A Global Perspective on the Sustainable Performance of Urbanization

Abstract

Urbanization, particularly in developing countries, is a major strategy for development. However, major concerns accompany it, such as air pollution, habitat destruction, and loss of arable land. In responding to these challenges, governments throughout the world have been implementing various policy mechanisms to guide the practice of urbanization towards sustainable development. It appears that there is little research investigating the outcomes of those efforts in implementing sustainable urbanization strategies. This paper provides a profile of sustainable urbanization from a global perspective. Data used for this research cover 111 countries and are collected from the World Bank database and the United Nation database. A ranking list of sustainable performance of urbanization between these countries is produced and discussed. The study suggests that countries at different stages of urbanization have achieved different levels of sustainable performance. The research results provide significant references for future study in the field of urbanization from a global perspective.

Full text

sustainability
Article
A Global Perspective on the Sustainable Performance
of Urbanization
Liyin Shen 1,2, Chenyang Shuai 1, 2, *, Liudan Jiao 1,2, Yongtao Tan 3and Xiangnan Song 1,2
1School of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China;
shenliyin@cqu.edu.cn (L.S.); jld0617@126.com (L.J.); songxn_ck@163.com (X.S.)
2International Research Center for Sustainable Built Environment, Chongqing University,
Chongqing 400045, China
3Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong,
China; bstan@polyu.edu.hk
*Correspondence: 18623367874@163.com; Tel.: +86-23-651-256-265
Academic Editor: Patricia Romero-Lankao
Received: 13 March 2016; Accepted: 5 August 2016; Published: 11 August 2016
Abstract:
Urbanization, particularly in developing countries, is a major strategy for development.
However, major concerns accompany it, such as air pollution, habitat destruction, and loss of arable
land. In responding to these challenges, governments throughout the world have been implementing
various policy mechanisms to guide the practice of urbanization towards sustainable development.
It appears that there is little research investigating the outcomes of those efforts in implementing
sustainable urbanization strategies. This paper provides a profile of sustainable urbanization from
a global perspective. Data used for this research cover 111 countries and are collected from the
World Bank database and the United Nation database. A ranking list of sustainable performance
of urbanization between these countries is produced and discussed. The study suggests that
countries at different stages of urbanization have achieved different levels of sustainable performance.
The research
results provide significant references for future study in the field of urbanization from a
global perspective.
Keywords:
urbanization; sustainable performance; indicators; global perspective; correlation analysis
1. Introduction
Urbanization has been identified as one of the most important strategies for development in the
21st century [
1
]. According to the World Bank [
2
], the ratio of urban populations at a global level has
already exceeded 50% in 2007 and this will continue to rise in the coming decades according to the
theory of Northam’s “S” curve [
3
]. Urbanization has been commonly recognized as producing many
benefits, such as job opportunities, health facilities, infrastructure services, income increase, etc. [
4
,
5
].
However, it has been widely reported that the unprecedented rate of urbanization over the last few
decades throughout the world has posed various drawbacks such as climate change, flood, loss of
arable land, and pollution of natural resources [
6
–
10
]. For example, the research by
Shen et al. [11]
pointed out that during the recent urbanization process in China, more than 2 million farmers per
year lost their farmland. There are still other problems brought about by improper urbanization.
Schultz [
12
] and Swan [
13
] opined that the rapid urbanization process has induced serious flooding
problems, especially in emerging countries. Dewan & Yamaguchi [
14
] investigated the relationship
between rapid urban growth and flood disasters in Bangladesh, and concluded that urbanization has
a significant association with flooding. Furthermore, Dewan et al. [
15
–
17
] developed a flood hazard
map to reduce potential flood damage, and presented general flood hazard management strategies
such as planning low development densities and strength drainage facilities, etc.
Sustainability 2016,8, 783; doi:10.3390/su8080783 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 2 of 16
Urgent action is required to develop sustainable urbanization practices in order to address
these challenges [
18
,
19
]. In line with this development, governments and various non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) throughout the world have been increasingly introducing measures to guide
the practices of urbanization towards better sustainability. Typical programs introduced for engaging
sustainable practice during urbanization programs include the Urban Management Program of
UN-Habitat [
20
], the UN’s Millennium Declaration [
21
], the Istanbul Declaration of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [
22
], the Hong Kong Planning Department’s HK2030 Study [
23
],
Melbourne City Council’s City plan 2010 [
24
], the government of Singapore’s Green Plan [
25
], the
government of Mexico City’s Plan Verde [
26
], and Iskandar Development Region’s Comprehensive
Development Plan approved by the government of Malaysia [
27
]. The promotion of sustainable
urbanization in previous years has led to many positive experiences, and it is considered that sharing
and learning best practice between different countries can make significant contributions to the global
mission of sustainable urbanization [
28
]. In order to share experiences of sustainable urbanization,
there is a need for properly evaluating the performance of the implemented urbanization practices
and identifying best practice. Other studies have also appreciated the importance of the evaluation of
sustainability performance in order to identify weaknesses and problems in the practice of urbanization
so that proper correction can be made [29].
In recent years, there has been significant development of methods, techniques, and tools
for assessing sustainable performance during the urbanization process. Zhang [
30
] proposed a
bi-dimensional matrix model to analyze the performance of environmental, social, and economic
dimensions at different stages of urbanization. Shen et al. [
31
] established an elasticity coefficient model
