Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia: Understanding and Evaluating Urban Sustainable Trends in China and Japan (Urban Sustainability) 9819970148, 9789819970148

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
Acronyms
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
1.1 Background of Research
1.2 Objectives and Academic Inquiries
1.3 Adopted Methodologies
1.4 Structure of the Book
References
2 Review of Literature
2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability
2.1.1 Historical Background
2.1.2 Sustainable Urban Categories and Trends
2.1.3 From Garden City to Eco-Village
2.1.4 Eco-Cities
2.1.5 Low-Carbon Cities
2.1.6 Smart Cities
2.2 Prominent Urban Theories
2.3 Urban Sustainability Evaluation
References
3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective and Comparaison
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Eco-City Origin and Concepts
3.1.2 Definitions of Eco-City
3.2 Development of the Eco-City
3.2.1 Eco-City Development
3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China
3.3.1 Eco-City Framework in China
3.3.2 The Eco-Cities Indicator Systems in China
3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases
3.4.1 Selection of Case Study Cities
3.4.2 Data Collections
3.4.3 Comparison Criteria and Applied Method
3.5 Eco-City Comparison Between China and Japan
3.5.1 Economic Aspect
3.5.2 Environmental Aspect
3.5.3 Social Aspect
3.6 Conclusion and Discussion
References
4 Low-Carbon City Development in China: Lessons and References From Other Countires
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Development of China’s Major National Urban Policies
4.2.1 International Background
4.2.2 China’s Low-Carbon Urban Policy Developments
4.3 China’s Low-Carbon Era
4.4 Lessons and Implications from Other Countries
4.4.1 Case Study of Japan: Kitakyushu Eco-Town Project
4.4.2 Case Study of Germany: Rhein-Hunsrück District—Renewable Energy
4.5 Conclusion
References
5 Understanding Smart-City Developments: A New Framework and Its Application in Japan
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Smart City: A Global Background
5.1.2 Smart City in Japan
5.1.3 Smart City in China
5.2 Smart City: Their Origin, Concept and Indicators
5.2.1 Smart City Origins
5.2.2 Smart City Concepts
5.3 Smart City Indicator Systems
5.4 Proposed Smart City Framework Based on the Literature Review
5.5 Smart City Evaluation in Japan: Framework Application in Kitakyushu
5.5.1 Selection of Case Study: The City of Kitakyushu
5.5.2 Proposed Smart City Index for Kitakyushu City
5.6 Conclusion and Discussion
References
6 New Evaluation Approach for Sustainable Cities: From Smart City Concept to Indicator Weighting
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Weighting of Indicators by AHP
6.3 Methodology
6.3.1 A Smart City Conceptual Framework
6.3.2 Smart City Index (Indicator Selection)
6.4 Weighting of Smart City Indicators (Using AHP)
6.5 Survey Results and Discussion
6.6 Conclusion and Discussions
References
7 Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Research Findings and Contributions
7.2.1 Research Findings
7.2.2 Research Contributions
7.3 Limitations
7.4 Future Research Perspectives
Appendix
Bibliography

Citation preview

Urban Sustainability

Xiaolong Zou

Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia Understanding and Evaluating Urban Sustainable Trends in China and Japan

Urban Sustainability Editor-in-Chief Ali Cheshmehzangi , Qingdao City University, Qingdao, Shandong, China

The Urban Sustainability Book Series is a valuable resource for sustainability and urban-related education and research. It offers an inter-disciplinary platform covering all four areas of practice, policy, education, research, and their nexus. The publications in this series are related to critical areas of sustainability, urban studies, planning, and urban geography. This book series aims to put together cutting-edge research findings linked to the overarching field of urban sustainability. The scope and nature of the topic are broad and interdisciplinary and bring together various associated disciplines from sustainable development, environmental sciences, urbanism, etc. With many advanced research findings in the field, there is a need to put together various discussions and contributions on specific sustainability fields, covering a good range of topics on sustainable development, sustainable urbanism, and urban sustainability. Despite the broad range of issues, we note the importance of practical and policyoriented directions, extending the literature and directions and pathways towards achieving urban sustainability. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, governmental authorities, policymakers, researchers of all levels, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of urban sustainability and its associated fields. The series includes monographs and edited volumes, covering a range of topics under the urban sustainability topic, which can also be used for teaching materials.

Xiaolong Zou

Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia Understanding and Evaluating Urban Sustainable Trends in China and Japan

Xiaolong Zou School of International & Public Affairs, Institute of National Development & Security Studies Jilin University Changchun, China

ISSN 2731-6483 ISSN 2731-6491 (electronic) Urban Sustainability ISBN 978-981-99-7014-8 ISBN 978-981-99-7015-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7015-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

In loving memory of my father, the late Mr. ZOU Bing.

Preface

The year 1987 marked a turning point in international consensus on sustainable development with the release of the Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future,” followed by the successful Rio Earth Summit in 1992. This marked the emergence of “sustainability” as a new paradigm for development. Subsequently, the development of “eco-cities” gained momentum, becoming an international phenomenon aimed at creating more sustainable urban areas. The negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 further supported the global wave of “low-carbon cities” development. Additionally, the early 2000s witnessed the rise of “smart cities,” an innovation-oriented sustainable urban trend driven by information and communication technologies. Despite the enthusiastic advancement of these new urban models worldwide, there remains a lack of consensus regarding systematic approaches or methods for their standardization and evaluation. This book sets out to investigate and examine three global trends of sustainable cities, focusing on case studies from China and Japan, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. The objective is to understand the defining features and components of these trends and to propose a methodical approach for evaluating these urban development models, one that is flexible in relation to local inputs and applicable to similar urban initiatives or projects. In the context of “eco-cities,” this book reviews studies related to concepts, frameworks, and indicator systems. While a considerable amount of literature exists on indicator selection under a singular framework in China, there is a lack of comprehensive comparisons from a broader scope. To provide a quantitative sense of China’s eco-cities’ effectiveness compared to international best practices, I present cases from China and Japan and examine their indicator values under China’s national eco-city framework. The analysis reveals disparities in economic, energy-related, and environmental indicator values, suggesting room for improvement in China’s eco-cities. It also identifies specific methodological approaches for measuring social indicators in China. Based on the findings, the discussion section offers suggestions to serve as a reference for the future development of other eco-cities. For the section on “low-carbon cities,” a qualitative approach is employed, tracing the evolution of environment-related urban environmental policies in China, from vii

viii

Preface

“garden cities” to “low-carbon cities.” Case studies of leading low-carbon cities are analyzed to gain insights into their policies, successes, and limitations. The findings indicate that government policy and financial support played significant roles in transforming Kitakyushu, Japan, into a center of low-carbon sustainable practices. The experiences from Kitakyushu can provide valuable references for China’s lowcarbon city development from various perspectives. The following section comprehensively reviews the literature on “smart city” phenomena. While lacking universal consensus, two major streams of smart city concepts are identified, with overarching strategies for comprehensive development and specific focuses on utilizing information and communication technologies to improve the quality of life. Key features and components of smart cities are summarized and consolidated into a proposed framework consisting of two main objectives, six domains, and two means for implementation. Additionally, we present a customized smart city index for Kitakyushu City in Japan as a case example for applying the proposed framework. The outcomes offer new approaches to understand smart city concepts and evaluate ongoing smart city initiatives in Japan and potentially other countries. Building upon the previous section, a refined selection of indicators from the proposed smart city index is conducted, weighted by expert opinion surveys using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. This weighted smart city index can be instrumental in prioritizing policy implementation or selecting key performance indicators (KPIs). Most importantly, the integrated approach, consisting of three main steps from conceptual understanding to index development and indicator weighting, can be customized and potentially applied to other urban development models in diverse local settings. This finding contributes to a more insightful understanding of sustainable urban projects and their evaluations, benefiting policy-makers, urban planners, and city managers. The findings and outcomes of this work make valuable contributions to the existing literature on urban sustainability, offering elaborate studies on “Eco-city,” “Lowcarbon City,” and “Smart City” in terms of comprehension and evaluation. The conceptualized integrated method for urban development evaluation provides practical references for policy-makers, urban managers, and academia, fostering further research in this field. I hope this book will serve as a valuable resource for readers seeking to delve deeper into the complexities of sustainable urban development, and I express my gratitude to all the contributors and researchers involved in this collaborative effort. Changchun, China

Xiaolong Zou

Acknowledgements

This book has evolved from the foundation laid during my doctoral dissertation project while studying at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) in Japan. Subsequently, as a faculty member at the School of International & Public Affairs (SIPA) at Jilin University in China, this book project was flourished and found its final form, ultimately being published by Springer. Numerous individuals and institutions deserve my sincere appreciation and gratitude. Without their help, encouragement, and contributions, this book could never reach its culmination. Firstly, I extend my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Yan Li, whose ongoing mentorship continues to benefit me to this day. I am grateful to my colleagues from these two esteemed institutions and beyond: Dr. WANG Liguo, Ms. XIA Xiaoai, Dr. ZHAO Ruixi, Prof. Tsukada Shunzo, Prof. Suzuki Yashushi, Prof. Yamashita Hiromi, and many kind friends I had the privilege of knowing during my time at APU. I am also indebted to Prof. Wang Qiubin, Prof. Wang Wenqi, Dr. Ren Mu, Dr. Chen Xi, Prof. Fu Yuhong, Prof. Wu Yanfei, Dr. Cui Yue, Ms. Zhang Shuyan, Prof. Xiao Xi, Mr. Yang Min and my other dear colleagues in SIPA and partner institutions in China. Special gratitude is reserved for my colleagues at the Institute for Applied Material Flow Management (IfaS), Trier University of Applied Sciences in Germany, and IMAT project and its alumni networks. I specifically acknowledge Prof. Peter Heck. Dr. Michael Knaus, Dr. LU Huyan, and Dr. YAN Jiong for their invaluable and continuous help and support, as their guidance has significantly shaped my journey thus far. My sincere appreciation goes to the editorial team that transformed my thoughts into tangible forms: Editor Lydia/Lei Wang, Editor Nobuko Hirota, Editor Praveen Kumar Boominathan, as well as Kowsalya Raghunathan. Furthermore, I must acknowledge the funding entities that enabled the successful completion of the research projects underlying this book. These include the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (Grant Number: 20YJCZH255); Jilin Province Social Sciences Project “SKZ2023085”; Global Energy & Climate Governance Teaching and Research Platform Project of Jilin University (TS2023017);

ix

x

Acknowledgements

National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS), South Africa (Grant Number: BRI22/1215); Jilin Province Social Sciences Project “SKZ2023085”. Lastly, my heartfelt gratitude extends to my wife LIU Zhanyan, my mother CONG Rong, my cousins CONG Jiaquan and JIANG Ziqi, my mother-in-low BIAN Yongjie, and finally my precious baby daughter ZOU Yunan. Their unwavering support and understanding have undoubtedly accelerated the completion of this book.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Objectives and Academic Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Adopted Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 4 5 6

2 Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Sustainable Urban Categories and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 From Garden City to Eco-Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Eco-Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Low-Carbon Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Smart Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Prominent Urban Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Urban Sustainability Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 7 7 8 10 11 14 16 17 18 21

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective and Comparaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Eco-City Origin and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Definitions of Eco-City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Development of the Eco-City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Eco-City Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Eco-City Framework in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Eco-Cities Indicator Systems in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Selection of Case Study Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Data Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 25 26 27 27 30 31 34 39 42 43 xi

xii

Contents

3.4.3 Comparison Criteria and Applied Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Eco-City Comparison Between China and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Economic Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Environmental Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Social Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Low-Carbon City Development in China: Lessons and References From Other Countires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Development of China’s Major National Urban Policies . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 International Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 China’s Low-Carbon Urban Policy Developments . . . . . . . . 4.3 China’s Low-Carbon Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Lessons and Implications from Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Case Study of Japan: Kitakyushu Eco-Town Project . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Case Study of Germany: Rhein-Hunsrück District—Renewable Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Understanding Smart-City Developments: A New Framework and Its Application in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Smart City: A Global Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Smart City in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Smart City in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Smart City: Their Origin, Concept and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Smart City Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Smart City Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Smart City Indicator Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Proposed Smart City Framework Based on the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Smart City Evaluation in Japan: Framework Application in Kitakyushu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Selection of Case Study: The City of Kitakyushu . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Proposed Smart City Index for Kitakyushu City . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Conclusion and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 New Evaluation Approach for Sustainable Cities: From Smart City Concept to Indicator Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Weighting of Indicators by AHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 44 44 46 50 51 52 55 55 57 57 57 58 61 61 66 68 69 73 73 73 75 75 76 76 77 80 83 84 84 86 89 89 93 94 95 95

Contents

xiii

6.3.1 A Smart City Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Smart City Index (Indicator Selection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Weighting of Smart City Indicators (Using AHP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Survey Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Conclusion and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 98 101 105 108 110

7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Research Findings and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Research Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Future Research Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 113 114 114 116 117 118

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Acronyms

ACEF AHP BOD CAS CO COD CR EIU EU EV GCR GDP GHG ICE ICT IGES ISO KPI MAB MAUT MEP METI MHURD MoC NAIADE NDRC NGO NO2 NPO OECD P

