sustainability
Article
A Conceptual Model for Assessing the Relationship between
Urban Morphology and Sustainable Urban Form
Abdollah Mobaraki *
and Beser Oktay Vehbi
Department of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta 99628, North Cyprus, Turkey;
beser.oktay@emu.edu.tr
* Correspondence: abdollah.mobarakie@emu.edu.tr; Tel.: +90-533-887-1400
Abstract: The built environment witnessed rapid transformation after the industrial revolution. This
transformation came along with some negativities, which gave rise to the concept of sustainability in
urban form. In this regard, the current study aimed to assess and validate the reciprocal relationship
between urban morphology and sustainable urban form. This study proposes a conceptual model
which integrates and presents the holistic correlation between sustainable urban form and urban
morphology, by using qualitative grounded theory as the research methodology. The model was
developed by introducing analytical tools to evaluate sustainability, along with integrating typomorphology and the concept of scale hierarchy. The findings of this study reveal that every single
component of sustainable urban form interacts significantly with the typo-morphology approach.
Consequently, the outcomes help urban planners to get more informed decisions about the geometric
analysis of urban morphology from a sustainability point of view.
Keywords: urban morphology; sustainable urban form; typo-morphology; concept of scale hierarchy
Citation: Mobaraki, A.; Oktay Vehbi,
B. A Conceptual Model for Assessing
the Relationship between Urban
Morphology and Sustainable Urban
Form. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052884
Academic Editor: Francesco Tajani
Received: 4 January 2022
Accepted: 16 February 2022
Published: 2 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
1. Introduction
The emergence of the notion of sustainable development has created a platform to
enable a public debate on the form of cities to take place [1]. It has subsequently motivated
researchers, decision-makers, and urban planners in related disciplines to seek sustainable
forms of development that are beneficial for the built environment. Considering this fact,
morphological analysis of urban tissue reveals the logic of urban transformation, urban
morphology can thus be a valuable implement to achieve sustainable urban form [2,3].
Although much research has been carried out on the topic of “urban sustainability” and
“urban morphology”, there seems to be a substantial gap in the study of the mutual
relationship between the two [4–8]. This study tries to focus on the relations between urban
morphology (UM) and a sustainable urban form (SUF). Accordingly, this study aims to
propose a model to evaluate the relationship between SUF and UM. The analytical tools
derived from this relationship can be used as an assessment technique.
Since the issue of the urban context is a continuous multi-layered process, it is vital to
formulate a defined scale hierarch to streamline the process of the assessment. A strong
spatial hierarchy is significant to determine the contribution between the important aspects
of urban structure and the analytical tools of the research. Accordingly, the study introduces
a spatially hierarchal structure, by integrating typo-morphology and the concept of scale
hierarchy concerning Kropf’s taxonomy [6].
Therefore, the following research question has been considered as the main concern of
the research.
•
What is the relationship between urban morphology (UM) and sustainable urban form
(SUF)?
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052884
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
2 of 20
Accordingly, the issues about the main principles of SUF also how to develop an
assessment method to evaluate the relationship among UM and SUF in different scale
hierarchies for more sustainable outcomes could be addressed as sub-questions.
Regarding the concern of originality, it needs to mention that this study comprises
three substantive stages:
The first stage of the study has considered sustainable urban form and contributes
analytical tools as the analysis process.
Parallel to the process, the second stage introduces urban morphology approaches
for evaluating SUF, which are limited in focus to a typo-morphological approach.
Moreover, this part develops a classification framework by synthesizing the approach
in scale hierarchy theory as the input process.
Eventually, the conceptual model is investigated by synthesizing the findings to
evaluate the relationship through integrated methodology as the output process.
Additionally, the study has been discussed appropriate tools and techniques as the
methodological framework for applying the model in context.
-
-
The outcomes of this study are important for urban planners to assess the built
environment from a sustainability perspective when considering the morphology of a city.
2. Method and Data
This study, based on the existing literature, will use qualitative grounded theory as
the research methodology, to assess the relationship between SUF and UM. Initially, this
study developed analytical tools by integrating the indicators of SUF and morphological
layers to evaluate sustainability in an urban context.
Since the typological process has its roots in the fields of architecture and urbanism,
the study will focus on the typo-morphology approach as the most appropriate assessment
method. In this study, the integration of typo-morphology, based on Kropf’s taxonomy [6]
and the theory of scale hierarchy, has been used to provide a framework and a clear distinction between built environments by proposing a hierarchal structure. In consequence,
this framework will facilitate to evaluate SUF in any urban context. In the next step, a
conceptual model is represented by synthesizing specific methods to evaluate the relationship between SUF and UM. The model reveals the level of contribution of each proposed
hierarchal structure in terms of analytical tools, and the proposed model can also be utilized for all sustainable urban types to derive a high level of sustainability. In addition, the
study has discussed the suitable tools and techniques through a methodological process for
applying the model in an urban context. Figure 1 illustrates the research process to show
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3 of 22
and explain the structure of the study briefly.
Theoretical Framework
Research Question
Literature Review
Problem Definitions
Identifying the gap in literature
Introduction
The Concept of UM
Different Approaches of UM
Typo-Morphological Approach
Morphological layers of city
Design indicators of SUF
Interpretation of Kropf's Taxonomy
Concept of Scale Hierarchy
Input Process
Systematic Review
of Literature
Global Principles of SUF
Systematic Review
of Literature
Integrated Modification Methodology
'Analytical tools'
for evaluating sustainability
Developing
Spatially Hierarchal Structure
2nd stage of
Synthesizing
1st stage of
Synthesizing
Analysis Process
Theoretical framework of SUF
For assessing the Relations between urban morphology (UM) and sustainable urban form (SUF)
Methodological Process of Applying the Proposed Model in the Context
Output Process
Developing the Model
3rd stage of
this study
Output Process
Integrated Synthesis & Formulating the Model
Discussion & Conclusion
Figure 1. Framework of the research (developed by Authors).
Figure 1. Framework of the research (developed by Authors).
3. Literature Review
After World War II, the industrial revolution was unanimously embraced since it
presented a global development that stretched and impacted numerous interwoven networks of dimensions such as sociocultural, religious, political, and economic [9,10]. Consequently, rapid industrialization and urbanization started to develop yet adverse effects
on the built environment such as climate change, overuse of energy, pollution, and overpopulated urban centers [11]. As the numerous problems started to ascend, the notion of
urban sustainability became the only alternative [1,12–14]. In 1987, the imperative phrase
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
3 of 20
3. Literature Review
After World War II, the industrial revolution was unanimously embraced since it presented a global development that stretched and impacted numerous interwoven networks
of dimensions such as sociocultural, religious, political, and economic [9,10]. Consequently,
rapid industrialization and urbanization started to develop yet adverse effects on the built
environment such as climate change, overuse of energy, pollution, and overpopulated
urban centers [11]. As the numerous problems started to ascend, the notion of urban
sustainability became the only alternative [1,12–14]. In 1987, the imperative phrase of
safeguarding resources for future generations in the “Brundtland Report” promoted the
notion of “sustainable development” [15]. The focus of “sustainable development” is considering the provision of current requirements without jeopardizing offspring in meeting
their requirements as next generation.
As Silva [13] states, urban form is a “spatial pattern” of individual activities at a defined
time. Accordingly, sustainable urbanism improves not only people’s living standards but
also their safety [16]; however, it is confirmed that various urban structures may have
different levels of sustainability [9,17]. There is also evidence to show that there is no single
sustainable urban model acceptable in all circumstances [18]. The accessible data describe
sustainability as a flourishing means of achieving equilibrium between environmental
health, financial growth, and social equity. Therefore, this study attempts to formulate
a framework to achieve an SUF. Since urban morphology provides a strong assessment
tool for evaluating the built environment; this study used urban morphology4 as
the base
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of 22
to achieve SUF. Consequently, the study conducts principles of SUF and UM to find out
the relation.
3.1. Principles of Sustainable Urban Form (SUF)
3.1. Principles of Sustainable Urban Form (SUF)
Sustainable urbanism is required to be equipped with energy generation [19] and
Sustainable urbanism is required to be equipped with energy generation [19] and
governance, water generation, waste management, design, engineering, architecture,
governance,
water generation, waste management, design, engineering, architecture, equipequipment for sustainable construction and management of housing. Sustainable urban
ment
for
sustainable
construction
andclassified
management
of housing.
Sustainable
form, ideas, or principles
are created and
as: Greening,
Mixed
Land Uses,urban
Sus- form,
ideas,
or
principles
are
created
and
classified
as:
Greening,
Mixed
Land
Uses,
Sustainable
tainable Transport/Accessibility, Density, Passive Solar Design, Diversity, Permeability,
Transport/Accessibility,
Density,
Passive
SolarEach
Design,
Diversity,
Permeability,
CompactCompactness,
Legibility, and
Imageability
[1,20].
of these
indicators
has been conness, Legibility,
Imageability
[1,20].
Each
sidered
to achieve and
sustainable
urbanism
(Figure
2).of these indicators has been considered to
achieve sustainable urbanism (Figure 2).
Principles of Sustainable Urban form 1
Factors
Principles
1. Compactness
a. Contiguity. 2
b. Connectivity. 2
c. Compact & varied. 3
2.Sustainable
Transport /Accessibility
a. Scale fitting to strolling, cycling, &
proficient open vehicle. 4
b. Energized social collaboration. 4
3.Density
a. The proportion of individuals or
Principles
Factors
7. Passive Solar
Design
a. The urban density and angle of
buildings.12,14
Orientations, location, design,
landscape & layout with the excellent
use of microclimate circumstances &
solar gain. 13,14,15
a.Green space potential to make a positive
contribution to metropolitan agendas.16
b.Support biodiversity through the
preservation urban natural surroundings.17
c.Improve the picture of the urban
territory.16,17,18
d.Improvement of the urban picture &
personal satisfaction.16,17,18
residential part to total parts. 5,6
4.Mixed Land Uses
5.Diversity
6. Permeability
a. Reducing the distance of transport
8. Greening
between operations. 7
b. The variety of functional land use
& transportation-related activities. 8,9
a. The social variety. 10,11
b.Attractive
urban
highlights,
including; building densities, family
unit sizes, ages, societies. 11,21
a. alternative paths from one stage to
another. 4,21
b. Clear vision and choices. 4,21
1. Jabareen, 2006 [1]
2.Wheeler, 2000 [21]
3. Dumreicher et al., 2000 [22]
4. Hillman, 1996 [23]
5. Carl, 2000 [24]
6. Walker and Rees, 1997 [25]
8. Alberti, 2000 [26]
9. Van & Senior, 2000 [27]
10. Jacobs, 1961 [28]
11. Turner & Murray, 2001 [29]
9. Legibility
10. Imageability
b.
a. Recognize and organize physical &
spatial feature of the environment. 19,20
b. Create mental maps in the mind of the
wayfarer.11,20,21
a. physical elements; as place, appearance.
