Cities 29 (2012) 3239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

An alternative model for evaluating sustainable urbanization

Liyin Shen a, Yi Peng a,, Xiaoling Zhang b, Yuzhe Wu c
a
Dept. of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China
b
Dept. of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PR China
c
Dept. of Land Management, Zhejiang University, Hang Zhou, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, there has been rapid urbanization worldwide, resulting in both benets and problems.
Received 29 September 2010 Sustainable urbanization has become an important aspect in promoting sustainable development. Exist-
Received in revised form 8 June 2011 ing studies have introduced various methodologies to guide urbanization towards sustainable practices.
Accepted 24 June 2011
The application of these methods has contributed to improving urban sustainability. To further support
Available online 22 July 2011
the effective applications of the principles of sustainable urbanization, a tool is needed to evaluate
whether a particular process of urbanization is sustainable. In this paper, we introduce an alternative
Keywords:
model for evaluating sustainable urbanization by investigating the relationship between urbanization
Sustainable urbanization
Urban sustainability
and urban sustainability. The practice of sustainable urbanization is dened as a dynamic process that
Urban sustainability velocity (VlS) enables urban sustainability to improve or to maintain a certain level of practice. By employing this def-
Urbanization rate inition, we introduce a sustainable urbanization elasticity coefcient eSU, which is dened by two param-
Urbanization velocity (VlR) eters: urbanization velocity (VlR) and urban sustainability velocity (VlS). The sustainability of an
Sustainable urbanization elasticity urbanization process is measured by the value of eSU or read from the VlRVlS coordinate. A case study
coefcient (eSU) demonstrates the application of the measure eSU and the VlRVlS coordinate. The proposed model is an
VlRVlS coordinate effective tool to help policy makers understand whether the urbanization processes they support are sus-
tainable and thus whether to correct practices. The model also allows comparison of different urbaniza-
tion practices and thereby encourages the sharing of successful experiences.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction able development, the problems created by urbanization have at-

Urbanization, which is dened as a movement of people from
rural to urban areas with population growth equal to urban migra-
tion, has been one of the most prominent trends of the 20th and
21st century (Street, 1997; United Nations, 2010). According to a
report by the United Nations (2010), the ratio of urban populations
rose from 13% in 1900, to 29% in 1950, to 50% in 2009, and it is pro-
jected to be 69% in 2050. Urbanization brings many benets, such
as diversity, market efciency, jobs, education, and health
improvement (Christopher, 2008; Glaeser, 1998). It is these bene-
ts that attract a continuous ow of people from rural to urban
areas. However, due to the rapid pace of urbanization, natural eco-
systems are increasingly replaced by cities (Attwell, 2000; United
Nations Population Fund, 2007). It has been increasingly noted that
urbanization leads to many problems, such as air and water pollu-
tion, depletion of cultivated land due to urban sprawl, global cli-
mate change, and others (Li, Liu, Hu, et al., 2009; Yigitcanlar,
2009). These problems present barriers to achieving sustainable
development. Consequently, with the global promotion of sustain-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 5872; fax: +852 2764 5131.
E-mail addresses: bsshen@polyu.edu.hk (L. Shen), pengyihz@gmail.com
(Y. Peng), zhangxiaoling1982@gmail.com (X. Zhang), wuyuzhe@zju.edu.cn (Y. Wu).
tracted efforts to nd solutions from various sectors, including
academics.
The principles of sustainable development have been increas-
ingly applied across all sectors, with the development of various
management systems. For example, the Building Research Estab-
lishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (1990),
the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) (1993),
and Green Star (2003) have been applied to improve environmental
performance. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been pro-
moted as a strategy to improve social sustainability (Mathias,
2005). In line with these developments, sustainable urbanization
is promoted as an important component of sustainable develop-
ment (UN-Habitat/DFID, 2002). An urbanization process that fullls
the principles of sustainable development characterizes sustainable
urbanization (Roy, 2009). Governments have advocated various
policies on sustainable urbanization, and current research has also
introduced various methodologies to assist in promoting sustain-
able urbanization. Drakakis-Smith and Dixon (1997) developed an
integrative framework to understand concerns regarding sustain-
able urbanization from the perspectives of economic, social,
political, demographic, and environmental performances. A report
by the UN-Habitat/DFID (2002) identied the main challenges to
achieving sustainable urbanization, including potential conicts

