- Email: [email protected]
Sustainability index for Taipei
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505 – 521 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
Sustainability index for Taipei Yung-Jaan Lee a,⁎,1 , Ching-Ming Huang b a
Taoyuan City Government, No. 7, Hsien Fu Road, Taoyuan City, Taoyuan, Taiwan b Guangzhou Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Received 3 November 2006; received in revised form 11 December 2006; accepted 14 December 2006 Available online 1 February 2007
Abstract Sustainability indicators are an effective means of determining whether a city is moving towards sustainable development (SD). After considering the characteristics of Taipei, Taiwan, discussions with experts, scholars and government departments and an exhaustive literature review, this study selected 51 sustainability indicators corresponding to the socio-economic characteristic of Taipei City. Such indicators should be regarded as a basis for assessing SD in Taipei City. The 51 indicators are classified into economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. Furthermore, statistical data is adopted to identify the trend of SD from 1994 to 2004. Moreover, the sustainability index is calculated for the four dimensions and for Taipei as a whole. Analysis results demonstrate that social and environmental indicators are moving towards SD, while economic and institutional dimensions are performing relatively poorly. However, since 2002, the economic sustainability index has gradually moved towards SD. Overall, the Taipei sustainability index indicates a gradual trend towards sustainable development during the past 11 years. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable development; Sustainability indicator; Sustainability index; Taipei
1. Preface As an island nation with a fragile ecosystem, Taiwan is vulnerable to natural disasters and adverse impacts from continuous environmental changes caused by the harsh drive of
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 932 352 863; fax: +886 3 335 6103. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y.-J. Lee), [email protected] (C.-M. Huang). 1 Dr. Lee is currently the Deputy Mayor of Taoyuan City, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Previously, he served as Professor in the Graduate Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chinese Culture University, Taipei. His research interests include sustainable development, urban and rural planning, as well as environmental behavior. He received the 2004 Urban Planning Academic Award in Taiwan, the most prestigious academic award offered by the Urban Planning Association of Taiwan. 0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.005
506
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
globalization and international economic growth, leading to global impacts from climate change. Therefore, fulfilling sustainable development (SD) from the perspective of both the resource management and government aspects will become increasingly important in the future. However, given the unique political and economic history of Taiwan, short-term economic development continues to be the overriding priority in Taiwan and the mainstream ideology. Consequently, the policy implementation of SD in Taiwan lags far behind industrialized countries. Sustainable development is perhaps the most challenging and controversial issue with respect to its interpretation and application. This concept is multidimensional with numerous proposed definitions. The Canadian Commission on Conservation provided one of the earliest definitions in 1915: “Each generation has the right to use natural capital, but must follow the principle that natural capital should not be reduced” (Sitarz, 1998). The notion of SD is closely related to sustainability, but considers economic activity more explicitly. Sustainable development reflects concerns for the approaches nations employ when developing their economies. Stated in another way, seeking maximum and rapid economic growth significantly burdens the earth's carrying capacity. Undoubtedly, the concept of SD implies that the quest to maximize economic growth must be convoyed by evaluation of its ecological/environmental impacts (Lee, 2006). Sustainable development is focused on developing a mutually beneficial relationship between economic development and the environment. In practice SD focuses on finding methods to promote growth that do not damage the environment, or compromise future generations’ access to natural resources. Some authors propose that ecologically sustainable economic development “calls for an economic development within the limits imposed by the natural system, or at least within the limits imposed by the maintenance of the biological basis of human beings” (Bithas and Nijkamp, 2006: 137). Moreover, ecologically sustainable economic development implies that “material and energy natural resources should be sufficient to ‘support’ economic development now, as well as in the future” (Bithas and Nijkamp, 2006: 138). Originally, SD has often been described “ecological,” giving main concern to the ecological aspect which gives the basis of living for all species on earth. Meanwhile, however, it has been widely acknowledged that ecological, economic and socio-cultural dimensions have to be considered all together and have to be conferred and balanced in a kind of co-evolutionary process (Kruse, 2006). Sustainability is the ultimate goal of SD; it describes the state that is to be reached by SD. Such a state would be achieved when all humans can satisfy their basic needs and their aspirations for a good life, and when this is also guaranteed for future generations (KaufmannHayoz, 2006; Sachs, 1999). In sum, the core objective of SD – a kind of overarching ethic (Plummer, 2006) – is to “provide to everybody everywhere and at any time the opportunity to lead a dignified life in his or her respective society” (Spangenberg, 2004: 75). Sustainable development thus implies a better quality of life, social cohesion, full participation, and a healthy environment. Three core requirements generated from these four major issues include environmental imperatives (longterm protection of the global environment), social imperatives (the implementation of equitable and strengthened social cohesion among the various human races, countries, genders, and social groups), and institutional imperatives (ensuring participation in political decision making, as well as encouraging participation to handle conflict peacefully). To fulfill these imperatives, policies towards SD must achieve the following: • integrate economic, social, environmental, and institutional objectives into an integrated strategy ensuring the interests of each dimension;
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
507
• introduce standard practices towards distributional justice of international and domestic policies; • extend to distant regions and future generations. The first of the above criteria requires identifying and exploring the possibility of integrated practices, while reducing trade-offs. The last two rule out the externalities to be passed on, as the global and intergenerational viewpoint requires all involved parties to undertake responsibility (Spangenberg, 2004). As a multidimensional concept, standards for assessing SD must clearly identify possible differences between potentially sustainable development and clearly unsustainable development, and preferences must be made explicit when it finally comes to the decision-making process of choosing between options. Wackernagel and Rees (1996) contended that the Brundtland Report is ambiguous in that it attempts to address simultaneously the priorities of meeting the needs of the poor, protecting the environment and more rapid economic growth, making it vulnerable to being adopted as empty slogans by politicians and business leaders. Since “sustainability” has so many definitions, it “risks plunging into meaninglessness, at best, and becoming a catchphrase for demagogy, at worst” (Workshop on Urban Sustainability, 2000: 1). Initially, the SD concept was based on abstract or global socio-economic systems, but rather short of any spatial reference. Using space to define sustainability is a recent development (Bithas and Christofakis, 2006), and thus led to a series of discussions on the sustainability of urban systems. Finco and Nijkamp (2001) discussed how to implement urban sustainability and described respective policies. Moreover, Brebbia (2000) explored patterns of urban regeneration toward sustainability, while Camagni et al. (1998) envisioned a city as a sustainable integration of economic, environmental and technological elements. Furthermore, specific studies on sustainability parameters can be identified, including economic, environmental, social and aesthetic parameters. Notably, Rogers (1997) combined some significant dimensions that are highly weighted in the balance of a city to be sustainable (such as the shape of buildings, open space and architecture among others). Haughton and Hunter (1994: 27) extensively defined a sustainable city as “one in which people and businesses continuously endeavor to improve their natural, built and cultural environment.” Obviously, these authors conceive sustainable cities as striking a balance among physical, built and cultural elements. Although SD is widely considered a new paradigm, and studies on urban sustainability remain of great interest, assessing whether a city is moving towards SD remains the greatest challenge in implementing SD. Strategies for moving towards SD must be based on good science and adequate information. Therefore information regarding environmental, social, and economic elements is required; such information is known as “sustainability indicators”. Sustainability indicators are an effective means of assessing the degree of SD (Blinc et al., 2006; Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 et al., 2004; Spangenberg, 2004, 2002; UNCSD, 2001). Sustainability indicators can be adopted to translate abstract concepts of SD into quantifiable data, describable measures, or action oriented symbols or signals, thus facilitating understanding of SD ideology. However, the following challenges still deserve more attention: how to turn indicators into a decision supporting system based on policy review and guidance to incorporate sustainability goals into policy planning processes; how to strengthen the multidimensional considerations of fundamental issues in advance of drafting related policies, while simultaneously making sustainability principles more operative; and how to provide decision making that incorporates precautionary and guiding functions. To summarize, from SD concepts to policy implementation, a quantifiable approach is necessary to fulfill the purpose of SD.
