Quantifying the Sustainable Urban Economy Through Integrated Metrics, Models, and Sensitivity Analysis

Seyed Alireza Athari (CIRAME Research Center, Business School, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon)
Nehme Azoury (CIRAME Research Center, Business School, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon)
Dervis Kirikkaleli (Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon)

Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs
Vol. 10 No. 2 (2026): Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs

Urban sustainability assessment requires metrics that jointly represent ecological limits, economic performance, and distributive equity. This structured, “method-centered” review evaluates eight established quantitative approaches, including ecological footprint, composite sustainability indices, location quotient, green GDP, data envelopment analysis, Shannon diversity, Gini inequality, and net present value and then develops a Sustainable Urban Economy Integrated Index (SUEI). Twenty-five verified peer-reviewed studies published from 2021 to 2026, together with foundational sources, were coded by method, scale, dimension, data requirements, and analytical contribution. An author-developed capability rubric compares the methods across eight criteria, and four fully disclosed weighting scenarios test rank sensitivity. Because the rubric records author appraisals of analytical capability rather than observed city outcomes, all derived statistics are interpreted descriptively. Composite indices and Gini assessment tie for the highest equal-weight capability mean (4.13/5), yet method rankings vary materially across normative priorities (tie-corrected Kendall’s W = 0.525). The revised SUEI uses directionally consistent, benchmark-based normalization, separate ecological, economic, and social subindices, geometric aggregation, and explicit safeguards against indicator duplication. Illustrative cases from Freiburg, Curitiba, Singapore, and Copenhagen clarify scale and interpretation without being treated as comparable empirical observations; their analytical units differ by roughly three orders of magnitude, which is itself evidence of why boundary choice governs interpretation. The synthesis shows that no single method is sufficient: credible assessment requires triangulating physical pressure, efficiency or productivity, equity, and, where relevant, investment evidence. The framework provides a transparent basis for future harmonized city-panel applications, sensitivity testing, and spatial validation.