ASI

lable at ScienceDirect

Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29

Contents lists avai

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

The application of urban sustainability indicators e A comparison between various practices

Li-Yin Shen a, J. Jorge Ochoa a,*, Mona N. Shah b, Xiaoling Zhang a

a Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China b National Institute of Construction Management and Research, India

Keywords: Sustainable urbanization Urban sustainability Indicator Government plan Comparative analysis

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2766 4307; fax: E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Jorge Oc

0197-3975/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006

a b s t r a c t

Urban population has been increasing and it is estimated to reach 70% of the total population in the world by 2050. Governments are facing greater challenges every time in providing inhabitants with a good quality of life in their cities. Many cities around the world have developed sustainable urban development plans for leading their urbanization process towards a desired status of urban sustain- ability. Urban sustainability indicators have been selected as main elements for communicating the status of the practice, which help to determine how successful strategies and policies enforced have been in the attainment of sustainability goals. Different practices use different indicators according to their particular needs, and these have been selected under different methods. However, whilst there are cases where urban sustainability indicators are effectively in use, the experiences gained from each practice have not been shared and used for the development of new urban development plans and for improving the decision-making process in the selection of indicators. This paper examines 9 different practices and proposes a comparative basis, namely, International Urban Sustainability Indicators List (IUSIL), for allowing the better understanding of drivers and goals of each practice and identifying under what circumstances various practices selected their indicators. Discussions made on the comparative analysis are categorized in four different dimensions: environmental, economic, social and governance. Research results show how comparative basis can lead to knowledge sharing between different practices, which can be used to guide the selection of indicators of sustainable urbanization plans and improve the effective communication of the status of practices. The study not only reveals how different indicators are selected but also suggests the need for consistent processes of choosing indicators based on the benchmarks obtained from best practices.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Urbanization is defined by the United Nations as movement of people from rural to urban areas (2004). It is envisaged that the world, particularly in developing countries such as China and India, will witness an increase in urbanization in the immediate future with these two countries accounting together for about one-third of the increase in the urban population in the coming decades (United Nations, 2008). Developing countries have been imple- menting urbanization as a national strategy to drive economic development, in particular, to pursue balanced development between urban and rural areas. However, people continue moving into cities to seek a better life and economic opportunities.

þ852 2764 5131. hoa).

All rights reserved.

Therefore, the practice of sustainable urbanization plays an important role in achieving global sustainability targets.

In line with the promotion of sustainable urbanization, inter- national institutions and governments at different levels are seeking the optimum urban sustainability value. With the aim of understanding on the state of, or changes to, urban areas in relation to better urban sustainability performance, sets of indicators, frameworks and assessment tools, have been developed (Briassoulis, 2001; Davison, 1996). Urban sustainability indicators are crucial for helping on target setting, performance reviews and facilitating communication among the policy makers, experts and public (Verbruggen & Kuik, 1991). A wide range of urban sustain- ability indicators is therefore in use across the diversity of different cities and regions, which vary according to their particular needs and goals (Brandon & Lombardi, 2005; Verbruggen & Kuik, 1991). However, practical challenges have led to mixed results in applying sustainability indicators in different environments and sometimes

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2918

with little gain in sustainability performance (Alshuwaikhat & Nkwenti, 2002; Seabrooke, Yeung, & Ma, 2004; Selman, 1999). It has been argued that one of the main reasons for failing to attain the desired performance is the inadequate selection of indicators guiding and monitoring the sustainable urbanization process (Briassoulis, 2001; Seabrooke et al., 2004). It has also been argued that the lack of consensus on urban sustainability indicators between different practices has been causing confusion when selecting and relating them with the objectives defined or policies implemented (Legrand et al., 2007; Planque & Lazzeri, 2006). Others opined that there are still no standards pertinent and universal methods or criteria for selecting urban sustainability indicators (Kahn, 2006).

Urban sustainability indicators and their appropriate selection play undoubtedly an important role in successfully achieving the attainment of urban sustainability. However, whilst there are several cases where urban sustainability indicators are effectively in use, the experience gained from each practice has not been shared and used for the development of new sustainable urban development plans and for improving the decision-making process of selecting indicators. This appears mainly due to the lack of effective comparative basis, which can allow the comparison of different practices and facilitate the identification of best practices. The identification of best practices can lead to the generation of the benchmarks to be used for the assessment and diagnosis of existing practices.

Research objectives and methodologies

The aim of this study is to critically examine and compare different sustainable urbanization practices in the process of selecting urban sustainability indicators. This comparative analysis can allow the knowledge sharing and use for future practices. In line with the study aim, several objectives are planned in this research work: (1) to understand the drivers for developing different list of urban sustainability indicators, (2) to compose a primary list of urban sustainability indicators for comparative basis, (3) to identify the indicators list adopted in individual prac- tices in implementing sustainable urbanization plans, and (4) to examine the variations of the different practices with the primary list proposed in objective 2.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to obtain the information needed for pursuing the objectives of this research. Information was obtained from books, academic journals, govern- ment and institutional reports, sustainable urban development plans and websites. A comprehensive list of urban sustainability indicators is composed by using various sets of indicators promoted by international and regional organizations, such as the United Nations (2007), the UN Habitat (2004), the World Bank (2008), the European Foundation (1998), the European Commission on Science, Research and Development (2000), the European Commission on Energy Environment and Sustainable Development (2004). These have been used as references for many countries and communities to develop their own sustainable urbanization indicators systems. These 6 different sets of indicators are integrated in a single list named “International Urban Sustain- ability Indicators List (IUSIL)”. The purpose is to have a compre- hensive list as a comparative base. IUSIL includes a wide variety of indicators that determine the urban sustainability performance of a city and are used to examine the variations between individual practices. IUSIL contains 115 indicators, formed into 37 categories in order to better structure the indicators within 4 sustainable development dimensions: environmental, economic, social and governance (See Appendix). IUSIL is proposed as comparative basis for analysing how different practices comply with its indicators

from environmental, economic, social and governance perspec- tives. Compliance consists in determining which indicators from IUSIL have been included, or have been included in similar terms, and or have not been included in the individual practices.

The research team identified 29 sustainable urban development plans at city level, however only 9 contained sufficient information for the analysis in this study. The information obtained refers to the generalities and description of individual practices, and the complete list of indicators proposed for monitoring the progress of each practice. The examination and comparison of these practices leads to the understanding on what and how indicators are adopted in the current practice. Therefore analysis can be given in whether these indicators are properly selected and whether the perfor- mance of sustainable urbanization practices is effectively communicated.

