Sustainability Assessment of Urban Spaces in Developing Countries: The Nigerian Case

Dr. Job Momoh1, Dr. Jin Ruoyu2, Dr. Joseph Kangwa3 and Mr. Rafiu Seidu4

1 London South Bank University, 103 Borough Rd, London SE1 0AA, UK

Corresponding email: momohj@lsbu.ac.uk; Office Tel: +44 (0)20 7815 7639

Abstract. The level of sustainability achieved in developed countries is far higher than in developing countries. In developing countries, the case is different because most aspects of sustainability have not been achieved but various research conducted have suggested that economic and social sustainability are more pressing dimensions of sustainability. This has shown that there is a big difference in priorities of sustainability between developed and developing countries which should be considered when developing urban sustainability assessment tools. Urban neighbourhood sustainability assessment tool for developing countries should reflect the overall goal of the project, aims and objectives, and indicators to be embedded. This goal should focus on achieving developments that adhere to the sustainability agenda, while the objectives should be clear and focused through a structured approach. Lastly, sustainability indicators are used to measure the levels and progress at which sustainability has been attained based on the data collected from the urban environment which can be digitalised to make informed decisions.

This study investigates the method of developing an urban sustainability assessment tool in developing countries within the Nigerian context. Using a survey questionnaire method, a total of 50 respondents were sampled and these results were used to develop an urban assessment tool tailored to the Nigeria, Abuja geographical context. The findings used Social, Environmental, Economic and Planning Sustainability dimensions in the development of the assessment tool which comprises of 21 core sustainability indicators and 105 indicators to form SUCCEED ND.

Keywords: Data, Developing Countries, Nigeria, Sustainability, Sustainable Indicators, Urban Sustainability Assessment.

Introduction

A brief definition of Sustainability Assessment and Existing Urban Sustainability Assessment Methods

Sustainability assessment is known to bridge the gap between buildings, cities and urban spaces, as well as to support the evaluation of the degree of sustainability within urban developments. Sustainability assessment is a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme or project may be assessed as to its potential, economic, social and geographical impacts as well as the distribution of those impacts within a population, a geographical area, a market, or across a generation (Curwell et al., 2005, pg.21; Haapio, 2008a). Sustainability assessment is a data generating process which is used as a tool that can assist decision and policy makers to know the best possible actions to be taken or not to be taken in an approach to make the society, environment or policy more sustainable (Devuyst, 2001). In regards to measurement of urban spaces and urban neighbourhoods, sustainability assessment methods have recently seen as a means in evaluating the performance of the urban environment across various ranges of sustainability criteria (Verheem, 2002). This is to say: how an urban space is rated is based on the level of key performance indicators used as well as the extent to which it has been initiated (Fiksel et al., 2012). Hence the workability of the sustainability assessment method is based on how well indicators of sustainable urban development have been integrated.

The emergence of urban neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools (NSA’s) is as a result of a need to achieve sustainable urbanism across the globe. The measures are seen as significant because it is an important process that is used to tackle a wide range of issues such as environmental degradation, implementation of sustainability, resource depletion, and socioeconomic issues (Uwasu and Yabar, 2011). The most utilised assessment tool across the globe is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), designed and developed by the US Green Building Council. It was then followed by HQE which was development by the non-governmental organisation HQE based in Paris and used as a French system for rating (Reed et al., 2011). BREEAM is the UK's foremost environmental assessment tool for building assessment which has been in use since 1990, and which has been employed to measure sustainable practice in environmental design, management and planning (Happio and Vittanieni, 2008a). CASBEE which stands for Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency was developed in 2006 and it’s the foremost assessment tool used in Japan. Lastly, Green Star was designed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) and it has been established as a national guide in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It is their foremost evaluating environmental design and building assessment tool (Ya et al., 2009). Although developed countries have currently developed assessment tools, developing countries are currently in desperate need of an assessment tool which is tailored within data collected in its context. The purpose of this research paper has led to investigate the most important indicators needed in developing a truly sustainable urban assessment tool for the Nigerian context.

In this paper section 1 presents a brief introduction into Sustainability Assessment and Urban Neighbourhood Sustainability Assessment Methods. Section 2 understands key aspects of Sustainability Assessment and Comparative Assessment of Sustainability. Section 3 focus on the use of Sustainability Indicators in the Context of Nigerian, Sustainable Composite Cities Environmental Evaluation and Design Tool (SUCCEED), and Selected Sustainable Indicators for the Nigerian Context. Section 4 reviews the data from questionnaires collected and responses from participants to develop a sustainable urban assessment tool for the Nigerian context. Lastly, the conclusion summaries the entire paper on how sustainability assessment has been developed based on data driven and informed principles.

Sustainability Assessment

Key aspects of Sustainability Urban Assessment

To guarantee the quality of urban spaces, an assessment rating tool is needed. A sustainability assessment tool is used to examine the performance of a building or an urban space which is then used to compare the overall assessment against other urban spaces (Fowler and Ranch, 2006). Therefore, understanding the steps through which sustainability assessment is achieved is very important. This process consists of not just the theoretical approach but also involves the practicality of this scheme within a specific context (area, region) and specific aspects (building, urban design, community planning). In order to design and achieve an effective approach for long-term measurement it is vital to understand the key features applied in all currently used sustainability assessment methods (Cole, 1999).

