SUSTAINABLE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: A REVIEW1 · Departamento de Engenharia Industrial SUSTAINABLE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: A REVIEW1 Aluno: Ana Luiza Carvalho Ferrer Orientador: Antônio

Departamento de Engenharia Industrial

SUSTAINABLE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: A REVIEW1

Aluno: Ana Luiza Carvalho Ferrer

Orientador: Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé, D.Sc.

Introduction

Nowadays the majority of the world population lives in cities, for the first time in human

history, and 66% of this population might live in urban areas by 2050 [1]. About 80% of the total

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from cities, with 25% attributed to urban transportation,

32% to urban built environment, and an additional 5% to municipal solid waste. Urban

transportation accounts approximately 20% for the global energy consumption and urban built

environment responds to an additional 25% [2]. Climate change and the additional burden it

imposes on the environment, economy, and life of the population aggravate concerns of

sustainable urban infrastructure (SUI), including deleterious effects in urban water management

[3], urban heat island effects [4], pavement production and construction [5], among others.

Urban infrastructure (UI), by itself, is a multifaceted concept that goes beyond a set of

engineered utilities. It is equally a place for local governance, intertwining issues of economic

growth, climate change, and municipal waste. There are different levels to tackle UI issues as

well, from supranational institutions, to national, regional, and local governments. The UI

functioning affects regulators, consumers, citizens, businesses, and households alike [6]. From an

engineering perspective, it refers to engineered systems that provide water, energy, transport,

sanitation, information, and built environment. It covers irrigation (e.g. dams, locks, and canals),

facilities (e.g. schools or hospitals), and municipal utilities (e.g. electric, telecommunication, gas,

water, and wastewater along with urban street and highway elements) [7]. In this sense, the urban

space is a place for extreme pressure and for political and economic power, as much as a set of

engineered utilities and facilities.

The sustainability concept is relatively new and it encompasses a multidisciplinary field

made of engineering, environmental, economic, and social sciences [7]. Sustainability in the

definition of the Brundtland Commission is the ability to meet the needs of the present generation

without compromising the chances of the future generations to fulfil their own needs [8 and 9].

Under the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, sustainability encompasses social, economic, and

environmental concerns [10]. Sustainability is an all-inclusive concept designating a process of

achieving human development over time and space, embracing the interdependencies of the

ecology with social and economic aspects, in an equitable and safe manner that requires

technological, scientific, and political discernment [11 and 12]. In this context and borrowing

from Martos et al. (p. 480) [2], “a sustainable, resource efficient city can be defined as a city that

is significantly decoupled from resource exploitation and ecological impacts and is socio-

economically and ecologically sustainable in the long term.”

The SUI multidisciplinary and multi-layered concept evolved over time. This paper aims to

disentangle the prevailing themes pursued under SUI and to respond two basic research questions

(RQ): RQ1 – What are the prevailing themes in sustainable urban infrastructure; and RQ2 – How

did the themes of sustainable urban infrastructure evolve? The study comprises this introduction,

followed by the description of the methodology of the literature review and basic statistics.

Results from citation, co-citation, and co-word analyses ensue. Conclusions close the paper.

1 Artigo aceito para publicação em Resources, Conservation & Recycling (Extrato CAPES/Qualis A2 em

Engenharias III)


Methodology

This section comprises the methods and basic statistics from the systematic literature

review (SLR) and methods applied to the longitudinal analysis of the thematic areas.

A. The systematic literature review and basic statistics

A SLR was conducted using the Thomé et al.’s [13] step-by-step approach. This approach,

based on [14], consists of eight basic steps: (i) planning and formulating the problem; (ii)

searching the literature; (iii) data gathering; (iv) quality evaluation; (v) data analysis and

synthesis; (vi) interpretation; (vii) presenting results; and (viii) updating the review.

For the first step, the co-authors of this paper gathered to clarify and discuss the SUI

concept, defining the research questions and expected research results. This step anticipated the

attainment of a taxonomy of themes, an understanding of their evolution over the past years, and

possible impending areas of this study.

The second step comprised selecting databases, defining search keywords and applying

exclusion criteria for papers, with no time restrictions. Elsevier’s Scopus database was selected

for its vast abstract and citation collection of over 22,000 journals [15]. At first, the search

keywords were “urban infrastructure” and “green” yielding 258 papers. Next, the keyword

“sustainab*” (referring to any keyword produced by the combination of the root “sustainab” and

a suffix) was added, resulting in 645 papers. The inclusion of the keyword “environment*”

expanded the selection to 1,180 papers. The limiting of the search by document type (articles,

conference papers, reviews, and articles in press) refined the search to 1,059 papers. Moreover,

the exclusion of papers published in languages other than English, narrowed the selection to a

final set of 995 papers. The full bibliographic reference is available upon request to the

corresponding author.

For the third and fourth steps, the co-authors of this paper used basic statistics on the

selected papers with Scopus’ built-in bibliometric software that provides basic statistics on

research subject areas, publications per year, journals, institutions, citations, and h-index per

authors, among others. The h-index definition is simply the number of papers with citation

number ≤ h and it is a measure of the influence of a publication, a Journal or an author in the

research field [16].

The top SUI subject areas have not surprisingly spread over several research fields denoting

the SUI eminent multi-disciplinary nature. With 367 and 346 papers respectively, social sciences

and environmental science have clearly been the most common subject areas with roughly one

third of all papers each. It is also worth to mention that 294 papers have been classified in

engineering, 130 in earth and planetary sciences, and 114 in computer science. Agricultural and

biological sciences; business, management, and accounting; energy; and medicine have figured

equally among the top ten recurring subject areas. The prominence of publications from the social

and environmental sciences reflects on the co-citation analysis and in the approaches to SUI

adopted by the most cited authors analysed in Section B of the Results.

The first published paper dated back to 1984 and until 1995 there was a yearly average of

three papers. A sudden increase has occurred after 1996. As of 1999, there has been a continuous

and exponential growth in the number of documents published until today, with a peak in 2015,

the year with most papers issued (132 publications). The distribution of papers by journals enlists

131 different sources, reflecting a large array of multidisciplinary sources. The top eight journals,

ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations, are related to urbanism and/or the


environment. The number of publications and the total number of citations have not strongly been

related since only one of the top five journals in number of papers was equally among the top five

in number of citations (Pearson-r = 0.39; p<0.1). In other words, the most prolific sources have

not always been necessarily the ones carrying the larger impact in the research field. Moreover,

of the top ten research institutions, ranked by number of citations, four have been located in

Europe, five in North America, and one in Asia (China).

Data analysis and interpretation are the fifth and sixth SLR steps [13]. Data analysis resorts

to qualitative content analysis using an inductive approach [17], complemented with quantitative

co-citation and co-word analysis of papers selected for the systematic review, as described in the

next section. This paper corresponds to step seven of the SLR, presentation of results. The

updating of the review would be step eight. However, updates are beyond the scope of this study.

B. Bibliometric analysis of thematic areas

Two key assumptions of bibliometrics drive the analysis: co-citation denotes relatedness of

authors treating the same subject and co-occurrence of keywords indicates common themes [18].