Significance of sustainable urbanization

The rapid urbanization is often at the expense of the loss of valuable ecosystems and lands for satisfying the urban demands. Moreover, if the current and future urban areas continue with the same resource consumption practices without regarding the future needs, serious environmental, social and economic problems are expected (Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). Therefore, international organizations (e.g., UN Habitat, World Bank, OECD, and European Commission) have committed great efforts in promoting the mission of sustainable urbanization prac- tice and currently the mission is widely addressed among different disciplines. Consequently, many concepts and definitions on sustainable urbanization have emerged. The following ones are between these typical:

� In U.S.A., the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in its “1997 Report” defines sustainable communities as “communities that flourish because they build a mutually supportive, dynamic balance between social wellbeing, economic opportunity, and environmental quality” (President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1997).

� Sustainable city is “a city where achievements in economic, social and physical development are made to last” (Soegijoko et al., 2001).

� Urban sustainability is used as a desirable state of urban conditions that persists overtime (Adinyira, Oteng-Seifah, & Adjei-Kumi, 2007). The concept is often characterized by issues such as the proper use of resources to guarantee a generational equity, protection of the natural environment, minimal use of non-renewable resources, economic vitality and diversity, community self-reliance, individual wellbeing, and satisfaction of basic human needs (Choguill, 1996; Hardoy, Mitlin, & Satterthwaite, 1992).

� According to the European Commission (2006), urban sustainability is defined as the challenge to “solve both the problems experienced within cities and the problems caused by cities”, recognizing that cities themselves provide many potential solutions.

� Sustainable urbanization refers to the well-balanced relation- ship between the social, economic and environmental agents in society, so as to accomplish sustainable urban development (Drakakis-Smith, 2000).

� Sustainable urbanization is a dynamic process that combines environmental, social, economic and politicaleinstitutional sustainability. It brings together urban and rural areas, encompassing the full range of human settlements from village to town to city to metropolis, with links at the national and global levels (UN Habitat, 2004).

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 19

The concepts presented above are often used indistinctly, even though differences exist. The terms “urban sustainability, sustainable city and sustainable community” refer to the desir- able state, while “sustainable urbanization and sustainable urban development” refer to the process towards the desirable state. Whilst the principle of sustainable urbanization refers equal concern to environmental, governance, social and economic sustainability, social sustainability is more difficult to define due to its diverse, wide and subjective characteristics (Western Australian Council of Social Services, 2003). In a typical study by Polése and Stren (1999), social sustainability is described as “the development and/or growth that is compatible with the harmo- nious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment that encourage social integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of populations”. Social sustainability is considered as one of the indispensable dimensions for measuring urban sustainability.

As the significance of sustainable urbanization has been increasingly appreciated, efforts to promote the practice have led to the development of instruments in form of policies and incentives to effectively integrate the concerns on environmental protection, economy equity and social wellbeing into urban development plans (Choguill, 1993; Holden, Roseland, Ferguson, & Perl, 2008; Marcotullio, 2001). However, the implementation of these poli- cies needs to be monitored, which highlights the necessity to identify and select appropriate sets of indicators as tools for monitoring and providing the feedbacks needed to accomplish the desirable state of urban sustainability.

Why urban sustainability indicators?

Indicators have the role of measuring performance, and in the process of urban sustainability assessment there is a need of measurable indicators. Several approaches to assess urban sustainability based on indicators have been developed. Ugwu and Haupt (2007) examined available techniques for evaluating different aspects of sustainability through the use of indicators. Zhang, Wen, Du, and Song (2008) used the methodological foun- dations of various assessment methods to propose a classification, which divided them into three different groups: system engi- neering, monetary evaluation and biophysical.

Many researches are attempting to document the extent to which cities are or are not becoming sustainable through the use of indicators, and to reveal the practical challenges that are being encountered in the process (see work done by Bell & Morse, 1999; Briassoulis, 2001; Roy, 2009; Tanguay, Rojaoson, Lefebvre, & Lanoie, 2010; Wong, Tang, Van, & Horen, 2006). However, the selection process of indicators should not be about gathering the information for all indicators, but rather selectively analysing the ones which are more fundamental in essence and more likely to produce the most accurate information about the status of practice. Mega and Pedersen (1998) opined that indicators must be clear, simple, scientifically sound, verifiable and reproducible. According to the United Nations Statistical Institute for Asia and Pacific (2007) an indicator must be SMART (i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-related). Zhang, He, and Wen (2003) proposed that urban sustainability indicators should provide at least the following: (1) explanatory tools to translate the concepts of sustainable development into practical terms; (2) pilot tools to assist in making policy choices that promote sustainable develop- ment and (3) performance assessment tools to decide how effective efforts have been.

Since early 1990’s local and national governments across the world have developed indicators to measure the urban sustain- ability performance according to their local or national priorities

(Parris & Kates, 2003). Whilst there are various lists of urban sustainability indicators there is no single set of indicators that suits equally to all cities or communities. It is therefore appreciated that the use of common indicators is essential for monitoring and comparing the process of sustainable urbanization in order that this does not remain as an abstract concept. Comparable indicators are important because they allow cities to have a common grid to share and apply successful tools and measures (Ambiente Italia Research Institute, 2003).

Comparisons in using urban sustainability indicators between practices

Description of the practices

For understanding the drivers for developing different list of urban sustainability indicators, it is necessary to firstly identify a number of different city sustainable development plans where sustainability indicators are adopted for monitoring the perfor- mance of the implementation of the plans. This study focuses on examining the sustainable development plans at city level as this is the level where the application of urban sustainability indicators can be best appreciated and compared. According to Campbell (1996) and Camagni (2002) a growing number of experts recog- nize that it is at the local scale, i.e. at the level of municipalities, cities or metropolitan regions, that the challenges are best expressed. This paper examines 9 practices selected from both developing and developed countries and regions in the world, including Melbourne, Hong Kong, Iskandar, Barcelona, Mexico City, Taipei, Singapore, Chandigarh and Pune. The generalities of each practice are presented in this section with the aim to show the purposes, goals, boundaries and milestones defined in their sustainable urban development plans. This can help to generate a big picture of each of these practices. In order to collect comparable valid data for comparison between practices, a template is used, which includes headings of “name”, “vision”, “action by”, “participants”, “term”, “date of launch”, “date of update”, “monitoring”, “focus areas”, “remarks”, as shown in Table 1.

Melbourne

The Melbourne’s City Plan 2010 for sustainable development is a plan that defines the long-term vision for Melbourne which identifies four strategic objectives to reflect the aspirations for the sustainable urbanization of the city (Melbourne City Council, 2001). These are: (1) a connected and accessible city, (2) an innovative and vital business city, (3) an inclusive and engaging city, and (4) an environmentally responsible city. The City Council developed an integrated planning framework to ensure that its actions, policies and strategies help achieve the vision expressed in the plan. The vision is for Melbourne to be a thriving and sustainable city that simultaneously pursues a “triple bottom line” which is economic prosperity, social equity and environmental quality. The City Council has also committed efforts to monitoring the city’s economic, social and environmental performance and tracking overtime how the city is working towards the vision of sustain- ability (Melbourne City Council, 2006). The City Council takes responsibility for achieving social, environmental and economic improvements through all their endeavors and reporting on them openly and transparently. According to the triple bottom line approach, the City Council identified and adopted a set of indicators in this plan to measure the city’s sustainability performance.