•	The assessment model or matrix is the most important component for any model. Therefore it is necessary to allocate a performance score to each sustainability indicator to be used for the model. This structure forms an essential framework of the assessment method.

•	Developing an assessment method requires measuring sustainability which has to include qualitative and quantitative data input. However, in a situation where the measures of performance are more comprehensive and more defined, there is a need for a more qualitative approach in the measurement (Cole, 1999). For example, to determine the happiness of a community, the researcher might use a survey as a means of data collection which provides statistics of the views of the population studied. Quantitative data are seen to be represented in a quantitative approach; therefore the input model will be used to serve the assessment model and the kind of sustainable criteria analysed during the assessment.

•	The outcome of an assessment should be analysed and presented with recommendations using the weighting system following which the results can be interpreted.

•	The results of each assessment should have explanative or deductive reasons for the overall scores achieved. This will have to be processed by referring back to the input module which contains the information. This is likely to be more of an open loop analysis which will help in achieving a better result of the assessment. The output format should be analysed which will create an application aiming at creating an effective measure in the overall performance.

Comparative Assessment of Sustainability Performance Tools and the Role of Different Rating System

It is a known fact that LEED and Green Star were influenced by the BREEAM assess-ment. For this reason, rating tools in general tend to have a similar approach when it comes to how to assess buildings and urban development projects against indicators, categories and the credits been awarded. Also the weighted points used to determine the results are based on the credits obtained during the assessment exercise which would determine the rating classification (Ya et al., 2011). Assessment tools are designed to rate various schemes or types of building uses such as offices, educational facilities, factories, healthcare centres, neighbourhood schemes, and so on. The development of these tools is set under building regulations and organisations and other standardisation agencies which set high performance criteria in most areas of assessment for reasons such as pragmatism, credibility, and to achieve higher sustainability standards (Sleeuw, 2011). Table 1 below shows a comparison of environmental tools between BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and CASBEE. The criteria for comparing these tools includes launch dates, rating schemes, data/information collection, assessment, third party validation, certification and labelling, frequency of update, governance, required qualification of assessors, assessors’ CPD requirements, compound annual growth rate, assessment fee, certificate fee, cost of appeals, credit interpretation requests costs, number of units certified, numbers of domestic and non-domestic buildings certified to date and, lastly, availability of assessment information (BRE, 2008; Reed et al., 2011). Although they have a common environmental aim, there are significant differences in their details - such as in their methodologies, scope and emphasis of assessment, metrics and certification processes. Sleeuw (2011) stated that a common standard would facilitate benchmarking of building/urban development across different countries but the fact remains that different contexts have various levels and priorities of indicators. Adopting a uniform sustainability standard for the entire international neighbourhood sustainability assessment would be very hard to achieve even though the end goal is attaining sustainable built environment (Reed et al., 2011; Sleeuw, 2011).

Most countries and organisation in places where assessment tools have been developed were based on their needs and purposes, context and environment, focusing on sustainability which has resulted in a number of similarities and differences as well as various strengths and weaknesses of the tools (Ya et al., 2009; Kyrkou et al., 2011). Due to this there have been limitations because some categories and criteria have been emphasised while some remain dormant or not a priority. Recent criticism of these assessment tools has shown that BREEAM communities place emphasis on resources/energy and social wellbeing and with little emphasis on governance and businesses within the community.

LEED-ND emphasises on the main categories which is neighbourhood model/building design alongside green infrastructure and buildings with little focus on regional properties, Green Star focuses more on the natural environmental quality, place-shaping and green infrastructure and CASBEE places more emphasis on functionality of services for designated spaces and social infrastructure (European Urban Knowledge Network, 2014; Alqahtany, 2013). Also these four models have showcased how the development of various categories has come together to form the framework but one of the key issues is that they have all concentrated more on the environmental issues which includes climate change, environmental quality, ecosystems and green infrastructure. This is actually one of the strengths uniformly applied between these four frameworks because they all agree on how important environmental sustainability is (Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008a; Alqahtany, 2013).

Table 1: Comparison of BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and CASBEE

BREEAM	LEED	Green Star	CASBEE
Launch Date	1990	1998	2003	2004
Ratings	Pass/Good/Very-Good/Excellent/Outstanding	Certified/Silver/Gold/Platinum	One/Two/Three/Four /Five /Six Star	C/B-/B+/A/S
Weightings	Applied to each issue category (consensus based on scientific/open consultation)	All credits equally weighted, although the number of credits related to each issue is the weighting factor	Applied to each issue category (industry-survey based)	Highly complex weighting system applied at every level
Information Gathering	Design/management team or assessor	Design/management team or Accredited Professional	Design team Design	Design team Design/management team
Third Party Valuation	BRE	N/A	GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia)	Third Party Agencies e.g. JSBC
Certification Labelling	BRE	USGBC	GBCA	JSBC
Update Process	Annual	As required	Annual	As required
Governance	UK Accreditation Service	USGBC	GBCA	JSBC
Required qualification	Competent persons scheme	Passed exam	Training scheme and exam	N/A
Assessor	Carry out at least one assessment per year	No CPD requirements	Status renewed every three years	N/A
Annual Growth	93% (1998-2007)	86% (2002-2007)	Not available	Not available
Assessment Collation Fee*	£2000-£10000 ($3971-19857)	Up to £37,770 ($75000)	£2015-4030 ($4002-8004)	Unknown
Certification Fee	£740-£1500 ($1469-2979)	£1133-£11331 ($2250-22500)	£2550-£7185 ($5063-14268)	Unknown
Cost of credit appeals	Free	£252 ($500)	£403 ($800)	Unknown
Credit interpretation requests cost	Free/unlimited number	£111 ($220) unlimited number	Free/Maximum of two	Unknown
Number of units certified**	110808	1823	50	23

