INTELLIGENT SUSTAINABLE LIVEABLE CITIES

Derek Clements-CroomeUniversity of Reading

The Cities Landscape

Letchworth garden city in 1903 was an ideal planned community as envisaged by the British town planner Ebenezer Howard (1850 – 1928). It is a small compact city that combines the amenities of urban and rural life. A central garden is ringed with a civic and cultural complex, a park, housing, and industry. The whole is surrounded by an agricultural green belt. Traffic moves along radial avenues and ring roads.

Geddes (1854-1932),a Scottish biologist, sociologist and philanthropist was also a pioneering town planner devised various ‘thinking machines’ as a way of studying the human interaction with the environment. The Notation of Life( see Fig 1) planning concept focused on the headings; TOWN, SCHOOL, CLOISTER and CITY IN DEED integrated with the triad of WORK, PLACE and FOLK (Welter 2002).This recognised our need to live and work in places, have social relationships and be creative via learning. At a deeper level he expressed the dreams and reality aspects of life which can be realised through passive acts and active deeds.

Fig 1 Notation of Life by Geddes

The Economist Intelligence Unit Report ( EIU 2010) stated that the most liveable cities tend to be those which are mid-sized and have lower population densities usually in wealthier countries. Vancouver, Vienna and Helsinki are examples. Sustainability objectives are more difficult to achieve in hot highly populated cities like Karachi, Lagos and Harare. Masdar is an example of a modern city being developed in Abu Dhabi and if successful will be the first carbon and waste neutral eco-city when it is completed in 2016-2020 (Tang 2011).

The growth in world urban populations is rapid and expected to reach 70% by 2050. Meta or hyper cities with populations of over 20m like Tokyo, Chongqing, Mexico City ,Delhi, Mumbai, Shanghai, Jakarta, Karachi, New York ,Sao Paulo and Lagos are emerging; mega cities with over 10m people like Cairo, Istanbul, Paris and London are growing in number too( see Appendix 1). Throughout history cities like Athens, Florence, Rome, Venice, Vienna, Amsterdam and London have been notable centres of culture, wealth creation and innovation which suggests that even though densely populated cities bring environmental stresses and high demands on infrastructures the ‘buzzy’ atmosphere created by so many rich and variegated human contacts is a stimulus for creativity and offers opportunities for innovation (Dodgson and Gann 2011) even though some of these cities do not feature in the top liveable cities as classified by EIU or Monacle (shop@monocle.com) for example. City life is more likely to be 24/7 than rural life and this also gives a vibrant pulse to the city aura.

The dangers of large conglomerates are slums which endanger health; homelessness where the poor cannot keep up with the rich; urban sprawl; traffic congestion; environmental pollution affecting air quality and hence the health of citizens; disconnections between wealthy and poor .

Sustainability is about making places sustainable so that they consume minimum resources for future generations and prosperity reflecting much that occurs in the natural world at the same time increasing the quality of life. Quality should not be compromised by size. Planning meta- cities as regions with a number of smaller liveable eco-regions within them should lead to a more manageable and sustainable approach which is more likely to avoid the pitfalls of large scale populations concentrated in a relatively small area. Eugene Tsui proposed a biomimetic design for the Ultima Tower – a 2-mile high city to house a million people–using trees and other living systems such as termitaries as his inspiration to reduce its energy footprint. But is this realistic with all the human problems that close living can bring?

We need dreams to stimulate other possibilities for the future but the reality of everyday living has to make city plans viable. Cities are heritages for future generations so they have to be adaptable to the rapid social and technological changes taking place. Remember that social change is as rapid as technological change .Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful (1973) writes about appropriate intermediate technology recognising that technology alone does not solve everything especially human issues .The use of innovation should be integrated into the particular setting. The architecture of cities and buildings needs a balance of technology which enables the objectives to be realised but this will include lessons from vernacular architecture usually classified as low technology, besides advances in high technologies.

What is a Sustainable Liveable City?

