Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

An evaluation framework for the sustainability of urban land use:

A study of capital cities and municipalities in China
Xiaoling Zhang a, Yuzhe Wu b, *, Liyin Shen a
a
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Land Administration, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310029, China

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: The urban land use involves more severe sustainability challenges than agricultural land use. An effective
Sustainability of urban land use approach for evaluating urban land use is essential for meeting this challenge to improve efficient land
Principal Component Analysis
use management. This approach must fit into a coherent conceptual and analytical framework covering
Evaluation system
Capital cities and municipalities
different aspects, including social, economic, environmental and rational land use structure. A major
Land use policy problem with this is the lack of the evaluation approach for objectively evaluating the sustainability of
urban land use in practice. In this paper, an evaluation system for the sustainability of urban land use
(ESULU) is presented aimed at rectifying this situation. This is based on 13 indicators drawn from
previous literatures in consultation with a group of experts in this field. Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) is applied to assist in identifying the major factors for evaluating the sustainability of urban
land use. Examination of the results provides a grouping analysis of the capital cities and municipalities,
indicating a general disproportion between coastal and interior urban cities in China. The findings lead to
further suggestions and recommendations for central and local government to design relevant policy in
achieving the sustainable development of urban land use and planning.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction was first put forward at the corporate level to measure and report
corporate performance against economic, social and environmental
Sustainable development as a concept has been gaining parameters (Elkington, 1980; Suggett & Goodsir, 2002). After that,
increasing popularity across various sectors including the land the United Nations 2005 World Summit Outcome Document
use research area since the publication of Bruntland Commission refers to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of
Report (WCED, 1987). After the Bruntland Report, consequent sustainable development as economic development, social devel-
debates pointed out that economic interests and environmental opment, and environmental protection (United Nations, 2008).
considerations are not the opposite or conflicting sides of devel- Urbanization emerges as the result of the increasing number of
opment discourse and in order to secure intergenerational equity, population moving from rural areas to urban areas. However, rapid
these sides should meet agreed upon mutual interests (Holden, urbanization is often at the expense of the loss of agricultural land
Roseland, Ferguson, & Perl, 2008). The applicability of sustainable for satisfying urban demands. Natural and agricultural landscapes
development to real settings has been one of the most discussed have been modified into urban landscapes. This is a tendency that
issues in conferences and the literature. For example, Habitat 1976 has been rapidly experienced in recent years and is expected to
officially launched the worldwide dialogue on the topic of urban continue and increase during the coming decades (United Nations,
cities at nation level. The major formal outcome of Habitat II was 2008). In this context, if the current and future urban areas
the Habitat Agenda, a ‘‘global call to action’’ for adequate shelter continue with the same land use conversion practices without
and sustainable human settlements for all (UN Habitat, 1996). regarding the future needs, environmental, social and economic
A new sustainability framework, triple bottom line approach (TBL), problems are inevitable (Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2003). Reports by the European Environment Agency
(e.g., EEA, 1998, 1999, 2000) have highlighted the problematic issues
* Corresponding author. Department of Land Administration, Zhejiang University, of urban sprawl, brown fields and soil degradation. The most serious
258 Kaixuan Road, Hangzhou 310029, PR China. Tel.: þ86 571 86971987 (Office),
problems confronting cities and towns and their inhabitants as
fax: þ86 571 86971277.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X.L. Zhang), [email protected]. enumerated by the Habitat II Agenda (2002) include improper land
cn (Y.Z. Wu), [email protected] (L.Y. Shen). use and insecure tenure among others. Meanwhile, problems such as

0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.06.006
142 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149