Source: Reed et al, 2011; Momoh, 2016

These rating tools are comparable to each other to a certain degree. It is well acknowledged that an NSA’s however well-developed, needs to be tailored when applying it in a country other than the original context for which the tool was developed. Hence these different characteristics, methods and categories offers no explanation of how to implement these frameworks outside these countries (Alqahtany, 2013; Zuo et al., 2014). In view of the above smart codes, understanding the concept and composition of this design could inform how other codes can be developed within the neighbourhood context. Meanwhile it is clear that a general, prominent and credible building environmental assessment will play a vital role in understanding and assessing building energy performance, particularly in developing worlds where this issue is still in its early phase. It would be very important for countries for example Nigeria that do not have their own prominent evaluation scheme to derive their tool from working examples across the globe.

Sustainability Indicators

The use of Sustainability Indicators in the Context of Nigerian Urban Spaces

Developed societies have been able to provide basic human needs for their citizens and in some cases where the population is less than the gross domestic product (GDP), standard of living parameters have been exceeded. In such cases emphasis would be placed on maintaining these standards, and as well reducing depletion of natural resources and damage to the environment (Loh, 2000; Gibberd, 2002). In developing societies, however, the average standard of living is much lower in comparison to developed societies and, in some cases, human needs cannot be met; hence it is argued that development should aim at addressing basic needs while circumventing negative environmental impacts (Gibberd, 2002). In Nigeria there have been various range of policies, initiatives and schemes established to help support this approach by governmental and non-governmental agencies/organisations. Most of the schemes, like Vision 2010, have failed to work based on inappropriate implementation strategies.

For the Nigerian urban spaces, the use of sustainability indicators can be achieved when a proposed framework has been developed, tested and proven to work. Also the implementation could either focus on the top-bottom approach or the bottom-top approach. The three dimensions of sustainability can be designed to have core indicators and then sub-indicators. The selection of sustainability indicators for the Nigerian urban environment would be based on pressing issues raised earlier - mostly standard of living, socio-economic impact of the indicators, and minimising negative environmental impact. Assessing and implementing sustainability in Nigerian urban spaces would require an effective and easily adoptable approach. This approach can be the initiation of an assessment tool or framework aligned with the stated objectives. This assessment and a set of processes will ensure that the scheme is used to guide and suggest actions in the buildings and construction sector (Loh, 2000; Gibberd, 2002). This conscious approach must be established in order to make sustainable development an explicit goal.

Sustainable Composite Cities Environmental Evaluation and Design Tool (SUCCEED Nigeria Neighbourhood Design)

This proposed framework is designed based on two major fundamentals. Firstly, the current knowledge is retrieved from an analysis of various academic research papers and reports in relation to the concepts of sustainable urban planning, sustainable urbanism, and indicators from sustainable urbanism; and secondly knowledge is acquired from the analysis of various existing frameworks and assessment tools based on their merits and demerits as well as their strengths and weaknesses using a sound methodological approach. Lastly the tool is subject to validation.

In line with the analysis of the existing assessment tools, a detailed proposal for an assessment framework for developing country like Nigeria will increase the achievement of sustainable urban futures. The proposed tool titled SUCCEED which stands for Sustainable Composite Cities Environmental Evaluation and Design Tool focuses on emerging markets where sustainability is starting to become a priority. It also develops a new framework which encourages successful implementation of sustainability. The tool will offer a comprehensive assessment that evaluates the sustainable design and performance of any major master plan (mainly neighbourhood design scale). The SUCCEED tool will help to provide a framework which incorporates the four main dimensions of sustainability which are socio-cultural, environmental and economic, and a fourth dimension lastly planning sustainability which has recently been incorporated and adapted into sustainability.

From the analysis of the six main models, LEED, BREEAM, SUBETool, Green Star, Green Economy Indicators and CASBEE. The results and findings obtained through the literature review have emphasised the need for an effective framework for sustainable urban futures based on their strengths, weaknesses, obstacles and challenges. The selection of indicators will be based on the following question. Who will finance the project? How will it sustain itself? Would it be affordable for every common individual? (That is where social equity comes into play). Are there measures put in place where people can pay for this development over a long period of time? Can this development provide permanent job opportunities? Can the poor masses afford such development? Can the model be used in other developing worlds, and lastly can the development be self-sustaining or can the resource generated from this development be used to manage it? These pressing issues are the most pertinent indicators to be explored further through data collection and analysis (European Urban Knowledge Network, 2014).

Selected Sustainable Indicators for the Nigerian Context.

Most existing assessment tools have been designed based on the context in which sustainability is to be assessed and measured. Therefore it is important to note that assessment tools have been developed in relation to a particular country and region to be focused on (Curwell et al., 2005, pg.35).