The Sustainable Liveable City is:

A Just City, where justice, food, shelter, education, health and hope are fairly distributed and where all people participate n government;

A Beautiful City, where art, architecture and landscape spark the imagination and move spirit;

A Creative City, where open-mindedness and experimentation mobilise the full potential of its human resources and allows a fast response to change;

An Ecological City, which minimises its ecological impact, where landscape and built form are balanced and where buildings and infrastructures are safe and resource-efficient;

A City of Easy Contact and Mobility, which protects the countryside, focuses and integrates communities within neighbourhoods and maximises proximity

Liveability is the sum of the aspects that add up to the quality of life of a place, including its economy, amenity, environmental sustainability, health and wellbeing, equity, education and learning, and leadership. For some people, liveability lies in the amount of local green space. Others might measure liveability through the diversity of jobs, range of dining and entertainment options, extent of the public transportation system, or quality of the local schools. Interestingly Thesaurus cites sustainable as one of the possible synonyms for liveable (see Appendix 2).Broadly speaking the cities should be planned to achieve the following goals:

economic (such as economic revitalization and development); land use (such as compact, mixed use development); transportation (such as walkability, accessibility, and transportation choices); equity (such as affordable housing and mixed-income communities); and community development (such as sense of place, safety, and public health).

Quality of Life: Similar to liveability, the term quality of life is a very general one that can mean different things to different people (Forkenbrock & Weisbrod, 2001) and covers a variety of domains (Hagerty, et al., 2001). Broadly, quality of life refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies

Maslow (1943) mapped a pyramid of needs which describes the essential factors which define well-being for an individual (see Fig 2). If these are satisfied then broadly speaking a person will be content, happy and more likely to be highly motivated. One can say a person’s sense of well-being is likely to be high if these needs are satisfied. The environment of cities can affect physiological, safety and self-actualisation needs. Even a sense of belonging to a place as well as the social cohesion that city may bring about is important to individuals.

Fig 1 Maslow Pyramid of Needs

What are the factors citizens deem important in liveable cities? Mobility, safety, affordability and meeting community needs are paramount. However other factors are important such as job opportunities, cultural activities, welcoming tourists, the amount and quality of green open space. At a fundamental level cities need to provide intelligent structures and infrastructures, social provision, amenities and basic property rights for its citizens. Transport, housing, schools and safety are fundamental. Cities need to be just, fair, clean and accessible to all ages and cultures. Citizens too have responsibilities to look after their urban inheritance. The challenge is to bring all this together into a harmonious whole.

Lessons from Nature

Nature shows us how natural optimisation can be achieved whereas for humans this is not easy in practice. Social insects appear to work effortlessly in teams whereas humans find this difficult. Most of us live in societies where money defines economic growth and this is really in conflict with the needs for sustainable development (Schumacher 1972). In Nature the basic needs are the values, but for man our values are viewed in very different ways by not just different cultures but also by individuals within these cultures. Too often values are sacrificed for short term financial returns.

Biomimetics offers us an opportunity to rethink some of our strategies in architecture and how we may tackle sustainable development but we need the public and private active involvement of everyone and to approach this with open minds.

Humans possess a biological inclination to affiliate with natural systems and processes instrumental with their health and productivity (Kellert et al 2008 based on Wilson 1984).

Open spaces with parks, trees and water features are calming and have a direct effect on our spiritual health

Mercer Quality of Living Indicators

Quality of Living, for the purposes Mercer’s survey, analysis, and city rankings, differs from quality of life. Quality of life may involve a subjective assessment or opinion about one’s personal state and circumstances in a given city, but Mercer’s criteria for Quality of Living are objective, neutral and unbiased. The Mercer objective system measures the quality of living for expatriates based on 39 criteria grouped into 10 key categories. New York serves as the base city (see Table1).

Table 1 Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey Criteria

Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey Criteria

Political and Social Environment

Relationship with other Countries

Internal Stability Crime Law Enforcement Ease of Entry and

Exit

Economic Environment

Currency Exchange Regulations

Banking Services

Socio-Cultural Environment

Limitation on Personal Freedom

Media and Censorship

Medical and Health Considerations

Hospital Services Medical Supplies Infectious Diseases Water Potability Sewage Waste removal Air Pollution Troublesome and

DestructiveAnimals and Insects

Schools and Education

SchoolsNatural Environment

Climate Record of Natural

Disasters

Public Services and Transport

Electricity Water Availability Telephone Mail Public Transport Traffic Congestion Airport

Recreation

Variety of Restaurants

Theatrical and MusicalPerformances

Cinemas Sport and Leisure

Activities

Consumer Goods

Meat and Fish Fruits and

Vegetables Daily Consumption

Items Alcoholic Beverages Automobiles

Housing

Housing Household

Appliancesand Furniture

Household Maintenanceand Repair

Hagerty et al (2001) assessed the validity and usefulness of urban quality of life indexes to public policy using 14 criteria applied to the 22 most-used quality of life indexes around the world. They concluded that quality of life indexes vary greatly in their coverage, definitions, and domains of quality of life and that the indexes generally fail to show how quality of life outputs are sensitive to public policy inputs.