508
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
The development of sustainability indicators has attracted increasing attention both internationally and domestically. Numerous studies have performed relatively detailed analysis, including Bithas and Christofakis (2006), Spangenberg (2004, 2002), Swart et al. (2002), IISD (2000), and NRC (1999). These studies have contributed important information regarding sustainability indicators and related assessment results. However just as numerous researches have indicated that many issues still remain to be resolved (Blinc et al., 2006; Robinson, 2004; UNCSD, 2001; Kates et al., 2001; IISD, 2000; NRC, 1999). These issues comprise four categories: (1) the ability to monitor progress in moving towards sustainability or to consistently illustrate long-term trends in sustainability; (2) ease of use by decision makers; (3) flexibility in selecting indicators and units of analysis; and (4) simplicity to assist non-professionals in understanding the research results] (Xu et al., 2006). Furthermore, to realize sustainability and optimal development strategy, at least four questions must be answered: “What will happen without SD?”; “What is sustainability?”; “How to assess sustainability?” and “What are the influences on sustainability?” (Atkinson et al., 1999). These four questions provide the main reference framework for this work. The remainder of this study is organized as follows: Section two discusses progress in SD in Taipei and then examines the standards, content, and results of indicator selection. Section three proposes methods of constructing sustainability indicators. Furthermore, statistical data from 1994 to 2004 are used to calculate SD trends for Taipei. Finally, section four constructs the “Taipei sustainability index” to determine whether Taipei is moving towards or away from SD. 2. Constructing Taipei sustainability indicators 2.1. Sustainable development history of Taipei To address the challenge of SD, Taipei City established the “Outline Plan of Sustainable Development for Taipei” during 2003. Taipei City continued to work on a new report “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei” during 2004, summarized and analyzed previous planning contents about sustainability indicators, and completed the “Database of Taipei Sustainability indicators” and proposed 48 Taipei sustainability indicators. According to the “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei”, the overall goal for SD in Taipei is: the symbiosis of environmental resources and recycling, the sharing of social safety and progress, and the achievement of economic growth and technological innovation. Seven visions were proposed accordingly: (1) Sustainable Taipei: urban development with sustainable land use. (2) Ecological Taipei: urban ecology with full recycling and biodiversity. (3) Clean Taipei: urban environment with low energy consumption and low pollution. (4) Safe Taipei: safe, healthy, and dignified urban life. (5) Cultural Taipei: urban communities with comprehensive cultural construction. (6) Knowledge Taipei: urban production with clean knowledge-based axis. (7) Networked Taipei: convenient and handicap-free urban information network. Fulfill the vision of “Sustainable Taipei: develop a world-class capital city that takes into account environmental resource recycling and symbiosis, sharing social safety and progress, and smart growth of economy and technology” is the goal of Taipei in achieving SD. However, whether Taipei is moving towards or away from SD remains uncertain. The difficulties in assessing SD are the greatest obstacle to implementing SD. Although Taipei proposed 48 sustainability indicators in 2004, difficulties arise in the practical application of these indicators. This list of sustainability indicators must be refined to make SD and the state of SD in Taipei
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
509
accessible. Such an approach can facilitate the concrete measurement of SD in Taipei, and can develop an operational and functional system based on sustainability indicators. 2.2. Context of sustainability indicators The SD framework should be conceived as the initial step in implementing SD, and this framework represents interpretation of SD (Plummer, 2006). Based on the arrangement of institutional dimension, guidance principles are provided for strategy, planning, and implementation. Furthermore, the frameworks should be revised based on experience (Mitchell and Shrubsole, 1994). Therefore, a similar approach should be adopted for exploring the sustainability indicators system for Taipei. Sustainability indicators are designed as a simplifying communication tool, helping to guide political decision making towards SD. Achieving this objective requires limited numbers of simple and easily understood indicators (Spangenberg, 2002). Sustainability indicators combine cooperative applications of policies, development strategies, and technologies, with the intention of fully considering national development and local policy, and thus constructing effective sustainability indicators (Lee, 2006). Additionally, sustainability indicators are expected to have authorization functions, not only capable of assessing the efficiency of government actions, but also reflecting the progress of all sectors of society in social activities, thus accelerating the goals of sustainable social development (Gibson et al., 2005; Portney, 2003). In sum, this study referred to the United Nations Center for Human Settlement (UNCHS, 1997), United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, 2001), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1998) as examples of urban sustainability indicators, as well as the indicators of sustainable community development provided by Sustainable Seattle (1998), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2004). This study also reviews the relevant literature, considers the current development status (environment, society, economy, and institution) of Taipei, and finally develops the characteristics that indicators should possess as follows: 1. Relevance to policy: indicators should directly relate to current or future urban policies (Gibson et al., 2005; Spangenberg, 2002). 2. Comprehensiveness: indicators should permit immediate and full understanding of the health of urban environment, society, and economy (Gibson et al., 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). 3. Ease of information collection: it should be easy for residents to access, collect, and use relevant information (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002; UK, 1999). 4. Ease of distinction and simplification: indicators should be easily understandable for citizens without professional knowledge, meanwhile be precise and easy to apply (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Spangenberg, 2002; UK, 1999). 5. Quantifiable: indicators should be based on data for which plentiful and high quality information is available (Gibson et al., 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002; UK, 1999). 6. Scientific and effective: indicators should make it easy to tell whether a goal is being satisfied, based on reasonable observation and without confusion from statistical interference (UK, 1999), or change markedly because of minor variations.
510
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
7. Ability to sensitively reflect change: indicators should remain sensitive to changes in time and space or within the same dimension of sustainability (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Spangenberg, 2002; UK, 1999). 2.3. Taipei sustainability indicators Because the SD concept is not one dimensional, various discussions exist regarding various aspects of the concept. Since the 1992 Earth Summit, growing numbers of researchers and international organizations have used “social sustainability”, “economic sustainability”, “community sustainability”, and even “cultural sustainability”, to explore the human dimensions of SD (Cochrane, 2006; Pugh, 1996; Hardoy et al., 1992). Sustainable development thus must simultaneously consider environmental, economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions (Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 et al., 2004), or, in short, “3E1I” structure: environment, equity (social equity), economy, and institution (include politics) dimensions (Blinc et al., 2006; Spangenberg, 2002, 2004; UNECOSOC, 2002; UNCSD, 2001; UNDPCSD, 1996). This study proposes a novel system for Taipei sustainability indicators based on the “3E1I” framework. This study reviews 48 indicators from the 2004 “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei”. Based on several workshops held by the Taipei City government, a review of the literature on sustainability indicators, and three focus group discussions involving professional scholars, a set of 51 sustainability indicators for Taipei was developed. These 51 indicators are further classified using the 3E1I framework (Fig. 1). 2.4. Sustainability trends for Taipei Based on the framework of the sustainability indicators for Taipei (Fig. 1), this study accumulates statistical data from 1994 to 2004 for calculating the values of 51 indicators. The development progress of each sustainability indicator during the past 11 years is analyzed to assess trends in sustainability (Table 1). Among the 51 sustainability indicators, 44 can be incorporated into the calculations of sustainability trend, while data remains unavailable for the following seven indicators, namely: per capita attendance of art and cultural activities, rate of expansion of urban development lands (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities), public facility area ratio to urban land areas, number of bird species living naturally in the environment, number of fish species living naturally in the environment, green resources index, and permeable rate in urban lands. Of the 44 indicators, number of households below the poverty line, number of days with pollutant standards index (PSI) N 100, and appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution are moving towards unsustainability. The remaining ones are generally presented with trend towards SD, showing that urban construction in Taipei is gradually moving towards SD. 3. Constructing the Taipei sustainability index Analyzing the sustainability of the 51 indicators is helpful for assessing whether each public decision making is moving towards SD. However, to allow citizens or private groups to easily and rapidly understand SD progress, sustainability indicators should be simplified to produce a sustainability index (Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). Consequently, 51 indicators are classified into economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. Additionally, composite indicator values of SD are calculated for the four dimensions, respectively. Finally the
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 1. Framework of sustainability indicators for Taipei.
511
512
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Table 1 Trends in sustainability indicators for Taipei Indicator item Social
Economic
Environmental
Institutional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Average personal income Female/male employment rate Unemployment rate Percentage of households with internet connections Percentage of public places with wireless internet connections Average daily per capita water use (liter) (excluding industrial use) Electricity consumption per person Urban population density Female/male life expectancy Number of households below the poverty line Wealth gap Crime rate Annual casualties from public disasters Annual number of transportation accidents Per capita attendance of art and cultural activities Average number of students per classroom Ratio of the population with a college level education Rate of expansion of urban development lands (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities) Per capital floor area of private dwellings Public facility area ratio to urban land areas Per capita park and green areas Riverside park and green area per person Sewerage and waste removal efficiency Rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system Car ownership rate Motorcycle ownership rate Areas covered with public transportation system Per capita pedestrian walkway index Per capita bikeway index Number of bicycle kickstands Number of bird species living naturally in the environment Number of fish species living naturally in the environment Green resource index Permeable rate in urban lands Number of days with PSI N 100 Per capita CO2 emissions Proportion of slightly-polluted rivers Reservoir water quality Tap-water quality Per capita daily waste production Recycling ratio for solid waste Ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production Utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes) Enforcement of local environmental plans Citizen participation in major planning and decision making Joint international cooperation regarding SD Environmental and ecological budget ratio to total budget Social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure Government expenditure on pollution prevention and resource recycling
Sustainability trend ↗ ↗ ↘→↘→↗ ↗ ↗ →↗↘→ ↘ → → →↘ →↘↗ ↗→ ↗→↗ ↗→↗ × ↗→ ↗ × ↗ × ↗ ↗→↗ ↗ ↗ ↗↘↗ ↗↘↗ → → ↗ ↗ × × × × ↗↘ → ↗↘↗ ↗→ ↗ →↗ →↗→ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↘→ ↗↘→ ↗↘↗
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
513
Table 1 (continued) Indicator item
Sustainability trend
50 51
↗↘↗ ↘
Ratio of completed assessments to initiated assessments Appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution
Note: ↗ toward sustainability; ↘ away from sustainability; × no data; → experienced some changes.