Studies have shown that there are two approaches in measuring sustainability. The first approach is through the selection of individual fields which are measured by the use of sustainability indicators while the second deals with the overall progress which aims to achieve sustainability through a combination of individual fields with regards to interaction (Warhurst, 2002). Sustainability indicators help those involved in planning to be more informed about the impact of future developments based on assessments taking from previous developments (Balsas, 2004). The compilations of the right set of indicators for a context is a thorough process with a structured framework or consensus on what urban sustainability should be (Deakin et al, 2002; Lambardi and Cooper, 2009). The use of indicators presents an evaluation of performances of projects, communities, neighbourhoods, buildings, infrastructures and countries as they relate to the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental and socio-cultural (Yangang et al., 2009). The most pressing issue in measuring the sustainability of communities is to create a single framework of indicators corroborating the three dimensions. Moreover, since this is a collaborative process of multi-stakeholders, the chosen indicators must communicate with the variety of different actors, players and disciplines involved (D'Acci and Lambardi, 2010, pg.21; Todd and Geissler, 1999, pg.249).

Six main sustainability assessment tools were used in the design of SUCCEED (a combination of LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, CASBEE, SUPD, SuBETool and Green Economy Framework). Four are internationally recognised while the remaining two are emerging methods see table 2 below. In line with the above assessment tools which have been analysed and synthesised, SUCCEED (Sustainable Composite Cities Environmental Evaluation and Design Tool) is to be designed based on four dimensions of sustainability - environmental, social-cultural, planning and economic sustainability.

Table 2: Main Core Categories in BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, SuBETool, SUPD, CASBEE and Green Economy

BREEAM	LEED	Green Star	SuBETool	SUPD	CASBEE	Green Economy Indicators
Governance	Smart Location & Linkage	Governance	Costs & Economics	Resource	Natural Environment	Agricultural and food security
Economic Development	Neighbourhood Pattern & Design	Design	Land use	Pollution	Functionality of services for the designated space	Power Generations
Resources and Energy	Innovation & Design Process	Liveability	Ecology	Health & Education	Contribution to the community	Investment initiatives, trade, industries
Land use and Ecology	Regional Priority Credit	Economic Prosperity	Mobility	Equity & Community	Environmental impact on the microclimate on building facades and on the landscape	Poverty, Population and equity
Transportation and Mobility	Green Infrastructure	Environment	Pollution	Security	Social Infrastructures	Education and Health
Innovation	Innovation	Water	Growth	Management of local environ	Water and Sanitation
Resources	Energy & Climate Change	Employment/Employees & Productivity	Human Settlement and security
Business	Materials	Land use & Infrastructure	Water/Sanitation
Recycling & Waste	Transport & Governance	Environmental Pollution
Usability	Management	Culture and Tourism
Place-making	Climate & Ecology	Biodiversity, Coastal and marine
Cultural & Perceptual	Energy & Resource	Deforestation/Desertification

Source: Momoh, 2016

Analysis, Results and Discussions

The researcher selected both the core categories and sub-categories’ indicators which were used in developing SUCCEED assessment tool. The collation of the key criteria or sub-categories was adopted from LEED-ND, BREEAM, Green Star, SUPD, SuBETool, SUPD, CASBEE and Green Economy Indicators. These criteria were selected and merged together to form a total of 105 sub-categories’ indicators. This selection was also grouped under the main dimensions so that the main dimension can relate to the core categories and the core categories can then relate to the sub-categories. The indicators selected is specifically chosen for their adaptation in developing countries.

This survey was used to identify which main indicators and sub-categories of sustainability in which key professionals and non-professionals consider important when evaluating a new or existing development and also to create a process in which perceptions can influence thinking of community planning and design. This will clarify any areas of uncertainty and allow those responsible for decision making to offer additional information as well as to validate the proposed assessment scheme creating a more pragmatic tool which will be influenced by the data collected from professionals, stakeholders, end users and, lastly, the general community. The sustainability indicators are rated according to six categories: which are 1 - Not important at all; 2 - Of some importance; 3 - Important; 4 - Very important; 5 - Extremely important; and 6 - Necessary in the near future. The survey was conducted with over 50 participants from various fields and people within the local communities as well which helped in establishing a robust assessment tool to be refined at the end of this exercise. The data was mainly quantitative and the participants fell within three groups – academics, practitioners, and government officials. A significant percentage of the participants are based mainly in the Nigerian system (either in tertiary institution, government agencies and private practices) while some where contacted across the globe. The indicators selected was based on how the participant rated their level of importance.

Dephi-Based Validation Result

The participants were asked to select the level of priority of each dimension in relation to the Nigerian context. A total of 65 people were contacted for this research; of these, 50 agreed to participate in this project. The use of Delphi method was used to enhance the results which is based on the results of multiple rounds of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. Some rounds of questionnaires are sent out to the group of experts, and the anonymous responses are aggregated and shared with the group after each round. Two rounds of the Delphi technique were completed and the entire process of conducting the questionnaire was carried out. The two rounds used in the Delphi-based validation helped in streamlining the assessment method and to create a list of indicators which were seen to be vital for the Nigerian context. Data analysis was carried out using Microsoft Excel and the graphs generated from the questionnaires showcase the analysis of the overall perception of 50 participants who took part in this exercise. Also the table within each sustainability category shows that the mean value and standard deviation for each dimension would also influence the results and are used to develop the grading criteria.

Equation (1)

Equation (2)

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability is defined as the ability to maintain the factors, practices or qualities that are valued within the physical environment which contributes to the quality of the environment on a long-term basis (Allen, 2009, pg.2). Six main indi-cators were selected from a sound methodological approach; these are pollution, wa-ter, energy, materials (resources/waste), ecology and climate. Based on the results produced it was understood that the highest amount of importance was from water and energy. Material came third followed by pollution, climate and lastly ecology.