A co-citation occurs when paper A and paper B quote paper C. Two keywords co-occur when

word A and word B are associated in at least one document. A document with two or more

keywords from a list of keywords is a “core document.” If the document has only one keyword

association it is classified as a “secondary document” [19].

BibExcel [20] software prepared the matrix of co-citations and generated the clusters of co-

citation applying Persson’s party clustering algorithm [21 and 22]. Pajek software [23]

(http://mrvar.fdv.uni-lj.si/pajek) prepared the network analysis. SciMAT software provided the

dynamic co-word longitudinal analysis of themes [24 and 25]. The SciMAT software uses

Callon’s thematic strategic diagram [25 and 26] to depict the co-occurrence of keywords in a

bipartite graph showing the density and centrality of co-occurrences. The co-occurrence is

measured by the index eij = cij2 / cicj, where eij is the equivalence index, cij is the number of

documents in which two keywords i and j co-occur, ci and cj are the number of documents in

which each one occurs [19]. Clusters are formed with the application of the ‘simple centre

algorithm’ [19, 22 and 27]. Centrality is calculated as c=10∑ 𝑒𝑘ℎ, where k is a keyword

belonging to the theme and h a keyword belonging to other themes. It is a measure of the

interaction among networks of keywords. A network of keywords denotes a theme and centrality

is a measure of the inter-relations among themes. Density is calculated as d=100(∑ 𝑒𝑖𝑗/𝑤),

where i and j are keywords belonging to the theme and w is the total number of keywords in the

theme. It measures the internal strength of the network or theme. The Callon’s thematic diagram

has four quadrants represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – The Callon’s thematic diagram [26]

DE

NS

ITY

Hig

h

Isolated themes Core themes

Lo

w Emerging or

declining themes Central themes

Low High

CENTRALITY

http://mrvar.fdv.uni-lj.si/pajek


From top right clockwise, the diagram displays the core themes with high centrality and

high density. Central themes are also key for the research field, but not well developed: they

combine high centrality with low density and they should be explored further. Emerging or

declining themes present low centrality and low density. Isolated themes are usually well-

researched areas with high density, but of marginal value for the research field as denoted by low

centrality.

The longitudinal analysis of themes consists in the observation of themes in successive

periods. It is measured by the inclusion 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =#(𝑈 ∩ 𝑉)

𝑚𝑖𝑛(#𝑈,#𝑉) . U and V are disjoint sets in a

bipartite graph, in which the edges can only connect elements from the subset U to the subset V.

The inclusion index varies between zero (non-inclusion) and one (if the elements of V are fully

contained in U).

Results from the citation, co-citation, and co-word analyses

The results section presents first the most prolific and influential SUI authors, based on

the number of publications and the h-index. The co-citation and co-word analyses ensue.

A. The citation analysis

The ten most prolific authors (with greater number of publications) are predominantly

from civil and environmental engineering. They are located in Europe, North America and Asia.

It is equally worth to mention that Rieradevall and Gabarell are frequent co-authors, as well as

Zhu and Bamler. Some authors have large h-index, indicating an influential position in the field.

As it was the case in the analysis of the most prolific journals (Section A of the Methodology),

the most prolific authors are not necessarily the most influential ones (the correlation between the

number of papers and the h-index is not statistically significant, with Pearson-r = - 0.018).

B. The co-citation analysis

The co-citation analysis examines the relationship between papers cited together. This

method allows the outlining and better understanding of a research area [20]. The network in

Figure 2 illustrates the co-citation relationships between the top 23 papers with the greater

number of citations. The first author’s name only and publication year identify papers in the

graph, to facilitate readability.

There are a larger cluster led by Star [28] and by Peck and Tickell [29] and four smaller

clusters with two nodes each. The larger cluster emphasized the relationship between society and

infrastructure. The smaller clusters focused on modernity, urban metabolism, predicting future

deteriorations of infrastructure systems, and urban ecology. Jacobs [30], Huang [31], Ariaratnam

et al. [32], and Grimm et al. [33] respectively led them. The description of cluster is in

chronological order.


Figure 2 – SUI co-citation network

The main theme in the cluster made-up of Jacobs [30] and Kaika and Swyngedouw [34]

was modernity. Jacobs [30] led the cluster by condemning modernist urban planning policies in

the 1950s, which she argued were responsible for the destruction of numerous communities in

inner cities. Kaika and Swyngedouw [34] then resumed the topic by addressing the shift in

perception of urban technological networks (particularly water) from esteem in early modernity

to invisibility in high modernity, representing the failure of the modernist “ideology of progress.”

The cluster formed by Huang [31] and Sahely et al. [35] had urban metabolism as its

theme. Huang [31] used ecological energetic analysis to link urban economic and ecological

systems. Although this association had been oftentimes overlooked, Huang believed in

interdependency between both systems. Sahely et al. [35] used urban metabolism as a tool to

gather fundamental information about infrastructure in cities. Both authors used of case studies to

strengthen their findings.

Within the larger cluster, Star [28] led on one end by studying the relationship between

ethnography and infrastructure. For Star [28], infrastructure was both relational and ecological,

linking technical systems to both society and environment. Graham and Marvin [36] supported

Star’s [28] view of a relational aspect of infrastructure by taking up on the conflicting social

interests regarding privatization and its consequences to the urban community. They believed that

privatization frequently resulted in the creation of an alternative infrastructure network, purposed

to serve privileged members of society, which, in turn, led to what Graham and Marvin [36]

called “splintering urbanism.” Citing Star [28], Graham and Marvin [36] also brought to light the

overlooking and “invisibility” of urban networks, which usually only became evident at the event

of an infrastructural collapse.

In his book “Planet of Slums”, Davis [37] scrutinized the unexpected and still exponential

growth of slums. He investigated the bleak long-term effects that the alienation from world

economy of these low-income and improvised housing projects might have in cities. Davis [37]

cited Graham and Marvin [36] on the MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain)


doctrine, which expanded upon both Graham and Marvin’s [36] “splintering urbanism” and

Davis’ [37] views.

Gandy’s [38] findings concurred with Star [28] and Graham and Marvin [36]. Gandy [38]

used water systems to point out the humongous disparity between post-Industrial Revolution

urban ideals and actuality. Instead of closing in XIX century ideals of dialogue between

infrastructure and citizen needs, most present-day cities have actually pulled away from it. The

drop in investments on infrastructure and the prioritization of private over public demands attest

the existence of polarized rather than functional urban metabolic systems.

Geels [39] looked into the co-evolution of society and technology and he explored socio-

technical systems in cities by incorporating a social factor to sectoral systems of innovation.

Combining institutional theory to the aforementioned systems, he built a hierarchical multi-level

perspective (MLP), describing from bottom-up transformations in niches (places of radical

innovations), regimes (a set of stabilizing rules and paradigms for innovation), and landscape (the

broader surrounding spatial arrangements of cities, factories, highways, and electricity

infrastructure that cannot be changed at will). The distinction is important because it is a lens

used by Hodson and Marvin [6], among others, to analyse further the UI in the second decade of

this century.