the sedimentation of watersheds, urban pollution and crowded Dumanski, 1993). In 1993, the Food and Agriculture Organization
population are increasing as urban land becomes bare from overuse of the United Nations (Smyth & Dumanski, 1993) put forward ‘The
(Bai & Imura, 2001; Chen, Jia, & Lau, 2008; Jenks, Burton, & Williams, Framework for Evaluation Sustainable Land Management (FESLM)’
1996; Yeh & Li, 1997). This situation is even more apparent in the which defined ‘sustainability’ as a measure of the extent to which
urban cities of developing countries, such as China. Together with a form of land use is expected to meet the requirements of
economic development, China has experienced rapid urbanization productivity, security, protection, economical viability and social
over the last two decades and the landscape has changed signifi- acceptability into the future. Since then, the principles and the five
cantly (Liu, Zhuang, Luo, & Xiao, 2003). In the context of urbaniza- pillar evaluation guidelines contained in the Framework have
tion, large amounts of agricultural land use areas have been changed become an international guiding platform in the sustainable land
into built-up or urban land-use areas (Xiao et al., 2006). The land- use management forum. However, all of the above frameworks are
scape changes have exerted great impacts on the environment due a generalisation of common guidelines and need further modifi-
to urbanization (Carlson & Traci Arthur, 2000; Shen, Xiao, Kondoh, & cation to accommodate different countries or areas of practice.
Tateishi, 2003). As summarized by Xiao et al. (2006), many studies Since the 1990s, numerous indicators, frameworks and assess-
have reported on the urbanization, land use changes and conse- ment tools have been developed (Briassoulis, 2001; Davison, 1996;
quential environmental problems of some large urban cities such as Halla, 1994; Izac & Swift, 1994; Maclaren, 1996; Stevenson & Lee,
Beijing (Gu, 1999; Liu, Wu, & Shen, 2000), Guangzhou (Weng, 2002), 2001) in order to understand the sustainability of land use. In
and Shenzhen (Shi, Chen, & Pan, 2000; Sui & Zeng, 2001). Therefore, particular, indicator approach is crucial for helping on target setting,
there is a need for policymakers in the urban land use management performance reviews and facilitating communication among the
area to gauge the sustainability of urban land use in order to identify policymakers, experts and public (Verbruggen & Kuik, 1991). The
the problems and the effective strategies to solve them (Olima & indicator approach has been used frequently in the management of
Obala, 1998). In this context, studies concerning the sustainability cities, land use, and the environment (Brandon & Lombardi, 2005;
of urban land use are essential not only for sustainable urban land Verbruggen & Kuik, 1991) across the diversity of different cities
use in large cities but also for benefiting the sustainable develop- and regions, which vary according to their particular needs and
ment of all urban cities in the long run. goals. There are indicators classified as Pressure/Driving Forces
This paper aims to evaluate the sustainability of urban land use by indicators in the OECD indicator classification scheme (OECD, 1998,
establishing an alternative indicator framework. This is based on 13 2000). Another integrated indicator list named “International
indicators drawn from the previous literature and in consultation Urban Sustainability Indicators List (IUSIL)” introduced by Shen,
with a group of experts in the field, and further indicators analysed in Ochoa, Shah, and Zhang (2010). IUSIL contains 115 indicators, 37
4 groups. The indicator framework can then be used to gauge the categories were formed in order to better structure the indicators
extent to which regional differences exist in the sustainability of within 4 dimensions of sustainable development, which are: envi-
urban land use in China. The paper is organized into the following ronmental, economic, social and governance. Dumanski (1994), for
sections. First, a review of existing studies is provided concerning the instance, has investigated the factors which affect agriculture land
indicators and frameworks for studying the sustainability of urban use in Canada, based on the principles of FESLM and then assessed
land use. This is followed by a brief outline of the research method- the sustainability of Saskatchewan farming land. Peng, An, Chen, and
ology and data collection. Then, the study classifies these mega-cities Pu (2001), on the other hand, adopted a social statistical method to
into several groups according to different sustainability levels. evaluate the present level of sustainable land use in the Yangtze
Finally, appropriate policy and strategies for promoting sustainable River Delta in China. Indicators consisting of 36 factors were selected
urban land use are suggested in referring to the findings of the study. as the evaluating index system, and weights and target values for
indicators established by using the AHP method. Fu, Chen, and Ma
Literature review (1997) established a procedure and model of sustainable land
use evaluation, involving the selection of a series of indicators
Sustainable land use has been the subject of much research which reflect the quality, attributes and the process of land use as the
since the Bruntland report of 1987 on ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED, evaluation indices. In another study, Tan, Wu, Ye, Ding, and Mou
1987) and the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Hart and (2003) constructed a sustainability function composed of sustain-
Sands (1991), for example, have proposed a sustainable land-use able land use indicators, which is used to investigate the efficiency in
systems research (SLUSR) agenda that may provide a starting land-use structure and land use management. Walter and Stützel
point. The study focuses on land use as a system, targeting the land (2009) introduced an evaluation method for land-use-related
management unit, within the context of its biophysical and socio- impact indicators, which was designed to achieve in comparing
economic environments. The Ecological Footprint (Rees, 1992; Rees different land use management systems by indicator basis.
& Wackernagel, 1999) introduced an approach for evaluating In referring to the literature introduced above, researchers have
the extent of human use of natural resources. It aggregates the tried to measure and monitor the proximity to what they consider
ecological flows associated with consumption and translates them sustainability by implementing what has been called sustainability
into appropriated land area, an indicator that anyone can under- indicators and indices (Boulanger, 2008). Most of the previous
stand (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). In this regard, sustainable urban studies have focused on the conceptual framework, systematic
land use is defined as “the urban land use, the types and sequences analysis and strategies in evaluating sustainable land use. However,
of development, conservation and environmental management much of this work to date has been concerned with the evaluation
activities to meet specified socioeconomic-environmental objec- of the sustainability of agricultural land use while little has
tives”. This definition focuses on land use intensification, which addressed the sustainability of urban land use evaluation. For those
was recognized as the most promising form of urban intensification studies on sustainable urban land use, most of them have estab-
contributing positively towards sustainable cities, mainly because it lished basic evaluation frameworks and have arrived at some basic
reduces pressures of outward expansion (Williams, 2000). In order agreement of the issues including the environmental, economical
to achieve sustainable urban land use, the school of “sustainable and social aspects at national level. Therefore, very few of them has
land management (SLM)” emerges. SLM is defined as a system that addressed a comprehensive indicators set tailored for evaluating
combines technologies, policies and activities aimed at integrating the sustainability of urban land use that is easier to apply at the
socioeconomic principles with environmental concerns (Smyth & urban city level. And there is a lack of quantitative evaluation
 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149 143

approach by combining the set of indicators to assess the sustain- issues of land use. Haberl and Schandl (1999) provided empirical
ability level of urban land use. There is a necessity to find out an examples for sustainability indicators, focusing on landscape
appropriate method in this paper to facilitate the study in evalu- processes, and relate land use to the analysis of material and energy
ating the sustainable urban land use in China. flows. It is obvious that most of these frameworks have addressed part
of the FESLM guidelines. However, the special characteristics of urban
Evaluation system for the sustainability of urban land use require a particular care in the development of an appropriate
land use (ESULU) set of indicators relevant for the measurement of sustainability of
urban land use in China. In the development of the indicators
Research method proposed here, the emphasis has been put on the revised key issues
relevant to the FESLM guideline: economic, social, and environmental.
In order to develop the ESULU, the procedures for demonstrating In line with this, a preliminary indicator list has been proposed by
how the sustainability of urban land use is presented as shown in including the relevant indicators mentioned in the previous litera-
Fig. 1. In line with Fig. 1, the first task is to identify the indicators tures. For example, Li et al. (2009) opined that ‘total retail sales of
that can demonstrate how the implications of urban land use are consumer goods’ can be considered as one of the indicators for eval-
described and to organise the indicators into an appropriate struc- uating the social aspect of sustainability of urban land use. Farrow and
ture based on principles such as ease of operation and cost effec- Winograd (2001) proposed that ‘GDP’ was significant indicator for
tiveness. This then enables the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) addressing sustainable land use. Though the sustainability appraisal
method to be used to extract the principal component factors process is relatively straightforward, it does rely on users having
and calculate the loadings with each of the investigated cases. This a good understanding of the concept of sustainability of urban land
followed by the group analysis of the sustainability level of urban use, or at least knowing what outcome for their area could be. In order
land use among the capital cities and municipalities in China. The to ensure effective readability and proper expression of their mean-
advantages have been identified in the application of PCA in land use ings, these indicators were presented to 15 land use management
changes (Li & Yeh, 1998) and land use evaluation practice (Yu, 1993). practitioners and academics as a pilot study. The respondents were
invited to assess whether the indicator framework is appropriate,
Indicator selection and data collection whether the proposed indicators are appropriate in capturing the
sustainability of urban land use in the capital cities and municipalities
Obviously, sustainability of urban land use has been analysed from in China, whether the terminology was correct, or whether some
various scale perspectives (Leccese & McCormick, 2000; Silberstein & indicators could be deleted from the list or others could be added.
Maser, 2000; Ward, Murray, & Phinn, 2003). The term ‘sustainability’ Valuable comments were received and amendments were made
is considered as one critical criterion for land use. However, the accordingly, which led to the confined list of 4 pillars of issues and 13
sustainability assessment of urban land use has been hindered by the sustainability indicators as shown in Table 1.It is worth pointing out
lack of measureable quantitative indicators (Niu, Lu, & Khan, 1993). that a supplement pillar named as ‘urban land use structure’ is added
Indicators are powerful tools to simplify, quantify and communicate in the indicator framework. In this context, the revised indicator list
information on processes such as societyenature interaction that are can be classified into four major groups: economic, social, environ-
too complex to be measured and perceived directly (Hammond, mental and urban land use structure. By communicating with experts
Adriaanse, Rodenburg, Bryant, & Woodward, 1995). In general, in sustainable urban land use area, the evaluation framework can be
sustainability indicators must fit into a coherent conceptual and correlated with the specific circumstances of local areas, so that
analytical framework covering different aspects (Farrow & Winograd, findings and recommendations can be fed into the sustainable urban
2001; Winograd, 1995). A literature review was undertaken to provide land use development, to improve delivery on the ground.
a proper theoretical understanding on the sustainability of urban land Largely at first, the indicators framework is established in refer-
use. The FESLM introduced the 5-pillar evaluation guidelines in the ring to FESLM guideline by summarizing the literature reviews. After
sustainable land use management area; Fu et al. (1997) introduced the interview by experts in the pilot study, particular focus is given
a sustainable land use evaluation model, involving the selection of to the rational allocation of urban land use structure in China. This is
a series of factors which reflect the ecologic, economic and social because explosive urban expansion in the era of rapid urbanization
has brought about serious land overuse and land resources
consumption in China. There is an agreement between the experts
Data collection
that the rational use of urban land use has to be emphasized in the
indicator framework.
Selection princeples
The relevant data for the 12 indicators were acquired from the
Literature review The indicator selection of SULUES
China City Statistic Yearbook (2006, 2007) and China Statistical
Yearbook (2007). The cases used for this study are the capital cities
The Principal components extraction from
and municipalities in China, including Beijing (BJ), Tianjin (TJ), Shi-
SULUES jiazhuang (SJZ), Taiyuan (TY), Hohhot (HH), Shenyang (SY), Changchun
(CC), Harbin (HB), Shanghai (SH), Nanjing (NJ), Hangzhou (HZ), Hefei
(HF), Fuzhou (FZ), Nanchang (NC), Jinan (JN), Zhengzhou (ZZ), Wuhan
(WH), Changsha (CS), Guangzhou (GZ), Nanning (NN), Haikou (HK),
The rationality
No
Chongqing (CQ), Chengdu (CD), Guiyang (GY), Kunming (KM), Xi’an
analysis on the
principal (XA), Lanzhou (LZ), Xining (XN), Yinchuan (YC) and Urumqi (UQ).
components The
Classification
on
the
Principal Component Analysis of ESULU
Yes SULUES
based
on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a popular means for
PCA
The naming for the Principal components making comparisons between objects’ measures on several
dimensions or criteria, such as the welfare level between individuals
Fig. 1. Research procedure of the sustainability for SULUES. (Maasoumi & Nickelsburg, 1988). To do this, it linearly transforms of
144 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149