The results of the questionnaires support the fact that more emphasis should be placed on these main indicators which are water and energy. Thus, emphasis should be placed on management alongside the generation of additional renewable energy and alternative water supplies to complement both energy and water supplies respectively. Climate change, pollution and ecology are areas that have not been taken into serious account in Nigeria, although slight traces of action in these areas have been seen in some projects. Ecology in this analysis has shown a decline and, in relation to importance and irrelevance, although it is one of the key areas that sustainable urbanism preaches.

Table 3: Mean/Standard deviations (Environmental dimension)

Sustainability Dimension	Core Categories	Sub-categories	Mean	Standard Deviation
Environmental Sustainability	Pollution	Water Pollution Noise Pollution Prevention Air Quality Enhancement Pollution Innovation	4.48	0.76785
3.84	0.94573
4.26	0.99619
4.32	1.02839
Materials Resources, Waste	Local Renewable Materials Recycling and Innovation Site Waste Management Storage of Recycled Waste Use of bio. materials	4.28	0.93722
4.24	0.83809
4.0	1.28062
4.0	1.14891
4.24	1.03072
Water	Flood Risk Water Quality Erosion control Responsible Water Supply Waste-water Management Smart metering-water Reduction in Water Usage	4.1	1.06301
4.46	0.7800
4.34	0.92973
4.32	0.88181
4.08	1.01666
3.60	1.29615
3.26	1.61009
Ecology	Biodiversity Ecological Appraisal Minimising Eco. Impact Eco. Value Improvement Diversity and Preservation Use of natural topography	3.74	0.98994
3.64	1.10923
3.78	1.044796
3.78	1.044796
3.84	1.02684
3.32	1.21012
Energy	Energy-Efficient Building Passive/Active Designs Renewable Energy Urban Grid Optimisation Consumption Management	4.3	1.15326
4.2	1.28062
4.3	1.06301
4.16	1.10199
4.22	1.06377
Climate	Climate Emissions Global Warming Control Measures Flood Risk Mitigation Solar Radiation Climate Change/Resiliency	3.96	1.34848
4.26	1.05470
4.48	0.98468
4.12	1.05148
3.96	0.91564
3.48	1.20399

The mean values for the categories of environmental dimension are in the range of 3.32 and 4.48 while the standard deviations for the categories are in the range of 0.769 and 1.61 which means that there is a satisfactory consensus. The decrease in the standard deviation means that the experts show a movement toward convergence and consensus (Vidal et al., 2011). Table 3 above presents the mean values and standard deviations for all categories under the environmental dimension as well as their criteria.

Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability can be generally defined as the ability of an economy to support or sustain a defined level of economic production, indefinitely (McKenzie, 2004). In relation to the built environment it is a combination of various issues which includes how the development can enhance factors like employment opportunities, growth, urban expansion, affordability of housing schemes, low-cost production of housing, affordable building materials and techniques, among others. In most developing countries in Africa, sustainability is seen as a vital sector due to the fact that the economic drive of a country is what promotes development and increases in the overall GDP of a country. The Economic sustainability dimension contains five main indicators which are economic/values, employment, growth, productivity and initiatives, and has been proven to be very important in any urban space.

Table 4: Mean/Standard deviations (Economic dimension)

Sustainability Dimension	Core Categories	Sub-categories	Mean	Standard Deviation
Economic Sustainability	Economics/ Value	Affordable Housing	4.58	0.7769
Housing Demand	4.42	0.94
Informal Sector	3.96	1.0385
Income-Generated Development.	4.14	1.0002
Access to financing	4.1	1.04403
Growth	Efficient Resources Use	4.1	1.19933
Economic Activities	3.92	1.1536
New Investment	3.92	1.18051
Promoting Local Industry	4.3	1.11803
Business Facilities	3.94	1.19013
Employments	Employment Opportunities	4.46	0.94255
Justice and Equity	4.4	1.01980
Creation of local jobs	4.46	0.94255
Live/work units, local shops, core centres, factory and social centres.	4.06	1.04709
Productivity	Accessible to Everyone	4.02	1.02937
Cost Efficiency	4.12	0.9928
Efficient Pricing	4.1	1.06301
High Quality Outcomes	4.28	0.96
Initiatives	Viability of New Infrastructures	4.16	1.06508
Long-termFinance Schemes	4.24	1.068831
Local Context	4.26	1.086093
Politics	4.4	1.11355

From the result extracted in the table above all core categories has shown to be very important with the highest indicator on employment, then economic/value followed by growth, then productivity and lastly initiatives. Looking at this analysed data shows that economic sustainability should be given priority compared to other aspects of sustainability. It should be the driving power of future developments in essence, if economic sustainability has been adopted then other aspects of sustainability which includes social/cultural, planning and environmental will follow. The mean values for the categories of social dimension are in the range of 3.92 and 4.58 while the standard deviations for the categories are in the range of 0.7769 and 1.1993 which means that there is a satisfying consensus and the slim gap indicates that the economic dimension has higher priority. The decrease in the standard deviation means that the experts show a movement toward convergence and consensus (Vidal et al., 2011). Table 4 above presents the mean values and standard deviations for all categories under the economic dimension as well as their criteria. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean and a high standard deviation indicates that the data points spread out over a large range of values.