Mobility

People want to travel to places but the interconnections between them can be frustrating, time consuming and stressful. Better transport is an almost universal demand for new and old cities.

Walkeable cities with lanes dedicated to cycling are more friendly, less polluting and healthier but this needs to be partnered by an effective public transport system. This is easier to achieve in smaller cities. Historic London is known as a collection of villages and you can walk and enjoy these; they are connected to each other by the underground which opened in about 1850 and bus networks. Today there are 9 million passengers a day in London carried by the underground and bus systems.However the maintenance, safety and upgrading are major challenges for historic cities which have become commercially successful.

The outstanding example of public transport often quoted however is the TransMilenio bus rapid transit system (BRT) in Bogata since 2000 which has reduced pollution, car volumes and accidents drastically although car ownership is quite low compared with the US.

Traffic congestion is nerve wracking and is also expensive. EIU(2010) quotes congestion costs in a 2006 study as US$ 31 billion per year for New York. Dirks and Keeling (2009) estimate these costs worldwide as typically 1 to 3 % GDP.

Cities as Systems

Several terms are used to describe cities. Here the term intelligent city is used as the all embracing term as this recognises passive low technology approaches as well as the high technology active systems which make the city smart ( Komninos 2011; Clements-Croome 2010). Masdar City is a carbon neutral city being built in Abu Dhabi and uses traditional environmental planning features such as narrow streets and courtyards for sunlight shading alongside advanced technology solutions for transport, water and waste systems (Tang 2010).

The digital city is a specific term referring to the information and computing technology aspects which are embedded into the design and operation of cities to enable seamless communications for organisations, individuals and communities. Social media, the internet, cloud computing, sensors and mobile phones are creating a digital infrastructure (SMART 2020). Another term as defined by the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI). is intelcities which create a new and innovative set of interoperable e-government services to meet the needs of both citizens and businesses.

Cybernetics is the science of control and communication in animals and the machines. The term cyber city describes very much what a digital city tries to do but the prefix cyb is associated with more futuristic ideas such as cyborgs---- beings with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts.

The sentient city describes how well the city responds to the needs of individuals and communities. ‘Sentience refers to the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, and does not necessarily include the faculty of self-awareness.’(Mark Shepard, Curatorial Statement, The Architectural League NY, http://www.sentientcity.net/exhibit/?p=3). Increasingly we see sensors being embedded in materials including clothing so people become part of a wireless

sensor network and not only physiological responses can be measured but also moods and stress levels.

Cities comprise a number of interacting systems and this is where things become difficult. Some systems can be modeled more easily than others. The interactions between other systems have to be effective. To model a transport system is possible but then the impact on business and social consequences is more difficult to forecast. Forkenbrock and Weisbrod (2001) note that transport networks can affect an area’s visual quality, level of traffic noise, social interactions, and community cohesion, all of which can affect an area’s ability to attract new businesses and residents. Interoperability is vital.

Cities comprise infrastructures and architecture and each within them have a number of systems which serve people and organizations. This ‘whole’ has boundaries set by Nature herself; time in the sense that the city is for future as well as present generations and what we refer to now as sustainable development; socio-economic value in which quality is sought for a whole life cost; affordability for the people who live and work there. All together this is a complex problem for planners, designers and operators to solve and requires not just technical skills but also a lot of imagination. Lawrence (2010) describes the relation between housing and health for example and concludes that the complexity and intricacy of this cannot be dealt with by standard problem solving approaches and so defines it as a wicked problem an expression originally coined by Rittel and Webber (1973). Certainly cities with all their diversity pose not one but several wicked problems. Lawrence titles his chapter in Brown et al (2010) Beyond Disciplinary Confinement to Imaginative Transdisciplinarity and suggests new ways of thinking which are worth further consideration.

We need T-knowledge which has depth but also breadth to take into account the numerous interconnections with other facets Connectivity, interoperability and integration are keywords which humans find difficult to achieve in practice but Nature does not. Checkland (1993) considered emergent properties the most important feature of systems thinking. Johnson (2006) states:

Emergent properties can be thought of as unexpected behaviours that stem from interaction between the components of an application and their environment.

