European Planning Studies

ISSN: 0965-4313 (Print) 1469-5944 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

A Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of

Historic Urban Quarters

Beser Oktay Vehbi & Şebnem Önal Hoşkara

To cite this article: Beser Oktay Vehbi & Şebnem Önal Hoşkara (2009) A Model for Measuring the
Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters, European Planning Studies, 17:5, 715-739, DOI:
10.1080/09654310902778201

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310902778201

Published online: 28 Apr 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 478

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20

Download by: [The University of British Columbia Library] Date: 20 July 2017, At: 21:11
European Planning Studies Vol. 17, No. 5, May 2009

A Model for Measuring

the Sustainability Level of Historic
Urban Quarters

BESER OKTAY VEHBI & ŞEBNEM ÖNAL HOŞKARA

Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey, North
Cyprus

(Received April 2007; accepted January 2008)

ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to propose a model for measuring the sustainability level
of historic urban quarters and to indicate an appropriate strategy for their revitalization. Based on
this aim, this study first presents the theoretical review on the concept of “revitalization”, and its
relationship with sustainability; next, it introduces the characteristics, role, selection process and
scaling method of sustainability indicators, which are essential for measuring the level of
sustainability. The paper then, as the main contribution of this paper, proposes the model for
measuring the level of sustainability in historic urban quarters and determines some proposals to
achieve revitalized and sustainable historic urban quarters. Depending on the proposed model,
there is a direct relationship between type and the level of obsolescence (revitalization) and the
level of sustainability in the physical, economic and social structures of a particular area.
Therefore, when the level of sustainability is high in any one of these three structures, it means
that the level of obsolescence is low in the same structures of an historic urban quarter. The
result of this paper leads us to say that, the level of sustainability is a new (additional) input in
the strategic planning process of revitalization and sustainable urban revitalization of historic
urban quarters. Finally, the paper concludes with a brief summary on the general arguments of
the paper.

1. Introduction
The historical buildings and the historic urban tissues, i.e. the witnesses of the past
civilizations as well as the authentic remains, constitute the cultural heritage face of the
historic urban quarters. An historic urban quarter comprises not only the historic buildings,
landscapes and other physical evidence of our past, but also the history of all the commu-
nities who have made their home in a country. It is our physical and cultural heritage.

Correspondence Address: Beser Oktay Vehbi, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Eastern
Mediterranean University, Famagusta via Mersin 10, Turkey, North Cyprus. Email: beser.oktay@emu.edu.tr

ISSN 0965-4313 Print=ISSN 1469-5944 Online=09=050715–25 # 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09654310902778201
716 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

An historic urban quarter is part of our overall environment; it is the historical

dimension, recognizable through the physical fabric of places. The “historic urban
quarter” comprises all evidence of past human activity within a specific part of an historic
city. They have mixed uses, traditional characteristics and specific functions, a historical
identity with a unique local character, a historic fabric and street pattern. They are the
centres of the social, economic and cultural life of the towns (Tiesdell et al., 1996).
Historic buildings and unique street patterns and urban forms/tissue, pedestrian-friendly
streets and vibrant public spaces, which have a mixed function, are the elements of historic
urban quarters.
Historic urban quarters in many developing, as well as developed countries, are, on the
one hand, places of wealth and opportunity—vibrant historic centres of commerce and
culture and, on the other hand, they are places of decline, characterized by a disproportion
of low-income neighbourhoods, decreased economic opportunity and damaged infrastruc-
ture and building stock. Changes of use and re-development in historic urban quarters may
lead to the irretrievable loss of heritage sites and to reduced housing options for the urban
poor. The architectural environment has been undergoing various changes throughout
time and space. These changes are not always positive; they can be negative and even
destructive.
Many of the historic urban quarters in the world are being threatened, physically degraded,
damaged or even destroyed by the impact of the urban development that follows industrial-
ization in societies everywhere. As a result, the physical and socio-economic conditions of
the historic urban quarters do not satisfy the contemporary needs of the people; many people
and activities, therefore, move out of such areas in order to be closer to the contemporary
facilities. These problems contribute to the decrease in vitality, livability and sustainability
of the historic urban quarters.
In order to prevent all these negative impacts of urbanization and improve the physical
and functional structure of such areas, there is a need for conservation and revitalization
strategies. Thus, preserving and conserving the historic urban quarters in terms of their
social, economic and the physical context is necessary in order to achieve vitality and
“sustainability” in such areas.
The aim of conservation is to retain an historic artefact, building or landscape, protect-
ing, as far as is practicable, its fabric and character, while putting it to some practical use in
modern society. The conservation of the historic heritage has a long history with its differ-
ent types of application procedures. There are two different approaches towards the
conservation of historic urban quarters: static or dynamic (Salama, 2000). In respect of
the static approach, the existing buildings of heritage value are preserved and, if possible,
enhanced for posterity. In the dynamic approach, an historic area is developed and revita-
lized as a part of an integrated conservation process, which is the only way to make con-
servation activity “sustainable”. This concept places emphasis on the incorporation of the
principles of protection and management of the cultural heritage into all decision-making
processes, especially in the context of urban planning. Bizzaro and Nijkamp (1997) assert
that integrated conservation provides visions for the use of the built heritage by introdu-
cing new functions or by the rehabilitation of the original functions, in order to bring
life to the area through its revitalization. Integrated conservation is defined in the declara-
tion of Amsterdam as: “the recognition that the protection and enhancement of architec-
tural heritage is not separate from the economic, social, and cultural factors that shape
the environment”. Thus, it emphasizes the use of the built heritage as part of the social
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 717

life of the community and for the benefit of present and future generations; this emphasis
leads us to the idea and concept of “revitalization”.
With these initial discussion points in mind, it can be argued that there are two major
concepts for the conservation of historic urban quarters and, consequently, for their
future survival: revitalization and sustainability. Thus, according to the authors of this
paper, there is a very robust relationship between revitalization and sustainability of his-
toric urban quarters. Based on these arguments presented in the first part of this paper, the
paper will cover a further four main sections. Initially, in the following section, a theoreti-
cal review of the concept of “revitalization”, and its relationship with the issue of sustain-
ability will be presented. Secondly, sustainability indicators will be discussed thoroughly,
with the emphasis and focus on their development and selection processes. The presen-
tation of the model, for measuring the level of sustainability in historic urban quarters
will follow as the main contribution of this paper. Finally, a general conclusion will be
presented to summarize all the arguments of the paper.