Social/Cultural Sustainability

Most scholars have described social sustainability as the engagement among local communities, employees, clients, and all stakeholders involved in the construction project in order to ensure that it meets the needs of current and future generations (Herd-Smith and Fewings, 2008). The social/cultural dimension has five aspects or main indicators to be considered in this analysis; these are community (culture/empowerment), education, health, equity, and security. According to the data collected the current system in Nigeria has shown that some areas are very poor in regards to education, health and security. Education is seen as the most pressing aspect because knowledge is power and to build a knowledge-based economy most of these aspects of sustainability indicators can be adopted more easily without any issue from both urban and rural communities. Health is seen as the second most important indicator to be considered when planning. The built environment includes the physical structures in which people work, live, play and socialise. Another important aspect is the connections between these spaces, including the built infrastructure and a range of natural features used in creating a healthier environment. Other major indicators include housing, neighbourhood conditions and transport routes, all of which shape the social, economic and environmental conditions on which good health is dependent (Dearry, 2004).

Security has shown a significant number of responses; due to the current issues in Nigeria, the safety of citizens is very important. Every individual needs to feel that they are secure from issues like terrorism, theft and vandalism hence safety systems, initiatives and features should be placed in urban spaces in order to enhance the overall safety of its occupants. Community (culture/empowerment) which is the second-to- last aspect looks at how diverse cultures can live in harmony with each other and lastly equity strives to incorporate various strata of people working together, living in unity and in one accord, thereby providing basic services, facilities and infrastructures for all to use and also creating opportunities for all, no matter what level of income they have.

Table 5: Mean/Standard deviations for categories and criteria on the Social/Cultural dimension

Sustainability Dimension	Core Categories	Sub-categories	Mean	Standard Deviation
Social/Cultural Sustainability	Community/Culture	Sustainable Behaviors	3.9	1.11355
Social Inclusive Communities	3.8	1.17047
Connected Communities	4.04	1.165504
Local Context	4.0	1.18321
Community Cohesion	3.94	1.2395
Local social vitality	3.66	1.050904
Education/Empowerment	Schools	4.62	0.956869
Health and Safety Courses	4.48	1.00479
Workshops	4.08	1.197330
Awareness Schemes	4.3	1.118034
Health	Clinics	4.68	0.83522
Medical Facilities	4.64	0.86626
Risk Management	4.34	0.971802
Gymnasium Halls	3.46	1.41718
Equity	Equity/Fairness	4.08	1.146124
Enquiry-based design	3.94	1.120892
Public Participation	3.86	1.113732
Access to Services	4.26	1.03557
Security	Amenity Provision/Well-being	4.24	1.15862
Neighbourhood Watch Safety	4.22	1.15395
Crime Prevention Scheme	4.42	1.078702
Police Station	4.3	1.13578
Securing the Areas	4.38	1.07499

The mean values for the categories of social dimension are in the range of 3.46 and 4.68 while the standard deviations for the categories are in the range of 0.83522 and 1.41718, which means that there is a satisfactory consensus and the gap indicates that the social/cultural dimension has the next priority after economic sustainability. The sub-category spans between gymnasium halls which has the lowest factor and clinics which has the highest factor. The decrease in standard deviation means that the experts show a movement towards convergence and consensus. The table 5 above presents the mean values and standard deviations for all categories under the social/cultural dimension.

Planning Sustainability

Planning sustainability is a new dimension that has started gaining recognition as a new tier of sustainability in the last decade. Planning sustainability looks at balancing the needs of communities, government and private companies against a range of social, economic and environmental objectives. For planning to be effective it requires an understanding of the relationships between communities, buildings, cities and climate. In this study the main indicators comprise place-making, management, transportation, governance and land use. According to the data collected land use has attracted large interest with all its sub-indicators having the highest amount of importance. Land use is one of the most important indicators when considering future generations because when building it is imperative that the designer achieves sustainability through density, for example considering a range of mixed-use developments rather than focusing on the specific typology of building design, thereby utilising a vast area of land. Another interesting area of focus is the transportation system. There is the need for a sustainable alternative means of conveying people from one place to another as well as providing facilities within the urban areas that would reduce the traveling distance to various destinations. Also the planning of effective use of land will help to reduce congestion and improve journey times.

The third most important indicator is the management which is key in every development. For a development to thrive for decades it needs proper management to be carried out to help increase the life span of the buildings and the built-up spaces. Urban spaces have to be driven by efficient management which is known to be a by-product of sustainability; hence, for it to last a long time, it has to be properly managed. Place-making is seen as a multi-faceted approach to planning, design and management of public spaces which place emphasis on the local community’s assets, aspirations, and identities with the aim to promote people’s health, happiness and well-being. Lastly good governance is important in ensuring the smooth running of urban spaces. The sub-indicators that are seen as not relevant based on the questionnaires include homogeneity of houses and car-sharing scheme.

The table 6 below presents the mean values for these categories of the planning dimension are in the range of 3.06 and 4.46 while the standard deviations for the categories are in the range of 0.85229 and 1.680595 which means that there is a satisfactory consensus. The sub-categories span between homogeneity of houses which has the lowest factor and public transport which has the highest factor. The decrease in the standard deviation means that the experts show a movement toward convergence and consensus.