Table 1 General and comparable attributes of the practices.

Comparable attributes Melbourne Hong Kong Iskandar

Name City plan 2010 The HK2030 Study Iskandar development region’s comprehensive development plan

Vision Towards a thriving and sustainable city Asia’s world city A world class sustainable and environmentally friendly metropolis

Action by Melbourne City Council Hong Kong Government Government of Malaysia Participants Government, academics and NGOs Government, Professional Institutions,

Academia and consultations to public Government, Professional Institutions and Academia

Term Launched Updated Monitoring

10 years 2000 2005 2005 & 2007 30 years 2000 2007 Every year e 2007 e e

Focus areas � A connected and accessible city � An innovative and vital business city � An inclusive and engaging city � An environmentally responsible city

Economy, health and hygiene, natural resources, society and social infrastructure, biodiversity, leisure an cultural vibrancy, envi- ronmental quality and mobility � Provide a quality living environment � Enhance economic competitiveness � Strength links with Mainland China

� International rim positioning

� Establishing hard and soft infrastructure enablers

� Investment in catalyst projects

� Establishing a strong institutional framework and the creation of a strong regulatory authority

� Ensuring socio-economic equity and buy-in from the local population

Remarks � Integrated planning framework � Triple bottom line:

Economic prosperity Social equity Environmental quality

� Sustainable Development for the 21st Century in HK (SUSDEV 21)

� Sustainability assessment system � Computer Aided Sustainability Evaluation Tool (CASET)

� Attract domestic and foreign investment

� Five dimensions: Regulatory, social, phys- ical, infrastructure and commercialization

Comparable attributes Barcelona Mexico City Taipei

Name Sustainable Barcelona Plan Verde (Green Plan) Framework for Measuring Taipei’s Urban Sustainability

Vision Barcelona towards urban sustainability

The greenest city in Latin America Making Taipei a city with sustainability characteristics

Action by Sustainable Barcelona Civic Forum Government of Mexico City Academics Participants NGOs, private and civil

associations, and local authority Government, Professional Institutions and Academia

Academia, Professional Institutions and NGOs

Term Launched Updated Monitoring

e 1995 e e 15 years 2007 e Every year e 1998 e e

Focus areas The efficient use of resources, avoid endangering people’s health, biodiversity, diversified economy, service access, preserve the mixture of functions, gender equality employment, social work, establishment

Land conservation, Public space, Water, Mobility, Air, Waste, Energy

Ecological sustainability, water resources utilization, economy efficiency, resource self- sufficiency, environmental loading, living comfort, transport efficiency, environmental management, social welfare and public safety, education

Remarks Barcelona City Council adopted the indicators in 1997

� Communication Instrument � 3rd largest metropolitan population in the world � Experts said in 2000: “Total collapse of Mexico City by 2010”

� Signals lights (green, yellow and red)

� Never implemented

Comparable attributes Singapore Chandigarh Pune

Name Green Plan City Development Plan of Chandigarh

City Development Plan of Pune

Vision A model green city The greenest city of India An economically vibrant and sustainable city

Action by Government of Singapore Government of Chandigarh Government of Pune Participants Government, Academia, Professional Institutions and

NGOs, Public consultations Government, Academia, Professional Institutions, NGOs, Public consultations

Government, Academia, Professional Institutions, NGO’s, Public consultations

Term Launched Updated Monitoring 10 years 1992 & 2002 1999 & 2002 Every 5 years 30 years 2006 e Every year 10 years 2006 e Every year Focus areas Air and climate change, water, waste management,

nature, public health, international environmental relations, reduce the ambient particulate matter, improve carbon intensity, reduce per capita water consumption, generate awareness of water resources

Governance, poverty alleviation, economic development, environment, roads, water, solid waste management, transportation, city institutions, municipal finance

Water supply, sewerage, storm water, drainage, solid waste management, transportation and roads, slums and basic services, land use, river conservation, economic development, cultural heritage, urban governance

Remarks � International awards for water management � Partner the 3P (public, private and people)

� Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) e 2005

� Mandatory consultations

� Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) e 2005

� Mandatory consultations

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2920

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 21

Hong Kong

Hong Kong Government adopted a Sustainability Assessment (SA) system in 2001 after a comprehensive study called the Sustainable Development for the 21st Century in Hong Kong (SUSDEV 21) that started in 1997 (Hong Kong Council for Sustainable Development, 2005; Hong Kong Council for Sustainable Development, 2005; Hong Kong Planning Department, 2001). The study was conceived in response to the need to take account of environmental and social concerns as well as economic aspects when making decisions about the future of Hong Kong. The key outputs of the study were a series of guiding principles and indicators representing the key sustainable development issues relevant for Hong Kong and a Computer Aided Sustainability Evaluation Tool (CASET) to assist in evaluating the sustainability implications of strategic policy and project proposals. The guiding topics included in SUSDEV 21 are: economy, health and hygiene, natural resources, society and social infrastructure, biodi- versity, leisure and cultural vibrancy, environmental quality and mobility (Hong Kong Council for Sustainable Development, 2005). The Hong Kong Government’s Sustainable Development Unit, responsible of managing the sustainable urban development strate- gies, is committed to keeping the SA system and the CASET effective and up-to-date. To achieve this aim, they update the baseline data of the CASET indicators regularly. The last update was completed in July 2005.

The latest version launched in 2007 “Hong Kong 2030 e Plan- ning Vision and Strategy” provides broad concepts and planning directions that allow the Government to get prepared for possible development needs. Under the overarching goal for sustainable development, they have set out three broad directions in preparing their planning strategies: (a) providing a quality living environ- ment; (b) enhancing economic competitiveness; and (c) strength- ening links with the Mainland China (Hong Kong Planning Department, 2007).

Iskandar

The establishment of the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in Johor State marked a new era of Malaysia’s economy to open up to the world. The model of the development has been designed in IDR’s Comprehensive Development Plan (Iskandar Regional Development Authority, 2008). This establishment aims to develop the Region to a developed and sustainable economy by attracting both domestic and foreign investments and the rigorous participation from domestic and overseas construction profes- sionals. The vision and mission of the IDR is “A strong sustainable metropolis of international standing”, echoed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Haji Ahmad Badawi “A world class sustainable and environmentally friendly metropolis” (Iskandar Regional Development Authority, 2008).

