The integrated indicator of sustainable urban development based on standardization

Abstract

The paper justifies the necessity for the system of planned indicators for sustainable urban development design in accordance with the requirements of international standards and the Russian standard GOST R ISO 37120-2015, and the estimation of their actual achievement based on complex qualimetric models. An analysis of opinions on this issue and an overview of Russian normative documents for assessing the effectiveness of the municipalities, including urban development are presented. General methodological principles and sequence for the construction of qualimetric models, as well as formulas for the calculation of complex indicators, taking into account the specific weights obtained on the basis of expert assessment, are presented, the need for careful selection of experts and determination of the consistency of expert opinions is indicated. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are shown. Conclusions are drawn on the use of qualimetric models for sustainable urban development.

A Good Practice for Integrating Stakeholders through Standardization—The Case of the Smart Mature Resilience Project

“…However, there is little information available on how standardization can be addressed in the funded projects. Examples of previous studies refer to the use and application of a standard for sustainable cities [24], assessing already developed resilience-related standards [25] or the development of a new country-specific project management standard [26]. Nevertheless, in order to address the increasing demand for standardization in projects and to specify successful approaches to integrating standardization and stakeholders, more research on projects that have integrated standardization are needed [5].…”

How Cities Study Quality of Life and Use This Information: Results of an Empirical Study

“…The standard defines 100 indicators, including the methodology for their calculation. These indicators can be used by cities of different sizes to measure their level of development from the following points of view: social, economic and environmental [68,69]. All indicators have been grouped into 17 thematic areas concerning the city: economy, education, energy, environment, finance, crisis management, local government bodies, recreation, security, solid waste, telecommunications and innovation, transportation, urban planning, wastewater management and water and sewage management.…”

A Cross-National Spatial Study of Crime Using Variables Informed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

“…Importantly, the use of standardized indicators to compare and contrast the performance of cities is not new. Several studies have examined the relevance of applying a variety of standards, including the ISO, to provide support for policy development and future planning (see Gonzalez-Garcia et al, 2019; Hong et al, 2019; Leonova et al, 2018). One notable example includes De Campos Filho et al (2019) who used ISO 37120 indicators to compare the sustainability of four cities: Tbilisi (Georgia), Guadalajara (Mexico), Boston (USA), and London (UK).…”

“…In terms of the former, a study by Groeneveld and Breetzke (in press) found a 20% difference in model performance when operationalizing the social disorganization theory using different sets of variables. Standardized indicators or variables have been used in a number of studies of sustainable development globally (Bortnik, 2019; De Campos Filho et al, 2019; Hong et al, 2019; Huovila et al, 2019; Leonova et al, 2018), yet no studies have attempted to examine their utility in spatial crime analysis. This study represents the first empirical attempt to use ISO indicators to compare and contrast the spatial risk factors for crime in two axiomatically different contexts.…”