Table 6: Mean/Standard deviations for categories and criteria on the Planning dimension

Sustainability Dimension	Core Categories	Sub-categories	Mean	Standard Deviation
Planning Sustainability	Place-making	Scale, Massing and Height	3.88	1.39484
Local Materials Use	3.74	1.1280
Detailing, frontage, form, orientation	3.78	1.13649
Access to public spaces	3.86	1.2167
Diversity of building typologies	3.88	1.12499
Landscape design	3.94	1.12089
Space for future developments	4.34	1.2745
Management	Facilities Management	3.88	1.1634
Building/Site Maintenance	4.24	1.04995
Monitoring Stakeholders Control	3.78	1.28515
Operation of Design/Post-occupancy	3.88	1.33626
Site and services approach to housing	3.94	1.19013
Transportation	Public Transport	4.46	1.080926
Traffic Management Scheme	4.44	0.85229
Cycling/Pedestrian/Street Network	4.22	1.17115
Car-sharing Schemes	3.34	1.680595
Smart Location	3.58	1.401285
Proximity to community services	4.08	1.18051
Walk-able/Human-scale	3.9	1.3
Transit-oriented design of spaces	3.98	1.25682
Governance	Environment	4.3	1.06602
Local Context	3.7	1.18743
Politics	3.76	1.29244
Civil Society	3.82	1.19482
Local Planning Approval	4.0	1.14891
Land use	Increasing sustainability by Density	4.0	1.11355
Green Spaces	4.28	1.133078
Residential Schemes	4.28	1.1052
Business Area and Public Services	4.2	1.077032
Effective use of Land	4.4	1.095445
Compact Development	3.8	1.21655
Homogeneity of houses	3.06	1.61753

Conclusion

Sustainable communities have been defined as the spatial manifestation of sustainable development principles. Roberts states that "they are places where people want to live, work, prosper and enjoy a good quality of life now and in the future" (2009, pg. 128). To create an environment that is sustainable, an assessment process is required to embrace sustainability within communities. The main reasons for sustainability assessment are to provide accurate data which the decision makers will use to create an evaluation of the impacts of both proposed and existing developments; also its impact on nature, and global to local changes of social systems looking at both short- and long term perspectives (Pope et al., 2004). The most effective approach is made by assessing selected individual fields by way of sustainability indicators. The use of sustainability indicators helps decision makers to be more informed about the impact of future developments based on their understanding and past experiences. The results extracted from the questionnaires was used in developing the assessment tool (SUCCEED ND). This will help in establishing priority rating and weighting of the assessment tool. The research develops a holistic innovative sustainability assessment techniques tool, SUCCEED. SUCCEED is developed based on the existing globally recognised methods, BREEAM ND, LEED V4 ND, CASBEE UD and Green Star for Communities and three emerging methods, SuBETool and SUPD. This technique was based on indicators’ selection, prioritisation and validation based on the context and data collection from academics, practitioners, governments and other participants. The range of indicators selected for this assessment tool was from a mean value of 3.32 to 4.68 which was used in selecting 105 indicators. Therefore not all indicators listed was selected in developing the assessment tool.

The data collected based on a methodological approach focuses on the most important sustainability indicators which was used to understand and create recommendations and contribution to knowledge in regards to sustainability assessment and sustainable urbanism. It also proves that sustainability indicators varies by context, culture and region. In developing countries, sustainability is seen to have more influence on economic and social dimensions while environmental sustainability is gradually growing. The overall rating which will influence the assessment tool would be influenced by the amount of indicators achieved on each sustainability criteria. Hence a project would be graded based on the total summation of these indicators. This method used in developing this assessment framework focuses on the priority of each sustainability indicator.

In conclusion the analysed data were used in influencing the proposed SUCCEED assessment tool. In overall it is necessary to create an understanding of this scheme in terms of its assessment criteria, indicators, scope and performance criteria, critiquing this tool as well as creating a tool suitable for developing countries (Lee et al., 2008; Patxi et al., 2008). This developed NSA tool dictates different methods of designing city and neighbourhood development, as well as the selection of the categories, criteria and indicators. Furthermore, this frameworks was developed for the Nigerian environment based on the data collected from that region, the current circumstances in developing countries, and other different reasons and purposes. The overall goal of this model is to achieve a truly sustainable urban development.

References

Allen Adriana (2009) “Sustainable Cities or Sustainable Urbanisation” University College

London Journal of sustainable Cities Summer 2009

Alqahtany AM, Rezgui Y, Li H, (2013) “A proposed model for sustainable urban planning development for environmentally friendly communities”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management , 9 (3) (2013) 176-194 ISSN 1745-2007 10.1080/17452007.2012.738042

Balsas, C.J.L (2004) Measuring the Liveability of an Urban Centre: An Exploratory Study of Key Performance Indicators. Planning Practice and Research, Vol 19 (1), 101 – 110.

BRE, (2008) A discussion document comparing International environmental Assessment Methods for buildings BRE. Glasgow.

Burdge, R. J. (2004). The concepts, process, and methods of social impact assessment, Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI

Cao, S., & Li, C. (2011) The exploration of concepts and methods for low carbon eco-city planning, Procedia Environment Sciences, 5, 199-207. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.03.067.