In order to implement the governmental mission of the IDR, The Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA), established by a Federal Act of Parliament of Malaysia e IRDA Act 2007 (Act 664), has developed a Comprehensive Development Plan for Iskandar to steer the overall development framework (Iskandar Regional Development Authority, 2007). The purpose of Iskandar, providing a livable and sustainable conurbation, is clearly defined in the plan. Development strategies have been set to ensure the balance between these needs against economic growth, environ- mental quality, social and community development. As presented in the plan, five strategic pillars have been defined, including (1) International Rim Positioning, (2) Establishing hard and soft infrastructure enablers, (3) Investment in catalyst projects, (4) Establishing a strong institutional framework and the creation of a strong regulatory authority, and (5) Ensuring socio-economic

equity and buy-in from the local population. These pillars are driving forces for implementing IDR strategies and initiatives across five dimensions covering the regulatory, social, physical, infrastructure and commercialization aspects.

Barcelona

The Sustainable Barcelona Civic Forum is an initiative for citi- zens participation that emerged as a response to a social need which was generated within the Federation of Neighborhood Associations at the command of a civic platform called Barcelona Energy Saving in 1995 (Gómez, 1998). Indicators were selected for determining the sustainability in the city of Barcelona based on ten principles leading to a sustainable city in the environmental, economic and social fields. The ten principles are: (1) the efficient use of resources (2) avoid endangering people’s health (3) biodi- versity (4) diversified economy (5) service access (6) preserve the mixture of functions (7) gender equality (8) employment (9) social work and leisure (10) establishment of alliance with other cities. The selection of indicators involved multidisciplinary working groups which held meetings on voluntary basis for defining the indicators and the methodology for measuring them. In October 1997, the Sustainable Barcelona Civic Forum and their indicators were recognized and adopted by the Barcelona City Council (ICLEI, 2000). Barcelona has been an example for other cities in Spain in promoting the application of sustainability indicators towards the sustainable urban development.

Mexico City

The Mexico City’s Green Plan (‘Plan Verde’ for its name in Spanish) launched in June 2007 is a body of strategies and actions to ensure the sustainable development of the city in a 15 years plan (Mexico City Government, 2007). ‘Plan Verde’ represents a communication instrument for informing the inhabitants of Mexico City about the government’s sustainability targets. The plan is divided into seven thematic actions: land conservation, public space, water, mobility, air, waste and climate change and energy. One of the main measures of this plan is to restrict traffic, the main cause for the city’s notorious smog. Many objectives contained in this plan were proposed in respond to the warnings from experts of a total collapse of the city by 2010 (Garza, 1996; Izazola, 2000). By meeting the proposed objectives, Mexico City’s government intends to convert the city in the greenest one in Latin America.

Taipei

In a manifestation that proposes the sustainable urban devel- opment of Taipei, Huang, Wong, and Chen (1998) conducted a research work to develop a sustainability indicator framework for measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. The main drivers were to reinforce the city’s metropolitan life-support system through its economic vitality and make Taipei a city with sustainability char- acteristics. 80 indicators were selected with the participation of non-governmental organizations. These indicators were grouped into 10 general public indicators: ecological sustainability, water resources utilization, economy efficiency, resource self-sufficiency, environmental loading, living comfort, transport efficiency, envi- ronmental management, social welfare and public safety, and education. These are evaluated using signals lights (green, yellow and red), which help policy makers to determine the city perfor- mance and identify the priorities. For instance, if the performance of an indicator is fair, it is classified as ‘yellow’ light; but if the trend of this indicator moves towards sustainability, the rating of this indicator is regarded as “yellow to green” light.

Table 2 Classification of water related indicators.

Environmental Freshwater Proportion of total water resources used

Water use intensity by economic activity Presence of faecal coliforms in freshwater Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies

Wastewater Percentage of city population served by wastewater collection Percentage of wastewater receiving no/primary/secondary/ tertiary treatment

Economic Water Price of water

Domestic water consumption per capita

Social Water Access Percentage of city population with potable water

supply service Number of interruptions in water service

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2922

Singapore

The Singapore Green Plan (SGP) was issued in 1992 as a ten years plan towards sustainability. It described the policy directions that Singapore would take to become a model “green city” by the year 2000 (Chew, 2008). However, in 1999 a review of this first green plan was initiated to take into account new ideas and concerns, resulting in an outcome the SGP 2012 launched in August 2002. More than 17,000 people participated in the review through various platforms such as Internet survey and a public exhibition. It has brought out key environmental issues like climate change and resulted in a robust plan able to address emerging environmental challenges. With the new plan, Singapore wanted to move beyond just being clean and green and pursue attaining sustainability. In 2005, another extensive review was conducted, and the revised edition of the SGP 2012 was released in March 2006 (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, 2006). This revised edition covers six focus areas: air and climate change, water, waste management, nature, public health and international environ- mental relations. Four new targets were added to the previous edition: reduce the ambient particulate matter, improve carbon intensity, reduce Singapore’s per capita domestic water consump- tion, partner the 3P (public, private and people) sectors to generate greater awareness of water resources.

Chandigarh

The city is known as one of the best experiments in urban planning and modern architecture in the twentieth century in India. It is also one of the fastest growing cities with a population decadal growth rate of 40.30%. The unique nature makes the city the name of ‘The City Beautiful’ and it is one of the greenest city of India (Chandigarh Administration, 2006). The city was planned to be developed in three phases, phase one started in early 1950’s and currently phase three is in progress. Phase three has been highly influenced by the emerging needs of a sustainable urbanization and the previous two phases are in the process of an urban renewal mission. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) launched by the Government of India in 2005 selected Chandigarh City as a strategic area of development (National Institute of Urban Affairs, 2006). A City Development Plan (CDP) was required and a series of consultations were organized involving a wide spectrum of stakeholders. Consultations were mandatory in the preparation and finalization of master plan by Chandigarh Administration (National Institute of Urban Affairs, 2006). The discussions during consultations facilitated identification of needs, their prioritization and preparation of an accepted development plan for the city focusing on key sectoral areas including gover- nance, poverty alleviation, economic development, environment, roads, water, solid waste management, transportation, city insti- tutions, and municipal finance. The CDP comprises of 30 years outlining policy framework and investment interventions to ach- ieve the vision of leading Chandigarh as a Global City following the principles of sustainable development (Chandigarh Administration, 2006). The CDP identified performance-monitoring/sustainability indicators to assist the City to review the progress of the CDP on an annual basis and to enable them in setting the agenda for the future.

Pune

Pune is a city that has been functioning as one of the engines powering the economy of India (Pune Municipal Corporation, 2006). The city has been experiencing rapid urbanization, pop- ulation growth and growing economy, which has led to the usual

problems of a developing metropolis such as garbage accumula- tion, traffic congestion, deteriorating roads, pollution, and excessive use of civic supplies like water, drainage and electricity. Similar to the case of Chandigarh City previously described, Pune City has also been beneficiated by the JNNURM (National Institute of Urban Affairs, 2006). Intense discussions with numerous stakeholders were conducted on the city’s strengths and potentials, as well as futuristic desires and perspectives which brought as a result the City Development Plan (CDP) of Pune. The development plan includes a clear vision for the city to be achieved by 2016 which was described as follows: “An economically vibrant and sustainable city with diverse opportunities and rich culture; where all citizens enjoy safe and livable environment with good connectivity” (Pune Municipal Corporation, 2006). This vision was translated into achievable objectives and strategies were developed to achieve these objectives which mainly focus on water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, solid waste management, transportation and roads, slums and basic services, land use, river conservation, economic development, cultural heritage and urban governance.

The comparison

The list IUSIL developed in previous section is used to assist in conducting comparative analysis between these 9 available cases. Due to the fact that indicators can be described or measured in different ways, for instance air pollutants indicators, which can be expressed by toxicity, quantity emitted or CO2 content. Therefore, for the purpose of proper analysis, the descriptions and units of measurement for the indicators included in IUSIL must be clear and distinct indicators in order to avoid repetitions and a better clas- sification. Indicators such as the ones related with water for example, there are different definitions and ways to be measured, which determine their classification under three different dimen- sions, namely, environmental, economic and social, as appreciated in Table 2.

The lists of indicators identified in each of the 9 practices selected are subjected to a compliance analysis for each of the 37 categories included in IUSIL. The compliance analysis consists in determining which indicators from IUSIL have been included in the individual practices, denoted by “U”; which have been included in similar terms, denoted by “�”; and which have not been included, denoted by “-”. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3 and the data in the table are also highlighted in various figures (i.e. Figs. 1e6) to facilitate the comparison analysis. In Figs. 1e4, 100% represents full compliance with IUSIL and the bars indicate the ratio of the included and similar indicators in each practice to the total

Table 3 Compliance of practices with IUSIL.

Category Cities C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Environmental En1 Geographically balanced settlement U B e U B U e B U En2 Freshwater e e B U B U U U U En3 Wastewater e e B U U U U U U En4 Quality of ambient air and atmosphere U U e U U e U U e En5 Noise pollution U U e U U e e U e En6 Sustainable land use e U B B U B e U B En7 Waste generation and management e e U U U U U U U En8 Effective and environmentally sound transportation systems U e e U U e e e e En9 Mechanisms to prepare and implement environmental plans U e U e U e U e e En10 Biodiversity U U U B U e U e e

Economic Ec1 Consumption and production patterns e U B U B B B e e Ec2 Economic development B U U e e B e U U Ec3 Finance e e e e e e e U U Ec4 Water U U e U e e e e e Ec5 Strengthen small and microenterprises e e B e e e e e e

Social So1 Energy Access e e U e B e B e e So2 Water Access e e U U U U U U U So3 Education B B e U e e e e e So4 Health e U e U e e B e B So5 Safety e e e U e B e e e So6 Fire & Emergency Response e e e e e e e B e So7 Poverty e e U B e e e U U So8 Transportation U U U U U U e e U So9 Natural hazards e e e e e e e e e So10 Adequate housing e U U U e B e e U So11 Shelter B e U e e B e B U So12 Security of tenure e e e e e e e e e So13 Access to credit e e e e e e e e e So14 Access to land e e U e e e e e e So15 Promote social integration and support disadvantaged groups e U U e U e e U e So16 Culture U U B B e e e U U So17 Recreation e U e e U e e e B So18 Availability of local public green areas and local services U U B B U B e U B

Governance Go1 Participation and civic engagement U U U e e U e e U Go2 Transparent, accountable and efficient governance e e e e e e e U B Go3 Government e e e e e e e e e Go4 Sustainable management of the authorities and businesses e e e e e e e e B

Keys: U Included, B Similar, e Not included; C1 e Melbourne, C2 e Hong Kong, C3 e Iskandar, C4 e Barcelona, C5 e Mexico City, C6 e Taipei, C7 e Singapore, C8 e Chandigarh, C9 e Pune.

Fig. 1. Environmental dimension. Fig. 2. Economic dimension.

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 23

Fig. 3. Social dimension.

Fig. 5. Compliance with the 4 dimensions.

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2924

indicators included in IUSIL in each dimension accordingly. In Fig. 5, 100% represents the totality of indicators in each practice and the bars indicate the proportional compliance of each dimension. In Fig. 6, 37 represents the totality of categories included in IUSIL and the bars indicate the number of categories addressed by each practice.

Discussions

The above different practices tell us different stories of devel- opment of sustainable urbanization plans, the selection of urban sustainability indicators and their application. These plans were developed in different time, under different circumstances, and for varied purposes but by large for achieving sustainable urbanization. The differences between practices also reveal the difficulties in applying a set of common urbanization indicators. In the following section, discussions are made regarding the differences between the selected practices in compliance with the dimensions included in IUSIL.

Fig. 4. Governance dimension.

Discussion on environmental dimension

In the practice of the environmental dimension as shown in Fig. 1, it is appreciated that Barcelona and Mexico City are the practices with higher compliance. For the case of Barcelona this could be understood because the inhabitants proposed the indi- cators of this practice, therefore the indicators and its targets represent a way of resident’s demands to the city council of Barcelona to meet the highest standards towards an outstanding urban sustainability performance. On the other hand, Mexico City case is different. Even when experts warned several times the importance to take actions to improve the environmental perfor- mance of Mexico City, these were not taken until the city was in a critical situation. Therefore, in Mexico City case it can be found that most of their indicators are focused in environmental issues, which represent the urgent needs of the city.

Chandigarh and Pune are cities with different priorities on environmental performance even when these two belong to the same country (i.e. India). Chandigarh focuses on the environment

Fig. 6. General compliance.

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 25

dimension, while Pune on the economic dimension. Even when Chandigarh is already recognized as one of the greenest cities of India, their plan has a high compliance in environmental dimen- sion. This is because, good environmental performance is a status they want to maintain and lead it to reach the position of the greenest city of India in a term of 30 years. On the other hand, even though Pune has more environmental problems, they have decided to address only the most important ones based on their needs and focus their efforts to improve them in a shorter term of 10 years.

Discussion on economic dimension

In the practice of economic dimension, as shown in Fig. 2, Hong Kong has the highest compliance. However, it is also appreciated that Hong Kong is the practice that has addressed a more balanced compliance with IUSIL across the four dimensions, while this is not the case for Mexico City and Singapore which practices only meet a high compliance in the environmental dimension. Hong Kong could be truly manifesting a practice towards urban sustainability by addressing the balance between the four dimensions. Probably this is also due to the mature characteristics of a city like Hong Kong.