0264-2751/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.06.008
 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239
between economic growth and environmental sustainability, ineq-
uity due to lack of political and social inclusion, inadequate gover-
nance capabilities, and difculties in achieving coordinated urban
rural development. Pivo (1996) reviewed the experience of sustain-
able urbanization in Mainstreet Cascadia and summarized six prin-
ciples of urban planning for promoting sustainable urbanization,
including compactness, completeness, conservation, comfort, coor-
dination, and collaboration. Other studies investigated how various
technological methods, such as low carbon emission, air and noise
pollution control, and waste management contribute to urban envi-
ronmental protection and sustainable urbanization (e.g., Brown,
2008; Jenerette & Larsen, 2006; Leach, Bauen, & Lucas, 1997). In re-
cent years, advanced technologies, such as remote sensing, the Cel-
lular Automata model, the SLEUTH model, and the System
Dynamics model have been used to monitor the impact of urbani-
zation on the environment and to analyze future scenarios of
changes in land use to facilitate policy making for promoting sus-
tainable urbanization (e.g., Encalada & Caceres, 2009; Haase, Haase,
Kabisch, et al., 2008; Irwin, Jayaprakash, & Munroe, 2009; Jantz,
Goetz, & Shelley, 2003; Ward, Phinn, & Murray, 2000).
Furthermore, various urban models have been introduced to
guide the practice of urbanization towards better sustainability.
Haughton (1999) suggested four types of urban models to contrib-
ute to sustainable development, namely free market, redesign-
ing, self-reliant, and fair shares city. Holden (2004) described
four models of urban development, namely urban sprawl, the
green city, large (monolithic) compact city, and decentralized
concentration, with the model of decentralized concentration
favored for better sustainability. Jabareen (2006) discussed the
models of compact city, eco-city, urban containment, and
neo-traditional development and recommended applying the
compact city model to promote sustainable urbanization.
The above discussions show that studies have introduced vari-
ous models and methods to guide the design and practice of sus-
tainable urbanization. Appreciation of these models and methods
invites our investigation of how to evaluate their effectiveness. It
appears that few studies have addressed this issue, which is impor-
tant for applying effective methods and for encouraging sustain-
able urbanization. Therefore, there is a need for a tool to evaluate
whether a particular practice of urbanization is sustainable. This
tool should be able to incorporate the principles of sustainable
urbanization with the characteristics of a particular practice of
urbanization. This paper aims to develop such a tool for evaluating
the sustainability of urbanization.
Urbanization and urban sustainability
Urbanization
Urbanization is dened by the United Nations as a movement of
people from rural to urban areas with population growth equal to
urban migration (United Nations, 2010). Urbanization is a dynamic
process involving various stages and is usually expressed with the
urbanization rate (lR). Northam (1975) depicted the urbanization
process as an attenuated S curve, which includes an initial stage,
an acceleration stage, and a terminal stage, as shown in Fig. 1. The
initial stage has a slow pace until the ratio of urban population
reaches about 30%. The acceleration stage begins with a pronounced
pace. Urbanization reaches the terminal stage when the ratio of ur-
ban population is over 70%.
Other relevant terms of urbanization include concentrated
urbanization, suburbanization, counter-urbanization, and re-urbani-
zation (Bind, 1980; Enyedi & Hungary, 1990). Concentrated urbani-
zation refers to heavy growth of urban population with similar
development of industry in the initial stage of urbanization. Subur-
33
100
Ratio of urban population (%)
Terminal stage ?
80
Re-urbanization
60 Acceleration stage
Counter-urbanization
40
Initial stage
20
Time
Fig. 1. The urbanization process. Source: adapted from Northam (1975) and Bind
(1980).
banization refers to population growth in the suburbs due to urban
expansion. Counter-urbanization occurs when urban people emi-
grate for complex reasons, such as the inability to tolerate urban
problems, including air and water pollution. Re-urbanization refers
to immigration for various reasons, such as a government policy
that attracts people to urban areas. According to the urbanization
process in Fig. 1, counter-urbanization and re-urbanization are
phenomena that occur at the terminal stage of urbanization.
As a dynamic process, urbanization brings changes of physical
formation, politics, and culture to a city while satisfying the needs
of an increased urban population (Pivo, 1996). Bettencourt, Lobo,
Helbing, et al. (2007) argued that urbanization is intimately related
to economic development, human welfare, and profound changes
in social organization and patterns of human behavior, presenting
both opportunities and challenges to achieving urban sustainabil-
ity. Other studies echo this conclusion, arguing that urbanization
presents both benets and problems in economic, social, and eco-
logical terms (Alberti & Marzluff, 2004; Christopher, 2008; Glaeser,
1998; Li et al., 2009; Yigitcanlar, 2009).
Urban sustainability
Urban sustainability (lS) can be considered a measure for
assessing the extent to which a city has achieved a desirable state
of sustainability (Banister, 1998). This state is described as a prac-
tice that uses resources efciently and improves the quality of life
in an excellent environment within the constraints of our earth
(Banister, 1998). Therefore, the measure lS is often expressed as
a stage value to reect the sustainability of a specic city at any gi-
ven point in time, as shown in Fig. 2.
Research has been conducted on measuring urban sustainabil-
ity by means of indicators, ow analysis models, frameworks,
and other methods (Oswald & McNeil, 2010; Waheed, Khan, &
100
Ratio of urban population (%)
80
?
Si
60
40 S2
20 S1
t1 t2 ti Time
Fig. 2. An illustration of state change of lS in the urbanization process.
34 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239

Veitch, 2009). For example, the OECD Pressure State Response

Indicator Model (OECD, 1998) has been introduced to assess the ef-
fect of human activity on environmental quality, natural resources, SE

