e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx

available at www.sciencedirect.com

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

A triangle model for evaluating the sustainability status and

trends of economic development

Fu-Liu Xu a,∗ , Shan-Shan Zhao a , Richard W. Dawson b ,

Jun-Yi Hao a , Ying Zhang a , Shu Tao a
a College of Environmental Sciences, MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China
b University of Colorado, International College Beijing, Beijing 100083, PR China

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

Article history: In conjunction with ecological performance, a definition to sustainable economic devel-
Received 24 January 2005 opment was proposed, and a novel triangle method was designed to evaluate economic
Received in revised form 18 October development sustainability, based on the interrelationships among economic development,
2005 resource–energy consumption, and environment pollution. As a case study, the triangle
Accepted 15 November 2005 method was applied to assess the sustainability status and long-term trends of China’s
economic development. The results show that economic development in 2000 represents
a relatively weak state of sustainability, and that most of the 31 political regions in Main-
Keywords: land China reflect sustainability positions ranging from weakly unsustainable to weakly
Triangle model sustainable. The China’s economic development between 1980 and 1991 reveals a rather
Economic development weak sustainability trend, while that from 1991 to 2000 demonstrates a relatively strong
Sustainability sustainable trend. China’s unremitting efforts in environmental protection over the last two
Ecological performance decades would be responsible for these status and trends. The triangle method, as an intu-
Quantitative evaluation itive platform for illustrating sustainability status and trends in economic development,
China seems to hold promise as an analytical management tool given its simplicity, ease of use,
and flexibility.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The development of sustainability indicators, both local and
global, has received increased attention in the literature.
Excellent reviews have been made by some scientists or aca-
demic groups, e.g. Moldan and Billharz (1997), NRC (1999), IISD
(2000), and Swart et al. (2002). This large body of work has made
a significant contribution to the field of sustainability indica-
tors and measurement. However, as pointed out by a variety of
scientists and academic groups, a great deal of work remains
to be done (e.g. NRC, 1999; Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000; IISD,
2000; Kates et al., 2001; Prescott-Allen, 2001; Atkission and
Hatcher, 2001; UNCSD, 2001). In general, these works may be
grouped into four areas or themes: (1) the ability to moni-
tor progress towards sustainability or to show long-term sus-
tainability trends (NRC, 1999; Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000;
IISD, 2000; Kates et al., 2001; Prescott-Allen, 2001; Atkission
and Hatcher, 2001), (2) easiness in use by policy-makers at all
levels (Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000; IISD, 2000; Kates et al.,
2001), (3) flexibility in selecting indicators and analysis units
(Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000; IISD, 2000), and (4) simplicity in
presenting results to be understandable by non-professionals
(Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000; IISD, 2000; UNCSD, 2001).
There are a number of definitions of sustainable develop-
ment (SD), each with a different focus depending on the pur-
pose of the study (see Iyer-Raniga and Treloar, 2000; Barbiroli,

∗
Corresponding author. Fax: +86 10 62751938.
E-mail address: xufl@urban.pku.edu.cn (F.-L. Xu).
0304-3800/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.11.023

ECOMOD-4259; No. of Pages 11

2 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx

2000 for reviews). A precise and commonly accepted def-

inition of SD, however, is still lacking (Radermacher, 1999;
Phillis and Riantiatsaholiniaina, 2001). In this study, sustain-
able economic development is defined as economic devel-
opment with higher economic benefits and better ecological
performance. The ecological performance of economic devel-
opment includes two aspects, i.e. resource–energy consump-
tion and environmental pollution. Better ecological perfor-
mance means lower resource–energy consumption and less
environmental pollution. From this definition, a novel triangle
model showing the interrelationships among economic devel-
opment, resource–energy consumption, and environment pol-
lution will be developed to evaluate quantitatively economic
development sustainability.
Since late 1970s, reforming and opening policies in China
have led to remarkable economic growth at an average annual
GDP growth rate of approximate 8.3% (UNDP et al., 2002).
This rapid economic development, however, has come with an
Fig. 1 – The relative sustainability status and trends of
equally impressive increase in many environmental problems
economic development based on environmental
related to pollution and resource loss (SEI and UNDP, 2002).
performances. EDI: economic development index; EPI:
Recently, China government established a set of new economic
environmental pollution index; RECI: resource and energy
development goals, with targets for 2020 GDP to be as much
consumption index. A, B, C, D, E: relative sustainability
as two-double year 2000 GDP. Pressure from long-term high-
status (see Table 1). T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 , T5 , T6 , T7 : relative
speed economic growth, the uncertain aftereffects of contin-
sustainability trends (see Table 2).
uous market-economy reforms and the challenges associated
with WTO membership place China at a crucial crossroad. As
such, it is now critically important to know whether China’s
economic development over the past 20 years has been on to use a triangle as the basic visual representation of economic
a sustainable path, or whether it is moving toward or away development, resource and energy consumption, and environ-
from sustainability. If the answer is “yes”, what can we learn mental pollution interactions. The final form of the triangle
from the experience of economic development and ecological designed for this purpose is presented in Fig. 1.
performance to insure development remains on a sustain- As seen in Fig. 1, the triangle has an equilateral shape, with
able path? If the answer is “no”, what policies are available an EDI at the top higher vertex, a RECI at lower left vertex, and
and which policies should be chosen to guide its develop- an EPI at the lower right vertex. The X-, Y-, and Z-axis val-
ment toward a more sustainable future? In order to answer ues express EPI, EDI, and RECI, respectively. Each axis is read
these questions, we need to evaluate the current situation and in an anticlockwise direction from 0 to 100%. Further, each
examine the long-term implications of the present economic of the axes is equally divided into five segments or ranges
development path in ways relevant to the issue of sustainabil- as: “very low” values 0–20%, “low” values 20–40%, “middle”
ity. The triangle model will be used to perform such tasks. It is values 40–60%, “high” values 60–80%, and “very high” values
also expected to test the capacity and applicability of the tri- 80–100%. As such, a triangle diagram illustrates relative per-
angle model to solve above-mentioned difficulties in assessing centage combinations of the three aggregate indices EDI, RECI,
the sustainability of development. and EPI. In addition, the triangle is further sub-divided into
five areas – A, B, C, D, and E – expressing five different sustain-
ability status each representing a slightly different ecological
2. Methodology performance level (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Within any one trian-
gle, there are seven possible trends in movement according to
2.1. Design of a triangle model the relative percentage changes in the three aggregate indexes
representing seven different sustainability trends (Fig. 1 and
From the definition of sustainable economic development Table 2). Depending on the relative position of data points
based on ecological performance, the status of and trends associated with alternative data sets, the corresponding sus-
for sustainability in economic development can be evaluated tainability status and trends can then be evaluated.
through the interrelationships among three aggregate indices:
an economic development index (EDI) as measured by indi- 2.2. Procedure for assessing sustainability using
vidual indicators such as GDP, per capita GDP; a resource and triangle model
energy consumption index (RECI) as measured by individual
indicators such as total and fresh water consumption, coal, The procedure established for assessing sustainability of eco-
and oil consumption; and an environmental pollution index nomic development using triangle model includes the fol-
(EPI) as measured by individual indicators such as total vol- lowing six necessary steps: (1) selecting individual indicators
ume of waste water and waste gas. The three-aggregate index for the calculations of EDI, RECI, and EPI; (2) data collections
approach has the advantage of simplicity in that it is possible and normalizations; (3) determining weighting factors for all
 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1 – Relative sustainability status of economic development based on ecological performances