At another end, Peck and Tickell [29] introduced neoliberalism to the larger cluster,

suggesting the transformative potential of this economic theory and identifying its role in city

governance. Peck and Tickell [29] also called attention to how neoliberalism could shape cities in

a local sphere. Similarly, Brenner [40] identified in his work that key cities or spaces could be

crucial to transformations at a national level. With this, he proposed a “rescaling of statehood”

and a development of unprecedented forms of state power based on city governance.

Co-cited by Star [28], Graham and Marvin [36], Gandy [38], Geels [39], Peck and Tickell

[29], and Brenner [40], Gullberg and Kaijser [41] were pivotal in bringing together the two initial

branches of ethnography and political economy. Combining the interrelation between urban and

technology studies from Star [28] and local transformations from Peck and Tickell [29], Gullberg

and Kaijser [41] studied urban morphological transformations as resulting from the connection

between buildings and networked landscapes. They proposed “City-Building Regime,” a novel

approach that encompassed both political and economic aspects. Gullberg and Kaijser [41] also

demonstrated a concern for urban environmental sustainability, which appeared for the first time

in this cluster.

Smith et al. [42] proceeded with socio-technical transitions. Within an array of transition

scenarios, regime changes occurred as a result of selection pressures. Governance affected

transitions, regulated by factors such as regime association, resource circulation, and public

expectation. Co-citing Star [28] and Graham and Marvin [36], Hommels [43] resumed the themes

of linkages between technology and urban studies. He criticized the lack of dialogue between

both fields and resistance in changing this condition. Emphasizing the importance of this

dialogue, Hommels [43] hoped for the start of a common ground between technology and urban

studies. Paralleling Graham and Marvin’s [36] remark about the UI “invisibility,” Hommels [43]

presented the scarcity of technology research in urban studies.

Gandy [44] used cyborgs as a metaphor for cities. Cyborgs are “hybrid creatures, composed

of organism and machine”; like cities, they have both a human feature and a technological

feature. Gandy [44] went beyond traditional areas of urban study and deepened into the “cyborg

city”: a city embodied by information rather than material circulation. He highlighted social

polarization and obsolete remnants of modernity in metropolitan environments in contemporary

cities. Gandy [44] did not co-cite any works prior to his and he was co-cited solely by McFarlane


and Rutherford [45], which also had connections to Gandy [38], Gullberg and Kaijser [41], and

Smith et al. [42]. McFarlane and Rutherford [45] reinforced the impact of politics and

governance on infrastructures, a topic previously presented by Gullberg and Kaijser [41] and

Smith et al. [42], by analysing three aspects: fragmentation, inequality, and crisis. They also cited

Gandy [44] on urban fabric and they mentioned the increase in social research on infrastructure.

McFarlane and Rutherford [45] presented, still again, the “invisibility” of infrastructures in cities

by citing Gandy [38]. In an unprecedented manner, however, McFarlane and Rutherford [45]

defied Gandy’s [38] view and argued “Infrastructures have always mattered.”

With Hodson and Marvin [46] and Monstadt [47], ecological sustainability was finally

solidified within this cluster, illustrating the somewhat recent global interest in the subject.

Hodson and Marvin [46] analysed urban ecological security (UES). The newfound and increasing

universal concern for UES and sustainability as a whole had produced a fresh demand for

approaches to ensure secure ecological and material growth. With this in mind, Hodson and

Marvin [46] analysed current secure urban and resilient infrastructure (SURI) strategies and

obstacles and they suggested alternatives and directions of study. A central work in his cluster,

Monstadt [47] identified the massive impact infrastructure had on urban ecology, among other

areas. As do Hodson and Marvin [46], Monstadt [47] also believed in the need for novel

approaches involving infrastructure reconfiguration in order to guarantee environmental success.

Judging current strategies inadequate, Monstadt [47] considered cooperation among urban and

technology studies in search for alternative solutions for SUI. Finally, Hodson and Marvin [6],

citing Graham and Marvin [36], observed that UI plays a key role in the success of cities. This

led them to debate whether or not cities have the power and capability to shape socio-technical

transitions. Hodson and Marvin [6] found evidence to support that some global cities indeed

made efforts to transform paradigmatic regimes of governance. Citing Smith et al. [42], they also

examined multi-level perspective (MLP) of city transformation based on landscape, regimes, and

niches of innovation.

The cluster composed of Ariaratnam et al. [32] and Baur and Herz [48] focused on

predicting future deteriorations of infrastructure systems. While Ariaratnam et al. [32] led the

cluster by proposing a methodology for forecasting the failing of a given infrastructure system

based on previous deterioration models, Baur and Herz [48] concentrated on the prediction of the

deterioration of sewers.

Whilst other clusters were either lacking or had environmental sustainability as a

secondary theme, the cluster containing Grimm et al. [33] and Evans et al. [49] addressed urban

ecology. Grimm et al. [33] led the cluster by presenting the topic of global and local

environmental change. They stressed the challenges faced by sustainability with the universal

growth of urbanization. With a more specific take, Evans et al. [49] gave continuity to the matter

with their article on urban avian assemblages, advocating the need for conservation of developed

areas.

The social sciences research clearly marked the UI field from the beginning and

progressively moved towards incorporating sustainability. The analysis of most influential

authors in this field based on the total number of citations received suffers from the effect of time

lag, attributing a heavier weight to more ancient and fundamental research, as older papers have

more time to accrue citations. The analysis of the evolution of themes from the co-word analysis

in the next section partially overcomes this time lag effect, looking into contributions that are

more recent.


C. The co-word analysis

To allow a more in depth co-word analysis and further understanding of the evolution of

themes, documents were divided into two successive periods: 1984-2009 and 2010-2015; the first

period with 379 documents and the latter period with 616 documents. SciMAT used the

keywords exported from the Scopus database to build the thematic clusters; they were: cities,

investments, urban-area, developing-countries, environmental-impact and storm-water for 1984-

2009, and climate-change, urban-infrastructure, cities, storm-water, life-cycle and vulnerability

for 2010-2015. It is important to notice that all 995 documents were electronically analysed and

scrutinized for the co-occurrence of keywords. After classifying the papers in different thematic

clusters, the core documents (those with more than one co-occurrence of keywords)

corresponding to up to 80% of total citations in each thematic cluster were hand selected for full

text reading and content analysis. In total, 55 documents were selected: 20 from the first period

and 35 from the latter.

For each cluster, documents were subdivided into core and secondary documents

(documents with a single co-occurrence of keywords in the thematic network). The thematic area

was analysed based on the full text of the 55 papers responding to 80% of total citations in each

cluster and period.

Figure 3 illustrates the number of keywords per period, those keywords that reappeared in

the following period, and those keywords that did not.

Figure 3 – Overlapping map of keywords of the two periods

The number of keywords went from 240 in 1984-2009 to 367 in 2010-2015, a 53%

growth. It indicates that the SUI thematic scope is diversifying. Of the 240 keywords introduced

in the first period, 88% reappeared in the following period, that is: 28 words did not reappear and

212 words remained. This high number of keywords remaining in the two periods shows some

consistency in the main SUI thematic areas. In 2010-2015, there was an addition of 155 new

keywords as compared to 1984-2009, which is a characteristic of somewhat new and still

evolving research fields.