We know that components in systems have properties which when combined with other components into systems exhibit resultant system properties which are not the sum of those for the individual components. Holistic thinking rather than discrete approaches are necessary to deal with this otherwise fragmentation occurs and some systems work but the interdependencies between the systems are lost.

Reed et al (2009) compares the various sustainable assessment tools that have emerged over recent years in different countries which apply to individual buildings. The criteria for comparison include energy, CO2 emissions, water, waste, renewable technologies, pollution, ecology, economy, indoor air quality, health and well-being, land use, materials, transport, management and innovation. Many of these apply to cities but the need to consider infrastructures and measures for taking into account integration and interoperability for example would need further consideration.

Alwaer and Clements-Croome (2010) developed the Sustainable Built Environment Tool –SuBET--which aimed at assisting the stakeholders to select the most appropriate key

performance indicators for intelligent buildings. They concluded that the participation of all stakeholders in the establishment of priorities and weightings for them could facilitate the process of recognising regional and cultural diversities thus appreciating the different perspectives of stakeholders about what constitutes the desired performance in buildings. The main difficulties associated with benchmarks include the definition of what is typical, good and outstanding practice. Reed et al (2010) observed that the weighting given to the criteria differ across the various assessment tools which are being developed within and across countries..

Holistic decision-making requires a judgment about the relative importance of different impacts within the overall performance of the options being considered. This approach leads to very large and complex systems, which require large quantities of detailed information to be assembled. This causes further difficulties which can be overcome by using the analytical hierarchial processing technique (AHP) for example (Saaty 2000).

Alwaer and Clements-Croome developed with Hilson Moran the SuBET master planning tool which can be used to articulate the subjective qualities felt by different stakeholders as well as the objective measures in the design and operation of buildings and infrastructures within cities. SuBET can help to create greater integration and involvement between all the stakeholders involved.

The indicators broadly cover environmental, social and economic issues. In detail they can be classified at various levels ranging from the micro scale (e.g water, energy and maintenance,) or urban and regional planning aspects on a meso scale (e.g land use, site selection, transport and planning considerations), to national regulations and aims, deforestation on a macro scale (e.g greenhouse gas emissions) and issues on a global scale (e.g climate change).Table 2 summarises the SuBET indicators.

The selection of sustainability indicators is based on a whole life model which focuses on People (owners; occupants),Products (building quality, materials; fabric;Structure (facilities; equipment; services); and Processes (automation; systems; commissioning; maintenance; post-occupancy evaluation) and the interrelationships between them in accordance with the phases of planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, recycling and disposal .

SuBET Groups and Indicators (environmental)Land and Ecology Water Site Selection: Reuse of Land and Protecting

Productive Land Remediation Minimising Ecological Impacts Construction: Processing Ecological Value Ecosystem Enhancement Compact Development Land Use and Ecology Innovation

Responsible Water Supply Flood Risk Water Quality Eliminate Potable Water for Site Irrigation Reduce Water Consumption for Daily Use Waste and Strom Water Management Smart Metering Water Water Innovation

Mobility Energy and Climate Change Smart Location Street network Public Transport Proximity and Frequency of

Existing Infrastructure Public Transport Provision of New Structure Low Carbon Transport Systems Parking Minimisation Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Proximity to Community Services Travel Survey Mobility Innovation

Urban Grid Optimisation Reduce Heat Island Effect Energy Efficient External Lighting Energy Efficient Building Renewable Energy Generation and Use Energy Metering and Energy Strategy Climate Change: Vulnerability and

Adaptation Energy and Natural Resources Innovation

Pollution Air quality and Odours Noise and Light Pollution Electromagnetic Fields Pollution Innovation

SuBET Groups and Indicators (social, cultural and economic)Material, Recycling & Waste Cultural ad Perceptual Reuse of Structure, Infrastructure and Materials Design for Disassembly, Adaptability, Re-Use

or Recycling Local Sourced Materials Sustainable Sourcing of Biological Products Storage of Recyclable Waste Hazardous Materials Site Waste Management Plan Material, Recycling Innovation

Amenity and Wellbeing Community Cohesion Community Involvement Current Local Reputation Neighbourhood Safety Community and Health Sustainable behaviour Social Inclusive community

Usability Costs and Economics Quality of Street Space Access to Public Space Universal Accessibility Diversity of Uses & Housing Types Housing Density Space and Standards

Viability of New Infrastructure Housing Demand Affordable housing Local Prosperity Potential/Availability for Employment Local Food Production Maintenance: Minimisation of the Whole

Life-Cycle Cost Skills and Knowledge of Operating Staff

Place Making Landscape Design Scale, Massing and Height Local Materials, Frontage and Details

Integration and Reuse of Historical Buildings Active Frontages Visual & Physical Connectivity

Table 2 SuBET indicators

Another approach to deal with holistic design is integral sustainable design proposed by DeKay (2011).

Innovation Trends

Cities are long term and need to be adaptable to deal with the continual change in technology as well as society itself. Forecasting futures is difficult but trends are evident. Nanotechnology is making major impacts in many industries. In architecture the building fabric via the materials of which it is made is being revolutionised by nano-materials. Wireless sensor networks are linking people to their environments in an increasingly personal way. ICT is advancing smart systems for power networks such as smart grids. 3D printing and Building Information Modelling are examples of how design and management processes which are changing and helping to deal with all the complexities they present besides giving users an opportunity to participate in design.

The World Economic Forum's (WEF's) Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies has compiled a list of the top 10 emerging technologies it believes will have the greatest impact on the state of the world in 2012.

1. Informatics for adding value to information2. Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering3. Green Revolution 2.0 - technologies for increased food and biomass4. Nanoscale design of materials 5. Systems biology and computational modelling/simulation of chemical and biological systems6. Utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource7. Wireless power 8. High energy density power systems9. Personalized medicine, nutrition and disease prevention10. Enhanced education technology

This not a definitive list but does express a collection of views from a body of people with a wealth of experience.

Lessons for an urbanising world

Some of the lessons that emerge from the planning and development of Curitiba in Brazil for other cities include:

Top priority should be given to public transport rather than to private cars, and to pedestrians rather than to motorized vehicles. Bicycle paths and pedestrian areas should be an integrated part of the road network and public transportation system.

A sustainable city is one that uses the minimum and conserves the maximum. This pragmatic application of demand management and recycling is exemplified in Curitiba by solid waste recovery, re-use of old buses as mobile schools, preservation and use of historic dwellings, and employment policies where poor people are employed in the waste separation plant and as teachers of environmental education courses.

There can be an integrated and environmentally sensitive action plan for each set of problems. Solutions within any city are not specific and isolated but interconnected. The action plan should involve partnerships between responsible actors such as private sector entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, municipal agencies, utilities, neighbourhood associations, community groups, and individuals.

Creativity can substitute for financial resources. Ideally, cities should turn what are traditional sources of problems into resources. For example, public transport, urban solid waste, and unemployment are traditionally listed as problems but they have the potential to become generators of new resources and solutions. Creative and labour-intensive ideas can, to some extent, substitute for capital-intensive technologies.

Social, environmental and economic solutions can be integrated into holistic approaches. A combination of public-private partnerships, transparency and participation promoted co-responsibility. The experience of Curitiba demonstrates that solutions, not only problems, can be seen in an integrated way (Roman and Saundry ( 2008).

Recommendations

Plan, design and construct with an integrated team and one with strong visionary leadership so that all stakeholders develop a commitment to the project and want to fulfil the

environmental, social and economic aims. Use a Systems Integrator to ensure

all the stakeholders are integrated into the project with the following skills:

experience of how  systems can be integrated;

an ability to think strategically and  innovatively across disciplines; logistic skills;

good leadership and communication skills.

The choice of a systems integrator depends on these skills rather than disciplines.

Systems and holistic thinking are key (Elliott 2009; Gharajedaghi 2006)). Assess the impacts of infrastructures and buildings on occupants and communities

nearby using a combination of assessment tools (Al-Waer and Clements-Croome 2010)-. Peoples behaviour has a large effect on not only the consumption of energy and water

but also on the ways in which resources are used. Wireless sensor technologies are rapidly becoming applicable in monitoring the

performance of systems and infrastructures besides increasing human awareness of their impact on systems performance.

Coherent data management systems are important to give feedback on the performance of the systems throughout the city.

Use a whole life performance approach to ensure that quality as well as whole life costs are taken into account.

