## 2 Materials and Methods  
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the possibility of using CIM for assessing urban sustainability, by adopting the most prioritized indicators and using the Portuguese methodology SBTool(r) Urban as a baseline method. In order to fulfill this goal, the work was divided into two parts: a comparative analysis of the environmental concerns periodization, and an evaluation of the potential of CIM to assess the urban sustainability concerns. Comparative analysis is the process of comparing different items of the selected sustainability assessment methods to distinguish their similarities and differences. Since there are many variables used in each method, it is also unlikely to compare the entire variables. Instead, comparison in this study focused on aspects and issues, which are defined by the indicators of the selected method to identify the significant aspects prioritized by the majority of them. In the next step, for the evaluation of the potential of CIM to assess urban sustainability indicators, a CIM platform is proposed to make the calculation of the indicators. Then an in-depth study of the chosen most prioritized indicators is carried out, focusing on the analysis of the type of data to be modeled, the feasibility to model and access the information, and similar cases in the literature. For the first part, the present categories of SBTool(r) Urban are considered as a baseline, comparing them with the similar indicators of the selected methods, including Sustainable Neighborhood Tool (SNTool) from iSBE, BREEAM Communities (BREEAM-C), LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). Moreover, the alignment of the indicators with the goals of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ISO 37120 standards, and Level(s) are defined. Since the strategies developed for buildings consequently affect the urban environment, therefore the study selected Level(s) as well, which has a clear set of prioritized performance indicators for six areas of sustainability, contributing to EU policy goals. For this purpose, 522 indicators provided by the selected methods are compared by categorizing them in the tables, and the indicators with similar issues and objectives have been selected and re-categorized, based on the categories of SBToolPT Urban. The frequency of use of the indicators among the selected methods is shown in Figure 1. The indicators in the analyzed methods have different titles, but address similar issues and aspects, being considered the same and organized under the same category. If an indicator (e.g., District Heating and Cooling) was not covered in the baseline category, it is added to the list. The study recognized a total of 51 indicators, grouped into 14 categories, as the most prioritized and promoted indicators among the studied major sustainability assessment methods, which are necessary to be assessed in every urban development. Figure 1: The frequency of use of the indicators among the selected sustainability assessment methods. For the next part, the assessment of the indicators using CIM, first, different tools and software are evaluated to compose a CIM platform for the calculation of the indicators. Aligning with the trend presented in the literature, associating CIM with the integration of GIS and BIM, this study considered the use of BIM tools with the incorporation of GIS information, also tools that can perform calculations through a digital model. The following evaluation criteria are used to define the appropriate tool: literature review; case studies using BIM and GIS and sustainability assessment systems; flexibility and adaptability to calculate the criteria; the relationship between the tool and CIM; type of tool's access (free access or subscription). To minimize the interoperability problems, the CIM platform proposed by this study is based on the use of Autodesk Revit and tools that can be used inside the software.