Figure 4 depicts the SUI thematic evolution. The association strength, represented in Figure

4 by the thickness of the lines connecting each cluster is calculated according to the inclusion

index (see Section B of the Methodology). The continuous lines represent a name association

between thematic clusters (either two clusters have the same name in consecutive periods or one

thematic cluster contains the other one) and the dotted lines represent associations regarding

aspects other than name. The sphere sizes correspond to document count.

1984-2009 2010-2015


Figure 4 – SUI thematic networks evolution of the two periods

In the first period, the thematic clusters had a somewhat evenly distributed document count.

Investments and urban area, however, could be identified as having the greatest document count;

followed by cities, developing countries, and environmental impact; and finally storm-water with

slightly less documents. In the second period, urban infrastructure had a discernibly larger

document count than the other themes. Climate change followed next, but with a considerable

gap in the number of documents. Cities, storm-water, life cycle, and vulnerability appeared with

fewer documents.

Cities and urban areas in 1984-2009 split into cities and climate change in 2010-2015.

Investments became urban infrastructure and life cycle in 2010-2014, with stronger ties with the

latter period, as depicted by the thicker line joining the two in Figure 4. Urban infrastructure was

clearly the dominant theme in 2010-2015, attesting the relevance of the research area and its

actuality. The earlier themes of investments, developing countries, and environmental impact

from 1984-2009 merged into urban infrastructure in 2010-2015. Storm-water remained with

strong thematic areas with the same designation in the two periods. Vulnerability appeared as an

isolated new thematic cluster in 2010-2015. Figures 5a and 5b depict the strategic diagrams in

respectively 1984-2009 and 2010-2015.

Figure 5a – SUI strategic diagram in 1984-2009 Figure 5b – SUI strategic diagram in 2010-2015

1984-2009 2010-2015


In 1984-2009 cities, investments, and developing countries were core themes with average

to high density and centrality meaning that they were highly quoted themes and are often

associated with other SUI themes. There was great concern regarding catastrophic events in

cities. Kates et al. [50] advocated the incorporation of natural risks considerations during city

planning, such as acknowledging a history of natural hazard in the reconstruction of New Orleans

after Hurricane Katrina. Qureshi et al. [51] studied the responsiveness of healthcare workers

during catastrophic disasters. In their study, they found that many of the barriers preventing the

responsiveness of healthcare workers were actually surmountable and that responsiveness could

be enhanced with measures such as the provision of more adequate personal protection

equipment or arrangements to contour urban transportation drawbacks. Kovats and Akhtar [52]

reviewed scientific evidence of the effects of temperature, rainfall, and extreme events on human

health, in particular the impacts of heat waves and floods with an emphasis in Asian cities. They

concurred that improvements in urban infrastructure, housing in particular, are a necessary step

towards the endurance of cities to climate change, but fear a long wait might hinder their

effectiveness. Ruth and Coelho [53] turned to the analysis of the relationships between climate

change and urban infrastructure in cities through the lenses of complexity theory, which they

believed might be a useful tool in handling investments and in decision-making. Wang [54]

zoomed in the major consequences of environmental degradation in China (e.g. air pollution on

large cities, water pollution of rivers, deforestation, and soil degradation). He called for state

environmental protection laws and public education on environment protection as a means to

mitigate the situation.

Clark et al. [55] reviewed the elaboration of cost models to help meet demands for

investments on urban infrastructure, focusing on water systems. Torrance [56] addressed

investments on infrastructure transformation with the privatization of urban infrastructure. Lee et

al. [57] introduced a ‘new paradigm’ of ubiquitous infrastructure, defined as ‘an urban

infrastructure system where any citizen can access any infrastructure and services via any

electronic devices regardless of time and location,’ and examined its application to sustainable

urban development in Korea. Wang et al. [58] discussed the improvement of pump scheduling

methods in water distribution for economic and environmental benefits.

Finally, under developing countries, Bishop et al. [59] argued that spatial data on

infrastructure could aid the management of urban infrastructure growth. Hinks et al [60] proposed

different algorithms for 3D models of aerial light detection of human settlement in cities,

emphasizing a wide range of applications of such models as improved noise and pollution

prevention and disaster mitigation.

Storm-water appeared in Figure 5a as an isolated and secondary research field with high

density, denoting its SUI importance, but with low centrality, which denoted a theme in relative

isolation from the remaining themes of the research front. The highest citation score in this

cluster was Sansalone et al.’s [61] study on the effects of city transportation on storm-water

quality. Considerations about urban transportation along with runoff composition are important

when examining treatability, structural or non-structural regulations and discharges from paved

infrastructure.

Urban area concentrated the largest number of documents in 1984-2009 and still it is a

promising cluster for additional research as it associates a high centrality (being interrelated to

other clusters) with a low density (denoting a relatively low proportion of co-occurrences among

all SUI themes). Chang [62] evaluated the costs-benefits of disaster mitigation efforts by

applying life cycle cost analysis to disasters and considering urban infrastructure degradation and

maintenance, urban growth and societal impacts. Ziara et al. [63] developed a strategy for


implementing urban infrastructure projects that took into account project prioritization. Sansalone

and Teng [64] simulated the effects of a partial exfiltration reactor on both the quantity and

quality of urban rainfall-runoff under different soil conditions. Sohail et al. [65] explored the

constraints to operation, maintenance, and sustainability of urban services through a multiple case

study research in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The authors advocate partnership between local

communities and government as being key to improve operation and maintenance, thus

sustainability of urban infrastructure. Stapleton et al. [66] aimed to quantify catchment-derived

fluxes of faecal indicator compliance parameters originating from both point and diffuse sources

in the UK Ribble drainage basin sentinel research catchment and discharges station, in

conformance with EU water quality control management. The study found that untreated storm

sewage spills from urban infrastructure and storm-water retention tanks are the dominant

components of high flow flux of faecal indicators to receiving waters. Scalenghe and Marsan [67]

analysed the negative impacts of soil sealing by impervious material in urban areas, with a

special mention to European cities.

Environmental impact was the emergent theme of the last decade. Two documents

concentrated 70% of total citations in this cluster. Sahely et al. [68] offered one of the first case

studies on urban metabolism analysis, applied to Great Toronto, Canada, and compared with

other urban areas worldwide. Urban metabolism quantified the global fluxes of energy, water,

material and wastes in and out of an urban region. The conclusion was that inputs exceeded

outputs contributing to urban infrastructure pollution and degradation. Denault et al. [69] looked

at hydraulic infrastructure design and developed a framework for examining the potential impacts

of future increases in short duration rainfall intensity due to climate change on urban

infrastructure and natural ecosystems of small watersheds. Results indicated a considerable

vulnerability for the environment and that the upgrading of drainage systems would only require

moderate effort and expenses.