ACEF Analytical Hierarchy Process Biochemical Oxygen Demand Chinese Academy of Sciences Carbon Monoxide Chemical Oxygen Demand Consistency Ratio Economist Intelligence Union European Union Electric Vehicles Group Consensus Ratio Gross Domestic Product Green House Gases International Electronic Commission Information and Communication Technologies Institute for Global Environmental Strategies International Organization for Standardization Key Performance Indicators Man and Biosphere Multi-attribute utility theory Ministry of Environment Protection Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry of Housing, Urban-Rural Development Ministry of Construction Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment & Decision Environment National Development and Reform Committee Non-Governmental Organization Nitrogen Dioxide Non-for-Profit Organization Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Prosperous xv

xvi

PM10 PM2.5 PPM QoL RGMM SC SEG SO2 UN UNEP UNESCO

Acronyms

Particulate Matter of 10 Microns in diameter or smaller Particulate Matter of 2.5 Microns in diameter or smaller Parts Per Million Quality of Life Raw Geometric Mean Method Smart City System Evaluation Group Sulfur Dioxide United Nations United Nations Environmental Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2

Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7 Fig. 4.8 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5

Chronological development of eco-city. Illustrated by the author based on [14] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual perspectives of eco-city development. Illustrated by the author based on [14] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eco-cities framework development in China. Complied by the author based on governmental websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numbers of indicators by major category. Source [17, 18] . . . . . . China’s major national sustainable urban policies. Source Gov. Sites; [23, 24] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chinese cities expressing the goals to pursue or adopt eco-city or low-carbon city development goals or plans. Source [23] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Yawata steel works at present. Source Taken by the author in May, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Seven Color Smoke” and “Dokai Bay” in the past. Source Pictures taken by the author in May, 2014, at local museum . . . . . Kitakyushu in its past and presence. Source [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Components of Kitakyushu’s eco-town project . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual developments for Rhein—Hunsrück district’s urban policies. Source [31] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable applications in Rhein—Hunsrück wind-and solar pictures. Source [31] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A conceptual framework of smart cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated approach for SC concept framework, its SC index and weighting of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analytical frameworks for smart city concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual framework for Smart City proposed by the author . . . A general AHP hierarchy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Customized AHP hierarchy structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 29 37 58

60 62 63 64 65 66 68 84 96 98 99 102 102

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table A.1 Table A.2

Number of urban categories appeared in scopus database search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National policies of sustainable city development in China & Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of sustainability evaluation categories and indicies . . . . . . List of entitled cities of different standards by July 2011 . . . . . Major indicator systems in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories covered in indicator systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of reviewed indicator systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary and secondary categories of chinese indicator systems and international indicator systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of economic indicators for ‘Eco-Cities’ . . . . . . . . Comparisons of environmental indicators for ‘Eco-Cities’ . . . . Selected indicators for air quality comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected indicators for water quality comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of social indicators for ‘eco-cities’ . . . . . . . . . . . . Concepts or definitions of smart city reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digest of smart city indicator systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected information of Kitakyushu City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed smart city indicator system of Kitakyushu City . . . . . Modifed SC index for Kitakyushu city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanations of AHP scale intensities in survey . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city people & urban living . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city infrasctructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city energy & mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighting for smart city environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smart city index weighting inputs breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert survey questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 19 32 35 36 38 40 45 47 49 50 51 77 81 85 88 100 103 105 105 106 106 106 107 121 124

xix

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background of Research Twenty-five centuries ago, the great philosopher Aristotle defined cities as “Built Politics.” In the twenty-first century, cities have evolved into complex and dynamic ecosystems, serving as hubs for scientific, cultural, and social innovations [1, 2]. However, these urban centers continue to face ever-changing and challenging dynamics driven by human activities [3]. Throughout recorded history, human civilization has witnessed the simultaneous processes of globalization and urbanization [4]. According to the United Nations (UN), the global population reached 7.2 billion in 2013 and is projected to reach 8.1 billion by 2025, and 9.6 billion by 2050. More than half of the global population (53% as of 2015) resides in urban areas, and the urbanization rate is expected to rise to 59.9% by 2030 and 67.2% by 2050 [5]. Notably, urbanization rates vary across continents, with the highest rates in North America (81%), Latin America, and the Caribbean (80%), Europe (73%), and Oceania (70%), while Asia and Africa still have urbanization rates below the world average, at 47% and 40% respectively [5]. Despite the prosperity brought about by rapid urbanization, it has also led to detrimental side effects for human societies, such as resource scarcity, energy crises, ecoenvironmental hazards, climate change-related disasters, slums, poverty, pandemics, and more. Developing countries in Asia and Africa, in particular, are grappling with severe urban environmental pollution, posing significant threats to human health. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) estimated that urban air pollution causes one million premature deaths annually and costs 2% of the GDP in developed countries and 5% in developing countries ([6], p. 2). Centuries before the formulation of modern environmental urban policies, visionaries like Ebenezer Howard (1850–1982) advocated for a new and harmonious relationship between humans and nature through the concept of the “Garden City” [7]. As global consensus gradually recognized that traditional development approaches

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Zou, Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia, Urban Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7015-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

could no longer ensure long-term human prosperity, a new paradigm for development was sought, particularly in the urban context. The emergence of “New Towns” in the UK post-World War II spread worldwide and influenced modernist urban planning doctrines. The Ecological Modernization (EM) theory later developed as a macro-theoretical model, emphasizing the importance of sustainable development. Concepts such as “Regenerative Development” and “Positive Development” proposed alternative approaches to tackle complex social, ecological, and physical challenges in the urban sphere [8]. In the 1970s and 1980s, two pivotal publications accelerated the global awareness of “sustainable development” or “sustainability”: the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” [9] and the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” [10]. While the former revisited historical arguments made by Thomas Malthus in a modern context, highlighting population growth and ecological limitations on agricultural products, the latter introduced the concept of “sustainable development,” igniting discussions among global leaders [11]. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 further solidified “sustainable development” as a core principle for urban and environmental development. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent international conventions promoted “low-carbon” as the new norm for sustainable development. Consequently, urban development trends such as “Green City,” “Eco-City,” “Low-carbon City,” and most recently, the “Smart City” emerged under the information era. Presently, numerous sustainable city projects, initiatives, and programs have been developed and pursued globally. These endeavors vary in geographical features, socio-demographic contexts, and implementation scales. On one hand, various organizations, institutes, and scholars have made significant efforts in developing concepts, frameworks, or indicator systems (indexes) under these urban trends. On the other hand, a universally accepted framework applicable to all conditions remains elusive. Urban theory highlights the diversity of cities in terms of shapes, sizes, and forms, reflecting their distinctive cultural and historical backgrounds. Consequently, urban development must be contextualized and adapted to the local setting. While a universally applicable sustainable urban framework may be challenging, a flexible and customizable method or approach tailored to local conditions would likely benefit project developers and stakeholders. This work aims to comprehensively examine three recent urban development trends in East Asia: “Eco-Cities,” “Low-Carbon Cities,” and “Smart Cities.” China and Japan have been selected as the two major case study areas, supplemented by international references, to enhance our understanding of these urban trends in terms of concepts, frameworks, and evaluation methods, including indicator systems or indexes. The research will culminate in the proposal of a highly customizable approach grounded in local context, addressing the existing research gap in understanding and evaluating urban trends. This endeavor aims to provide meaningful and practical methodologies for urban studies.

1.2 Objectives and Academic Inquiries

3

1.2 Objectives and Academic Inquiries The primary objectives of this work extend beyond merely addressing academic inquiries; it aims to distill or propose a customizable and pragmatic method or approach for understanding urban development trends and evaluating them effectively. The outcomes of this research will provide insightful references to translate urban policy goals and objectives into actionable plans that align with specific local conditions. This book revolves around two overarching research questions derived from the ongoing quest for urban sustainability, focusing on the following: How can sustainable urban development trends, such as “eco-cities,” “low-carbon cities,” and “smart cities,” be comprehended and contextualized within specific local contexts? What is the appropriate methodological approach to analyze and evaluate these sustainable urban trends, considering both local and regional inputs? To address these major academic inquiries, a set of subsidiary questions has been developed for each of the selected urban sustainable trends examined in this thesis. These trends can be categorized into two parts based on their chronological occurrence and relevance. The first part delves into the topics of “eco-cities” and “lowcarbon cities,” while the second part focuses on “smart cities” and the “evaluation scheme or method.” The following arrangement of questions has been incorporated into each chapter to guide the research flow: Regarding “Eco-cities”: ● What are the origins, concepts, frameworks, and indicator systems associated with “eco-cities”? What is the current status of eco-city development in China and Japan? ● With numerous studies on eco-cities, how do China’s eco-cities perform in comparison to other global best practices? Regarding “Low-carbon Cities”: ● What constitutes “low-carbon cities,” and what is their current development status worldwide? What is the current status quo of developing low-carbon cities in China, with reference to international examples? ● What implications or references can be drawn from international examples for China’s low-carbon city development? Regarding “Smart Cities”: ● Given that “smart cities” are still in their infancy as the newest global trend for urban development, what is their current status quo? ● Considering the diverse interpretations of smart cities, are there any common features or mutual frameworks that they should incorporate for better comprehension? Regarding “Evaluation Scheme or Methods”:

4

1 Introduction

● What are the existing evaluation systems for smart cities, and how are they currently assessed? ● What could be effective methods or mechanisms for smart city indices or indicator systems to evaluate smart cities or other sustainable urban development effectively? By addressing these questions and examining each trend in detail within its corresponding chapter, this book strives to provide a comprehensive understanding of urban sustainable development trends and offer valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to advance sustainable urbanization.

1.3 Adopted Methodologies In this book, I present the methodologies employed in the four major research packages covered in Chaps. 3 to 6. While detailed step-by-step descriptions can be found in each respective chapter, I will provide a general overview of the major methodological approaches adopted: Chapter 3 focuses on eco-cities and entails systematic reviews of their definitions, frameworks, indicators, and related research both internationally and within China. To facilitate a quantitative analysis, I compare and contrast China’s eco-city standards with a best-practiced case study from Japan, quantifying their performances for later policy analysis and recommendations. The data used for these comparisons are primarily sourced from governmental records, official statistics, and occasionally supplemented with insights from interviews to obtain specific information or data not readily available in published records. Chapter 4 delves into low-carbon cities and their development status, with a particular focus on China and Japan. A German city is also included for comparison. Unlike the previous chapter, a qualitative approach is adopted to address my research questions. I conduct field trips and in-person interviews for data collection and case study analysis. Based on these insights, a series of policy recommendations is proposed regarding low-carbon city development in China. Secondary data is also utilized when primary data is not available for analysis. Chapters 5 and 6 utilize an integrated approach combining both qualitative and quantitative methods. The exploration begins with a comprehensive review of smart city concepts and frameworks, followed by the application of a policy analytical pool to analyze these concepts. Based on the results, an encompassing conceptual framework is proposed and applied to a case study in Japan. Next, I devise an index with carefully designed indicator identification and selection steps, resulting in a comprehensive index for smart city evolutions. An expert survey is then conducted to quantitatively weigh the indicators. The combined approaches and steps culminate in an integrated method for evaluating sustainable urban development models.

1.4 Structure of the Book

5

Throughout the research, all literature and data are sourced from reputable peerreviewed publications and published governmental or organizational records to maintain high credibility. Primary data for indicator selections are collected through workshops involving local stakeholders in Kitakyushu City. The weighting of indicators is calculated based on the results from the expert survey. In conclusion, this book presents a rigorous and well-rounded methodological approach that encompasses both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore and analyze various aspects of sustainable urban development. The use of multiple data sources and a diverse range of methodologies ensures the reliability and depth of the research findings, providing valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and urban planners.

1.4 Structure of the Book The remaining parts of this work are organized and summarized as follows: Chapter 2: Review of Urban Studies and Concepts Chapter 2 provides an extensive review of major works, theories, and thoughts related to urban studies in general. It also delves into the concepts and development of eco-cities, low-carbon cities, and smart cities. This chapter offers comprehensive insights into the theoretical foundations and current practices related to the topics explored in this thesis. Chapter 3: Urban Policy Frameworks in China Chapter 3 investigates the urban policy frameworks and current practices in China’s major cities, drawing comparisons between past and present standards of Chinese eco-cities at both national and provincial levels. In addition, this chapter analyzes the eco-city standards of the Suzhou Case in China and the internationally recognized Japanese eco-city of Kitakyushu, examining key indicators from selected eco-city case studies. Chapter 4: Low-Carbon Cities in China and Abroad Chapter 4 focuses on lowcarbon cities in China, reviewing relevant policies and practices. The chapter includes in-depth case studies of Kitakyushu city in Japan and Rhein-Hunsrück District in Germany to draw enlightening factors from their urban policies, successes, and limitations. These experiences offer valuable insights for China’s low-carbon urban development from diverse perspectives. Chapter 5: The Conceptual Framework for Smart Cities Chapter 5 presents a comprehensive summary of the key features and components of smart cities. It proposes a conclusive framework for smart cities, encompassing double objectives, six domains, and two means for realization. The chapter also introduces a customized indicator system based on the proposed smart city framework for assessing the “smartness” of smart cities in Japan, featuring a case study of the city of Kitakyushu. This chapter provides new insights into methodological approaches for evaluating ongoing smart city initiatives in Japan.