Table 1
The indicator system.

Category Indicators Unit References

Urban land use structure X1-Per capita cultivated land Hectare Farrow & Winograd, 2001
X2-Total land area Sq. km Shen et al., 2009
X3-Proportion of construction land cover in the built-up urban area % Li et al., 2009; Shen et al., 2009
X4-Road area per capita m2 Fujiwara & Zhang, 2005; Li et al., 2009
Social X5-Population density Person/sq.km Shen et al., 2009; Li et al., 2009; Thinh, Arlt,
Heber, Hennersdorf, & Lehmann, 2002
X6-Total retail sales of consumer goods 10000 Yuan Li & Wu, 2001
Environmental X7-Investment devoted to environmental pollution treatment 10000 Yuan Li et al., 2009
X8-Proportion of industrial solid wastes that are treated and reused % Li et al., 2009
Economical X9-GDP 10000 Yuan Shen et al., 2009; Li et al., 2009;
Farrow & Winograd, 2001
X10-GDP per unit area of land Yuan Li et al., 2009; Thinh et al., 2002
X11-GDP per unit area investment in fixed assets Yuan Xie, 2009
X12-Retail sales of consumer Goods per unit area of land Yuan Li et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2001
X13-Real estate development investments per square meter of built-up area Yuan/m2 Wong & Tang, 2005

a set of original variables into a new set of variables that are

uncorrelated (orthogonal) with each other (Ku, Storer, & Georgakis, F3 ¼ 0:061  X9  0:072  X6 þ 0:020  X7 þ 0:151  X12
1995). The method relies solely on the variation and covariation þ 0:189  X10 þ 0:200  X11 þ 0:278  X13 þ 0:415  X5
of the data matrix to construct weights in the indexes, which are þ 0:111  X3  0:903  X1  0:571  X2
then used to produce a small number of comprehensive variables, or
þ 0:163  X8  0:029  X4 ð3Þ
components, in place of many original variables, simplify the data
structure and minimise original data information loss. This can then
be subjected to various forms of rotation to check orthogonality.
Many procedures have been proposed for determining the number
of components to be retained in the PCA model (Jackson, 1995) and Factor 1 e Urban land use social-economic potential factor
additionally, although somewhat controversially (e.g., Sternberg,
1977), the method can be used to help identify the concepts As Formulas (1)e(3) and Table 3 show, the first component F1, is
underlying the data. It is also well supported by standard statistical predominantly loaded with X9 (.963), X6 (.900), X7 (.856), X12 (.852),
software and therefore, in the current context, it provides a simple and X10 (.829). The first principal component (Factor 1) stores the
and efficient method to identify the groups or concepts for use in maximum contents of the variance of the original data set (Li & Yeh,
evaluating the sustainability of the urban land use. 1998), which include the following components:
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the PCA correlation matrix
based and the first four eigenvalues are given in Table 2. As can  X9-GDP
be seen, the contribution rate is calculated from the Varimax  X6-Total retail sales of consumer goods
normalized factor analysis. This suggests that PCA can be used in  X7-Investment devoted to environmental pollution treatment
several different ways in constructing the sustainability level of  X12-Retail sales of consumer goods per unit area of land
urban land use. In accordance with the minimum “m” selection  X10-GDP per unit area of land
criteria (Ei > 75%), the three eigenvalues of the cumulative vari-
ability contributions rate E3 is 78.18%. The urban land use can be driven by several elements, including
The values of the eigenvectors of the three components are social and economic aspects. For example, X9, X10 and X7 has a high
given in Table 3, the vectors being scaled so that the maximum loading on Factor 1, indicating that the economical context can
weighting is 0.963. greatly affect the sustainable development of urban land use. The
other two high loading variables are X6 and X12, demonstrating that
F1 ¼ 0:963  X9 þ 0:900  X6 þ 0:856  X7 þ 0:852  X12
þ 0:829  X10 þ 0:810  X11 þ 0:770  X13 þ 0:660  X5
þ 0:233  X3  0:232  X1 þ 0:156  X2 Table 3
Factor loadings for first three principal components.
þ 0:172  X8 þ 0:233  X4 ð1Þ
F1 F2 F3
X9 .963 .126 .061
F2 ¼ 0:126  X9  0:080  X6 þ 0:280  X7 þ 0:329  X12 X6 .900 .080 .072
þ 0:451  X10 þ 0:495  X11  0:384  X13 þ 0:523  X5 X7 .856 .280 .020
X12 .852 .329 .151
þ 0:839  X3  0:021  X1  0:433  X2
X10 .829 .451 .189
þ 0:022  X8 þ 0:567  X4 ð2Þ X11 .810 .495 .200
X13 .770 .384 .278
X5 .660 .523 .415
X3 .233 .839 .111
Table 2 X1 .232 .021 .903
Eigenvalues and variability contributions of ESULU (%). X2 .156 .433 .571
X8 .172 .022 .445
Factor Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 X4 .233 .567 .029
Eigenvalue 7.147 1.865 1.151 Name Urban land use Urban land use Urban land use
Percentage variability contributions 54.975 14.349 8.855 social-economic structure factor ecological environment
Cumulative variability contribution rate 54.975 69.324 78.179 potential factor constraints factor
 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149 145