19
b. Cultural elements; as significance,
connections.14,19,21
12. Thomas, 2003 [30]
13. Owens, 1992 [31]
14. Barry & Chorley 2009 [32]
15. Yannas, 1998 [33]
16. Swanwick, et al., 2003 [34]
17. Gilbert, 2012 [35]
18. DoE, 1996 [36]
19. Ding, 2013 [5]
20. Arthur & Passini, 1992 [37]
21. McGlynn et. al, 2013 [38]
Figure
urban
form
andand
its various
design
concepts
(developed
by Authors)
[1,5,21–
Figure2.2.Sustainable
Sustainable
urban
form
its various
design
concepts
(developed
by Authors)
[1,5,21–38].
38].
The notion of SUF has been extensively discussed and is still under discussion. Alternatives include the compact city [39], decentralized concentration, remote new settlements [40] and multi-centric cities [17,41]. Jabareen [1] defines four types of SUF based on
distinct design values; these sustainable urban types are Eco-City, Compact City, Urban
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
4 of 20
The notion of SUF has been extensively discussed and is still under discussion. Alternatives include the compact city [39], decentralized concentration, remote new settlements [40] and multi-centric cities [17,41]. Jabareen [1] defines four types of SUF based on
distinct design values; these sustainable urban types are Eco-City, Compact City, Urban
Containment, and Neo-traditional Development.
As Silva [13] notes, the entire idea of the urban form depends upon three factors
which are the arrangement, appearance, and functionality of the buildings and structures.
Fast-growing cities, on the other hand, are exposed to non-sustainable building plans and
developments that lead to the exhaustion of resources and infrastructure. These are the consequences of the ‘boom’ in the construction sector, which requires and demands excessive
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
5 of 22
resources. The invasion of rural areas for building purposes leads to deforestation, which
involves the removal of thousands of hectares of trees, which also requires the construction
of extensive transportation infrastructures. Furthermore, the growth of urbanism may also
urban
principles,
including
theareas,
primary
layer
the systematic
interpretation
of the mordestroy
the identity
of urban
which
areofsupporting
specific
types of lifestyle
and
phological
methods
of
the
city.
The
integration
of
the
keys,
such
as
analytical
tools,
creates
culture. Thus, SUF is one of the methods that can provide safe growth and change without
acompromising
relationship between
the different
layers social
to improve
theand
performance
of the whole sysnatural sources
or affecting
identity
culture [31].
tem (Figure
3).
Designers
can
use
the
keys
whilst
observing
the
process
design to anaOliveira [3] stated the city has a multilayer system that analyzes theofrelationships
of
lyze
the
context
and
the
current
condition
and
critical
functionality
of
a
city,
the physical and spatial aspects through four primary morphological layers ofbefore
urbaninterform
fering.
which are: plot, buildings, street, and open space. Tadi et al. [42] gathered sustainable
Asprinciples,
it is shown
in Figurethe
3, primary
these analytical
which have
been developed
urban
including
layer of tools
the systematic
interpretation
of thebased
moron
[25,26] methods
comprise
intensity
(Density
andofCompactness),
(Sustainable
phological
of the
city. The
integration
the keys, such asproximity
analytical tools,
creates
Transport,
Mixed
Landthe
Use),
permeability,
legibility), Efficiency
(greening,
a relationship
between
different
layers to(imageability,
improve the performance
of the whole
system
passive
solar
design),
Accessibility
(sustainable
transport)
and
Diversity
(legibility,
mixed
(Figure 3). Designers can use the keys whilst observing the process of design to analyze
the
land
use).
context
and the current condition and critical functionality of a city, before interfering.
Design Indicators of SUF
Analytical Tools
(Integrated Keys)
Plot
Compactness
Intensity
City as
Complex System
Morphological Layer
Building
Complexity (Function & Diversity)
Street
Connectivity
Open Space
Density
Proximity
Efficiency
Accessibility
Diversity
Permeability
Figure 3.
3. Integration
Integration of
ofmorphological
morphologicallayers
layersand
andindicators
indicatorsof
ofSUF
SUFto
tocreate
createanalytical
analyticaltools
tools(devel(develFigure
oped
oped by
by Authors).
Authors).
As it is shown
in Figure
theseare
analytical
tools which
been developed
based
According
to Jabareen
[1],3,there
general standards
forhave
developing
SUF, which
are
on [25,26]
intensity
(Density
and Compactness),
proximity
(Sustainable
Transport,
related
to comprise
the principles
of SUF
and morphological
layers.
From this
point of view,
it is
Mixed Land
Use),out
permeability,
(imageability,
legibility),
(greening,
passive
essential
to find
the relations
among these
conceptsEfficiency
to formulate
analytical
toolssolar
for
design),
Accessibility
(sustainable
transport)
and
Diversity
(legibility,
mixed
land
use).
assessing sustainability in an urban context. The analytical tools are related to all the inAccording
Jabareen
[1], there
aretypes,
general
standards
for developing
SUF,
which
dicators
of urbantoform,
sustainable
urban
and
the dimensions
of SUF. The
relationare
related
to
the
principles
of
SUF
and
morphological
layers.
From
this
point
of
view,
ship between each factor of the analytical tools and each principle of SUF has been demonit
is
essential
to
find
out
the
relations
among
these
concepts
to
formulate
analytical
tools
strated in Figure 4. From this point of view, the combination is finding a connection
for
assessing
sustainability
in
an
urban
context.
The
analytical
tools
are
related
to
all
amongst the global factors and design principles of SUF to devise analytical tools for susthe indicators
ofurban
urbanform,
form,related
sustainable
urban
types, of
and
the dimensions
of SUF.
The
tainability
in the
to all the
indicators
urban
form, sustainable
urban
relationship
between
each
factor
of
the
analytical
tools
and
each
principle
of
SUF
has
been
types, and dimensions of SUF.
demonstrated in Figure 4. From this point of view, the combination is finding a connection
amongst the global factors and design principles of SUF to devise analytical tools for
sustainability in the urban form, related to all the indicators of urban form, sustainable
urban types, and dimensions of SUF.
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
6 of 22
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
5 of 20
The principles of SUF
Compactness
1
17,27,28
Analytical tools
(Integrated Keys)
29,1
Sustainable Transport 24,25,26
Intensity
30,31
Density
Mixed Land Uses
Diversity
Proximity
32,33
Efficiency
1,14
Accessibility
34
22,23
19,20,21
5,6,17,18
Passive Solar Design 14,15,16
Greening
11,12,13
Legibility
3,5,6,8,9,10
Imageability
3,4,5,6,7,8
Permeability
2,3
1. Jabareen, 2006 [1]
2. McGlynn et. al, 2013 [38]
3. Ding, 2013 [5]
4. Meenar et al., 2019 [43]
5. Hough, 1995 [44]
6. Dieleman & Wegener, 2004 [45]
7. Forsyth & Crewe, 2009 [46]
8. Rising, 2019 [47]
9. Bell et al., 2005 [48]
10. Arthur & Passini, 1992 [37]
11. Beatley, 2000 [49]
12. Van & Senior, 2000 [27]
13. Dumreicher et al., 2000 [22]
14. Owens, 1992 [31]
15. Ahmed, 2017 [50]
16. Yannas, 1998 [33]
17. Wheeler, 2002 [21]
18. Jacobs, 1961 [28]
19. Longley, Mesev, 2000 [51]
20. Bourdic et al., 2012 [52]
21. Alberti, 2000 [26]
22. Carl, 2000 [24]
23. Walker & Rees, 1997 [25]
24. Marshall, 2005 [53]
Diversity 17,18,35
Permeability
2,3
25. Nasar, 2003 [54]
26. Williams et al., 1996 [55]
27. Talen & Ellis, 2002 [56]
28. Van der Ryn & Cowan,2014 [57]
29. Tadi, 2012 [58]
30. Burgess, 2000 [59]
31. Manesh et al., 2012 [60]
32. Beer et al., 2003 [61]
33. Jabareen, 2013 [62]
34. Krizek, 2003 [63]
35. Porta & Renne, 2005 [64]
Figure
Figure4.4.The
Therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenanalytical
analyticaltools
toolsand
andthe
theprinciple
principleofofSUF
SUF(developed
(developedbybyAuAuthors).
thors)[1,5,21,22,24–28,31,33,37,38,43–64].
[1,5,21,22,24–28,31,33,37,38,43–64].
3.2.Urban
UrbanMorphology
Morphology
3.2.
AccordingtotoConzen
Conzen[60]
[60]“Urban
“Urbanmorphology”
morphology”(UM)
(UM)isisexpressed
expressedasasthe
thestudy
studyofof
According
the
formation
of
the
built
environment
and
the
process
of
changes
related
to
the
spatial
the formation of the built environment and the process of changes related to the spatial
study
of
urban
structures,
land
use,
construction,
open
spaces,
and
road
patterns.
In
study of urban structures, land use, construction, open spaces, and road patterns. In this
this
regard,
Cowan
[65]
stated
that
UM
is
“the
study
of
urban
form”
and
identified
four
regard, Cowan [65] stated that UM is “the study of urban form” and identified four broad
broad approaches
to UM namely:
1. Historico-geographical;
2. Typo-morphological;
approaches
to UM namely:
1. Historico-geographical;
2. Typo-morphological;
3. Spatial3.
Spatial-analytical;
4.
Configurational.
UM
and
SUF
holds
different
meanings
for urban
analytical; 4. Configurational. UM and SUF holds different meanings for urban planners
planners
and
designers,
especially
in
developing
cities.
Accordingly,
morphological
studies
and designers, especially in developing cities. Accordingly, morphological studies can
be
can
be
divided
into
four
groups
considering
various
disciplines
as
geography,
architecture,
divided into four groups considering various disciplines as geography, architecture, sciscience,
philosophy.
In respect
urban
geography,
theConzeniana
Conzenianaschool
schoolofofthought
thought
ence,
andand
philosophy.
In respect
of of
urban
geography,
the
acts as a representation of ideas [66]. Caniggian School plays an important role in the
acts as a representation of ideas [66]. Caniggian School plays an important role in the disdiscipline of architecture. Bill Hillier’s Spatial Syntax explores the morphology of the city
cipline of architecture. Bill Hillier’s Spatial Syntax explores the morphology of the city
from a whole new perspective in the mathematical character that is related to power and
from a whole new perspective in the mathematical character that is related to power and
science [67]. The philosophy of Henri Lefebvre (1901–1991) states that the urban area is
science [67]. The philosophy of Henri Lefebvre (1901–1991) states that the urban area is
not a neutral entity, it has a social existence and has designated areas to demonstrate or
not a neutral entity, it has a social existence and has designated areas to demonstrate or
identify its society or culture (Figure 5).
identify its society or culture (Figure 5).
Sustainability
FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2021,
2022, 14,
14, x2884
76of
of22
20
Figure 5.
5. The
Thegenealogy
genealogyof
ofstudy
studyin
inUM
UM(adapted
(adapted from
from Sima
Sima &
& Zhang,
Zhang, 2009).
2009).
Figure
The approaches
approaches to
anan
urban
and
arThe
to typo-morphology
typo-morphology can
canbe
besaid
saidtotohave
havearisen
arisenfrom
from
urban
and
chitectural
perspective
as
well
as
historical–geographic
and
environmental
analytical
metharchitectural perspective as well as historical–geographic and environmental analytical
ods, which
are derived
from from
the geography
sectorsector
[68,69].
Because
the typo-morphological
methods,
which
are derived
the geography
[68,69].
Because
the typo-morpho(typological
process)process)
has its roots
in roots
the fields
of architecture
and urbanism,
the study will
logical
(typological
has its
in the
fields of architecture
and urbanism,
the
focus
on
typo-morphological
approach.
Hence,
the
historical-geographical
and spatialstudy will focus on typo-morphological approach. Hence, the historical-geographical
and
analytical factors, which are from the field of geography, will be neglected. Furthermore,
spatial-analytical factors, which are from the field of geography, will be neglected. Furspace or configurational syntax will not be used because it has a mathematical or scientific
thermore, space or configurational syntax will not be used because it has a mathematical
origin rather than an architectural one and because this study is focused on the field of
or scientific origin rather than an architectural one and because this study is focused on
architecture. Since geometric analysis is an integral part of UM, the current study will deal
the field of architecture. Since geometric analysis is an integral part of UM, the current
with this assessment to provide valuable information for analyzing the physical elements
study will deal with this assessment to provide valuable information for analyzing the
of urban environments (Figure 6).
physical elements of urban environments (Figure 6).
Urban M orphology Assessm en t
Syntactic Assessm ent
Geom etric Assessm ent
Historico-Geographical
approach
Typo-morphological
approach
Field of Geography
Field of
Architecture
Typo-m orphological approach
Field of
Science
Spatial-analysis
approach
The Configurational
approach
Current study 抯 concern
Figure 6. The approaches for assessment of urban morphology in the relationship with SUF in the
Figure 6. The approaches for assessment of urban morphology in the relationship with SUF in the
current study (developed by Authors).
current study (developed by Authors).
Typo-Morphological
Typo-Morphological Approach
Approach
Typo-morphological
Typo-morphological research
research has
has been
been used
used as
as aa planning
planning instrument
instrument throughout
throughout
architectural
history.
The
work
of
the
Krier
brothers
[70]
and
Aldo
architectural history. The work of the Krier brothers [70] and Aldo Rossi
Rossi [71]
[71] has
has been
been
quite
quite fruitful,
fruitful, especially
especially in
in the
the context
context of
of the
the metropolitan
metropolitan fabric
fabric form,
form, housing,
housing, and
and open
open
spaces.
spaces. As
Aswell
well as
as in
in respect
respect to
to socioeconomic
socioeconomic procedures.
procedures. Typo-morphological
Typo-morphological surveys
surveys
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
7 of 20
use construction information to define the city’s physical shape and the method of human
habitat accumulation, which helps gain knowledge of the city’s three-dimensional structure
and its fundamental development mechanism. As Moudon [72] notes: “typo-morphology
provides a working definition of room and sort of construction, and acts as a wealthy starting point
for learning the essence of building design, its connection with the town, and the community in
which it occurs”. Typo-morphological surveys are therefore not only useful for analyzing
current cities or urban areas, but also for building the theoretical basis for urban design
planning [73]. The methods derived from the studies carried out by the Italian architect
Saverio Muratori, and further established by his disciples, Gianfranco Caniggia and Gian
Luigi Maffei, are highly significant. The typological method focuses on the hypothesis that,
by evaluating construction as the operational unit of an assessment, altering trends in urban
form can then be better understood. This means that the typo-morphological approach,
when applied to individual buildings and towns, considers using the geometrical analysis
method. The components constitute the construction products for individual buildings, the
construction of components conforms to the walls and the organization of the buildings.
For cities, the area is comparable to that of morphological analysis, i.e., housing, urban
tissues, and the various types of arrangement of urban tissues in a region or district [72,74].
Geographical scientists generally adopt the morphological classification, but architects tend
to adopt the typo-morphological classification.
4. Methodology and Development of Conceptual Framework
The issue of urban formation as a dynamic process poses a challenge to current contexts
and designers by taking into account the past in order to create the future. The urban
formation is an ever-changing system and a continuous process in which many numbers of
functional and geometric connections can be displayed at different levels or scales [75]. The
morphological analysis of the urban fabric permits us to gain a logical understanding of
their formation and transformation. Thus, the analysis assists us to design with authentic
awareness and interventions within the process of change. Therefore, this study aims to
streamline this complex system by expanding the concept of scale and hierarchy that are
bound to each other. The concept must be discussed in terms of the relationships between
spaces of different dimensions. In this case, the scale hierarchy is crucial because it affects
the accuracy of the outcomes.
The urban morphology approach analyzes the built environment based on four main
elements of the morphological layer in the study: buildings, streets, open spaces, and
plots/lots. Moreover, the urban form can be understood from the perspective of four
different levels or scales, which are commonly recognized. They are, namely: the region,
the city, the street/block, and the building/lot [72]. The physical form describes the layers
of the cities and the process of the accumulation of built environments, which helps in
the definition of the city’s three-dimensional structure and the process of city formation
(Figure 7). Therefore, this approach is not only suitable for the analysis of existing cities, but
also for developing the theoretical base for urban design practice, since it has influenced
urban development [73].
In the following part, the authors integrate the research design that proposes morphological dimensions for assessing SUF. The integrations will be based on two main
combinations, the first is analytical tools by the integration between morphological layers
and SUF principles, and the second is scale hierarchy and typo-morphology. The second
combination will control the scale hierarchy of any case study when it is going to be evaluated and shows the effect of the scale hierarchy on the accuracy of the results. Finally,
the findings will provide the experts with a tool to evaluate any part of the urban level
starting from building to city scale, and permit them to assess the sustainability within the
selected context.
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
9 of 22
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
8 of 20
Morphological
layers
Typo-Morphological
Analysis
1,2,3,4
7,8
Interpretation of Kropf's
taxonomy of built form
4
Minor Scale 2
1. Material
Content 2
Buildings
Micro 9,10
Buildings/ Lots
Street Blocks
Open Spaces
5,6
3. Room/Cells
5,6
Meso 9,10
City
Plots/Lots
2. Structure
5,6
4. Building
5. Plot
6. Street
Streets
Meaning 2
Macro 9,10
Region
5,6
7. City
Major Scale 2
1. Moudon, 1994 [73]
2. Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [75]
3. Muratori, 1959 [76]
4. Kropf, 2017 [6]
5. Salat & Bourdic, 2012 [77]
6. Bourdic et al., 2012 [52]
7. Oliveira, 2016 [3]
8. Silva, Oliveira, 2017 [20]
9. Pattee, 1973 [78]
10. Kropf, 2014 [79]
Figure
Figure7.7.The
Theassessment
assessmentofofurban
urbanmorphology
morphologylayers
layersconcerning
concerningthe
thedifferent
differentscales
scalesininthe
thebuilt
built
environment
environment(developed
(developedby
byAuthors)
Authors)[3,6,20,52,73,75–79].
[3,6,20,52,73,75–79].
4.1. In
Thethe
Combination
Scalethe
Hierarchy
Typo-Morphology
following ofpart,
authorsand
integrate
the research design that proposes morphological
dimensions
assessing
SUF. The
integrations
will be
based onin
two
comAccording
to the for
division
of process
and
the typological
approach
themain
geometric
binations,
the
first
is
analytical
tools
by
the
integration
between
morphological
layers
and
assessment of urban morphology, the authors develop the combination of the relationship
SUF
principles,
and theofsecond
is scale hierarchy
typo-morphology.
The second
combetween
the concept
scale hierarchy
and theand
typo-morphology
approach.
There
are
bination
control
the scale
hierarchy
case
study when [80]
it is going
to be evaluated
various will
grades
of spatial
resolution
in of
theany
built
environment
that match
to varying
scales
of perusal:
buildings,
urban
fabric,on
cities,
and regions
[74].
According
Kropf’s
and
shows
the effect
of the scale
hierarchy
the accuracy
of the
results.
Finally,tothe
finddefinition
of urban
hierarchy
of scales
delineated
intostarting
the folings
will provide
themorphology,
experts withthe
a tool
to evaluate
any has
partbeen
of the
urban level
lowing
structure:
materials
form
structures
as the
walls
and roofs, and
these
from
building
to city
scale, and
permit
them tosuch
assess
sustainability
within
thestructures
selected
then
form
rooms
and
corridors,
etc.,
and
ultimately
combine
to
form
a
complete
building.
context.
The concept is extending upward hierarchically and considers the building as an element
to determine
higheroflevels
the urban
Kropf [6] has identified seven hierarchical
4.1.
The Combination
Scale of
Hierarchy
andfabric.
Typo-Morphology
grades
(materials,
architectural
elements,
buildings,
lands, streets,
blocks,inand
fabric of
According to the division of process and the typological
approach
thethe
geometric
the
urban
area);
he
debated
that
the
dynamic
relationship
between
these
elements
would
assessment of urban morphology, the authors develop the combination of the relationship
influence
the
urban
setting.
Similarly,
Kropf
[81]
proposes
connections
amongst
the
between the concept of scale hierarchy and the typo-morphology approach. There arephysivarcal types
based
on a scale
hierarchy,
is expressed on
various
scales.
objective
ious
grades
of spatial
resolution
in thewhich
built environment
[80]
that match
to The
varying
scalesis
to establish a consistent basis for the definition and subdivision of the built form to support
of
perusal: buildings, urban fabric, cities, and regions [74]. According to Kropf’s definition
the concept of urban morphological analysis. The hierarchical divisions of the urban fabric
of urban morphology, the hierarchy of scales has been delineated into the following strucare Minor, Mid, and Major.
ture: materials form structures such as walls and roofs, and these structures then form
a.
The Minor
(Micro-scale)
includes the
following;
rooms
and
corridors,
etc., and ultimately
combine
to form a complete building. The concept is1.extending
upward
hierarchically
and
considers
building
as an element
to deMaterials: Materials provide a building withthe
color
and texture,
the choice
of
termine
higher
levels
of
the
urban
fabric.
Kropf
[6]
has
identified
seven
hierarchical
grades
materials also affects the issues of weathering, detailing, visual interest at various distances,
(materials,
elements, buildings, lands, streets, blocks, and the fabric of the
and facadearchitectural
patterning [79,82,83].
urban2.area);
he
debated
that
the dynamic
relationship
between
these elements
would
inStructure: The statement,
‘structures
are the single
associations
of several
elements’
fluence
the
urban
setting.
Similarly,
Kropf
[81]
proposes
connections
amongst
the
physical
defines the general classification at the second level. In referring to specific classes of
types
based conventional
on a scale hierarchy,
which
is expressed
on variousroofs,
scales.etc.,
Theare
objective
is to
structures,
terms such
as floors,
walls, partitions,
used [84].
establish
a consistent
for the definition
subdivision
built
form tooccupying
support
3. Building
type:basis
An organism
of systemsand
is the
term usedof
tothe
refer
to entities
the
of urban
analysis.
The hierarchical
of the
urban fabric
theconcept
third level
of themorphological
scale hierarchy.
It is described
generallydivisions
as follows:
aggregations
or
are
Minor,
Mid,
and
Major.
structures recognizable as relatively autonomous; elements like windows, doors, rooms,
stairs, etc., that combine to form systems of the entire building [84].
4. Rooms/Cells: Cells are combinations of structures that also have relative autonomy,
e.g., rooms, stairs, etc. The conventional terms, ‘rooms’ and ‘stairs’ also refer to the base
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
9 of 20
type and elementary cells, respectively. More specifically, the base type is defined as a
single room dwelling of five or six square meters, comprising a single space enclosed by a
floor, four load-bearing walls, and a roof in which a door is located for access [74].
b.
The Mid (Meso-scale) refers to the issue of urban tissue, which includes the following:
1. The Lots: The lot is defined as, ‘the area built upon, together with the pertinent area’.
The element that links built spaces to open spaces is the land lot or parcel, the primary cell
of the urban fabric [38].
2. The pertinent strip: This is defined as a route that structurally and relationally shape
the surroundings. The built area is the association of several identified built elements such
as street, route, and embedded buildings [31].
3. The Built Route: The built routes are planned to provide connections between
places as well as accessibility to construction sites. The city blocks are delineated by the
well-connected routes since the connecting built routes can shape urban form [74].
4. The Block: The structure of a block is a basic structure of the urban pattern, and the
block’s geometric makeup is the defining factor of the form of the urban area. Kropf [81]
pointed out that street dimensions depend on the length of a block.
5. Infill/Base Tissue: According to [74], this refers to the matrix route, described as an
arrangement of particular parts and, such as the base type, also refers to a position in the
typological process. Infill tissue is another term used in connection with the issue of the
various types of urban tissue; it is the starting point from which a tissue evolves.
6. Node: A node is defined as any path crossing and a pole as the end/beginning of
a path [74].
c.
Major (Macro-scale) refers to the ‘urban organism’, which is categorized into two
elements:
1. The first is described as urban life, which refers to the totality of localized urban
activities related to the functional structure of cities.
2. The second is distinct from the urban frame, which refers to the sum of spaces
corresponding to the locality, concerning the functional and spatial urban structure [81].
Hence, the importance of combining scale hierarchy with a typo-morphology approach
to delineate the content in the Minor scale and the meaning in the Major scale. Consequently,
this combination will influence the accuracy of evaluating sustainability in the selected case
study, according to the scale level (Figure 8).
4.2. Integrated Synthesis and Formulating the Model
The first part of the theoretical framework of the study attempts to consider the global
principles of SUF. Afterward, the authors, through literature (mainly Tadi et al. [42] and
Manesh, et al. [58]), introduce the analytical tools of research for evaluating SUF. It was
applied as an analytical process to reveal the relationship between morphological layers of
a city and the design principles of SUF. In addition, the analysis has been carried out using
urban morphology as a field of inquiry focusing on typo-morphology as an architectural
and urbanism approach. Thereafter, the approach synthesizes in scale hierarchy based
on Kropf’s taxonomy [6] in order to develop spatially hierarchal structure as inputs data.
Based on the above information, the model for evaluating the relationship between SUF
and UM has been developed. The authors developed the model and considered the most
valid indicators and the factors based on theoretical framework analysis. The model has
been divided into three stages:
1. Input (Identification) stage: it includes the morphological classification based on the
hierarchy concept, and scale of the case study, which is starting from town as Macro-scale
and ending with building patterns as Micro-scale, sorting streets, and plot patterns as
meso-scale. The model will focus on the architectural morphological approach, which is
the typo-morphology approach, and it classifies the urban area into town, buildings, and
systems organization. In this part, the input will involve the indicators of the urban form
approaches sorted according to the concept of the scale commencing with the Micro-scale,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
10 of 20
followed by the middle-scale, and completing with the Macro-scale. Each of these scale
stages has its characteristics to be tested through input data, such as materials, building
types, and structures on the Micro-scale. Similarly, in respect of the meso-scale stage,
which involves lots, pertinent strips, built routes, etc., and in the final Macro-scale stage,
the characteristics will include urban organisms. These levels will be harmonized with
the urban morphology classification framework, based on the scale. For example, ‘The
Approach of Buildings System’, which is one of the urban morphology classifications that
includes buildings’ level details, will be involved in a Micro-scale or Minor level stage. The
same process applies to other approaches; for example, the Approach of the Plots System,
and the Approach of the Streets System will be involved in the meso-scale or middle-level
stages. Whereas, again, the approach of the Streets System, the approach of the Urban
Tissue stage, and the approach of the Natural Context will be involved at a Macro-scale or
significant level stage.
2. The Analysis process (Evaluation) stage: this part will include the analysis of the
input data considering interrelations with the principles of the SUF and the level of the
relationships with the factors of the typo-morphology approach and their influences on or
contribution to the achievement of the sustainability. All these factors are under the concept
of the scale of the selected sample study. The absence, presence, or lack of contribution
of the indicators in the first (Input) stage will be tested in this stage. The Analytical stage
is demonstrated in Table 1 and Supplement Table S1; at this stage, the most weighted
indicators will be evaluated according to their contribution, which depends significantly
on the scale of the case study.
3. The output (Decision) stage: in this stage, all the previous principles and dimensions
will be related to the global SUF as analytical tools. The validity of these factors will be
tested in terms of their effects on the case studies. To examine the confidence and the
validity of the suggested SUF, the analytical tools which are: intensity, proximity, efficiency,
accessibility, diversity, and permeability will be applied to the case studies, based on the
hierarchical scale of urban morphology which was explained in this study. Finally, the SUF
types have been suggested for future studies to be evaluated based on these analytical tools
and according to the three stages of the process of model development. Through these
evaluations, the most effective SUF types will be evaluated (Figure 9).
4.3. The Evaluation Processes of the Relationship between UM and SUF
The primary objective of the procedure is to concentrate on the evaluation of morphological principles in SUF, through testing the analytical tools of the latter. Referring to
the analytical tools of SUF each of them should be combined with the hierarchical typomorphology approach, which is combined with the scale hierarchy (Figure 9), to test the
validity of the contribution at five levels stated from strong contribution to non-contributed.
Consequently, the features of the relationship between UM (Typo-morphology approach) and the SUF (through analytical tools), have been recognized. This is by the
amalgamation of all the discussions in this study classified, based on using the process of
the typological approach in urban morphology, as shown in Table 1 and for more details
see Supplement Table S1.
4.4. Methodology for Applying the Model
The description of the methodology will be implemented in this section to apply the
proposed model for assessing the relationship between UM and SUF in urban contexts. To
use the model, the following information is required:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The scale hierarchy of the study area (Micro, Meso, and Macro-scales).
Model of the study (evaluation of the weighting of the morphological indicators according to their contribution in sustainability), based on the contribution of
each indicator.
The applied tools and techniques used in the proposed model (Site surveys, Observation, Customer Satisfaction Surveys, Opinion, and Social Analysis).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
11 of 20
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(4)
(5)
11 of 22
Identifying the sample size for a pilot survey.
Collected Data Analysis (Validity and Reliability), (Figure 10).
Object of Intervention 7,36
1. Moudon, 1994 [73]
2. Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [75]
3. Muratori, 1959 [76]
4. Porter, 1982 [82]
5. Lange, 1997 [84]
6. Moughtin et al, 1995 [83]
7. Kropf, 2014 [79]
8. Kropf, 2017 [6]
9. Cömert, 2013 [85]
10. Scorza et al., 2021 [9]
11. Wheeler, 2000 [21]
12. Scheer, 2016 [42]
13. Gauthier & Gilliland, 2006 [86]
14. Filion & Hammond, 2003 [87]
15. Cataldi et al., 2002 [88]
16. Bhagwat & Devadas, 2020 [40]
17. Filomena et al., 2019 [39]
18. Conzen, 2004 [65]
Major
2,7
2
7. Urban Tissue
3,7,17,18,19
19. Silva, 2015 [14]
20. Osmond, 2003 [89]
21. Sima et al., 2009 [67]
22. McGlynn et. al, 2013 [38]
23. Shayesteh, 2013 [69]
24. Salat & Bourdic, 2012 [77]
25. Bourdic et al., 2012 [52]
26. Li, 2013 [90]
27. Gajic, 2015 [91]
24,25
12,14
10,30
Topography
Soils & water bodies
City/Regional Scale
35
10,18
Climate
34
Infrastructure network
31,32,33
Block/District Scale
Local Infrastructure network 34
Local open space
25
Arterial street system 6
25
Plot Series
Blocks
Local Street System
24,25,27
Farmlands/ Biodiversity
6. Nodes and Poles
2
Neighborhood/ Plot Scale
1,2
1. Urban Organism
24
Neighborhood local open spaces
25,27
Plot
Buildings
19
Buildings/Parcel Scale 24,25
Macro Scale
1,2
5. Infill/ Base Tissue
2,8
8,14,15,16
4. The Block
2,12,13
3. The Built Route
11,2
2. The Pertinent Strip
4. Room/Cells
21,22
23
Room/ Inner Space
Elements (Windows, doors, etc.)
1. The Lots
7,10
8,9
8,9
Meso Scale
1,2
3. Building Types
2. Structure
Structural Components (Roofs, walls,
and structure)
18,23
4,5,6,10
1. Material
Constr. Material 2,16,17
1,2,19,20,24,25,28,29,30
Typo-Morpholog + Scale
Micro Scale
24,25
Minor
Middle
Scale of Intervention 7,36
20,24,25,26
28. Pattee, 1973 [78]
29. Maretto, 2014 [2]
30. Wu, 2008 [92]
31. Oshrieh & Valipour, 2019 [12]
32. Ding, 2013 [5]
33. Hall, 2008 [4]
34. Newman, 2003 [93]
35. Whitehand, 2001 [94]
36. Oliveira, 2016 [3]
Figure
hierarchal
structure
(SHS)
in respect
of theof
relationship
between
the scalethe
hierarFigure8.8.Spatially
Spatially
hierarchal
structure
(SHS)
in respect
the relationship
between
scale hierchy
and
typological
process
approach
(Typo-Morphology)
for
the
geometric
assessment
of
urban
archy and typological process approach (Typo-Morphology) for the geometric assessment
of urban
morphology (developed by Authors) [2–6,9,12,14,21,38–40,42,52,65,67,69,73,75–79,82–94].
morphology (developed by Authors) [2–6,9,12,14,21,38–40,42,52,65,67,69,73,75–79,82–94].
4.2. Integrated Synthesis and Formulating the Model
4.5. Mode of the Study
The first part of the theoretical framework of the study attempts to consider the global
As already discussed, the main aim of the proposed model is to assess the relationship
principles of SUF. Afterward, the authors, through literature (mainly Tadi et al. [42] and
between UM and SUF to evaluate the level of sustainability in an urban context. As shown
Manesh, et al. [58]), introduce the analytical tools of research for evaluating SUF. It was
in Table 1, the evaluation is based on the contribution of each indicator to reach the level of
applied as an analytical process to reveal the relationship between morphological layers
sustainability in an urban area. Each of the indicators per resolution levels or scale (Micro,
of a city and the design principles of SUF. In addition, the analysis has been carried out
Meso, and Macro) will be weighted, based on its contributions, by using the analytical tools
using urban morphology as a field of inquiry focusing on typo-morphology as an archiof the SUF. For example, in the ‘Micro-Scale’, building material has been contributed in
tectural and urbanism approach. Thereafter, the approach synthesizes in scale hierarchy
three on
tools
out of
the six of[6]the
Thishierarchal
gives thestructure
indicatoras(3/6),
which
based
Kropf’s
taxonomy
in SUF
orderanalytical
to developtools.
spatially
inputs
means
a
weighting
of
50%
in
the
contribution
to
the
SUF.
Rooms
will
not
be
evaluated
data. Based on the above information, the model for evaluating the relationship between in
the model
theyThe
areauthors
classified
as internal
factors.and
Moreover,
forthe
a more
SUF
and UMresearch
has beenbecause
developed.
developed
the model
considered
accurate
evaluation,
the
weight
of
each
indicator
contribution
can
be
classified
into
most valid indicators and the factors based on theoretical framework analysis. The model five
levels
a specific
number,
has
beenwith
divided
into three
stages:for example, in ‘Micro-Scale’ of the typo-morphology’s
indicator,
building
material
with
intensitythe
is contributed
because
of the mass
oron
volume
1. Input (Identification) stage:
it includes
morphological
classification
based
the of
construction
materials
per
unit
area
provide
a
crucial
measure
of
intensity.
Accordingly,
hierarchy concept, and scale of the case study, which is starting from town as Macro-scale
the ending
level contribution
of patterns
each spatially
hierarchal
structure
is evaluated
in termsasof the
and
with building
as Micro-scale,
sorting
streets,
and plot patterns
analytical tools
to achieve
SUF on
based
on the morphology
of a city
(for more
details,
meso-scale.
The model
will focus
the architectural
morphological
approach,
which
is see
Supplement
Table S1).
the
typo-morphology
approach, and it classifies the urban area into town, buildings, and
systems organization. In this part, the input will involve the indicators of the urban form
approaches sorted according to the concept of the scale commencing with the Micro-scale,
followed by the middle-scale, and completing with the Macro-scale. Each of these scale
stages has its characteristics to be tested through input data, such as materials, building
types, and structures on the Micro-scale. Similarly, in respect of the meso-scale stage,
which involves lots, pertinent strips, built routes, etc., and in the final Macro-scale stage,
Interpretation of Kropf's
Taxonomy
4
Concept of Scale
Hierarchy 9,10
Global Principles of SUF
Typo- Morphological
Analysis 1,2,3,4
Morphological
layers
11
Morphological layers of city 19
Design indicators of SUF 11,19
7,8
'Analytical tools'
for evaluating sustainability
Minor Scale 2
Micro 9,10
11,19
Buildings/Lots 5,6
Intensity
Street Blocks
5,6
City
5,6
Region
5,6
Proximity
Legibility
15,14,13
a. legibility
b. imageability
a. compactness
b. density
Meso 9,10
Macro 9,10
20,21
22,23,24
a. sustainable transport
b. mixed land uses
Diversity
11,16
Permeability
a. passive solar design
b. greening
a. imageability
b. permeability
Efficiency
17,18,25
a. mixed land use
b. diversity
Accessibility
12,13
24
a. sustainable transport
Major Scale 2
Analysis process (evaluation)
stage
Input (Identification) stage
2nd Part of the Study
1st Part of the Study
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
lidity of the suggested SUF, the analytical tools which are: intensity, proximity, efficiency,
accessibility, diversity, and permeability will be applied to the case studies, based on the
hierarchical scale of urban morphology which was explained in this study. Finally, the
SUF types have been suggested for future studies to be evaluated based on these analytical
tools and according to the three stages of the process of model development. Through
12 of 20
these evaluations, the most effective SUF types will be evaluated (Figure 9).
The output (Decision) stage
Morphological indicator
Contribution of indicator to sustainability
Strong Contribution
2
Neutral
0
Regular Contribution
1
Weak Contribution
-1
9. Pattee, 1973 [78]
10. Kropf, 2014 [79]
11. Jabareen, 2006 [1]
12. McGlynn et. al, 2013 [38]
13. Meenar et al., 2019 [43]
14. Bell et al., 2005 [48]
15. Arthur & Passini, 1992 [37]
16. Owens, 1992 [31]
1. Moudon, 1994 [73]
2. Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [75]
3. Muratori, 1959 [76]
4. Kropf, 2017 [6]
5. Salat & Bourdic, 2012 [77]
6. Bourdic et al., 2012 [52]
7. Oliveira, 2016 [3]
8. Silva, Oliveira, 2017 [20]
Non-Contributed
-2
17. Wheeler, 2002 [21]
18. Jacobs, 1961 [28]
19. Tadi, 2012 [58]
20. Burgess, 2000 [59]
21. Manesh et al., 2012 [60]
22. Beer et al., 2003 [61]
23. Jabareen, 2013 [62]
24. Krizek, 2003 [63]
25. Porta & Renne, 2005 [64]
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
14 of 22
Figure 9. The two main part of the study which contain three stages: input, analysis, and output
(developed by Authors) [1,3,6,20,21,28,31,37,38,43,48,52,58–64,73,75–79].
Stage 1
Process of Applying the Proposed Model in the Context
Identifying scale hierarchy of the study area
Micro
Meso
Stage 3
Stage 2
Building Scale
Neighborhood/ Plot Scale
Macro
Block/ District Scale
City Scale
Identifying mode of the study (evaluation of the weighting of the morphological indicators according to
their contribution in sustainability)
Strong
Contribution
Regular
Contribution
Neutral
Weak
Contribution
Non-Contributed
The applied tools and technique used in the proposed model
Site Survey
Observation
Opinion
Social analysis
Costumer
Satisfaction research
Stage 4
Identifying sample size for pilot survey
1. Sample size for study : Slovin's formula could be used to find the with the margin error of ? %. (it should
be apply for case study to discover the sample size of study).
(n = N / (1 + Ne2) n = Number of samples - N = Total population - e = Error tolerance.).
2. Pilot Study : Through A. Questionnaire technique , B. Interview
Stage 5
Collected data analysis (Validity and Reliability)
SPSS (statistical package for social science)
Spearman's Correlation coefficient
Inventory Mapping Technique (IMT)
Cronbach's Alpha test
Discussion and Conclusion
Figure10.
10.The
Theprocess
processtotoapply
applythe
theproposed
proposedmodel
modelininthe
thecontext
context(developed
(developedby
byauthors).
authors).
Figure
4.5. Mode of the Study
As already discussed, the main aim of the proposed model is to assess the relationship between UM and SUF to evaluate the level of sustainability in an urban context. As
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
13 of 20
Table 1. The evaluation of the typo-morphological approach is based on spatially hierarchal structure
(SHS) and analytical tools (developed by Authors).
City Scale
Block/District Scale
Neighborhood/Plot Scale
Building/Parcel Scale
Spatially Hierarchal Structure
â
Intensity
Proximity
Efficiency
Accessibility
Diversity
Permeability
Material
2
−2
2
0
2
−2
Structure (form)
−2
−2
2
−2
1
−2
Windows, Doors, Openings
−1
−2
2
2
−1
−2
Buildings
−1
2
2
1
2
1
Plots
2
2
1
2
1
1
Neighborhood/Local open space
2
2
−1
2
2
2
Local street system
2
2
2
2
1
2
Plot series
2
2
2
2
2
1
Blocks
1
1
2
1
2
0
Arterial street and open spaces
2
0
2
0
2
1
Infrastructure networks
−1
−2
2
2
−1
−1
Highway roads
2
0
2
0
2
1
Geographical characteristics
(Topography, soil, climate, water
body, biodiversity)
2
−1
1
2
2
2
Room *
Evaluation of the weighting of the morphological indicators based on their contribution in sustainability:
(−2) Non-contributed
(−1) Weak contribution
(0) Neutral
(1) Regular contribution
(2) Strong contribution
* Room will be not evaluated in the research.
The method which might be used for structuring questionnaires could be based on
Likert’s scale. Likert’s scale is a method for obtaining the evaluation with five or seven
response items [95]. In this study, Likert’s scale used from ‘strongly contributory’ to
‘non-contributory’ categories (Table 1). The difference in weighting depends on the scale
hierarchy of an urban context.
The proposed model can be applied by planners and designers, within the context of
their contribution, which relates to the scale of the selected case study. Additionally, the
model offers an opportunity for planners to evaluate the context accurately.
5. The Applied Tools and Technique
To obtain reliable outcomes, a specific number of respondents, when considering
the population of a selected context, should be found. Hence, Slovin’s formula could
be used to identify the sample size for such a study, with the margin of error of ±5%
(n = N/(1 + Ne2) n = Number of samples—N = Total population—e = Error tolerance.
The spatial hierarchy of the case study should be identified within the Macro, Meso, and
Microscales. The indicators of each scale are determined, in Figure 10. Considering the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
14 of 20
selected context, the SPSS (statistical package for social science) can be applied to analyze
the collected data statistically to obtain more accurate results, especially when there is a
large amount of input data. The privilege of the SPSS computer tool is that the data can
be entered by the researcher from different sources, but should be appropriately arranged.
Moreover, entering the data will make the statistical calculation process an easy one, since
only a few fundamental steps are required to be considered for obtaining accurate results.
The outputs from Spearman’s Correlation coefficient (rs ) are arranged between −1 and
+1 [95,96]. Moreover, descriptive statistical methods can be considered for examining
the collected data. The validity can be achieved using SPSS, whilst the reliability can be
achieved through the use of Chronbach’s Alpha test. The proposed methodology can be
described as the Inventory Mapping Technique (IMT).
According to the proposed model, the morphological analysis based on the threescale of Micro, Meso, and Macro, demonstrated the effect of each level on sustainability,
based on their specific elements within a morphological context. The model represents the
interrelations between urban morphology and the principles of SUF. It suggests that global
analytical tools are used as a guideline to test the SUF types based on urban morphology
(Figure 11).
Sustainability 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
17 of 22
Analysis Process (Evaluation)
Room/ Inner Space
13,8,27
Compactness
49,58,59
Economy
Sustainable Transport 55,56,57
39,49,55,77,59,
45,47,50,51,54
Politics
39,77,55,56,45,
46,50,28,54
13,28,16
13
Local Street System
8,13,28
Plot
13,19,20,21,32
Arterial street system
11
Local open space
33,34,35
Local Infrastructure network
Infrastructure network
Climate
Topography
Soils & water bodies
36
12,23
22,17
12,32
Farmlands/ Biodiversity
2
36
Density
39,49,77,50,54
53,54
The Approach of Plots System
Defense
Plots changes by the factor of time
12,66
Mixed Land Uses 51,28,64
Diversity
49,50
Gridiron
Aesthetics
39,77,55,56,
58,47,54
49,77,55,56,
45,50,51
- Urban Design Features
45,56,57,53,54,75,51,52,50,48,46,39,
40,38
- Land use Pattern
59,45,56,53,51,79,46,39,41,40,38
- Attractive Urban Environment
59,57,54,75,50,47,80,41,39,40,38
- Transportation System
75,45,54,53,82,50,79,59,80,40,38
- Urban Structure
45,56,53,54,51,52,50,46,81,39,40,38
- Structural Identity
45,51,50,46,81,39,40
- Unity & Integrity
59,56,53,75,51,79,46,48,47,80,39,40,38
- Local Environmental Quality &
Amenity
75,45,56,57,54,50,47,80,39,40,38
- Main Structure Integration &
Urban Fabric
45,57,53,51,50,46,81,40,38
1. The new Urbanism
50,76,88
63,64
Proximity
a. sustainable transport
b. mixed land uses
37,46
Efficiency
a. passive solar design
b. greening
- Community Cohesion
The Approach of Urban Tissue
Passive Solar Design 46,47,48
Greening
Functional
Region
39,59,77,55,56
45,47,50,28,54
43,44,45
59,16,53,75,51,115,46,47,81
- Social Interaction
59,56,53,75,51,52,50,79,40
- Pride/Sense of Place
75,53,51,52,81,41,40,38
- Human Well-Being
Accessibility
65
a. sustainable transport
45,75,56,53,50,79,48,47,38
- Mixed Use
75,45,56,53,52,51,50,39,40,38
Street; Blocks; Plots; Buildings
- Social Equity
76,12
37,64,70
2. Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD)
37,64,70
59,53,75,79,47,39,38
59,53,52,46,47,39
37,64,70,72,73,74,57,44,87
61,62
- Safety & Security
- Integrated Planning &
Participation
Sustainable Urban form Types
1. Neo-Traditional Development
Intensity
a. compactness
b. density
59,53,51,52,50,39,38
Gathering places, Movement,
Democratic spaces
37,60,73
60,37
Global Sustainable Urban
form factors (Analytical tools) & the
principles of sustainable urban form
- Mobility Management &
Sustainable Transport
39,58,77,55,
56,45,47,50,54
The Approach of Streets System
2. Urban Containment
1. Smart Growth
73
2. Growth management
71,72
3. Compact City
1. Efficient land use growth
37,74
2. Environmental Urbanism
74,75
3. Sustainable Transport
36,57
59,45,56,53,75,51,46,81,39
Legibility
13,28,34,29
Open Space
Blocks
15,5,28
City/Regional Scale
Major
Macro Scale
4,5,6,7
Plot Series
Neighborhood/ Plot Scale
Middle
Religions
Spatially Hierarchal Structure (SHS)
16,17,18,28
Neighborhood local open spaces
Block/District Scale 13,28
4,5,6,7
Meso Scale
Scale of Intervention
Street
13,14,5
Global Sustainable Urban Factors + Sustainable Urban Form types
Sustainable urban Types
12,76
Buildings
Plot
67,68,69
Buildings Categories; Buildings
Orientation
13,28,76
1,2,3
Building
25,26
67,68,69
The Approach of Buildings System
Physical Dim.
14,23, 25,26
Elements (Windows, doors, etc.)
37,60,77
Sustainability Dimensions in
Urban Form
The Main Morphological
Factors
77
67,68,69
8,9,10,11,21,8,22,5,17,24
The principles of Sustainable
Urban Form 37
Social Dim.
Constr. Material
Structural Components (Roofs, walls,
and structure)
12,76
Output (Decision)
Sustainable Urban Form Principles + Main Morphological Factors + Sustainability Dimensions
42,41,39
Climate
39,49,55,78,
45,46,51,17
The Approach of Natural Context
Topography
Land relief; Soil; Climate; Solar/wind
exposure; Natural Landscape
76
Imageability
55,58,78,39,
45,48,50,51,17
39,40
Local Construction
Material
77,78,48,49
Permeability
38,39
Economic Dim. 67,68,69
Minor
Micro Scale
4,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Urban form Approaches
37,39,64
Object of intervention
Buildings/Parcel Scale 13,33
11,12,
Urban Forms approach+Morphology+ Scale 1,2,3,4,5,9,10,
13,28,30,31,32
Test the Validity of the factors (future work)
Input (Identification)
Morphological Layers
15 of 20
- Energy Efficiency
75,53,51,79,46,48,43,38
- Business Opportunity
Diversity
49,50,66,42
a. mixed land use
b. legibiliyu
59,56,50,79,63
- Re-use of Land & Resources
2. Sustainable Housing
45,53,62,50,79,46,80,43,39,40,38
- Encourage Economical Growth
56,61,79,48,47,63
- Life Cycle Cost
45,53,50,48,47,38
- Capitalize on Existing
Infrastructure
52,50,79,63
4. Eco- City
1. Eco Village, Solar Village
Permeability
a. imageability
b. permeability
c. legibility
38,39,41
3. Environmental City & Green City
83
47,84
47,84
4. Sustainable Urban Living
85
5. Sustainable community & Neighborhood
86
6. Living Machines
87
- Affordable Development
45,56,51,47,63,43,40,38
- Environmental Adaptation
45,57,53,52,23,48,47,39,40,38
1. Conzen, 2004 [65]
2. Whitehand, 2001 [94]
3. Conzen, 2009 [97]
4. Moudon, 1994 [73]
5. Silva, 2015 [14]
6. Muratori, 1959 [76]
7. Kropf, 2017 [6]
8. Caniggia & Maffei, 2001 [75]
9. Porter, 1982 [82]
10. Lange, 1997 [84]
11. Moughtin et al, 1995 [83]
12. Kropf, 2014 [79]
13. Salat & Bourdic, 2012 [77]
14. Cömert, 2013 [85]
15. Maretto et al., 2020 [8]
16. Gajic, 2015 [91]
17. Scheer, 2016 [42]
18. Gauthier & Gilliland, 2006 [86]
19. Filion & Hammond, 2003 [87]
20. Cataldi et al., 2002 [88]
21. Bhagwat & Devadas, 2020 [40]
22. Filomena et al., 2019 [39]
23. Luu et al., 2021 [7]
24. Osmond, 2003 [89]
25. Sima et al., 2009 [67]
26. McGlynn et al., 2013 [38]
27. Shayesteh, 2013 [69]
28. Bourdic et al., 2012 [52]
29. Li, 2013 [90]
30. Pattee, 1973 [78]
31. Maretto, 2014 [2]
32. Wu, 2008 [92]
33. Oshrieh & Valipour, 2019 [12]
34. Ding, 2013 [5]
35. Hall, 2008 [4]
36. Newman, 2003 [93]
37. Jabareen, 2006 [1]
38.Cuthill, 2010 [17]
39. Silva et al., 2017 [20]
40. Meenar et al., 2019 [43]
41. Bell et al., 2005 [48]
42. Arthur & Passini, 1992 [37]
43. Beatley, 2000 [49]
44. Van der Ryn & Cowan,1995 [57]
45. Dumreicher et al., 2000 [22]
46. Owens, 1992 [31]
47. Ahmed, 2017 [50]
48. Yannas, 1998 [33]
49. Wheeler, 2002 [21]
50. Jacobs, 1961 [28]
51. Longley, Mesev, 2000 [51]
52. Alberti, 2000 [26]
53. Carl, 2000 [24]
54. Walker & Rees, 1997 [25]
55. Marshall, 2005 [53]
56. Nasar, 2003 [54]
57. Williams et al., 1996 [55]
58. Talen & Ellis, 2002 [56]
59. Van & Senior, 2000 [27]
60. Tadi et al., 2017 [58]
61. Burgess, 2000 [59]
62. Manesh et al., 2012 [60]
63. Beer et al., 2003 [61]
64. Jabareen, 2013 [62]
65. Krizek, 2003 [63]
66. Porta & Renne, 2005 [64]
67. Lobo et al, 2013 [98]
68. Hopwood et al., 2005 [99]
69. Dempsey et al., 2011 [100]
70. Leccese & McCormick, 2000 [101]
71. Nelson et al., 2002 [102]
72. Gillham, 2000 [103]
73. Carmona et al., 2021 [74]
74. Newman & Kenworthy, 1989 [104]
75. Hillman, 1996 [23]
76. Oliveira, 2016 [3]
77. Morris, 1994 [105]
78. Dipeolu et al., 2020 [15]
79. Turner et al., 2001 [29]
80. Hough, 1995 [44]
81. Gilbert,1991 [35]
82. Robert et al., 2017 [95]
83. Roelofs,1999 [106]
84. Boonstra, 2000 [107]
85. Girardet, 1992 [13]
86. Paulson, 1997 [108]
87. Todd & Todd, 1994 [109]
88. Hillier,2009 [68]
11. Urban
morphology
relationship
with sustainable
urban(developed
form model
by Authors) [1–8,12–15,17,20–29,31,33,35,37–40,42–44,48–
FigureFigure
11. Urban
morphology
relationship
with sustainable
urban form model
by(developed
Authors) [1–8,12–15,17,20–29,31,33,35,37–40,42–44,48–65,67–69,73–79,82–95,97–109].
