The Integrated Modification Methodology

Part of the Research for Development book series (REDE)


As the environmental ramifications of urban development have become clear, it is fundamental to investigate what practical methods should be implemented to tackle urban growth and environmental issues simultaneously. How should one integrate urbanization and the issue of saving natural resources? How could design strategies contribute to climate change mitigation and the reduction of emissions? Is urban morphology correlated with these issues? And eventually, how can the urban transformation be performed, retrofitted, and monitored in order to achieve a more sustainable result? A strictly sectorial approach could result in neglecting the mutual dependencies of these demands. Conversely, an integrated approach can help to sharpen a better understanding of the different performances of different urban configurations. Although many studies have been carried out on how cities’ forms are structured, scarce efforts have been done for the systemic understanding and evaluation of the urban morphology through quantitative metrics. More research is required in this direction in order to better describe the urban form characteristics and their impact on the performance of cities. The integrated modification methodology (IMM) is a procedure encompassing an open set of scientific techniques for morphologically analysing the built environment in a multiscale manner and evaluating its performance in the actual state or under specific design scenarios. The methodology is structured around a nonlinear phasing process aiming at delivering a systemic understanding of any given urban settlement, formulating the modification set-ups for improving its performance, and examining the modification strategies to transform that system. The basic assumption in IMM is the recognition of the built environment as a complex adaptive system. IMM has been developed by IMMdesignlab, a research laboratory based at Politecnico di Milano at the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC).