composite indicator values are collapsed into a single value — sustainability index. This approach enables SD trends to be calculated for these four dimensions and for Taipei as a whole. The content and process of the composite indicator values are described as follows. 3.1. Construction process for the sustainability index 3.1.1. Simplification of indicators Simplifying indicator values is intended to standardize different indicator values. First, such standardization can express the sustainability of individual indicators using clear and simple numbers, while also facilitating comparisons between indicators. Second, since indicators are digital data for different characteristics and units, unifying indicator values is the first task in conducting indicator comparisons. This study applies standard deviation as the basic method for calculating the sustainability index. 3.1.2. Constructing standardized values of indicators Simplifying indicators initially involves calculating the standardized values of each indicator over a period of time. This work calculates data from 1994 to 2004. If the standardized value of the indicator is positive, the value exceeds the average value over the 11 years. Meanwhile, if the value is negative, the value of the indicator is smaller than the average value over the 11 years. Standardized value Z ¼ ðXiQlÞ=r Z denotes the standardized value, Xi represents the number of the sample, μ is the average value, and σ denotes the standard deviation. 3.1.3. Indicator standardization To make sustainability indicators easier to calculate and more comprehensive, this study standardizes indicator values so that each standardized value falls between 0 and 1, which facilitates the weighting of sustainability indicators in the future. However, calculation results that are trending towards 1 do not necessarily indicate a higher level of sustainability. Therefore, certain indicators must be adjusted to enable the incorporation of a composite index. 3.1.4. Indicator standardization method Zi is between a to e, where a denotes the minimum value and e represents the maximum value Y ¼ ðZiQaÞ=ðeQaÞ Where Y lies between 0 and 1. 3.1.5. Reversed indicators For some indicators, a reducing number indicates progress towards SD. Therefore, the values of such indicators should be standardized via adjustment (Y⁎ = 1 − Y), so that values approaching 1 indicate progress towards sustainability for all indicators.
514
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
3.2. Results of sustainability index Numerous methods are available for calculating composite index weighting, and different methods yield different results. The Delphi Technique, Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP), Multivariate Analysis and Grey Theory are frequently adopted to calculate indicator weighting. The need to adopt non-equal weights or equal weights between indicators deserves further exploration. Some studies have argued that different indicators should have equal weights (Esty et al., 2006; YCELP, 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). Consequently, this study applies the equal weight method for initial integration and analyzing overall sustainability trend. 3.2.1. Economic dimension of the sustainability index Regarding indicators of unemployment rate, average daily per capita personal water use (excluding industrial use), and electricity consumption per person display opposite direction to sustainability. Therefore, the values of these indicators should be standardized via adjustment (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ) so that a value trending towards 1 indicates improved sustainability. Regarding the indicators in the economic dimension, average personal income, female employment rate, percentage of households with internet connections, and percentage of public places with wireless internet connections have been increasing year by year, indicating progress towards SD. Following reverse adjustment, unemployment rate and electricity consumption per person are all approaching 0, indicating that these two indicators are moving away from sustainability. Average daily per capita water use (liter) (excluding industrial use) increased first and then reduced, indicating that the trend in recent years has been away from SD. The economic dimension of the sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of economic dimension = (1 / 8) (average personal income + male employment rate + female employment rate + unemployment rate + percentage of households with internet connections + percentage of public places with wireless internet connections + average daily per capita water use (liter) + electricity consumption per person). Fig. 2 indicates that the economic dimension of the sustainability index declined before 1997. However, the index trend upwards in 1997 and 1998, before declining until 2002, finally resuming its upwards progress during the past two years.
Fig. 2. Sustainability trend of economic dimension.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
515
3.2.2. Social dimension of the sustainability index Urban population density, number of households below the poverty line, wealth gap, crime rate, annual casualties from public disasters, total annual traffic accidents, average number of students per classroom, car ownership rate and motorcycle ownership rate are all variables for which decreasing values indicate progress towards sustainability. Therefore, these variables should be adjusted so that a reversed trend indicates indicator integration, as follows: Y⁎ = 1 − Y. Among the standardized values of indicators in the social dimension, female/male life expectancy, crime rate, annual casualties from public disasters, annual number of transportation accidents, average number of students per classroom for elementary schools, ratio of the population with a college level education, per capita park and green areas, riverside park and green areas per person, sewerage and waste removal efficiency, rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system, per capita pedestrian walkway index, per capita bikeway index, and number of bicycle kickstands all have values that have been increasing year-on-year to approach 1 indicating progress towards SD. The remaining indicators exhibited inconsistent patterns. In recent years, some of these indicators have been trending towards SD, including urban population density, wealth gap, and per capital floor area. Meanwhile, some indicators have been trending towards 0 in recent years, indicating a trend away from sustainable development, including number of households below the poverty line, average number of students per classroom in junior high schools, car ownership rate, and motorcycle ownership rate. The social dimension of sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of social dimension = (1 / 22) (urban population density + male life expectancy + female life expectancy + number of households below the poverty line + wealth gap + crime rate + annual casualties from public disasters + annual number of transportation accidents + average number of students per classroom for junior high schools + average number of students per classroom for elementary schools + ratio of the population with a college level education + per capita floor area of private dwellings + per capita park and green areas + riverside park and green areas per person + sewerage and waste removal efficiency + rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system + car ownership rate + motorcycle ownership rate + areas covered with public transportation system + per capita pedestrian walkway index + per capita bikeway index + number of bicycle kickstands). Fig. 3 reveals that the sustainability index for the social dimension was increasing year by year before 1997, thus moving towards SD. However, from 1997 to 2001, the social dimension of the sustainability index generally remained static, and only resumed its rise following 2001, indicating that the social dimension development of Taipei has gradually moved from a static situation towards sustainability. 3.2.3. Environmental dimension of the sustainability index Among environmental indicators, number of days with PSI N 100, per capita CO2 emissions, tap-water quality, and per capita daily waste production are all indicators for which smaller data values indicate progress towards SD. Consequently, the above indicators are all reverse adjusted (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ). The standardized indicator values of tap-water quality, per capita daily waste production and recycling ratio for solid waste all had values that increased annually towards 1 and, thus, are moving towards SD. While the standardized indicator values of number of days with PSI N 100, per capita
516
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 3. Social dimension of the sustainability trend.
CO2 emissions, and reservoir water quality all first increased and then reduced, displaying backsliding away from SD during recent years. Meanwhile, proportion of slightly-polluted rivers, ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production, and utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes) moved towards 1 during recent years, indicating progress towards SD. The environmental dimension of the sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of environmental dimension = (1 / 9) (number of days with PSI N 100 + per capita CO2 emissions + proportion of slightly-polluted rivers + reservoir water quality + tapwater quality + per capita daily waste production + ratio of solid waste recycling to total waste production + ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production + utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes)). Fig. 4 indicates that the environmental dimension of the sustainability index has generally displayed a gradual trend of annual progress towards SD, except for the years 1997, 1999, and 2003 in which backsliding occurred.
Fig. 4. Sustainability trend of environmental dimension.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
517
Fig. 5. Sustainability trend of institutional dimension.
3.2.4. Institutional dimension of the sustainability index Regarding the institutional indicators, appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution is an indicator for which a smaller value indicates greater progress towards SD. However, since the index is constructed so that a tendency towards 1 indicates progress towards sustainable development, the value of this indicator is backwards adjusted (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ). Environmental ecology budget and expenditure ratio are approaching 1, indicating a trend towards SD. A similar trend towards sustainability also exists for the indicators of enforcement of local environment plans, citizen participation in major planning and decision making, joint international cooperation, completion ratio of the cases on environmental impact assessment, all are getting close to 1 during recent years, means they are moving towards sustainability. However, appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution is gradually approaching zero, indicating a move away from SD. Moreover, the standardized indicator values of social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure, government expenditure to encourage pollution prevention and resource recycling initially increased and then reduced, also indicating that the current trend is away from SD. Table 2 Sustainability index for Taipei Year
Equity
Economy
Environment
Institution
Sustainability index
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
0.12 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.17
0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.20
0.02 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.19
0.15 0.10 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16
0.32 0.31 0.44 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.55 0.54 0.63 0.61 0.71
518
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 6. Trend of sustainability for Taipei.