6

1 Introduction

Chapter 6: Refinement of the Smart City Framework Chapter 6 further enhances the proposed smart city conceptual framework introduced in Chap. 5. Based on input from stakeholders in the City of Kitakyushu, the selection of smart city indices has been refined. The chapter includes revisions and modifications to the proposed SC Index, incorporating expert surveys using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for indicator weighting. The outcome is an integrated approach that proves highly customizable and adaptable for potential applications to other urban development models in different contexts, for both framework development and index composition. Chapter 7: Summary and Future Perspectives Chapter 7 provides a comprehensive summary of the major findings from the thesis. It highlights the contributions and significance of the research outcomes while acknowledging the limitations of each topic explored. Further discussions are presented, and potential perspectives and directions for future research are pointed out.

References 1. Glaeser EL (2011) Tirumph of the city. Macmillan, London 2. Hall P (1998) Cities in civilization. Pantheon, New York 3. Mega V, Pedersen J (1998) Urban sustainability indicators. Dublin, Ireland: European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions 4. Calderoni L, Maio D, Palmieri P (2012) Location-aware mobile services for a smart city: desing, implementation and deployment. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 7(3):15–16 5. United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. UN website: department of economic and social affairs, population division 6. Fook LL, Gang C (2010) Towards eco-cities in East Asia. In: Fook LL, Gang C (Eds), Towards a livable and sustainable urban environment: eco-cities in East Asia, pp 219. Singapore: World Scientifc Publishing 7. Imura H (2010) Eco-cities: re-examining concepts and approaches. In: Liang FL, Gang C (Eds), Towards a livable and sustainable urban environment: eco-cities in East Asia: World Scientific Publishing Company 8. Bo˘gaçhan B (2016) Toward a theory of successful eco-town development: an integrative approach to characterizing and applying key ‘success factors’. Erasums University Rotterdam, Nederlands. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/80098 9. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Rangers J, Behrens WW (1972) Limits to growth. A report to the club of Rome. New York 10. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. New York 11. Holden M, Roseland M, Ferguson K, Perl A (2008) Seeking urban sustainability on the world stage. Habitat Int 32(3):305–317

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

This chapter1 provides an overview of prominent urban theories that form the foundational frameworks in the field of urban studies. It delves into major definitions, concepts, historical developments, and influential studies across various topics, ranging from Garden City to Eco-Village, Eco-City, Low-carbon City, and Smart City. In subsequent chapters, more specific and comprehensive literature reviews will be conducted to supplement the discussions.

2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability 2.1.1 Historical Background Throughout history, various factors such as religion, politics, and industrialization have driven urban development and city formations. The industrialization-led economic growth during the early 1800s accelerated population growth, transforming societies from agricultural to urban [1]. Consequently, over the past two centuries, the number of cities and their sizes have incrementally increased, dramatically altering the urban landscape [1]. Early in the 1790s, the Malthusian theory of “environmental limits” predicted a decrease in human population due to increasing food scarcity [2]. However, the reality today shows a deteriorating ecosystem [3] and a continuously growing population [4]. Moreover, cities’ human-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are estimated to contribute up to 70% of the total GHG emissions [5]. This necessitates new urban development paradigms and innovative models.

1

Some of the contents regarding eco-villages and low-carbon cities from this chapter have been published as two book review articles in the journal Asia Pacific World [31, 65].

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Zou, Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia, Urban Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7015-5_2

7

8

2 Review of Literature

The discussions surrounding sustainability or sustainable development (SD) emerged in the 1960s, advocating for comprehensive systemic changes [6]. Grassroots movements in some regions, even since the early 1950s, contributed to an awakening of environmental consciousness. For instance, Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” in 1962 became a representative piece of its time. The United Nations Conference on Human and Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm in 1972 laid the groundwork for international consensus building on the interplay between environment and development [7]. The subsequent publication of the Brundtland Report [8] depicted the major challenges facing mankind and called for changes towards sustainable development or sustainability. Despite the conceptual limitations of the SD concept [9], it became one of the most influential discourses, advocating for all-encompassing institutional changes at both national and local levels [7]. The SD concept aimed to address a full spectrum of social, economic, and environmental issues with a long-term perspective for growth [10]. Since the 1980s, the concept of ecological modernization (EM) emerged as a complementary discourse to SD, with a specific focus on economic and ecological dimensions in societal development [11]. While SD encompasses broader and more comprehensive aspects, EM targets certain pressing issues within the framework of sustainable development [11]. As a result, various sustainable urban development models have emerged over the following decades, often overlapping with each other while addressing diverse goals, objectives, dimensions, and themes, using various implementation methods in different regions of the world.

2.1.2 Sustainable Urban Categories and Trends Over the past few decades, a multitude of proposed sustainable city models, titles, and urban development categories have emerged. These initiatives and programs vary in sizes, scales, and locations, operating under diverse geo-political and socio-cultural settings. However, policy makers, city planners, and developers often use these categories interchangeably, lacking clear distinctions of their conceptual perspectives [1]. To establish a standard typology, we refer to these categories collectively as sustainable urban models or categories, which together form sustainable urban “trends.” Jong et al. [12] have extensively reviewed some of these urban categories, including “sustainable cities,” “green cities,” “livable cities,” “digital cities,” “intelligent cities,” “smart cities,” “knowledge cities,” “information cities,” “resilient cities,” “eco cities,” “low carbon cities,” and even combinations like “low carbon eco cities” and “ubiquitous eco cities,” among others. While each term appears to address specific core aspects of urban transformation towards sustainability, a closer examination reveals overlapping concepts and blurry definitions. The authors systematically analyzed a total of 1430 academic articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases between 1996 to 2013, investigating the emerging city categories and their occurrence frequencies (refer to Table 2.1). They found

2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability Table 2.1 Number of urban categories appeared in scopus database search

9

Number of articles

Category Sustainable city

546

Smart city

222

Digital city

166

Eco city

133

Green

105

Low carbon city

93

Knowledge city

82

Resilient city

47

Intelligent city

33

Ubiquitous city

29

Livable city

26

Information city

23

Source [12]

that twelve city categories hold varying levels of significance in the literature, with “sustainable city” being the most commonly studied category, followed by “Eco city,” “Smart City,” and “Low carbon city,” among others [12]. Notably, conceptually distinctive identities of city categories emerged with overlaps or cross-fertilizations during different periods. Taking a regional-specific perspective on East Asia, both China and Japan have introduced national policies regarding sustainable city development at a macro-level. These countries have witnessed three major trends: Eco (Garden) City, Low-carbon City, and Smart City in China; and Eco-town, Low-carbon Society, and Smart City in Japan. These trends have been promoted under the auspices of different governmental entities (refer to Table 2.2). In light of the reviewed concepts related to city models, urban categories, and regional policies for sustainable urban development, it becomes evident that the notion of a “sustainable city” encompasses a diverse range of city models and urban Table 2.2 National policies of sustainable city development in China & Japan “Sustainable City” policy in China

“Sustainable City” policy in Japan

Development policy

Governmental entity

Development policy

Governmental entity

Eco-city

MoHORD

Eco-Town

METI & MoE

Low-carbon city

NDRC

Low-carbon society

MoE

Smart city

MoHORD

Smart City

METI

Source Compiled by the author based on official government websites Note MHURD stands for Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development in China NDRC stands for National Development and Reform Commission in China METI stands for Ministry of Economy, Trades and Industry in Japan MoE Stands for Ministry of Environment in Japan

10

2 Review of Literature

categories, each tackling distinct or sometimes overlapping aspects of urban development with a focus on sustainability. Along the trajectory of urban development, three prominent sustainable urban trends have emerged in the East Japan context, particularly in China and Japan. These trends are known as “eco cities,” “low-carbon cities,” and “smart cities.” The concept of “eco cities” revolves around creating urban environments that prioritize ecological balance, resource efficiency, and environmental protection. These cities aim to minimize their ecological footprint while promoting biodiversity and green spaces to enhance the overall well-being of their inhabitants. On the other hand, “low-carbon cities” concentrate on reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change impacts through sustainable urban planning, energyefficient infrastructure, and the integration of renewable energy sources. The focus is on creating a resilient urban environment that contributes to global efforts in combating climate change. “Smart cities” leverage advanced technologies, data analytics, and information systems to enhance urban services, improve resource management, and optimize urban processes. These cities prioritize data-driven decision-making, sustainable mobility, and improved citizen engagement to create more efficient and livable urban spaces. In the East Japan context, especially in China and Japan, these three sustainable urban trends have gained significant traction as solutions to address the complex challenges of urbanization and environmental degradation. However, it is essential to acknowledge that these trends are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary in their efforts towards achieving urban sustainability. It is noteworthy that the realization of sustainable cities demands a holistic and integrated approach, incorporating the principles of eco cities, low-carbon cities, and smart cities, tailored to the unique context and needs of each urban area. As urbanization continues to shape the future, further research and policy measures are essential to advance sustainable urban development and ensure the well-being of present and future generations.

2.1.3 From Garden City to Eco-Village In the 1890s, Sir Ebenezer [13] pioneered the “garden city” concept in his influential book, “To-morrow: a Peaceful Path to Real Reform.” His vision aimed to create planned and self-contained communities known as garden cities. These cities would be surrounded by greenbelts and thoughtfully balanced with residential areas, industries, and agriculture ([14], p. 2). At that time, England was experiencing rapid economic development, leading to urban concentration, worsening air pollution, and declining water quality in the Thames and other rivers. The living conditions of the working class in expanding slums were deplorable ([15], p. 21). Howard’s idea was to establish small settlements, separate from large cities like London, where employment and housing would be closely clustered. These smaller

2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability

11

cities would be enveloped by parks and green spaces. His emphasis on a permanent girdle of open and agricultural land around the town became a crucial part of British planning doctrine, approaching dogma ([14], p. 2). The Garden City concept laid the foundation for modern urban planning and environmental policies and gave rise to later sustainable urban models such as green cities and eco-cities. On the other hand, rural sustainable development witnessed the rise of eco-villages or eco-communities, the rural counterparts of their urban twin—Eco-cities. Litfin [16] provides an inspiring perspective on upscaling the principles from global ecovillages, examining the lessons that can be applied to our daily lives and translated into action. Based on her visits to various ecovillages and interactions with their inhabitants, Litfin identifies four pillars for achieving sustainability: ecology, economics, community, and consciousness. Each of these pillars is thoroughly explored, drawing from observations, dialogues, and interviews with members of ecovillages, offering enlightening insights, reflections, and occasional critiques. Litfin delves into various aspects of Eco-village life, including permaculture, building practices, energy use, water management, food systems, transportation, collaborative consumption, and wildlife conservation. While many of the ecovillage case studies are from Europe and the Americas, notable examples from Asia include Auroville in India, the Sarvodaya Eco-village in Sri Lanka, and Konohana County in Japan. These examples demonstrate that the “new norm” of sustainable living transcends the industrialized sphere and also finds roots in the Asia–Pacific regions, where a new era of global geopolitics and socioeconomics is unfolding. Efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of urbanization are not a recent phenomenon and are not confined to particular countries. Concepts such as “Garden City,” “New Town,” and “Techno-City” emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as significant representatives [17]. Subsequently, terms like “ClimateNeutral City,” “Low-Carbon City,” “Smart City,” and “Sustainable City” have emerged as sister concepts to the broader notion of urban sustainability. However, the concept of sustainable urbanism encompasses various notions and approaches, rather than a single, uniform phenomenon [18]. In summary, the transition from Garden City to Eco-village marks an essential journey in the evolution of urban and rural sustainable development. The lessons learned from both urban and rural contexts contribute to our understanding of sustainability and inspire transformative actions for a more harmonious and ecologically balanced future.

2.1.4 Eco-Cities Developing eco-cities has emerged as a pivotal approach to achieving sustainability in urban areas. The concept of eco-cities was initially introduced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the early 1970s through its Man and Biosphere (MAB) program. This program proposed an

12

2 Review of Literature

interdisciplinary research agenda and capacity building aimed at addressing ecological, social, and economic dimensions of biodiversity loss and its reduction. Since then, numerous scholars and experts from diverse domains have presented their own definitions and interpretations of what eco-cities should entail, including notable contributions from scholars like [19, 20]. The [21] defines eco-cities as urban environments that strive to minimize ecological footprints, reduce pollution, and enhance energy, material, and economic efficiencies. As the concept evolved, various theories for developing eco-cities under specific titles emerged throughout the eco-city development timeline, including terms like “green cities,” “garden cities,” “livable cities,” and “low-carbon cities.” Each of these approaches addresses specific aspects of sustainable urban development in line with their unique requirements. The term “urban sustainability” was originally coined by a visionary group of architects from the US known as “Urban Ecology.” Their mission was to employ urban planning, ecology, and public participation to design and construct healthier cities (urbanecology.org, 2013). However, it is now evident that their early definition of “urban sustainability” was rather limited, primarily focused on design and planning aspects. A more concrete concept of eco-cities emerged from the “urban ecology” group, proposing the idea of “reconstructing cities to be in balance with nature.” In 1990, they organized the first international Eco-city Conference in California, drawing over 800 attendees from 13 countries. The conference initiated intense debates on ecosystem preservation, transportation, environmental justice, and modern urban design. This event served as a wake-up call, leading to subsequent eco-city conferences worldwide. In recent years, the eco-city phenomenon has gained global prominence, largely due to the majority of the world’s population residing in cities and the increasing international recognition of the severity of climate change [22]. Despite the growing significance of eco-cities, there is still no universally standardized criteria for what an eco-city should entail. However, certain selection criteria have been widely acknowledged and accepted, encompassing perspectives related to the economy, society, environment, and ecology. To qualify as an eco-city, a settlement should ideally incorporate several of the following criteria [23, 24]: ● Operates on a self-contained economy, resources needed are found locally ● Has completely carbon-neutral and renewable energy production. ● Has a well-planned city layout and public transportation system that makes the priority methods of transportation as follows possible: walking first, then cycling, and then public transportation. ● Resource conservation—maximizing efficiency of water and energy resources, constructing a waste management system that can recycle waste and reuse it, creating a zero-waste system. ● Restores environmentally damaged urban areas ● Ensures decent and affordable housing for all socio-economic and ethnic groups and improve jobs opportunities for disadvantaged groups, such as women, minorities, and the disabled.

2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability

13

● Supports local agriculture and production ● Promotes voluntary simplicity in lifestyle choices, decreasing material consumption, and increasing awareness of environmental and sustainability issues. Besides the above mentioned criteria, in terms of city design, [25] points out that following principles should be embraced when defining an eco-city: ● The city must be sustainable over the long term ● The city must utilize a systems approach to evaluating its environmental interactions. ● The city design must be flexible enough to evolve gracefully as the city grows and changes. ● The open space of an eco-city must serve multiple functions. ● The city must be part of regional and global economies. ● The city must be attractive and workable. During the 1980s to early 1990s, the concept of “eco-city” remained largely idealistic, with only a few practical examples, until the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the subsequent sustainable development program known as Agenda 21. This milestone event marked the emergence of the first wave of practical eco-city initiatives, such as Curitiba (Brazil), Waitakere (New Zealand), and Schwabach (Germany), which were among the pioneering first-generation eco-cities worldwide [17, 22]. In addition to international efforts, Chinese scholars have offered their interpretations of eco-cities [26] proposes that an eco-city is “a process of delivering integrated social, economic, and environmental development. Achieving the eco-city vision involves transforming production patterns and lifestyles…” On a more comprehensive note, [27] interprets eco-cities as “urban centers that prioritize harmonious development with a focus on human well-being, coordination among social, economic, and ecological benefits, concerns for both the ‘E’s (environment and economy), innovation, and an overarching planning concept” ([28], p. 103). Drawing inspiration from the theory of the social-economic-natural complex ecosystem proposed by Ma and Wang (1984), Chinese scholars generally view eco-cities as stable, harmonious, and sustainable complex ecosystems, facilitating a “win–win” situation among social, economic, and environmental factors. They envision a seamless integration of technology and nature, maximizing human creativity, fostering continuous urban civilization improvement, and nurturing a clean and comfortable environment ([29], p. 5). Wang [30] articulates that eco-city construction entails a high-quality environmental protection system, an efficient operation system, a high-level management system, a well-developed greenbelt system, and a society characterized by high levels of environmental consciousness. Building upon the above insights, ([29], pp. 5–6) summarize the distinguishing characteristics of eco-cities into the following seven points: ● 1. Health and harmony: In an eco-city the human support system is healthy and sustainable so that it can provide enough and consistent eco-system services.

14

●

●

●

● ●

●

2 Review of Literature

Further, all economic, social and natural ecological order in the temporal and spatial dimensions. 2. High efficiency and vigor: The “high consumption,” “high emission,” “high pollution,” and “low productivity” development modes are altered into more environmentally friendly modes in an eco-city. For instance, energy and materials are used with high efficiency, all industries and departments cooperate within a harmonious relationship, and the productivity of the system is correspondingly high. 3. Low-carbon orientation: Faced with the ever-present threat of climate change, low-carbon development should also be emphasized. This can be exemplified by higher resource productivity (i.e., producing more with fewer natural resources and less pollution), as well as by developing leading-edge technologies, by creating new businesses and jobs, and by contributing to higher living standards (Department of Trade and Industry, 2003). 4. Sustaining prosperity: Regarding sustainable development as a basic guideline, resources will be reasonable located both spatially and temporally. In other words, the development of the current generation cannot jeopardize the development of the next generation. Thus, prosperity will be sustained in an eco-city. 5. High ecological civilization: In an eco-city, the concept of ecological civilization is displayed in and permeates all fields, including industrial production, human day-to-day activities, education, community construction, and social fashion. 6. Holism: Eco-cities do not emphasize the improvement of single factors (e.g., economic growth or a good environment) but pursue optimal holistic benefits by integrating social, economic and environment factors. Aside from economic development and environment protection, holism emphasizes the comprehensive improvement of human living standards. 7. Rationality: Urban development depends on regional foundations in terms of natural conditions, the supply of resources, and the environmental capacity. Thus, the optimal development mode of each city is different from all others due to these different regional characteristics.

After conducting an extensive review of major books on eco-city development in the global west, [14] put forward an innovative eco-city model specifically tailored to the Asian perspective. This model encompasses three essential elements addressing environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions, thereby contributing to the enrichment of the existing literature in this field.

2.1.5 Low-Carbon Cities The twenty-first century witnessed the emergence of a new global trend for sustainable urban development known as “Low-Carbon Cities.” ([15], p. 22–24) defines low-carbon cities as an evolved and integrated concept of “eco-cities,” aimed at redesigning and equipping cities to contribute to the realization of a “low-carbon

2.1 Urban Development Trends Towards Sustainability

15

society.” The philosophy underlying this concept emphasizes the role of cities in protecting the global environment by implementing sustainable practices. Given China’s crucial transformation towards sustainable development, numerous leading academic and industrial institutions have been seeking wisdom and synergies for China’s low-carbon city endeavors [31]. Wang et al. (2014c) provide an overview of global climate changes and major international organizations and protocols established in response to the risks and challenges faced by society. They highlight that urbanization, coupled with rapid population growth, is a significant contributor to increasing carbon emissions and stress the importance of establishing lowcarbon cities. The study also examines China’s current low-carbon initiatives, encompassing national policies, frameworks, provincial-level regulations, and successful case studies. Additionally, the authors identify the problems and challenges encountered during the pursuit of low-carbon city developments and propose a series of suggestions as potential solutions [32]. Cha et al. [33] address these issues from an international perspective. They explore examples from leading countries with renowned low-carbon projects, such as the UK, Germany, Sweden, the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia, focusing on their national and cross-national policies, best practices, and references applicable to China. However, the authors note a lack of emphasis on the “lesser” industrialized regions of the world, such as South East Asia and Africa, where future urbanization and rapid industrialization are taking place. Shen et al. [34] offer a quantitative analysis that contrasts China’s low-carbon initiatives with their international counterparts. Using Northam’s theory (1979) of urbanization levels as an analytical base, they compare highly urbanized countries (more than 70%), moderately urbanized countries (30% to 70%), and low urbanization countries (less than 30%) to China using selected indicators. The study also includes a comparison of major metropolises and community-level low-carbon developments through case studies, providing a comprehensive perspective from macro to micro and quantity to quality. Zhang et al. [35] introduce the urban planning concepts of Chinese lowcarbon cities, predominantly showcasing successful case studies from developed metropolitan areas like Shanghai and Beijing. Deng and Ye (2014b) review China’s low-carbon industry sector, referencing Japan and the US to demonstrate current technological trends in the three major industrial powers. They also describe lowcarbon living and lifestyles in Chinese society, emphasizing the necessity of carbon reduction at the citizen level and the role of NGOs in fostering civic participation [36]. The four major pillars of low-carbon city infrastructures, namely “transportation,” “water,” “energy,” and “waste treatment,” are discussed in [34]. Wang et al. [37] introduce China’s first “Low-carbon City Index,” developed by the Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. They start by briefly reviewing major urban sustainability index systems from the United Nations, the World Bank, and developed countries like the UK, US, and Japan, highlighting the absence of such systems in China for scientific monitoring and evaluating low-carbon cities. The authors then delve into methodological approaches, the establishment of an indicator database, initial and secondary selection of indicators, specifications

16

2 Review of Literature

of finalized indicator sets, and the initial analysis of results for evaluating domestic cities under the index. The ranking of 261 Chinese cities, included in the appendix, has garnered significant academic attention and media coverage since the book’s publication. Collectively, these works address various aspects of low-carbon cities, encompassing political frameworks, policies, regulations, case studies, strengths, and weaknesses related to China’s low-carbon urbanization practices from institutional, academic, and industrial perspectives. China’s economic achievements have been acknowledged worldwide, eliciting both envy and criticism. As the Asia Pacific era unfolds, more countries express interest in adopting the “Chinese recipes” of development and benefiting from China’s experiences.

2.1.6 Smart Cities The concept of a smart city is not new ([38], p. 2). Its origins can be traced back to the “new urbanism” movement in North America during the 1980s, which aimed to enhance the urban environment and quality of life through communal ideas while curbing urban sprawl [39]. In the 1990s, the U.S. government evolved this concept into a “smart growth” trend, involving various stakeholders to boost local real estate markets while improving environmental conditions [40]. Subsequently, the term “intelligent city” emerged with the rise of the IT industry, focusing on integrating information and communication technologies (ICT) into the urban sphere [40, 41]. Eventually, these terms converged and were sometimes used interchangeably with “smart city.” While a more detailed review of smart cities is presented in Chapter Five to avoid redundancies, I will briefly summarize some key works on smart cities [42–44] have explored various definitions and concepts of “smart city” in different contexts [45] proposed a comprehensive framework for understanding the diverse dimensions of smart cities [46] examined the quality of life within the context of smart cities through empirical data analysis. Additionally, several case studies have explored the implementation of smart city initiatives with different focuses ([47], Qiang 2004). Cocchia [48] conducted a systematic review of relevant literature on smart cities and digital cities from 1993 to 2012, offering valuable insights into the evolution of the field. Furthermore, [49] developed a ranking mechanism for smart cities, allowing for comparative analysis and evaluation. On a critical note, [50] provided a comprehensive analysis of debates and critiques surrounding the smart city phenomenon. These works collectively contribute to a deeper understanding of smart cities and their potential implications. The extensive research on definitions, frameworks, case studies, and evaluations sheds light on the multifaceted nature of smart city initiatives and the challenges they may face. The upcoming chapter will delve into these aspects in greater detail, providing a comprehensive overview of the smart city landscape.

2.2 Prominent Urban Theories

17

2.2 Prominent Urban Theories There are three influential urban theories in the discipline of urban studies: the “postcolonial urban theory,” the “assemblage theoretic approaches theory,” and the “planetary urbanism theory.” Each of these systems of knowledge seeks to comprehend various aspects related to cities, despite occasional disagreements and distortions in their interactions ([51], p. 3). Scott and Storper [52] propose a comprehensive theory to unify the diversity and disagreements in urban theories over the past century. Their theory aims to achieve three goals: (1) account for the genesis of cities in general, (2) capture the essence of cities as concrete social phenomena; and (3) shed light on the observable empirical diversity of cities over time and space ([51], p. 5). The postcolonial urban theory, primarily derived from the works of scholars from the “global north,” has its origins in cultural and historical studies. This perspective contends for the equal distinctiveness and uniqueness of both cities in the “global north and south” [53–57]. Scholars of this school often oppose applying urban theories developed in Europe and North America to the Global South ([51], p. 11). The assemblage theory has gained prominence in urban studies, especially within the social sciences, in recent decades (DeLanda 2002; Latour 2005) ([51], p. 20) describes this theory as providing an ontological view of the world as a mass of rhizomatic networks or finely-grained relationships, constituting the fundamental character of reality. These networks interconnect human and non-human elements, forming fluid and hybrid mosaics that represent the current state of the observable world. Planetary Urbanism focuses on the ever-blurring distinction between what was once considered urban areas and “geographic space,” both conceptually and empirically [58]. Although this notion has faced criticism from ([51], p. 25) due to semantic confusion and city-centric connotations, it can be linked to another theory that has recently influenced sustainable development theory—the Gaia theory. The Gaia theory originated from the proposition made by Austrian geologist Eduard Suess in 1875, suggesting that all living creatures on Earth constitute a selfregulating “biosphere.” Building on these ideas, microbiologist Lynn Margulius and atmospheric scientist James Lovelock proposed the Earth/life super-organism called “Gaia” in the 1970s. They envisioned it as an evolving physical brain composed of human-built infrastructures of cities and their support systems ([59], pp. 30–31). Register [59, pp. 38–40] extends the analogy of “the city as organism” from a biosphere system perspective. He refers to the city’s elements as a “Skeletal system” providing structural support (architecture, bridges, telephone poles) and “Sex organs of both sexes” for reproducing the system (colleges, design offices, environmental advocates, general voters, construction companies preparing to build more of the same or perhaps eco cities). This interpretation has contributed to our understanding of the concept of “eco-city” as it is known today.