  1. Batty M (2009) Cities as complex systems: scaling, interaction, networks, dynamics and urban morphologies. In: Encyclopaedia of complexity and systems science, pp 1041–71. New York, NY: Springer New York.
  2. Bentivegna V, Curwell S, Deakin M, Lombardi P, Mitchell G, Nijkamp P (2002) A vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST. Build Res Inf 30(2):83–94.
  3. Bentley I (1985) Responsive environments: a manual for designers.
  4. Berardi U (2012) Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain Dev 20(6):411–424. Scholar
  5. Berardi U (2013) Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ Dev Sustain 15(6):1573–91.
  6. Biraghi C, Hadi Mohammad M, Tadi M (2017) Urban transition, a new Pilot Eco-district in Porto di Marea area (Milan) via IMM methodology. In: UN FUTURO AFFIDABILE PER LA CITTÀ Apertura al cambiamento e rischio accettabile nel governo del territorio. pp 171–180, Planum Publisher. ISBN: 9788899237097Google Scholar
  7. Boeing G (2017) Measuring the complexity of urban form and design. SSRN. Scholar
  8. Bourdic L, Salat S (2012) Building energy models and assessment systems at the district and city scales: a review. Build Res Inf 40(4):518–526. Scholar
  9. Brandon PS, Lombardi PL (2011) Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. Wiley-Blackwell.
  10. Carmona M (2010) Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press/Elsevier, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  11. CASBEE (2007) CASBEE for urban development: technical manualGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchman A (1999) Disentangling the concept of density. J Plan Liter 13(4):389–411.
  13. Ciric V, Colic R, Maruna M, Simic I, Stefanovic L, Tadi M, Mohammad Zadeh H (2016) Urban morphology, environmental performances & energy use: a holistic transformation approach applied to block 39 in Belgrade (Serbia) Via IMM. Int J Res Eng Sci (IJRES) 4(11):80–86. ISSN (Online): 2320-9364, ISSN (Print): 2320-9356Google Scholar
  14. Clifton K, Ewing R, Knaap GJ, Song Y (2008) Quantitative analysis of urban form: a multidisciplinary review. J Urbanism 1(1):17–45. Scholar
  15. Cole RJ, Valdebenito MJ (2013) The importation of building environmental certification systems: international usages of BREEAM and LEED. Build Res Inf 41(6):662–76.
  16. Firth SK, Lomas KJ (2009) Investigating co2 emission reductions in existing urban housing using a community domestic energy model.
  17. Fonseca JA, Schlueter A (2015) Integrated model for characterization of spatiotemporal building energy consumption patterns in neighborhoods and city districts. Appl Energy 142:247–265. Scholar
  18. Forsyth A (2003) Measuring density: working definitions for residential density and building intensity.
  19. Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe MR, Wolman H, Coleman S, Freihage J (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept.
  20. Haapio A (2012) Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ Impact Assess Rev 32(1):165–169. Scholar
  21. Häkkinen T (2007) Assessment of indicators for sustainable urban construction. Civil Eng Environ Syst 24(4):247–259. Scholar
  22. Huang J, Lu XX, Sellers JM (2007) A global comparative analysis of urban form: applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landscape Urban Plan 82(4):184–197. Scholar
  23. Ingram, R., Benford S., and Bowers J., (1960), Building Virtual Cities: Applying Urban Planning Principles to the Design of Virtual EnvironmentsGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American citiesGoogle Scholar
  25. Khan F, Pinter L (2016) Scaling indicator and planning plane: an indicator and a visual tool 227 for exploring the relationship between urban form, energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Ecol Ind 67:183–192. Scholar
  26. Loga T (2009) Typology approach for building stock energy assessment. Main results of the TABULA project.
  27. Lowe I (2008) Shaping a sustainable future—an outline of the transition. Civil Eng Environ Syst 25(4):247–254. Scholar
  28. Masera G, Tadi M, Biraghi C, Hadi Mohammad M (2020) Polimipara Rocinha: environmental performances and social inclusion—a project for the Favela Rocinha. In: Della Torre S, Cattaneo S, Lenzi C, Zanelli A (eds) Regeneration of the built environment from a circular economy perspective. Research for development. Springer, Cham. Print ISBN 978-3-030-33255-6Google Scholar
  29. Mauri T, Mazzucchelli MC, Sala E (2018) Eco-Quartiere Porto Di Mare: Modellazione e Analisi Multi-Scalare Alla Scala Urbana. Progettazione Integrata Di Un Food District e Hub per i Trasporti, Politecnico di MilanoGoogle Scholar
  30. Mori K, Christodoulou A (2012) Review of sustainability indices and indicators: towards a new city sustainability index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev 32(1):94–106. Scholar
  31. Mostafavi N, Farzinmoghadam M, Hoque S (2014) A framework for integrated urban metabolism analysis tool (IUMAT). Build Environ 82:702–712. Scholar
  32. Pafka E, Dovey K (2017) Permeability and interface catchment: measuring and mapping walkable access. J Urbanism 10(2):150–162. Scholar
  33. Patterson Z, Bierlaire M (2008) Development of prototype urbansim models.
  34. Rees W, Wackernagel M (1996) Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16(4–6):223–248. Scholar
  35. Reinhart CF, Cerezo Davila C (2016) Urban building energy modeling—a review of a nascent field. Build Environ 97:196–202. Scholar
  36. Reinhart CF, Dogan T, Jakubiec A, Rakha T, Sang A (2013) UMI-AN urban simulation environment for building energy use, daylighting and walkability 23.
  37. Robinson D, Campbell N, Gaiser W, Kabel K, Le-Mouel A, Morel N, Page J, Stankovic S, Stone A (2007) SUNtool—a new modelling paradigm for simulating and optimising urban sustainability. Sol Energy 81(9):1196–1211. Scholar
  38. Salat S, Vialan D, Nowacki C (2010) A common metrics and set of indicators for assessing buildings and urban fabric sustainability performance. In: Proceedings: CESB 2010 Prague—Central Europe towards Sustainable Building “From Theory to Practice,” pp 1–12.
  39. Salat S, Labbé F, Nowacki C (2011) Cities and forms: on sustainable urbanism. Hermann.
  40. Schwartz EE (2008) Beyond leed for neighborhood development: a contextual analysis of urban design and sustainability.
  41. Schwarz N (2010) Urban form revisited—selecting indicators for characterising European cities. Landscape Urban Plann 96(1):29–47. Scholar
  42. Sev A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civil Eng Environ Syst 28(3):231–245. Scholar
  43. Sternberg E (2000) An integrative theory of urban design. J Am Plan Assoc 66(3):265–278. Scholar
  44. Tadi M (2013) Integrated Modification Methodology (I.M.M). A phasing process for sustainable urban design. WASET World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology. Modification Methodology IMM. A phasing process for sustainable Urban Design.
  45. Tadi M, Bogunovich D (2017) New Lynn—Auckland IMM case study: low-density urban morphology and energy performance optimisation. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from ISBN 978-1-927214-22-0
  46. Tadi M, Vahabzadeh M, Hadi Mohammad M, Naraghi A (2014) Environmental and energy performances optimization of a neighborhood in Tehran, via IMM methodology. Int J Eng Sci Innov Technol 3(1). ISSN No: 2319-5967Google Scholar
  47. Tadi M, Vahabzadeh M, Hadi Mohammad M, Zaniol F (2015) Transforming urban morphology and environmental performances via IMM. The case of Porto Maravilha in Rio de Janeiro GSTF. J Eng Technol, vol 3(3) (Print ISSN: 2251-3701, E-periodical: 2251-371X)Google Scholar
  48. Talen E (2003) Neighborhoods as service providers: a methodology for evaluating pedestrian access. Environ Plan 30(2):181–200. Scholar
  49. Torrens PM, Alberti M (2000) Measuring sprawl. Scholar
  50. Tsai YH (2003) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus sprawl.
  51. Tuominen P (2015). Assessing energy efficiency potential in the building stock method for estimating the potential for improvements and their economic effects. In:
  52. Turcu C (2013) Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J Environ Planning Manage 56(5):695–719. Scholar
  53. Ungers OM (1984) Modificazione come tema. Casabella 498Google Scholar
  54. USgbc (2014) LEED reference guide for neighbourhood developmentGoogle Scholar
  55. Wassmer RW (2000) Causes of urban Sprawl in the United States: auto reliance as compared to natural evolution, flight from blight and local revenue reliance. J Policy Anal Manage. WileyAssociation for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
  56. Yavuz A, Kuloglu N (2017) Permeability as an indicator of environmental quality: physical, functional, perceptual components of the environment, no. MayGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao G, He C (2016) Low-carbon neighbourhood planning technology and indicator system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. file:///C:/Users/Beolanza/Downloads/1-s2.0-239 S1364032115014598-main.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politecnico di Milano, Department of ArchitectureBuilt Environment and Construction EngineeringMilanItaly
  2. 2.Politecnico di Milano, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringPiazza Leonardo da VinciMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations