IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4590-d187869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Cohen

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613, USA)

  • Geoffrey Habron

    (Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613, USA)

Abstract

Despite growing interests in sustainable urban development, planning lacks unifying themes or directives for achieving sustainability in cities. While professional rating systems provide some guidance, they can be context-specific by country and may at best target weak sustainability as their intended outcome. The United Nations’ New Urban Agenda attempts to offer a singular vision for urban sustainability, and its language appears flexible enough to apply across contexts. In this research, we explore the extent that emergent themes from the New Urban Agenda can guide urban planning for sustainability, specifically in the United States (U.S.). We develop inductive codes from the New Urban Agenda and compare these emergent themes to the content of Asheville, North Carolina’s (U.S.) comprehensive plan, Living Asheville as well as to the STAR Community rating system (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities). We ask how well the New Urban Agenda can align with conventional U.S. planning processes and whether it offers value beyond the contributions of industry-standard practices like STAR Communities. We find that the New Urban Agenda voices common urban sustainability goals while making some new contributions, particularly in areas such as equity and governance. We conclude that in contexts like the U.S., the New Urban Agenda might be best carried out by integrating it into already existing frameworks like STAR, which have already been widely implemented. These conclusions are based on a reading of one case study city, and future research should analyze and compare themes of the New Urban Agenda and STAR and analyze case studies of multiple certified cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Cohen & Geoffrey Habron, 2018. "How Does the New Urban Agenda Align with Comprehensive Planning in U.S. Cities? A Case Study of Asheville, North Carolina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4590-:d:187869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4590/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4590/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maarten Hajer & Måns Nilsson & Kate Raworth & Peter Bakker & Frans Berkhout & Yvo De Boer & Johan Rockström & Kathrin Ludwig & Marcel Kok, 2015. "Beyond Cockpit-ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Schragger, Richard C., 2016. "City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190246662.
    3. Damian Pitt & John Randolph, 2009. "Identifying Obstacles to Community Climate Protection Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(5), pages 841-857, October.
    4. Federico Caprotti & Robert Cowley & Ayona Datta & Vanesa Castán Broto & Eleanor Gao & Lucien Georgeson & Clare Herrick & Nancy Odendaal & Simon Joss, 2017. "The New Urban Agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice," Urban Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 367-378, July.
    5. Eugenie L. Birch, 2016. "A Midterm Report: Will Habitat III Make a Difference to the World's Urban Development?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 82(4), pages 398-411, October.
    6. Ayyoob Sharifi & Akito Murayama, 2015. "Viability of using global standards for neighbourhood sustainability assessment: insights from a comparative case study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Umberto Berardi, 2013. "Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1573-1591, December.
    8. Matthew Cohen, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Romanika Okraszewska & Kazimierz Jamroz & Lech Michalski & Joanna Żukowska & Krzysztof Grzelec & Krystian Birr, 2019. "Analysing Ways to Achieve a New Urban Agenda-Based Sustainable Metropolitan Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Kosovac & Michele Acuto & Terry Louise Jones, 2020. "Acknowledging Urbanization: A Survey of the Role of Cities in UN Frameworks," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(3), pages 293-304, May.
    2. Pamela A. Mischen & George C. Homsy & Carl P. Lipo & Robert Holahan & Valerie Imbruce & Andreas Pape & Weixing Zhu & Joseph Graney & Ziang Zhang & Louisa M. Holmes & Manuel Reina, 2019. "A Foundation for Measuring Community Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Gyula Dörgő & Viktor Sebestyén & János Abonyi, 2018. "Evaluating the Interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals Based on the Causality Analysis of Sustainability Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.
    5. Å pela VerovÅ¡ek & Tadeja ZupanÄ iÄ & Matevž JuvanÄ iÄ & Simon PetrovÄ iÄ & Matija Svetina & Miha Janež & Žiga PuÅ¡nik & Iztok Lebar Bajec & Miha MoÅ¡kon, 2021. "The Aspect of Mobility and Connectivity While Assessing the Neighbourhood Sustainability," Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Richtmann Publishing Ltd, vol. 10, May.
    6. Matthew Cohen, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Jiangang Shi & Kaifeng Duan & Guangdong Wu & Hongyun Si & Rui Zhang, 2022. "Sustainability at the community level: A bibliometric journey around a set of sustainability‐related terms," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 256-274, February.
    8. Siming Yu & Muhammad Safdar Sial & Dang Khoa Tran & Alina Badulescu & Phung Anh Thu & Mariana Sehleanu, 2020. "Adoption and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in China—Agenda 2030," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Peng Wu & Yongze Song & Xin Hu & Xiangyu Wang, 2018. "A Preliminary Investigation of the Transition from Green Building to Green Community: Insights from LEED ND," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Li Zhu & Chen Wang & Ning Huang & Yu Fu & Zhexing Yan, 2022. "Developing an Indicator System to Monitor City’s Sustainability Integrated Local Governance: A Case Study in Zhangjiakou," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Luke Boyle & Kathy Michell & François Viruly, 2018. "A Critique of the Application of Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools in Urban Regeneration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Cociña, Camila & Frediani, Alexandre Apsan & Acuto, Michele & Levy, Caren, 2019. "Knowledge translation in global urban agendas: A history of research-practice encounters in the Habitat conferences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-141.
    13. Melissa Pang & Claudia R. Binder & François Golay, 2022. "Urban sustainability assessment in Geneva: Relevance of the local neighbourhood unit," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(6), pages 1757-1774, July.
    14. Luciane Aguiar Borges & Feras Hammami & Josefin Wangel, 2020. "Reviewing Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools through Critical Heritage Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Kilic, Huseyin Selcuk & Yalcin, Ahmet Selcuk, 2021. "Comparison of municipalities considering environmental sustainability via neutrosophic DEMATEL based TOPSIS," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Sudeshna Kumar & Sumitro Bhaumik & Haimanti Banerji, 2021. "Methodology for Framing Indicators for Assessing Economic-Socio-Cultural Sustainability of the Neighbourhood Level Urban Communities in Indian Megacities: Evidence from Kolkata," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 511-544, April.
    17. Anna Runge & Iwona Kantor-Pietraga & Jerzy Runge & Robert Krzysztofik & Weronika Dragan, 2018. "Can Depopulation Create Urban Sustainability in Postindustrial Regions? A Case from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Francesca Abastante & Isabella M. Lami & Marika Gaballo, 2021. "Pursuing the SDG11 Targets: The Role of the Sustainability Protocols," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Anna Kovacs-Györi & Pablo Cabrera-Barona & Bernd Resch & Michael Mehaffy & Thomas Blaschke, 2019. "Assessing and Representing Livability through the Analysis of Residential Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4590-:d:187869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.