Different to the case in the practice of environmental dimension, it can be seen that Barcelona, Chandigarh and Pune are with good level of compliance in this dimension. However, for Chandigarh this represents a plan for improvement in a term of 30 years and for Pune is about maintaining the good performance and strength it in a shorter period.

Discussion on social dimension

Iskandar is the practice with the highest compliance in the social dimension, as revealed in Fig. 3. Iskandar is a new develop- ment region and it is intended to be a place where investors can feel comfortable and their employees can fulfill their needs. Malaysian Government has clearly addressed a great deal on social issues in their plan for Iskandar to ensure the conditions and the environ- ment needed to meet the expectations of the foreign investors.

Melbourne practice surprisingly does not comply much on the indicators of social issues. This is surprising because it is stated in their plan that one of the main drivers to develop an urban development plan that is in line with the principles of sustainable development was the increasing population growth in Melbourne. It could be interpreted that Melbourne social system is already good enough, which may be only subject to monitoring of issues out of control or with space for improvement.

Discussion on governance dimension

For most of the practices among the selected cities, indicators of governance dimension are not included as a specific section in their plans. However it could be found that some practices included indicators that belong to this dimension but were allocated in others. Barcelona, Mexico City and Singapore are practices that did not include any indicator related to this dimension, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Other practices did not comply more than 30% of the total indicators included in this dimension. The major reason for this is considered as that governance is well developed in most of the practices. The only exception was Pune, complying with more than 70% and this can be explained by understanding the JNNURM promoted by the Government of India (National Institute of Urban Affairs, 2006). The JNNURM stated that all those cities proposing their development plans in India, for instance the cases of Chan- digarh and Pune, should modify their government structure to demonstrate the compromise and responsibility to achieve the goals stated in their plans towards sustainable urbanization.

Chandigarh government having already demonstrated efforts on environmental and social issues, it was only required to build a transparent, accountable and efficient governance. While in the case of Pune, a greater compromise was required.

Discussion on the compliance with the 4 dimensions

Fig. 5 can help to understand the dimensions that are under a stricter monitoring, which represent higher importance to assess the successful enforcement of policies in line to the achievement of the objectives towards a better urban sustainability performance. It is therefore shown that priority is given to environmental and social dimensions by all practices. It puts on evidence that efforts made by international institutions like United Nations and the World Bank, promoting sustainable development, has clearly influenced the local governments and particularly in addressing more efforts to enforce plans and policies to ensure a better environmental performance and to improve the wellbeing of their inhabitants.

Discussion on the general compliance with IUSIL

Fig. 6 demonstrates the general compliance of the list of indi- cators included in each of the practices with IUSIL and it can be seen that Barcelona and Iskandar are the ones that comply the most. However the effective use of indicators is not related to the number of these included for monitoring the practice but their proper selection to produce the most accurate information about the status of the practice (Adinyira et al., 2007; Tanguayet al., 2010). In the case of Barcelona, as previously mentioned, the inhabitants mainly selected the indicators. Their lack of expertise may have influenced the inclusion of indicators without enough foundations proving the importance of the inclusion or linking them with specific objectives or policies. Iskandar practice is a lot different, this is a region under development and the Malaysian government wants to ensure that it is built under enough monitoring that can accurately communicate an effective sustainable urbanization practice.

Mexico City and Hong Kong, are at the same level of compliance but with different needs, objectives and missions. Mexico City wants to be the greenest city in Latin America, while Hong Kong the Asia’s world city. Mexico city with a considerable higher compli- ance than Singapore, these two focused on the environment dimension, but Singapore already with a long track on this commitment since 1992, while Mexico just started in 2007 and has a lot more urgent needs than Singapore.

General comments

The comparison between the nine practices can lead to the following general comments:

� Melbourne’s City Plan 2010 appears to be more a statement of desired directions and this may convert its indicators more abstract. It may be worth to clearly identify the key issues expected rather than just providing a brief and very general discussion of emerging challenges. These challenges can be related to plan’s goals and pathways. Moreover, some indica- tors do not have targets, making it appear like if these indica- tors are considered unimportant.

� The Hong Kong practice is different from the other ones, in which the government spent considerable time in selecting the indicators that are more applicable to Hong Kong. This practice instead of defining targets for each indicator, they have designed a tool that can assess the development plans and determine if these are in line with the sustainable development of the city.

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2926

� The set of indicators for Iskandar were developed for a pro- jected urban area where the attraction of investment is important but rules have been determined in order to develop this area under the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, these indicators work more as guidelines since there is not enough available information at the moment in order to assess the sustainability performance.

� The limitations inTaipei case are evident. This is a research work, which aimed to measure Taipei’s urban sustainability. However, the list of indicators is extensive and these are not validated by the government nor the citizens. No target values for each indicator had been defined yet. Nevertheless, the indicators proposed in this approach may represent valuable reference for Taipei’s authorities to establish its indicator system.

Conclusions

It is appreciated that the use of indicators for assessing urban sustainability performance is an important tool and has been widely adopted. Whilst various indicators have been applied in different ways, the aim pursued is the same, for attaining urban sustainability. Due to the differences between individual practices, the selection of indicators should be done with the clear under- standing of the needs where these are going to be applied. A short list of indicators at the beginning of application is recommended,

International Urban Sustainability Indicators List (IUSIL).

Category

Environmental En1 Geographically balanced settlement En1-1

En1-2 En2 Freshwater En2-1

En2-2 En2-3 En2-4

En3 Wastewater En3-1 En3-2

En4 Quality of ambient air and atmosphere En4-1 En4-2 En4-3 En4-4

En5 Noise pollution En5-1 En5-2 En5-3

En6 Sustainable land use En6-1 En6-2 En6-3 En6-4

En6-5

En6-6 En6-7 En6-8 En6-9

En7 Waste generation and management En7-1 En7-2

En7-3 En7-4 En7-5 En7-6

and during later revisions more indicators can be added or elimi- nated according to the emerging needs and gained experience in individual cases. The integration of short term and long-term sustainable urban development plans should be encouraged and their continuity should be assured. Involvement of different sectors in the definition of objectives and strategies may represent an important step for obtaining the recognition and support when adding efforts to accomplish them.

It is important to emphasize that any attempt proposing a set of objectives and strategies to be applied indistinctly in all commu- nities can be arguable. On the other hand, sharing experiences generated from different practices can eliminate the barriers that lead to the maturity of sustainable urbanization as a common practice. This can be done through the use of common comparative basis to differentiate the strategies and evaluate the results obtained from their implementation. The use of IUSIL in this study has demonstrated the importance of having comparative basis. It is envisaged that the continuous comparison of more practices can lead to the development of standard processes, which can be used to guide the development of particular plans, selection of indica- tors, objectives and strategies for implementing the sustainable urbanization practice in other communities.