for capturing the dynamic nature of the urbanization process by employing two parameters, namely
urbanization velocity (V
µ
R) and sustainable urbanization velocity (V
µ
S). Mori and Yamashita [
32
]
presented a framework of City Sustainability Index (CSI) for assessing the sustainability performance
of urbanization, where the indicators are selected across environmental, economic, and social
dimensions to assess the performance of sustainable urbanization. Dewan and Corner [
33
] presented
a way of using of remote sensing technology for estimating urban sprawl, growth, and urban
structures.
Xu and Coors
[
34
] employed the techniques of Geographic Information System (GIS)
and 3D visualization to assess the performance of urban development. Among these typical
methods, it appears that the indicator-based approach is most commonly adopted to assess the
performance of urbanization against goals and targets [
35
]. A report by the United Nations [
36
]
suggests that indicator-based methods can help provide early warnings and effective information to
prevent setbacks by taking measures in advance. The study by Ramos and Caeiro [
37
] opined that
indicator-based methods can increase the accuracy of evaluation of the sustainable performance of
urbanization.
In agreement
with this, Hiremath et al. [
28
] suggested that indicator-based methods can
help demonstrate how well urbanization is implemented towards sustainable practice. Based on the
above discussion, the indicator-based evaluation method is therefore adopted in this study to assess
the sustainable urbanization performance from a global perspective.
There are various domains in examining sustainable urbanization; these apply different sets
of indicators. For instance, Shen et al. [
38
] assessed the utility efficiency of metro infrastructure
projects (MIP) in China from the perspective of sustainability performance by using five key indicator:,
Population of city (POP), length of Metro systems (LEN), annual ridership of Metro systems (RID),
ticket price (FAR), and gross domestic product (GDP). Weber and Puissant [
39
] examined the
performance of sustainable development of Tunis Metropolitan Area by incorporating the land cover
indicators. Dewan et al. [
40
] assessed the effect of urban expansion in Greater Dhaka on the promotion
of sustainable urbanization. Weiland et al. [
41
] presented an indicator system for assessing the
performance of sustainable land use in the process of urbanization in Santiago, Chile. Zhang et al. [
42
]
established a quantitative model composed of 19 indicators for evaluating the efficiency of the urban
infrastructure from the perspective of sustainable development.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 3 of 16
Existing studies have also addressed ways of assessing sustainable performance of urbanization
at national, regional, and local levels. For example, Shen and Zhou [
1
] examined the effectiveness
of nine indicator-based systems introduced by the Chinese government, and revealed that the
existing indicator systems have limitations when guiding sustainable urbanization in China.
Hernández-Moreno and Hoyos-Martínez [
43
] assessed the sustainable performance of urbanization in
Mexico City. Yigitcanlar et al. [
44
] introduced a multi-scalar indicator system to evaluate sustainable
urbanization performance in Gold Coast, Australia. By using remotely sensed data collected with the
assistance of GIS, Dewan et al. [
45
] analyzed the landscape fragmentation in Bangladesh for the period
1975–2005. Jensen [
46
] demonstrated the sustainability profiles between the districts in Copenhagen
city by using a model composed of 20 main indicators across environmental, social, and environmental
dimensions. Reddy and Balachandra [
47
] investigated the sustainable performance of urbanization
development in India by using an indicator-based evaluation approach. Byomkesh et al. [
48
] evaluated
the performance of urban green space in Bangladesh by employing a set of indicators.
The above suggests that while many studies have assessed the sustainable performance of
urbanization at the national, regional, and local level, there is no study examining it from a global
perspective. It is therefore the aim of this study to assess the sustainable performance of urbanization
at a global level. In pursuing this research aim, focus is given to the sustainability performance of
urbanization at a national level rather than an urban level, as performance at the urban level is unable
to reflect the sustainable urbanization performance of a whole country. This study evaluates the
sustainable performance of urbanization in 111 countries for which the relevant data for analysis are
available from the World Bank and United Nations, etc. The reminder of the paper is organized
as follows. Section 2introduces methods of indicator selection, weighting establishment, and
sustainable urbanization evaluation. Section 3establishes the comprehensive and international
indicator system, which can assess sustainable urbanization performance at the global level. Section 4
presents the evaluation results and a ranking list of sustainable urbanization performance across 111
countries. Section 5discusses the evaluation results of sustainable urbanization performance from the
performance ranking and global perspective, and further investigates the relationship between the
urbanization process and sustainable urbanization performance. Finally, Section 6summarizes the
main findings of this research.
2. Research Methods
The research starts with understanding the principles of an effective indicator system for assessing
the sustainable performance of urbanization. The design for effective indicators complies with the
following primary principles [36,49,50]:
‚Maturity:
The indicator system should be able to guide the practice of sustainable urbanization.
Selected indicators in this study are from international practices and authoritative studies.
‚Measurability:
The difficulty of collecting and quantifying the indicator data should be as low as
possible to allow the effective use of the indicator. Data for all the indicators in use in this study
can be collected through the UN Database or World Bank Database.
‚Independence:
Indicators should be independent of each other, and overlap and autocorrelation
between indicators should be avoided. Correlation analysis is therefore adopted to identify and
remove those strongly correlated indicators.
‚Operability:
The indicator system can be used for supporting calculation analysis of the
sustainable performance of urbanization.
2.1. Correlation Analysis
The independence of indicators is the most important criteria in formulating an effective indicator
system [
40
]. Correlation analysis is therefore conducted to check the independence of indicators.
For this purpose,
the Spearman correlation method is adopted. The effectiveness of the Spearman