Figure 5b depicts the strategic diagram for 2010-2015. Climate change and life cycle were

the motor themes for the period. Authors in the climate change identified the importance of

considering the impacts of climate change in several research areas. Horton et al. [70] described

the incorporation of climate change into stakeholder adaptation planning in New York City. Their

study indicates major changes in the frequency of coastal flooding and dangerous heat events,

among other extreme events, and, thus, the authors find long-term adaptation planning worth

considering for these circumstances. Karamouz et al. [71] studied the adverse impacts of climate

change on urban floods and their consequences to society and urban infrastructure, highlighting

the need to integrate climate change into urban water studies and the importance of

improvements in the urban drainage system. Qi and Chang [72] reviewed municipal water

demand forecasting models and studied the interrelation between water demand and the

economy. Broto and Bulkeley [73], as well as Broto and Bulkeley [74], focused on climate

change experiments, defined as “purposive interventions that seek to reconfigure urban

sociotechnical systems to achieve low-carbon and resilient cities” [73]. The first examined the

maintenance of climate change experiments and the latter analysed climate change experiments

in cities throughout the world. Ferguson et al. [75] developed a strategy to aid urban water

systems efforts to increase sustainability and resilience. Demuzere et al. [76] examined the

contribution of green spaces to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Venkatesh and Brattebo [77] examine the environmental life cycle performance of Oslo

water supply pipelines by analysing annual resource consumption and emissions as well as life

cycle assessment (LCA) impact potentials over a period of 16 years. Their study indicates global

warming and abiotic depletion are affected the most by the water pipeline system in Oslo.


Furthermore, they identify cost optimization, energy efficiency and environmental friendliness as

areas in need of attention. Chavez and Ramaswami [78] analysed the mathematical relationships

and political relevance of articulating a trans-boundary infrastructure supply chain’s GHG

footprint for cities. The authors explored the production and consumption-based GHG footprints

going beyond the confines of the cities and into its infrastructure supply chain. Aylett [79]

presented a qualitative case study research aiming to demonstrate the role of the organized civil

society in promoting renewable energy and exemplified it with the Solarize Portland project.

Under the life-cycle cluster, Punkkinen et al. [80] focused on the waste collection phase of

the waste management life cycle, comparing the environmental sustainability of pneumatic and

conventional door-to-door waste systems. Results revealed that the replacement of the

conventional system with stationary pneumatic waste collection would increase atmospheric

emissions in an existing urban infrastructure, but decrease emissions in the waste collection area

(due to less transportation). The production of the waste collection system components played a

key role in air emissions. Loijos et al. [81] carried out a LCA on pavements, analysing their

environmental impacts. They found that, in a 40-year analysis period, the bulk of GHG emissions

concerning pavements could be attributed to the first year – owing to cement production for the

most part – and that traffic intensity and cement production specifications affected results the

most. For this reason, LCA results proposed reducing embodied use phase and end-of-life

emissions. The urban infrastructure cluster concentrated the larger number of publications in

2010-2015. It had a high centrality emphasizing its SUI relevance, associated with a low density

indicating the potential for further research to consolidate the thematic area. The main paper

based on the number of citations received was Chen et al.’s [82] study of municipal solid waste

management in China, the world’s leading municipal solid waste producer. Mahalingam [83] and

Misra [84] focused in Indian urban infrastructure development. While Mahalingam [83] analysed

public-private partnerships, Misra [84] analysed urban drainage in the increasingly urbanized

Ganga basin. Misra [84] claimed climate change might aggravate the already existing need for

action regarding the sustainable water management, as well as for education regarding

conservation and pollution. Neuman and Smith [85] made an historic review of the connections

between city planning and infrastructure. Hayhoe et al. [86] described a case study in the Chicago

area focusing on the economic impact of climate change on energy consumption and urban

infrastructure and concluded that cutbacks in emissions could result in significant economic cost

reductions at various levels. Wu [87] researched the relationships between urban infrastructure

and economic development in China, using lagged input and output variables and contrasting

cities in different Chinese regions. Coutinho-Rodrigues et al. [88] developed a decision support

system for urban infrastructure planning. Horton et al. [70] examined the integration of climate

change by decision makers into adaptation planning in New York City. Karamouz et al. [71]

offered a case study of urban drainage systems under climate change in the Iranian city of

Tehran. An algorithm to select best management practices was proposed and applied to different

scenarios under rainfall patterns induced by climate change simulations. El-Diraby and Osman

[7] proposed an ontology for informatics applied to SUI. Intertwined networks of actors,

processes, and products (e.g. bridges, traffic signals, decisions, and knowledge) composed the

framework for an e-city. Masson et al. [89] placed geographic and natural aspects at the SUI

forefront in the Paris metropolitan area and they suggested that they should replace the urban

infrastructure as a driver for planning urban development.

Cities appeared with lower density and centrality in 2010-2015 than in 1984-2009, showing

a declining SUI thematic influence. There was an interest for Chinese cities: Chen et al. [82]

studied municipal solid waste management in China, while Peng et al. [90] investigated Chinese


migrant workers’ health seeking behaviour and impediments to the attainment of healthcare in

Beijing. Broto and Bulkeley [74] examined climate change experiments in a myriad of cities

throughout the world. Hodson et al. [91] proposed to bridge material flow and transition analysis

to look critically at resource flows and SUI that provided the linkages between cities, urban

infrastructure, ecosystem services, and natural resources. Demuzere et al. [76] offered a holistic

framework looking at green urban infrastructure in different types of cities, climates, and social

contexts that took into account the interactions and trade-offs between many benefits from green

infrastructure. It emphasized the contribution of green spaces to climate change mitigation.

Vulnerability was a cluster of low centrality and average density. In 2010-2015, it mattered

as a new theme not strongly related to the other themes. Kalyanapu et al. [92] looked at the

vulnerability assessment of flood hazards at the vicinity of dams in cases of severe floods from

rainstorms and at the development of suitable mitigation and adaptation options for a resilient

urban infrastructure, examining probable maximum flood on the downstream of the American

River. De la Torre et al. [93] analysed coastal vulnerability to extreme storms with damage to

harbour facilities, coastal tourism infrastructures, and urban infrastructures in the coastal area of

the French Gulf of Lyon. They described a monitoring system and wave-forecasting model which

allow a better comprehension of coastal threats and aid in the anticipation and development of

mitigation strategies. Marcinkowsky and Szmytkiewicz [94] focused on reducing coastal

vulnerabilities in the Gulf of Gdansk in the Gdynia municipality through the improvement of

beach fill effectiveness due to construction of submerged breakwaters. Tscheikner-Gratl et al.

[95] aimed to test to which degree it was possible to reduce urban flooding by adapting the parts

of the urban water network that required rehabilitation, reducing vulnerabilities to flood.

The storm-water cluster remained in the same upper left quadrant of the strategic diagram

in 2010-2015 that it was in the previous period, as a relatively isolated and well-known SUI

theme. Davis et al. [96] led the cluster with 72% of total citations within the cluster. Their study

examined control measures of bio retention for mitigating impacts of rainfall runoff from

impervious surfaces.

Finally, the Figure 6 depicts how the groups of new and modern themes from the SUI

strategic diagram formed in 2010-2015 and what are the links among them. The circles in Figure

6 are proportional to the number of papers in which the keywords appear. The thickness of the

lines joining two themes are proportional to the strength of the association between them. The

colours distinguish different clusters.

