ES-Europos Sąjunga; JT-Jungtinės Tautos; LR-Lietuvos Respublika; COPRAS-daugiakriterinio kompleksinio proporcingumo metodas (angl. Complex Proportional Assessment of Alternatives); COPRAS-G-daugiakriterinio kompleksinio proporcingumo metodas su pilkaisiais skaičiais (angl. Complex Proportional Assessment of Alternatives with Grey Number); viii SAW-paprastojo svorių sudėjimo metodas (angl. Simple Additive Weighting); SAW-G-paprastojo svorių sudėjimo metodas su pilkaisiais skaičiais (angl. Simple Additive Weighting with Grey Number); TOPSIS-artumo idealiam taškui metodas (angl. Technique for Order Preference by Similiarity to Ideal Solution); TOPSIS grey-artumo idealiam taškui metodas su pilkaisiais skaičiais (angl. Technique for Order Preference by Similiarity to Ideal Solution with Grey Number); WASPAS-svorinės agreguotos sumos metodas (angl. Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment).
Nowadays, the ecological evaluation of urban development has become compulsory, and a number of environmental indices have been introduced. In the present study, two most common environmental sustainability indices-ecological footprint and environmental sustainability-were applied for measuring the ecological possibilities of urban development. Moreover, the issues of the measuring principles, their disparities and direct application are discussed, and a short comparison of the indices is presented. Also, a favourable assumption is proposed.
Abstract:The principles of well-known indices of sustainability-the Ecological Footprint (EF) and the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)-have been compared to discuss the essence of attitude, substantial differences and transferability into urban planning. An overview indicates that ideologically the EF is a more appropriate tool for ecological tasks due to its clear background of natural limits and the ability of "leakage" tracing. Furthermore the European Common Initiative is discussed as it proposes feasible indices monitoring actions towards local sustainability that could be considered in urban planning. Taking two Lithuanian cities as an example, integration of part of one index (regarding municipal solid wastes) into the ecological section of urban planning is presented. It has been estimated that in 10 years an average Lithuanian should generate an amount of municipal solid waste whose ecological impact will be equal to 19,900 kg of CO2-eq in 20 years time. Lastly considering urban planning scope and the EF practice, two opportunities are discussed: (1) tree planting and (2) waste incineration.
Currently, more than half of the world's population live in urban areas and thus cities have become areas of intensive intersections of interests. As a major place for business, living and gathering cities (via citizens) create great pressure on nature; thus, cities can be treated as "battlefields" particularly considering citizens needs and environment. The article discusses current conception of "ecology of a city" at different scales while highlighting the need of a comprehensive approach. A two layer method is proposed, i. e., 1) global and 2) local stages according to which cities can be regarded as: 1) exporters of ecological burden and 2) internal producers of pollution. Although both processes are interrelated and intertwined separate responsible components of each layer are extracted: at a global level the main input from cities comes from energy and waste management sectors while at a local level the key problems are air pollution and noise. The article argues that ecological assessment necessary in urban planning should be done based on aforementioned scheme and calls for the development of it.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.