the sustainable development of urban land use cannot be separated of the capital cities and municipalities as the criteria for grouping
from social aspects such as total retail sales of consumer goods. ESULU of cities (Cheng et al., 2000).
This finding is echoed with Tan, Li, Xie, and Lu (2005), who opined In the light of the loading scores of the principal component
that the rapid economic growth played a noticeable role of spurring factors for cases in Table 4, the sustainability level for urban land
the growth of urban land per capita in large cities of China. use in the cases can be categorized into four major groups, the
result can be shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 includes high (H) and low (L)
Factor 2 e Urban land use structure factor areas according to each of the value range of three principal
components. ‘H’ signifies that the score is above 0 while ‘L’ implies
The second principal component (Factor 2) describes the largest that the score is below 0. It is obvious that the first three principal
amount of the variance in the data that is not already described by components, Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3 carry most of the
the first principal component, and so forth (Taylor, 1977). Factor 2 information of evaluating sustainability of urban land use with the
gives high positive weightings to X3 (.839), and X4 (.567) where total cumulative contribution (78.18%). As mentioned above, Factor
1 plays a major part in demonstrating the ESULU grouping anal-
 X3-Proportion of construction land area in the total urban ysis, while the other two factors decrease their influence in the
built-up area process. In this context, the more loadings with Factor 1, the higher
 X4-Road area per capita ESULU level would be for the evaluation units. For example,
Shanghai has many loadings (3.21) with Factor 1, though its
This indicates that a sustainable urban land use should have loading with Factor 3 is only 0.58, it can be categorized into Class
rational urban land use structure. According to Long, Tang, Li, and I (HeHeL) (seen from Fig. 2). Similarly, four major groups are
Heilig (2007), a large amount of cultivated land has been con- divided in order to show the different ESULU level of the capital
verted into market-oriented land use for built-up areas in Kunshan cities and municipalities in China. According to the location of
city, China. For example, construction land (mainly used for resi- various evaluation units, the projection of the evaluation units on
dential, factory and transportation) increased from 1987 to 1994 by the three-dimensional coordinated factor-plane (Factor 1, Factor 2
511.8% in Kunshan city, China. It is no doubt that there will be and Factor 3) is conducted to verify the grouping findings as
consequent arable land loss at different scales due to the rapid shown in Fig. 2.
increase of construction land area in the urban cities. This demon- Seen from Fig. 2, it is obvious that if the ESULU of the evaluation
strates that it is significant for urban planners and policymakers unit falls within the HeHeL district, it means that the loading score
to allocate land resources in a sustainable way. In this context, of urban land use social-economic potential factor (Factor 1) is
a rational land use structure will help build up the sustainability of above 0, the urban land use structure factor (Factor 2) is above 0,
urban land use to a large extent. while the urban land use ecological environment constraints factor
(Factor 3) is below 0. Table 5 demonstrates these results in a table
Factor 3-Urban land use ecological environment constraints factor format.
For illustrative purposes, the results are demonstrated in 4
The third principal factor (Factor 3) has principal loadings with arbitrary groups as follows:
X8 (.445) and X5 (.451), which carry much information in the
proportion of solid waste disposal and population density aspects.
Table 4
 X8-Proportion of industrial solid wastes that are treated and The loadings of principal components to each of the capital cities and municipalities.
reused
Urban cities F1 F2 F3
 X5-Population density
Beijing 2.526 1.569 0.503
Tianjin 0.647 0.480 0.762
The result points to the links between urban land use and
Shijiazhuang 0.648 1.109 0.191
ecological constraints. In order to achieve the sustainable devel- Taiyuan 0.589 0.269 0.357
opment of urban land use, the environmental pollution act as one Hohhot 0.555 0.617 2.600
major constraint to it. In order to mitigate the constraint, one of the Shenyang 0.908 0.851 0.010
Changchun 0.081 0.319 0.813
efficient ways is “to increase the proportion of industrial solid
Harbin 0.207 0.608 2.751
wastes that are treated and reused”. On the other hand, the total Shanghai 3.212 3.360 0.577
urban population increased rapidly in urban cities in China, Nanjing 0.457 0.417 0.737
which brings about the high population density. Too high pop- Hangzhou 0.004 0.492 0.636
ulation density in the urban cities will bring about a lot of serious Hefei 0.914 1.431 0.429
Fuzhou 0.422 0.071 0.762
environmental problems, which is echoed with Jeremy (2006). He
Nanchang 0.647 0.307 0.435
opined that “our burgeoning population and urban way of life have Jinan 0.148 0.278 0.486
been purchased at the expense of vast ecosystems and habitats. . Zhengzhou 0.291 0.771 0.021
It’s no accident that as we celebrate the urbanization of the world, Wuhan 0.041 0.579 0.460
we are quickly approaching another historic watershed: the Changsha 0.690 1.256 0.173
Guangzhou 1.512 0.643 1.602
disappearance of the wild.” Nanning 0.396 0.856 0.127
Haikou 0.684 0.341 1.282
ESULU grouping analysis Chongqing 1.130 2.037 1.817
Chengdou 0.001 0.035 0.803
Guiyang 0.505 0.480 0.447
The PCA method can be used to group cases by determining the
Kunming 0.342 0.541 0.623
objective weighting of measured variables (Cheng, Wu, & Sun, Xi’an 0.137 0.752 0.850
2000; Jeffers, 1967). In this context, the identification of weight- Lanzhou 0.906 0.004 0.288
ing is critical for evaluating the sustainability of urban land use. Xining 0.903 0.141 0.745
A simple but arbitrary rule of thumb, which has proved to be useful Yinchuan 1.021 0.139 0.287
Urumqi 0.675 0.674 0.312
in practice, is to take the loadings of principal components to each
146 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149

Fig. 2. The grouping analysis for the capital cities and municipalities in China.