The method used to calculate the institutional dimension of the sustainability index is presented below: Sustainability index of institutional dimension = (1 / 8) (enforcement of local environmental plans + citizen participation in major planning and decision making + joint international cooperation regarding SD + environmental and ecological budget to total budget + social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure + government expenditure on pollution prevention and resource recycling + ratio of completed environmental impact assessments + appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution). Fig. 5 indicates that the sustainability index of institution dimension was going down rapidly, decreasing from 1996 to 1998, but then rapidly increased from 1998 to 2000. To summarize, the institutional dimension of the sustainability index has fluctuated inconsistently during the study period, but recently has tended to remain static. 3.2.5. Overall sustainability index for Taipei This study applies an environmental–social–economic–institutional framework, combined with an equal weighting method, to calculate the sustainability index of the environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions, respectively. To examine the overall trend of SD for Taipei, this study uses an equal weighting method to summarize the sustainability index of these four dimensions to produce a sustainability index for Taipei. To investigate trends in sustainability in Taipei during the past 11 years, relevant data value and trends are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 6. Analytical results indicate that the sustainability index for Taipei has gradually grown year by year, and urban construction during recent years has been performed to ensure a move towards SD sequentially. 4. Conclusion and suggestions This work proposes a SD framework for Taipei, capable of assessing the sustainability of Taipei. This work adjusted the 48 sustainability indicators drafted by Taipei in 2004, and further referred to
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
519
relevant international and domestic literature and discussed with experts, scholars and government departments. Finally, this study proposed a set of 51 sustainability indicators for Taipei. The SD concept adopted in this study clearly belongs to the “weak sustainability” defined by Pearce and Atkinson (1993), and the sustainability indexes proposed in this work delineate environmental, social, economic, and institutional conditions in Taipei. Restated, the main achievement of this study in drafting a sustainability index is to strike a balance between ecology and human inhabitance. Moreover, sustainability indexes provide decision makers with comprehensive information on protection and welfare restoration for the environment and humanity. Assessing SD in Taipei using the proposed index indicates that the economic and environmental dimensions have gradually moved towards SD, while social and institutional dimensions have remained relatively static. However, since 2002, the social dimension has also moved towards SD. From the perspective of urban development, changes in time and space are essential in achieving sustainability goals. Consequently, any system of sustainability indicators must be dynamic. This study simply reviews the current SD state of Taipei in terms of the 51 indicators. A future study must develop a mechanism for long-term indicator maintenance. Moreover, sustainability indicators should be reviewed on three to five year intervals to reassess their appropriateness. Based on this review, sustainability indicators can be adjusted to reflect policy adjustments related to urban development, assess the condition of Taipei SD, make each indicator dynamic, and meet the purpose of adjusting when applicable. As a portion of the long-term maintenance, indicators may be adjusted at three to five year intervals in response to changes in government strategy. Indicators also change their importance over time; therefore relevant departments can propose adjustments to indicators. However, the issue of linking to a global perspective still requires further consideration. Therefore, the commonly adopted calculation methods by other countries should be considered to allow comparisons of sustainability indicators. However, local citizens may have difficulty in interpreting the significance of the data. Consequently, we recommend that if both international and local calculation methods are adopted and data are accessible, then both these methods can be presented. Doing so not only allows local citizens to easily understand the current state of SD development of Taipei, but also makes comparisons with other countries to provide a global perspective. Although the sustainability index proposed in this study cannot provide an absolute and precise measure for Taipei SD, or precisely determine a point at which Taipei has achieved the goal of SD, this investigation provides an indicator of whether Taipei has achieved progress towards SD during the past 11 years. This study also identifies which among the 51 sustainability indicators, four sustainability dimensions, and Taipei sustainability index are displaying trends towards unsustainability. Concrete policies and measures should be developed to achieve improvements in those indicators where progress towards sustainability is not underway. Good governance, openness, reliability and compliance with agreements, requirements and regulations are necessary for successfully accomplishing SD projects, environmental policies, and resource management strategies (Read, 2006). Therefore, in the future, the sustainability indicators and index proposed here should be publicized via an open and real time information system to enable citizens and relevant agencies to understand the progress towards SD at anytime, and further assist Taipei to achieving SD. Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the Taipei City Government for financially supporting this research.
520
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
References Atkinson G, Dubourg R, Hamilton K, Munashinge M, Pearce D, Young C, editors. Measuring sustainable development: macroeconomics and the environment. 2nd ed. Northampton: Edward Elgar; 1999. Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 LA, Kouikoglou VS, Phillis YA. Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol Econ 2004;48:149–72. Barrera-Roldán A, Saldívar-Valdés A. Proposal and application of a sustainable development index. Ecol Indic 2002;2:251–6. Bithas KP, Christofakis M. Environmentally sustainable cities: critical review and operational conditions. Sustain Dev 2006;14:177–89. Bithas KP, Nijkamp P. Operationalising ecologically sustainable development at the microlevel: pareto optimality and the preservation of biologically crucial levels. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 2006;5(2):126–46. Brebbia CA, editor. The sustainable city: urban regeneration and sustainability. Southampton: WIT Press; 2000. Blinc R, Zidanšek A, Šlaus I. Sustainable development after Johannesburg and Iraq: the global situation and the cases of Slovenia and Croatia. Energy 2006;31:2259–68. Camagni R, Capello R, Nijkamp P. Towards sustainable city policy: an economy, environment, technology nexus. Ecol Econ 1998;124(1):103–18. Cochrane P. Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2006;57:318–30. Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T, de Sherbinin A, Kim CH, Anderson B. Pilot 2006 environmental performance index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy; 2006. Finco A, Nijkamp P. Pathway to urban sustainability. Journal Environ Policy Plan 2001;3(4):289–309. Gibson RB, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and applications. London: Earthscan; 2005. Hardoy JE, Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D. The environmental problems of third world Cities. London: Earthscan; 1992. Haughton G, Hunter C. Sustainable cities, regional policy and development series 7. London: Kingsley; 1994. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). Compendium of sustainable development indicator initiatives and publications; 2000. http://www.iisd.org. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC. Sustainability science. Science 2001;292:641–2. Kaufmann-Hayoz R. Human action in context: a model framework for interdisciplinary studies in view of sustainable development. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):154–77. Kruse L. Globalisation and sustainable development as issues of environmental psychology. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):136–52. Lee Y-J. Context and components of sustainable communities: case study of Taipei, Taiwan. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):192–208. Mitchell B, Shrubsole D. Reorienting to achieve sustainability in Canadian water management. Can Water Resour J 1994;19(4):335–47. National Research Council Board on Sustainable Development (NRC). Our Common journey: a transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309067839/html/index. html. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The Egan Review: skills for sustainable communities. London: Crown Copyright; 2004. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Towards sustainable development: environmental indicators. Paris: OECD; 1998. Pearce D, Atkinson G. Capital theory and measurement of sustainable development, an indicator of ‘weak’ sustainability. Ecol Econ 1993;8. Pugh C, editor. Sustainability, the environment and urbanization. London: Earthscan; 1996. Plummer R. The evolution of sustainable development strategies in Canada: an assessment of three federal natural resource management agencies. Sustain Dev 2006;14:16–32. Portney KE. Taking sustainable cities seriously. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2003. Read R. Sustainable natural resource use and economic development in small states: the tuna fisheries in Fiji and Samoa. Sustain Dev 2006;14:93–103. Robinson J. Squaring the circle? Some thought on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2004;48:369–84. Rogers R. Cities for a small planet. London: Faber and Faber; 1997. Sitarz D, editor. Sustainable America: America's environment, economy and society in the 21st century. Carbondale, Ill: Earthpress; 1998.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
521
Sachs I. Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: Becker E, Jahn T, editors. Sustainability and the social sciences. a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 25–36. Spangenberg JH. Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectiveness. Sustain Dev 2002;10(2):103–15. Spangenberg JH. Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies. Sustain Dev 2004;12:74–86. Sustainable Seattle. The sustainable Seattle 1998 indictors of sustainable community: a report to citizens on long-term trends in our community. USA: Sustainable Seattle; 1998. Swart R, Raskin P, Robinson J, Kates R, Clark W-C. Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 2002;297:1994–5. UK Government of the United Kingdom. Quality of life counts; 1999. (http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ sustainable/quality99/chap2.pdf) (login: 2006/4/2). Ukaga O, Maser C. Evaluating sustainable development: giving people a voice in their destiny. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus; 2004. United Nations Center Human Settlements (UNCHS). Monitoring human settlements with urban indicators (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Center Human Settlements (Habitat); 1997. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies; 2001. http://www.un.org/esa/csd9. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development Department of Policy Co-Ordination and Sustainable Development (UNDPCSD). Indicators of sustainable development, framework and methodologies. New York: UN; 1996. United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNECOSOC). Implementing Agenda 21 — Report of the SecretaryGeneral. New York: UN Documents; 2002. Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society; 1996. Workshop on Urban Sustainability (National Science Foundation). Towards a comprehensive geographical perspective on urban sustainability. NJ: Rutgers University; 2000. Xu F-L, Zhao S-S, Dawson RW, Hao J-Y, Zhang Y, Tao S. A triangle model for evaluating the sustainability status and trends of economic development. Ecol Model 2006;195:327–37. Yale Center of Environmental Law and Policy, Center of International Earth and Science Information Network (YCELP). 2005 environmental sustainability index; 2005.
