Caracterización del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la asignatura

Several models investigating urban performances are available. This research decided to focalize on different typologies of instruments in order to gain the most complete overview of indicators as possible. Nevertheless, instruments were selected considering the nature of approaches and preferring those defining a structured and holistic vision for urban environment. This selection is not to be intended as a systematic evaluation of all models and approaches existing, but as a qualitative representative selection, on an international point of view. 24 total models were analysed divided in ranking instruments (4), EU projects (2), awards (2), thesis (2), tools (1), certification instruments (6) and complete models (7).

The analysis of these instruments put in evidence two main levels of knowledge:

on one side ex ante¹ models, which gives the reflection of an investigation about processes; on the other side ex post² models, which gives the reflection about KPIs for evaluating and measuring strategies. Into this paragraph both analysis are pursued.

Ex-ante models analysis

The research analysed six instruments developed into important institutions and researching centres in USA, Europe and Italy. The first four of them are developed in USA or Europe although the last two are specific for the Italian context. Figure 3.1 shows the investigated instruments.

All these instruments give an approach on Smart, Green or Sustainable cities, aiming at focusing some specific key features. For example The Urban Nexus, developed by ICLEI³ (Local Government for Sustainability) in collaboration with GIZ⁴ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit), develops a model aiming to accelerate the process toward more sustainable cities and for making stakeholder engagement more effective. This model proposes, in

1 With ex ante it is intended a model aiming to address the definition of a strategy or an action chronologically before the beginning of the process.

2 With ex post it is intended a model aiming to evaluate a project or a strategy after its accomplish-ment.

3 See: http://www.iclei.org/urbannexus.html

4 See: http://www2.giz.de/urbanet/focus/urbannexus.asp

Cities indexes and models. A Key Performance Indicator approach

147

ICAR 12 Technology of Architecture - Department of Architecture - Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna

fact, a set of guidelines for designing sustainable urban development solutions.

One of these instruments, it is the optimisation of decision making process, by guiding stakeholders and policy makers around workshops, round tables and task forces. “The approach guides stakeholders to identify and pursue possible synergies between sectors, jurisdictions, and technical domains, so as to increase institutional performance, optimize resource management, and service quality”(GIZ & ICLEI, 2014). As the citation highlights, the model proposes a cross-sectorial approach for stakeholder involvement against the actual silos-thinking approach.

Another interesting model, aiming to accelerate the transition of cities toward more equitable and sustainable systems, is the New Climate Economy one. This is a flagship project of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate⁵, undertaken by seven countries: Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom, in order to examine how countries can achieve economic growth while dealing with the risks posed by climate change.

The NCE Cities Research Programme is led by LSE Cities⁶ at the London School

5 See the website: http://newclimateeconomy.net/

6 See the website: https://lsecities.net/objects/research-projects/new-climate-economy Figure 3.1 Ex ante models analysed

Chapter 3

148

Candidate: Saveria Olga Murielle Boulanger

of Economics. They propose a model based on three pillars: the 3C model. The 3C stay for compact, connected and coordinated urban development. With compact it is intended a compact urban growth where expansion and urban retrofitting is managed at the highest governance level. Into this pillar, they propose to encourage “higher densities, contiguous development, functionally and socially mixed neighbourhoods, walkable and human-scale local urban environments, the redevelopment of existing brownfield sites and provision of green spaces” (Floater

& Rode, 2014). With connected they mean connected infrastructure, in order to promote innovative ways to consider infrastructure, with a great interoperability and integration, but also with the use of innovative technologies (such as Bus Rapid Transit, cycle superhighways, electric vehicles, smart grids, energy efficient buildings and essential water, sanitation and waste services). The third pillar is the coordinated governance necessary for addressing the change and a more integrated urban development.

Unlike the previous two models, conceived as general model, the SC Readiness Guide is conceived as a more practical planning manual. It is developed by the SC Council⁷ (USA) still with the aim of accelerating the transition toward SCs.

The importance of this planning instrument is the collaboration that the Council is having with some of the most important ICT companies all over the world, ensuring a deep comprehension of the current ICT and technologies development.

Hence, this guide is mostly technology/market oriented. The guide proposes a step-by-step approach where the definition of a preliminary vision (or, as they call it, “wish list”) is the starting point for the development of any strategy.

They define a cross-sectorial and interoperable framework compose by SC responsibilities (built environment, energy, telecommunications, transportation, health and human services, waste and wastewater, public safety, payments) and SC enablers (instrumentation and control, connectivity, interoperability, security and privacy, data management, computing resources, analytics). The guideline aims to help cities in finding a holistic strategy with a clear definition of a vision (“where you want to end up?”) and of a timing approach (“where you should start?”) (Berst, Enbysk, Williams, & Caine, 2013). This model is one of the main reference for this research, as it focuses on a step-by-step approach, which can be easier to follow by designers and decision makers. As the SC Readiness Guide, in

7 See the website: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/

Cities indexes and models. A Key Performance Indicator approach

149

ICAR 12 Technology of Architecture - Department of Architecture - Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna

Italy the Osservatorio Nazionale SCs,⁸ in collaboration with Forum PA⁹, developed the Vademecum per la città intelligente: a planning manual aiming to give operational and practical indications for the implementation of smart strategies into Italian cities. The importance of this report deals with the analysis of Italian context and its potentialities as well as with the operative structure of the report in itself.

Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe is a report developed by the European Environment Agency¹⁰ aiming to implement efficient and effective strategies for the SC development. The report addresses stakeholder involvement in urban development in order to support policy development and decision-making process. The importance of this report deals with the lecture of the SC phenomenon and with the proposition of an integrated methodology for the application of adaptation strategies to climate change into the built environment and the urban context. A similar approach undertakes the Architettura per le comunità intelligenti: an Italian reference report, proposed by the Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale¹¹, with the aim of addressing the technological implementation into Italian urban contexts. Table 3.1 summarizes the main characteristics for each model analysed, pointing in addition their importance for the research.

The ex ante models analysis put in evidence several common points:

• the importance for an integrated vision when defining an applicative model for cities development, which is also one of the findings coming out from the best practices analysis (see chapter 2) and (Directorate-General for internal policies- European Parliament, 2014, p. 76);

• the integrated structure of a SC approach, which is not defined by the sum of a series of project, but more as a holistic preliminary vision, then composed by a group of smaller projects;

• several approaches can be used for guiding a city into a smart development, and the main elements which is necessary it contains are stakeholder engagement, resources management, timing approach, economy, mitigation and adaptation to climate change;

8 See the website: http://osservatoriosmartcity.it/

9 See the website: http://www.forumpa.it/

10 See the website: http://www.eea.europa.eu/

11 See the website: http://www.agid.gov.it/

Chapter 3

150

Candidate: Saveria Olga Murielle Boulanger

Name of the model Authors

The Urban Nexus ICLEI

Main points:

- Methodology to accelerate the process for future and more sustainable cities.

- Definition of a step by step approach

- Definition of ways for achieving a real stakeholder involvement and collaboration - Avoid silos-thinking and improve cross-sectorial approaches

Importance for the research:

- Comprehension of a methodological structure and of key elements

- Comprehension of how translate a process for a SC into a complete methodology - Comprehension of the SC phenomenon

- Comprehension of the importance to have an integrated approach

The New Climate Economy LSE

Main points:

- Proposition of a 3C Model for sustainable urban growth where compact urban growth, connected infra-structures and coordinated governance are the main pillars for a sustainable urban development Importance for the research:

- Focus on cross-sectorial problems and challenges for cities

The SC Readiness Guide SC Council

Main points:

- Definition of a step-by-step framework - Analysis of SC potentialities, needs and barriers Importance for the research:

- Framework for smart methodology

Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe EEA

Main points:

- Focus on urban adaptation to climate change Importance for the research:

- More insight in urban adaptation to climate change models

Vademecum per la città intelligente Forum PA

Main points:

- Definition of challenges for the Italian context

- Definition of main feature for the development of SC strategies Importance for the research:

- Approach for the Italian specific context

Table 3. 1 Summary of main analysed models

Cities indexes and models. A Key Performance Indicator approach

151

ICAR 12 Technology of Architecture - Department of Architecture - Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna

• some difficulties still exist in understanding how to simplify and really accelerate the decision making process, however three aspects seem to be fundamental: the definition of a vision, the integrated approach, the timing approach (no transformations can be done in one year).

The ex post models selected can be reasonably divided into four groups: ranking instruments, certification tools, EU funded projects and award applications. The aim of those models is to evaluate, in a holistic way, already existing projects with two different objectives: for ranking models the aim is to compare different cities and projects (comparative approach), for certification tools to evaluate a specific action (analytic approach).

Ex-post models analysis

For the ex post models the research analysed 15 models in total: 4 ranking instruments, 6 certification tools, 3 EU projects, 2 award applications and 1 tool.

Many other instruments are available into the literature but the research decided to focus on the most used instruments having protocols for the application on district level, in Europe or in Italy. In addition, the analysis was focused on instruments developing a complete set of indicators, useful for understanding main key indicators. Figure 3.2 shows the selected instruments.

Ranking instruments aim to compare several cities and signal the most virtuous one. In the field of SCs, one of the first ranking instrument was developed by (Giffinger & Fertner, 2007) with the name of Ranking of medium-sized cities in Europe, being the result of an academic research. They developed not only the ranking with a point system, but they also collect data from several medium-sized cities in Europe into their website, http://www.smart-cities.

eu/. This model divides indicators into six main groups of smartness: economy, people, environment, governance, mobility, living. In 2015 they also implemented a ranking for larger cities. Groups were then divided in 28 domains and in 81 components or indicators. As an example, the environment group contains indicators about air pollution, environmental conditions, ecological awareness and sustainable resource management; while Living is more addressed to creative, cultural, touristic, health and buildings conditions and People is addressed to the analysis of social composition in term of multi-cultural and levels of education.

This ranking instrument is also part of the European project PLEEC, where groups evolved in a 5-based monitoring indicators groups including green buildings (with 6 indicators covering the share of thermal renovation, the presence of NZEB

Chapter 3

152

Candidate: Saveria Olga Murielle Boulanger

and data about population density); mobility and transport, which contains 16 indicators covering from CO₂ emissions, to pedestrian and bicycle penetration, to the parking systems; technical infrastructure with 6 indicators going from waste infrastructure, to smart meters, to district heating; production and consumption, with 9 indicators going from energy demand and CO₂ emissions in industry, to service sector to household income spent on petrol or electricity; to energy supply, with 13 indicators going from solid fuel, to biomass, to solar (Fertner, Groth, Groszse, Read, & Rocco, 2014; Giffinger et al., 2014; Giffinger & Strohmayer, 2014).

As the Ranking of medium-sized cities in Europe, also ICityRate and the SC Index are two ranking instruments. The ICityRate is an Italian ranking developed by Forum PA and built on the basis of 7 groups of indicators: legality, economy, living, environment, people, mobility, governance. It starts from the same groups of the Giffinger model, adding some indicators and the main group of legality. The other main difference with the other rankings is that the ICityRate develop each main sector with 2 sub-groups of indicator, the first one being the analysis of the normal performance of the sector, the second one giving the additional analysis on smartness. So, for example, the sector Living is composed by 6 traditional indicators and 6 smart living indicators: the first group evaluate aspects going

Figure 3.2 Ex post model analysed

Cities indexes and models. A Key Performance Indicator approach

153

ICAR 12 Technology of Architecture - Department of Architecture - Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna

from healthcare and eldercare to education, to social cohesion, while the Smart Living group evaluate aspects such as culture, sharing economy, and connective infrastructure. In the same way, the “traditional” Environment includes indicators going from energy consumption, to green space availability, while the Smart Environment investigates from eco-management aspects, to waste management and air control (Forum PA (a cura di), 2015). The SC Index, instead, is a ranking developed by Between with the Italian Digital Agency. They define the SC as a fluid, friendly, connected, clever and simple city and they develop a model based on 9 thematic areas: smart health (analysing the presence of connected and digital healthcare system), smart education (analysing digitalization in schools), smart mobility and smart government (both analysing the digitalization of sectors), broad band, alternative mobility (which includes EV and mobility sharing and pooling), energy efficiency (smart buildings and smart lighting), renewables (photovoltaic, Aeolian, hydroelectric) and natural resources (waste, water, air management) (Between (a cura di), 2014).