2. Revitalization of Historic Urban Quarters

Revitalization is a straightforward conceptualization of conservation, which implies the
protection of historic urban areas as being mainly due to certain intangible aesthetic
value, architectural and environmental values, values as a part of cultural heritage, and
the value of the continuity of the memory of citizens/communities.
Tiesdell et al. (1996, p. 20) argue that revitalizing historic urban quarters involves both
the renewal of the physical fabric and the active economic use, or utilization, of buildings
and spaces. In other words, they indicate that revitalization is a three-way process, which
includes physical, economic and social revitalization. Physical revitalization results in an
attractive, well-maintained physical and public realm. However, as Oc et al. (2007) indi-
cates, physical revitalization alone is unsustainable and relatively temporary or transient.
Historic urban areas often need to retain a viable economic function and in the longer term,
a deeper economic revitalization, together with a social revitalization in order to benefit
from revitalization in the long term.
In addition to this, the determination of which is the most relevant strategic approach for
such areas also plays a major role in making the revitalization successful and sustainable
(Doratli, 2005; Doratli et al., 2007). In order to determine the most relevant strategic
approach, for the future of the area, an analysis of the physical, economic and social struc-
ture of the historic environment is required. In order to develop relevant strategies for revi-
talizing these areas, it is also necessary to identify the values that are worthy of
preservation the type and level rate of obsolescence and the development dynamics of
such areas.
These arguments also support the aim of integrated conservation where the conservation
of historic environments includes not only the physical structure, but also the improvement
of the physical, economic and social structures of such areas.

2.1. Values, Obsolescence and Development Dynamics of Historic Urban Areas

An historic urban core possesses a mix of assets that offer a variety of possibilities for
defining its identity and finds its definition in its buildings, streets, squares and people.
Urban cores in traditional urban environments show the most successful qualities of a
718 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

well-defined urban fabric, architectural unity, order and continuity (Doratli et al., 2004,
p. 331). Accordingly, these areas may embrace a multitude of values such as cultural iden-
tity value (including age, tradition, continuity, political and national values), scarcity value
(resulting from typology, form, period of construction, design of the buildings in these
areas, which makes them unique when compared with more recently built ones), resource
value (the amount of existing housing stock, which can also be considered as an economic
issue), aesthetic value, social and psychological value, political value, environmental
value, educational value (Doratli et al., 2004, 2007).
Considering the inevitable deterioration and decay process of most historic areas,, it
should be noted that obsolescence, i.e. the factors/process contributing to deterioration
and decay, is the underlying concept, which can briefly be defined as “the mismatch
between the services offered by the fabric and the contemporary needs” (Lichfield,
1988). Based on this argument, it might not be wrong to consider obsolescence as a
process as a result of which most of the problems of traditional urban quarters are gener-
ated. Thus, the area may face various types of obsolescence, such as physical/structural
obsolescence, functional obsolescence, locational obsolescence, image obsolescence and
official/legal obsolescence, all of which have been discussed in detail by Tiesdell et al.
(1996, pp. 22– 26) and Doratli (2000).
In addition to obsolescence, it is also possible to claim that there is a mutually exclusive
relationship between the type of obsolescence, in an area and the development dynamics of
that place. Depending on the economic pressure for development in the area, an historic
urban area may face different state of dynamics of development, being high, static or
declining (Çubuk & Dinçer, 1994, p. 227; Doratli, 2000; Oktay, 2005).
According to the result of physical and socio-economic analyses, the values, type and
level of obsolescence and development dynamics of an historic urban area can be ident-
ified. In line with these, the most relevant strategic approach for the revitalization of an
historic urban area can be determined (Figure 1).
Since successful revitalization needs to be of a long-term nature, a short-term strategy—
physical revitalization—cannot be sufficient to implement sustainable revitalization. As
Tiesdell et al. (1996) argues, the physical revitalization of properties in an area will
help to increase confidence in an area with the support of three different modes of
renewal, which are: (i) refurbishments (conservation and consolidation, addressing the
obsolescence of a building in existing use), (ii) conversion (adaptive re-use—the adap-
tation of buildings for new functions or uses) and (iii) demolition and redevelopment—
within the various dimensions of obsolescence (high, static and declining). However,
the maintenance of that confidence also requires economic and social revitalization.
Since different types and intensity of obsolescence would necessitate different kinds of
intervention to ensure revitalization in a long term perspective, there are three different
types of strategic approaches (Tiesdel et al., 1996; Doratli, 2000; Oktay, 2005): (i) func-
tional restructuring; (ii) functional diversification and (iii) functional regeneration.
It should be kept in mind that the economic revitalization together with social revitali-
zation and physical revitalization should be considered as complementary to each other in
order to achieve a successful revitalization of historic urban quarters.
Considering the framework of this study, the relationship between revitalization and
sustainability should be considered for measuring the level of sustainability of historic
urban quarters. This relationship will, therefore, be addressed in the following section
of this paper
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 719

Figure 1. Strategic planning in revitalization diagram (Doratli, 2000; Doratli & Önal, 2000)