Sustainability index for Taipei Yung-Jaan Lee a,⁎,1 , Ching-Ming Huang b a
Taoyuan City Government, No. 7, Hsien Fu Road, Taoyuan City, Taoyuan, Taiwan b Guangzhou Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Received 3 November 2006; received in revised form 11 December 2006; accepted 14 December 2006 Available online 1 February 2007
Abstract Sustainability indicators are an effective means of determining whether a city is moving towards sustainable development (SD). After considering the characteristics of Taipei, Taiwan, discussions with experts, scholars and government departments and an exhaustive literature review, this study selected 51 sustainability indicators corresponding to the socio-economic characteristic of Taipei City. Such indicators should be regarded as a basis for assessing SD in Taipei City. The 51 indicators are classified into economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. Furthermore, statistical data is adopted to identify the trend of SD from 1994 to 2004. Moreover, the sustainability index is calculated for the four dimensions and for Taipei as a whole. Analysis results demonstrate that social and environmental indicators are moving towards SD, while economic and institutional dimensions are performing relatively poorly. However, since 2002, the economic sustainability index has gradually moved towards SD. Overall, the Taipei sustainability index indicates a gradual trend towards sustainable development during the past 11 years. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable development; Sustainability indicator; Sustainability index; Taipei
1. Preface As an island nation with a fragile ecosystem, Taiwan is vulnerable to natural disasters and adverse impacts from continuous environmental changes caused by the harsh drive of
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 932 352 863; fax: +886 3 335 6103. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y.-J. Lee), [email protected] (C.-M. Huang). 1 Dr. Lee is currently the Deputy Mayor of Taoyuan City, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Previously, he served as Professor in the Graduate Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chinese Culture University, Taipei. His research interests include sustainable development, urban and rural planning, as well as environmental behavior. He received the 2004 Urban Planning Academic Award in Taiwan, the most prestigious academic award offered by the Urban Planning Association of Taiwan. 0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.005
506
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
globalization and international economic growth, leading to global impacts from climate change. Therefore, fulfilling sustainable development (SD) from the perspective of both the resource management and government aspects will become increasingly important in the future. However, given the unique political and economic history of Taiwan, short-term economic development continues to be the overriding priority in Taiwan and the mainstream ideology. Consequently, the policy implementation of SD in Taiwan lags far behind industrialized countries. Sustainable development is perhaps the most challenging and controversial issue with respect to its interpretation and application. This concept is multidimensional with numerous proposed definitions. The Canadian Commission on Conservation provided one of the earliest definitions in 1915: “Each generation has the right to use natural capital, but must follow the principle that natural capital should not be reduced” (Sitarz, 1998). The notion of SD is closely related to sustainability, but considers economic activity more explicitly. Sustainable development reflects concerns for the approaches nations employ when developing their economies. Stated in another way, seeking maximum and rapid economic growth significantly burdens the earth's carrying capacity. Undoubtedly, the concept of SD implies that the quest to maximize economic growth must be convoyed by evaluation of its ecological/environmental impacts (Lee, 2006). Sustainable development is focused on developing a mutually beneficial relationship between economic development and the environment. In practice SD focuses on finding methods to promote growth that do not damage the environment, or compromise future generations’ access to natural resources. Some authors propose that ecologically sustainable economic development “calls for an economic development within the limits imposed by the natural system, or at least within the limits imposed by the maintenance of the biological basis of human beings” (Bithas and Nijkamp, 2006: 137). Moreover, ecologically sustainable economic development implies that “material and energy natural resources should be sufficient to ‘support’ economic development now, as well as in the future” (Bithas and Nijkamp, 2006: 138). Originally, SD has often been described “ecological,” giving main concern to the ecological aspect which gives the basis of living for all species on earth. Meanwhile, however, it has been widely acknowledged that ecological, economic and socio-cultural dimensions have to be considered all together and have to be conferred and balanced in a kind of co-evolutionary process (Kruse, 2006). Sustainability is the ultimate goal of SD; it describes the state that is to be reached by SD. Such a state would be achieved when all humans can satisfy their basic needs and their aspirations for a good life, and when this is also guaranteed for future generations (KaufmannHayoz, 2006; Sachs, 1999). In sum, the core objective of SD – a kind of overarching ethic (Plummer, 2006) – is to “provide to everybody everywhere and at any time the opportunity to lead a dignified life in his or her respective society” (Spangenberg, 2004: 75). Sustainable development thus implies a better quality of life, social cohesion, full participation, and a healthy environment. Three core requirements generated from these four major issues include environmental imperatives (longterm protection of the global environment), social imperatives (the implementation of equitable and strengthened social cohesion among the various human races, countries, genders, and social groups), and institutional imperatives (ensuring participation in political decision making, as well as encouraging participation to handle conflict peacefully). To fulfill these imperatives, policies towards SD must achieve the following: • integrate economic, social, environmental, and institutional objectives into an integrated strategy ensuring the interests of each dimension;
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
507
• introduce standard practices towards distributional justice of international and domestic policies; • extend to distant regions and future generations. The first of the above criteria requires identifying and exploring the possibility of integrated practices, while reducing trade-offs. The last two rule out the externalities to be passed on, as the global and intergenerational viewpoint requires all involved parties to undertake responsibility (Spangenberg, 2004). As a multidimensional concept, standards for assessing SD must clearly identify possible differences between potentially sustainable development and clearly unsustainable development, and preferences must be made explicit when it finally comes to the decision-making process of choosing between options. Wackernagel and Rees (1996) contended that the Brundtland Report is ambiguous in that it attempts to address simultaneously the priorities of meeting the needs of the poor, protecting the environment and more rapid economic growth, making it vulnerable to being adopted as empty slogans by politicians and business leaders. Since “sustainability” has so many definitions, it “risks plunging into meaninglessness, at best, and becoming a catchphrase for demagogy, at worst” (Workshop on Urban Sustainability, 2000: 1). Initially, the SD concept was based on abstract or global socio-economic systems, but rather short of any spatial reference. Using space to define sustainability is a recent development (Bithas and Christofakis, 2006), and thus led to a series of discussions on the sustainability of urban systems. Finco and Nijkamp (2001) discussed how to implement urban sustainability and described respective policies. Moreover, Brebbia (2000) explored patterns of urban regeneration toward sustainability, while Camagni et al. (1998) envisioned a city as a sustainable integration of economic, environmental and technological elements. Furthermore, specific studies on sustainability parameters can be identified, including economic, environmental, social and aesthetic parameters. Notably, Rogers (1997) combined some significant dimensions that are highly weighted in the balance of a city to be sustainable (such as the shape of buildings, open space and architecture among others). Haughton and Hunter (1994: 27) extensively defined a sustainable city as “one in which people and businesses continuously endeavor to improve their natural, built and cultural environment.” Obviously, these authors conceive sustainable cities as striking a balance among physical, built and cultural elements. Although SD is widely considered a new paradigm, and studies on urban sustainability remain of great interest, assessing whether a city is moving towards SD remains the greatest challenge in implementing SD. Strategies for moving towards SD must be based on good science and adequate information. Therefore information regarding environmental, social, and economic elements is required; such information is known as “sustainability indicators”. Sustainability indicators are an effective means of assessing the degree of SD (Blinc et al., 2006; Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 et al., 2004; Spangenberg, 2004, 2002; UNCSD, 2001). Sustainability indicators can be adopted to translate abstract concepts of SD into quantifiable data, describable measures, or action oriented symbols or signals, thus facilitating understanding of SD ideology. However, the following challenges still deserve more attention: how to turn indicators into a decision supporting system based on policy review and guidance to incorporate sustainability goals into policy planning processes; how to strengthen the multidimensional considerations of fundamental issues in advance of drafting related policies, while simultaneously making sustainability principles more operative; and how to provide decision making that incorporates precautionary and guiding functions. To summarize, from SD concepts to policy implementation, a quantifiable approach is necessary to fulfill the purpose of SD.