Aim for simplicity rather than complexity in operation. Connectivity is important so there is interoperability between the infrastructures, the

systems and the people using them Plan and design for flexibility and adaptability. Think of the city and the systems within it including the buildings as organisms

responding to human, social and environmental needs. Plan the facilities management so the city and communities are cared for. Design beyond the expectations defined in Regulations. Keep abreast of the relevant fields of knowledge. Learn from other sectors and disciplines. Learn from Nature.

Beyond these measures we need to review the education and training we offer planners, architects,engineers and others who are responsible for the development of cities. The stakeholders have varying approaches and levels of attainment in their education and this leads to very separate cultures which are devisive. There have been some attempts to have integrated learning between architects and engineers but too few. The changing roles are described by Cooper and Symes (2011). The integrated team needs a systems integrator for example.

REFERENCES

Alwaer, H., Clements-Croome, D.J. 2010, Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings, Building and Environment,45, 799-807

Brown, V. A.,Harris ,J. A .Russell, J.Y., 2010, Tackling Wicked Problems (Earthscan)Checkland. P., 1993, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Chichester:Wiley)

Clements-Croome, D.J.,2010, Intelligent Buildings , soft back edition( Thomas Telford)

Cooper I ; Symes M , 2011, Sustainable Urban Development: Volume 4. Changing Professional Practice (Routledge, London)

DeKay, M., 2011,,Integral Sustainable Design(Earthscan)

Dodgson M., Gann D., 2011, Technological Innovation and Complex Systems in Cities, Journal of Urban Technology, 18, 3 , 101-113

Deakin M., Al-Waer H., 2011, From Intelligent to Smart Cities, Intelligent Buildings International Special Issue, 3, 3, 133-139

Dirks S., Keeling M., 2009, A Vision of Smarter Cities: How Cities Can Lead the Way into a Prosperous and Sustainable Future, IBM Institute for Business Value: New York

EIU REPORTS, 2010, Liveable Cities, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Commissioned by Philips : 2011, Liveanomics

Elliott, C., 2009, Intelligent Buildings: Systems Engineering for the Built Environment, Intelligent Buildings International Journal, Vol 1, 1, 75—81

Forkenbrock, D. J., & Weisbrod, G. E. (2001), NCHRP REPORT 456: Guidebook Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, Washington DC: National Academy Press

Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R. A., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A. C., Peterson, M., et al. (2001). Quality of Life Indexes for National Policy: Review and Agenda for Research. Social Indicators Research Journal, 55: 1-96

Gharajedaghi,A.,(2006), Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for Designing Business Architecture (Elsevier)

Johnson, C.W. ,2006, What are Emergent Properties and How do They Affect the Engineering of Complex Systems? Journal of Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 91, 12, 1475-1481,

Kellert ,S .R., Heerwagen J H ., Mador M .L .,2008 ,Biophilic Design:The Theory , Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life (Hoboken NJ: Wiley)

Wilson, E .O .,1984 ,Biophilia:Human Bond with Other Species (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press)

Komninos, N., 2011, Intelligent Cities: Variable Geometries of Spatial Intelligence, Intelligent Buildings International, 3, 3, 172—188

Lawrence, R.J., 2010, Chapter 2, Beyond Disciplinary Confinement to Imaginative Transdisciplinarity in Brown V A et al (2010)

Maslow, A. 1943, A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, vol. 50, 370-96

Reed, R, Bilo , A, Wilkinson, S and Schulte, K W, 2009, International comparison of sustainable rating tools, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-22.

Rittel, H., Webber, M.,1973, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, Policy Sciences, 4 ,155--169

Rogers R ., 1997, Cities for a Small Planet ( Faber and Faber)

Roman A, Saundry P.,( 2008) , Curitiba, Brazil in Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland(Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment); revised 2011

Saaty, T.L.,. 2000, Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process( RWS Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15413)

Schumacher,E.F.,1973, Small is Beautiful; a Study of Economics as if People Mattered (Blond and Briggs :London)

SMART 2020, 2011, Information Marketplaces: the New Economics of Cities, Report by The Climate Group, Arup, Accenture and University of Nottingham

Tang, G. , 2010,Masdar - The Sustainable Desert City: A Theoretical Mirage or a Realistic Possibility? CSAAR (7:2010: Amman) Vol III/ p 175-189  Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development/ Edited by Steffen Lehmann. Husam Al Waer, Jamal Al-Qawasami. Proceedings Conference of SAUD 2010 Conference