Figure 6 – Thematic clusters relationships: 2010-2015

Note: shows only arcs with weight over 0.4.


The larger cluster labelled urban infrastructure comprises predominantly the clusters

labelled investments and urban infrastructure systems. Decision supports formed a group with

decision support systems and geographic information systems. The remaining groups formed in

Figure 6 are intertwined, forming a web of inter-related subjects treated in association with each

other. Climate change is a core theme and it comprises the groups of subjects labelled

stakeholders, extreme event, urban climate, climate change impact, greenhouse gas, and urban

area. Cities are part of a group formed by the keywords human, economic growth, and

infrastructure. Life cycle is associated with costs and life cycle assessment, and liaise with

climate change through the associations with greenhouse gas and environmental impact

assessment. Storm water forms a group with storm water management and storms, linked with

water resources and floods. The cluster of vulnerability is shown close to storm water, forming a

group with floods and numerical models, which reflects the nature of the subjects treated under

this cluster: flood hazards [92 and 95], and coastal vulnerability [93 and 94].

Discussions and conclusion

This paper applied a rigorous and reproducible SLR protocol resulting in the selection of

995 SUI papers. The field is relatively new, with a persistent and exponential growth in the

number of publications since 1999. The large array of research areas and academic journals

represented in the literature review portrays well the multidisciplinary nature of urban

infrastructure research. It evolves from social science to engineering, from concerns with

“urbanism” in the middle of the last century to the engineered network of facilities, infrastructure,

and communication of urban spaces nowadays. However, keywords describing the research area

remain stable, with 88% of keywords from previous periods reappearing in the publications of

2010-2015, which denotes stability in a maturing yet still evolving research field.

Consistent with the socio-technical theory and the early research in urbanism, urban

infrastructure remains a place for power and economic growth as well as of engineered utilities.

The larger number of papers in SUI belongs to social and environmental sciences. The most

prominent authors measured by the number of citations describe urban infrastructural issues

through the lenses of the interplay of economy, society, and technology. In answering RQ1 –

“What are the SUI prevailing themes,” this paper lists the themes for 1984-2009: storm-water,

urban infrastructure in developing countries, cities, investments, urban area, and environmental

impact. The prevailing themes in SUI for 2010-2015 were storm-water, life cycle, climate

change, urban infrastructure, cities, and vulnerability.

There are several mechanisms to construct and develop sustainable urban infrastructure to

take precautions against the deleterious effects of adverse sustainability conditions. The main

sustainability areas covered with concrete suggestions for enhancement in the literature are

climate change, investments and decision-making, use of modern technology, waste disposal,

storm water, rainfall runoff and urban drainage, partnership, life cycle and vulnerability.

In answering RQ2 – “How did the themes of sustainable urban infrastructure evole?”, the

analysis of urban infrastructure evolved from the original considerations about housing and city

segregation to a systemic view of modern and new facilities and utilities that take into

consideration urban metabolism and vulnerabilities, e-cities and communication networks. In this

sense, SUI is not only concerned with utilities, housing and transportation network, but equally in

ascertaining if the intake and consumption of resources are renewable and that all aspects of a

complex network of people intertwine in the urban space through electronic equipment and

communication networks. Future research should encompass this new, modern and extended


conceptualization of urban infrastructure, in addition to the more traditional themes of physical

infrastructure and its socio-technical aspects.

The positioning of themes in the strategic diagram assists in tracing the agenda for the

future research. The core themes were developing countries, cities and investments in 1984-2009,

and life cycle and climate change in 2010-2015. The promising new areas for research in urban

infrastructure are under the headings of urban area and environmental impact in 1984-2009. The

themes of municipal solid waste management, public-private partnership for infrastructure

development including rainfall management and drainage in urbanized areas of the developing

world emerge as promising new areas of research under the label of urban infrastructure in 2010-

2015. City planning, energy consumption, the economic impact of climate change, the urban

infrastructure effects on economic development, best practices in management of rainfall and

drainage systems, e-city and a regain of interest in the ecology of urban planning complete the

research forefront of themes for 2010-2015. Disaster mitigation, maintenance and sustainability

of urban services (water systems, waste management, renewable energy, energy consumption,

drainage basins sentinel projects, urban soil sealing), metabolism analysis, climate change

forecasts, vulnerability assessment and resilient cities, as well as e-city communications appear as

promising research topics for SUI future research.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the support of the following Brazilian agency: Coordination for

the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).

References

1 – UNITED NATIONS, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,

2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/352.

2 – MARTOS, A., PACHECO-TORRES, R., ORDÓÑEZ, J., JADRAQUE-GAGO, E., 2016.

Towards successful environmental performance of sustainable cities: Intervening sectors. A

review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy reviews, 57, 479-495.

3 – PINGALE, S.M., JAT, M.K., KHARE, D., 2013. Integrated urban water management

modelling under climate change scenarios. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 83, 176-189.

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.006.

4 – KLEEREKOPER, L., VAN ESCH, M., SALCEDO, T.B., 2012. How to make a city climate-

proof, addressing the urban heat island effect. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 64, 30-38.

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.004

5 – WHITE, P., GOLDEN, J.S., BILIGIRI, K.P., KALOUSH, K., 2010. Modeling climate

change impacts of pavement production and construction. Resources, Conservation and

Recycling, 54 (11), 776-782. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.007.

6 – HODSON, M., MARVIN, S., 2010. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how

would we know if they were? Research Policy, 39, 477-485.

7 – EL-DIRABY, T., OSMAN, H., 2011. A domain ontology for construction concepts in urban

infrastructure products. Automation in Construction, 20(8), 1120-1132.

8 – WCED, 1987. Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.


9 – BIRKIN, F., POLESIE, T., LEWIS, L., 2009. A new business model for sustainable

development: an exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 277–290.

10 – ELKINGTON, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–win business

strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36 (2), 90–100.

11 – GLADWIN, T.N., KENNELLY, J.J., KRAUSE, T.S., 1995. Shifting paradigms for

sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of

Management Review, 20 (4), 874-907.

12 – ADAMS, R., JEANRENAUD, S., BESSANT, J., OVERY, P., DENYER, D., 2012.

Innovating for sustainability. A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for

Business Sustainability, retrieved from nbs.net/knowledge.

13 – THOMÉ, A.M.T., SCAVARDA, L.F., SCAVARDA, A., 2016. Conducting systematic

literature review in operations management. Production Planning and Control. 27(5), 408-420.

14 – COOPER, H., 2010. Research synthesis and meta-analysis. A step-by-step approach. 4th Ed.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

15 – HLWIKI CANADA, 2015. [online] Available at:

Http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Scopus_vs._Web_of_Science [Accessed 2 Feb. 2016].

16 – HIRSCH, J.E., 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46),

16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102

17 – SEURING, S., and S. GOLD., 2012. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in

supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17 (5): 544–555.

doi:10.1108/13598541211258609.

18 – ZHAO, D., STROTMANN, A., 2015. Analysis and Visualization of Citation Networks.

Chapel Hill: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

19 – COBO, M., LÓPEZ-HERRERA, A., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E., HERRERA, F., 2011. An

approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical

application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 146-166.

20 – PERSSON, O., DANELL, R., SCHNEIDER, J.W., 2009. How to use Bibexcel for various

types of bibliometric analysis. In: Åstrom, F., Danell, R. , Larsen, B., Schneider, J.W. (Eds.),

Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies.

21 – PERSSON, O., 1994. The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal

of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31-38. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-

4571(199401)45:1<31::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-G.

22 – THOMÉ, A.M.T., SCAVARDA, L.F., SCAVARDA, A., THOMÉ, F.E.S.S., 2015.

Similarities and contrasts of complexity, uncertainty, risks, and resilience in supply chains and

temporary multi-organization projects, International Journal of Project Management.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.10.012

23 – DE NOOY, W., MRVAR, A., BAGATELJ, V., 2005. Exploratory Network Analysis with

Pajek. Cambridge University Press, U.K.

24 – COBO, M.J., LÓPEZ-HERRERA, A.G., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E., HERRERA, F., 2012a.

SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609-1630.

25 – COBO, M.J., LÓPEZ-HERRERA, A.G., HERRERA, F., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E., 2012b.

A note on the ITS topic evolution in the period 2000-2009 at T-ITS. IEEE Transactions on

Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13(1), 413-420.


26 – CALLON, M., COURTIAL, J.P., LAVILLE, F., 1991. Co-word analysis as a tool for

describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of

polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205.

27 – COULTER, N., MONARCH, I., KONDA, S., 1998. Software engineering as seen through

its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science, 49(13), 1206–1223.

28 – STAR, S., 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3),

377-391.

29 – PECK, J., TICKELL, A., 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 380-404.

30 – JACOBS, J., 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

31 – HUANG, S., 1998. Urban ecosystems, energetic hierarchies, and ecological economics of

Taipei metropolis. Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 39-51.

32 – ARIARATNAM, S., EL-ASSALY, A., YANG, Y., 2001. Assessment of infrastructure

inspection needs using logistic models. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 7(4), 160-165.

33 – GRIMM, N., FAETH, S., GOLUBIEWSKI, N., REDMAN, C., WU, J., BAI, X., BRIGGS,

J., 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319,756-760.

34 – KAIKA, M., SWYNGEDOUW, E., 2000. Fetishizing the modern city: The phantasmagoria

of urban technological networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(1),

120-138.

35 – SAHELY, H., DUDDING, S., KENNEDY, C., 2003. Estimating the urban metabolism of

Canadian cities: Greater Toronto area case study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30,

468-483.

36 – GRAHAM, S., Marvin, S., 2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures,

technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

37 – DAVIS, M., 2006. Planet of slums. London: Verso.

38 – GANDY, M., 2004. Rethinking urban metabolism: Water, space and the modern city. City,

8, 363-379.

39 – GEELS, F., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights

about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33,(6-7),

897-920.

40 – BRENNER, N., 2004. New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41 – GULLBERG, A., KAIJSER, A., 2004. City-building regimes in post-war Stockholm.

Journal of Urban Technology, 11(2), 13-39.

42 – SMITH, A., STIRLING, A., BERKHOUT, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-

technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491-1510.

43 – HOMMELS, A., 2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between

technology studies and urban studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(3), 323-351.

44 – GANDY, M., 2005. Cyborg urbanization: Complexity and monstrosity in the contemporary

city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 26-49.

45 – McFARLANE, C., RUTHERFORD, J., 2008. Political infrastructures: Governing and

experiencing the fabric of the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32,

363-374.

46 – HODSON, M., MARVIN, S., 2009. Urban ecological security: A new urban paradigm?

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 193-215.

47 – MONSTADT, J., 2009. Conceptualizing the political ecology of urban infrastructures:

Insights from technology and urban studies. Environment and Planning A, 41(8), 1924-1942.


48 – BAUR, R., HERZ, R., 2002. Selective inspection planning with ageing forecast for sewer

types. Water Science and Technology, 46(6-7), 389-396.

49 – EVANS, K., NEWSON, S., GASTON, K., 2009. Habitat influences on urban avian

assemblages. Ibis, 151, 19-39.

50 – KATES, R., COLTEN, C., LASKA, S., LEATHERMAN, S., 2006. Reconstruction of New

Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: A research perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 103(40), 14653-14660.

51 – QURESHI, K., GERSHON, R., SHERMAN, M., STRAUB, T., GEBBIE, E., McCOLLUM,

M., ERWIN, M., MORSE, S., 2005. Health care workers' ability and willingness to report to duty

during catastrophic disasters. Journal of Urban Health, 82(3), 378-388.

52 – KOVATS, S., Akhtar, R., 2008. Climate, climate change and human health in Asian cities.

Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 165-175.

53 – RUTH, M., COELHO, D., 2007. Understanding and managing the complexity of urban

systems under climate change. Climate Policy, 7(4), 317-336.

54 – WANG, Y., 2004. Environmental degradation and environmental threats in China.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 90(1-3), 161-169.

55 – CLARK, R., SIVAGANESAN, M., SELVAKUMAR, A., SETHI, V., 2002. Cost models for

water supply distribution systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,

128(5), 312-321.

56 – TORRANCE, M., 2008. Forging glocal governance? Urban infrastructures as networked

financial products. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 1-21.

57 – LEE, S., YIGITCANLAR, T., HAN, J., LEEM, Y., 2008. Ubiquitous urban infrastructure:

Infrastructure planning and development in Korea. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice,

10(2-3), 282-292.

58 – WANG, J., CHANG, T., CHEN, J., 2009. An enhanced genetic algorithm for bi-objective

pump scheduling in water supply. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10249-10258.

59 – BISHOP, I., ESCOBAR, F., KARUPPANNAN, S., SUWARNAT, K., WILLIAMSON, I.,

YATES, P., YAQUB, H., 2000. Spatial data infrastructures for cities in developing countries.

Lessons from the Bangkok experience. Cities, 17(2), 85-96.

60 – HINKS, T., CARR, H., and LAEFER, D., 2009. Flight optimization algorithms for aerial

LiDAR capture for urban infrastructure model generation. Journal of Computing in Civil

Engineering, 23(6), 330-339.

61 – SANSALONE, J., HIRD, J., CARTLEDGE, F., TITTLEBAUM, M., 2005. Event-based

stormwater quality and quantity loadings from elevated urban infrastructure affected by

transportation. Water Environment Research, 77(4), 348-365.

62 – CHANG, S., 2003. Evaluating disaster mitigations: Methodology for urban infrastructure

systems. Natural Hazards Review, 4(4), 186-196.

63 – ZIARA, M., NIGIM, K., ENSHASSI, A., AYYUB, B., 2002. Strategic implementation of

infrastructure priority projects case study in Palestine. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8(1), 2-

11.

64 – SANSALONE, J., TENG, Z., 2005. Transient rainfall-runoff loadings to a partial

exfiltration system: Implications for urban water quantity and quality. Journal of Environmental

Engineering, 131(8), 1155-1167.