508
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
The development of sustainability indicators has attracted increasing attention both internationally and domestically. Numerous studies have performed relatively detailed analysis, including Bithas and Christofakis (2006), Spangenberg (2004, 2002), Swart et al. (2002), IISD (2000), and NRC (1999). These studies have contributed important information regarding sustainability indicators and related assessment results. However just as numerous researches have indicated that many issues still remain to be resolved (Blinc et al., 2006; Robinson, 2004; UNCSD, 2001; Kates et al., 2001; IISD, 2000; NRC, 1999). These issues comprise four categories: (1) the ability to monitor progress in moving towards sustainability or to consistently illustrate long-term trends in sustainability; (2) ease of use by decision makers; (3) flexibility in selecting indicators and units of analysis; and (4) simplicity to assist non-professionals in understanding the research results] (Xu et al., 2006). Furthermore, to realize sustainability and optimal development strategy, at least four questions must be answered: “What will happen without SD?”; “What is sustainability?”; “How to assess sustainability?” and “What are the influences on sustainability?” (Atkinson et al., 1999). These four questions provide the main reference framework for this work. The remainder of this study is organized as follows: Section two discusses progress in SD in Taipei and then examines the standards, content, and results of indicator selection. Section three proposes methods of constructing sustainability indicators. Furthermore, statistical data from 1994 to 2004 are used to calculate SD trends for Taipei. Finally, section four constructs the “Taipei sustainability index” to determine whether Taipei is moving towards or away from SD. 2. Constructing Taipei sustainability indicators 2.1. Sustainable development history of Taipei To address the challenge of SD, Taipei City established the “Outline Plan of Sustainable Development for Taipei” during 2003. Taipei City continued to work on a new report “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei” during 2004, summarized and analyzed previous planning contents about sustainability indicators, and completed the “Database of Taipei Sustainability indicators” and proposed 48 Taipei sustainability indicators. According to the “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei”, the overall goal for SD in Taipei is: the symbiosis of environmental resources and recycling, the sharing of social safety and progress, and the achievement of economic growth and technological innovation. Seven visions were proposed accordingly: (1) Sustainable Taipei: urban development with sustainable land use. (2) Ecological Taipei: urban ecology with full recycling and biodiversity. (3) Clean Taipei: urban environment with low energy consumption and low pollution. (4) Safe Taipei: safe, healthy, and dignified urban life. (5) Cultural Taipei: urban communities with comprehensive cultural construction. (6) Knowledge Taipei: urban production with clean knowledge-based axis. (7) Networked Taipei: convenient and handicap-free urban information network. Fulfill the vision of “Sustainable Taipei: develop a world-class capital city that takes into account environmental resource recycling and symbiosis, sharing social safety and progress, and smart growth of economy and technology” is the goal of Taipei in achieving SD. However, whether Taipei is moving towards or away from SD remains uncertain. The difficulties in assessing SD are the greatest obstacle to implementing SD. Although Taipei proposed 48 sustainability indicators in 2004, difficulties arise in the practical application of these indicators. This list of sustainability indicators must be refined to make SD and the state of SD in Taipei
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
509
accessible. Such an approach can facilitate the concrete measurement of SD in Taipei, and can develop an operational and functional system based on sustainability indicators. 2.2. Context of sustainability indicators The SD framework should be conceived as the initial step in implementing SD, and this framework represents interpretation of SD (Plummer, 2006). Based on the arrangement of institutional dimension, guidance principles are provided for strategy, planning, and implementation. Furthermore, the frameworks should be revised based on experience (Mitchell and Shrubsole, 1994). Therefore, a similar approach should be adopted for exploring the sustainability indicators system for Taipei. Sustainability indicators are designed as a simplifying communication tool, helping to guide political decision making towards SD. Achieving this objective requires limited numbers of simple and easily understood indicators (Spangenberg, 2002). Sustainability indicators combine cooperative applications of policies, development strategies, and technologies, with the intention of fully considering national development and local policy, and thus constructing effective sustainability indicators (Lee, 2006). Additionally, sustainability indicators are expected to have authorization functions, not only capable of assessing the efficiency of government actions, but also reflecting the progress of all sectors of society in social activities, thus accelerating the goals of sustainable social development (Gibson et al., 2005; Portney, 2003). In sum, this study referred to the United Nations Center for Human Settlement (UNCHS, 1997), United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, 2001), and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1998) as examples of urban sustainability indicators, as well as the indicators of sustainable community development provided by Sustainable Seattle (1998), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2004). This study also reviews the relevant literature, considers the current development status (environment, society, economy, and institution) of Taipei, and finally develops the characteristics that indicators should possess as follows: 1. Relevance to policy: indicators should directly relate to current or future urban policies (Gibson et al., 2005; Spangenberg, 2002). 2. Comprehensiveness: indicators should permit immediate and full understanding of the health of urban environment, society, and economy (Gibson et al., 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). 3. Ease of information collection: it should be easy for residents to access, collect, and use relevant information (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002; UK, 1999). 4. Ease of distinction and simplification: indicators should be easily understandable for citizens without professional knowledge, meanwhile be precise and easy to apply (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Spangenberg, 2002; UK, 1999). 5. Quantifiable: indicators should be based on data for which plentiful and high quality information is available (Gibson et al., 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002; UK, 1999). 6. Scientific and effective: indicators should make it easy to tell whether a goal is being satisfied, based on reasonable observation and without confusion from statistical interference (UK, 1999), or change markedly because of minor variations.
510
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
7. Ability to sensitively reflect change: indicators should remain sensitive to changes in time and space or within the same dimension of sustainability (Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Spangenberg, 2002; UK, 1999). 2.3. Taipei sustainability indicators Because the SD concept is not one dimensional, various discussions exist regarding various aspects of the concept. Since the 1992 Earth Summit, growing numbers of researchers and international organizations have used “social sustainability”, “economic sustainability”, “community sustainability”, and even “cultural sustainability”, to explore the human dimensions of SD (Cochrane, 2006; Pugh, 1996; Hardoy et al., 1992). Sustainable development thus must simultaneously consider environmental, economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions (Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 et al., 2004), or, in short, “3E1I” structure: environment, equity (social equity), economy, and institution (include politics) dimensions (Blinc et al., 2006; Spangenberg, 2002, 2004; UNECOSOC, 2002; UNCSD, 2001; UNDPCSD, 1996). This study proposes a novel system for Taipei sustainability indicators based on the “3E1I” framework. This study reviews 48 indicators from the 2004 “Strategic Plan for the Sustainable Development of Taipei”. Based on several workshops held by the Taipei City government, a review of the literature on sustainability indicators, and three focus group discussions involving professional scholars, a set of 51 sustainability indicators for Taipei was developed. These 51 indicators are further classified using the 3E1I framework (Fig. 1). 2.4. Sustainability trends for Taipei Based on the framework of the sustainability indicators for Taipei (Fig. 1), this study accumulates statistical data from 1994 to 2004 for calculating the values of 51 indicators. The development progress of each sustainability indicator during the past 11 years is analyzed to assess trends in sustainability (Table 1). Among the 51 sustainability indicators, 44 can be incorporated into the calculations of sustainability trend, while data remains unavailable for the following seven indicators, namely: per capita attendance of art and cultural activities, rate of expansion of urban development lands (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities), public facility area ratio to urban land areas, number of bird species living naturally in the environment, number of fish species living naturally in the environment, green resources index, and permeable rate in urban lands. Of the 44 indicators, number of households below the poverty line, number of days with pollutant standards index (PSI) N 100, and appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution are moving towards unsustainability. The remaining ones are generally presented with trend towards SD, showing that urban construction in Taipei is gradually moving towards SD. 3. Constructing the Taipei sustainability index Analyzing the sustainability of the 51 indicators is helpful for assessing whether each public decision making is moving towards SD. However, to allow citizens or private groups to easily and rapidly understand SD progress, sustainability indicators should be simplified to produce a sustainability index (Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). Consequently, 51 indicators are classified into economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. Additionally, composite indicator values of SD are calculated for the four dimensions, respectively. Finally the
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 1. Framework of sustainability indicators for Taipei.
511
512
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Table 1 Trends in sustainability indicators for Taipei Indicator item Social
Economic
Environmental
Institutional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Average personal income Female/male employment rate Unemployment rate Percentage of households with internet connections Percentage of public places with wireless internet connections Average daily per capita water use (liter) (excluding industrial use) Electricity consumption per person Urban population density Female/male life expectancy Number of households below the poverty line Wealth gap Crime rate Annual casualties from public disasters Annual number of transportation accidents Per capita attendance of art and cultural activities Average number of students per classroom Ratio of the population with a college level education Rate of expansion of urban development lands (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities) Per capital floor area of private dwellings Public facility area ratio to urban land areas Per capita park and green areas Riverside park and green area per person Sewerage and waste removal efficiency Rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system Car ownership rate Motorcycle ownership rate Areas covered with public transportation system Per capita pedestrian walkway index Per capita bikeway index Number of bicycle kickstands Number of bird species living naturally in the environment Number of fish species living naturally in the environment Green resource index Permeable rate in urban lands Number of days with PSI N 100 Per capita CO2 emissions Proportion of slightly-polluted rivers Reservoir water quality Tap-water quality Per capita daily waste production Recycling ratio for solid waste Ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production Utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes) Enforcement of local environmental plans Citizen participation in major planning and decision making Joint international cooperation regarding SD Environmental and ecological budget ratio to total budget Social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure Government expenditure on pollution prevention and resource recycling
Sustainability trend ↗ ↗ ↘→↘→↗ ↗ ↗ →↗↘→ ↘ → → →↘ →↘↗ ↗→ ↗→↗ ↗→↗ × ↗→ ↗ × ↗ × ↗ ↗→↗ ↗ ↗ ↗↘↗ ↗↘↗ → → ↗ ↗ × × × × ↗↘ → ↗↘↗ ↗→ ↗ →↗ →↗→ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↗ ↘→ ↗↘→ ↗↘↗
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
513
Table 1 (continued) Indicator item
Sustainability trend
50 51
↗↘↗ ↘
Ratio of completed assessments to initiated assessments Appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution
Note: ↗ toward sustainability; ↘ away from sustainability; × no data; → experienced some changes.