Class I. Nanjing and Shanghai belong to this group. It can be them gain relatively higher sustainability in urban land use.
concluded that the three aspects of sustainable development of However, these cities show low loadings with the “urban land use
urban land use in Nanjing are emphasized in a balanced way. structure”, which demonstrates obvious problems in their current
However, it is suggested that the ecological environment conditions land use structure. Compared with cities in Class I, it is obvious that
in Shanghai should be improved to catch up with the sustainability cities with favourable social-economic contexts cannot have higher
level of urban land use in Nanjing. Both Nanjing and Shanghai sustainability level in urban land use when their land use structure
located at the centre of Yangtze River Delta, where the social and is not well allocated. This presents the significance of rational urban
economic conditions are highly developed. The findings demon- land use structure in evaluating the sustainability of urban land use.
strate that the urban land use structure in these two cities is fairly Class III. Chengdu, Wuhan, Jinan, Nanchang, Changsha, Lanzhou,
appropriate in order to guarantee the sustainable development of Hefei, Yinchuan, Zhengzhou, Hohhot, Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang and
urban land use. The result also indicates that social, economic Xining belong to this group. According to Kanbur and Zhang (2005),
conditions and urban land use structure are significant elements in all of these cities belong to inland district. It is clearly shown that
achieving the sustainability of urban land use in China. these cities do not have as powerful social and economic conditions
Class II. Guangzhou, Shenyang, Tianjin, Beijing, Chongqing and as cities in Classes I, and II, which hindered the sustainability level
Harbin belong to this group. Except for Chongqing city, the other of their urban land use.
cities belong to coastal region of China. Chongqing is one of China’s Class IV. Hangzhou, Xi’an, Nanning, Fuzhou, Urumqi, Haikou,
municipalities directly under the Central Government, which Changchun, Kunming, Guiyang belong to this group. With low
stimulates its social and economical development. There has been loadings with both social-economic conditions and urban land use
a widening income gap between coastal and interior regions in structure, the overall sustainability level in this group is low. Xi’an,
China, particularly in the 1990s (Yang & Wei, 1996). One reason for Nanning, Urumqi, Haikou, Changchun, Kunming, Guiyang all
this is that, “in order to speed up integration with world markets, belong to inland city according to Kanbur and Zhang (2005), which
China has implemented a coastal-biased policy, such as establish- demonstrates a low social-economic conditions that affect the
ing special economic zones in coastal cities and providing favour- sustainable development of urban land use in these cities. However,
able tax breaks to coastal regions. Obviously, the policy is biased Hangzhou, the capital city of Zhejiang Province of China, is a special
against inland regions and may have enlarged inlandecoastal case in this group. In 1984, the State Council of China permitted
disparity” (Kanbur & Zhang, 2005:97). These coastal cities have Hangzhou to open up to foreign investment, and the city soon
shown strength in social and economic development, which help initiated incentives for foreign investment. By late 1990s, Hangzhou

Table 5
The grouping analysis result.

Classification Loadings with cases Criteria (the loading of three principal factors) City
Class I HeHeH Factor 1 > 0, Factor 2 > 0, and Factor 3 > 0 Nanjing
HeHeL Factor 1 > 0, Factor 2 > 0 while Factor 3 < 0 Shanghai
Class II HeLeH Factor 1 > 0, Factor 3 > 0 while Factor 2 < 0 Guangzhou, Shenyang, Tianjin
HeLeL Factor 1 > 0, Factor 2 < 0 and Factor 3 < 0 Beijing, Chongqing, Harbin
Class III LeHeH Factor 1 < 0, Factor 2 > 0, and Factor 3 > 0 Chengdu, Wuhan, Jinan, Nanchang, Changsha, Lanzhou,
Hefei and Yinchuan
LeHeL Factor 1 < 0, Factor 2 > 0, and Factor 3 < 0 Zhengzhou, Hohhot, Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang, Xining
Class IV LeLeH Factor 1 < 0, Factor 2 < 0, and Factor 3 > 0 Hangzhou, Xi’an, Nanning, Fuzhou, Urumqi, Haikou
LeLeL Factor 1 < 0, Factor 2 < 0, and Factor 3 < 0 Changchun, Kunming, Guiyang
 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149 147