Cole, R. J. (1999). “GBC” Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Clarifying Intentions'. Building Research & Information 27, no. 4/5, pp. 230-246

Curwell S, Deakin M, Lombardi P (2005) “The bequest framework: A vision and methodology” Sustainable Urban Development, Vol.1: The framework and protocols for environmental assessment. London: Routledge, pp.19-42

D’Acci, L. and Lombardi, P. (2010) MuSiC. A new Multi-Scalar Index for Evaluating Sustainability in Cities, In S. Lehmann, H. Alwaer and J. Al-Qawasmi (Ed’s). The second international conference on Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development: Vol. 3. The centre for the study of Architecture in the Arab Region Publications (CSAAR), Amman. (ISSN 1992 – 7320), 19 – 34

Deakin M, Curwell S, Lombardi P (2002) Sustainable urban development: The framework and directory of assessment methods. Journal of Environmental Assessment. Management and Policy 4(2):171-197

Dearry A. (2004) Editorial: Impacts of our built environment on public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004;p112(11):A600

Devuyst, D, Hens L. et al (2001) “How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban Environments. New York, Columbia University Press

European Urban Knowledge Network (2014) EUKN EGTC Policy Lab Sustainable Neighborhood Ranking Systems Luxembourg June 30, 2014 www.eukn.eu

Federal Government of Nigeria (2012) ‘‘Nigeria’s Path to Sustainable Development through Green Economy. Country Report to the Rio + 20 Summit June 2012

Fikel Joseph, Eason Tarsha and Frederickson Herbert (2012). A framework for sustainability Indicators at EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory. U.S Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R/12/6871 October 2012/www.epa.gov/org

Fowler, M and Rauch, M (2006) Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary: In contract July 2006 for the United States Department of Energy

Gibberd Jeremy (2002) Assessing Sustainable Building in Developing Countries the sustainable building assessment tool (SBAT) and the sustainable building lifecycle (SBL) CSIR, Building and Construction Technology

Grace. M (2000) BREEAM- A practical method for assessing the sustainability of buildings for the new millennium. International conference sustainable building 200, 22-25 October 2000, Maastricht the Netherlands. The Netherlands: In-house Publishing

Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008a). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 469-482. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.

Haapio, A (2008c) Environmental assessment of buildings, PhD Forest Products Technology, Helsinki University of Technology.

Herd-Smith, A., and Fewings, P. (2008). “The implementation of social sustainability in regeneration projects: Myth or reality?” Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (London,〈http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/download_info.aspx?fileID=3178&categoryID=52〉 (Nov. 3, 2009).

Kyrkou, D., Taylor, M., Pelsmakers, S., and Karthaus, R (2011) Urban Sustainability assessment systems: How appropriate are global sustainability assessment systems? PLEA 2011 -27th conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Louvain-La-Neuve Belgium, 13-15 July 2011.

Lee Yeri (2012) “Indicators for Sustainability” How cities are monitoring and evaluating their success Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)

Loh. J, (2000) “The Living Planet Report 2000”, pub WWF, Gland, Switzerland, p1 (2000).

Lombardi P, Cooper I (2009) The challenge of the eAgora metrics: The social construction of meaningful measurements. International Journal of Sustainable development 12(2):210-222

McKenzie Stephen (2004) “Social Sustainability. Towards some Definitions” Hawke Research Institute Working Paper series 27 (2004)

Momoh, J. (2016) Sustainability Urbanism and it Assessment . Unpublished PhD Thesis Nottingham Trent University

National Urban Development Policy (2012) The revised National Urban Development Policy was approved by the Federal Executive Council on 20th June, 2012. Produced by the Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development Mabushi, Abuja.

Patxi Hernandz, Kevin Burke and Jowen Lewis (2008) “Development of energy performance benchmarks and building energy ratings for non-domestic buildings: An example for high primary schools, energy and buildings”, Volume 40 (2008) 249-254

Pope. J, Annandale. D, Morrison-Saunders , A (2004) ‘‘Conceptualising sustainability assessment’’ Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment Review Vol 24 (2004) 595 - 616

Reed Richard, Wilkinson Sara, Bilos Anita (2011) "A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools – An Update" The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast 16-19 January 2011

Sleeuw Martin (2011) “A comparison of BREEAM and LEED Environmental Assessment Methods” A report to the university of East Anglia Estates and Building November 2011

Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., Tsui, W.S. (2004). Green Construction assessment for environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 563-571. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.03.001

Todd JA, Geissler S (1999) Regional and cultural issues in environmental performance assessment for buildings. Building Research and Information 27(4/5):247-256

Uwasu, M., & Yabar, H. (2011). Assessment of sustainable development based on the capital approach. Ecological Indicators. 11, 348-352. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.002

Verheem, R.A.A. (2002) Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands: Views from the commission for EIA in 2002. The Netherlands

Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F. & Bocuet, J.-C. (2011). Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert systems with applications, 38, 5388-5405.

Warhurst, A (2002) “Sustainability Indicators and Sustainability Performance Management. Report to the Project: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD). International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Warwick, England (Available at http://www.iied.org/mmsd/mmsd_pdfs/sustainability_indicators.pdf).

Ya Roderick, David McEwan, Craig Wheatley and Carlos Alonso (2009) Comparison of Energy Performance Assessment between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star. Building Simulation 2009, Eleventh International IBPSA Conference Glasgow, Scotland July 27-30, 2009

Yangang Xing,∗, R. Malcolm W. Horner, Mohamed A. El-Harama, Jan Bebbington ‘‘A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development ’’ Journal of Accounting Forun 33 (2009) 209-224

Zuo, Jian, Xia, Bo, Zillante, George, & Zhao, Zhenyu (2014) “The future of sustainable building assessment tools: a case study in Australia”. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, Springer, Shenzhen, China, pp. 91-98