composite indicator values are collapsed into a single value — sustainability index. This approach enables SD trends to be calculated for these four dimensions and for Taipei as a whole. The content and process of the composite indicator values are described as follows. 3.1. Construction process for the sustainability index 3.1.1. Simplification of indicators Simplifying indicator values is intended to standardize different indicator values. First, such standardization can express the sustainability of individual indicators using clear and simple numbers, while also facilitating comparisons between indicators. Second, since indicators are digital data for different characteristics and units, unifying indicator values is the first task in conducting indicator comparisons. This study applies standard deviation as the basic method for calculating the sustainability index. 3.1.2. Constructing standardized values of indicators Simplifying indicators initially involves calculating the standardized values of each indicator over a period of time. This work calculates data from 1994 to 2004. If the standardized value of the indicator is positive, the value exceeds the average value over the 11 years. Meanwhile, if the value is negative, the value of the indicator is smaller than the average value over the 11 years. Standardized value Z ¼ ðXiQlÞ=r Z denotes the standardized value, Xi represents the number of the sample, μ is the average value, and σ denotes the standard deviation. 3.1.3. Indicator standardization To make sustainability indicators easier to calculate and more comprehensive, this study standardizes indicator values so that each standardized value falls between 0 and 1, which facilitates the weighting of sustainability indicators in the future. However, calculation results that are trending towards 1 do not necessarily indicate a higher level of sustainability. Therefore, certain indicators must be adjusted to enable the incorporation of a composite index. 3.1.4. Indicator standardization method Zi is between a to e, where a denotes the minimum value and e represents the maximum value Y ¼ ðZiQaÞ=ðeQaÞ Where Y lies between 0 and 1. 3.1.5. Reversed indicators For some indicators, a reducing number indicates progress towards SD. Therefore, the values of such indicators should be standardized via adjustment (Y⁎ = 1 − Y), so that values approaching 1 indicate progress towards sustainability for all indicators.
514
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
3.2. Results of sustainability index Numerous methods are available for calculating composite index weighting, and different methods yield different results. The Delphi Technique, Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP), Multivariate Analysis and Grey Theory are frequently adopted to calculate indicator weighting. The need to adopt non-equal weights or equal weights between indicators deserves further exploration. Some studies have argued that different indicators should have equal weights (Esty et al., 2006; YCELP, 2005; Barrera-Roldán and Saldívar-Valdés, 2002). Consequently, this study applies the equal weight method for initial integration and analyzing overall sustainability trend. 3.2.1. Economic dimension of the sustainability index Regarding indicators of unemployment rate, average daily per capita personal water use (excluding industrial use), and electricity consumption per person display opposite direction to sustainability. Therefore, the values of these indicators should be standardized via adjustment (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ) so that a value trending towards 1 indicates improved sustainability. Regarding the indicators in the economic dimension, average personal income, female employment rate, percentage of households with internet connections, and percentage of public places with wireless internet connections have been increasing year by year, indicating progress towards SD. Following reverse adjustment, unemployment rate and electricity consumption per person are all approaching 0, indicating that these two indicators are moving away from sustainability. Average daily per capita water use (liter) (excluding industrial use) increased first and then reduced, indicating that the trend in recent years has been away from SD. The economic dimension of the sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of economic dimension = (1 / 8) (average personal income + male employment rate + female employment rate + unemployment rate + percentage of households with internet connections + percentage of public places with wireless internet connections + average daily per capita water use (liter) + electricity consumption per person). Fig. 2 indicates that the economic dimension of the sustainability index declined before 1997. However, the index trend upwards in 1997 and 1998, before declining until 2002, finally resuming its upwards progress during the past two years.
Fig. 2. Sustainability trend of economic dimension.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
515
3.2.2. Social dimension of the sustainability index Urban population density, number of households below the poverty line, wealth gap, crime rate, annual casualties from public disasters, total annual traffic accidents, average number of students per classroom, car ownership rate and motorcycle ownership rate are all variables for which decreasing values indicate progress towards sustainability. Therefore, these variables should be adjusted so that a reversed trend indicates indicator integration, as follows: Y⁎ = 1 − Y. Among the standardized values of indicators in the social dimension, female/male life expectancy, crime rate, annual casualties from public disasters, annual number of transportation accidents, average number of students per classroom for elementary schools, ratio of the population with a college level education, per capita park and green areas, riverside park and green areas per person, sewerage and waste removal efficiency, rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system, per capita pedestrian walkway index, per capita bikeway index, and number of bicycle kickstands all have values that have been increasing year-on-year to approach 1 indicating progress towards SD. The remaining indicators exhibited inconsistent patterns. In recent years, some of these indicators have been trending towards SD, including urban population density, wealth gap, and per capital floor area. Meanwhile, some indicators have been trending towards 0 in recent years, indicating a trend away from sustainable development, including number of households below the poverty line, average number of students per classroom in junior high schools, car ownership rate, and motorcycle ownership rate. The social dimension of sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of social dimension = (1 / 22) (urban population density + male life expectancy + female life expectancy + number of households below the poverty line + wealth gap + crime rate + annual casualties from public disasters + annual number of transportation accidents + average number of students per classroom for junior high schools + average number of students per classroom for elementary schools + ratio of the population with a college level education + per capita floor area of private dwellings + per capita park and green areas + riverside park and green areas per person + sewerage and waste removal efficiency + rate of sanitary sewerage to total sewerage system + car ownership rate + motorcycle ownership rate + areas covered with public transportation system + per capita pedestrian walkway index + per capita bikeway index + number of bicycle kickstands). Fig. 3 reveals that the sustainability index for the social dimension was increasing year by year before 1997, thus moving towards SD. However, from 1997 to 2001, the social dimension of the sustainability index generally remained static, and only resumed its rise following 2001, indicating that the social dimension development of Taipei has gradually moved from a static situation towards sustainability. 3.2.3. Environmental dimension of the sustainability index Among environmental indicators, number of days with PSI N 100, per capita CO2 emissions, tap-water quality, and per capita daily waste production are all indicators for which smaller data values indicate progress towards SD. Consequently, the above indicators are all reverse adjusted (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ). The standardized indicator values of tap-water quality, per capita daily waste production and recycling ratio for solid waste all had values that increased annually towards 1 and, thus, are moving towards SD. While the standardized indicator values of number of days with PSI N 100, per capita
516
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 3. Social dimension of the sustainability trend.
CO2 emissions, and reservoir water quality all first increased and then reduced, displaying backsliding away from SD during recent years. Meanwhile, proportion of slightly-polluted rivers, ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production, and utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes) moved towards 1 during recent years, indicating progress towards SD. The environmental dimension of the sustainability index is calculated as follows: Sustainability index of environmental dimension = (1 / 9) (number of days with PSI N 100 + per capita CO2 emissions + proportion of slightly-polluted rivers + reservoir water quality + tapwater quality + per capita daily waste production + ratio of solid waste recycling to total waste production + ratio of solid waste composted to total waste production + utilization rate for renewable resources (bottom ashes)). Fig. 4 indicates that the environmental dimension of the sustainability index has generally displayed a gradual trend of annual progress towards SD, except for the years 1997, 1999, and 2003 in which backsliding occurred.
Fig. 4. Sustainability trend of environmental dimension.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
517
Fig. 5. Sustainability trend of institutional dimension.
3.2.4. Institutional dimension of the sustainability index Regarding the institutional indicators, appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution is an indicator for which a smaller value indicates greater progress towards SD. However, since the index is constructed so that a tendency towards 1 indicates progress towards sustainable development, the value of this indicator is backwards adjusted (Y⁎ = 1 − Y ). Environmental ecology budget and expenditure ratio are approaching 1, indicating a trend towards SD. A similar trend towards sustainability also exists for the indicators of enforcement of local environment plans, citizen participation in major planning and decision making, joint international cooperation, completion ratio of the cases on environmental impact assessment, all are getting close to 1 during recent years, means they are moving towards sustainability. However, appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution is gradually approaching zero, indicating a move away from SD. Moreover, the standardized indicator values of social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure, government expenditure to encourage pollution prevention and resource recycling initially increased and then reduced, also indicating that the current trend is away from SD. Table 2 Sustainability index for Taipei Year
Equity
Economy
Environment
Institution
Sustainability index
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
0.12 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.17
0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.20
0.02 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.19
0.15 0.10 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16
0.32 0.31 0.44 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.55 0.54 0.63 0.61 0.71
518
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
Fig. 6. Trend of sustainability for Taipei.
The method used to calculate the institutional dimension of the sustainability index is presented below: Sustainability index of institutional dimension = (1 / 8) (enforcement of local environmental plans + citizen participation in major planning and decision making + joint international cooperation regarding SD + environmental and ecological budget to total budget + social welfare expenditure ratio to total expenditure + government expenditure on pollution prevention and resource recycling + ratio of completed environmental impact assessments + appellate statistics of court cases related to environmental pollution). Fig. 5 indicates that the sustainability index of institution dimension was going down rapidly, decreasing from 1996 to 1998, but then rapidly increased from 1998 to 2000. To summarize, the institutional dimension of the sustainability index has fluctuated inconsistently during the study period, but recently has tended to remain static. 3.2.5. Overall sustainability index for Taipei This study applies an environmental–social–economic–institutional framework, combined with an equal weighting method, to calculate the sustainability index of the environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions, respectively. To examine the overall trend of SD for Taipei, this study uses an equal weighting method to summarize the sustainability index of these four dimensions to produce a sustainability index for Taipei. To investigate trends in sustainability in Taipei during the past 11 years, relevant data value and trends are listed in Table 2 and Fig. 6. Analytical results indicate that the sustainability index for Taipei has gradually grown year by year, and urban construction during recent years has been performed to ensure a move towards SD sequentially. 4. Conclusion and suggestions This work proposes a SD framework for Taipei, capable of assessing the sustainability of Taipei. This work adjusted the 48 sustainability indicators drafted by Taipei in 2004, and further referred to
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
519
relevant international and domestic literature and discussed with experts, scholars and government departments. Finally, this study proposed a set of 51 sustainability indicators for Taipei. The SD concept adopted in this study clearly belongs to the “weak sustainability” defined by Pearce and Atkinson (1993), and the sustainability indexes proposed in this work delineate environmental, social, economic, and institutional conditions in Taipei. Restated, the main achievement of this study in drafting a sustainability index is to strike a balance between ecology and human inhabitance. Moreover, sustainability indexes provide decision makers with comprehensive information on protection and welfare restoration for the environment and humanity. Assessing SD in Taipei using the proposed index indicates that the economic and environmental dimensions have gradually moved towards SD, while social and institutional dimensions have remained relatively static. However, since 2002, the social dimension has also moved towards SD. From the perspective of urban development, changes in time and space are essential in achieving sustainability goals. Consequently, any system of sustainability indicators must be dynamic. This study simply reviews the current SD state of Taipei in terms of the 51 indicators. A future study must develop a mechanism for long-term indicator maintenance. Moreover, sustainability indicators should be reviewed on three to five year intervals to reassess their appropriateness. Based on this review, sustainability indicators can be adjusted to reflect policy adjustments related to urban development, assess the condition of Taipei SD, make each indicator dynamic, and meet the purpose of adjusting when applicable. As a portion of the long-term maintenance, indicators may be adjusted at three to five year intervals in response to changes in government strategy. Indicators also change their importance over time; therefore relevant departments can propose adjustments to indicators. However, the issue of linking to a global perspective still requires further consideration. Therefore, the commonly adopted calculation methods by other countries should be considered to allow comparisons of sustainability indicators. However, local citizens may have difficulty in interpreting the significance of the data. Consequently, we recommend that if both international and local calculation methods are adopted and data are accessible, then both these methods can be presented. Doing so not only allows local citizens to easily understand the current state of SD development of Taipei, but also makes comparisons with other countries to provide a global perspective. Although the sustainability index proposed in this study cannot provide an absolute and precise measure for Taipei SD, or precisely determine a point at which Taipei has achieved the goal of SD, this investigation provides an indicator of whether Taipei has achieved progress towards SD during the past 11 years. This study also identifies which among the 51 sustainability indicators, four sustainability dimensions, and Taipei sustainability index are displaying trends towards unsustainability. Concrete policies and measures should be developed to achieve improvements in those indicators where progress towards sustainability is not underway. Good governance, openness, reliability and compliance with agreements, requirements and regulations are necessary for successfully accomplishing SD projects, environmental policies, and resource management strategies (Read, 2006). Therefore, in the future, the sustainability indicators and index proposed here should be publicized via an open and real time information system to enable citizens and relevant agencies to understand the progress towards SD at anytime, and further assist Taipei to achieving SD. Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank the Taipei City Government for financially supporting this research.
520
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
References Atkinson G, Dubourg R, Hamilton K, Munashinge M, Pearce D, Young C, editors. Measuring sustainable development: macroeconomics and the environment. 2nd ed. Northampton: Edward Elgar; 1999. Andriantiatsaholiniaina1 LA, Kouikoglou VS, Phillis YA. Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol Econ 2004;48:149–72. Barrera-Roldán A, Saldívar-Valdés A. Proposal and application of a sustainable development index. Ecol Indic 2002;2:251–6. Bithas KP, Christofakis M. Environmentally sustainable cities: critical review and operational conditions. Sustain Dev 2006;14:177–89. Bithas KP, Nijkamp P. Operationalising ecologically sustainable development at the microlevel: pareto optimality and the preservation of biologically crucial levels. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 2006;5(2):126–46. Brebbia CA, editor. The sustainable city: urban regeneration and sustainability. Southampton: WIT Press; 2000. Blinc R, Zidanšek A, Šlaus I. Sustainable development after Johannesburg and Iraq: the global situation and the cases of Slovenia and Croatia. Energy 2006;31:2259–68. Camagni R, Capello R, Nijkamp P. Towards sustainable city policy: an economy, environment, technology nexus. Ecol Econ 1998;124(1):103–18. Cochrane P. Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2006;57:318–30. Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T, de Sherbinin A, Kim CH, Anderson B. Pilot 2006 environmental performance index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy; 2006. Finco A, Nijkamp P. Pathway to urban sustainability. Journal Environ Policy Plan 2001;3(4):289–309. Gibson RB, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G. Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and applications. London: Earthscan; 2005. Hardoy JE, Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D. The environmental problems of third world Cities. London: Earthscan; 1992. Haughton G, Hunter C. Sustainable cities, regional policy and development series 7. London: Kingsley; 1994. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). Compendium of sustainable development indicator initiatives and publications; 2000. http://www.iisd.org. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC. Sustainability science. Science 2001;292:641–2. Kaufmann-Hayoz R. Human action in context: a model framework for interdisciplinary studies in view of sustainable development. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):154–77. Kruse L. Globalisation and sustainable development as issues of environmental psychology. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):136–52. Lee Y-J. Context and components of sustainable communities: case study of Taipei, Taiwan. Umweltpsychologie J Environ Psychol 2006;10(1):192–208. Mitchell B, Shrubsole D. Reorienting to achieve sustainability in Canadian water management. Can Water Resour J 1994;19(4):335–47. National Research Council Board on Sustainable Development (NRC). Our Common journey: a transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309067839/html/index. html. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). The Egan Review: skills for sustainable communities. London: Crown Copyright; 2004. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Towards sustainable development: environmental indicators. Paris: OECD; 1998. Pearce D, Atkinson G. Capital theory and measurement of sustainable development, an indicator of ‘weak’ sustainability. Ecol Econ 1993;8. Pugh C, editor. Sustainability, the environment and urbanization. London: Earthscan; 1996. Plummer R. The evolution of sustainable development strategies in Canada: an assessment of three federal natural resource management agencies. Sustain Dev 2006;14:16–32. Portney KE. Taking sustainable cities seriously. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2003. Read R. Sustainable natural resource use and economic development in small states: the tuna fisheries in Fiji and Samoa. Sustain Dev 2006;14:93–103. Robinson J. Squaring the circle? Some thought on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2004;48:369–84. Rogers R. Cities for a small planet. London: Faber and Faber; 1997. Sitarz D, editor. Sustainable America: America's environment, economy and society in the 21st century. Carbondale, Ill: Earthpress; 1998.
Y.-J. Lee, C.-M. Huang / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27 (2007) 505–521
521
Sachs I. Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of sustainable development. In: Becker E, Jahn T, editors. Sustainability and the social sciences. a cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 25–36. Spangenberg JH. Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectiveness. Sustain Dev 2002;10(2):103–15. Spangenberg JH. Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies. Sustain Dev 2004;12:74–86. Sustainable Seattle. The sustainable Seattle 1998 indictors of sustainable community: a report to citizens on long-term trends in our community. USA: Sustainable Seattle; 1998. Swart R, Raskin P, Robinson J, Kates R, Clark W-C. Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 2002;297:1994–5. UK Government of the United Kingdom. Quality of life counts; 1999. (http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ sustainable/quality99/chap2.pdf) (login: 2006/4/2). Ukaga O, Maser C. Evaluating sustainable development: giving people a voice in their destiny. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus; 2004. United Nations Center Human Settlements (UNCHS). Monitoring human settlements with urban indicators (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Center Human Settlements (Habitat); 1997. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies; 2001. http://www.un.org/esa/csd9. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development Department of Policy Co-Ordination and Sustainable Development (UNDPCSD). Indicators of sustainable development, framework and methodologies. New York: UN; 1996. United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNECOSOC). Implementing Agenda 21 — Report of the SecretaryGeneral. New York: UN Documents; 2002. Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society; 1996. Workshop on Urban Sustainability (National Science Foundation). Towards a comprehensive geographical perspective on urban sustainability. NJ: Rutgers University; 2000. Xu F-L, Zhao S-S, Dawson RW, Hao J-Y, Zhang Y, Tao S. A triangle model for evaluating the sustainability status and trends of economic development. Ecol Model 2006;195:327–37. Yale Center of Environmental Law and Policy, Center of International Earth and Science Information Network (YCELP). 2005 environmental sustainability index; 2005.