Welter, V.M., 2002, Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life (MIT Press)

Wilson, E .O .,1984 ,Biophilia:Human Bond with Other Species (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press)

Appendix 1

World's 26 megacities in rank of population at 2011 including 10 metacities

Rank Megacity Country Continent Population Annual Growth

1 Tokyo Japan Asia 34,300,000 0.60%2 Guangzhou China Asia 25,200,000 4.00%3 Seoul South Korea Asia 25,100,000 1.40%4 Shanghai China Asia 24,800,000 2.20%5 Delhi India Asia 23,300,000 4.60%6 Mumbai India Asia 23,000,000 2.90%7 Mexico City Mexico North America 22,900,000 2.00%8 New York USA North America 22,000,000 0.30%9 São Paulo Brazil South America 20,900,000 1.40%10 Manila Philippines Asia 20,300,000 2.50%11 Jakarta Indonesia Asia 18,900,000 2.00%12 Los Angeles USA North America 18,100,000 1.10%

13 Karachi Pakistan Asia 17,000,000 4.90%14 Osaka Japan Asia 16,700,000 0.15%15 Kolkata India Asia 16,600,000 2.00%16 Cairo Egypt Africa 15,300,000 2.60%17 Buenos Aires Argentina South America 14,800,000 1.00%18 Moscow Russia Europe 14,800,000 0.20%19 Dhaka Bangladesh Asia 14,000,000 4.10%20 Beijing China Asia 13,900,000 2.70%21 Tehran Iran Asia 13,100,000 2.60%22 Istanbul Turkey Europe & Asia 13,000,000 2.80%23 London United Kingdom Europe 12,500,000 0.70%24 Rio de Janeiro Brazil South America 12,500,000 1.00%24 Lagos Nigeria Africa 12,100,000 3.20%26 Paris France Europe 10,197,678 1.00%

Source: Th. Brinkhoff: The Principal Agglomerations of the World, 2011

Cities 1—10 are metacities with populations of over 20m people.

Other sources define megacities as urban agglomerations instead of metropolitan areas and in 2010 there were 25 megacities by this definition.

Appendix 2 THESAURUS DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

sentient

conscious

able to recognize, alert, apperceptive, attentive, awake, aware, cognizant, feeling, in on, in the right mind, informed, knowing, noticing, observing, perceiving, receptive, recognizing, responsive, seeing, sensitive to, understanding, watchful

intelligent

very smart

able, acute, alert, alive, all there, apt, astute, brainy, bright, brilliant, calculating, capable, clever, comprehending, creative, deep*, discerning, enlightened, exceptional, highbrow, imaginative, ingenious, instructed, inventive, keen, knowing, knowledgeable, original,

penetrating, perceptive, perspicacious, profound, quick, quick-witted, rational, ready, reasonable, resourceful, responsible, sage, sharp, smart, thinking, together*, understanding, well-informed, whiz*, wise, witty

smart

intelligent

acute, adept, agile, alert, apt, astute, bold, brainy, bright, brilliant, brisk, canny, clever, crafty, effective, eggheaded, fresh, genius, good, impertinent, ingenious, keen, knowing, long-haired, nervy, nimble, on the ball, pert, pointed, quick, quick-witted, ready, resourceful, sassy, sharp, shrewd, skull, slick*, whiz*, wise

dull, stupid, unintelligent

clever

bright, ingenious

able, adept, adroit, alert, apt, astute, brainy, brilliant, cagey, canny, capable, competent, crackerjack*, cunning, deep, dexterous/dextrous, discerning, egghead, expert, foxy*, gifted, good, handy, intelligent, inventive, keen, knowing, knowledgeable, many-sided, nimble, nobody's fool, pretty, pro, qualified, quick, quick on trigger, quick-witted, rational, resourceful, sagacious, savvy, sensible, sharp, shrewd, skilled, skillful, slick, sly, smart, sprightly, talented, versatile, wise, witty

livable or liveable

adequate, acceptable

bearable, comfortable, cozy, endurable, fit, habitable, homey, inhabitable, livable, lodgeable, passable, satisfactory, snug, sufferable, supportable, sustainable , tenantable, tolerable, worthwhile

green

referring to practices or policies that do not negatively affect the environment

biodegradable, ecological, environment-friendly, environmental, environmentally-safe