2.2. Sustainability and Urban Revitalization

The process of urban revitalization is required when obsolescence is present in the phys-
ical, social and/or functional structure of an area. It is implemented to reduce the amount
of deterioration and to avoid the further decay of the historic environments. As discussed
previously, the urban revitalization process should deal with three systems—physical,
economic and social—of the historic environments in order to be successful enduring
and sustainable. It is assumed that if the urban revitalization process is applied to the
aforementioned three systems, healthy and sustainable historic environments will result;
sustainable communities in such environments can also be handled with the help of
urban revitalization (Oktay, 2005). This idea stems from the concept that a sustainable
community also has the same three components/systems of economics, environment
and society.
Sustainability is about meeting basic human needs and wants. People value their health,
economic security and happiness and that of their children. These are primary elements in
relation to the issue of quality of life. Sustainability refers to “long-term economic,
environmental, and community health” (Bauen et al., 1996, p. 4). According to Bauen
et al. (1996), it was suggested that researching and identifying new ways of creating econ-
omic vitality, maintaining a healthy environment and building healthy communities and
meeting local needs.
The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) formulated the well-known definition of sustain-
able development as, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
720 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs”.
Sustainability principles of cities and or part of cities (historic urban quarters) in devel-
oped and developing countries shows many similarities, the differences are even larger,
the scope of the problems more extreme and the resources to deal with them considerably
fewer. Furthermore, the level of underdevelopment in developing countries may be cause
for despair, but it also provides an opportunity for development to avoid the problems
experienced in developed countries, by following a more sustainable development path.
The developed world, which owes its wealth and high standard of living to its inhabi-
tants, would naturally emphasize the dimensions or aspects denominated as ecological and
geographical/spatial sustainability. As a result, this approach has often ended up neglect-
ing the social dimensions. The developing world, however, comes from a people-centred
view of development, which recognizes that ultimately it will be the behaviour and choices
of people that determine the success or failure of sustainable developmen/sustainability.
In its deeper meaning, sustainability has ethical and moral connotations that imply attitu-
dinal changes and value re-orientation. Therefore, the success of the sustainability in any
part of cities depends on each individual’s conscious choice to adopt or reject the prin-
ciples of sustainable development. Sustainability in developing countries will therefore
only become feasible if it meets the needs and requirements of the people in these
countries and does not conflict with their culture and values.
Having reviewed the literature, it can be stated that the sustainability of historic urban
quarters can be achieved by basing the research on the wholistic understaing of it, which
means by taking its environmental, social and economic dimensions into consideration.
Sustainable community and/or city can be achieved by improving and adapting the econ-
omic, social and physical environments of cities in order to achieve the required global
standards of the urbanization process. Historic environments, in particular, lose functional
and economic viability and their scarcity, have obsolescence in their urban fabric and
buildings, social polarization and exclusion due to the urbanization. In order to prevent
the possible problems in historic urban quarters, it is necessary to activate economic
and social process and finalize physical conservation (Tiesdell et al., 1996). This approach
is a transposition of sustainable urban revitalization, which also means preserving and car-
rying the social, economic and physical structure for future with dealing with social equity,
environmental preservation and economic development (Oktay, 2005). As also Abu-Orf
(2006) states, the revitalization of historic cities contributes to sustainable development
through the recycling of derelict land and buildings, thus reducing demand for peripheral
development and facilitating the land of compact cities.
In other words, the two different concepts, sustainability and revitalization, are directly
related. Accordingly, depending on the three-dimensional characteristics of sustainability
and revitalization, the relationship between these two concepts is explained in Figure 2.
Based on this relationship, the sustainability of the historic urban environments can
only be possible with a “sustainable urban revitalization” process. This process involves
sustainable physical revitalization, sustainable economic revitalization and sustainable
socio-cultural revitalization simultaneously (Oktay, 2005). In other words, the improve-
ments in the physical, economical and social life of historic urban environments will
create sustainable environments, in all three dimensions, in these areas (Figures 2 and 3).
Sustainable physical revitalization is intended to improve the physical/environmental
sustainability and address issues related to making minimum use of renewable and
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 721

Figure 2. Sustainability of historic urban quarters

non-renewable resources, recycling of resources, protect and enhance the built environ-
ment, safeguard historic buildings, attend to the redevelopment of abandoned open
areas, enhance the landscape and provide green spaces in historic urban areas, etc. Sustain-
able economic revitalization is intended to lead to economic sustainability (competitive-
ness) that is related with meeting the human needs and improving the living conditions.
This revitalization process addresses the issues that are related to mixed land uses,
tourism and high-income people with job opportunities.
The concept of sustainable socio-cultural revitalization is intended to lead to social sus-
tainability/equity or social cohesion and it addresses those issues that are related to social
equality, justice and freedom. The local inhabitants of an historic area need to feel and see
that they are not a part of the physical improvements of the built environment. They should
be involved in the conservation efforts in a participatory process that allows them to voice
their opinions in reshaping their environment, thereby increasing their trust in the insti-
tutional system.
Accordingly, the aims of sustainable urban revitalization can be summarized as follows.

. Maintaining and enhancing the community’s cohesion through its neighbourhoods.

. The protection of the special physical characteristics that enhance neighbourhoods,
maintain a sense of place and sustain area identity.
722 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

Figure 3. The model for sustainability of historic urban quarters

. The preservation and rehabilitation of facilities and neighbourhoods that are part of a
community’s diversity.
. The preservation of the community’s local historic, archaeological and cultural heritage.
. A commitment to community revitalization to prevent the decline of old, historic areas
and to ensure that a variety of living, working and leisure opportunities are provided in
these areas.
. The preservation, enhancement and revitalization of the city centre’s residential and
commercial neighbourhoods as the community continues to grow and mature.
. The redevelopment and reinvestment in the community’s mature areas, through urban
revitalization, innovative programs, context-appropriate infill development and redeve-
lopment efforts.
. Incentive programmes that encourage context-appropriate infill development in more
mature areas of the city.

According to those aims of sustainable urban revitalization and depending on the

sustainable urban revitalization model, it can be argued that: “sustainable historic urban
environments can be achieved only through the revitalization of three structures, physical,
economic and social, of such areas”. To explain this relationship more succinctly, we may
argue that in order to achieve sustainability at all the aforementioned three levels, economic,
physical, social, urban revitalization should also be sustainable at all three levels (Figure 2).
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 723

After emphasizing the strong relationship between the two concepts—revitalization and
sustainability—and in respect of the stated main aim of this paper, which is to measure the
level of sustainability in historic urban quarters, the following text will first present
detailed information on those sustainability indicators, which are essential in order to
set up a measuring model; following this, the model for measuring the level of sustainabil-
ity in historic urban quarters will be presented.

3. Sustainability Indicators
Since sustainability includes the issue of the speed or rate of change, the size of the mass
involved in the change and thus the inertia of the process, as well as the significance of
the amount and rate of change relative to the initial and resulting states, which is, in fact,
more related to time, any comprehensive approach to indicators for sustainable develop-
ment must include both new types of indicators and new methods of quantifying and
accounting for sustainability over time. Any measure of balance cannot look only at the
static situation of any given moment, it must examine measures integrated over time to
document processes and trends. Such accounts should include past trends leading up to
the present and projections of what will be needed to achieve or maintain sustainability
in the future.
Sustainability indicators must: reflect stakeholder concerns, be usable by decision-
makers and relevant to policy issues, address the carrying capacity of the natural resource
base and ecosystem services, both locally and globally, address linkages among various
indicators, provide a focus and reliability in the long term, consider equity—both intra-
generational (among current site users) and inter-generational (among current and
future site users)—address economic, social and environmental concerns, measure the
goal accurately, be clear and understandable to the general public, consider the avail-
ability and credibility of data, as well as the expense of obtaining it, be results-oriented,
be attractive to the media, deal with risk, uncertainty and irreversibility, address the res-
toration of nature, focus on no net loss of human and natural capital and be designed to
allow for comparison of current sites and long term trends (Maclaren, 1996; Kotval, 2001;
Sustainable Measures, 2004; Hargroves & Smith, 2005; US EPA, 2005; Wedding &
Crawford-Brown, 2007).
Depending on this argument, it is necessary to define sustainability indicators for
measuring the level of sustainability of any urban area.
Sustainability indicators are the numerical tools used to measure changes in the
physical, economic and social structures of an urban area. According to Maclaren
(1996), urban sustainability indicators such as environmental, economic and social are
integrated, forward looking and distributional. Again, according to Maclaren (1996), sus-
tainability indicators are usually site specific, and indicators designed to measure progress
toward sustainability in one urban area may not be appropriate for another urban area
(Maclaren, 1996). To be useful, indicators must be able to tell us:

(a) whether sustainability in settlements is improving or deteriorating in relation to

certain sustainability criteria or desirable targets and
(b) how these trends are linked to the trends in spatial structure, urban organization and
lifestyles.
724 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

Sustainability indicators for a community are used to give an overall indication of that
community’s economic, environmental and social conditions in respect of sustainability,
which, taken as a whole, they tell whether or not it is possible to maintain these systems in
the long term, or if they are being degraded. Since we cannot actually assess when a com-
munity has become truly “sustainable”, sustainability indicators cannot tell us how far we
have to go, but they can inform us if we are moving in the right direction.
In order to develop effective and good indicators, which clearly address the sustainabil-
ity of historic urban quarters; it is important to recognize that these indicators need to be
specific for historic urban quarters, as Maclaren (1996) and Vehbi et al. (2007) argued.
Therefore, the formulation and selection method of sustainability indicators is necessary
to develop for this purpose.

3.1. Formulation and Selection of Sustainability Indicators

As community sustainability needs to be defined by the community in question, itself
(Innes, 1990, p. 35), it is essential that the same community also determines what measures
are useful in the measurement of progress towards its definition of sustainability. There-
fore, a broad community process with representation from diverse groups is necessary
to develop good community sustainability indicators.
For this paper, two approaches by two different authors—Vemuri (1978) that was
adopted by Rasmussen and Dalsgaard (1994) later and Mitchell’s (1996) approaches—
are used for formulating or selecting sustainability indicators. The first method that was
formulated by Vemuri in 1978 and adopted by Rasmussen and Dalsgaard (1994) helps
to provide a context for the indicators with which to gauge success in achieving sustainable
community goals. However, only indicators that are directly related to goals are used.
Again, complex issues that combine environmental, economic and social factors may be
overlooked.
This method starts with the goal of the decision-maker, but for measuring how well this
goal is fulfilled, it is necessary to dissolve the goal into a number of objectives, central to
fulfilling the goal. These objectives (B1, B2, . . .) can further be further divided into
causing factors (C1, C2, . . .) and finally into indicators (D1, D2, . . .), which can be
measured and are quantifiable.
The second and similar method is largely based upon Mitchell’s (1996) work in the UK.
In a broad sense, the community begins with the concept of “sustainability”, then identifies
its component parts (issues), selects indicators to accurately reflect the presence or absence
of that dimension and then evaluates the final indicator set. The specific steps of the
method are as follows.
Step 1: Principles and definitions. The first step in the indicator development process
involves the identification of the definition and the principles of sustainability. The com-
munity embarking on this project must identify which definition they are employing and
on which specific principles they are basing their project. This step should be carried out
through an extensive public participation process; however, in cases where that has
already been done; a review of prior planning documents should elucidate clear principles
and definitions for the community.
Step 2: Selection of issues. After a consensus is reached on the principles and definitions
of sustainability, the next step is the selection of the issues or components of sustainability
for a particular community. There are a number of core issues, which “are applicable to
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 725

any community” like energy consumption and water quality (Mitchell, 1996, pp. 6 – 12).
But the issues for a community’s indicator project must also include the important local
concerns. This step of the process can best be done through a review of the literature to
determine the global issues and matching that against local concerns raised through
public participation or prior planning activities. It is helpful at this stage to pose the rel-
evant issues as questions (i.e. rather than stating that the economy is an issue, it is more
useful to ask “is the economy healthy?”) (Table 1).
Step 3: Construction of indicators. After the relevant issues have been identified and put
into the form of a question, step 3 simply provides a scientific way to answer those ques-
tions. Indicators may already exist in the literature, which can be borrowed or adapted for
the purpose of answering an issue question. For example, to answer the question “is the
economy healthy?”, an indicator, which could be utilized, is the unemployment rate.
According to Mitchell et al. in the cases where indicators are not readily available, new
indicators may need to be constructed: “this construction should be done in consultation
with those having relevant subject-knowledge” (1995, p. 114).

Table 1. Construction of indicators as a result of enquiring as to causing factors

(Mitchell et al., 1995)
Issues Indicators

Economy
1. Is the economy healthy?
Social
2. Is the community healthy socially?
Public health
3. Are members of the community healthy?
Transportation
4. Are adequate transportation facilities
available?
Natural resources
5. Are local natural resources in adequate
supply to meet future needs?
6. Is biodiversity intact?
7. Is energy consumption excessive?
Environmental quality
8. Is the local environment healthy?
9. Is the regional environment healthy?
10. Is waste generation reasonable?
11. Is waste recycled?
1A. Unemployment rate
2A. Number of arts or cultural events/
performances on public sites
2B. Number of public recreational events
3A. Percentage of mothers with adequate pre-
natal care
3B. Total chronic disease related deaths per
100,000 population
4A. Road conditions-level of service
4B. Percentage of commuters using transit
5A. Water consumption vs. supply
5B. Percentage use of renewable energy
6A. Size, shape and composition of wildlife
habitat areas
7A. Kilowatts of electricity consumed per 1000
sq. ft. of developed space
8A. Water quality in ground waters
9A. Watershed water quality index
9B. Open Space and Recreation Plan in place?
10A. Total solid waste per capita
11A. Percentage of solid waste recycled
726 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

Step 4: Evaluation of the indicators. Since there are many criteria “available” for the
purposes of achieving good sustainability indicators, the evaluation process includes
many stages. That is why the fourth step of the indicator development process, which is
that of evaluation, will be explained and outlined in more detail.

3.2. Evaluation of Indicators Through Some Criteria

A critical analysis of the evaluation criteria established by previously discussed literature
reveals great consistency among the many approaches. The following nine criteria were all
used by three of the leaders in sustainability indicator development, Atkisson (1998),
Maclaren (1996) and Mitchell et al. (1995):
. relevance,
. validity,
. consistency and reliability,
. measurability,
. clarity,
. comprehensiveness,
. cost-effectiveness,
. attractiveness to the media,
. comparability.