65,67–69,73–79,82–95,97–109].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
16 of 20
6. Conclusions
The study developed the model to demonstrate the interrelations between sustainability and urban morphology. The relationship exists and would create a sufficient framework
to support sustainable urban form based on morphological classification. This study strived
to focus on typo-morphological approaches as the limitation of the study which contributed
by integrating the approach based on Kropf’s taxonomy (2017) to scale hierarchy. This
interpretation is thus presented as a rigorous hierarchical structure in order to ease the
complicated assessment. Additionally, the analytical keys are designated in the analysis
stage to reveal the relationship between the two. Thereafter, the morphological analysis
based on the three-scale hierarchy (Micro, Meso, and Macro) derived evaluate the effect
of each level on sustainability, based on their elements within the morphological context.
On the other hand, the indicators of the SUF relationship with the three main sustainable
aspects have been confirmed, based on the interrelations between the indicators and the
sustainability dimension indicators in urbanism. The model is taken as a guideline to test
the SUF types towards analytical tools based on urban morphology. As aforementioned,
this study has also revealed that the seven main factors for evaluating sustainability in
the urban form are intensity, proximity, efficiency, accessibility, diversity, and permeability,
which are the primary organizational factors for urban spatial configuration in terms of
sustainability.
This study reveals that assessment in the field of urban design and an attempt to
upsurge the quality of the urban environment in terms of sustainability is critical. In
this sense, the study has been collected the principles as well as indicators of UM and
SUF (projected on the concept of scale hierarchy), through reviewing the related literature
and the classified framework based on an analytical process to demonstrate the relations
between these indicators.
The outcome put forward is that the SUF is directly related to the urban morphological
scale. The originality of this study will enhance the knowledge base linked to urban
planning and design in respect of the role of urban morphology in sustainable urban
planning. For future studies, the study recommends that the assessment of the sustainable
urban form can be evaluated by conducting other approaches related to urban morphology
rather than the one dealt with in this paper, i.e., Typo-morphology, e.g., the Historicogeographical, Spatial-analytical, or Configurational approach. Additionally, a model can be
designed for the regional scale to raise geographical aspects.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14052884/s1.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M. and B.O.V.; methodology, A.M.; software, A.M.;
validation, A.M. and B.O.V.; formal analysis, A.M.; investigation, A.M.; resources, A.M.; data curation,
A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, A.M. and B.O.V.;
visualization, A.M.; supervision, B.O.V.; project administration, A.M. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52. [CrossRef]
Maretto, M. Sustainable Urbanism: The role of urban morphology. Urban Morphol. 2014, 18, 163–174.
Oliveira, V. Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
17 of 20
Hall, T. Bridging the gap: Applying urban morphology to successful planning practice. Urban Morphol. 2008, 12, 54–57.
Ding, W. Urban design needs urban morphology: A practitioner’s viewpoint. Urban Morphol. 2013, 17, 120–123.
Kropf, K. The Handbook of Urban Morphology, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
Luu, H.T.; Rojas-Arias, J.C.; Laffly, D. The Impacts of Urban Morphology on Housing Indoor Thermal Condition in Hoi an City,
Vietnam. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2021, 5, 183–196. [CrossRef]
Maretto, M.; Gherri, B.; Chiovitti, A.; Pitanti, G.; Scattino, F.; Boggio, N. Morphology and sustainability in the project of public
spaces. J. Public Space 2020, 5, 23–44. [CrossRef]
Scorza, F.; Fortunato, G. Cyclable Cities: Building Feasible Scenario through Urban Space Morphology Assessment. J. Urban Plan.
Dev. 2021, 147, 05021039. [CrossRef]
Frey, H. Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form, 3rd ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [CrossRef]
Kotharkar, R.; Pallapu, A.V.; Bahadure, P. Urban Cluster–Based Sustainability Assessment of an Indian City: Case of Nagpur. J.
Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 145, 04019018. [CrossRef]
Oshrieh, R.; Valipour, E. The Role of Urban Density and Morphology in the Air Pollution of Tehran Metropolitan. J. Contemp.
Urban Aff. 2019, 3, 38–43. [CrossRef]
Girardet, H. Creating Sustainable Cities, 1st ed.; Resurgence Books: Totnes, UK, 1999. [CrossRef]
Silva, Q. The Analysis of Urban Form as an Assessment Tool of Sustainability. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2015.
Dipeolu, A.A.; Akpa, O.M.; Fadamiro, A.J. Mitigating Environmental Sustainability Challenges and Enhancing Health in Urban
Communities: The Multi-functionality of Green Infrastructure. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2020, 4, 33–46. [CrossRef]
Liu, W.; Bai, E.; Liu, L.; Wei, W. A framework of sustainable service supply chain management: A literature review and research
agenda. Sustainability 2017, 9, 421. [CrossRef]
Cuthill, M. Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in
a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 362–373. [CrossRef]
Jenks, M.; Burton, E.; Williams, K. Compact cities and sustainability: An introduction. In The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban
Form? 1st ed.; Jenks, M., Burton, E., Williams, K., Eds.; E&FN Spon: London, UK, 1996; pp. 11–12. [CrossRef]
Sammarco, C. The Substrate and Urban Transformation. Rome: The Formative Process of the Pompeo Theater Area. J. Contemp.
Urban Aff. 2019, 3, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Silva, M.; Oliveira, V.; Leal, V. Urban form and energy demand: A review of energy-relevant urban attributes. J. Plan. Lit. 2017, 32,
346–365. [CrossRef]
Wheeler, S.M. Planning for metropolitan sustainability. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2000, 20, 133–145. [CrossRef]
Dumreicher, H.; Levine, R.S.; Yanarella, E.J. The appropriate scale for “low energy”: Theory and practice at the Westbahnhof. In
Architecture, City, Environment, Proceedings of the PLEA 2000; Koen, S., Yannas, S., Eds.; James & James: London, UK, 2000; pp.
359–363.
Hillman, M. In favour of the compact city. In The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form, 1st ed.; Jenks, M., Burton, E., Williams,
K., Eds.; E & FN Spon: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 36–44. [CrossRef]
Carl, P. Urban density and block metabolism. In Architecture, City, Environment: Proceedings of PLEA 2000; Koen, S., Yannas, S.,
Eds.; James & James: London, UK, 2000; pp. 343–347.
Walker, L.A.; Rees, W.E. Urban Density and Ecological Footprints—An Analysis of Canadian Households. In Eco-City Dimensions:
Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet; Roseland, M., Ed.; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1997; pp. 96–112.
Alberti, M. Modeling the urban ecosystem: A conceptual framework. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2000, 26, 605–630. [CrossRef]
Van, U.P.; Senior, M. The contribution of mixed land uses to sustainable travel in cities. In Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, 1st
ed.; Burton, E., Jenks, M., Williams, K., Eds.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 2000; pp. 139–148.
Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1st ed.; Vintage Book: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [CrossRef]
Turner, R.S.; Murray, M.S. Managing growth in a climate of urban diversity: South Florida’s Eastward ho! Initiative. J. Plan. Educ.
Res. 2001, 20, 308–328. [CrossRef]
Thomas, R. Sustainable Urban Design: An Environmental Approach, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [CrossRef]
Owens, S. Energy, Environmental Sustainability and Land-Use Planning. In MJ Breheny Sustainable Development and Urban Form;
Breheny, M., Ed.; Pion: London, UK, 1992; pp. 79–105.
Barry, R.G.; Chorley, R.J. Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [CrossRef]
Yannas, S. Living with the city: Urban design and environmental sustainability. In Environmentally Friendly Cities; Eduardo, M.,
Yannas, S., Eds.; James & James: London, UK, 1998; pp. 41–48.
Swanwick, C.; Dunnett, N.; Woolley, H. Nature, role and value of green space in towns and cities: An overview. Built Environ.
2003, 29, 94–106. [CrossRef]
Gilbert, O. The Ecology of Urban Habitats; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [CrossRef]
DOE. Greening the City: A Guide to Good Practice; The Stationary Office: London, UK, 1996. [CrossRef]
Arthur, P.; Passini, R. Wayfinding: People, Signs, and Architecture; McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
McGlynn, S.; Smith, G.; Alcock, A.; Murrain, P.; Bentley, I. Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers; Architectural Press:
New York, NY, USA; Elsevier: London, UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
Filomena, G.; Verstegen, J.A.; Manley, E. A computational approach to ‘The Image of the City’. Cities 2019, 89, 14–25. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
18 of 20
Bhagwat, J.M.; Devadas, V.A.R.U.V.E.L. Planning for a sustainable compact city: A way forward. WIT Trans. Ecol. Env. 2020, 241,
113–122.
Ghonimi, I.; Zamly, H. Towards Sustainable New Settlements in Egypt: Lessons Learned from a Comparison between Traditional
and Modern Settlements in Greater Cairo Region–Egypt. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 10, 1–24. [CrossRef]
Scheer, B.C. The epistemology of urban morphology. Urban Morphol. 2016, 19, 117–134.