Economy development
and societys response to these environmental changes. Nijkamp
and Pepping (1998) introduced a Pentagon Model to address
hardware, software, nware, orgware, and ecoware as
ve major factors for implementing renewable energy technolo-
gies to achieve better urban sustainability. May, Mitchell, and
Kupiszewska (1997) introduced the Quantiable City Model to
examine urban sustainability from six perspectives: physical envi-
ronment, resources, health, security, services and infrastructure,
and community development. Ferrarini, Bodini, and Becchi urbanization
(2001) and Boggia and Cortina (2010) identied appropriate
environmental and socioeconomic indicators and then adopted Fig. 3. An illustration of relationship between economy performance and urban-
ization level.
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess the sustainability
of a particular area. These methodologies provide valuable strate-
gies for examining the relationship between urbanization and
SS(Urbanization)the social contribution to urban sustainability in the
urban sustainability.
process of urbanization
Although there is little research on the relationship between
The relationship between urbanization and urban sustainability
urbanization and social development, some studies have argued
that in its initial stage, urbanization has positive effects on social
While the methods for studying urban sustainability are vari-
aspects, including social mobilization, literacy, political participa-
ous, they embody a common principle: urban sustainability should
tion, education, income, and health (Christopher, 2008; Glaeser,
be assessed in terms of the economic, social, and ecological devel-
1998; Tanter, 1967; Udry, 1964). However, these effects become
opment of a city (Burgess, Carmona, & Kolstee, 1997; Harris, 1992;
negative when urbanization goes beyond the carrying capacity of
Marcotullio, 2001). Thus, urban sustainability integrates the sus-
a city (Sobotka, 2006). Therefore, the relationship between urban-
tainability of economic, social, and ecological development in a
ization and its social contribution is exhibited in Fig. 4.
city, and this integration can be expressed as follows:
lS SE [ SS [ SEn 1 SEn(Urbanization)the environmental contribution to urban
sustainability in the process of urbanization
where lS denotes urban sustainability, SE indicates economic sus-
Previous studies have investigated the relationship between
tainability, SS indicates social sustainability, and SEn indicates envi-
urbanization and ecological consequences. Alberti and Marzluff
ronmental sustainability.
(2004) developed a model for illustrating this relationship, as
Because urbanization is closely associated with economic, so-
shown in Fig. 5. This model suggests that ecological quality may in-
cial, and ecological development in a city, it is the key variable
crease in the initial stage of urbanization due to the benets cre-
determining the performance of urban sustainability. Accordingly,
ated by urban agglomerations, but quality decreases from
Formula (1) can be rewritten as:
environmental degradation induced by rapid urbanization. With-
lS SE Urbanization [ SS Urbanization [ SEn Urbanization 2 out external intervention, the deterioration would continue, result-
ing in the citys demolition or abandonment. However, because
where SE(Urbanization) indicates the economic contribution to ur-
urban development is guided by policies, ecological quality can
ban sustainability in the process of urbanization, SS(Urbanization)
be improved and maintained at a certain level through policy
denotes the social contribution, and SEn(Urbanization) indicates
intervention.
the environmental contribution.
By considering the curves SE, SS, and SEn in Figs. 35, an inte-
grated curve is obtained, as shown in Fig. 6, which presents the
SE(Urbanization)the economic contribution to urban sustainability
relationship between urban sustainability and urbanization if
in the process of urbanization
urbanization is practiced sustainably. In the initial stage, the im-
It is widely understood that urbanization is the major driver of a
pact of urbanization on economic and social development is low,
citys economic development (e.g., Kasarda & Crenshaw, 1991;
and therefore, urban sustainability is low, although ecological
Scott & Storper, 2003). Berry (1973) suggested that there is a close
performance may be comparatively high. When urbanization
relationship between GNP per capita and urbanization. According
to this study, GNP per capita, as a major indicator of economic
development, grows at an increasing rate that drives the initial
stage of urbanization due to the benets brought by urban agglom- SS
erations. Moreover, researchers know that even the later stages of
urbanization, which consist of urban concentration, can strongly
Social development

affect economic development (Henderson, 2003). Henderson

(2003) also found that although rapid urbanization can bring neg-
ative social and environmental consequences, which further weak-
en economic development, planned urbanization based on the size
and development level of the city can balance the gains and losses
of economic development. Therefore, the relationship between
urbanization and its economic contribution can be depicted graph-
ically, as shown in Fig. 3. The relationship indicates that economies
urbanization
grow slowly and even stop growing at a certain level because the
impact of urban agglomeration decreases in the later stages of Fig. 4. An illustration of relationship between social performance and urbanization
urbanization. level.
 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239
Ecological quality
Planned development
Sprawling development
S En
urbanization
Fig. 5. An illustration of relationship between ecological performance and urban-
ization level. Source: adopted from Alberti and Marzluff (2004).
S urbanization (lR) (Henderson & Wang, 2004; Williamson, 1965).
Fig. 6. An illustration of the relationship between urbanization level and urban
sustainability.
continues, its effect on the economy, society, and environment in-
creases; thus, urban sustainability increases. However, the
improvement of sustainability becomes slower in the stage of rapid
urbanization because ecological quality decreases signicantly at
this stage. Thereafter, sustainability maintains a certain level as
necessary policy interventions are introduced to improve the dete-
riorating ecological situation. The hypothetical curve in Fig. 6 pro-
vides a useful framework for conducting further analysis on
sustainable urbanization.
Sustainable urbanization
The discussions in previous sections suggest that urbanization
is a dynamic process that has major effects on economic, social,
and environmental performances of urban areas and that it plays
an essential role in implementing the principles of sustainable
development. Therefore, sustainable urbanization is introduced
to describe a process of urbanization that fullls the principles of
sustainable development (Roy, 2009). This process is also a strat-
egy for policy intervention to achieve better sustainability in
urbanization. However, there are few studies on the methodology
for assessing whether a particular process of urbanization is sus-
tainable or consistent with the principles of sustainable develop-
ment. To nd an effective method of assessment, a proper
understanding of the denition of sustainable urbanization needs
to be established rst.
Because urbanization is a dynamic process, the performance of
its sustainability varies at different stages of the process. Previous
studies suggest that an effective way of evaluating a dynamic pro-
cess is to compare different values of stages in the process (e.g.,
Harvey, 1973; Smith, 1984). Consistent with this, it is possible to
35
examine whether a process of urbanization is sustainable by col-
lectively considering the values of the stages of urbanization and
the value of urban sustainability lS. Therefore, a sustainable pro-
cess of urbanization can be dened as a dynamic process that en-
ables urban sustainability to improve or to maintain a certain level
of practice in the course of urbanization.
Methodology for evaluating sustainable urbanization
Based on the ideas above, whether an urbanization process is
sustainable may be assessed by using the measures of the stages
of urbanization (lR) and urban sustainability (lS). In this context,
the evaluation methodology involves three steps, exhibited by a
ow chart as shown in Fig. 7.
Step 1: measure the stages of urbanization (lR)
The stage of urbanization is usually dened by the rate of
It is acceptable to measure lR according to the ratio of people living
in urban areas to the total population of the study area (Tisdale,
1942; Williamson, 1965; Zhang & Song, 2003). However, the de-
nition of urban area varies among nations. For example, in Canada,
an urban area must have a population of at least 1000 and no fewer
than 400 persons per square kilometer (Statistics Canada, 2007). In
China, an urban area is an urban district, city or town with a pop-
ulation density higher than 1500 people per square kilometer (Liu,
Li, & Zhang, 2003). We adopt the denition specied by the United
Nations, according to which an urban area encompasses more than
20,000 people (Kasarda & Crenshaw, 1991).
When lR is measured according to the ratio of people living in
urban areas to total people, it represents a value of a stage. In other
words, there is a specic value of lR at a given time in the process
of urbanization. The signicance of a change in population during a
particular period of time, for example, from t1 to t2, can be mea-
sured by a calculation of urbanization velocity (VlR) through the
following Formula (3).
lRt2  lRt1 DlR
V lR 3
t2  t1 Dt
where VlR is the urbanization velocity, lRt and lRt are the values
1 2
of stages lR at time t1 and t2, respectively. Furthermore, DlR is the
increment of the rate of urbanization in a specied time interval,
while t1 and t2 are the observed points in time, and Dt is the incre-
ment of the time interval.
R
S
Fig. 7. Procedure for evaluating the sustainability of urbanization.
36 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239
Step 2: measure urban sustainability (lS)
The measure of lS has been introduced in Formula (1), and lS is
used to measure the extent to which a city has achieved a desirable
stage of sustainability (Banister, 1998). While previous studies
have introduced various measurements for urban sustainability,
the most effective is an index value by using a set of indicators
(Gasparatos, El-Haram, & Horner, 2008). It is known that indicators
can present relevant information in an effective form to facilitate
communication among experts, policy makers, and the public
(Alberti, 1996). Effective communication on the state of urban sus-
tainability is essential, particularly for the public. Only efforts
shared by the public and other stakeholders can result in achieving
sustainable urbanization strategies (Enserink & Koppenjan, 2007).
The value of lS for particular cities can be measured with the indi-
cator system developed in studies, for example, the International
Urban Sustainability Indicator List developed by Shen, Ochoa, Shah,
et al. (2011).
The value of lS varies in the process of urbanization, as exhib-
ited in Fig. 2, and it can be assessed at any given point in time.
When the time interval from t1 to t2 is considered, the change of
urban sustainability can be examined by the velocity of urban sus-
tainability, which is calculated according to the following Formula
(4).
lSt2  lSt1 Dl S
V lS
t2  t1 Dt
where VlS is the velocity of urban sustainability, lSt and lSt repre-
1 2
sent urban sustainability with lS at time t1 and t2, and DlS indicates
the increment of urbanization sustainability in the specied time
interval, while t1 and t2 are the observed points in time and Dt rep-
resents the increment of the time interval.
Step 3: evaluate the performance of sustainability in urbanization
As dened earlier in this paper, sustainable urbanization enables
urban sustainability to improve or to maintain a certain level. Evalu-
ation of sustainable urbanization must collectively consider
changes in the rate of urbanization (VlR) and changes in urban sus-
tainability (VlS). Because VlR and VlS can assume various values,
there are different scenarios for evaluating the sustainability of
urbanization, and the analysis of these scenarios can be conducted
in a VlRVlS coordinate as shown in Fig. 8. In this gure, there are
four types of scenarios located in four quadrants, which can be
analyzed as follows:
Fig. 8. The VlRVlS coordinate for evaluating the sustainability of urbanization.
(1) Quadrant (I): sustainable urbanization
Quadrant (I) represents these relationships: VlR > 0 and VlS > 0.
This is considered a sustainable urbanization practice, where
VlR > 0 indicates urbanization growth, while VlS > 0 suggests
improvement of urban sustainability. In this context, the urbaniza-
tion process is able to achieve sustainability and is therefore sus-
tainable urbanization.
(2) Quadrant (II): sustainable counter-urbanization
Quadrant (II) shows these relationships: VlR < 0 and VlS > 0.
Although there is counter-urbanization, the practice is considered
sustainable. The relationship VlR < 0 indicates a counter-urbaniza-
tion process, while VlS > 0 indicates improvement of urban sus-
tainability. Counter-urbanization may be necessary to solve
certain urban problems and to improve urban sustainability. If ur-
ban sustainability is improved, the counter-urbanization process is
a sustainable practice. This phenomenon occurs in areas where so-
cial and ecological problems are alleviated because urban people
move away or the urban populations birth rate decreases.
(3) Quadrant (III): unsustainable counter-urbanization
Quadrant (III) represents these relationships: VlR < 0 and
VlS < 0. The practice in this quadrant refers to a process of coun-
4
ter-urbanization and an unsustainable practice. The relationship
VlR < 0 implies a process of counter-urbanization, while VlS < 0
indicates that urban sustainability is declining in the process of
urbanization. The practice in this quadrant is more likely to occur
in urban areas whose carrying capacity has been destroyed and is
unrecoverable, for example, as a result of wars or natural disasters,
and therefore, urban people move away and abandon the urban
areas.
(4) Quadrant (IV): unsustainable urbanization
Quadrant (IV) represents these relationships: VlR > 0 and
VlS < 0. The practice in this quadrant is unsustainable urbanization,
where VlR > 0 indicates urbanization growth, while VlS < 0 denotes
declining urban sustainability. In this context, the process of
urbanization deviates from the sustainable development practice
and is thus unsustainable urbanization.
The sustainable urbanization elasticity coefcient
To further understand the application of the VlRVlS coordinate
(Fig. 8), an alternative measure, called the sustainable urbanization
elasticity coefcient eSU, is used to evaluate the performance of
sustainability in urbanization. By referring to the concept of elas-
ticity in economics, the sustainable urbanization elasticity coef-
cient eSU can be obtained by examining the ratio between the
changes of urbanization rate (VlR or DlR) and the changes of urban
sustainability (VlS or DlS), as shown in Formula (5).
Dl
DlS S
V lS
eSU DDlt 5
Dl R Dt
R V lR
where eSU measures the improvement of urban sustainability in the
process of urbanization, eSU reects the extent of improvement in
urban sustainability induced by urbanization, which can be positive
or negative. A particular value of eSU can be interpreted by referring
to the coordinate VlRVlS.
When eSU > 0, there are two possible scenarios: (a) VlR > 0 and
VlS > 0, which is the scenario in quadrant (I) in the VlRVlS coordi-
nate in Fig. 8 and reects a sustainable process of urbanization, and
 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239 37

(b) VlR < 0 and VlS < 0, which is the scenario in quadrant (III) in the Table 2
coordinate and indicates an unsustainable process of counter- The urbanization rate lR for the four cities in the case study between 1995 and 2000.
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China, China City Statistical Yearbook (1996
urbanization. However, when eSU < 0, there are also two possible 2001)
scenarios: (a) VlR < 0 and VlS > 0, which is the scenario in quadrant
(II) in the VlRVlS coordinate, indicating a sustainable process of City 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

counter-urbanization, and (b) VlR > 0 and VlS < 0, which is the sce- Qi 0.691 0.7 0.709 0.721 0.726 0.744
nario in quadrant (IV) in the coordinate, indicating an unsustain- Ma 0.774 0.775 0.774 0.779 0.787 0.791
Ta 0.14 0.144 0.156 0.17 0.184 0.193
able process of urbanization. Wu 0.886 0.876 0.824 0.81 0.81 0.845
Formulas (3)(5) form a model for evaluating the sustainability
of urbanization. The eSU and the VlRVlS coordinate are tools to Note. Urbanization rate was measured by the ratio of non-agricultural population to
total population in the context of China.
evaluate whether a particular process of urbanization is consistent
with sustainable practices. The higher eSU, the better sustainability
of the process of urbanization for the scenarios in quadrants (I) and
Table 3
(II).
VUR, VUS and eSU for the four cities in the case study between 1995 and 2000.
The implications of urbanization can also be interpreted in
other terms, such as the physical growth of urban areas as a result City VlR VlS eSU

of global change (Bhatta, 2010). Cam, Nichols, Sauer, et al. (2000) Qi 0.011 0.022 2.08
suggested measuring rates of urbanization by index, for example, Ma 0.003 0.026 7.65
Ta 0.011 0.018 1.7
according to the ratio of urban land coverage. However, the devel-
Wu 0.008 0.018 2.2
oped evaluation model in this study provides a general framework
for measuring the sustainability of urbanization, which will follow
the same procedures dened in the model when working with dif-
ferent interpretations of urbanization and urbanization rate. The 2000. Of these cities, Wu experienced a decrease in urban popula-
model is validated as long as urbanization continues, and rates of tion, while the other three cities evidenced population growth.
urbanization can be measured accordingly. Furthermore, the value eSU in Table 3 allows comparison of
urbanization sustainability among the four cities between 1995
and 2000. In the table, the eSU is 7.65 for Ma, 2.2 for Wu, 2.08
for Qi and 1.7 for Ta. Ma has the highest improvement in the per-
Application of the model for evaluating sustainable
formance of sustainable urbanization, a nding that is consistent
urbanization
with the results of Van Dijk and Zhang (2005).
Qi with eSU of 2.08, is a coastal city in a relatively developed area
A designated case study illustrates how to apply the model for
in China. Its pillar industry used to be the citys harbor and tourism.
evaluating sustainable urbanization introduced in the previous
However, the local authorities of Qi have shifted its development
section. To apply the model, data for the two parameters, namely
policy toward industrialization and urbanization since 1998. The
urbanization rate lR and urban sustainability lS, are needed. To
citys urbanization grew between 1995 and 2000, and its urban
simplify the discussion while preserving a general focus, the data
sustainability improved in this period due to economic and social
in this designated case of lS are collected from results of urban sus-
development. Therefore, urbanization in Qi during the study period
tainability assessments established by other researchers, and the
was consistent with sustainable practices.
data for lR are collected from published reports of statistics.
Ma is an inland city in a relatively developed area, and the chief
The results of urban sustainability assessments performed by
industry is steel. This city, located in Anhui Province, is reported to
Van Dijk and Zhang (2005) are included. In their study, urban sus-
be well managed since 1989 and received a prize for being a na-
tainability lS for four medium-sized Chinese cities was calculated
tional model of urban environmental protection in 2006 (BEPPRC,
for the period between 1995 and 2000, including Qinhuangdao (Qi)
2006, Anhui Development, 2008). Table 1 shows that the urban
in Hebei province, Maanshan (Ma) in Anhui province, Taizhou (Ta)
sustainability of Ma improved during the study period. The urban-
in Zhejiang province and Wuhai (Wu) in the Inner Mongolia Auton-
ization rate did not change much in the period. Therefore, the eSU
omous Region. The assessment results are shown in Table 1. How-
was very high; in fact, it was the highest of the four cities exam-
ever, the data for the urbanization rates lR for these four cities are
ined, indicating good improvement in sustainability performance.
available from the statistics bureaus for the period from 1995 to
Ta is a coastal city in a developed area of China, with the
2000, which are shown in Table 2.
chemical and medical industries dominating. It was the wealthiest
By applying the data in Tables 1 and 2 to Formulas (3)(5), the
city in the study. Its urban sustainability improved during the
VlR, the VlS, and the eSU can be calculated. The calculation results
study period, while its rate of urbanization did not change much.
are shown in Table 3.
By applying the VlRVlS coordinate presented in Fig. 8, the VlR
and VlS of the four cities can be allocated in the coordinate, as
shown in Fig. 9. Based on discussions in the previous section of 0.03
the four scenarios in the four quadrants, the processes of urbaniza-
0.025
tion in all four cities are considered sustainable between 1995 and
Vus

0.02 Qi
Ma
Table 1 0.015
Ta
The urban sustainability lS for the four cities in the case study between 1995 and
0.01
2000. Source: calculation based on Van Dijk and Zhang (2005). Wu
City 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 0.005

Qi 0.342 0.368 0.382 0.421 0.421 0.447 0

Ma 0.408 0.434 0.447 0.513 0.513 0.539 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Ta 0.316 0.368 0.355 0.355 0.395 0.408 Vur
Wu 0.237 0.224 0.289 0.303 0.316 0.329
Fig. 9. The comparison of the sustainability of urbanization for the four cities.
38 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239
Therefore, the city achieved good sustainability elasticity in its
urbanization process, with the eSU value of 1.7.
Wu is an inland city in a relatively undeveloped area with pri-
mary industries of coal mining and livestock farming. The citys
coal mining had produced signicant employment, and thus its
rate of urbanization was very high. However, the rate of urbaniza-
tion decreased during the study period, largely due to resource
depletion and poverty. Thus, the urbanization velocity in the exam-
ined period was negative and is categorized as counter-urbaniza-
tion. Yet, the citys performance of urban sustainability improved,
although not as much as the other three cities. Therefore, the prac-
tice in Wu during the study period can be described as sustainable
counter-urbanization.
The above case study shows that the VlRVlS coordinate and the
measure eSU are effective tools to evaluate changes and improve-
ments of urbanization sustainability in cities. Comparing cities
can help identify benchmarks for promoting sustainable urbaniza-
tion and sharing experiences of different cities. The results of the
evaluation can provide valuable data for identifying the causes of
poor practices, and thus, appropriate policies can be implemented
to guide the process of urbanization toward better sustainability.
Because this study was subject to constraints of time and re-
sources, the model is validated by data collected from statistics re-
ports and the results of other researchers. To apply the model, the
data for computing the rate of urbanization lR can be gathered
from statistics reports, which are usually available to the public.
The data for computing urban sustainability lS can be gained by
selecting indicators from the system established by Shen et al.
(2011), allocating the value of each indicator for the city con-
cerned, and calculating the result of lS. There may be some dif-
culties in selecting indicators that are measurable and suitable
for a particular city and identifying the weight of each indicator.
However, these difculties can be resolved by consulting existing
studies on sustainability measurement and weight identication
and interviewing decision makers and practitioners.
Conclusions
To create sustainable urbanization, it is essential to evaluate
whether a particular process of urbanization is consistent with
the principles of sustainable development. In this paper, we pre-
sented a model for evaluating the sustainability of urbanization
that helps to understand the effectiveness of methods established
to guide the process of urbanization. The model captures the dy-
namic nature of the process of urbanization by two parameters:
urbanization velocity (VlR) and urban sustainability velocity
(VlS). The two parameters are used to form a VlRVlS coordinate,
which presents four scenarios of urbanization practice, depicted
in four quadrants. Furthermore, the sustainable urbanization elas-
ticity coefcient (eSU) is developed based on the two parameters
VlR and VlS. The value eSU can be calculated and used to examine
whether a process of urbanization is sustainable, i.e., whether
there is improvement in sustainability performance in a particular
process of urbanization. The case study showed the application of
the VlRVlS coordinate and the elasticity coefcient eSU to be
effective.
This paper also presented an alternative approach for support-
ing the study of sustainable urbanization. The approach yields re-
sults that help policy makers to understand whether an ongoing
process of urbanization is consistent with the principles of sustain-
able development. The results of the evaluation can provide valu-
able data for identifying the causes of poor practices, and thus,
appropriate policies can be implemented to guide the process of
urbanization toward better sustainability. Because various prac-
tices of urbanization exist due to different economic, social, and
environmental backgrounds, the sharing of experiences should be
encouraged. The proposed model also allows comparison of vari-
ous processes of urbanization and thus encourages the sharing of
experiences from different practices.
References
Anhui Development and Reform Commission (ADRC) (2008) Maanshan Citys
environment has been improved largely. <http://www.ahpc.gov.cn/
info.jsp?xxnr_id=10057351> Accessed 21.09.10.
Alberti, M. (1996). Measuring urban sustainability. Environment Impact Assessment
Review, 16, 381424.
Alberti, M., & Marzluff, J. M. (2004). Ecological resilience in urban ecosystem:
Linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems,
7(3), 241265.
Attwell, K. (2000). Urban land resource and urban plantingCase studies from
Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 145163.
Banister, D. (1998). Barriers to the implementation of urban sustainability.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 10(1), 6583.
Bureau of Environmental Protection of the Peoples Republic of China (BEPPRC)
(2006). Decision on awarding Maanshan City the prize of national model city for
environment protection by Bureau of environmental Protection. <http://law.
baidu.com/pages/chinalawinfo/7/31/04c85def6fd878370cbaf6aa91d223b3_0.
html> Accessed 21.09.10.
Berry, B. J. L. (1973). The human consequences of urbanization: Divergent paths in the
urban experience of the twentieth century. New York: St. Martins Press.
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., et al. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling,
and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 104(17), 73017306.
Bhatta, B. (2010). Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data. New
York: Springer.
Bind, G. H. T. (1980) Trends in the urbanization process: The Copenhagen case.
<http://img.kb.dk/tidsskriftdk/pdf/gto/gto_0080-PDF/gto_0080_71447.pdf>
(28.05.10).
Boggia, A., & Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-
criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11),
23012306.
BREEAM (1990). What is BREEAM? <http://www.breeam.org/> Accessed 27.09.10.
Brown, R. R. (2008). Local institutional development and organizational change for
advancing sustainable urban water futures. Environmental Management, 41,
221233.
Burgess, R., Carmona, M., & Kolstee, T. (1997). The challenge of sustainable cities.
London: Zed Books.
Cam, E., Nichols, J. D., Sauer, J. R., et al. (2000). Relative species richness and
community completeness: Birds and urbanization in the Mid-Atlantic States.
Ecological Applications, 10(4), 11961210.
Christopher, D. (2008). Health and urban living. Science, 319, 766769.
Drakakis-Smith, D., & Dixon, C. (1997). Sustainable urbanization in Vietnam.
Geoforum, 28(1), 2138.
Encalada, J. A. D., & Caceres, A. P. (2009). System dynamics urban sustainability
model for Puerto Aura in Puebla, Mexico. Systematic Practice and Action Research,
22, 7799.
Enserink, B., & Koppenjan, J. (2007). Public participation in China: Sustainable
urbanization and governance. Management of Environmental Quality, 18(4),
459474.
Enyedi, G., & Hungary, B. (1990). Specic urbanization in East-Central Europe.
Geoforum, 21(2), 163172.
Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., & Becchi, M. (2001). Environmental quality and
sustainability in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): Using multi-criteria
analysis to assess and compare municipal performance. Journal of Environmental
Management, 63(2), 117131.
Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist
approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 28(4&5), 286311.
Glaeser, E. L. (1998). Are cities dying? The Journal of Economic Perspective, 12(2),
139160.
Green Star (2003). Green star setting the standard. <http://www.greenstar.ie/>
Accessed 27.09.10.
Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., et al. (2008). Guidelines for the perfect inner city.
Discussing the appropriateness of monitoring approaches for reurbanization.
European Planning Studies, 16(8), 10751081.
Harris, N. (1992). Wastes, the environment and the international economy. Cities,
9(3), 177185.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold.
Haughton, G. (1999). Searching for the sustainable city. Urban Studies, 36(11),
18911906.
Henderson, V. (2003). The urbanization process and economic growth: the so-what
question. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(1), 4771.
Henderson, J. V., Wang, H. G. (2004). Urbanization and city growth. <http://www.
econ.brown.edu/faculty/henderson/papers/UrbanizationandCityGrowth0804.
pdf> Accessed 28.05.10.
Holden, E. (2004). Ecological footprints and sustainable form. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 19(1), 91209.
 L. Shen et al. / Cities 29 (2012) 3239
Irwin, E. G., Jayaprakash, C., & Munroe, D. K. (2009). Towards a comprehensive
framework for modeling urban spatial dynamics. Landscape Ecology, 24(9),
12231236.
Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and
concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 3852.
Jantz, C. A., Goetz, S. J., & Shelley, M. K. (2003). Using the SLEUTH urban growth
model to simulate the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in
the BaltimoreWashington metropolitan area. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 30, 251271.
Jenerette, G. D., & Larsen, L. (2006). A global perspective on changing sustainable
urban water supplies. Global and Planetary Change, 50(3-4), 202211.
Kasarda, J. D., & Crenshaw, E. M. (1991). Third world urbanization: Dimensions,
theories, and determinants. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 467501.
Leach, M. A., Bauen, A., & Lucas, N. J. D. (1997). A systems approach to materials ow
in sustainable cities: A case study of paper. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 40(6), 705723.
LEED (1993). An introduction to LEED. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.
aspx?CMSPageID=1988> Accessed 27.09.10.
Li, F., Liu, X. S., Hu, D., et al. (2009). Measurement indicators and an evaluation
approach for assessing urban sustainable development: A case study for Chinas
Jining City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3-4), 134142.
Liu, S., Li, X., Zhang, M. (2003). Scenario analysis on urbanization and ruralurban
migration in China. <http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-03-
036.pdf> (15.08.10).
Marcotullio, P. J. (2001). Asian urban sustainability in the era of globalization.
Habitat International, 25(4), 577598.
Mathias, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and social sustainability: A role
for local government. <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/758/etd1644.pdf> Accessed
27.09.10.
May, A. D., Mitchell, G., & Kupiszewska, D. (1997). The development of the leeds
quantiable city model. In P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi, & V. Bentivegna (Eds.),
Evaluation of the built environment for sustainability (pp. 3952). London: E & FN
Spon.
National Bureau of Statistics of China (19962001) China City Statistical Yearbook.
China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing.
Nijkamp, P., & Pepping, G. (1998). A meta-analytical evaluation of sustainable city
initiatives. Urban Studies, 35(9), 14811500.
Northam, R. M. (1975). Urban geography. United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp.
5354.
OECD, (19941998) Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
Oswald, M. R., & McNeil, S. (2010). Rating sustainability: Transportation
investments in urban corridors as a case study. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 136(3), 177185.
Pivo, G. (1996). Toward sustainable urbanization on Mainstreet Cascadia. Cities,
13(5), 339354.
39
Roy, M. (2009). Planning for sustainable urbanization in fast growing cities:
Mitigation and adaptation issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat
International, 33(3), 276286.
Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional
Studies, 37(6&7), 579593.
Shen, L. Y., Jorge Ochoa, J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban
sustainability indicators-A comparison between various practice. Habitat
International, 35(1), 1729.
Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Naturecapital and the production of space.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sobotka, M. (2006). Contribution of municipalities to regional development and its
assessment. <http://www3.ekf.tuke.sk/work/Konferencia%20Herlany/zbornikCD/
doc/Sobotka_M.pdf> (16.08.10).
Statistics Canada (2007). Urban area (UA) <http://www12.statcan.ca/census-
recensement/2006/ref/dict/geo049-eng.cfm> (15.08.10).
Street, P. (1997). Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to sustainable
urban living? Futures, 29(2), 139158.
Tanter, R. (1967). Toward a theory of political development. Midwest Journal of
Political Science, 11(2), 145172.
Tisdale, H. (1942). The process of urbanization. Social Force, 20(3), 311316.
Udry, J. R. (1964). Increasing scale and spatial differentiation: New tests of two
theories from Shevky and Bell. Social Forces, 42(4), 403413.
United Nations Human Settlement Programme/Department for International
Development (UN-Habitat/DFID) (2002) Sustainable urbanisation: Achieving
agenda 21. UN-Habitat/DFID, Nairobi.
United Nations (2010). World urbanization prospects, the 2009 version, United
Nations, New York.
United Nations Population Fund (2007). State of world population 2007: Unleashing
the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population Fund, New York.
Van Dijk, M. P., & Zhang, M. S. (2005). Sustainability indices as a tool for urban
managers, evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 25(6), 667688.
Waheed, B., Khan, F., & Veitch, B. (2009). Linkage-based frameworks for
sustainability assessment: making a case for driving force-pressure-state-
exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability, 1(3), 441463.
Ward, D., Phinn, S. R., & Murray, A. T. (2000). Monitoring growth in rapidly
urbanizing areas using remotely sensed data. The Professional Geographer, 52(3),
371386.
Williamson, J. G. (1965). Antebellum urbanization in the American northeast. The
Journal of Economic History, 25(4), 592608.
Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). Planning for smart urban ecosystems: Information technology
applications for capacity building in environmental decision making. Theoretical
and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 3(12), 521.
Zhang, K. H., & Song, S. (2003). Rural-urban migration and urbanization in China:
Evidence from time-series and cross-section analyses. China Economic Review,
14(4), 386400.