18

2 Review of Literature

2.3 Urban Sustainability Evaluation Over the years, numerous methodologies have been developed for evaluating sustainable development, each with its own specific focus. Indicators or indices have proven to be valuable tools for policy-making and public communication, effectively conveying complex or dynamic goals in a concise manner [58]. Countries and corporations can adopt or customize indicators to summarize and condense meaningful information, which is particularly useful for decision-makers striving to implement sustainable practices and policies in society [60]. Singh et al. [61] identify two key methodologies for sustainability evaluation: monetary aggregation methods (MAM) primarily used by economists, and physical indicators predominantly employed by scientists and researchers. MAM examples include sustainable growth modeling, natural resource accounting, defining wealth and strong sustainability conditions, and various economic frameworks. On the other hand, physical indicators, such as sustainable development indices (SDI), serve several purposes: ● Assess and evaluate performance. ● Provide trends on improvement and warning signals for declining trends in economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. ● Offer decision-makers valuable information to formulate effective strategies and communicate achievements to stakeholders [62]. Over the years, a multitude of sustainability indices have been developed [63] conducted a comprehensive review of 41 sustainability indices, categorized into twelve distinct themes (see Table 2.3). Concerning sustainability indices for cities, the review covered a total of seven individual indices. These city-specific indices varied in location, number of indicators and dimensions considered, as well as composition and weighting methods. The evaluation of urban sustainability is a vital aspect of addressing contemporary challenges and achieving a sustainable future. By employing robust methodologies and utilizing well-crafted indicators, decision-makers can effectively guide policies and actions to foster sustainable urban development. Overall, this section serves as a foundation for further exploration and understanding of urban sustainability evaluation, offering valuable insights into the various approaches utilized to assess and promote sustainability in urban contexts. The construction and development of composite indices for sustainable urban development lack commonly followed principles or a standardized approach; instead, only general guidelines exist. According to [64], the process involves two major steps: first, clearly defining policy goals, and second, determining the components and subcomponents based on theory, empirical analysis, pragmatism, intuitive appeal, or a combination of these factors. However, various stages of index development require careful consideration of appropriate methods, tools, and techniques, which may give rise to challenges such as uncertainty in data selection, erroneous data, normalization, standardization, aggregation, and weighting [64].

2.3 Urban Sustainability Evaluation

19

Table 2.3 List of sustainability evaluation categories and indicies Categories (themes)

Indices (Contents)

1. Innovation, knowledge and technology indices

Summary Innovation Index Investment in the knowledge based economy Performance in the knowledge based economy Innovation Index National innovation capacity Information and communication technologies Technology Achievement Index General Indicator of Science & Technology Success of software process improvement

2. Development indices

Human Development Index Index of sustainable and economic welfare Relative intensity of regional problems in the Community

3. Market and economy based indices

Internal Market Index Business climate indicator European Labour Market Performance Composite Leading Indicators Genuine saving (GS) Economic Sentiment Indicator Green Net National Product

4. Eco-system based indices

Sustainability Performance Index Eco-Index Methodology Living Planet Index Ecological Footprint Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index

5. Composite sustainability performance indices for industries

Composite sustainable development index Compass Index of Sustainability Composite Sustainability Performance Index ITT Flygt Sustainability Index G Score method Sustainable Asset Management Zurich, Switzerland Dow Jones sustainability group indices, US Bovespa Corporate Sustainability Index

6. Product based sustainability indices

Life Cycle Index Ford of Europe’s Product Sustainability Index

7. Sustainability indices for cities

Urban sustainability index Sustainability index for Taipei City Development Index The Sustainability Cities Index Ecosistema Urbano Performance Index Sustainable Seattle: developing indicators of sustainable communities ISSI Index, Italy (continued)

20

2 Review of Literature

Table 2.3 (continued) Categories (themes)

Indices (Contents)

8. Environmental indices for polices, nations and regions

Environment sustainable index Environment quality index Environmental sustainability index Concern about environmental problems Index of environmental friendliness Environmental policy performance indicator Environmental performance index Environmental vulnerability index Two “synthetic environmental indices”

9. Environment indices for industries

Eco-points Eco-compass Eco-indicator 99 Environment assessment for cleaner production technologies COMPLIMENT—environment performance index for industries

10. Social and quality of life based indices

Gender empowerment measure Physical quality of life index Well-being assessment National health care system performance Overall health system attainment Index for sustainable society

11. Energy based indices

Sustainable assessment tool for energy system Energy indicators for tracking sustainability in developed countries

12. Ratings

Benchmarking US petroleum refineries, the environmental defense fund, US NGO ECCO-CGECK Index, Environmental risk rating Investor responsibility research centre Council on economic priorities Oeko Sar Fund Storebrand Scudder environmental value fund Innovest strategies value advisors OEKOM environment rating Jupiter income trust funds FTSF good index

Compiled by the author based on [61]

In order to assess the impacts of new sustainable urban development models and frameworks effectively, a critical understanding and analysis are essential, tailored to the specific context. This understanding is crucial in devising more efficient approaches to achieve positive outcomes and to develop evaluation methods suitable for diverse societies with different origins ([61], p. 282).

References

21

References 1. Bayulken B, Huisingh D (2015) A literature review of historical trends and emerging theoretical approaches for developing sustainable cities (part 1). J Clean Prod 109:11–24 2. Girardet H (2003) Making adelaide a green city adelaide thinkers in residence inaugural public lecture, p 1e13 3. Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Asses Rev 18:493–530 4. Mickwitz P, Hildéna M, Seppälä J, Melanena M (2011) Sustainability through system transformation: lessons from finnish efforts. J Clean Prod 19(16):1779–1787 5. United Nations (2015) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. UN Website: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 6. Un-Habitat (2011) Global report on human settlements 2011: cities and climate change: Earthscan Ltd 7. Birkeland J (2012) Design blindness in sustainable development: from closed to open systems design thinking. J Urban Des 17(2):163–187 8. Quental N, LourençO JM, Da Silva FN (2009) Sustainable development policy: goals, targets and political cycles. Sustain Dev 19(1):15–29 9. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. New York 10. Khakee A (2002) Assessing institutional capital building in a local Agenda 21 process in Goeteborg. Plan Theory Pract 3(1):53–68 11. Langhelle O (2000) “Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. J Environ Policy Plan 2(4):303–233 12. Jong MD, Joss S, Schraven D, Zhan C, Weijnen M (2015) Sustainableesmarteresilientelow carboneecoeknowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J Clean Prod 109(2015):25–38 13. Howard E (1898) To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform. Swan Sonnenschein & Co, London 14. Fook LL, Gang C (2010) Towards eco-cities in East Asia. In: Fook LL, Gang C (Eds), Towards a livable and sustainable urban environment: eco-cities in East Asia (pp 219). Singapore: World Scientifc Publishing 15. Imura H (2010) Eco-cities: re-examining concepts and approaches. In: Liang FL, Gang C (Eds), Towards a livable and sustainable urban environment: eco-cities in East Asia: World Scientific Publishing Company 16. Litfin K (2014) Eco-villages: lessons for sustainable community. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK 17. Joss S, Tomozeiu D, Cowley R (2011) Eco Cities—a global survey 2011, university of westminster international eco-cities initiatives, London. International Eco-Cities Initiatives, London 18. Joss S (2012) Tomorrow’s city today, eco-city indicators, standards and frameworks. In: Joss S (Ed), Bellagio conference report. London: University of Westminster 19. Yanitsky O (1981b) Social problems of man’s environment: where we live and work. Moscow: Progress Publishers Cities and Human Ecology. Moscow: Progress Publishers 20. Register R (1987) Ecocity berkeley: building cities for a healthy future. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley 21. European Commission (1996) European sustainable cities report. Brussels. 22. Joss S, Tomozeiu D (2013) ‘Eco-City’ frameworks—a global review. Online: University of Westminster 23. Joss S (2011) Eco-cities: the mainstreaming of urban sustainability: key characteristics and driving factors. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 6(3):268–269 24. Roseland M (1997) Dimensions of eco-cities. Cities 14(4):197–198 25. Graedel TE (1999) Industrial ecology and the ecocity. The Bridge 29(4):10–14 26. Yu L (2009) Study on development objectives and implementing policies of Chinese eco-city. Urban Plann Int 6:102–107 27. Song Y (2011) Ecological city and urban sustainable development. Procedia Eng 21:142–146

22

2 Review of Literature

28. Yu L (2014) Low carbon eco-city: new approach for Chinese urbanisation. Habitat Int 44:102– 110 29. Su M, Xu L, Chen B, Yang Z (2013) Eco-city planning theories and thoughts. In: Yang Z (Ed), Eco-cities: a planning guide, pp 5–6. FL: CRC Press 30. Wang XR (2001) On the theories, ways and counter measures for the construction of eco-city—a case study of Shanghai, China. J Fudan Uni (Nat Scie) 40(4):349–354 31. Zou X (2015) Book review: Chinese low-carbon city construction report. Asia Pacific World 6(1):93–95 32. Wang M, Zhang L, Gao K (2014a) Current status on China’s low-carbon city development. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 13–36. Beijing Scientific Publication 33. Cha J, Ye Z, Tian Y (2014) Current status of international low-carbon city development. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 38–62. Beijing: Scientific Publication 34. Shen Q, An C, Yan G (2014) International comparison of low-carbon city standards. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 62–140. Beijing: Scientific Publication 35. Zhang S, Kuang X, Chen Y, Deng X, Chen J (2014) Low-carbon city planning and design. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 143–199. Beijing: Scientific Publication 36. Deng Z, Ye K (2014) Low-carbon industry development. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 201–215. Beijing: Scientific Publication 37. Wang M, Zhang L, Gao K (2014b) Indicator systems of China’s low-carbon city. In: Huang W, Wang J (Eds), China low-carbon city construction report, pp 251–312. Beijing: Scientific Publication 38. Shelton T, Zook M, Wiig A (2015) The ‘actually existing smart city.’ Camb J Reg Econ Soc 8(1):13–25 39. Vanolo A (2013) Smartmentality: the smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies 51(5):883–898 40. Zelda B (2009) Industry and the smart city. Dissent 56(3):27–34 41. Komninos N (2009) Intelligent cities: towards interactive and global innovation environments. Int J Innov Regional Dev 1(4):337–355 42. Caragliu A, Del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2011) Smart cities in Europe. J Urban Technol 18(2):65–82 43. Nam T, Pardo TA (2011) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times 44. Wu X, Yang Z (2010) The concept of smart city and future city development. Urban Studies 11(11) 45. Chourabi H, Nam T, Walker S, Gil-Garcia JR, Mellouli S, Nahon K, Pardo TA, Scholl HJ (2012) Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework, 2289–2297 46. Shapiro JM (2006) Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. Rev Econ Stat 88(2):324–335 47. Mahizhnan A (1999) Smart cities—the Singapore case. Cities 16(1):13–18 48. Cocchia A (2014) Smart and digital city: a systematic literature review. In: Dameri RP, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (Eds), Smart city, pp 13-43. Springer International Publishing 49. Giffinger R, Gudrun H (2010) Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning of the cities?. ACE Archit City Environ 4(12):7–26 50. Hollands RG (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? City 12(3):303–320 51. Storper M (2016) Current Debates in urban theory: a critical assessment (Forthcoming). Urban Studies 52. Scott AJ, Storper M (2015) The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(1):1–15 53. Edensor T, Jayne M (2012) Introduction: urban theory beyond the West. In: Edensor T, Jayne E (Eds), Urban theory beyond the west: a world of cites, pp 1–27. London: Routledge

References

23

54. Myers G (2014) From expected to unexpected comparisons: changing the flows of ideas about cities in a postcolonial urban world. Singap J Trop Geogr 35(1):104–118 55. Ong A, Roy A (2011) In Ong A, Roy A (Eds), Worlding cities: asian experiments in the art of being global. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell 56. Patel S (2014) Is there a ‘south’ perspective to urban studies? In: Parnell S, Oldfield S (eds) The Routledge Handbook on the Cities of the Global South. Routledge, London, pp 37–53 57. Sheppard E, Leitner H, Maringanti A (2013) Provincializing global urbanism: a manifesto. Urban Geogr 34(7):893–900 58. Brenner N, Schmid C (2014) The ‘Urban Age’ in question. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(3):731–755 59. Register R (2006) Eco-cities: rebuilding cities in balance with nature. New Society Publishers, Canada 60. Ness B, Urbel Piirsalu E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categorising tools FOS sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508 61. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2012) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 15(1):281–299 62. Ramachandran N (2000) Monitoring sustainability: indices and techniques of analysis. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi 63. Kei (2005) Knowledge economy indicators, work package 7, state of the art report on simulation and indicators 64. Dewan H (2006) Sustainability index. An economic perspective: Thompson Rivers University 65. Zou X (2015b) Book review: ecovillages: lessons for sustainable community. By Karen T. Litfin. Asia Pacific World 6(1):100–101

Chapter 3

Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective and Comparaison

China’s remarkable international dominance and influence have been widely acknowledged worldwide. However, its rapid urbanization and industrialization, contributing to impressive annual GDP growth, have come at a significant environmental cost, particularly in urban areas. Keen on avoiding the mistakes of some industrialized countries, where environmental concerns were addressed after economic development, China has implemented numerous laws and regulations to promote sustainable development in urban regions. One such effort is the development of eco-cities, representing an early national attempt to steer urbanization towards a more sustainable trajectory. This chapter1 reviews the urban policy frameworks and current practices in China’s major cities, with the comparative introductions between the past standards of Chinese eco-cities and that of the current, on both national and provincial levels. Furthermore, this chapter compares the existing eco-city standards with international acknowledged examples in Japan and Germany by analyzing the key indicators from selected eco-city case studies.

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Eco-City Origin and Concepts Understanding the origins of a concept is crucial in academic discourse. The term “eco-city” is credited to the American urban designer, Richard Register, whose renowned book “Eco-city Berkeley” [2] brought significant attention to the concept. However, the concept of eco-cities had been discussed earlier in history.

1

Based on this chapter, a journal paper has been published as [1].

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 X. Zou, Urban Sustainable Development in East Asia, Urban Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7015-5_3

25

26

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Some scholars trace its roots back to the United Nations Educational, Scientific Organization’s (UNESCO) “Man and Biosphere” (MAB) Program [3]. The MAB program, established to enhance global relationships between people and their environment through interdisciplinary research, included various subprograms with distinct focuses (UNESCO MAB Website, 2013). In 1981, during a UNESCO conference, the term “eco-city” was first mentioned by the former Soviet Union scientist, Yanitsky. He envisioned an “eco-city” as a “human settlement of the future in which social and ecological processes are combined in the best possible fashion” [4, 5]. While the literal appearance of the “Eco-city” concept emerged in the early 1980s, several precursor concepts such as “Garden City,” “New Town,” and “Techno-City” had laid the foundations or contributed to its development [6, 7].

3.1.2 Definitions of Eco-City Despite the proliferation of eco-city projects, a universally agreed-upon definition remains elusive. Various scholars have approached the concept of eco-cities from different angles and perspectives, resulting in diverse interpretations. For instance, [4, 5] characterizes an eco-city as an ideal habitat where benign ecological circulation is achieved through the complete integration of technology and nature. In such a city, human creativity and productivity thrive, while the health of residents and environmental quality are meticulously safeguarded. Energy, materials, and information are efficiently utilized to promote sustainability. Register [2] perceives an eco-city as an ecologically healthy urban environment, wherein the pursuit of human activities is guided by the goal of ensuring the wellbeing of both mankind and nature. Engwicht, an Australian community activist, envisions an eco-city as a place where people can freely move about using sustainable means of transportation such as walking, cycling, and mass transit, without fear of traffic congestion and exposure to harmful toxins. In China, Ma and Wang (1984) propose an eco-city as a stable, harmonious, and sustainable complex ecosystem, fostering “all-win” development among social, economic, and environmental factors. The complete fusion of technology and nature, the maximization of human creativity, the continual improvement of urban civilization, and the provision of a clean and comfortable urban environment are all integral to their concept. Expanding on Engwicht’s vision, where an eco-city is a realm designed to optimize exchange and minimize travel, [8] defines an eco-city as an administrative unit characterized by high economic productivity, efficient ecological practices, and a socially harmonious culture [9] emphasizes the need for eco-cities to adhere to ecological principles, integrating social, economic, and natural systems, while applying interdisciplinary concepts to develop sustainable, efficient, and recycling-oriented residential areas.

3.2 Development of the Eco-City

27

Shen [10] perceives an eco-city as an integrated system characterized by a highly developed economy and a prosperous society, where technology and nature coexist harmoniously, and human creativity and productivity reach their fullest potential. Building upon the idea of a global regional eco-system, [11] view eco-cities as subsystems guided by principles of natural harmony, social justice, and high economic efficiency [12]. Roseland [7] offers a comprehensive exploration of the origin and dimensions of eco-cities, tracing their conceptual evolution across various sustainable development contexts. In summary, the definitions of eco-cities vary, but common themes emerge, emphasizing the harmonious integration of nature and technology, the maximization of human potential, and the promotion of sustainable development principles. The Chinese scholars’ contributions further emphasize the importance of social, economic, and ecological harmony within the eco-city framework.

3.2 Development of the Eco-City 3.2.1 Eco-City Development The concept of the “eco-city” can be traced back to ancient Greek and Egyptian civilizations, where city construction heavily relied on the surrounding environment. In contemporary times, the roots of the eco-city idea can be attributed to British thinker Howard’s “Garden City” theory in 1898 (Fu et al. 2011). However, it was not until the early 1980s that the term “eco-city” emerged more literally, with UNESCO’s MAB project playing a role in promoting the concept. During this period, scholars and activists such as Yanitsky and Register developed theoretical frameworks for ecocity development, although few practical examples were recognized. The momentum for practical eco-cities gained traction in the 1990s and 2000s, especially after the United Nations’ “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where the “Agenda 21” was initiated. Notable examples of early eco-cities, including Curitiba (Brazil), Waitakere (New Zealand), and Schwabach (Germany), began to materialize (refer to Fig. 3.1). The proliferation of eco-cities and related initiatives expanded globally. A survey conducted by Joss et al. [13] in 2011 identified 174 profiled eco-cities globally, compared to 79 in the 2009 survey. From a conceptual standpoint, the idea of the eco-city has evolved over time [13] identify three conceptual perspectives (Fig. 3.2). The “normative perspective” is characterized by eco-city development driven by various concepts, ideologies, and political demands. It aligns with the initial phase of eco-city development, where the MAB program encouraged interdisciplinary studies between humans and the biosphere, leading to diverse perspectives on defining and developing eco-cities. The “regulatory perspective” emerged during the second phase of development, in which major sustainable frameworks such as the Brundtland Report, Rio Earth Summit,

28

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Fig. 3.1 Chronological development of eco-city. Illustrated by the author based on [14]

and Agenda 21 standardized the concept of eco-city. The practical implementation of these standardized concepts resulted in the first wave of eco-cities like Curitiba (Brazil), Waitakere (New Zealand), and Schwabach (Germany). The “innovation perspective,” associated with the third phase of eco-city development, involves integrating eco-city concepts with innovative socio-technological, business, and cultural ideas. The concept of “decarbonization” has become a defining feature of eco-city development worldwide. China’s eco-city development aligns with the phases identified by Joss, as indicated by an examination of the country-level political framework for eco-cities (Fig. 3.3). In 1986, Yichuan City in Jiangxi Province aimed to develop China’s first “eco-city” as a response to local environmental and ecological challenges arising from urbanization. In the early 1990s, the former Chinese Ministry of Construction (MoC) introduced a national framework for “Garden City,” focusing on landscape and green space urban developments. This marked the first national-scale effort to redirect urban development towards sustainability. In 2004, the Ministry of Housing Rural and Urban Development (MHURD) upgraded the framework to “Eco-Garden City,” incorporating more comprehensive indicators for sustainable urban development. During the same year, the Ministry of Environment Protection (MEP) introduced a national framework for Eco-cities, including three levels (county, city, and province), with standardized concepts and indicators for urban development. This framework

3.2 Development of the Eco-City

29

Fig. 3.2 Conceptual perspectives of eco-city development. Illustrated by the author based on [14]

Fig. 3.3 Eco-cities framework development in China. Complied by the author based on governmental websites

30

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

aligned chronologically and conceptually with the second phase as identified by Joss. In 2008, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) initiated the nationwide push for “Low Carbon City” developments, aiming to achieve the CO2 emission reduction targets outlined in the 11th Five Year Plan. Since then, the focus has been on decarbonization in urban development, reflecting the third phase observed by Joss. In summary, eco-city development has evolved over time, influenced by various perspectives and concepts. The transition from normative to regulatory and innovation perspectives has shaped the way eco-cities are conceptualized and implemented. In China, the development of eco-cities has followed a trajectory consistent with the global phases, driven by policy frameworks that have adapted to the changing environmental and societal needs. Continued research and collaborative efforts among stakeholders will be essential to further advance eco-city development and contribute to sustainable urbanization.

3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China China, as the world’s most populous country and currently the second-largest economy, has witnessed an unprecedented urbanization rate. By 2011, the urban population had surpassed the rural population for the first time in Chinese history, reaching 690 million. This urbanization rate is expected to reach 70% by 2050 [15]. However, rapid urbanization and population growth have brought about severe ecological and environmental challenges, public health threats, and concerns about the quality of life. In response, the Chinese government has taken bold and ambitious steps to develop eco-cities across the country. According to the Chinese Society for Urban Studies (2011), more than 230 cities have already implemented or are planning eco-city projects, accounting for 80.1% of the 287 domestic cities. China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MHURD) have played active roles in setting national standards for eco-cities to address urban environmental issues. However, the two organizations have different focuses; MHURD concentrates on urban infrastructure construction, while MEP addresses a broader scope, including targets for energy and resource use efficiency [16]. Additionally, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) launched the Low-Carbon City initiative in 2008, but concrete action plans and assessment indicators are yet to be established, leading to divergent approaches in eco-city development across China. The development of eco-cities in China can be traced back to 1986 when the concept was first introduced in Yichun City, Jiangxi Province. However, the real surge in eco-cities began around 2003–2004, followed by the introduction of the “low-carbon city” concept in 2008, which gained widespread attention [12]. Some cities have adhered to the standards set by MEP and MHURD to develop their small or medium-sized eco-cities, with notable examples like Rongcheng Eco-city and Shenzhen. Furthermore, international cooperation has become evident in recent years

3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China

31

with projects like the Sino-United Kingdom Chongming Dongtan Eco-City, SinoSweden Tangshan Caofeidian International Eco-city, and Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City (SSTEC).

3.3.1 Eco-City Framework in China Chinese eco-cities can be classified into three major categories based on regulatory bodies and standards. The first two categories are defined by two ministries: “Eco-garden City” by MHURD and “Eco-city” by MEP. While NDRC advocates “Low Carbon Cities” on a national scale, official assessment indicators are yet to be established. The third category consists of international joint venture projects like Sino-Singapore Eco-City and Sino-Sweden Caofeidian Eco-City, each following its own master plan and development principles, resulting in varied indicator systems among them. Ministry of Housing Urban–Rural Development The Ministry of Construction (MoC), which preceded MHURD, initiated the “National Garden City” program in 1992. To promote sustainable development and ecological environment in cities, the MoC introduced the “Eco-Garden City” program based on the earlier initiative. Several cities, including Qingdao, Yangzhou, Nanjing, Hangzhou, and Suzhou, were among the first demonstration cities. By the end of 2010, MHURD, succeeding MoC, had declared 184 National Garden Cities through the program [17, 18]. To qualify as an Eco-Garden City, a city must first be designated as a National Garden City, meeting additional quantitative measurement standards beyond those required for Garden Cities. MHURD’s indicator system consists of 19 primary indicators in three categories: urban ecological environment, urban living environment, and urban infrastructure. Ministry of Environmental Protection MEP launched a national program in 2003 to establish eco-counties, ecocities, and eco-regions. Subsequently, MEP introduced the “National Ecological County, Ecological City Establishment Assessment (Trial)” criteria for evaluating participants. The official document contains three major sections for eco-counties, eco-cities, and eco-provinces, each with a similar methodology, definition, basic requirements, indicators, and explanations. Indicators cover economic development, environmental protection, and social progress, with 36 for Eco-County level, 28 for Eco-cities, and 22 for Eco-Provinces (MEP, 2007). By July 201, 38 cities had received “Eco-City (County)” designation according to MEP’s assessment in 11 provinces nationwide (see Table 3.1).

32

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Table 3.1 List of entitled cities of different standards by July 2011 Province

MEP Eco-City

Anhui

Huoshan

Beijing

Miyun, Yanqing

MHURD NDRC low-carbon eco-garden city demonstration city

Chongqing

Chongqing

Xiamen

Fujian Guangdong

Shenzhen Tantian District, Zhongshan, Shenzhen Futian District, Banshan District

Guangxi

Shenzhen

Guilin

Guizhou

Guiyang

Hebei

Baoding

Jiangsu

Zhangjigang, Changshu, Kunshan, Jiangyin, Taicang, Yixing, Wuxi Binhai, Xishan District, Guishan District, Wujiang, Wuzhou Wuzhong District, Gaochun, Nanjing Hiangning District, Jintan, Changzhou Wujin District, Hai’an

Ynagzhou, Nanjing, Suzhou, Zhangjiagang, Kunshan, Changshu

Jiangxi Liaoning

Nanchang Shenyang Donglling District, Shenhei New District

Shaanxi

Xi’an Saba Ecodistrict

Shangdong

Rongcheng

Shanghai

Minhang District

Qingdao, Weihai Jincheng

Shangxi Sichuan

Shuangliu, Chengdu Wenjiang District

Tianjin

Xiqing District

Tianjin

Zhejiang

Anjie, Yiwu, Lin’an, Tonglu, Pan’an, Kaihua

Tianjin

Cross-program cities

Zhangjiagang, Nanjing, and Kunshan participate in both the MEO and MHURD programs, Hangzhou participate in both the MHURD and NDRC programs

Source [17, 18], MEP, MHURD, NDRC

National Development and Reform Commission As the central body for economic development and coordination in China, NDRC is at the forefront of directing domestic climate change combating policies. To fulfill China’s Green House Gas (GSG) emission targets, NDRC promotes the green economy concept, with carbon emission reduction as a key component. Consequently, NDRC has been actively promoting the development of Low-Carbon Cities

3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China

33

in China. However, specific national assessment indicators are still under development, and pioneer project cities or regions are required to establish their own Low-Carbon City development plans based on local realities and conditions. Only a handful of cities in China have engaged in more than one program from the national standards, as shown in Table 3.1. Interestingly, no city has participated in all three national programs, highlighting the diversity of their frameworks and assessment methodologies. Consequently, there is limited overlap among cities involved in different eco-city initiatives. Joint-Venture Eco-Cities Program The Joint-Venture Eco-Cities Program exemplifies collaborative efforts between China and international partners. These projects typically entail the construction of new cities in designated areas, following comprehensive master plans specifically tailored to achieve their eco-city development goals. Notable examples include the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City and the Caofeidian Eco-City. These eco-cities establish their unique standards and indicators, meticulously designed to address local characteristics and priorities. While many of them serve as demonstrators for future urban planning, they may not entirely meet the immediate practical demands of urbanization. In contrast to purely domestic eco-city programs, the Joint-Venture Eco-Cities Program leverages international expertise and innovative approaches to sustainability. The involvement of international partners fosters a cross-cultural exchange of best practices, which can lead to pioneering solutions for urban development challenges. Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City The Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City is a flagship project that showcases the close collaboration between China and Singapore. This eco-city is meticulously planned and meticulously designed to achieve a harmonious balance between urbanization and ecological preservation. The master plan is tailored to local conditions and emphasizes sustainability in all aspects, including energy efficiency, green buildings, and transportation. The success of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City lies in its commitment to innovation and the integration of advanced technologies. It serves as a model for future urban development in China and beyond, inspiring other cities to adopt ecofriendly practices. Caofeidian Eco-City The Caofeidian Eco-City is another notable joint-venture eco-city project in China. Located in Hebei province, this city is designed to be a sustainable industrial zone with a strong focus on eco-friendly industries and low-carbon development. The master plan emphasizes the preservation of natural resources and the establishment of green industries to reduce environmental impact.

34

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Like the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, the success of Caofeidian lies in its comprehensive approach to sustainability. The city aims to be a hub for green industries and a living example of how economic growth and environmental protection can go hand in hand. China’s eco-city programs demonstrate the country’s commitment to sustainable urban development. Through joint-venture projects with international partners and domestic initiatives, China is exploring various avenues to create environmentally friendly and socially inclusive cities. These eco-city programs serve as testbeds for innovative solutions, offering valuable insights for future urban planning and development not only within China but globally.

3.3.2 The Eco-Cities Indicator Systems in China To accurately assess the performance and achievements of eco-cities, the establishment of comprehensive indicator systems is of paramount importance. However, due to the multitude of eco-city standards in policies, principles, and practices, various researchers and scholars have proposed their own indicator systems with distinct scopes, targets, and assessments. This section presents an in-depth analysis of 11 major eco-city indicator systems practiced in China, each contributing unique perspectives to the evaluation process. Table 3.2 shows the 11 major indicator systems practiced in China. Among the different indicator systems, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) stands out, offering a comprehensive set of 146 indicators that encompass support for ecosystems, development, environment, society, and intelligence security. In collaboration with Tsinghua Urban Planning Institute, Sweden’s Sweco developed the Caofeidian eco-city indicator system, featuring 141 indicators focused on city functionality, building industry, traffic and transportation, energy, waste, water, landscape, and public spaces. The Tianjin Sino-Singapore eco-city, on the other hand, incorporates 22 controlled indicators and 4 directive indicators to assess coordination with regional policy, the natural ecosystem, society and culture, and regional economics [17, 18]. Eight fundamental categories have been identified as crucial aspects of eco-city evaluation: energy, water, air, waste, transport, economy, land use, and social considerations. An analysis of the 11 selected indicator systems reveals the coverage of over 130 indicators across these categories. Table 3.3 illustrates the distribution of categories within each system, indicating the prevalence of air (9), energy (8), water (8), land use (8), and waste (7) indicators. In contrast, transport (5) and economy (5) are less commonly included, and the social aspect is covered by only four of the chosen indicator systems. Remarkably, the Guiyang Eco-Civilization City is the sole system that incorporates all eight aspects, demonstrating a comprehensive approach to indicator selection. Within the major categories, water emerges as a pivotal focus area, boasting the highest number of 33 sub-indicators. This emphasizes the critical role of water

3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China

35

Table 3.2 Major indicator systems in China Indicator system

No. of indicators

Source

Chinese society for Urban Studies

45

Chinese Society for Urban Studies, 2011

China City sustainable development indicators

146

Chinese Academy of Science

CAS (Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences)

25

Wu, Wang et al. 2005

Renmin Univ. & Tsinghua Univ

5

Zhang, Wen et al. 2008

MoC/MHURD Eco-Carden City 19

[19]

MEP Eco-City

MEP, 2007

22

Tianji Eco-City

26

Tianjin City

Caofeidian Eco-City

141

Caifeidian City

Turpan New District

36

Turpan City

Guiyang Eco-Civilization City

33

Guiyang City, 2008

Source [17, 18]

management in the development of Chinese eco-cities. Interestingly, carbon emissions indicators are integrated into the energy category according to [17, 18]. While Tianjin Eco-City and Caofeidian Eco-City include carbon intensity indicators, other systems typically compare carbon productivity and emissions per capita or per GDP to national standards, without specifying city-specific criteria. Despite the common importance of air in eco-cities, it surprisingly exhibits the lowest number of indicators at only 9, equivalent to the transport category. The diversity of eco-city indicator systems in China presents a rich tapestry of approaches to assess sustainable development efforts. With water management taking the lead, and carbon emissions indicators posing a challenge, this analysis highlights the importance of comprehensive and context-specific indicator systems for effective eco-city evaluation (Fig. 3.4). In China, several indicator systems for eco-cities development have been established by government entities, academic institutes, and researchers. Each of these systems addresses specific development needs from its own perspective. However, there is currently no integrated, comprehensive national standard or guidelines for eco-cities in China. Despite this, most of these systems share common categories of indicators, indicating a certain level of agreement in their evaluation criteria. For example, the ‘air’ category is prevalent in 8 selected systems, but it only contains 9 indicators. On the other hand, major concerns such as ‘water,’ ‘energy,’ ‘waste,’ and ‘land use’ tend to have more indicators in eco-cities development. Interestingly, carbon-related indicators are either minimally mentioned or integrated into other categories, rather than being listed as a major category themselves. Internationally, there is a significant variety of indicators, ranging from selection criteria and weighting to benchmarking and application levels. Understanding the current status of international indicator systems requires extensive literature reviews

36

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Table 3.3 Categories covered in indicator systems Category

Energy

Waste

Air

Waste

Transport

Economy

Land Use

Social aspects

Chinese society x for urban studies

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

CAS/China City sustainable development indicators

x

x

x

x

x

CASS (Zhuang et al. 2011)

x

RUC (Zhang et al. 2008) CAS (Wu and Wang 2005)

x x

MoC (MHURD Eco-Garden City) SEPA/MEP ecological Province/City/ County

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x

Tianjin Eco City x

x

x

x

x

x

Caofeidian

x

x

x

x

x

x

Turpan new district

x

x

Guiyang Eco-civilization City

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Totals

8

8

9

7

5

5

8

4

Source [17, 18]

and research efforts. [20] conducted a comprehensive study analyzing 16 carefully selected international indicator systems to identify their common characteristics, threshold issues, aggregation methods in ranking schemes, benchmarks for definition, and areas of commonality among different systems (refer to Table 3.4). Table 3.4 provides an overview of the 16 international indicator systems. Among these, nine are ranking systems, with an average of 26 indicators each, while seven are non-ranking systems, including an average of 45 indicators. The difference in the number of indicators between ranking and non-ranking systems is noticeable, suggesting that fewer indicators may facilitate the ranking process. However, an exception is the ‘EU Green Capital Program 2001,’ which is a ranking system with a significant number of 71 indicators across 10 categories. From the studied international systems, eight primary categories were identified as common to most of them. However, there is less agreement concerning secondary

3.3 Eco-Cities Development in China

37

Fig. 3.4 Numbers of indicators by major category. Source [17, 18]

category indicators. Only ten secondary indicators were found to be common in more than two systems among the 16 studied by [20]. The two most common indicators were ‘total water consumption in liters/capital/day’ and ‘CO2 emissions in tons/ capital/day,’ present in seven systems each. Two secondary indicators were found in five systems, one in four systems, and five in three systems. This variation indicates that while the international community can agree on general criteria for assessment, the specific indicators diverge due to policy focuses, development methodologies, regional characteristics, and other factors (see Table 3.5). To compare Chinese indicator systems with international ones in terms of their categories, I have included primary and secondary indicator categories from 11 major eco-cities guidelines available in China. The resulting table (Table 3.5) shows that the primary categories from both sets are nearly identical, indicating broad international agreement on macro aspects of assessing eco-cities. However, in terms of secondary categories, China has more secondary categories in the ‘Water’ category compared to international systems, while having fewer secondary categories in other areas. One significant difference is observed in the ‘Energy’ category, where China has only 3 secondary categories compared to 8 in international systems. Nonetheless, there are notable disparities in content for the secondary level of indicators despite some overlapping ones. Through a comprehensive qualitative analysis of two groups of indicator systems from China and international best practices, this study yields two significant indications. Firstly, there is a universality in the general aspects of assessment, as evidenced by the presence of 8 primary indicators shared by both international and Chinese

38

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Table 3.4 Summary of reviewed indicator systems Type

Reference

Object of analysis

Number of indicators and categories

City rankings

EIU2011

22 largest and most important cities in Asia

29, in 8 categories

PriceWaterhouse cooper 2011

26 large cities of financial and political importance worldwide

4, in 1 category (only Sustainability category used. Total of 66 in 10 categories.)

Forum for the future UK’s 20 largest cities 2010

11 indicators grouped in 3 categories

ACF 2011

15 grouped in 3 categories

Australia’s 20 largest cities

Kalenzig et al. 2007 U.S’s 50 largest cities

15 in 15 categories

Corporate Knights 2011

Canada’s 17 overall most 28 in 5 categories populous cities and most popular city in each province

EU Green Capitals Program 2011

Applicant cities in Europe with population >200 k

71* in 10 categories

MONET 2009

17 cities in Switzerland

31* in 3 categories

Ranking provincials

Esty et al. 2011

All Chinese Provinces

33 in 12 categories

Non-ranking City-level

GCI 2007

Core and Secondary indicators of 77, grouped in 20 Sustainability of themes Urban areas to facilitate standardized policy practice sharing among member cities

ESMAP 2012

Tool to allow city leaders benchmark energy efficiency in their cities against similar cities to Indicate best practice policies and strategies

28, in 6 categories

Heine et al. 2006

Indicators chosen to establish a framework process to improve Victoria state citizen engagement, community planning and evidence based policy making

21, in 1 category (Only Sustainable built and Nature environment category used, out of 75 in 5 categories)

Sustainable Seattle n.d

Indicators used to empower 99* in 22 categories Seattle Sustainability advocates (goals) and practitioners to take effective action independently and together (continued)

3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases

39

Table 3.4 (continued) Type

Reference

Object of analysis

Number of indicators and categories

Boston indicators Project 2012

Project aims to democratize access to information, foster informed public discourse, track process on shared civil goals, and report on change

29 in 1 category (Only Sustainability Category used here, out of a total of 185 in 10 categories)

Hakkinen 2007

EU environmental program priorities regarding climate change, nature and bio-diversity, high environmental quality and health, and sustainable resource use and waste management

45 in 5 categories

Xiao Xue and Woetzel, 2010

Tool to measure relative performance over time at city level in Chinese cities that have been the focus of sustainable development efforts

18 in 5 categories

Source [20]

systems. Secondly, the overlapping and varying secondary indicators point to the multiversity of specific indicators from a global perspective. These variations can be attributed to diverse development needs, political considerations, methodological approaches, and other influencing factors. While the comparison of the two groups of eco-cities assessment indicator systems provides valuable insights, it does not offer definitive answers to the research question posed in this paper. As a result, we proceed with a quantitative comparison of three specific sets of indicators from China, Germany, and Japan to further explore potential outcomes. By undertaking a quantitative analysis of these three distinct sets of indicators, we aim to uncover more concrete findings that can address the research question and contribute to the existing body of knowledge on eco-cities and sustainability assessment.

3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases This section aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of Chinese Eco-cities by comparing them with exemplary cases from other countries, particularly Japan. To achieve observable and measurable results, a quantitative analysis of selected subjects will be employed. For this purpose, one best-practiced Chinese eco-city will be chosen and compared with eco-cities from Japan. Due to the lack of

40

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Table 3.5 Primary and secondary categories of chinese indicator systems and international indicator systems Chinese indicator systems

International indicator systems

Secondary categories

Primary categories

Secondary categories

Penetration of running water

Water

Water consumption intensity

Utilization of reclaimed water

Water quality, availability, and treatment

Water quality

Net loss of natural wetlands

Waste water treatment connection and rates

Fresh water consumption per unit of industrial added value

Water availability by carrying capacity

Effective utilization coefficient of irrigation water

Access to water

Daily water consumption per capita

Other; water policy achievements

Utilization rate of non-conventional water resources Surface/near shore water quality Compliance rate for quality of city pipeline water Urban sewage treatment rate Energy consumption per GDP

Energy

Energy and climate

Carbon intensity

Carbon emission per GDP

Energy intensity

Renewable energy utilization rate

Building energy use/carbon Renewable energy use/carbon Transport energy/carbon Energy and climate change policy Split of total energy/carbon within all sectors; energy security; industry energy/carbon (continued)

3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases

41

Table 3.5 (continued) Chinese indicator systems

International indicator systems

Secondary categories

Primary categories

Secondary categories

Quality of air environment

Air

PM10 concentrations

Air quality

Days of air pollution index ≤ 100

Nox concentrations and total emissions

Regional air quality

Other types of emissions; index of multiple air pollutant concentrations; exceedance of air quality benchmarks; SO2 concentrations; O3 concentrations and emissions; other

Intensity of discharge of major pollutants (COD / SO2) Daily waste per capita

Waste

Waste

Waste generation intensity

Hazardous waste and garbage (harmless) treatment rate

Waste treatment—Recycling

Industrial solid waste utilization and treatment

Waste treatment—diversion from landfill; all treatment of total by proportion; waste treatment—landfill disposal; waste capture rates; other treatment; other waste indicators

Harmless treatment rate of garbage Rate of waste recycling Percentage of green transportation

Transportation

Transportation

Transportation facilities and infrastructure Model use Accessibility of transport options Policies; other; air transport

Average GDP per Economy capita (developed regions & less developed regions)

Economic health Employment Green or innovative sectors Cost of ;iving Other GDP and income (continued)

42

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

Table 3.5 (continued) Chinese indicator systems Secondary categories

International indicator systems

Primary categories

Secondary categories Debt, savings, and investment levels; government financing; businesses with environmental management systems; resource productivity

Percentage of protected area

Land use

Land use and urban form

Public green space

Average per-capita public green land

Population density

Green coverage in built-up area

Biodiversity

Per-capita public green space in built-up area

Other; protected lands; built up area forestry; policies; smart growth index; ecological footprint; agricultural lands

Rate of green land in built-up area Public satisfaction Social aspects with the environment

Demographics & Health social health

Entrance rate for higher education

Education Public, NGO, and academic participation Aesthetics City leadership in collaborative efforts Risks and crime; equity; other; noise

Source Compiled based on MEP, MHURD, Tianjin Eco-City [17, 18]

consensus on the currently available best case example of Chinese eco-cities, a hypothetical eco-city will be selected based on the assumption that it meets all the eco-city standards set by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) as a baseline. The city of Suzhou has been chosen as the best practice case of Chinese Eco-city. For the international comparison, the Japanese city of Kitakyushu will be examined.

3.4.1 Selection of Case Study Cities Two internationally acknowledged eco-cities have been chosen for this study—the City of Kitakyushu in Japan and Suzhou City in China. Kitakyushu, with a population of close to one million, has earned acclaim for its rigorous environmental

3.4 Comparison for China’s Eco-Cities with Japan’s Cases

43

engagement from various stakeholders, including the municipal government, business sectors, research institutes, local communities, and citizens. This former “notoriously” polluted industrial center has successfully transformed into a recyclingoriented, resource-efficient, and eco-friendly industrial zone with high-quality life standards. It has received accreditation from both the Japanese government and international organizations, including the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Suzhou is a prefecture-level municipality with a population of 5.45 million and covers an area of 2,743 km2 (Suzhou Statistical Yearbook 2014). As one of the most developed and affluent cities in China, it boasts a GDP of 20,000 USD per capita in 2014 [21]. Suzhou is highly regarded for its efforts in preserving local culture, promoting economic development, and protecting the environment from various angles. It has been acknowledged with several “Eco” titles by national government entities, such as the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MoE) and the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MHURD) [21].

3.4.2 Data Collections The primary data on eco-city indicators for the two case study cities are sourced from their respective regulatory bodies and official websites. In cases where the contents are in another language, translations have been adapted mostly from the official designated translations or publicly recognized ones. Additionally, a considerable amount of secondary analysis of the primary data has been collected to ensure comprehensive consideration and comparison criteria selection.

3.4.3 Comparison Criteria and Applied Method MEP’s eco-city standards consist of 19 indicators categorized into “Economic Development,” “Environmental Protection,” and “Social Development.” For the purpose of this study, a few key indicators have been selected to represent the baseline scenario for the “ideal” Chinese eco-city, which will then be compared with the corresponding indicator targets or thresholds of Kitakyushu and Suzhou. Due to the lack of creditable verification and methodological approaches for MEP’s indicator standards, not all 19 indicators could be included. Only the indicators with high confidence in comparison and data availability have been selected. Priority has been given to environmental assessing indicators, and selections have been based on their relevance and data availability. In several cases, indicators with different units of measurement, such as “energy and water consumption per unit of GDP” and others, required necessary conversions and recalculations to unify the differences in units.

44

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

By employing this rigorous comparative analysis, we aim to provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of China’s eco-cities, thereby contributing to the advancement of sustainable urban development practices.

3.5 Eco-City Comparison Between China and Japan 3.5.1 Economic Aspect In this section, we delve into the economic aspect of eco-cities, using the MEP framework with 5 indicators under the economic category as our baseline for comparison. We examine eco-cities in China and compare them with Kitakyushu in Japan and Suzhou in China, as shown in Table 3.6. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) serves as a universally recognized indicator of economic development within specific geographical boundaries. In the trial version of the MEP eco-city framework, indicators such as “GDP per capita” and “Annual income per capita” were listed. However, the final version retains only “Annual farmers’ net income” as a civil economic measurement. This shift from the sole pursuit of economic prosperity to genuine concern for a relatively economically vulnerable group—the farmers—is evident. Despite China’s standing as the world’s second-largest economy, significant disparities still exist between the baseline of farmers’ net annual income in China (8,000 Yuan for developed areas) and that of Kitakyushu (223,790 Yuan) and Suzhou (223,790 Yuan). This suggests that some of China’s most developed cities are closing the gap with their counterparts in developed regions. One of the main causes of unsustainable development lies in the blind pursuit of economic growth, particularly through GDP expansion. Therefore, implementing attainable economic development goals for Chinese eco-cities on a broader scale is imperative. Additionally, the discrepancies in GDP per capita values indicate that China’s economic development baseline still falls short of that of developed countries like Japan, despite its overall impressive performance. The ratio of the tertiary industry (service industries) to GDP in Chinese eco-cities’ baseline is relatively lower. A higher ratio of the first and secondary industries implies less contribution to overall urban sustainability, as these industries heavily rely on raw materials and material processing. Key indicators under this category include “energy consumption per unit of GDP” and “unit of industrial added value.” The baseline for “0.9 ton/10,000 Yuan” energy consumption, and Suzhou’s “0.824 ton/10,000 Yuan” are both higher than Kitakyushu’s “0.5 ton/10,000 Yuan.” Unfortunately, we could not compare water consumption for industrial added value and water efficiency of agricultural irrigations due to a lack of clear definitions and data from Japan. The data from these key indicators indicates that Chinese eco-cities are still lagging behind developed countries concerning per capita energy performance,

3.5 Eco-City Comparison Between China and Japan

45

Table 3.6 Comparisons of economic indicators for ‘Eco-Cities’ Economic development No

Indicators

Unit

1

Annul net income of farmers

Yuan/person

Eco-City (Baseline)

Developed area

≥8,000

Less developed area

≥6,000

Kitakyushu (Japan)

Suzhou (China)

223,790(a)

21,389(b)

2

Tertiary industry share in GDP

%

≥40

67%(c)

47.1%(b)

3

Energy consumption per unit of GDP

Tons of standard coal /10 k Yuan

≤0.9

0.5(e)

0.824(b)

4

Water consumption per unit of industrial added value

m3 /10 k Yuan

≤20

n.a

15.9(b)

≥0.55

n.a

0.636(b)

100

n.a

100(b)

Water efficiency of agricultural irrigation 5

Compliance rate of enterprises should carry out Cleaner production

%

Sources and Notes Conversion rate used: 1euro = 8 Yuan, 1 US dollar = 6 Yuan, 1 Yen = 0.07 Yuan (a) Converted from 3,197,000 Yen of Fukuoka farmer income in 2011 (e-Stat Japan Official Database2 ) (b) Li and Qiu [21] (c) Calculated from Table 2 of the GDP Brief Results 2010 (Fukuoka Prefecture Website3 ) (e) Final energy consumption per unit of GDP in 2010 of Fukuoka Prefecture (RIETI database4 )

industrial structural ratio, and resource efficiencies. Developing the urban economy sustainably is of vital importance in China, but the current standards have yet to reach competitiveness with the developed world.

2

http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/chiiki/CommunityProfileTopDispatchAction.do?code=3. http://www.pref.fukuoka.lg.jp/uploaded/life/19/19167_16466398_misc.pdf. 4 http://www.rieti.go.jp/users/kainou-kazunari/energy./. 3

46

3 Eco-City Development in China: International Perspective …

3.5.2 Environmental Aspect Environmental protection is a fundamental element of urban sustainable development, making related indicators crucial for assessing the eco-attainment level of eco-cities. This section presents a comparison of 11 indicators falling under the environmental aspect category (refer to Table 3.7). Notably, for categories like air, water, noise, and waste, which require compliance with Chinese national standards comprising numerous specific indicators, only the most common ones have been selected for separate comparisons. China’s strong focus on “green areas,” significantly influenced by nationwide “garden city” initiatives since the early 1990s, is evident from the “Forest coverage rate” of 40% (Hilly area) compared to Kitakyushu’s 38.3% and 15% (Plain area) to Suzhou’s 29.4%. The availability of 11m2 /person in “Urban public green area per capita” comes close to Kitakyushu’s 12 m2 /person, which is satisfactory given the population density in most Chinese cities. Categories like “Air,” “Water,” and “Waste” carry immense significance for any city, acknowledged as major components of urban environmental health. By comparing indicators in these domains, we can directly assess a city’s ecological level. Many Chinese cities are already grappling with critical air pollution issues, with Beijing, among other mega-cities, facing severe public health concerns and indirect economic damages apart from environmental consequences. Notably, the “eco-cities” standards set by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) do not introduce new indicators or thresholds; all standards comply with the “Ambient air quality standards” (GB3095-1996). However, as these standards were renewed in 2012 (GB3095-2012), figures included for comparison are derived from the 2012 version. Additionally, the initial eco-city standards’ trial version required northern cities to meet Class 2 air quality standards for at least 280 days a year and southern cities for at least 330 days. This raised concerns about potentially “loosened requirements” for northern cities due to industrial development needs and population growth patterns. Fortunately, the revised version eliminated the time window (85 out of 365 days, 35 out of 365 days), addressing the issue and indicating the government’s commitment to improving air quality requirements. For comparing air quality in the three cases, four key indicators were selected from several dozen measurements: daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle matters (e.g., PM10, PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide. The results indicate that the thresholds set for Chinese eco-cities are several times higher than those of Kitakyushu and Hamburg (refer to Table 3.8), highlighting a substantial gap between Chinese eco-cities and developed nations concerning air quality. Water is an indispensable resource for human survival and development, but it poses a significant challenge in China due to its severe shortage and pollution. Additionally, it plays a crucial role in the ecological development of cities, as reflected by various indicators (see Table 3.9). Comparing these indicators, we find that the pH range in both countries is relatively similar, indicating natural acidity and alkalinity. However, the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) value is five times higher in China

3.5 Eco-City Comparison Between China and Japan

47

Table 3.7 Comparisons of environmental indicators for ‘Eco-Cities’ Environmental protection No

Indicators

Unit

6

Forest coverage

%

Eco-City (Baseline)

Mountainous areas

≥70

Hilly areas

≥40

Plain areas

≥15

Percentage of the forestry and grass coverage in alpine area and grasslands

≥85

≥17

Japan (Kitakyushu)

Suzhou(f) China)

38%(a)

29.4%

n.a

37.8%

7

Proportion of protected areas in total land area

%

8

Ambient air quality

Meet the national standards Compare for functional areas5 separately

Compare separately

9

Water quality

Reach the standard of Compare functional area and exceeds separately Coastal water quality Class V of water quality

Compare separately

10

Emission density of key pollutants

n.a

0.59 0.76

kg/10 k Yuan (GDP)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD)