z. Majid, A. Keyvanfar, M.H.B. Ahmad, T.A. Malik,
Grounded group decision making (GGDM) model, Adv. Sci. Lett. 19 (10) (2013)
3077–3080.
[24] LREDC. Lusail City: sustainability strategies, from 〈http://www.lusail.com/the-
project/sustainability/〉.
[25] M. Neuman, A. Hull, The futures of the city region, Reg. Stud. 43 (6) (2009)
777–787.
[26] P. Newman, T. Beatley, H. Boyer, Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel
Dependence, Island Press, 2017.
[27] World green building trends. Developing Markets Accelerate Global Green Growth.
Smart Market Report. Retrieved from:〈http://fidic.org/sites/default/files/World
%20Green%20Building%20Trends%202016%20SmartMarket%20Report
%20FINAL.pdf〉. (Accessed 10 October 2018).
[28] T. Parker, The Land Use—air Quality Linkage: how Land Use and Transportation
Affect Air Quality, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, 1994.
[29] QNMPP, Qatar National Development Framework 2032, Ministry Of Municipality
And Environment, Qatar, 2014.
[30] A.M. Salama, F. Khalfani, A. Al-Maimani, Experiential assessment of urban open
spaces in Doha, Open House Int. 38 (4) (2013).
[31] A. Shafaghat, Path Walkability Assessment Framework Based on Decision Tree
Analysis of Pedestrian Travelers' Retail Walking (Doctoral dissertation), Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, 2013.
[32] A. Shafaghat, A. Keyvanfar, H. Lamit, A. Mousavi, M.Z.A. Majid, Open plan office
design features affecting staff's health and well-being status, J. Teknol. (Sci. Eng.)
70 (7) (2014) 83–88.
[33] A. Shafaghat, G. Manteghi, A. Keyvanfar, H.B. Lamit, K. Saito, D.R. Ossen, Street
geometry factors influence urban microclimate in tropical coastal cities: a review,
Environ. Clim. Technol. 17 (1) (2016) 61–75.
[34] A. Shafaghat, A. Keyvanfar, G. Manteghi, H.B. Lamit, Environmental-conscious
factors affecting street microclimate and individuals' respiratory health in tropical
coastal cities, Sustain. Cities Soc. 21 (2016) 35–50.
[35] A. Shafaghat, M.M. Ghasemi, A. Keyvanfar, H. Lamit, M.S. Ferwati, Sustainable
riverscape preservation strategy framework using goal-oriented method: case of
historical heritage cities in Malaysia, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 6 (1) (2017)
143–159.
[36] B. Shomar, M. Darwish, C. Rowell, What does integrated water resources man-
agement from local to global perspective mean? Qatar as a case study, the very rich
country with no water, Water Resour. Manag. 28 (10) (2014) 2781–2791.
[37] T. Tan, A. Al-Khalaqi, N. Al-Khulaifi, Qatar National Vision 2030, Sustainable
Development: An Appraisal from the Gulf Region, 19 (2014), p. 65.
[38] R. Thomas, A. Ritchie, Building design, Sustainable Development: An Appraisal
from the Gulf Region, (2003), pp. 46–88.
[39] E. Tok, M. Fatemah Al Mohammad, M. Al Merekhi, Crafting smart cities in the gulf
region: a comparison of Masdar and Lusail Handbook of Research on Digital Media
and Creative Technologies, IGI Global, 2015, pp. 448–460.
[40] S.M. Wheeler, Planning for metropolitan sustainability, J. Plan. Educ. Res. 20 (2)
(2000) 133–145.
[41] F. Wiedmann, A.M. Salama, A. Thierstein, Urban evolution of the city of Doha: an
investigation into the impact of economic transformations on urban structures,
METU J. Fac. Archit. 29 (2) (2012) 35–61.
M.S. Ferwati et al.
[42] A. Sharifi, A. Murayama, A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sus-
tainability assessment tools, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38 (2013) 73–87.
[43] R. Costanza, L. Graumlich, W.L. Steffen, Sustainability or collapse? An integrated
history and future of people on earth, MIT Press in Cooperation with Dahlem
University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2007 (ebrary Inc.).
[44] J. Pope, B.D. Clayton, From SEA to sustainability assessment? in: B. Sadler,
R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T.B. Fischer, M.R. Partidario, R. Verheem (Eds.), Handbook
of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London, 2011, pp. 547–565.
[45] A. Blum, HQE2R—research and demonstration for assessing sustainable neigh-
bourhood development, in: M. Deakin, G. Mitchell, P. Nijkamp, R. Vreeker (Eds.),
Sustainable Urban Development Volume 2: the Environmental Assessment Methods,
Routledge, New York, 2007, pp. 412–428.
[46] United Nations, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio De Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. Resolutions Adopted by the
Conference 1 United Nations, New York, 1993.
[47] A. Garde, Sustainable by design? Insights from US LEED-ND pilot projects, J. Am.
Plann Assoc. 75 (4) (2009) 424–440.
[48] A. Haapio, Towards sustainable urban communities, Environ. Impact Asses Rev. 32
(1) (2012) 165–169.
[49] J. Hurley, Sustainable or status-quo: investigating sustainability assessment of re-
sidential estate development. Presented at the State of Australian cities conference,
Perth [November], 2009.
[50] LEED, for neighborhood development. The U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., 2009.
[51] BREEAM. Homepage of BREEAM. [web page] 〈http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?
Id=117〉. (accessed October 2018).
[52] Global BRE, SD5065 technical guidance manual: version 1. BREEAM for commu-
nities assessor manual: development planning application stage; 2011. [Issued
March], 2011.
[53] CASBEE for Urban Development, Technical manual 2007 edition. Institute for
Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), 2007.
[54] GORD, Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS) – an overview, Gulf
Organization for Research and Development, Qatar, 2013.
[55] A.V. Gleich, Comment: innovation ability and innovation direction, in:
M. Lehmann- Waffenschmidt (Ed.), Innovations Towards Sustainability Conditions
and Consequences, Physica-Verlag, New York, 2007, pp. 140–153.
[56] A. Valentin, J.H. Spangenberg, A guide to community sustainability indicators,
Environ. Impact Asses Rev. 20 (2000) 381–392.
[57] A. Komeily, R.S. Srinivasan, A need for balanced approach to neighborhood sus-
tainability assessments: a critical review and analysis, Sustain. Cities Soc. 18 (2015)
32–43.
[58] T. Richardson, M. Cashmore, Power, knowledge and environmental assess-ment:
the World Bank's pursuit of ‘good governance’, J. Political Power 4 (1) (2011)
105–125.
[59] E. Conte, V. Monno, Beyond the buildingcentric approach: a vision for anintegrated
evaluation of sustainable buildings, Environ. Impact Assess. 34 (2012) 31–40.
[60] J. Pope, D. Annandale, A. Morrison-Saunders, Conceptualisingsustainability as-
sessment, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24 (6) (2004) 595–616.
180
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 171–180
[61] R. Reed, A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson, K.W. Schulte, International comparisonof sustain-
able rating tools, J. Sustain. Real. Estate 1 (2009) 1–22.
[62] S. Morse, E.D. Fraser, Making ‘dirty’nations look clean? The nation stateand the
problem of selecting and weighting indices as tools for measuringprogress towards
sustainability, Geoforum 36 (5) (2005) 625–640.
[63] T. Yigitcanlar, M. Kamruzzaman, S. Teriman, Neighborhood sustainability assess-
ment: evaluating residential development sustainability in a developing country
context, Sustainability 7 (3) (2015) 2570–2602.
[64] L. Bertolini, F. le Clercq, L. Kapoen, Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual frame-
work to integrate transport and land use plan-making: two test-applications in the
Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward, Transp. Policy 12 (2005)
207–220.
[65] Y. Jabareen, Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts, J.
Plan. Educ. Res. 26 (2006) 38–52.
[66] P. Newman, J. Kenworthy, The land use—transport connection: an overview, Land
Use Policy 13 (1996) 1–22.
[67] R. Banani, S.D.M. Vahdati, A. Elmualim, A sustainable assessment method for non-
residential buildings in Saudi Arabia: Development of Criteria. Unpublished
Doctoral Transfer Report, University of Reading, 2011.
[68] AUPC, Pearl Building: Guide for Consultant. Report, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning
Council, 2010.
[69] S. Attia, The Usability of Green Building Rating Systems in Hot Arid Climates,
ASHRAE Energy & Indoor Environment for Hot Climates, 2014.
[70] New Report Says GCC’s Green Construction, Retrieved from 〈https://www.zawya.
com/story/GCCs_green_construction_program_great_business_opportunity-
ZAWYA20141027082623/〉, 2014.
[71] Charles Rutheiser, Beyond the radiant garden city beautiful: notes on the New
Urbanism, City Soc. 9 (1) (1997) 117–133.
[72] D. Banister, Assessing the reality-Transport and land use planning to achieve sus-
tainability, J. Transp. Land Use 5 (3) (2012) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.
v5i3.388.
[73] A. Downs, Smart growth - why we discuss it more than we do it, J. Am. Plan. Assoc.
71 (4) (2005) 367–378, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976707.
[74] H. Tregoning, J. Agyeman, C. Shenot, Sprawl, smart growth and sustainability,
Local Environ. 7 (4) (2002) 341–347.
[75] M.O. Abdulkareem, Assessing the sustainability of a modular school concept, 2017.
[76] D. Jordan, T. Horan, Intelligent transportation systems and sustainable commu-
nities: Findings of a national study, Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board 1588
(1997) 70–76.
[77] T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the mea-
surement of intangible criteria and for decision-making, in: Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, New York, 2005, pp. 345-405.
[78] N.Y. Marler, J.S. Arora, The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization:
new insights, Structural and multidisciplinary optimization 41 (6) (2010) 853–862.
[79] J. Jacobs, The death and life of American cities, (1961).
[80] S. Kubba, Handbook of green building design and construction: LEED, BREEAM,
and Green Globes, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.