Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review of urban sustainability indicators assessment e Case study

between Asian countries
Florianna L. Michael a, Zainura Zainon Noor a, *, Maria J. Figueroa b
a
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, 81310 Johor, Malaysia
b
Department of Transportation, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet, Building 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

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

Article history: This paper examines and compares the processes, methodologies and resulting sets of indicators for
Available online urban sustainability carried out in three of Asia's developing countries; Malaysia, Taiwan and China. The
paper analytically discusses the challenges of developing urban sustainability indicators among the
Keywords: developing countries. The comparison reveals the urban indicators development's processes, contents
Sustainability indicators and outcomes and whether the resulting set of urban indicators is operational and has changed the way
Dimensions of sustainability
things were.
Urban sustainability
© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Urban indicators

Introduction their actions and assessing progress towards sustainability. How-

The concept of sustainability is the need of the current society to
be satisfied without compromising the needs of future generations
(Hernandez-Moreno & De Hoyos-Martines, 2010). Meanwhile, ur-
ban sustainability has been defined as the concept that emphasises
on the interrelationship between transport networks, urban
structure and urban life (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999), and as an
intersection of two enormous challenges: that of urbanization and
that of sustainability, that is, long-term urban liveability and resil-
ience (Bugliarello, 2006). Urbanization is an on-going process
(Ichimura, 2003), and it is interdependently affected by the
development of environment, economic and social aspects of the
city (Omar, 2009). Thus, the effect of urbanization does not only
impact the local environment but also affects it ecologically
through exploitation of natural resources to support urban econ-
omy, as well as the social aspects by increasing urban poverty
(Ichimura, 2003). The growing needs to involve the concepts of
sustainability have been a major task for most governments in both
developed and developing countries for the past two decades. In-
dicators are considered vital in developing awareness of urban
problems (Stanners & Bourdeaux, 1995). The development of in-
dicators has become one key task of the local government's efforts
for urban sustainability. Bell and Morse (2008) added that a variety
or organizations, including municipalities, states, advocacy groups,
and private corporations have accepted the challenge by examining
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zainurazn@utm.my (Z.Z. Noor).
ever, Zavadskas et al. (2005) explained that the sustainability in-
dicator varies from country to country because of different
approaches and priorities. Thus, there are currently different views
and interpretations among various countries.
Most countries started adding other urban indicators into the
initial set developed by the United Nations Centre for Human Set-
tlements (UNCHS) to suit the needs of their countries in assessing
their urban sustainability level (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). The
initial set of indicators developed by UNCHS is based on different
goals and grouped into two clusters: Cluster A are those indicators
to be obtained from Census, Demographic and Health Surveys,
Multiple Indicators Cluster Surveys and national household sur-
veys, while Cluster B are the indicators to be obtained from other
sources (Urban Indicators Guidelines, 2013).
At the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development, the Principles of the 1992 Rio Declaration that define
stakeholders' roles, rights and responsibilities in sustainable
development processes stressed on the three components of sus-
tainable development: social, economic and environmental as
interdependent, and mutually reinforcing pillars (Trinder, 2008).
Measurements of urban area sustainability are crucial engines of
local socio-economic development, however, present concentra-
tion points of environmental decay serves as major challenge to
environmental managers and decision-makers (Moussiopoulos,
Achillas, Vlachokostas, Spyridi, & Nikolaou, 2010). Indicators are
the best ways to move human activities towards the direction of
sustainability as defining sustainability is not easy (Corbie re-
Nicollier, Ferrari, Jemelin, & Jolliet, 2003). Many countries initi-
ated attempts at implementing sustainable urban development in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.09.006
0197-3975/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
492 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500
Agenda 21 through the development of indicators that integrated
the environmental, social and economic aspects in an urban
development from long-term perspectives. This paper presents in
three parts: methods/theory, case studies and discussions.
Concepts of sustainability indicators (SI)
Sustainability indicators tend to be quantitative and explicit,
while in practice most people and institutions' use of SIs tend to be
more qualitative and implicit (Bell & Morse, 2001; Bossel, 1999).
Holden (2006) explained that both qualitative and quantitative
indicator types can serve well in different political and research
contexts. However, SIs are more distinguished from other in-
dicators by their need to measure the ability of a system to adapt to
change and continue to function over a long time span (Milman &
Short, 2008). It is more representative of the needs and priorities of
local users by focusing on the key issues that affect the pursuit of
sustainability within that local region (United Nations
Development Programme, 2006), and seen as important tools in
the implementation of sustainable development (Bell & Morse,
2001). Mega and Pedersen (1998) argued that sustainable devel-
opment cannot be achieved without local communities, govern-
ments and citizens rising to meet the major challenge of
sustainability, which is described as a creative, local, balance-
seeking process extending into all areas of local decision-making.
Lynch et al. (2011) explained that indicators have become the
most commonly accepted approach in assessing sustainable
development as they bring different meaning to different levels. At
the local level, the indicators are used mainly in the decision-
making process of urban development for implementation by
local authorities. Through the involvement of various institutions
and service agencies at the regional level, the indicators are used to
compare information for the project management and regional
development programmes. At the international level, the indicators
are used to finance regional development projects with interna-
tional resources and for the development of the cities and com-
munities of the third world. Jovanovi c (2008) added that the
objectives of sustainable development in the economic, environ-
mental, and social aspects might be effectively achieved by acting
on the local level.
Indicators are used for a variety of purposes that range from
decision-making to public awareness programmes. Valentin and
Spangenberg (2000) explained that the development of the in-
dicators are very much desired from policy perspectives and help in
concretization to moulding the policy aims. For urban indicators,
Button (2002) mentioned they should be minimal in order to be
meaningful in the urban context. Li (2009) added that there ought
to be flexibility in the urban indicators in order to respond to the
overall urban development while integrating the dynamics of the
whole urban system, and also noted that urban sustainability will
require a shift from resource-based economy to service economy.
Therefore, urban indicators should include the incorporation be-
tween social, economic, ecological, environmental, and institu-
tional aspects of a city.
While developing indicators, according to Sayer et al. (2007),
should be easy to understand, the processes should involve
participation of implementers as well as local communities. The
process for deciding on the desired outcomes needs to be period-
ically reviewed and adjusted and has to be based upon negotiations
between all concerned parties. Developing indicators should not
just be about gathering a whole lot of indicators but preferably
analysing the ones that are more fundamental in essence and more
likely to produce the most accurate information about the status of
practice (Shen, Ochoa, Shah, & Zhang, 2011). Balance must always
be struck between cost, availability of data, scope, complexity, and
accuracy in the process of developing indicators (Milman & Short,
2008).
There is a need for an operational core set of sustainability
development indicators as most national initiatives are still driven
by environmental factors, with the result that environmental in-
dicators, complemented with selected economic indicators, still
form a major part of sustainable development indicators. Some
countries such as Hungary, United Kingdom, and USA have devel-
oped sets of indicators addressing all dimensions with the social
aspects receiving increasing attention, especially from Sweden.
There is also considerable interest in indicators that better reflect
the linkages between the three dimensions of sustainable devel-
opment. In the initial process of developing sustainability in-
dicators, an extensive review of literature is done on the specific
subject (Milman & Short, 2008). While developing urban sustain-
able indicators, it is important to note that topics and categories
must always be eliminated to arrive at a smaller and controllable
number whenever there are a large number of variables since it is
more difficult to determine or predict the response and answer
(Hernandez-Moreno & De Hoyos-Martinez, 2010).
Integration of the three sustainable pillars into sustainability
assessment is vital but also leads to challenges and there is the need
to balance environmental, economic and social dimensions of
sustainability (Dur, Yigitcanlar, & Bunker, 2010). This need has led
present day policy makers, administrators and educators to de-
mand a more holistic and integrated sustainable development
which significantly requires linkages among important environ-
ment, social, technological and economic priorities (Munasinghe,
2008). An excellent condition of urban areas is the reinforcement
of the growth in economic, social and environmental aspects (Ng &
Hills, 2003). It is important to address the challenge of fully inte-
grating and capturing the interrelationship between the social,
economic, and environmental dimensions of development when
developing the sustainability indicators. Sustainability is seen as
the merging of economic enterprise, social wellbeing and envi-
ronmental integrity in the Three Pillars model. Increasingly, the
three dimensions are being underpinned by a fourth dimension,
which comprises the institutional and governance structures
needed to make sustainability work. The three pillars of sustain-
ability are depicted in models with equal emphasis given to each
pillar (i.e. triple bottom line or three pillars) or where pillars are
viewed as interrelated. Holden (2006) elaborated that this three
pillars approach to sustainability policy articulates a new set of
checks and balances beyond the basic efficiency-equity, benefit-
cost binaries of traditional policy analysis. This sounds reasonable
enough in theory; however, maintaining a positive balance in all
three accounts directly implies privileging limits and precaution
over growth and accumulation. The wager is that the outcome, in
terms of policy scorecard with a balance of environmental, social
and economic criteria, can be the same as a more rigid approach,
making it inflexible which causes policy process to appear more
attractive and inclusive.
Environmental dimension of sustainability encompasses the
ecosystem wellbeing, which is a condition in which the ecosystem
maintains diversity and quality, its capacity to support all life, and
its potential to adapt to change to provide future options (Prescott-
Allen, 2001). The economic dimension on the other hand, according
to Basiago (1999), refers to the growth, development and produc-
tivity which have guided conventional development science in the
past in which economy growth will trickle down to the poor
through a market allocation of resources, sustained levels of growth
and consumption, and assumption that natural resources are un-
limited. It basically implies a system of production that satisfies
present consumption levels without compromising future needs.
Social dimension deals with the human wellbeing, how to attend to
 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500
human needs and increasing the opportunities of development
equally for all people. It encompasses notions of equity and
empowerment, accessibility, participation, sharing, cultural iden-
tity, and institutional stability which seek to preserve environment
through economic growth and the alleviation of poverty Basiago
(1999). Social dimension reflects the shared norms and values in
society that bring benefits to individuals and is grouped by facili-
tating co-operation and reducing opportunistic behaviours. Most
importantly, social indicators are very broad and tend to be very
subjective (OECD, 2005). Exploration and understanding of the
social dimension of sustainability to a certain extent often involves
the application of fuzzy logic due to the relative elusiveness of the
social issues when compared with the physical sciences (Moobela,
Price, Taylor, & Mathur, 2007). In addition, there have been many
views, especially amongst environmentalists and political activists,
and even some development agencies and academia, that past and
present patterns of economic growth are environmentally and so-
cially unsustainable (Munasinghe, 2008).
Basiago (1999) stressed on the fact that negative synergies can
only be hindered, positive synergies are fostered and real devel-
opment is encouraged by integrating and interlinking the social,
economic, and environmental sustainability dimensions. None-
theless, the key challenge to researchers and practitioners is how to
integrate the three pillars of sustainability into a meaningful and
effective framework for research and action (European Commis-
sion, 2001). According to Agenda 21, the concept of sustainability is
multidimensional. Economic, social and environmental objectives
can develop synergies to a certain degree. However, they are not
always mutually supportive as they compete with each other.
Hasan (2001) further argues that social, economic, and environ-
mental indicators have mostly been in use independently of one
another since they were conceptualized, which means much new
work by the scientific community is needed to develop indicators
that describe the interlinkages between the different dimensions of
development. In addition, existences of economy and social in-
dicators have the advantage as they are derived from well-
established databases from which indicator values are routinely
calculated.
More work is needed to organize collection and processing of
data on the environment that is relevant to the construction of
sustainable development indicators. Moobela et al. (2007)
mentioned that the real challenge facing urban sustainability
assessment is that most sustainability issues involve a high degree
of complexity. The recognition that the social, economic, and
environment dimensions of sustainable development are heavily
interwoven demands greater clarity in understanding the connec-
tion. According to Munasinghe (2008), sustainability cannot be
examined in isolation from social and economic constraints. It was
suggested that optimality, which is widely used in economic
analysis to maximize welfare, and durability which focuses pri-
marily on sustaining the quality of life, are two broad approaches
that could help integrate the economic, environmental and social
dimensions of sustainable development. Lozano (2008) noted that
there is a need to have a mission to equalize the importance and
integrate the three aspects, where the relative importance and
impact of the economic aspects should be equal to that of envi-
ronmental and social ones. It is necessary to use holistic, contin-
uous, and interrelated phenomena amongst economic,
environment, and social aspects in order to achieve sustainability.
Trinder (2008) argues that the concept of SDIs is only pro-
gressing slowly and in many cases, no assessment of the sustain-
ability of human activity is yet possible. Delai and Takahashi (2011)
concluded that there is no single initiative that tackles all sustain-
ability issues and there is no consensus around what and how
should be measured, mainly regarding the social and economic
493
aspects of sustainability. However, Jovanovic (2008) found that the
economic, environmental, and social objectives of sustainable
development might be effectively achieved by acting on the local
level. Moreover, there is a difficulty in finding a common unit and
method of measurement leading to comparison of performance of
the setting or policy package (Dur et al., 2010). Other than that,
Giddings, Hopwood and O'Brien (2002) argued that looking at the
reality of life today, it is clear to see that the economy is seen as
more vital as compared to environment and social aspects. Until
now the three sectors have been considered as if there is an envi-
ronment, an economy and a social; assuming that each sector is a
unified entity. Ndeke (2011) explained that since cities are dynamic
complex open systems with interrelated social, economic and
environmental systems, and sustainable development cannot be
absolutely achieved, integrated sustainable development indicators
that concurrently address social, economic and environmental di-
mensions are crucial to aid in monitoring sustainable development,
particularly in any given urban system. This, an appropriate set of
sustainability indicators, must be different as every city is different
(Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000).
Methodology
This paper examines and compares the process, methodologies
and resulting sets of indicators for urban sustainability carried out
in three Asian developing countries e Malaysia, Taiwan and China.
The comparison is made based on theoretical background,
extracting information and data from the literature reviews con-
cerning the concepts, process and outcomes of the development of
the urban indicators in each of the countries. The findings were
divided into categorization and analysis according to structure
presented in the comparative framework e process, content, and
outcomes.
Framework for categorizing process-content integration and
outcomes
The framework for the urban indicators development in the
three Asian countries are compared according to three main stages;
process, content and outcome, as shown in Fig. 1.
The process stage explained why and how the indicators were
developed and discussed the shareholders who were involved in
the development of the urban indicators in each of the countries.
The content displays the lists of urban indicators that have been
developed by each country and how they classified each indicator.
Outcome analyses the developed indicators' operationalization,
whether they are integrated into the policy process, and if they
have changed the way things were done.
Comparative analysis of Asia's developing countries urban
sustainability indicators
Urbanization and urban growth are phenomena of increasing
concern to the world especially among developing countries. Their
vast growth is living proof of their desire to catch up with the pace
of developed countries. Unfortunately these actions come with the
price of negative effects on the environment, and even social as-
pects. This has forced governments in developing countries to take
Fig. 1. Process of indicators development comparison.
494 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500
the issue of sustainability seriously and important steps have been
taken to tackle the increasing sustainability issues. According to Ng
and Hills (2003), while cities under study are being progressively
integrated into the global economy, they remain diverse with re-
gard to their ability to address issues of urban sustainability. The
developing countries in Asia have taken matters into their own
hands by developing their own sets of indicators.
Process
Malaysia
There is a need for Malaysia to build national, state and local
capacity to collect useful information on urban conditions and
trends, to convert that information to knowledge through appro-
priate analytic techniques, and to apply that knowledge in formu-
lating and modifying urban policies and programs (Muhammad,
n.d., para. 1). These efforts are aligned with the Sixth Malaysia Plan
which states efforts will be initiated to prepare indicators of sus-
tainable development that will provide a yardstick for monitoring
and evaluation progress. In the Seventh Malaysia Plan, it describes
the measures taken to achieve sustainable development during
earlier Malaysia Plan periods to enhance Malaysia's ability to
develop sustainability.
The mandate to develop the urban sustainability indicators
were given to the Ministry of Federal Department of Town and
Country Planning, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-
ment where they created an approach known as Malaysia Urban
Indicators Network (MURNInet) (Marzukhi, Omar, Oliver, Hamir, &
Barghchi, 2011). Currently, MURNInet is recognised nationally as
one of the most important programs ever undertaken in the
country to measure urban sustainability. The program is able to
track the sustainability status of an urban area, to see whether it has
increased, reduced or remained stagnant. It is an approach to
measure and assess the sustainability of a city by utilizing the use of
indicators. All the selected dimensions, themes and indicators were
agreed upon by various stakeholders at all levels including the Local
Authorities, State Planning Department, Federal Agencies, and
Ministries.
A set of the most compatible sustainable indicators has been
identified to measure sustainable development at the local level by
taking into consideration the country's present development pol-
icies. The MURNInets system at present has 36 indicators that are
benchmarked against the present indicators used at all levels of
planning in the country. The National Physical Plan (NPP), National
Urbanisation Policies (NUP), Sustainability Assessment (SA) for
Local Plans preparation, Rural Planning and indicators are being
used at the international level, UN Conference on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD), and in the United Kingdom. The proposed
indicators have been discussed in details with stakeholders at
workshop sessions and meetings (Shamsuddin & Rashid, 2013).
China
China has been predicted to undergo a rapid increase of ur-
banization (United Nations, 2011), which no doubt will lead to
sustainability issues if there is no immediate action to control the
vast growth, specifically in the environmental aspects. According to
Wang et al. (2010), one of China's busiest cities, Beijing, has suffered
from a great shortage of land and water, indications of how these
commodities have been wasted by blind urban development. This
has created awareness in China on the importance of sustainability
issues, resulting in serious measures being taken to improve their
level of sustainability.
Urban China Initiative (UCI) has contributed to China's research
in urbanization and academic discussions for several years. It offers
insights and tools for national and local policy makers who shape
China's urbanization path. Research collaboration between UCI and
a team of McKinsey experts, including Gengtian Zhang, Xiujun Li,
Xiaopeng Li and Yingjie Zhang was made to develop the set of ur-
ban indicators for urban development in China. China's provincial
and municipal government leaders have given support and assisted
in this collaboration in the effort of making China a more sustain-
able country.
Indicators were selected based on those that are more
readily available in developing economies and are more rele-
vant. The Urban Sustainability Index (USI) is designed to mea-
sure the relative performance of Chinese cities over time across
a common set of sustainability categories (Urban China
Initiative, 2010). China has created an urban sustainability in-
dex to fill a gap in the current analysis of sustainable devel-
opment. The indicators are able to assist China in analysing
factors that are influencing the sustainability of urban devel-
opment. This is done by identifying blockages that are
restricting sustainable development for different types of cities,
and finding the gap between Chinese cities and advanced cities
in the developed world using international benchmarking and
sharing experience from city case studies. There are 23 in-
dicators for the index to quantify the level of sustainability.
There are 17 indicators in USI 2011 and 34 indicators proposed
in the China Urbanization Index 2013.
Taiwan
In response to the United Nations (UN) mandate, Taiwan has
taken great strides in setting up an effective means of evaluating
the sustainability of the island's national development.
The National Council for Sustainable Development (NCSD) at the
Executive Yuan has collaborated with a few ministries to set up an
effective means to assess the Island's sustainability level. The
ministries actively involved are the Ministry of Education, the
Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of the Interior, the
Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Transportation
and Communications, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Council
of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection. They collaborated in
terms of data collection and data analysis. The NCSD has been
extremely proactive towards the effort of developing national
sustainable development indicators (SDIs) in Taiwan, and in putting
into place the relevant mechanisms for recording, measuring,
announcing and reviewing these indicators (National Council for
Sustainable Development Network, 2013). The development of
Taiwan's urban sustainability indicators is based on the United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) urban indicator
program.
In its efforts to achieve this mandate, the Sustainable Vision
Working Group (SVWG) under the Council for Economic Planning
and Development (CEPD) at the Executive Yuan has invited more
than 50 governmental departments and related agencies to estab-
lish the Working Group for Sustainable Development Indicators
(WGSDI). Based on the results of an integrated research project
initiated and sponsored by the National Science Council (NSC) of
Taiwan in 2002, the WGSDI reviewed each of the 112 indicators
initially selected by members of the ‘Sustainable Taiwan Evaluation
System’ research group. After considering the feasibility and sta-
bility of data collection, the significance of correlation with public
policy, the possibility of international collaboration, and other
factors, the WGSDI selected a set of 40 meaningful and represen-
tative indicators for assessing sustainable development and
creating the system of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI) for
Taiwan (see Table 1).
 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500 495

Contents
Malaysia
The developed urban indicators for Malaysia are displayed in
Table 2. The Malaysia set of indicators is categorized under six
dimensions and 21 themes that reflect the level of sustainability
of towns in Malaysia. Through the development of the urban
sustainability indicators, actions could be designed in order for
them to be implemented by local authorities towards sustain-
able development. The urban indicators for Malaysia have
constantly been reviewed and this has helped to improve the
roles and responsibilities of the research teams at federal and
state levels. The re-branding as National Operations Centre is
expected to enhance the role of Peninsular Malaysia DTCP as the
primary agency to adopt urban sustainability assessment
program.
China
The developed sustainable indicators for China are displayed in
Table 3. A comprehensive five-part definition of sustainable
development encompassing 21 individual indicators based on 21
components were selected as these are the accepted indicators that
are available in China from both national and local sources. The
Index measures a city's performance against five categories
believed to be critical to sustainable development of urban centre's.
The methodology for calculating each city's overall index score
started with the collection of raw indicator data that was converted
to reflect a consistent relationship to achievement.
Taiwan
Table 4 displays Taiwan's collection of indicators for sustainable
development that were categorized into 12 themes: environment,
energy conservation and carbon reduction, national land and

Table 1
United Nations Commissions on Human Settlements (2013).

Goals Indicators Clusters

Shelter Promote the right Durable structures A

to adequate housing Right to adequate housing B
Overcrowding A
Housing price and to rent-to-income B
Provide security of tenure Secure tenure B
Authorized housing B
Eviction B
Provide equal access to credit Housing finance B
Provide equal access to land Land price-to-income B
Promote access to basic Access to safe water A
services Access to improved sanitation A
Connection to services A
Social development Provide equal opportunities Under-five mortality A
and eradication of for a safe and healthy life Homicides B
poverty Urban violence B
HIV prevalence A
Promote social integration and Poor households B
support disadvantaged groups
Promote gender equality in Literacy rates A
human settlements development Gender inclusion B
School enrolment A
Women councillors
Environmental Promote geographically-balanced Urban population growth A
Management settlement structures Planned settlements B
Manage supply and demand for Price of water B
water in an effective manner Water consumption B
Reduce urban pollution Wastewater treated B
Solid waste disposal B
Regular solid waste collection B
Prevent disasters and rebuild Disaster prevention and mitigation B
settlements instruments
Houses in hazardous locations B
Promote effective and Travel time B
environmentally sound Transport modes B
transportation systems
Support mechanisms to prepare and Local environmental plans B
implement local environmental plans and local
Agenda 21 initiatives
Economic Strengthen small and microenterprises, particularly Informal employment B
Development those developed by women
Encourage public-private sector partnership and City product B
stimulate productive Unemployment A
employment opportunities
Governance Promote decentralization and strengthen Local government revenue B
local authorities Decentralization B
Encourage and support participation and Citizens participation B
civic engagement Voters participation B
Civic associations B
Ensure transparent, accountable and efficient governance Transparency and accountability B
of towns, cities and metropolitan areas

Source: Urban Indicators Guideline (2013).

496 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500

Table 2
Malaysia's set of indicators.

Dimensions Themes Indicators

Competitive economy Economic growth Employment growth rate

Sustainable environmental quality
Sustainable community
Optimal use of land and natural resources
Efficient infrastructure and transportation
Effective governance
Poverty Urban poverty rate
Poverty rate
Private investment Growth rate of private investment
Environment quality River cleanliness
Environmental air quality conditions
Risk management Percentage of population living in flood prone area
Environmental management Percentage of per capita solid waste generation
Total programs/environmental campaign carried out
in the local authority area
Housing Percentage of quality affordable housing units
Community & recreational facilities Percentage of residential coverage within 400 m range
of community facilities
Quality of life Ratio of cases relating to public nuisance complaints per
10,000 population
Ratio of cases of water and vector borne diseases per
10,000 population
Percentage of Grade A food premises
Percentage of Grade A public toilets
Happiness index
Security The ratio of index crime per 10,000 population
Demography Dependency ratio
Land use changes The rate of change in land use from non-built-up
to built-up
Urban development Urbanization rate
Ratio of public open space per 1000 inhabitants
Unsold residential properties
Heritage conservation and tourism Percentage change in the forest area
The number of tourism attractions and recreation centres
Efficiency utility Total volume of daily domestic water consumption per capita
Total domestic electricity consumption (KW) per capita
Solid waste management Percentage of total waste recycled
Percentage of domestic solid waste collection on schedule
Transportation Number of integrated public transport terminals/stations
Sewage management Percentage of homes with centralized sewerage services
Delivery system Residents' satisfaction level on local authority services
Number of community programs implemented by
local authorities
Strengthening institutions Percentage of local authority revenue collection performance
Percentage of total maintenance expenditures to overall local
authority spending
Enforcement and monitoring Percentage of approved planning applications that comply to
the development plan/local plan
Number of enforcement operations executed according to
schedule by local authority

Source: MURNInets in 2012).

resources, biodiversity, production, livelihood, technology, rural
culture, health, welfare, administration, and participation. The in-
dicators were further divided into 41 sub-themes, with a total of 87
indicators.
Outcome
The outcome discusses whether the developed indicators were
being implemented in each of the countries along with any changes
that were made when the indicators were used to assess the sus-
tainable level of each country. In addition, the accessibility of the
indicators is also briefly explained.
Malaysia
The set of indicators were being implemented in six selected
cities in Malaysia in 2002. These selected cities were Georgetown,
Johor Bahru, Kuantan, Kuching, Pasir Mas and Batu Pahat. Based on
the initial testing, improvements were made to the programme,
and the assessment of the indicators was then implemented to all
cities in Malaysia. The programme was then used to assess and
propose suitable actions to improve the sustainability level of
towns and cities in Malaysia. This program is being continued until
today with a line of continuous improvement. Until the year 2010,
101 out of 149 local authorities in Malaysia had participated in this
program. The Cabinet of Malaysia has also recognised MURNInets
for the same reason and has recently been informed on the
implementation status. The Minister of Housing and Local Gov-
ernment Malaysia officially launched MURNInets in 2012
(Shamsuddin & Rashid, 2013).
Initially there were 56 indicators identified to be used to rank
the sustainability level of towns and cities. However, after 2 years of
implementation, an agreement was reached amongst the stake-
holders to use only 38 indicators for assessment purposes due to
data unavailability. In 2010, two more indicators were added which
was intended to address issues related to public transportation and
public amenities. The implementation of the indicators in Malaysia
has been recognised as a very important tool to measure sustain-
ability of towns and cities in the country. It has been integrated into
the government policy through the National Physical Planning
Council (NPPC), which is the highest authority on physical planning
in Malaysia, and is chaired by the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
The status of MURNInets implementation is relayed to NPPC
regularly as a measure to check on the efforts taken by all local
authorities in Malaysia toward attaining sustainable development.
 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500 497

Table 3
China's set of indicators.

Category Components Indicators

Society Social welfare Employment Urban employment rate (%)

Doctor resources Number of doctors per capita (per thousand)
Education Middle school students in young population (%)
Pension Pension security coverage (%)
Healthcare Healthcare security coverage (%)
Environment Cleanliness Air pollution Concentration of SO2, NO2, PM10 (mg per cubic meter)
Industrial pollution Industrial SO2 discharged per unit GDP (tons per bn RMB)
Air qualified days Days of air quality equal or above level II1 (%)
Wastewater treatment Wastewater treatment rate (%)
Household waste management Domestic waste treated (%)
Built environment Urban density Persons per square kilometre of urban area
Mass transit usage Passengers using public transit (per capita)
Public green space Area of public green space (%)
Public water supply Public water supply coverage (%)
Internet access Household access to internet (%)
Economy Economic development Income level Disposable income per capita
Reliance on heavy industry GDP from service industry (%)
Capacity investment Government investment in R&D (per capita)
Resources Resource utilization Energy consumption Total energy consumption (SCE per unit GDP)
Power efficiency Residential power consumption (kwh per capita)
Water efficiency Total water consumption (litres per unit GDP)

Source: China Urban Initiative (2013).

The report for Malaysia's sustainability achievement was made
available to the public from the year 2007e2010. However, starting
from the year 2012 onwards, only authorized users have been able
to access it.
China
China has managed to implement the assessment for sustain-
ability level in 185 cities based on their level of sustainability from
2005 to 2011. The sample includes all levels of cities from munici-
palities directly under the central government to county-level cit-
ies. The indicator system has assisted Chinese cities in identifying
models for urban development both within China and abroad,
based on their own stage of development. Depending on how they
scored in each category and their overall score, Chinese cities can
also identify their strengths and weaknesses, craft development
strategies, and evaluate the potential impact and effectiveness of
development policies.
Policy makers in China managed to integrate the developed
indicators into their government policy, and most of China's cities
have improved their level of sustainability in recent years, primarily
in the social and environmental sub-categories. This reflects both
strong underlying progress driven by healthy economic growth and
a renewed emphasis on delivering social and environmental ben-
efits. Cities with the best overall sustainability performance are
located mostly in the coastal or eastern regions of China. Cities in
the east showed the strongest level of overall sustainability, fol-
lowed by cities in central and western China. From 2008 to 2011, the
gap between western and central cities was somewhat widened,
with central cities gradually catching up with eastern cities. Situ-
ated in geographic locations favourable to trade and investment
opportunities, eastern cities were early beneficiaries of China's
economic liberalization policies (Mckinsey China, 2014). However,
since each city is at a different stage of economic development, the
strongest economic performers are not necessarily those cities with
the fastest improvement in sustainability. The gap with global
benchmark cities is closing slowly.
The report is made available online for the public to access via
Mckinsey China's website (Mckinsey China, 2014).
Taiwan
Taiwan's set of indicators serves as the basis for regular
assessment of the sustainability of national development in Taiwan
and also serves the dual functions of policy evaluation and policy
guidance for all relevant decision-making processes.
After the implementation of the indicators to assess Tai-
wan's sustainability level, The National Council for Sustainable
Development (NCSD) successfully developed the National Sus-
tainable Development Policy Guidelines, Sustainable Develop-
ment Action Plan, and Sustainable Development Indicator
System. Then, National Land Preservation and Remediation
Plan, coupled with promotional strategies for energy conser-
vation and biomass energy, have been devised (National
Council for Sustainable Development Network, 2013). On top
of that, Taiwan even initiated National Sustainable Awards
whereby the purpose of the Award is to select role models that
contribute significantly in the promotion of sustainable devel-
opment, which in turn encourages mass participation in sus-
tainable development and facilitates the development locally
and in a relevant manner.
Taiwan made an effort to come up with an annual report on
Sustainable Development that is made accessible to the public. The
annual report is published each year for the purpose of providing
the international community with a better understanding of the
nation's efforts and achievements towards sustainable develop-
ment. Another objective of the report is to raise public awareness
and encourage more people to work together in attaining the vision
of sustainable development. This annual report is also made
accessible to the public via website.
Issues and challenges
There are efforts taken from each of the country to integrate the
indicators into their policy. However, there are still some challenges
that needed to be overcome to further improve the level of these
countries' sustainability.
Malaysia still has yet to fully embrace the principle of freedom of
information based on the principle of secrecy of administrative
proceedings, where it ensures provision of information only for
persons who take part in these administrative procedures. This
tradition does not give rise to a general public right to access
governmental information, thus limiting the participatory ideal in
decision-making inherent in the sustainability agenda (Hezri,
2004). The information of the indicators has not been made avail-
able for public assessment since the year 2010. Unfortunately,
498 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500

Table 4
Taiwan's set of indicators.

Themes Sub-themes Indicators

Environment Air quality PSI Average

Air pollutant concentration
Water quality Water reservoir quality
Marine environment quality
Ratio of rivers suffering minor pollution
BOD concentration
Waste Garbage recycling rate
Daily per capita garbage volume
EIA approval rate
Environmental management Number of publicly announced toxic substances placed under monitoring
Ratio of environmental and ecological budget by the central government
Financial measures in promoting pollution prevention and recycling
Energy conservation and Greenhouse gas emission Per capita CO2 emissions due to fuel combustion
carbon reduction Annual increase of CO2 emissions due to fuel combustion
Greenhouse gas emissions
Energy usage Daily per capita power consumption
Energy concentration
Ratio of resource-consumption-based industries to manufacturing industries
National land resource Energy conservation, Percentage volume of renewable energy
carbon reduction Energy conserved due to green buildings
Bicycle path length per 10,000 people
Land Slope variation ratio
Subsidence land ratio
Developed land ratio
Forest Forest coverage area
Coasts Natural coast ratio
Natural coastline loss ratio
Water resource Effective water resource
Ratio of water usage to production value of the manufacturing industry
Underground water recharge volume
Underground water usage volume
Natural hazards Total national land area planting betel nuts
Casualties due to natural disasters
Economic loss due to natural disasters
Biodiversity Heredity Genetic resources and species preservation
Species Change in specific wildlife population
Land area covered by specific exotic plants
Populations of specific exotic invasive species
Terrestrial ecosystem Eco-sensitive area
Ratio of protected area to total land area
Marina ecosystem Marina protection area
Ratio of coral ecosystem area to coverage area
Production Material consumption Material strengths used in economic development
Material strength used in non-manufacturing type of economic development
Domestic supplies
Non-manufacturing domestic supplies
Per capita national gravel production
Cleaner production Re-use rate of industrial waste
Re-use rate of toxic industrial waste
Reduction rate of low-radioactive solid waste
Agriculture Ratio of cultivated land
Area of organic cultivation
Fertilizer usage rate per hectare of farmland
Pesticide usage rate per hectare of farmland
Fishery Overfishing
Labour Labour production and unit production cost
Ratio of females receiving salary in non-agricultural sectors
Macro-economic Per capita GDP
effectiveness Ratio of gross domestic capital formation to GDP
Annual increase in consumer price index
Public finance Ratio of all levels of government borrowing above 1 year with outstanding
non self-liquidating debt to GNP
Livelihood Water usage Percentage of population with access to suitable drinking water
Sewage treatment rate
Daily per capita water consumption
Transportation Number of times public transport is utilized
Domestic energy consumption by transport sector
Times of tourist visits in Taiwan
Road casualties per every 10,000 vehicles
Road maintenance efficiency
Green consumption Green procurement amount of public and private sectors
Number of green marks awarded
Health Medical care Percentage of population with access to basic infrastructure
Infection immunity measures for children's diseases
 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500
Table 4 (continued )
Themes Sub-themes
Nutrition
Health risks
Science and Technology Research and Development
Telecommunications
Urban and rural culture Cultural heritage
Community
Urban
Wellbeing Poverty
Income equality
Social welfare
Governance Crime
Education
Participation International participation
Public participation
Source: National Council for Sustainable Development Network (2013).
policy planning in Malaysia is focused more on economic ratio-
nality while policy integration for sustainability is still an unfa-
miliar and contested idea. In Malaysia, a more sophisticated debate
is needed to elucidate theoretical, and thence operational links
between sustainability indicators and policy processes.
China exercised unwavering focus on industrial restructuring,
designing sensible transit systems and green space, pushing im-
provements through standards, monitoring and pricing, and
exploring ways to make industries more resource efficient. The
challenge facing rapidly growing cities in developing countries,
especially in China, is enormous. Some cities in China are already
forging ahead by formulating solutions to this challenge (China
Urban Initiative, 2013). Over the past few years, most Chinese
cities are closing in on benchmark cities such as Tokyo, Seoul and
London. However, benchmark international cities are able to
improve their levels of sustainability, whether or not they reach
turning points in their development, unlike the Chinese cities
sampled. China realized that the policy-makers in these cities
must learn from leading international cities by seeking out new
growth models that include the construction of smart and low-
carbon cities where it will become a strategy that would
strengthen the urban capacity of these cities. Other than that,
policy-makers must also improve city planning, construction and
management in the hope that these cities will be able to advance
in their development.
As for Taiwan, it is hard to render the effectiveness of the in-
dicators by just relying on the participation of the small number
of NCSD members and their meetings. It was suggested that
various ministries and agencies should collaboratively plan a
singular, comprehensive, autonomous and sustainable mechanism
and a cross-ministerial negotiation mechanism to enable a facil-
itation of the systematic progression of sustainable development.
The current centralized and localized government structures are
incapable of achieving vertical integration and comprehensive
development as the issues of sustainable development become
more pressuring.
499
Indicators
Usage rate of preventive health insurance
Child nutrition condition
Death rate of standardized cancer
Infection rate of contagious disaster
Smoking rate of those above 18
Eating betel nut rate of those above 18
Percentage of GDP spent on domestic research and development
Ratio of internet users
Number of people using hand phones per every 100 people
The number of ancient monuments and sites appointed
Number of villages in compliance with SDI
Expansion rate of urbanization
Green area per capita
Ratio of low-income families
Accommodation rate
Difference in disposable income per household of each division
Subsidy for the disadvantaged
Elderly passport and their participation
Suicide rate
Crime rate
Dropout students
Adult education participation ratio
Condition of Taiwan's participation in UN's international environmental
organizations and other MEAs
International environmental cooperation and assistance to other nations
Civil participation
Community-based participation of social welfare
Conclusion
This paper reviewed urban sustainable indicators for three Asian
countries e Malaysia, China and Taiwan. It traced the history of the
concept of sustainability and how it has been implemented in
developed economies. Different contributors highlighted the
necessary components in the development of sustainable in-
dicators with various inputs and the presentation of different
challenges. Each country has made the effort of integrating all the
sustainability dimensions (environmental, social and economic)
into the development of their indicators. Other than that, it is vital
for the information on these indicators to be made accessible for
the public in order to raise awareness of the importance of sus-
tainability. The challenges faced by these countries should serve as
a guide for them to keep forging ahead in terms of integrating
policy into the urban indicators implementation in an effort to
make these countries more sustainable places to live for present
and future generations.
References
Basiago, A. (1999). Economic, social and environmental sustainability in develop-
ment theory and urban planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19, 145e161.
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2001). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the immensurable.
London: Earthscan Publishing.
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2008). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable
(2nd ed.). London: Earthscan Publishing.
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applica-
tions. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Bugliarello, G. (2006). Urban sustainability, challenges, paradigms and policies: Course
notes. South Korea: Korean Academy of Science and Technology.
Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental indicators. Special
section: economics of urban Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 40, 217e233.
re-Nicollier, T., Ferrari, Y., Jemelin, C., & Jolliet, O. (2003). Assessing sustain-
Corbie
ability an assessment framework to evaluate Agenda 21 actions at the local
level. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10,
225e237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500309469801.
Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2011). Sustainability measurement system: a reference
model proposal. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 438e471. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1106/17471111111154563.
500 F.L. Michael et al. / Habitat International 44 (2014) 491e500
Dur, F., Yigitcanlar, T., & Bunker, J. (2010, July). Towards sustainable urban futures:
evaluating urban sustainability performance of the Gold Coast, Australia. Urban
Transformation: Controversies, Contrasts and Challenges. Paper presented at the
14th International Planning History Society Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society:
fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development,
10(4), 187e196.
Hasan, M. N. H. (2001). Indicators of sustainable development. In J. J. Pereira, &
Ibrahim Komoo (Eds.), Geoindicators for sustainable development (pp. 1e16).
Selangor: Institut Alam Sekitar and Pembangunan (LESTARI) UKM.
Hernandez-Moreno, S., & De Hoyos-Martinez, J. (2010). Indicators of urban sus-
tainability in Mexico. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management,
7(16), 46e60.
Hezri, A. A. (2004). Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia:
a framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental Management,
73, 357e371.
Holden, M. (2006). Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities. Cities, 23(3),
170e183.
Ichimura, M. (2003, January). Urbanization, urban environment and land use:
challenges and opportunities. In Meeting conducted at Asia-Pacific Forum for
Environment and Development Expert, Guilin, People's Republic of China.
Jovanovi c, M. (2008). An analytical method for the measurement of energy systems
sustainability in urban areas. FME Transactions, 36, 157e166.
Li, J. (2009). Measurement of indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing
urban sustainable development: a case study for China's Jining City. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 90, 134e142.
Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16, 1838e1846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008.
Lynch, A. J., Andreason, S., Eisenmen, T., Robinson, J., Stelf, K., & Birch, E. L. (2011,
September). Sustainable urban development indicators for the United States. Re-
ports in Penn IUR white paper Series on sustainable urban development. Retrieved
from Penn Institute for Urban Research website http://penniur.upenn.edu/
uploads/media_items/sustainable-urban-development-indicators-for-the-
united- states.original.pdf.
Marzukhi, M. A., Omar, D., Oliver, L. H. L., Hamir, M. S., & Barghchi, M. (2011).
Malaysian urban indicator network: a sustainable development initiative in
Malaysia. European Journal of Social Science, 25(1), 77e84.
Mckinsey China. (2014). Insights: Urbanization and sustainability. Retrieved from
April 28, 2014 http://www.mckinseychina.com/the-china-urban-sustainability-
index-2013/.
Mega, V., & Pedersen, J. (1999). Urban sustainability indicators. Retrieved from http://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef9807.htm.
Milman, A., & Short, A. (2008). Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators:
an example for the urban water sector. Global Environment Change, 18, 758e767.
Moobela, C., Price, A. D. F., Taylor, P. J., & Mathur, V. N. (2007). Determinants of social
capital: prioritising issues for holistic urban sustainability assessment. In
M. Horner, C. Hardcastle, A. Price, & J. Bebbington (Eds.). Paper presented in
International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assess-
ment, 27e29 June, Glasgow, Scotland.
Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Spyridi, D., & Nikolaou, K. (2010).
Environmental, social and economic information management for the evalua-
tion of sustainability in urban areas: a system of indicators for Thessaloniki,
Greece. Cities. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.06.001.
Muhammad, Z. (n.d.). Development of Urban Indicators: A Malaysian Initiative.
Retrieved from www.lgt.lt/geoin/files/S3_Paper2.rtf.
Munasinghe, M. (2008, September 23). Economic, social and environmental ele-
ments of development. Retrieved from The Encyclopedia of Earth http://www.
eoearth.org/view/article/51cbed797896bb431f6926b4/.
MURNInets. (2012). Retrieved from Malaysia Urban-Rural-National Indicators
Network on Sustainable Development. http://murninet.townplan.gov.my/
murninets/.
National Council for Sustainable Development Network. (2013). Annual report on
national sustainable development. Retrieved from the National Council for
Sustainable Development Network http://nsdn.epa.gov.tw/en/PRINT/INDEX.
HTM.
Ndeke, E. N. (2011). A critical review of the development of sustainability indicators for
the City of Cape Town: A focus on environmental and socio-economic sustainability.
South Africa: Stellenbosch University.
Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities. Washington, D. C.:
Island Press.
Ng, M. K., & Hills, P. (2003). World cities or great cities? A comparative study of five
Asian metropolises. Cities, 20(3), 151e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0264e2751(03)00003-9.
Omar, D. (2009). Urban form and sustainability of a hot humid City of Kuala Lumpur.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 353e359.
Presscott-Allen, R. (2001). The wellbeing of nations: A country-by-country index of the
quality of life and the environment. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Sayer, J., Campbell, B., Petheram, L., Aldrich, M., Perez, M. R., Endamana, D., et al.
(2007). Assessing environment and development outcomes in conservation
Landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 2677e2694. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10531-006-9079-9.
Shamsuddin, S., & Rashid, A. A. (2013). Malaysian urban rural national indicators
network on Sustainable development (MURNInets). Paper presented in the 43rd
Annual Conference Of The Urban Affairs Association, San Francisco California,
United States of America. Retrieved from the Academia https://www.academia.
edu/3369337/MALAYSIAN_URBAN_RURAL_NATIONAL_INDICATORS_
NETWORK_ON_SUSTAINABLE_DEVELOPMENT_MURNInets_.
Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. L. (2011). The application of urban
sustainability: a comparison between various practices. Habitat International,
35, 17e29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006.
Stanners, D., & Bordeaux, P. (Eds.). (1995). Europe's environment; the Dobris assess-
ment (p. 676). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Trinder, J. C. (2008, July). Remote sensing for assessing environmental impacts
based on sustainability indicators. International Arch. Photogram, Rem. Sens and
SIS Vol. XXXVII. Part B8. Paper presented at International Society for Photo-
grammetry and Remote Sensing Congress, Beijing, China.
United Nations Development Programmes. (2006). Making progress on environ-
mental sustainability. Retrieved from United Nations http://www.undp.org/
content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-energy/www-
ee-library/mainstreaming/making-progress-on-environmental-sustainability/
mdg7english.pdf.
United Nations. (2011). Population distribution, urbanization, internal migration and
Development: An international perspective. Retrieved from United Nations http://
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/PopDistribUrbanization/
PopulationDistributionUrbanization.pdf.
United Nations Human Settlements Programmes. (2013). Urban indicators Guide-
lines: Monitoring the habitat agenda and the millennium development goals.
Retrieved from United Nations http://ww2.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/
documents/urban_indicators_guidelines.pdf.
Urban China Initiative. (2010). The urban sustainability index: a new tool for
measuring China's cities. Retrieved from the Urban China Initiative http://www.
urbanchinainitiative.org/en/resources/report_2.html.
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability in-
dicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 3, 381e392. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0195e9255(00)00049-4.
Wang, S., Zhao, M., Xing, J., Wu, J., Zhou, Y., Lei, Y., et al. (2010). Quantifying the air
pollutants emission reduction during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(7), 2490e2496.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Saparauskas, J. (2005). Sustainable urban devel-
opment and web-based multiple criteria analysis. Foundations of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, 6, 217e226.