had been transformed from a socialist town to a transitional city approach, especially when coordinated with the overall economic
experiencing rapid economic growth, a booming service sector, policy would be effective in establishing an orderly and consistent
a massive inflow of migrants, rising foreign investment, and land resources allocation on a national basis and help achieve the
expanding trade (Wei & Li, 2002). However, the case of Hangzhou in overall sustainable urban land use. This can also help mitigate the
this study demonstrated a low sustainability level in urban land unbalanced status quo of the sustainability of urban land use
use, which highlights the constraints from irrational land use among capital cities and municipalities in China.
structure, and therefore, the need for further reform to keep pace
with the rapid social-economic progress in Hangzhou.
Zoning plans and strategies by local government
Discussion and recommendation
Following the national land management plan, local govern-
ments have been encouraged to carry out an integrated land-use
The sustainable urban land use level of the capital cities and
planning to comprehensively address the three pillars of sustain-
municipalities of China demonstrate an unbalanced status quo in
ability as well as the rational land use structure by adopting the
its current form. Nanjing and Shanghai are considered as the top.
zoning strategies. Zoning strategies, is expected to play a crucial
Followed by Guangzhou, Shenyang, Tianjin, Beijing, Chongqing, and
role by local government and authorities to guide urban land use
Harbin are the second tier. It can be generally concluded that the
development to designate various types of land resources, protect
sustainability level of capital cities and municipalities in China
open spaces and conserve prime agricultural land resources. An
decrease from coastal to inland areas. The findings from ESULU
embedding of the sustainability guidelines into this strategy gives
grouping analysis demonstrate that sustainable development in
planners the opportunity to adjust planning targets according to
urban land use is a holistic concept and it is important to consider
the goals of sustainability in urban land use at a regional level.
all three pillars of sustainability simultaneously. At the same time,
Besides, as for the unbalanced development between coastal
the rational land use structure is another inevitable element that
and interior cities, the city-to-city cooperation programme is also
can achieve the sustainable development of urban land use. In this
recommended in this study. For example, the capital cities with
context, how does one find a better solution to balance and improve
high sustainability level can help provide exchange of experiences
the sustainability of urban land use in urban cities of China?
and “lessons learned”, for improving the sustainable development
Sustainable land use is a policy issue for all levels of government
of urban land use. By comparing with them, practical actions can be
and a shared responsibility (External Group on The Urban
taken to reduce the gap.
Environment, 2001). This is particularly true in China, where
policy plays a major role in allocating and adjusting urban land use
resources. For example, it is considered that the unbalanced status Conclusion
quo for the sustainability of urban land use in China is exacerbated
by several incentive policy systems, such as the “ladder-step” The evaluation of sustainable urban land use in capital cities and
strategy adopted by the Governments. The strategy follows the ex- municipalities of China is currently a rather rudimentary, subjective
paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and proposed that “The coastal issue while the complexities involved warrant a more sophisticated
region should accelerate its openness to the outside. In this way the and objective approach. The sustainability of urban land use indi-
vast region of 200 million inhabitants may develop with a relevant cator framework in this study has involved social, economic
faster speed, which can in turn spur better development in the and environmental aspects, supplemented by the rationality of
interior regions” (Yeung & Li, 2004). urban land use structure indicators. Using the methods of principal
The unbalanced status quo of the sustainability of urban land use component analysis, three principal components were extracted
for capital cities and municipalities in China has also demonstrated and named according to their intuitive meaning, ‘urban land use
various challenges for land management authorities in China. Urban social-economic potential factor’, ‘urban land use structure factor’,
land use is not merely a local issue with most of the authority and and ‘urban land use ecological environment constraints factor’. This
responsibility for urban land use planning and control delegated to was followed by the grouping analysis, which then concluded with
local government, while the central government keeps the power four categories in line with the sustainability of urban land use
to adjust them at anytime to ensure the national interests (e.g. among capital cities and municipalities of China: Class I, Class II,
economic development, industrialization, SOE reforms, and culti- Class III and Class IV. ESULU offers a theoretical basis for proposing
vated land conservation) (Qian, 2008). In this context, policy is appropriate urban land use policy in order to promote and enhance
urgently needed by not only local authorities but the central the overall sustainability of urban land use. It is suggested that
government in achieving the sustainable urban land use in China. national land use management policy and local land use zoning
Therefore, there is a necessity for us to develop more detailed policy strategies be carefully designed to achieve rational urban land use
and institutional reforms for the land use in those capital cities and structure, including the protection of indispensable agricultural
municipalities under the framework of sustainable principles. The land, land for green space, fragile land areas and other sensitive
following section will focus on a further discussion and suggestions environmental protection areas. Moreover, the policy can be more
on the urban land use policy. effective when there is a new generation of citizens capable of
promoting economically, socially, and ecologically urban land
National land management policy sustainable development.
The proposed ESULU can not only help government officials
National land management policy and plan is proposed as one of identify status quo of the sustainability of urban land use but
the best ways of ensuring efficient and equitable distribution of also help the authorities to make relevant policy changes as well as
land resources. The empowered government is guaranteed a more actions based on the assessment results. In this context, effective
judicious, and orderly development of urban land use on the basis policy or plans has to provide appropriate tools, instruments and
of sustainable principle. The national land management policy can methodologies supporting sustainable development. The findings
be established to address the mid- and long-term national direction in this study can provide relevant experiences sharing for other
on distribution and utilization of land; development of new land countries and regions, which can be of interest to the international
that favour decentralized development. Such planning policy audience of land use management and planners.
148 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149

Appendix. The original data for SULUES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Beijing 0.02 16,411 10.29 8.75 729.75 33,707,447 179,2000 80.79 78,702,835 47.96 20.54 20.54 1,018,460
Tianjin 0.04 11,917 7.28 10.2 796.25 13,567,865 759,148 98.41 43,591,500 36.58 15.52 11.39 463736.8
Shijiazhuang 0.06 15,848 38.6 8.91 592.82 69,88,128 141,151 95.84 20,266,320 12.79 6.94 4.41 78606.69
Taiyuan 0.04 6988 13.49 8.7 499.17 43,64,712 106,864 44 10,136,482 14.51 7.17 6.25 85203.57
Hohhot 0.24 17224 7.19 11.71 125.3 36,09,919 8283 44.24 9,000,845 5.23 3.19 2.10 76706.21
Shenyang 0.10 12,980 9.3 8.65 285.85 34,346,275 74,041 91.92 251,963,38 19.41 13.79 26.46 445922.9
Changchun 0.15 20571 7.17 8.85 168.12 15,565,349 225,000 99.04 17,411,922 8.46 4.62 7.57 116508.3
Harbin 0.18 53068 7.74 5.64 95.35 8,946,159 315,169 63.8 20,940,751 3.95 1.53 1.69 38425.74
Shanghai 0.02 6341 46.58 16.55 2157.68 33,604,142 2,811,793 94.66 103,663,700 163.48 61.90 53.00 431872.1
Nanjing 0.04 6582 11.52 14.09 922.56 11,668,519 722,549 88.5 27,737,800 42.14 24.51 17.73 463140
Hangzhou 0.03 16,596 9.58 10.18 401.49 11,123,676 150,115 94.29 34,415,068 20.74 8.80 6.70 278416.4
Hefei 0.07 7029 26.8 16.02 668.45 38,43,098 3488 99.86 10,737,600 15.28 11.62 5.47 148978.6
Fuzhou 0.02 11,968 14.09 9.94 520.33 7,755,301 308,411 95.86 16,640,515 13.90 6.12 6.48 178607.1
Nanchang 0.04 7402 17.67 7.72 653.82 3,584,025 250,274 90.45 11,838,973 15.99 8.69 4.84 84676.48
Jinan 0.06 8177 9.36 12.21 737.86 9,393,436 343,316 93.65 21,850,856 26.72 12.43 11.49 209116.2
Zhengzhou 0.05 7446 19.5 10.61 928.85 8,221,881 56,554 66 20,134,777 27.04 13.86 11.04 158332
Wuhan 0.03 8494 23.78 8.63 964.02 12,933,276 131,410 88.07 25,907,569 30.50 15.60 15.23 181274.5
Changsha 0.04 11,819 31.15 13.99 533.89 8,656,061 116,792 90.3 17,989,572 15.22 9.22 7.32 82534.68
Guangzhou 0.02 7434 7.98 13.85 1023.24 21,827,738 72,207 91.13 60,738,277 81.70 22.82 29.36 938567.3
Nanning 0.06 22,112 2.62 8.33 303.86 4,355,090 174,720 82.4 8,701,481 3.94 2.02 1.97 240058.6
Haikou 0.03 2305 9.08 6.67 766.56 1,613,497 41,153 100 3,501,246 15.19 6.86 7.00 241158.4
Chongqing 0.07 82,010 2.38 4.49 390.06 14,035,809 534,570 72.5 34,915,700 4.26 2.99 1.71 322583.1
Chengdou 0.03 12,390 16.53 9.6 890.56 11,552,571 147,965 97.24 27,504,776 22.20 15.33 9.32 302320.8
Guiyang 0.08 8034 6.2 5.44 441.27 2,349,623 38,695 48.39 6,028,845 7.50 5.15 2.92 216205.3
Kunming 0.03 21,011 5.99 8.18 244.78 4,842,035 278,470 37.83 12,072,855 5.75 3.11 2.30 145634.3
Xi’an 0.04 10,108 7.74 5.95 745.06 7,761,959 33,371 89.07 14,736,800 14.58 10.55 7.68 365254.2
Lanzhou 0.07 13,085 8.64 10.86 239.69 2,897,169 17,368 96.68 6,384,705 4.88 2.28 2.21 47597.71
Xining 0.07 7665 16.83 5.52 277.53 1,195,073 3144 46.21 2,816,093 3.67 1.84 1.56 22775.62
Yinchuan 0.09 9170 5.92 13.38 157.78 1,087,118 8389 95.01 3,352,918 3.66 2.54 1.19 106252.8
Urumqi 0.03 10,900 3.55 7.6 185.17 2,726,667 116,105 68.47 6,543,019 6.00 1.96 2.50 137248.7