State Index value scopesa Relative index valuea Ecological Relative sustainability
performance
EDI RECI EPI EDI RECI EPI

A 0.8–1.0 0.0–0.2 0.0–0.2 Very high Very low Very low Very good Very strong sustainability
B 0.6–0.8 0.0–0.4 0.0–0.4 High Very low–low Very low–low Good Strong sustainability
C 0.4–0.6 0.0–0.6 0.0–0.6 Middle Very low–middle Very low–middle Fair Weak sustainability
D 0.2–0.4 0.0–0.8 0.0–0.8 Low Very low –high Very low–high Bad Weak unsustainability
E 0.0–0.2 0.0–1.0 0.0–1.0 Very low Very low–very high Very low–very high Very bad Strong unsustainability

a
EDI: economic development index; RECI: resource–energy consumption index; EPI: environmental pollution index.

selected individual indicators; (4) calculating three synthetic
index, EDI, RECI, and EPI, respectively; (5) constructing triangle
diagram; and (6) assessing the status and trends of sustainabil-
ity.
The sustainability assessment of industrial economic
development was performed as a case study to show the
details for the first five steps. Eighteen main industrial sectors,
and 31 political regions including 22 provinces, 4 municipali-
ties, and 5 autonomous regions in Mainland China were used
to illustrate the sustainability status of industrial economic
development in 2000; while the period from 1980 to 2000 was
applied to demonstrate the long-term sustainability trends of
industrial economic development.
In China, industry accounts for approximately 50% of
China’s GDP (at 1995 US constant $ prices) (UNDP et al., 2002);
more than 70% of measured pollutants come from indus-
try (SEPA, 1995b); and industry consumes about 75% of total
energy consumption (SEPA, 1995b). As such, the sustainability
of industrial development can be representative of economic
development sustainability in China.
2.2.1. Selecting individual indicators
The choice of indicators is flexible in the triangle model
framework, with a potential range from the very simply to
the very complex depending on the focus of a study and
data availability. It should follow some principles. (1) Per-
tinence principle: the selected indicators should be perti-
nence to the studied specific object, since different object
may have different features. The possible studied objects
for triangle model would be workshops, factories, compa-
nies, and industrial sectors, or communities, cities, regions,
and countries. For the latter, the typical economic indica-
tors are GDP, per capital GDP, etc.; while the typical eco-
nomic indicators for factories, companies, and industrial
sectors are gross output values, benefits, etc. (2) Represen-
tative principle: the indicator system should cover and be
representative to three aspects including economic develop-
ment, resource–energy consumption and environmental pol-
lution, since the triangle model illustrates sustainability status
and trends by means of the interrelationships among three
indexes, EDI, RECI, and EPI. (3) Availability principle: the data
for all selected indicators should be available from statis-
tic books. (4) Comparative principle: the selected indicators
should be comparative in temporal, spatial, and data source
aspects.
Based on above principles, the indicators used for assessing
sustainability status of 31 political regions and 18 main indus-
trial sectors in 2000 are presented in Tables 3 and 4; and the
indicators used for assessing sustainability trends from 1980
to 2000 are shown in Table 5.

Table 2 – Relative sustainability trends of economic development based on ecological performances

Trend Moving direction Relative percentage change of indexa Ecological Relative sustainability
performance
EDI RECI EPI
◦
T1 0–60 ↑ ↓ ↑ Fair Weak sustainability
T2 60–120◦ ↑ ↓ ↓ Very good Strong sustainability
T3 120–180◦ ↑ ↑ ↓ Fair Weak sustainability
T4 180–240◦ ↓ ↑ ↓ Bad Weak unsustainability
T5 240–300◦ ↓ ↑ ↑ Very bad Strong unsustainability
T6 300–360◦ ↓ ↓ ↑ Bad Weak unsustainability

T7 b No moving ↑ ↑ ↑ Bad Weak unsustainability

↓ ↓ ↓ Bad Weak unsustainability
– – – Original performance Original state

a
EDI: economic development index; RECI: resource and energy consumption index; EPI: environmental pollution index; ↑: increasing; ↓: decreas-
ing; –: no change.
b
If economic growth, resource and energy consumption, and environmental pollution are increased or decreased simultaneously at the same
percentage, and the relative percentage for EDI, RECI, and EPI keep unchangeable, ecological performances are bad, and this shows week
unsustainability. If economic growth, resource–energy consumption, and environmental pollution keep unchangeable at the same time,
ecological performances and sustainability status also keep previous performances and status.
4 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx

Table 3 – The difference of industrial economic development and ecological performance in different regions in Mainland
China in 2000
Indicator Unit Weighting factor Average values

Eastern Eastern Western

ED1 Gross industrial output values (GIOV)a 109 yuan 0.5 286.434 129.580 60.258
ED2 Per capita GIOV 104 yuan 0.5 6.486 2.847 3.463

RC1 Total water consumption (TWC) 109 tonnes 0.15 9.407 7.692 3.472
RC2 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values TWC tonnes 0.15 317.656 589.402 601.879
RC3 Fresh water consumption (FWC) 109 tonnes 0.35 3.745 1.838 0.800
RC4 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values FWC tonnes 0.35 113.666 158.294 121.974

EC1 Total coal consumption (TCC) 106 tonnes 0.3 43.989 51.204 22.612
EC2 Per 10000-yuan-output-values TCC tonnes 0.3 1.553 4.183 3.676
EC3 Fuel oil consumption (FOC) 106 tonnes 0.2 2.035 0.437 0.236
EC4 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values FOC tonnes 0.2 0.060 0.036 0.041

EP1 Waste water discharged (WWD) 106 tonnes 0.1 833.218 733.677 332.322
EP2 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values WWD tonnes 0.1 28.476 60.452 57.686
EP3 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 104 tonnes 0.1 21.796 30.187 13.722
EP4 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values COD kg 0.1 8.576 26.498 23.964
EP5 Waste gas emission (WGE) 1010 m3 0.1 579.037 524.122 247.964
EP6 Per 10000-yuan-output-values WGE 104 m3 0.1 20.004 42.262 44.538
EP7 Sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) 104 tonnes 0.1 54.085 61.156 39.812
EP8 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values SO2 kg 0.1 16.828 52.129 60.363
EP9 Waste solids discharged (WSD) 104 tonnes 0.1 14.238 126.688 171.753
EP10 Per 10,000-yuan-output-values WSD tonnes 0.1 0.006 0.124 0.436

a
At 2000 current price.

2.2.2. Data collections and normalizations sumption indicators, and environmental pollution indicators,
The data for above selected indicators can be obtained form respectively.
China Statistical Yearbook (NBS, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001) and
 
China Environment Yearbook (SEPA, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, d11 d12 . . . d1n
1994, 1995a, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). They can 
EDyi = (dyi ) = 
d21 d22 . . . d2n 
be arranged as the following two-dimensional data matrix ... ... ... ...
 (1)

for economic development indicators, resource–energy con- ds1 ds2 . . . dsn

Table 4 – The difference of industrial economic development and ecological performance of different industrial sectors in
Mainland China in 2000
Sector Indicator

ED1 ED2 RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5 EP6 EP7 EP8 EP9 EP10

1 1076.9 21.3 3.5 32.8 1.3 12.1 17.0 0.2 0.8 0.01 917.8 8.5 8.3 0.8 35.9 0.3 21.5 2.0 19.3 0.002
2 131.5 13.7 0.3 23.4 0.2 12.4 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.02 118.7 9.0 0.9 0.7 4.3 0.3 7.3 5.6 1.9 0.001
3 40.0 6.6 0.1 31.5 0.04 9.6 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.02 29.9 7.5 0.8 2.1 1.9 0.5 1.5 3.7 0.4 0.001
4 50.9 11.8 0.4 79.2 0.1 22.3 2.5 0.5 0.1 0.02 81.2 15.9 0.7 1.4 4.8 0.9 4.7 9.2 0.8 0.002
5 368.6 60.4 11.6 316.0 2.3 63.1 104.3 2.8 4.2 0.11 485.0 13.2 5.5 1.5 39.2 1.1 37.8 10.3 19.6 0.005
6 19.4 3.3 0.0 22.5 0.02 11.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.02 17.5 9.0 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.003
7 117.3 14.1 1.8 152.9 0.4 36.8 4.3 0.4 0.2 0.01 343.8 29.3 15.4 13.1 4.7 0.4 6.5 5.5 3.5 0.003
8 56.4 9.7 0.1 21.3 0.1 19.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.01 130.1 23.1 18.0 32.0 1.3 0.2 1.3 2.3 2.7 0.005
9 561.2 19.3 3.9 69.6 2.0 35.5 22.1 0.4 0.5 0.01 1643.0 29.3 162.4 28.9 32.2 0.6 41.0 7.3 43.8 0.008
10 302.5 9.3 2.3 76.7 1.3 44.5 14.0 0.5 0.9 0.03 1256.5 41.5 38.5 12.7 15.8 0.5 25.7 8.5 10.0 0.003
11 83.1 25.2 3.6 428.7 1.1 130.6 9.4 1.1 1.1 0.13 531.3 63.9 17.6 21.2 27.5 3.3 15.0 18.1 8.2 0.010
12 147.3 18.4 4.2 283.0 0.7 48.3 19.5 1.3 0.8 0.06 328.7 22.3 2.1 1.4 85.3 5.8 71.5 48.5 32.0 0.022
13 478.2 18.8 27.8 581.5 5.1 105.7 75.9 1.6 2.3 0.05 3373.5 70.5 48.5 10.1 87.9 1.8 82.3 17.2 133.3 0.028
14 358.7 16.2 23.7 660.9 4.0 111.8 96.5 2.7 2.2 0.06 2205.3 61.5 14.6 4.1 213.4 5.9 75.5 21.1 154.6 0.043
15 345.0 5.9 5.2 151.6 1.7 50.6 32.5 0.9 3.1 0.09 1279.5 37.1 11.7 3.4 35.4 1.0 33.1 9.6 2555.9 0.741
16 224.8 9.4 1.7 75.2 0.8 34.8 171.9 7.6 3.8 0.17 424.2 18.9 3.2 1.4 273.4 12.2 234.0 104.1 68.8 0.031
17 115.4 17.5 5.3 459.9 3.4 297.5 20.9 1.8 0.2 0.02 3528.8 305.7 287.7 249.2 25.5 2.2 33.8 29.3 14.7 0.013
18 334.6 11.9 112.7 3369.8 40.2 1202.4 513.3 15.3 7.7 0.23 1865.9 55.8 10.0 3.0 480.3 14.4 720.0 215.2 48.3 0.014

The meanings, units and weighting factors for all indicators are the same as those in Table 3. The numbers 1–18 express 18 different industrial
sectors, respectively (please see Fig. 3 for details).
 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx 5

Table 5 – The changes of industrial economic growth and ecological performances in Mainland China during the period
of 1980–1990 and 1991–2000
Indicatora Unitb Weighting factor 1980–1991b 1991–2000b

Yearly average Yearly change % Yearly average Yearly change %

ED1 GIOV 109 yuan 0.5 3806.524 +13.56 11702.609 +22.06

ED2 Per capita GIOV 103 yuan 0.5 3.324 +3.69 7.430 +17.77

EC1 TEC 106 tonnes SCEc 0.5 574.60 +5.89 888.20 +2.55
EC2 Per TTYOV TEC tonnes SCE c 0.5 15.650 −3.08 8.377 −6.09

EP1 WWD 109 tonnes 0.125 25.487 +0.59 20.059 −3.51

EP2 Per TTYOV WWD tonnes 0.125 723.445 −5.20 205.549 −7.98
EP3 WGE 1012 m3 0.125 76.433 +3.17 104.658 +4.55
EP4 Per TTYOV WGE 104 m3 0.125 21.247 −4.17 9.795 −5.46
EP5 SO2 104 tonnes 0.125 1390 +2.62 1272 +0.06
EP6 Per TTYOV SO2 kg 0.125 38.63 −4.39 12.46 −6.86
EP7 WSD 104 tonnes 0.125 8680 −4.58 1954 −6.92
EP8 Per TTYOV WSD tonnes 0.125 2.618 −7.28 0.215 −9.04

a
GIOV: gross industrial output values at 1978 constant price; TEC: total energy consumption; TTYOV: 10,000-yuan-output-values; WWD: waste
water discharged; WGE: waste gas emission; SO2 : sulfur dioxide; WSD: waste solids discharged.
b
“+”: Increase; “−”: decrease.
c
SCE: standardized coal equivalent.

  pyh
r11 r12 . . . r1m EPyh = (pyh ) = s
(y = 1, 2, . . . , s; h = 1, 2, . . . , k) (6)
 r21 r22 . . . r2m  Max(pyh )
RECyj = (ryj ) =   (2) y=1
... ... . . . ...
rs1 rs2 . . . rsm where EDyi , RECyj , and EPyh are the normalized data matrix
for economic development indicators, resource–energy con-
  sumption indicators and environmental pollution indicators,
p11 p12 . . . p1k s
 p21 p22 . . . p2k  respectively. Max(dyi ) is the maximal value for the ith selected
EPyh = (pyh ) =   (3) y=1
... ... ... ... s
ps1 ps2 . . . psk economic development indicator in the matrix EDyi . Max(ryj )
y=1
is the maximal value for the jth selected resource–energy
s
where EDyi , RECyj , and EPyh are the original data matrix for eco- consumption indicator in the matrix RECyj. Max(pyh ) is the
nomic development indicators, resource–energy consumption y=1

indicators and environmental pollution indicators, respec- maximal value for the hth selected environmental pollution
tively. “y” is the yth studied object, and it is 31 separate politi- indicator in the matrix EPyh . “y”, “I” ,“h”, dyi , ryj , and pyh have
cal region and 18 separate main industrial sector in assess- the same meanings with those in the matrixes (1), (2), and (3).
ing sustainability status in 2000, while it is different year Based on the original data matrix (1), (2), and (3), the nor-
from 1980 to 2000 in assessing sustainability trends. “I” is malized matrixes EDyi , RECyj , and EPyh can be obtained using
the ith selected economic development indicator. “j” is the the Eqs. (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
jth selected resource–energy consumption indicator. “h” is the  
hth selected environmental pollution indicator. dyi is a specific d11 d12 . . . d1n
original data for the yth studied object and the ith selected eco-  d
EDyi = (dyi ) =  21
d22 . . . d2n 
... ... ... ...
 (7)
nomic development indicator. ryj is a specific original data for
the yth studied object and the jth selected resource–energy ds1 ds2 . . . dsn
consumption indicator. pyh is a specific original data for the
   
yth studied object and the hth selected environmental pollu- r11 r12 . . . r1m
tion indicator.
RECyj = (ryj
  
r 
r22 
. . . r2m 
) =  21  (8)
In order to avoid the influence of different units, normal- ... ... . . . ...

rs1 
rs2 
. . . rsm
izations have to be performed for EDyi , RECyj , and EPyh using
the following equations, respectively.
 
p11 p12 . . . p1k

EDyi = (dyi ) =
dyi
EPyh
 p p22 . . . p2k 
s
(y = 1, 2, . . . , s; i = 1, 2, . . . , n) (4) = (pyh ) =  21  (9)
... ... ... ...
Max(dyi )
y=1 ps1 ps2 
. . . psk

ryj dyi is a specific normalized data for the yth studied object and
RECyj = (ryj

)= s
(y = 1, 2, . . . , s; j = 1, 2, . . . , m) (5)
the ith selected economic development indicator. ryj  is a spe-
Max(ryj )
y=1 cific normalized data for the yth studied object and the jth
6 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx
selected resource–energy consumption indicator. pyh is a spe-
cific normalized data for the yth studied object and the hth
selected environmental pollution indicator. EDyi , RECyj , EPyh ,
“y”, “I”, and “h” have the same meanings with those in the
Eqs. (4), (5), and (6).
2.2.3. Determining weighting factors
Waiting factors have to be endowed to the selected indica-
tors since they are with different importance in sustainabil-
ity assessment. They can be determined through a variety
of models including experimental analysis, expert-consulting
(Delphi method), an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), or some
combination of the above. These methods have different
strongpoint and shortage. For instance, “experimental anal-
ysis” method has such strongpoint as sample and timesav-
ing, and such shortage as lower precision; “Delphi” method
has such strongpoint as higher precision, and such shortage
as time-consuming. In order to enhance precision of waiting
factors, it is better to make the combination of two or three
methods. In this study, “experimental analysis” and “Delphi”
method are combined to determine weighting factors for all
selected indicators (see Tables 3–5 for details).
2.2.4. Calculating synthetic index, EDI, RECI, and EPI
Three synthetic indexes, EDI, RECI, and EPI can be calculated
by the following equations, respectively:

n
EDIy = (EDyi · Wi )
i=1

m of sustainability status and trends of economic development
RECIy = (RECyj · Wj )
j=1

k
EPIy = (EPyh · Wh )
h=1
where EDIy , RECIy , and EPIy are the economic development
index, resource–energy consumption index and environmen-
tal pollution index for the yth studied object (e.g. sectors or
regions or years). Wi is the weighting factor for the ith eco-
nomic development indicator; and the sum of n weighting fac-
tors for all selected economic development indicators should
n
equal one, i.e. W = 1. Wj is the weighting factor for the
i=1 i
jth resource–energy consumption indicator; and the sum of m
weighting factors for all selected resource–energy consump-
m
tion indicators should equal one, i.e. W = 1. Wh is the
j=1 j
weighting factor for the hth environmental pollution indicator;
and the sum of k weighting factors for all selected environ-
k
mental pollution indicators should equal one, i.e. W =
h=1 h
1; EDyi , RECyj , and EPyh have the same meanings with those in
the Eqs. (4)–(9).
Based on Tables 3 and 4 and above equations, three aggre-
gate indices, EDI, RECI, and EPI for the sustainability status
of the 31 political regions and 18 industrial sectors in the
Mainland China were calculated. Two indicators, ED1 and ED2
were used to calculate EDI. Two sub-indexes—a resource con-
sumption index (RCI) and an energy consumption index (ECI)
were used to construct the final RECI. Four indicators, RC1 ,
RC2 , RC3 , and RC4 were used to compute the RCI, while four
other indicators, EC1 , EC2 , EC3 , and EC4 were used to calculate
the ECI. These two sub-indexes (RCI and ECI) were then com-
bined to compute the resource and energy consumption index
(RECI) using equal weighting factors (0.5). Finally, 10 indica-
tors, EP1–EP10, were used to calculate EPI. Data for computing
all of the indicators were collected from China Statistic Year-
book 2000 (NBS, 2001) and China Environmental Yearbook 2000
(SEPA, 2001). Per unit volumes for the indictors were calculated
based on collected data.
Based on Table 5 and above equations, three aggregate
indices, EDI, RECI, and EPI for the sustainability trends of
industrial economic development from 1980 to 2000 in the
Mainland China were computed. Two indicators, ED1 and ED2
were used in calculating EDI, and two indicators EC1 and EC2
were used to calculate RECI. Eight indicators, EP1 –EP8 , were
used with equal weighting factors to calculate EPI. The total
volume data needed for indicator calculations were collected
from the China Statistic Yearbooks (NBS, 1986, 1991, 1996,
2001) and the China Environmental Yearbooks (SEPA, 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001), while the per unit volume calculations for each of the
indictors were based on the collected data.
2.2.5. Constructing triangle diagrams
The software, “Grapher for Windows” and “MS Word” were
used to construct triangle diagrams. Firstly, “Grapher for Win-
dows” was applied to get the draft triangle diagrams using the
calculation results by Eqs. (1)–(10). And then, “MS Word” was
(10) used to polish triangle diagrams, e.g. to make the marks, to
add the trend lines, and to change the labels. The assessment
(11) can finally be performed by means of the polished triangle
diagrams.
(12)
3. A case study: sustainability status and
trends of industrial economic development in
China
3.1. Sustainability status in 2000
Based on the calculations in the Section 2.2, the sustainability
status of the 18 industrial sectors and 31 political regions in
2000 are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
Fig. 2 shows the obvious differences in economic develop-
ment sustainability for the 18 industrial sectors in 2000. Based
on the TDM of sustainability analysis, we can see that most of
the 18 industrial sectors fall somewhere between area C (rela-
tively weak sustainability) and area A (very strong sustainabil-
ity). Four sectors were identified as either relatively unsustain-
able (area D) or strongly unsustainable (area E). Two sectors
– Machinery, Electricity, and Electronic Equipment (Sector 1)
and Metal Products (Sector 2) – fell in very strongly sustain-
able zone, having a very high EDI and very low RECI and EPI.
Sector 18 (Production and Supply of Power, Gas, and Water), on
the other hand, is strongly unsustainable with a very low EDI
and mid-level RECI values. Sectors 15 (Mining and Quarrying),
16 (Non-metal Mineral Products), and 17 (Papermaking and
Paper Products) are indicated as non-sustainable sectors, with
low EDI and middle level values for EPI and RECI. In order for
 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2 – The relative sustainability status of different
industrial sectors in China in 2000. (A) Very strong
sustainability; (B) strong sustainability; (C) weak
sustainability; (D) weak unsustainability; (E) strong
unsustainability. (1) Machinery, electric and electronic
equipment; (2) metal products; (3) plastic products; (4)
rubber products; (5) petroleum refining and coking; (6)
printing and record medium reproduction; (7) medical and
pharmaceutical products; (8) leather, furs, down and related
products; (9) food, beverage, tobacco processing; (10) textile
industry; (11) chemical fiber; (12) smelting and pressing of
non-ferrous metals; (13) raw chemical materials and
chemical products; (14) smelting and pressing of ferrous
metals; (15) mining and quarrying; (16) non-metal mineral
products; (17) papermaking and paper products; (18)
production and supply of power, gas, and water.
Sectors 16 and 18 to shift from their present non-sustainable
regimens to more sustainable development, they will need to
enhance their efficiency in energy consumption. For Sectors
15 and 17, improvements in their sustainability position will
require reductions in the volume of waste products and pol-
lutants (please see Table 4 for the details).
On a regional basis, the results are less than encouraging.
It can be seen from Fig. 3 that industrial economic develop-
ment for the most of 31 political regions falls in either the
unsustainable zone (area D) or the weakly sustainable zone
(area C). There are also obvious differences in sustainability
between the eastern coastal regions and the central-western
regions. Among the 31 regions identified for Mainland China,
only Hainan Province (E1 ) demonstrates very strongly sustain-
ability (area A). Tibet (W11 ), on the other hand, is in a strongly
unsustainable zone (area E). With the exception of Zhejiang
Province (E11 ), most of the eastern coastal regions are located
somewhere between the weak (area C) to very strong (area
A) sustainability zone. All of the central and western regions,
with the exception of Beijing (C1 ) and Qinghai Province (W1 ),
are found in either area D or area E; indicating either unsus-
tainable or strongly unsustainable respectively. The results
correlate closely with observable reality that economic devel-
opment in China in terms of environmental performance has
thus far been better in the eastern coastal regions than in
7
Fig. 3 – The relative sustainability status of different
political regions in China in 2000. (䊉) Eastern coastal
region; () Central region; ( ) Western region. (A) Very
strong sustainability; (B) strong sustainability; (C) weak
sustainability; (D) weak unsustainability; (E) strong
unsustainability. E1 , Hainan; E2 , Tianjin; E3 , Shanghai; E4 ,
Fujian; E5 , Guangdong; E6 , Heilongjiang; E7 , Jiangsu; E8 ,
Jilin; E9 , Liaoning; E10 , Shandong; E11 , Zhejiang. C1 , Beijing;
C2, Hubei; C3, Henan; C4, Anhui; C5, Jiangxi; C6, Hebei; C7,
Shanxi; C8, Hunan; C9, Guangxi. W1, Qinghai; W2,
Xinjiang; W3, Yunnan; W4, Shaanxi; W5, Gansu; W6, Inner
Mongolia; W7, Chongqing; W8, Ningxia; W9, Sichuan;
W10, Guizhou; W11, Tibet.
either the central or western regions of the country; as indi-
cated by the higher average and per capita gross output values
for the eastern regions relative to lower consumption values
in total water, fresh water and coal usage (measured as a
10,000-yuan/output), and less discharge or emission volumes
of waste water, waste gas, waste solids, COD and SO2 (mea-
sured as 10,000-yuan/output). A complete listing of indicator
values (ED1 , ED2 , RC2 , RC4 , EC2 , EC4 , EP2 , EP4 , EP6 , EP8 , EP10 ) for
three regions can be found in Table 3.
3.2. Long-term sustainability trends
Based on the calculations in the Section 2.2, the long-term
sustainability trends of China’s industrial economic devel-
opment from 1980 to 2000 are presented in Fig. 4. It shows
that the trend in industrial development between 1980 and
2000 have been increasingly moving towards sustainability,
with two obvious trends identifiable T2 and T3 . Interestingly,
industrial development between 1980 and 1991 is only weakly
sustainable (T3 ), while the trend between 1991 and 2000 has
improved to be strongly sustainable (T2 ). This seems to sug-
gest that industrial economic growth in China improved far
better between 1991 and 2000 relative to environmental per-
formance than it did between 1980 and 1991. Accordingly, the
higher yearly average values and percentage increases in the
economic development indicator for the period between 1991
and 2000 coincides with far lower yearly average values and
percentages increases in both energy consumption and pollu-
8 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4 – The long-term relative sustainability trends of
economic development in China during 1980–2000. (A) Very
strong sustainability; (B) strong sustainability; (C) weak
sustainability; (D) weak unsustainability; (E) strong
unsustainability. T2: strong sustainability trend; T3: week
sustainability trend.
tion indicators than occurred between 1980 and 1991 (please
see Table 5 for details).
4. Discussions
4.1. About evaluating results
China’s economic development has experienced improved
ecological performance over the last two decades, especially
since 1991 (Fig. 4). Much of this can be explained by continu-
ously improving efforts in environmental protection and by
the increasing integration of environmental considerations
within the economic development process. Environmental
protection in China has been an evolutionary process, having
undergone its development in three major stages: (1) a begin-
ning stage from 1972 when United Nations (UN) Stockholm
Conference was held until 1978 when the reforming and open-
ing policies were adopted, (2) a development stage between
1978 and 1992 when the Earth Summit was held in Rio, and (3)
an improving stage from 1992 until the present and associated
with the opening of the Chinese economy to market reforms.
During the first stage, China’s economy was centrally
planned and supply driven, with little integration environ-
mental considerations within the economic development
framework. Economic development was given a very high
priority by government officials, with a heavy emphasis on
industrial goods. Environmental management and pollution
control, while officially recognized as valuable, were consid-
ered secondary to the industrial development needs of the
country. There were few environmental organizations, few
effective environmental regulations, and less environmen-
tal investment, and little if any integration of environmental
concerns within the economic development process. Indus-
trial pollution control at this time focused on scattered point
sources by means of end-of-pipe treatments. As a result, eco-
nomic performance during stage one was characterized by less
than optimal output levels, relying heavily on high levels of
resource usage, energy consumption, and pollutant discharge;
translating into economic development with bad ecological
performance (SEPA, 1995b).
Since the late 1970s, however, environmental protection
has been treated as a significant part of national policy, with
strategic tasks involving not only pollution control but also
natural conservation. Development strategies have shifted
from an absolute economy priority to a more integrated view
of economic development involving economy, society and
the environment. Along with this shift in strategy has been
a determined effort to integrate environmental protection
within economic and social development plans. The focus of
industrial pollution control changed as well, adopting a com-
prehensive perspective to include a more integrated indus-
trial structure, increased technical adjustments and process
transformations, increased strengthening of environmental
management theories and practices, replacement of end-of-
pipe controls by whole-process controls, integrating scattered
point source controls with centralized controls, and closing
severely polluting factories. Coupled with these technical and
managerial improvements were a host of changes adopted
in environmental administration, legislation, and investment
(SEPA, 1995b; SEPA and SPC, 1994).
Environmental investments increased significantly during
this time as well, increasing from 17 billion RMB for 1981–1985
to 47.6 billion RMB for 1986–1990, representing 0.56% and
0.69% of GDP for the same period, respectively (SEPA, 1991,
1995b). Thousands of environmental organizations at the
national, provincial, municipal, county, and township levels
have been established, covering a wide variety of departments,
sectors, and enterprises (SEPA and SPC, 1994). Furthermore,
twelve new laws, more than 550 regulations, and 330 stan-
dards on environmental protection have been created and
implemented as public policy (SEPA, 1995b), while 12,000 heav-
ily polluting factories have been closed down (SEPA, 1991).
Consequently, resource usage and pollution discharge per unit
of output in the Chinese economy decreased significantly dur-
ing this period (UNDP, 1998; Table 4) indicating a more environ-
mentally balanced and positive economic development per-
formance (Fig. 4).
During the third stage (post-1992), there have been major
improvements in development strategies, economic structure,
and environmental management and pollution control. Since
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, sustainable development has
grown to become a key factor in most national strategies
including China. While it may not be clearly understood or
uniformly agreed to as to form, it has nonetheless become a
guiding theme incorporated into many national economic and
social development plans. In order to implement this strat-
egy in China, the national macroeconomic policy structure
shifted away from its previous centrally planned approach to
a more market-oriented approach (with a distinct Chinese fla-
vor). Various action plans have also been formulated at all
levels of government, local, municipal, regional, provincial,
national (SEPA, 1997; ACCA, 1994). Furthermore, the institu-
tional framework has been continuously revised and strength-
ened, including establishment of an organizational guarantee
 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g x x x ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx
system. The process of drafting new legislation and improving
law enforcement has been accelerated, with most of the envi-
ronmental laws and standards enacted before the 1990s being
amended (SEPA, 2001). The Chinese government has been
developing a full array of market-based incentives including
fees, fines, permits, emissions trading, and green taxes to pro-
mote cleaner behaviors throughout its economic sectors (SEI
and UNDP, 2002). Cleaner production is also being adopted by
more and more enterprises. The National Eco-labeling Pro-
gram, founded in 1993, has been expanded to nation-wide
coverage. International standards, such as those established
by the International Standards Organization (14000 and 14001
series), have become increasingly important tools in the envi-
ronmental management process (SEI and UNDP, 2002). Expen-
ditures on pollution control have increased from 130 billion
yuan (1991–1995) to 360 billion yuan (1996–2000), equivalent
to 0.73% and 0.93% of GDP, respectively (SEPA, 1996, 2001).
Between 1995 and 2000, 84,000 heavy supply-side and pol-
luting industries have been closed or replaced by higher-tech
and service industries (SEPA, 2001). Following these efforts,
the ecological performances of economic development were
improved considerably during this period (Fig. 4), as indicated
by continuously decreasing resource use and pollution dis-
charge per unit of output (Table 4).
Although, great progress has been achieved, the present
state of economic development, from a sustainability per-
spective, remains in a relatively weak position (Figs. 3 and 4).
Further increases in the relative sustainability state will only
be achieved through continuing improvements in energy effi-
ciency coupled with similar efforts at minimizing pollutant
discharge. It is hoped that through both the Great Western
Development Plan and the Beijing Green Olympics, China can
achieve economic development, modernization, and environ-
mental improvements all as part of the same sustainable pack-
age (SEI and UNDP, 2002). It can be seen from Fig. 3 that Sectors
15, 16, 17, and 18 were in the non-sustainable status in 2000. In
order to shift from their present non-sustainable regimens to
more sustainable development, they have to implement envi-
ronmental sound technologies (ESTs) to reduce the discharged
pollutants, and the consumption of energy and resources. For
instance, for Sector 17, the clean technology could give paper
mill industrial a zero discharge of wastewater through recy-
cling process, this will certainly improve ecological quality of
Sector 17 and shift it to a more sustainable status.
4.2. About the triangle model
The assessment of sustainability involves two aspects, the
selection of sustainability indicators and the determination of
assessment methods. The sustainability indicators used in lit-
eratures may fall into four categories: (1) ecological indicators,
such as Entropy (Steinborn and Svirezhev, 2000), Exergy (Wall
and Gong, 2001; Chen, 2005), Emergy (Lefroy and Rydberg,
2003), Ecological Status (NRC, 2003), AMOEBA (Wefering et al.,
2005); (2) economic indicators, such as Genuine Saving Prod-
uct (GSP) (Pearce and Atkinson, 1993), Green Gross Domestic
Product (GGDP) (Turner and Tschirhart, 1999); (3) societal indi-
cators, such as Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 1990),
Index Of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) (Matthews et
al., 2003), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) (Hamilton, 1999);
9
(4) systematic indicators, such as Drive-Press-State-Impact-
Response (DPSIR) indicators (IISD, 2000), index of quality of
life and the environment (Prescott-Allen, 2001), Press-State-
Response (PSR) indicators (UNCSD, 2001). Single or aggregate
ecological, economic, and societal indicators are used for the
sustainability assessment of ecosystems, economic, and soci-
etal development, respectively; while systematic indicators
are used for the comprehensive assessment of sustainability
of ecological, economic, and societal systems.
The methods used for sustainability assessment in litera-
tures may be classified into two categories according to the
complexity of calculations: (1) simple calculation methods,
including single index calculations (e.g. Entropy (Steinborn
and Svirezhev, 2000), Exergy (Wall and Gong, 2001), Emergy
(Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003)), and aggregate index calcula-
tions (e.g. GSP (Pearce and Atkinson, 1993), HDI (UNDP, 1990),
ISEW (Matthews et al., 2003)); and (2) complex mathematic
model methods, such as the fuzzy logic approach (Prato, 2000;
Cornelissen et al., 2001; Phillis and Riantiatsaholiniaina, 2001).
No matter which method used for the calculation of sustain-
ability index, most results are presented as tabulations or
two-dimensional figures with time series.
There are still some problems needed to solve in assess-
ing sustainability. A distinguished group of scholars recently
identified the question “How are long-term trends in environ-
ment and development, including consumption and popula-
tion, reshaping nature–society interactions in ways relevant
to sustainability?” as one of the seven core questions within
sustainability science (Kates et al., 2001). The U.S. National
Research Council’s Board on Sustainable Development found
that “The effectiveness of the current set of indicators is lim-
ited by the lack of agreement on what to develop, what to
sustain, and for how long” (NRC, 1999, p. 243). The UN Commis-
sion on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) pointed out that
“indicators for monitoring progress towards sustainable devel-
opment are needed in order to assist decision-makers and
policy-makers at all levels”, that “the validity of the UN indi-
cator is limited by the quality and the format of the data used
for its calculation and comparability over time may represent
a particular problem for this indicator”, and that “if the indi-
cator has to reflect changing risk, it is not possible without
further development of the indicator methodology” (UNCSD,
2001). The International Institute for Sustainable Develop-
ment (IISD) recently pointed out that “High-level decision-
makers dealing with sustainable development issues –
government ministers, foundation executives, heads of cor-
porations – routinely call for a manageable number of indices
that are easy to understand and use in decision-making” (IISD,
2000). They went on to indicate that “Higher-level aggregation
of indicators should signal the relative sustainability or unsus-
tainability of a state or trend, rather than simply displaying
the numerical data in a different form (IISD, 2000)”, and that
“Hundreds of sustainability indicator sets have been created
for and presented to their respective audiences. Most sustain-
ability indicators come as large, unwieldy reports, crammed
with complex charts and graphs. Although useful to policy
professionals and academics, most indicator sets are not prac-
tical for the media and public” (IISD, 2000); they have far to go
before they can claim to be widely used. Further, “The grow-
ing ranks of indicator projects and professionals worldwide
10 ecological modelling
face two challenges that seemingly contradict each other: (1)
growing complexity. As our understanding of the complexity
of sustainability grows, how do we manage the mountains of
data required to monitor it? (2) The demand for simplicity.
Increased public awareness and the resulting need for politi-
cal action are clearly adding pressure and urgency to indicator
creation. The question is how do we present them in ways that
are simple, elegant and effective, without compromising the
underlying complexity?” (IISD, 2000).
The problems mentioned above may be grouped into four
areas or themes as presented in Section 1. The methodol-
ogy developed in this paper can partly solve these problems.
As shown in this study, the triangle model can serve as an
intuitive platform for illustrating existing sustainability states
and trends in economic development coincident with the
implementation of various government measures. The intu-
itive aspect of the model makes it easy to understand and use
by researchers and policy-makers from many different levels
(e.g. plant, company, community, city, region) whether local
or global. Further, the methodology makes it possible to com-
bine the results of pervious studies into three aggregate new
indices (EDI, RECI, and EPI), and use the model to illustrate
results for better analysis and clarity. The method’s flexibility
in the selection of individual indicators and basic analytical
units, its ease of understanding and use by experts and man-
agers, and its simplicity in calculating and presenting states
or trends of sustainability would seem to offer the potential
for widespread use.
5. Conclusion
A definition for sustainable economic development has been
presented as economic development coincident with higher
economic benefits, lower resource–energy consumption, and
less environmental pollution. In order to evaluate the sus-
tainability status and long-term trends of economic devel-
opment, a novel triangle model has been designed based on
the interrelationships among three aggregate indices, an eco-
nomic development index (EDI), a resource and energy con-
sumption index (RECI) and an environmental pollution index
(EPI). A triangle diagram illustrates relative percentage com-
binations of the three aggregate indices EDI, RECI, and EPI.
The triangle is further sub-divided into five areas expressing
five different sustainability statuses. There are seven possi-
ble movement trends representing seven different sustain-
ability trends within one triangle. Depending on the relative
positions of data sets in a triangle diagram, the correspond-
ing sustainability status and trends can then be evaluated.
The triangle model, as an intuitive platform for illustrating
sustainability status and trends in economic development,
seems to have the following main advantages: (1) simplicity
in its basic calculation and visual representation; (2) flexibility
in the selection of individual indicators and basic analyti-
cal units, with a potential range from the very simply to the
very complex depending on the focus of a study and data
availability; (3) ease of understanding and use by researchers
and policy-makers from many different levels (e.g. plant,
company, community, city, region) whether local or global.
Therefore, the triangle model could sever as a promising
xxx ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx
analytical and management tool for economic development
sustainability.
The triangle model has been successfully used to evaluate
the sustainability status and long-term trends of China’s eco-
nomic development. China’s economic development in 2000
represents a relatively weak state of sustainability. Most of the
31 political regions in Mainland China reflect sustainability
positions ranging from weakly unsustainable to weakly sus-
tainable. The China’s economic development between 1980
and 1991 shows a rather weak sustainability trend, while that
from 1991 to 2000 demonstrates a relatively strong sustain-
able trend. These results reflects well China’s actual situation
in the sustainability status and long-term trends of China’s
economic development in conjunction with ecological perfor-
mances over the last three decades.
Acknowledgments
The paper was supported and financed by National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Nos. 40271101, 40024101,
and 40332015).
references
ACCA (Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21), 1994.
China’s Agenda 21: White Paper on China’s Population,
Environment, and Development in the 21st Century. China
Environmental Sciences Press, Beijing.
Atkission, A., Hatcher, R.L., 2001. The compass index of
sustainability: prototype for a comprehensive sustainability
information system. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage. 4,
509–532.
Barbiroli, G., 2000. Technological pluralism and diversity as
fundamental prerequisites for sustainability. Int. J. Sust. Dev.
World Eco. 3, 261–270.
Chen, G.Q., 2005. Exergy consumption of the earth. Ecol.
Modell. 184, 363–380.
Cornelissen, A.M.G., van den Berg, J., Koops, W.J., Grossman, M.,
Udo, H.M.J., 2001. Assessment of the contribution of
sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel
approach using fuzzy set theory. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 86,
173–185.
Hamilton, C., 1999. The genuine progress indicator
methodological developments and results from Australia.
Ecol. Econ. 30 (1), 13–28.
IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), 2000.
Compendium of Sustainable Development Indicator
Initiatives and Publications, http://www.iisd.org.
Iyer-Raniga, U., Treloar, G., 2000. A context for participation in
sustainable development. Environ. Manage. 4, 349–361.
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., et al.,
2001. Sustainability science. Science 292, 641–642.
Lefroy, E., Rydberg, T., 2003. Emergy evaluation of three
cropping systems in southwestern Australia. Ecol. Modell.
161, 195–211.
Matthews, J., Munday, M., Roberts, A., Williams, A., 2003. An
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Wales:
1990–2000, Report for the Countryside Council for Wales.
Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.), 1997. Sustainability Indicators:
Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable
Development, SCOPE 58. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics), 2001. China Statistical
Yearbook 2000. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing
(in Chinese).
 ecological modelling
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics), 1996. China Statistical
Yearbook 1995. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing
(in Chinese).
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics), 1991. China Statistical
Yearbook 1990. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing
(in Chinese).
NBS (National Bureau of Statistics), 1986. China Statistical
Yearbook 1985. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing
(in Chinese).
National Research Council Board on Sustainable Development,
1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward
Sustainability. National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309067839/html/index.html.
NRC (National Research Council Board on Sustainable
Development), 2003. Ecological Indicators for Nations.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., 1993. Capital theory and the
measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of
weak sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 8 (2), 103–108.
Phillis, Y.A., Riantiatsaholiniaina, L.A., 2001. Sustainability: an
ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic.
Ecol. Econ. 3, 435–456.
Prato, T., 2000. A fuzzy logic approach for evaluating ecosystem
sustainability. Ecol. Modell. 130, 157–166.
Prescott-Allen, R., 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations: a
Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the
Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Radermacher, W., 1999. Indicators, green accounting and
environment statistics—information requirements for
sustainable development. Intern. Statis. Rev. 3, 339–354.
SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute) & UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme), 2002. China Human Development
Report 2002: Making Green Development a Choice. Oxford
University Press, New York, http://www.unchina.org/undp.
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 2001.
China Environment Yearbook 2000. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 2000.
China Environment Yearbook 1999. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing.
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1999.
China Environment Yearbook 1998. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1998.
China Environment Yearbook 1997. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1997.
China Environment Yearbook 1996. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1996.
China Environment Yearbook 1995. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
xxx ( 2 0 0 5 ) xxx–xxx 11
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1995a.
China Environment Yearbook 1994. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Agency of China), 1995b.
Agenda 21 for China’s Environmental Protection. China
Environmental Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1993.
China Environment Yearbook. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1993.
China Environment Yearbook 1992. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1992.
China Environment Yearbook 1991. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1991.
China Environment Yearbook 1990. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration), 1990.
China Environment Yearbook 1989. China Environmental
Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
SEPA (State Environmental Protection Administration) & SPC
(State Planning Committee of China), 1994. China Action
Plan for Environmental Protection 1991–2000. China
Environmental Sciences Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Steinborn, W., Svirezhev, Y., 2000. Entropy as an indicator of
sustainability in agro-ecosystems: North Germany case
study. Ecol. Modell. 133, 247–257.
Swart, R., Raskin, P., Robinson, J., Kates, R., Clark, W.C., 2002.
Critical challenges for sustainability science. Science 297,
1994–1995.
Turner, P., Tschirhart, J., 1999. Green accounting and the
welfare gap. Ecol. Econ. 30, 161–175.
UNCSD (United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development), 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development:
Framework and Methodologies, http://www.un.org/esa/csd9.
UNDP, 1998. Global Human Development Report 1998. Oxford
University Press, New York.
UNDP, 1990. Human Development Report 1990. Oxford
University Press, New York.
UNDP (The United Nations Development Programme), ENEP
(the United Nations Environment Programme), WB (the
World Bank), WRI (World Resources Institute), 2002. World
Resources 2000–2001—People and Ecosystems,
http://wri.igc.org/wr2002/.
Wall, G., Gong, M., 2001. On exergy and sustainable
development—Part 1: conditions and concepts. Exergy Int. J.
1 (3), 128–145.
Wefering, F.M., Danielson, L.E., White, N.M., 2005. Using the
AMOEBA approach to measure progress toward ecosystem
sustainability within a shellfish restoration project in North
Carolina. Ecol. Modell. 187, 361–368.