Quite different in respect to the previous one is the European Green City Index, developed by Siemens. The main difference is the target: previous instruments targeted specifically SC, while the Green City Index targets green cities, with means that the investigation is not about digitalization and technologies but about sustainability, vegetation, resource depletion, etc. (R. Dameri & Benevolo, 2013). This index divided indicators in 7 groups: CO₂, energy, buildings, transport, waste and land use, water, air quality and environmental governance (Siemens, 2012). For a complete analysis on green indexes see (Meijering, Kern, & Tobi, 2014), which it is also an interesting study on the field of methodologies and transparency used by rankings.

Certification tools are numerous and cover a wide range of methodologies and application all around the world. From some years, quite all major certification agencies are reflecting about how to extend their product not only on the building dimension, which is their primary object of evaluation, but also on the urban dimension, focusing on the district/neighbourhood dimension and, more rarely, on the entire city (as the case of CASBEE Japan). The research investigates 6 instruments. It is possible to say that the majority of the analysed instruments are structured in similar ways with a specific focus on architecture and construction and, overall with a general focus on new districts instead of acting on existing one. In fact, for example, Green Building Council (GBC) for cities (inside the LEED program) identify 5 steps of analysis of projects applied to the district dimension

Chapter 3

154

Candidate: Saveria Olga Murielle Boulanger

divided in the following groups: localisation and site connections (including indicators of mobility, accessibility, natural resources); organisation and design of the district; infrastructures and sustainable buildings, design innovation and regional priorities (GBC, 2015). Different in respect to the other certification tool is the CASBEE for cities, developed in Japan, which focus the attention on the entire city as a complex system to be analysed and evaluated. The tool is based on the definition of an index (BEE) based on the ratio between Urban Quality and Environmental Load. Indicators are referred to these two elements, which gives the main index. Urban Quality is calculated with indicators divided in environmental quality, economic quality and social quality; while the environmental load is calculated on the basis of the annual CO₂ emissions per capita (CASBEE, 2015). An additional point of interest of this certification tool is the inclusion of a scenario analysis. CASBEE is, in fact, reflecting not only in evaluating the state of the art of cities, but also in addressing the design of actions inside them. In order to make this design more conscious and aware, the tool uses the same expression with quality and load on a scenario perspective: so designers can calculate the BEE index in different scenario of intervention and decide which is the best solution for the analysed city. This element is interesting and important as it focus on future of cities and tries to give a scientific methodology for choosing the most suitable scenario.

The FP7 and H2020 Framework Program from 2014-2015 included both several program for SCs and Communities projects. The aim of the commission was to enhance studies on this field in order to develop effective strategies for the implementation on cities. Under this momentum of great interest by the commissions, several projects born on the topic. One of the most interesting is the City Keys project, which aims to find KPIs for SC evaluation. This project is on-going and the analysis of its deliverables highlight how indicators are not only focused on the digital/technological part of urban system, but more on integrated approaches among sustainability and smartness. In fact, they divide the selection of indicators in 5 main sectors: people, planet, prosperity, governance and propagation. People group includes indicator about health (with innovative indicators describing “encouraging an healthy lifestyle” and “waiting time”); safety (including cyber security); access to services (e.g. “quality of public transport” but also “improved access to vehicle sharing solutions); education (e.g.

digital literacy and environmental awareness); diversity and social cohesion (e.g.

increased participation of vulnerable groups); quality of housing and the built

Cities indexes and models. A Key Performance Indicator approach

155

ICAR 12 Technology of Architecture - Department of Architecture - Alma Mater Studiorum Bologna

environment. The Planet group includes energy and mitigation; materials, water and land; climate resilience (estimated through the Likert scale); pollution and waste and ecosystem. The Prosperity group includes employment, equity, green economy (with green public procurement), economic performances, innovation, attractiveness and competitiveness. Propagation investigates the replicability and scalability potential and the factor of success. This project has interesting points of innovation to be taken under consideration.

To sum up, key performance indicator used for the evaluation of sustainable, green or smart projects are many and they cover a wider range of themes and sub-themes. In Figure 3.3 an analysis of the distribution of indicators in the different sectors is provided, while a more complete list of indicators is provided

To sum up, key performance indicator used for the evaluation of sustainable, green or smart projects are many and they cover a wider range of themes and sub-themes. In Figure 3.3 an analysis of the distribution of indicators in the different sectors is provided, while a more complete list of indicators is provided