65 – SOHAIL, M., CAVILL, S., COTTON, A., 2005. Sustainable operation and maintenance of

urban infrastructure: Myth or reality? Journal of Urban Planning and Development, V131(1), 39-

49.


66 – STAPLETON, C., WYER, M., CROWTHER, J., McDONALD, A., KAY, D., GREAVES,

J., WITHIER, A., WATKINS, J., FRANCIS, C., HUMPHREY, N., BRADFORD, M., 2008.

Quantitative catchment profiling to apportion faecal indicator organism budgets for the Ribble

system, The UK's sentinel drainage basin for water framework directive research. Journal of

Environmental Management, 87(4), 535-550.

67 – SCALENGHE, R., MARSAN, F., 2009. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(1-2), 1-10.

68 – SAHELY, H., KENNEDY, C., ADAMS, B., 2005. Developing sustainability criteria for

urban infrastructure systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 72-85.

69 – DENAULT, C., MILLAR, R., LENCE, B., 2006. Assessment of possible impacts of climate

change in an urban catchment. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(3), 685-

697.

70 – HORTON, R., GORNITZ, V., BADER, D., RUANE, A., GOLDBERG, R., ROSENWEIG,

C., 2011. Climate hazard assessment for stakeholder adaptation planning in New York City.

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 50(11), 2247-2266.

71 – KARAMOUZ, M., HOSSEINPOUR, A., NAZIF, S., 2011. Improvement of urban drainage

system performance under climate change impact: Case study. Journal of Hydrologic

Engineering, 16(5), 395-412.

72 – QI, C., CHANG, N., 2011. System dynamics modeling for municipal water demand

estimation in an urban region under uncertain economic impacts. Journal of Environmental

Management, 92(6), 1628-1641.

73 – BROTO, V., BULKELEY, H., 2013a. Maintaining climate change experiments: Urban

political ecology and the everyday reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 1934-1948.

74 – BROTO, V., BULKELEY, H., 2013b. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100

cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92-102.

75 – FERGUSON, B., FRANTZESKAKI, N., BROWN, R., 2013. A strategic program for

transitioning to a water sensitive city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 32-45.

76 – DEMUZERE, M., ORRU, K., HEIDRICH, O., OLAZABAL, E., GENELETTI, D., ORRU,

H., BHAVE, A., MITTAL, N., FELIU, E., FAEHNLE, M., 2014. Mitigating and adapting to

climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure.

Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 107-115.

77 – VENKATESH, G., BRATTEBØ, H., 2012. Assessment of environmental impacts of an

aging and stagnating water supply pipeline network: City of Oslo, 1991-2006. Journal of

Industrial Ecology, 16(5), 722-734.

78 – CHAVEZ, A., RAMAZWAMI, A., 2013. Articulating a trans-boundary infrastructure

supply chain greenhouse gas emission footprint for cities: Mathematical relationships and policy

relevance. Energy Policy 54, 376-384.

79 – AYLETT, A., 2013. Networked urban climate governance: Neighborhood-scale residential

solar energy systems and the example of Solarize Portland. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy, 31(5), 858-875.

80 – PUNKKINEN, H., MERTA, E., TEERIOJA, N., MOLIIS, K., KUVAJA, E., 2012.

Environmental sustainability comparison of a hypothetical pneumatic waste collection system

and a door-to-door system. Waste Management, 32(10), 1775-1781.

81 – LOIJOS, A., SANTERO, N., OCHSENDORF, J., 2013. Life cycle climate impacts of the

US concrete pavement network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 72, 76-83.


82 – CHEN, X., GENG, Y., FUJITA, T., 2010. An overview of municipal solid waste

management in China. Waste Management, 30(4), 716-724.

83 – MAHALINGAM, A., 2010. PPP experiences in Indian cities: Barriers, enablers, and the

way forward. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(4), 419-429.

84 – MISRA, A., 2011. Impact of urbanization on the hydrology of Ganga Basin (India). Water

Resources Management, 25(2), 705-719.

85 – NEUMAN, M. SMITH, S., 2010. City planning and infrastructure: Once and future partners.

Journal of Planning History, 9(1), 21-42.

86 – HAYHOE, K., ROBSON, M., ROGULAa, J., AUFFHAMMER, M., MILLER, N.,

VANDORN, J., WUEBBLES, D., 2010. An integrated framework for quantifying and valuing

climate change impacts on urban energy and infrastructure: A Chicago case study. Journal of

Great Lakes Research, 36(2), 94-105.

87 – WU, W., 2010. Urban infrastructure financing and economic performance in China. Urban

Geography, 31(5), 648-667.

88 – COUTINHO-RODRIGUES, J., SIMÃO, A., ANTUNES, C., 2011. A GIS-based

multicriteria spatial decision support system for planning urban infrastructures. Decision Support

Systems, 51(3), 720-726.

89 – MASSON, V., LION, Y., PETER, A., PIGEON, G., BUYCK, J., BRUN, E., 2013. “Grand

Paris”: Regional landscape change to adapt city to climate warming. Climatic Change, 117(4),

769-782.

90 – PENG, Y., CHANG, W., ZHOU, H., HU, H., LIANG, W., 2010. Factors associated with

health-seeking behavior among migrant workers in Beijing, China. BMC Health Services

Research, 10.

91 – HODSON, M., MARVIN, S., ROBINSON, B., SWILLING, M., 2012. Reshaping urban

infrastructure: Material flow analysis and transitions analysis in an urban context. Journal of

Industrial Ecology, 16(6), 789-800.

92 – KALYANAPU, A., AZAD HOSSAIN, A., KIM, J., YIGZAW, W., HOSSAIN, F., SHUM,

C., 2013. Toward a methodology to investigate the downstream flood hazards on the American

river due to changes in probable maximum flood due to effects of artificial reservoir size and

land-use/ land-cover patterns. Earth Interactions, 17(24).

93 – DE LA TORRE, Y., BALOUIN, Y., HEURTEFEUX, H., LANZELLOTTI, P., and

GUÉRINEL, B., 2013. The ‘Storm Network’ as a participative network for monitoring the

impacts of coastal storms along the littoral zone of the Gulf of Lions, France. Journal of Coastal

Research, 65, 927-932

94 – MARCINKOWSKY, T., SZMYTKIEWICZ, M., 2013. Performance of submerged

breakwaters as improvement of beach fill effectiveness in Gdynia, Poland. Journal of Coastal

Research, 65, 326-331.

95 – TSCHEIKNER-GRATL, F., MIKOVITS, C., RAUCH, W., KLEIDORFER, M., 2014.

Adaptation of sewer networks using integrated rehabilitation management. Water Science and

Technology, 70(11), 1847-1856.

96 – DAVIS, A., TRAVER, R., HUNT, W., LEE, R., BROWN, R., OLSZEWSKI, J., 2012.

Hydrologic performance of bioretention storm-water control measures. Journal of Hydrologic

Engineering, 17(5), 604-614.

Documents

SUSTAINABLE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: A REVIEW1 · Departamento de Engenharia Industrial SUSTAINABLE URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE: A REVIEW1 Aluno: Ana Luiza Carvalho Ferrer Orientador: Antônio