References Fujiwara, A., & Zhang, J. Y. (2005). Evaluating sustainability of urban development in
developing countries incorporating dynamic causeeeffect relationships over
Bai, X. M., & Imura, H. (2001). Towards sustainable urban water resource time. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 4349e4364.
management: a case study in Tianjin, China. Sustainable Development, 9, 24e35. Gu, C. (1999). Study on the mechanism of land use/land cover changes in Beijing City.
Boulanger, P. M. (2008). Sustainable development indicators: a scientific challenge, Journal of Natural Resources, 14, 307e312, (in Chinese with English abstract).
a democratic issue. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, Halla, F. (1994). A co-ordinating and participatory approach to managing cities: the
1(1), 45e59. case of the Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project in Tanzania. Habitat International,
Brandon, P. S., & Lombardi, P. (2005). Evaluating sustainable development in the built 18, 19e31.
environment. Blackwell. Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., & Woodward, R. (1995).
Briassoulis, H. (2001). Sustainable development and its indicators: through Environmental indicators, a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on
a (planner’s) glass darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development.
44, 409e427. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Carlson, T. N., & Traci Arthur, S. (2000). The impact of land use-land cover changes Haberl, H., & Schandl, H. (1999). Indicators of sustainable land use: concepts for the
due to urbanization on surface microclimate and hydrology: a satellite analysis of societyenature interrelations and implications for sustainable
perspective. Global Planetary Change, 25, 49e65. development. Environmental Management and Health, 10(3), 177e190.
Chen, H. Y., Jia, B. S., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese Hart, R. D., & Sands, M. W. (1991). Sustainable land use systems research. In
compact cities: challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, R. D. Hart, & M. W. Sands (Eds.), Sustainable land use systems research and
32, 28e40. development. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Cheng, T. X., Wu, H. G., & Sun, X. H. (2000). A method of tender evaluation based on Holden, M., Roseland, M., Ferguson, K., & Perl, A. (2008). Seeking urban sustain-
PCA. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 20(2), 118e121, (in Chinese). ability on the world stage. Habitat International, 32, 305e317.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Izac, A.-M. N., & Swift, M. J. (1994). On agricultural sustainability and its
Island Press. measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological
Davison, F. (1996). Planning for performance: requirements for sustainable devel- Economics, 11, 105e125.
opment. Habitat International, 20, 445e462. Jackson, J. E. (1995). A user’s guide to principal components. New York: Wiley.
Dumanski, J. (1994). Assessing the sustainable of Saskatchewan farming system. Jeffers, J. N. R. (1967). Two case studies in the application of principal component
CLBRR Technical Bulletin. analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D, 16(3), 225e236.
EEA. (1998). Europe’s environment: The second assessment. Copenhagen: European Jeremy, R. (2006). The risks of too much city in a crowded world. Available at
Environment Agency. website: Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/164832 Accessed
EEA. (1999). Environment in the European Union at the turn of the Century. Copen- 24.12.06.
hagen: European Environment Agency. Jenks, M., Burton, E., & Williams, K. (Eds.). (1996). The compact city e A sustainable
EEA. (2000). Environmental signals 2000. Copenhagen: European Environment urban form? (pp. 11) E & FN Spon.
Agency. Kanbur, R., & Zhang, X. (2005). Fifty years of regional inequality in China: a journey
Elkington, J. (1980). The ecology of tomorrow’s world: Industry’s environment. through central planning, reform, and openness. Review of Development
London: Associated Business Press. Economics, 9(1), 87e106.
External Group on the Urban Environment. (2001). Towards more sustainable urban Ku, W., Storer, R. H., & Georgakis, C. (1995). Disturbance detection and isolation by
land use: advice to the European Commission for policy and action. Available dynamic principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory
online at website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/landuse_wg.pdf. Systems, 30(1), 179e196.
Farrow, A., & Winograd, M. (2001). Land use modelling at the regional scale: an Leccese, M., & McCormick, K. (Eds.). (2000). Charter of the new urbanism. McGraw-Hill.
input to rural sustainability indicators for Central America. Agriculture, Li, F., Liu, X. S., Hu, D., Wang, R. S., Yang, W. R., Li, D., et al. (2009). Measurement
Ecosystems and Environment, 85(1e3), 249e268. indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable devel-
Fu, B. J., Chen, L. D., & Ma, C. (1997). The index system and method of land opment: a case study for China’s Jining City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90
sustainable use evaluation. Journal of Natural Resources, 12(2), 113e118. (3e4), 134e142.
 X.L. Zhang et al. / Habitat International 35 (2011) 141e149 149

Li, J. W., & Wu, Q. F. (2001). The comprehensive evaluation of capacity of vice- Sui, D. Z., & Zeng, H. (2001). Modelling the dynamics of landscape structure in Asia’s
province city economy sustainable development. Economic Geography, 21(6), emerging Desakota regions: a case study in Shenzhen. Landscape Urban Plan-
665e668. ning, 53, 37e52.
Li, X., & Yeh, A. G. O. (1998). Principal component analysis of stacked multi-temporal Suggett, D., & Goodsir, B. (2002). Triple bottom line measurement and reporting in
images for the monitoring of rapid urban expansion in the Pearl River Delta. Australia. Available at website: http://www.allenconsult.com.au/resources/TBL_
International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(8), 1501e1518. part1.pdf.
Liu, S., Wu, C., & Shen, H. (2000). A GIS-based model of urban land use growth in Tan, M., Li, X., Xie, H., & Lu, C. (2005). Urban land expansion and arable land loss in
Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 55, 407e416, (in Chinese with English abstract). China e a case study of BeijingeTianjineHebei region. Land Use Policy, 22(3),
Liu, J., Zhuang, D., Luo, D., & Xiao, X. (2003). Land-cover classification of China: 187e196.
integrated analysis of AVHRR imagery and geophysical data. International Tan, Y. Z., Wu, C. F., Ye, Z. X., Ding, H. J., & Mou, Y. M. (2003). The indicator system
Journal of Remote Sensing Electronic Resource, 24, 2485e2500. and method to assess the sustainability of urban land use. China Soft Science, 3,
Long, H. L., Tang, G. P., Li, X. B., & Heilig, G. K. (2007). Socio-economic driving forces 139e143.
of land-use change in Kunshan, the Yangtze River Delta economic area of China. Taylor, P. (1977). Quantitative methods in geography: An introduction to spatial
Journal of Environmental Management, 83, 351e364. analysis. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mif in Company.
Maasoumi, E., & Nickelsburg, G. (1988). Multivariate measures of well being and an Thinh, N. X., Arlt, G., Heber, B., Hennersdorf, J., & Lehmann, I. (2002). Evaluation of
analysis of inequality. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 6, 327e334. urban land-use structures with a view to sustainable development. Environ-
Maclaren, C. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American mental Impact Assessment Review, 22(5), 475e492.
Planning Association, 62, 184e202. UN Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). (14 June 1996). Press release: habitat
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and human wellbeing. A conference foreshadows major urban changes. Available on-line at: http://
Framework for Assessment Island Press. www.un.org/Conferences/habitat/unchs/press/major.htmS.
Niu, W. Y., Lu, J. J., & Khan, A. A. (1993). Spatial systems approach to sustainable United Nations (2008). World urbanization prospects e The 2007 revision.
development: a conceptual framework. Environmental Management, 17, 179e186. Verbruggen, H., & Kuik, O. (1991). Indicators of sustainable development: an
Olima, W. H. A., & Obala, L. M. (1998). The effect of existing land tenure systems on overview. In O. Kuik, & H. Verbruggen (Eds.), Search of indicators of sustainable
urban land development: a case study of Kenya’s secondary towns, with development (pp. 1e6). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
emphasis on Kisumu. Habitat International, 23(1), 113e124. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Philadelphia: New
OECD. (1998). Environmental indicators. Towards sustainable development. Paris: Society Publ, Gabriola, Canada.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Walter, C., & Stützel, H. (2009). A new method for assessing the sustainability of
OECD. (2000). Environmental indicators for agriculture. Methods and results. Paris: land-use systems (II): evaluating impact indicators. Ecological Economics, 68,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1288e1300.
Peng, B. Z., An, X. D., Chen, F., & Pu, L. J. (2001). A study on sustainable land use in Ward, D. P., Murray, A. T., & Phinn, S. R. (2003). Integrating spatial optimization and
the Yangtze River Delta. Journal of Natural Resources, 16(4), 305e312. cellular automata for evaluating urban change. The Annals of Regional Science,
Qian, Z. (2008). Empirical evidence from Hangzhou’s urban land reform: evolution, 37, 131e148.
structure, constraints and prospects. Habitat International, 32(4), 494e511. Wei, D. W., & Li, W. (2002). Reforms, globalization, and urban growth in China: the
Rees, W. E., & Wackernagel, M. (1999). Monetary analysis: turning a blind eye on case of Hangzhou. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 43(6), 459e475.
sustainability. Ecological Economic, 29(1), 47e52. Weng, Q. H. (2002). Land use change analysis in the Zhujiang Delta of China using
Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what satellite remote sensing, GIS and stochastic modelling. Journal of Environment
urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121e130. Management, 64, 273e284.
Shen, Q. P., Chen, Q., Tang, B. S., Yeung, S., Hu, Y. C., & Cheung, G. (2009). A system Williams, K. (2000). Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable? Achieving
dynamics model for the sustainable land use planning and development. sustainable urban form. London: E & FN Spon, Taylor & Francis. pp. 30e45.
Habitat International, 33, 15e25. Winograd, M. (1995). Environmental indicators for Latin America and the Caribbean:
Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. L. (2010). The application of urban toward land-use sustainability. Bariloche, Argentina: Ecological Systems Analysis
sustainability indicators – a comparison between various practices. Habitat Group (GASE).
International, 35, 17e29. Wong, S. W., & Tang, B. S. (2005). Challenges to the sustainability of ‘development
Shen, Y., Xiao, J., Kondoh, A. & Tateishi, R. (2003). Influence of land use and land zones’: a case study of Guangzhou Development District, China. Cities, 22(4),
cover change due to urbanization on hydrological environments: a case study. 303e316.
In: Proceedings of The CEReS international symposium on remote sensing: moni- World Commission on Environment and Development/WCED. (1987). Our common
toring of environmental change in Asia, Chiba University, Japan December 16e17 future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(pp. 25e28). Xiao, J. Y., Shen, Y. J., Ge, J. F., Tateishi, R., Tang, C. Y., Liang, Y. Q., et al. (2006).
Shi, P., Chen, J., & Pan, Y. (2000). Land use change mechanism in Shenzhen city. Acta Evaluating urban expansion and land use change in Shijiazhuang, China, by
Geographica Sinica, 55, 151e160, (in Chinese with English abstract). using GIS and remote sensing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1e2),
Silberstein, J., & Maser, C. (2000). Land-use planning for sustainable development. In 69e80.
Sustainable community development series. CRC Press LLC. Xie, Y. Q. (2009). Compact city and its linkage with economic development in
Smyth, A. J., & Dumanski, J. (1993). FESLM: an international framework for evaluating coastal China: a case study of Beijing. In: Universitas 21 international graduate
sustainable land management. World soil resources report 73. Rome: Food and research conference: sustainable cities for the future Melbourne & Brisbane, Nov
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 74 pp. Available at web- 29eDec 5.
site:. http://www.mpl.ird.fr/crea/taller-colombia/FAO/AGLL/pdfdocs/feslm.pdf. Yang, D. L., & Wei, H. (1996). Rural enterprise development and regional policy in
State Statistical Bureau of China. (2006). China city statistical yearbook. Beijing: China. Asian Perspective, 20, 71e94.
China Statistics Press. Yeh, A. G., & Li, X. (1997). An integrated remote sensing and GIS approach in the
State Statistical Bureau of China. (2007). China city statistical yearbook. Beijing: monitoring and evaluation of rapid urban growth for sustainable development
China Statistics Press. in the Pearl River Delta, China. International Planning Studies, 2(2),
State Statistical Bureau of China. (2007). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China 193e210.
Statistics Press. Yeung, Y. M., & Li, X. J. (2004). China’s western development: The role of the state in
Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: historical and regional perspective. Shanghai-Hong Kong Development Institute.
The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Occasional paper, No 10, available at website: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/shkdi/
Stevenson, M., & Lee, H. (2001). Indicators of sustainability as a tool in agricultural OP/OP10.pdf.
development: partitioning scientific and participatory processes. International Yu, J. L. (1993). Multiple statistics on agricultural experiments. Beijing: Beijing Agri-
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 8, 57e65. cultural University Press.