Meenar, M.; Afzalan, N.; Hajrasouliha, A. Analyzing Lynch’s city imageability in the digital age. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 1–13.
[CrossRef]
Hough, M. Cities and Natural Process: A Basis for Sustainability; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [CrossRef]
Dieleman, F.; Wegener, M. Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environ. 2004, 30, 308–323. [CrossRef]
Forsyth, A.; Crewe, K. New visions for suburbia: Reassessing aesthetics and place-making in modernism, imageability and new
urbanism. J. Urban Des. 2009, 14, 415–438. [CrossRef]
Rising, H.H. The image of the water city. J. Urban Des. 2019, 24, 424–442. [CrossRef]
Bell, S.; Blom, D.; Rautamäki, M.; Castel-Branco, C.; Simson, A.; Olsen, I.A. Design of urban forests. In Urban Forests and Trees;
Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 149–186.
[CrossRef]
Beatley, T. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, K.G. Designing sustainable urban social housing in the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1413. [CrossRef]
Longley, P.A.; Mesev, V. On the measurement and generalization of urban form. Environ. Plan. A 2000, 32, 473–488. [CrossRef]
Bourdic, L.; Salat, S.; Nowacki, C. Assessing cities: A new system of cross-scale spatial indicators. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 592–605.
[CrossRef]
Marshall, S. Streets and Patterns, 1st ed.; Spoon Press: Prague, Czech Republic; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2005.
[CrossRef]
Nasar, J.L. Does neotraditional development build community? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2003, 23, 58–68. [CrossRef]
Williams, K.; Burton, E.; Jenks, M. Achieving the compact city through intensification: An acceptable option. In The Compact City:
A Sustainable Urban Form, 1st ed.; Jenks, M., Burton, E., Williams, K., Eds.; E & FN Spon: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 83–96.
[CrossRef]
Talen, E.; Ellis, C. Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2002, 22, 36–49. [CrossRef]
Van der Ryn, S.; Cowan, S. An introduction to ecological design. In The Ecological Design and Planning Reader, 1st ed.; Ndubisi,
F.O., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 191–202. [CrossRef]
Tadi, M.; Vahabzadeh Manesh, S.; Mohammad Zadeh, M.H. Urban Morphology, Environmental Performances, and Energy Use:
Neighborhood transformation in Rio de Janeiro via IMM. J. Archit. Eng. Technol. 2017, 5, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Burgess, R. The compact city debate: A global perspective. In Compact Cities: Sustainable Urban Forms for Developing Countries, 1st
ed.; Burgess, R., Jenks, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2000; pp. 9–24. [CrossRef]
Manesh, V.; Tadi, M.; Zanni, F. Integrated Sustainable Urban Design: Neighbourhood design proceeded by sustainable urban
morphology emergence. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 155, 631–642. [CrossRef]
Beer, A.R.; Delshammar, T.; Schildwacht, P. A changing understanding of the role of greenspace in high-density housing: A
European perspective. Built Environ. 2003, 29, 132–143. [CrossRef]
Jabareen, Y. Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities
2013, 31, 220–229. [CrossRef]
Krizek, K.J. Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. J. Plan.
Educ. Res. 2003, 22, 270–287. [CrossRef]
Porta, S.; Renne, J.L. Linking urban design to sustainability: Formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in
Perth, Western Australia. Urban Des. Int. 2005, 10, 51–64. [CrossRef]
Conzen, M.R. Thinking about Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932–1998; Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der
Wissenschaften: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2004.
Cowan, R. The Dictionary of Urbanism; Streetwise Press: Tisbury, UK, 2005. [CrossRef]
Sima, Y.; Zhang, D. Comparative precedents on the study of urban morphology. In Proceedings of the 7th International Space
Syntax Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 8–11 June 2009; KTH: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009.
Hillier, B. Spatial sustainability in cities: Organic patterns and sustainable forms. In Royal Institute of Technology, Proceedings of the
7th International Space Syntax Symposium; Daniel Koch, D., Marcus, L., Steen, J., Eds.; KTH: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. Available
online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/18538/1/18538.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2020).
Shayesteh, H. Typo-Morphological Approach to Housing Transformation in Tehran. Doctoral Dissertation, UCL (University
College London), London, UK, 2013.
Carpio-Pinedo, J.; Ramírez, G.; Montes, S.; Lamiquiz, P.J. New urban forms, diversity, and computational design: Exploring the
open block. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04020002. [CrossRef]
Krier, L. Architecture: Choice or Fate; Andreas Papadakis: Windsor, UK, 1998.
Rossi, A. The Architecture of the City; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1982.
Moudon, A.V. Getting to Know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology. In Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design; Franck,
K.A., Franck, K.A., Schneekloth, L.H., Eds.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 289–314.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
19 of 20
Carmona, M.; Heath, T.; Oc, T.; Tiesdell, S. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New
York, NY, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
75. Caniggia, G.; Maffei, G.L. Architectural Composition and Building Typology: Interpreting Basic Building; Alinea Editrice: Firenze,
Italy, 2001.
76. Muratori, S. Studies for an Operative Urban History of Venice; State Polygraphic Institute: Rome, Italy, 1959.
77. Salat, S.; Bourdic, L. Urban Complexity, Scale Hierarchy, Energy Efficiency and Economic Value Creation. In The Sustainable City
VII: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability; WIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 155, pp. 97–107. [CrossRef]
78. Pattee, E. (Ed.) Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems; George Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [CrossRef]
79. Kropf, K. Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Des. Int. 2014, 1, 247–263. [CrossRef]
80. Thom, A.S. Momentum, mass, and heat exchange of plant communities. Veg. Atmos. 1975, 1, 57–109.
81. Salem, B.; Lino, J.A.; Simons, J. A framework for responsive environments. In European Conference on Ambient Intelligence,
Proceedings of the 13th European Conference, Malaga, Spain, 26–28 April 2017; Braun, A., Wichert, R., Mana, A., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 263–277. [CrossRef]
82. Porter, T. Colour Outside, 1st ed.; Architectural Press: London, UK, 1982.
83. Moughtin, J.C.; Oc, T.; Tiesdell, S. Urban Design: Ornament and Decoration, 1st ed.; Betterworth and Heinmann: Oxford, UK, 1995.
84. Lange, B. The Colour of Copenhagen; Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Publishers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1997.
85. Cömert, N.Z. Testing an Integrated Methodology for Urban Typo-Morphological Analysis on Famagusta and Ludlow. Doctoral
Dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Turkey, 2013. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11129/656
(accessed on 28 August 2019).
86. Gauthier, P.; Gilliland, J. Mapping urban morphology: A classification scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of urban
form. Urban Morphol. 2006, 10, 41–50.
87. Filion, P.; Hammond, K. Neighbourhood land use and performance: The evolution of neighbourhood morphology over the 20th
century. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2003, 30, 271–296. [CrossRef]
88. Cataldi, G.; Maffei, G.L.; Vaccaro, P. Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphol. 2002, 6, 3–14.
89. Osmond, P. Micro-scale analysis of urban form: Towards a sustainability toolkit. In The Planned City; International Seminar on
Urban Form: Trani, Italy, 2003; pp. 320–325.
90. Li, Y. A Typo-Morphological Enquiry into the Evolution of Residential Architecture and Urban Tissues of the Guangfunan
Area of Guangzhou, China. Doctoral Dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2013. Available online:
https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/977412/1/Li_MSc_F2013.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019).
91. Gajic, R. Urban morphology as a tool for exploring the land use in residential areas: Example of New Belgrade. Spatium 2015,
2015, 76–83. [CrossRef]
92. Wu, J. Toward a landscape ecology of cities: Beyond buildings, trees, and urban forests. In Ecology, Planning, and Management of
Urban Forests; Carreiro, M.M., Song, Y., Wu, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 10–28. [CrossRef]
93. Newman, P.W. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. Available online:
https://parfikh.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cities-as-sustainable-ecosystem.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2020).
94. Whitehand, J.W. British urban morphology: The Conzenion tradition. Urban Morphol. 2001, 5, 103–109. Available online:
http://www.urbanform.org/pdf/whitehand2001.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2019).
95. Chyung, S.Y.; Roberts, K.; Swanson, I.; Hankinson, A. Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale.
Perform. Improv. 2017, 56, 15–23. [CrossRef]
96. Spearman, C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 1904, 15, 72–101. [CrossRef]
97. Conzen, M.P. How cities internalize their former urban fringes: A cross-cultural comparison. Urban Morphol. 2009, 13, 29–54.
Available online: http://www.urbanform.org/online_unlimited/pdf2009/200913_29.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2020).
98. Lobo, J.; Bettencourt, L.M.; Strumsky, D.; West, G.B. Urban scaling and the production function for cities. PLoS ONE 2013, 8,
e58407. [CrossRef]
99. Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13, 38–52.
[CrossRef]
100. Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social
sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 289–300. [CrossRef]
101. Leccese, M.; McCormick, K. (Eds.) Charter of the new urbanism. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2000, 20, 339–341. [CrossRef]
102. Nelson, A.C.; Pendall, R.; Dawkins, C.J.; Knaap, G.J. The Link between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The
Academic Evidence. Growth Management and Affordable Housing: Do They Conflict. 2002, pp. 117–158. Available online:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/growthmang.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2020).
103. Gillham, O. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
104. Newman, P.W.; Kenworthy, J.R. Gasoline consumption and cities: A comparison of US cities with a global survey. J. Am. Plan.
Assoc. 1989, 55, 24–37. [CrossRef]
105. Morris, A.E.J. History of Urban Form before the Industrial Revolution, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
106. Roelofs, J. Building and designing with nature: Urban design. In Sustainable Cities; Satterthwaite, D., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK,
1999; pp. 234–250.
74.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2884
20 of 20
107. Boonstra, C. Sustainable housing: The Dutch experience. In Sustainable Housing: Principles and Practice; Edwards, B., Turrent,
D., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group; E & FN Spon: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 79–87. Available online: http://students.
aiu.edu/submissions/profiles/resources/onlineBook/u4M3j6_Sustainable_Housing_Principles_and_Practice.pdf (accessed on
27 July 2020).
108. Paulson, B. Toward global sustainable community: A view from Wisconsin. In Sustainable Global Communities in the Information
Age: Visions from Futures Studies; Yamaguchi, K., Ed.; Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT, USA, 1997; pp. 103–113.
109. Todd, N.J.; Todd, J. From Eco-Cities to Living Machines: Principles of Ecological Design; North Atlantic Books: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1994.