Appendix

Indicator

Population growth Planned settlements Proportion of total water resources used Water use intensity by economic activity Presence of faecal coliforms in freshwater Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies Percentage of city population served by wastewater collection Percentage of wastewater receiving no/primary/secondary/tertiary treatment Number of times the limit values for selected air pollutants are exceeded Existence and level of implementation of air quality management plan Emissions of greenhouse gases Consumption of ozone depleting substances Share of population exposed to long-term high level of environmental noise Noise levels in selected areas Existence and level of implementation of a noise action plan Artificial surfaces as a percentage of the total municipal area. Extent of derelict and contaminated land Number of inhabitants per Km2 Quota of new edification taking place on virgin area and quota taking place on derelict and contaminated land in % per year. Restoration of urban land

a) Renovation, conversion of derelict buildings b) Redevelopment of derelict land for new urban uses c) Cleansing of contaminated land

Protected areas as a percentage of total municipal area Land affected by desertification Area under organic farming Proportion of land area covered by forests Percentage of city population with regular solid waste collection Percentage of solid waste disposed to sanitary landfill/incinerated and burned openly/disposed to open dump/recycled/other Total solid waste generation per capita Generation of hazardous waste Waste treatment and disposal Management of radioactive waste

Appendix: (continued)

Category Indicator

En8 Effective and environmentally sound transportation systems

En8-1 Travel time En8-2 Transport modes En8-3 Energy intensity of transport

En9 Mechanisms to prepare and implement environmental plans

En9-1 Local environmental plans En9-2 Latest approval date of Master Plan

En10 Biodiversity En10-1 Proportion of terrestrial area protected En10-2 Management effectiveness of protected areas En10-3 Area of selected key ecosystems En10-4 Fragmentation of habitats En10-5 Change in threat status of species En10-6 Abundance of selected key species En10-7 Abundance of invasive alien species

Economic Ec1 Consumption and production patterns Ec1-1 Material consumption

Ec1-2 Material intensity of the economy Ec1-3 Domestic material consumption Ec1-4 Annual energy consumption, total and by main user category Ec1-5 Share of renewable energy sources in total energy use Ec1-6 Intensity of energy use, total and by economic activity

Ec2 Economic development Ec2-1 Macroeconomic performance

a) Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita b) Gross saving c) Investment share in GDP d) Adjusted net savings as percentage of gross national income (GNI) e) Inflation rate

Ec2-2 Employment

a) Employment-population ratio b) Vulnerable employment c) Labor productivity and unit labor costs d) Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector

Ec2-3 Information and communication technologies

a) Internet users per 100 population b) Fixed telephone lines per 100 population c) Mobile cellular telephone subscribers per 100 population

Ec2-4 Research and development

a) Gross domestic expenditure on Research and Development as a percent of GDP

Ec2-5 Tourism

a) Tourism contribution to GDP

Ec3 Finance Ec3-1 Debt service ratio Ec3-2 Tax collected as percentage of tax billed Ec3-3 Own-source revenue as a percent of total revenues Ec3-4 Capital spending as percentage of total expenditures

Ec4 Water Ec4-1 Price of water Ec4-2 Domestic water consumption per capita

Ec5 Strengthen small and microenterprises Ec5-1 Informal employment

Social So1 Energy Access So1-1 Percentage of city population with authorized electrical service

So1-2 Total electrical use per capita So1-3 Number and duration of electrical interruptions

per year per customer So2 Water Access So2-1 Percentage of city population with potable water supply service

So2-2 Number of interruptions in water service So3 Education So3-1 Percentage of children completing primary

and secondary education So3-2 Percentage of school aged children enrolled in schools (by gender) So3-3 Student/teacher ratio

(continued on next page)

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 27

Appendix: (continued)

Category Indicator

So4 Health So4-1 Mortality

a) Under-five b) Mortality rate c) Life expectancy at birth d) Healthy life expectancy at birth

So4-2 Health care delivery

a) Percent of population with access to primary health care facilities b) Contraceptive prevalence rate c) Immunization against infectious childhood diseases

So4-3 Nutritional status

a) Nutritional status of children

So4-4 Health status and risks

a) Morbidity of major diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis b) Prevalence of tobacco use c) Suicide rate

So5 Safety So5-1 Number of homicides per 100,000 population So5-2 Number of sworn police officers per 100,000 population So5-3 Violent crime rate per 100,000 population

So6 Fire & Emergency Response So6-1 Number of firefighters per 100,000 population So6-2 Number of fire related deaths per 100,000 population So6-3 Response time for fire department from initial call

So7 Poverty So7-1 Income poverty

a) Proportion of population living below national poverty line b) Proportion of population below $1 a day

So7-2 Income inequality

a) Ratio of share in national income of highest to lowest quintile

So8 Transportation So8-1 Km of transportation system per 100,000 population So8-2 Annual number of public transit trips per capita So8-3 Commercial Air Connectivity So8-4 Average travel speed on primary thoroughfares during peak hours So8-5 Transportation fatalities per 100,000 population So8-6 Number of daily trips and time taken per capita by type of trip and by

mode of transport So8-7 Total average daily distance covered per capita by type of trip and by

mode of transport So8-8 Mode of transportation used by children to travel

between home and school So9 Natural hazards So9-1 Percentage of population living in hazard prone areas

So9-2 Human and economic loss due to natural disasters So9-3 Disaster prevention and mitigation instruments

So10 Adequate housing So10-1 Durable structures So10-2 Overcrowding So10-3 Right to adequate housing So10-4 Housing price and rent-to-income

So11 Shelter So11-1 Percentage of city population living in slums So11-2 Area size of informal settlements as a percent of

city area and population So12 Security of tenure So12-1 Secure tenure

So12-2 Authorized housing So12-3 Evictions

So13 Access to credit So13-1 Housing finance So14 Access to land So14-1 Land price -to-income So15 Promote social integration and support

disadvantaged groups So15-1 Poor households

So16 Culture So16-1 Number of cultural establishments per 100,000 population So16-2 City expenditures on culture as a percentage of overall city budget

So17 Recreation So17-1 Square meters of public recreation facility space per capita So17-2 City expenditures on public recreation as a percentage

of overall city budget So18 Availability of local public green areas and local services So18-1 Citizens’ access to nearby public green areas and basic services

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e2928

Appendix: (continued)

Category Indicator

Governance Go1 Participation and civic engagement Go1-1 Citizens participation

Go1-2 Voters participation Go1-3 Civic associations

Go2 Transparent, accountable and efficient governance Go2-1 Transparency and accountability Go3 Government Go3-1 Corruption

Go3-2 Percentage of population having paid bribes Go4 Sustainable management of the authorities and businesses Go4-1 Share of public and private organizations adopting and using

environmental and social management procedures

L.-Y. Shen et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 17e29 29

References

Adinyira, E., Oteng-Seifah, S., & Adjei-Kumi, T. (2007). A review of urban sustain- ability assessment methodologies. In M. Horner, C. Hardcastle, A. Price, & J. Bebbington (Eds.), International conference on whole life urban sustainability and its assessment. Glasgow.

Alshuwaikhat, H. M., & Nkwenti, D. I. (2002). Visualizing decision-making: perspectives on collaborative and participative approach to sustainable urban planning and management. Environment and Planning B, 29, 513e531.

Ambiente Italia Research Institute. (2003). European common indicators (ECI): Towards a local sustainability profile. Final Project Report. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Bell, S. G., & Morse, S. (1999). Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable. London: Earthscan.

Brandon, P. S., & Lombardi, P. (2005). Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. Oxford: Blackwell.

Briassoulis, H. (2001). Sustainable development and its indicators: through a (planner’s) glass darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 409e427.

Camagni, R. (2002). On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading? Urban Studies, 39(13), 2395e2411.

Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62.

Chandigarh Administration. (2006). City development plan of Chardigarh. Chew, V. (2008). Singapore Green Plan (SGP). National Library Board Singapore. Choguill, C. L. (1993). Sustainable cities: urban policies for the future. Habitat

International, 17, 1e12. Choguill, C. L. (1996). Toward sustainability of human settlements. Habitat Inter-

national, 20(3), veviii. Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems.

Washington, DC: Island Press. Davison, F. (1996). Planning for performance: requirements for sustainable devel-

opment. Habitat International, 20(3), 445e462. Drakakis-Smith, D. (2000). Third world cities. London: Routledge. European Commission. (2000). Building Environmental Quality Evaluation for

Sustainability through Time Network (BEQUEST). European Commission. European Commission. (2004). A European thematic network on construction and

City Related Sustainability Indicators (CRISP). European Commission. European Commission. (2006). Targeted summary of the European sustainable cities

report for local authorities. European Commission. European Foundation. (1998). Urban sustainability indicators. Ireland: European

Commission. Garza, G. (1996). Uncontrolled air pollution in Mexico city. Cities, 13(5), 315e328. Gómez, G. (1998). Indicators for sustainability in Barcelona (in Spanish). Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1992). Environmental problems in third

world cities. London: Earthscan. Holden, M., Roseland, M., Ferguson, K., & Perl, A. (2008). Seeking urban sustain-

ability on the world stage. Habitat International, 32, 305e317. Hong Kong Council for Sustainable Development. (2005). Briefing on the sustain-

ability assessment system. Hong Kong Council for Sustainable Development. Hong Kong Planning Department. (2001). Sustainable development for the 21st

century. Hong Kong Planning Department. Hong Kong Planning Department. (2007). Hong Kong 2030-planning vision and

strategy. Hong Kong Planning Department. Huang, S. L., Wong, J. H., & Chen, T. C. (1998). A framework of indicator system for

measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42,15e27. ICLEI. (2000). Barcelona provincial council e Municipal system of sustainability indi-

cators. ICLEI. Iskandar Regional Development Authority. (2007). Laws of Malaysia e Act 664.

Malaysia: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad. Iskandar Regional Development Authority. (2008). Comprehensive Development

Plan for Iskandar Malaysia. Izazola, H. (2000). Water and sustainability in Mexico City (in Spanish). Kahn, M. E. (2006). Green Cities: Urban growth and the environment. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Legrand, N., Planche, S., & Rabia, F. (2007). Integration d’Indicateurs de Developpe- ment Durable dans un Outil d’Aide a la Decision. Paris.

Marcotullio, P. J. (2001). Asian urban sustainability in the era of globalization. Habitat International, 25, 577e598.

Mega, V., & Pedersen, J. (1998). Urban sustainability indicators. Dublin, Ireland. Melbourne City Council. (2001). City plan 2010-towards a thriving and sustainable

city. Available from <http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/Publications/ CityPlan2010_part1.pdf>.

Melbourne City Council. (2006). Sustainability Report 2005e06. Mexico City Government. (2007). Green plan “Plan Verde” (in Spanish). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: A

framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. (2006). Singapore green plan

2012. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. National Institute of Urban Affairs. (2006). Community-oriented city development

plans. New Delhi: National Institute of Urban Affairs. Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable

development. Annual Review Environmental Resources, 28(13), 559e586. Planque, B., & Lazzeri, Y. (2006). Principes et methodologie de construction du refer-

entiel territoriales et developpement durable. Paris. Polése, M., & Stren, R. (1999). The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the

management of change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. President’s Council on Sustainable Development. (1997). The president’s council on

sustainable development task force report. Pune Municipal Corporation. (2006). Pune city development plan. Pune Municipal

Corporation. Roy, M. (2009). Planning for sustainable urbanisation in fast growning cities:

mitigation and adaptation issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat International, 33, 276e286.

Seabrooke, W., Yeung, C. W. S., & Ma, M. F. F. (2004). Implementing sustainable urban development at the operational level (with reference to Hong kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International, 28, 443e466.

Selman, P. (1999). Three decades of environmental planning: what have we really learned? In M. Kenny, & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Planning sustainability London: Routledge.

Soegijoko, B., Tjahjati, S., & Kusbiantoro, B. S. (2001). Globalization and the sustainability of Jabotabek, Indonesia.

Tanguay, G. A., Rojaoson, J., Lefebvre, J. F., & Lanoie, P. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10, 407e418.

Ugwu, O. O., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability-a South African construction industry perspective. Building & Environment, 42(2), 665e680.

UN Habitat. (2004). Urban indicator guidelines. Kenya. United Nations. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and

methodologies. New York. United Nations. (2008). World urbanization prospects e The 2007 revision. New York. United Nations Statistical Institute for Asia and Pacific. (2007). Building adminis-

trative data systems for statistical purposes-addressing training issues and needs of countries. Inception/regional workshop on reta6356: Improving administrative data sources for the monitoring of the mdg indicators. Bangkok, Thailand.

Verbruggen, H., & Kuik, O. (1991). Indicators of sustainable development: an overview. In O. Kuik, & H. Verbruggen (Eds.), In search of indicators of sustainable development.

Western Australian Council of Social Services. (2003). Model of social sustainability. Available from <http://www.wacoss.org.au/downloads/socialsustainable.pdf>.

Wong, S. W., Tang, B. S., & Van Horen, B. (2006). Strategic urban management in china: a case study of Guangzhou Development District. Habitat International, 30, 645e667.

World Bank. (2008). Global city indicator programme report. Canada: World Bank. Zhang, K., He, X., & Wen, Z. (2003). Study of indicators of urban environmentally

sustainable development in china. International Journal of Sustainable Develop- ment, 6(2), 170e182.

Zhang, K., Wen, Z., Du, W., & Song, G. (2008). A multiple-indicators approach to monitoring urban sustainable development. Springer.