In addition to these nine criteria, “accessibility to data” can also be considered as the
10th criteria, which are suggested by Hart (1999).
There are also many other sets of criteria (Sustainable Seattle, 1995; Liverman, 1998).
They range from the simple (the efficiency, equity, integrity, manageability of Opschoor &
Rejinders, 1991) to the complex. Hart (1995) believes that the best measures may not have
been developed yet, but suggests the following criteria:

. multi-dimensional, linking two or more categories (e.g. economy and environment),

. forward looking (range 20 to 50þ years),
. emphasis on local wealth, local resources, local needs,
. emphasis on appropriate levels and types of consumption,
. measures that are easy to understand and which display changes,
. reliable, accurate, frequently reported data that are readily available,
. reflects local sustainability that enhances global sustainability.

The consistency found in the criteria used by other communities as well as the character-
istics of good sustainability indicators discussed earlier suggests several criteria to use
when developing indicators. In order to address the quality of the data to be used,
indicators should be evaluated through these seven criteria (Taylor Norris Associates,
Redefining Progress and Sustainable Seattle, 1997, pp. 25– 26; Hart, 1999) as to
whether they are:

. accessible and affordable

. measurable
. comparable (standardized)
. relevant
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 727

. consistent & reliable

. valid
. credible

To emphasize sustainability and usefulness to the community, the indicators should also
be evaluated in terms of how they will be used. Accordingly, the answers to the following
questions will be evaluated:
Do they:

. balance local and non-local concerns?

. make linkages and relationships?
. compel, interest, excite?
. relate to the whole community?
. focus on resources and assets?
. show an understandable character?
. lead by focusing on causes, not symptoms? (Taylor Norris Associates, Redefining
Progress and Sustainable Seattle, 1997, pp. 25 – 26; Hart, 1999).

These criteria can serve as guidelines that can then be translated as needed. In addition,
many communities have added additional criteria. In practice, not every indicator can
meet all of the criteria; however, the package of indicators as a whole should represent
these themes.
In order to facilitate the use of the chosen criteria, they can be framed as questions that
are clearly articulated and phrased in such a way as to be accessible to diverse groups of
people. If these questions are developed at the beginning of the process in a way that is
consistent with the overall goals of the indicator project, they will help to facilitate discus-
sion and decision-making during the actual selection process. They will also help to mini-
mize disputes. For example, if two community members have a different understanding of
what “relevant” means in this context, the formulated questions can help the groups in
question to work through these differences in order to support the achieving of a
common understanding.
After completing the evaluation process of the relevant and good indicators for urban
areas, the testing method of those selected sustainability indicators is developed.

3.3. Testing Methods of Sustainability Indicators

During this research, many methods of measuring sustainability have been considered.
Specialists in the area of sustainable development have developed lots of different ways
in which to test sustainability (Cunningham et al., 2004; Randall, 2004). However, to
date, no one way has been accepted, so the only way forward is to keep developing
ideas and refining them until certain frameworks are accepted.
Literature review shows that (Breheny, 1993; Cunningham et al., 2004; Randall, 2004),
the measuring or testing sustainability is carried out focusing on the comparisons between
urban areas or same area in different periods.
Five categories of methods have been developed for use in the assessment and analysis
of environmental effects and sustainability. These methods are checklists, scaling and
weighting techniques, overlays, matrices and networks. For this paper, the scaling
728 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

technique is used to measure sustainability. Scaling of effects addresses the issues of mag-
nitude and is based on a numerical system in which the highest number represents a very
good effect and the lowest number represents a very adverse effect. The mid-point would
be an average effect or a neutral one. This measure can be used alone to determine some
composite score for magnitude or it can be combined with a weighting scheme to incor-
porate considerations of importance or significance.

3.4. Quantification and Scaling of Indicators

By definition, indicators have a quantitative aspect, a value expressed as a number or a
series of numbers, sometimes in graphical or other pictorial form. Once indicator values
are obtained by some type of measurement process, the question arises as to whether
the raw numerical value should be used in its original form or whether it should be con-
verted into some other scale.
Original data assume that the raw numbers collected in the field or in a survey can
be employed directly in the form in which they were obtained. In some cases, two or
more sources of original data are combined in order to clarify the significance of the
information.
Some types of indicators are simple and are immediately understood by everyone
without further manipulation or conversion of the numbers. For example, literacy would
commonly be measured in percentage terms; it would be clear to anyone that 80% literacy
is better than 40% literacy. Furthermore, in the case of literacy, there is an obvious poorest
value or lower limit (0%) as well as an almost universally accepted optimum or goal
(100%).
Qualitative attributes are sometimes given a numerical score. For example, using a scale
of 1 to 5 in a sustainability study, the following definitions could be applied to qualitative
assessments of some activity or process:

1—unsustainable in all respects

2—approaching unsustainable conditions
3—partially sustainable
4—sustainable in most aspects
5—highly sustainable

For this paper, the scale of “1 to 5” is used for the scaling of indicators and measuring the
sustainability.
After stating the necessities of sustainability indicators, their selection and scaling
methods for measuring the level of sustainability of any urban area, it is now necessary
to adapt those methods in respect of the revitalization historic urban quarters.

4. The Model
Based on the relationship between sustainability and revitalization of historic urban quar-
ters as discussed previously, the possible outputs of physical, economic and social revita-
lization on the one hand and the indicators of environmental sustainability, economic
sustainability and social sustainability on the other hand need to be determined in order
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 729

Figure 4. The model for measuring the level of sustainability of historic urban quarters

to achieve sustainable urban revitalization indicators which will lead us to measure the level
of sustainability in historic quarters as is indicated in the model presented in Figure 4.
As can be seen from the table, this model, in general terms, includes four major inter-
related steps.

1. The first step is the identification of the possible outputs of urban revitalization. Since
the purpose of this paper is to put forward the relationship between urban revitalization
730 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

Figure 5. Possible outputs of physical, economic and social revitalization

and sustainability, the first step aims to identify the possible outputs of physical, econ-
omic and social revitalization (as in Figure 5). They are determined with the support of
literature reviews and conservation examples from different countries.
2. The second step is concerned with the identification of sustainability indicators. The
suitable, measurable and accessible economic, environmental and social indicators
of sustainability are selected, among many others. Those which can fit these possible
outputs of urban revitalization are also taken into consideration. They are selected
from different examples for the purpose of the paper, such as the Habitat Agenda,
the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (UNCHS) (1996), Indicators
Programme, as well as other indicator programmes such as the CEROI initiative
(Cities Environmental Reporting on the Internet), the Neighborhood Sustainability
Guide Book (1999), Sustainable Seattle (1995), OECD (1997) Urban Indicators and
Internet.
3. Matching the possible outputs of urban revitalization outputs and sustainability indi-
cators in order to identify the indicators of sustainable urban revitalization or to see
the relationship between urban revitalization and sustainability (Table 2).
4. All indicators under three sub-systems (Economic, environmental, social) are separ-
ately grouped under common issues, i.e. the causing factors.

However, on application of the model to a selected case study area, i.e. to a selected
historic urban quarter, the relevant sustainability indicators should be determined for
the selected area and this requires further steps which will be presented in the following
text:
Table 2. Matching the possible outputs of urban revitalization and indicators of sustainability in respect of the causing factors (Indicators of
Sustainable urban revitalization).

Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters

Sustainable urban revitalization indicators

Economic indicators Environmental (physical) indicators Social indicators

Economy Environmental quality Income

. Ratio of locally/nationally owned . Pollution levels: water, air, noise, visual . Income level
business in comparison with national/ pollution . Household income disparity
international business . Energy-transport . Mixed income
. Unemployment Rate . Energy-space heating . Poor households
. Employment diversity . Rent-to-income ratio
Transport
(Rate of privately owned business to . Accessibility level (Block size- Crime
public business) interconnected street, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks) . Level of safety
. Local handcraft production rate
. Transportation (Variety of mode of . Crime ratio
. Level of income
transportation, to find out mixed . Safety
. Land and property prices (min./max.
transportation; bicycle, walking, vehicle) Health
Property prices) . Proportion of car parking spaces to built up
. Property prices to income level . Sense of well-being
area . Proportion of population who find their living environment
. Rent al prices to income level
. Pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets
good
Tourism . Public transportati6on
. Ratio of recreational, leisure activities to number of
. Ratio of tourism facilities in the area
Land (obsolescence indicators- area/ building inhabitants
. Number and size of recreational, cultural
condition) . Variety of community facilities (educational, health
and spiritual sites . Structural condition of buildings facilities)
Development Costs . Proportion of various functions and green . Existing laws and regulations on urban revitalization
. Maintenance cost spaces sufficient of insufficient
. Land value . Ratio of built up areas to open areas (Density . Accessibility of green space
. Infrastructure of buildings) . Availability of local services
. Ratio of buildings that worth to be preserved . Accessibility of local services
. Ratio of incompatible uses . Availability of Local Public Open Areas and Services
. Number / Ratio of listed buildings . Household connection to infrastructure

731
(Continued)
 732
B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara
Table 2. Continued
Sustainable urban revitalization indicators

Economic indicators Environmental (physical) indicators Social indicators

. Rate of historical buildings with adaptive re- . Number of people using recreation facilities (aware of
use social and cultural facilities)
. Proportion of preserved/restored buildings Household
. Rate of redevelopment of abandoned open . Home ownership rate
space and old areas to the old pattern . Age
. Vacancy rate . Population
. Percentage of green space in built-up areas . Cultural/Racial Diversity
. Rate of multi-used buildings . Civic Involvement
. Ratio of solids-voids . Duration in Neighborhood
. Type of public gathering spaces
. Rate of use of local construction materials Housing
and techniques in new development . Mixed choice of housing
. Rate and number of public open space with . Level of participation in decision-making process

recent intervention (percentage of inhabitants who are involved in actively

involve at least one local community or voluntary
organization)
. Floor area per person
. Housing price to income ratio
. Housing tenure types
. Housing affordability
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 733

Table 3. Indicator development process for a selected case study area for application of the
model (adapted from Vemuri, 1978; Mitchell, 1996)

In order to select the relevant indicators for a possibly selected case study area, the
indicator development process for a specific case study area is developed by combining
two different methods as aforementioned. One of these methods belongs to Mitchell
(1996) and the second one belongs to Vemuri (1978), which was adopted by Rasmussen
and Dalsgaard (1994). Based on this adaptation, the site-specific indicator selection
process in this paper has 11 steps (Table 3).

a. Identification of the goal of the community: As previously explained, the “indicator

selection process” includes community participation, and the suitable or appropriate
indicators are determined by consulting the community. However, the indicator selec-
tion in this paper has been carried out by the authors themselves, since it was not poss-
ible to select the indicators, which should have involved the community participation
process due to the exigencies of time. The goal will be defined according to the needs of
a case study area.
b. Identification of the objectives of the goal: Depending on the defined goal for a specific
case area, the objectives are needed to achieve this goal.
c. Determining the causing factors of the each objective depending on the characteristics
of a specific case study area.
d. Construction of indicators by enquiring about the causing factors.
734 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

e. Having the initial indicators list. This list generally consists of indicators, which not all
may be relevant to a particular case study area. In order to understand their relevance,
the next step should be completed.
f. Evaluation of indicators: Testing out the relevance of the initially selected indicators
for a specific case study area.
g. Having the final indicators list for a specific case area.
h. Meaning and objectives of the selected indicators.
i. Selection of a method for measuring the indicators.
j. Analysing the natural, built and socio-economic environment of a case study using
multi-dimensional analyses methods (i.e. historical and locational analysis; land-use
survey; architectural survey and evaluation; survey of traffic and transportation;
social survey; Lynch analysis; urban pattern analysis, townscape analysis, lost space
analysis, etc.)
k. Measuring the selected indicators and finding out the level of sustainability in the
selected case study area.

After completing the measurement of the sustainability level in the natural, built and
socio-economic structures of an historic urban quarter, it is fundamental to relate these
measures to the revitalization process, since the authors of this paper argue that there is
a strong relationship between these two concepts. In the following part, the proposals
will be discussed in order to prove this relationship and to have more sustainable historic
urban quarters.

4.1. Proposals for the Sustainability of Historic Urban Quarters

Based on the proposed model and the relationship between the two concepts, “a sustain-
able revitalization strategy” in the “physical, economic and social environments” of
historic urban quarters requires application in order to make them more sustainable. As
previously stated, successful urban revitalization in historic urban quarters can only be
achieved by identifying and applying the most relevant strategic approach. However,
for a sustainable urban revitalization process, the level of sustainability should also be
determined before identifying the most relevant strategic approach for historic urban
quarters. In other words, the types of values, the type and level of obsolescence, develop-
ment dynamic and the level of sustainability in historic urban quarters should be deter-
mined through analysis in natural, built and socio-economic structures of historic urban
quarters before suggesting the strategic approach.
At the end of the analysis stage, the results will lead to the development of a strategy for
the sustainability of these areas as an integral part of the sustainable urban revitalization
process, which is presented in Figure 6.
As aforementioned, there are three strategic approaches in the revitalization process.
Accordingly, there will be three proposals according to the level and types of obsoles-
cence, sustainability and development dynamics in order to achieve more sustainable
historic urban quarters. The first strategic approach is determined by whether the area
has a high resource value with physical obsolescence, high development dynamics and
a high sustainability level.
The presence of physical obsolescence in an historic urban quarter indicates that a rela-
tively high percentage of the buildings are old and in poor structural condition and that the
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 735

Figure 6. Strategy for sustainable urban revitalization in historic urban quarters

physical condition of the majority of the buildings does not meet contemporary standards.
The possibility of high development dynamics, which are accepted as an historic urban
quarter is still an attractive proposition for its current use and/or for alternative uses.
The local population still prefers to remain in their environment and they are also inter-
ested in protecting their environment. In respect of these results, an historic urban
quarter, where physical obsolescence and high development dynamics is present, it is
necessary to implement physical revitalization as a short-term strategy and functional
regeneration as a long-term strategy.
In the second proposal, the strategic approach is applied when an historic urban
quarter has only a partially sustainable position due to the presence of physical and func-
tional obsolescence in the physical structures and problems in the socio-economic struc-
ture. If an historic urban quarter has physical and functional obsolescence, the
development dynamics are in a static state. An historic urban quarter is threatened by
physical and functional obsolescence if it is in poor structural condition, has an increas-
ing vacancy rate, contains very old buildings, shows an increase in incompatible uses,
shows a lack of maintenance, has out dated sanitary systems and conditions, shows
decreasing ownership, has decreasing rental of properties, shows evidence of changes
736 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

in the social composition and flight from area (Tiesdell, 1996; Doratli, 2000; Doratli &
Onal, 2000). According to these results, the proposal should be to implement physical
revitalization as a short-term strategy and functional diversification as a long-term econ-
omic revitalization strategy to increase the attractiveness and sustainability level of his-
toric urban quarters.
The third proposal is applied when an historic urban quarter is in an unsustainable
condition and demonstrates a high degree of physical, functional and locational obsoles-
cence. If an historic urban quarter has these three types of obsolescence, the development
dynamics are in a declining and/or deteriorating state. In this state, an historic urban
quarter has a high percentage of poor buildings, a high level of incompatibility in
respect of building uses and a high vacancy rate. The social structure of this type of historic
urban quarter has also very probably changed and it will house a population in a higher
socio-economic deprivation category (Doratli, 2000). Following the identification of
these problems in respect of an historic urban quarter, it is now time to determine the
most appropriate strategic approach to establishing the reality of sustainable urban revita-
lization. As shown in Figure 1, functional restructuring, as well as physical revitalization,
is also necessary in order to render the area suitable for and compatible with contemporary
standards and expectations and, therefore, more sustainable.

5. Concluding Remarks
This paper has set out a theoretical framework based on the inter-related concepts and
approach of “sustainable revitalization”, and it has used these concepts to propose a
model for measuring the level of sustainability in historic urban quarters.
In setting out to test the applicability of this approach in measuring the sustainability of
historic quarters in any urban area, it is stated that each case study site needs to have differ-
ent set of indicators according to the differences in their geographic, economic, social and
environmental structures. In other words, indicators may vary in their relevance according
to the local environment and the final purpose of their measurement and monitoring (and
the practicality of this measurement). It is important to keep in mind that sustainable urban
revitalization in historic urban quarters depends on the successfully chosen sustainability
indicators. These indicators should be measurable, relevant and highlight linkages among
economic, social and environmental structures and besides the selection requires long-
time and public participation.
It is also important to involve the community in the process of the selection of the indicators
in order to ensure that the indicators are valid for the area and its inhabitants and to support
their success and sustainability. In actual fact, the selection process of the indicators should
be characterized by loops and feedback between the various people involved (most impor-
tantly, the various local project teams and as aforesaid, the inhabitants of the study areas).
This research has also indicated that there is direct relationship between revitalization
(and thus the type and the level of obsolescence) and the level of sustainability in the struc-
tures of a particular area. Therefore, when the level of sustainability is high in any one of
these three structures (physical – economic – social), it means that the level of obsolescence
is low in the same structures of an historic urban quarter. In other words, if an historic
urban quarter has locational and functional obsolescence, the result of this paper leads
us to say that the physical structure of an historic urban quarter might be found to be in
a partially sustainable state.
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 737

As concluding remarks, it is worth mentioning at this point that, the proposed model has
already been applied and tested on two comparable historic urban quarters in Northern
Cyprus, Kyrenia Liman Arkası Quarter and Walled City of Famagusta. However, this is
a pioneering work of the subject, which aims to constitute the basis of further research.
While applying the proposed model on the case study areas, some positive and negative
aspects have been observed as such. On the one hand, this model can be regarded as a
useful tool in measuring the level of sustainability of historic urban quarters. In other
words, after application of the model, a strategic approach for creating more sustainable
historic urban quarters can also be developed based on the qualitative and quantitative
data. Thus, the model introduces a new input for strategic approach to the revitalization
of historic urban quarters which also leads to more sustainable quarters. These aspects
can be regarded as the positives of this model. On the other hand, as a part of the
model, a lot of data, especially for indicators, are needed. However, data of some of the
indicators cannot be reached properly and therefore the measures of them are needed to
be based on observations in case study areas. This subjectivity may affect the overall
result in comparing the level of sustainability in the concerned case study areas, which
might be the negative point of this model.
Together with its positive and negative aspects, it can be argued that the proposed model
provides various opportunities to be applied in similar and/or different contexts and
scales, to be repeated within the same context(s) periodically in order to make comparisons
of change based on place and/or time.

References
Abu-Orf, H. (2006) Revitalization Nicosia: How does revitalization contribute to sustainable development? in:
IAPS 19 Conference Proceedings on CD-Rom, September 11–16, Alexandria, Egypt.
Atkisson, A. (1998) The Community Indicators Handbook: Measuring Process Toward Healthy and Sustainable
Communities (Seattle: Diane Books Publishing Company, Redefining Progress).
Bauen, R., Baker, B. & Johnson, K. (1996) Sustainable Community Checklist, 1st ed. (Graduate School of Public
Affairs, University of Washington Seattle: Northwest Policy Centre).
Bizzarro, F. & Nijkamp, P. (1997) Integrated conservation of cultural built heritage, in: P. S. Brandon et al. (Eds)
Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (London: E&FN Spon, an Imprint of Chapman and
Hall).
Breheny, M. J. (Ed.) (1993) Sustainable Development and Urban Form. In European Research in Regional
Sciences Vol. 2, pp. 138–159 (London: Pion).
Cunningham, B., Battersby, N., Wehrmeyer, W. & Fothergill, C. (2004) A sustainability assessment of a biolu-
bricant, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(3–4), pp. 179–192.
Çubuk, M. & Dinçer, İ. (1994) Koruma Planlaması ve Uygulaması Sürecinde bir Model ve Eleştirisi: Parsel
Ölçeğinde Denetim ve Danışmanlık Sistemi, in: M. Çubuk (Ed.) 1. Kentsel Koruma ve Yenileme Uygulama-
lar Kolokyumu (Nisan 7 –8, 1993, Mimar Sinan Universitesi, İstanbul
Doratli, N. (2000) A model for conservation and revitalization of historic urban quarters in Northern Cyprus,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University.
Doratli, N. & Onal, S. (2000) Urban design strategies in historic environments: evaluation of nicosia arab ahmed
quarter revitalization project from a strategic planning approach, Papers presented at First International
Urban Design Week: Urban Design– A Multidisciplinary Approach Tool to the Urban Environment, May
29–June 2, 2000, Istanbul, Turkey: Mimar Sinan University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of
Urban and Regional Planning.
Doratli, N. (2005) Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the most relevant strategic
approach, European Planning Studies, 13(5), pp. 749–772.
Doratli, N., Hoskara, S. O. & Fasli, M. (2004) An analytical methodology for revitalization strategies in historic
urban quarters: A case study of the walled city of Nicosia, North Cyprus, Cities, 21(4), pp. 329–348.
738 B.O. Vehbi & Ş.Ö. Hoşkara

Doratli, N., Hoşkara, Ö. Ş., Oktay, B. & Fasli, M. (2007) Revitalizing a declining historic urban quarters—
The walled city of Famagusta, North Cyprus, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 24(1),
pp. 65–88.
Hargroves, K. & Smıth, M. (2005) The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunity, Innovation, and
Governance in the 21st Century (London: Earthscan/James and James).
Hart, M. (1995) Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (Ipswich, Maine: QLF/Atlantic Center for Environ-
ment).
Hart, M. (1999) Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators (North Andover, MA: Hart Environmental Data).
Innes, J. (1990) Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers).
Kotval, Z. (2001) Measuring the effectiveness of downtown revitalization strategies, in: C. Balsas (Ed.) Urbanism
Comercial em Portual, Necessidade de uma Nova Gesiao Urbana (Lisbon, URBE and CMPV), pp. 43– 49;
cited in C. Balsas. 2004. Measuring the livability of an urban centre: An exploratory study of key perform-
ance indicators, Planning, Practice, and Research, 19(1), pp. 101– 110.
Lichfield, N. (1988) Economics in Urban Conservation, p. 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Liverman, D. M., Hanson, M. E. & Merideth, R. W. (1998) Global sustainability: Toward measurement,
Environmental Management, 12(2), pp. 133–143.
Maclaren, V. V. (1996) Urban sustainability reporting, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2),
pp. 184–203.
Mitchell, G. (1996) Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators, Sustainable Development,
4(1), pp. 1–11.
Mitchell, G., May, A. D. & McDonald, A. T. (1995) PICABUE: A methodological framework for the develop-
ment of indicators of sustainable development, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology, 2(2), pp. 104–123.
Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guide Book (1999) How to create neighborhood sustainability
indicators in your neighborhood, produced for the Urban Ecology Coalition (Minneapolis), Crossroad
Research Center, Minnesota. [Online]. Available at http://www.crcworks.org/guide.pdf (accessed
February 2008).
Oc, T., Tiesdell, S. & Heath, T. (2007) Design in historic environments, in: S. O. Gur (Ed.) Proceedings:
Livenarch III: Contextualism In Architecture, 3rd International Congress—Liveable Environments &
Architecture, July 5– 7, Trabzon, Turkey, Vol II, pp. 343–367.
OECD (1997) Indicators for Urban Policies (Paris: OECD).
Oktay, B. (2005) A model for measuring the level of sustainability of historic urban quarters: Comparative case
studies of Kyrenia and Famagusta in North Cyprus, Unpublished PhD thesis, Eastern Mediterranean
University, Famagusta, North Cyprus.
Opschoor, J. B. & Rejinders, L. (1991) Towards sustainable development indicators, in: O. Kuik & H. Verbruggen
(Eds) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, pp. 7–28 (Kluwer Academic Tyler Norris et al.).
Randall, S. (2006) The sustainable development of Oxford City [Online]. Available at www.brookes.ac.uk/
schools/rem/dissertations/2000/sarah_randal.html
Rasmussen, S. & Dalsgaard, M. T. (1994) Systemanalyse & systemsprog—manual til beskrivelse og analyse af
landbrugsbedriften. Notat, Sektion for Økonomi, KVL. p. 48.
Salama, A. M. A. (2000) Cultural sustainability of historic cities: Notes on conservation projects in Old Cairo, in:
IAPS-16, IAPS 2000 Conference, METROPOLIS 21st Century, Cities, Social Life, and Sustainable
Development.
Sustainable Measures (2004). Sustainable community indicator checklist. [Online]. Available at http://www.
sustainablemeasures.com/Indicators/ChecklistItself.html (accessed February 2008).
Sustainable Seattle (1995) Indicators of Sustainable Community: A Status Report on Long-term Cultural, Econ-
omic and Environmental Health for Seattle/King County (Seattle, WA: Sustainable Seattle).
Taylor Norris Associates, Redefining Progress and Sustainable Seattle (1997) The Community Indicators Hand-
book (San Francisco, CA: Redefining Progress).
Tiesdell, S., Taner, O. & Tim, H. (1996) Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters (London: Architectural Press).
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (1996) Habitat II, World Assembly of Cities and Local Auth-
orities, May 30– 31, Istanbul.
US EPA (2005). Green communities: Indicators. Available at http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/ (accessed 20
August 2008).
 Model for Measuring the Sustainability Level of Historic Urban Quarters 739

Vehbi, O. B., Hoskara, E. & Hoskara, S. (2007) Assessing the level of sustainability in housing environments:
A theoretical approach, in: Sustainable Urban Areas-ENHR International Conference, June 25– 28,
Rotterdam.
Vemuri, V. (1978) Modeling of Complex Systems—An Introduction, 446 pp. (New York: Academic Press).
Weddıng, G. C. & Crawford-Brown, D. (2007) Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments:
A focus on sustainability and green building, Journal of Environmental Management, 85(2), pp. 483–495.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future (The Brundtland
Commission). (Oxford: Oxford University Press).