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 4 of 16
method is well appreciated for analyzing indicator independence [
51
–
53
]. Two variables are considered
highly correlated if the value of their coefficient
|r|
> 0.8. In this case, one of them can be omitted [
51
].
2.2. Establishing Weighting Values between Indicators
Weighting values between indicators are important for conducting performance evaluation.
There are a number of approaches for determining indicator weighting values, such as weighting
assumption [
54
], the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [
55
], Delphi [
56
], and the Entropy method [
57
].
Among these methods, the Entropy method has been found effective in setting up weightings between
a group of indicators. In particular, this method has been commonly appreciated for its advantage
of determining the weighting values with no subjective influence, and is therefore used in this study,
which engages four procedures [57].
(a) Normalization for All Indicators
Assume that there are nindependent indicators, and the period involved for evaluation is myears.
As different
indicators assume different dimensions and magnitudes, there is a need for normalization
for all indicators.
For those positive indicators, a larger value indicates a better result, such as GDP per capita. Let
Pij
denotes the value of the indicator jin year iafter normalization,
vij
represents the original value
of the indicator jin the year i,
maxpvij q
and
minpvij q
are the maximum value and minimum value,
respectively, for the indictor jfor the surveyed period of myears. Then, the normalized value
Pij
can
be calculated as follows:
Pij “vi j ´minpvjq
maxpvjq ´ min `vj˘(1)
For negative indicators, such as CO
2
emissions, a smaller value indicates a better result. The
normalized value in this case can be calculated as follows:
Pij “maxpviq ´ vij
maxpvjq ´ min `vj˘(2)
(b) Standardization of Indicator Value
Let
fij
stand for the standardized value of the indicator jin year iafter normalization, which can
be calculated as follows:
fij “pi j
m
ř
i“1
pij
. (3)
(c) Entropy Value for Indicators
In applying the Entropy theory, an entropy value for each indicator needs to be obtained in
order to establish the weighting value for individual indicators. In a circumstance where there are
nindicators for assessment for a period of myears, the entropy value
Hj
for indicator jis defined
as follows:
Hj“ ´k
m
ÿ
i“1
fij ¨ln fi j i“1, 2, 3, . . . n, (4)
where k“1
lnm
(d) Establishment of Weighting Values for All Indicators
The weight for the indicator jis defined as:
Wj“1´Hj
m
ř
i“1`1´Hj˘
. (5)

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 5 of 16
Considering that
Wj
may be given different values under different circumstances or in different
countries, a general weight
Wj1
for indicator jis introduced for application under all circumstances in
the countries concerned. For establishing the value of
Wj1
, the weighting value of the indicator jfor a
sample of ucountries will be used. The value of Wj1is obtained as follows:
Wj1“řu
x“1Wxj
u, (6)
where Wxj denotes the weighting value of indicator jwith reference to country x.
2.3. Evaluation of Sustainable Performance of Urbanization
Based on the established indicators and their weighting values, the next step of this study is to
conduct an evaluation of sustainable urbanization performance between the 111 selected countries
based on the following model [37]:
SU “SUEn `SUEc `SUSo, (7)
where
SU
denotes sustainable urbanization performance and
SUEn
,
SUEc
, and
SUSo
represent
three dimensions of sustainability performance, namely environmental sustainability, economic
sustainability, and social sustainability.
The index of each sustainability dimension is defined as follows:
SUEn “
nEn
ÿ
jpEnq“1
W1
jpEnq¨PijpEnqjpEnq “ 1, 2, 3 . . . nEn (8)
SUEc “
nEc
ÿ
jpEcq“1
W1
jpEcq¨PijpEcqjpEcq “ 1, 2, 3 . . . nEc (9)
SUSo “
nSo
ÿ
jpSoq“1
W1
jpSoq¨PijpSoqjpSoq “ 1, 2, 3 . . . nSo (10)
PijpEnq
,
PijpEcq
, and
PijpSoq
represent the normalization value of the indicator jin year iin view of the
three perspectives (environmental, economic, and social development), where
nEn
,
nEc
, and
nSo
are the
number of indicators measuring the performance in environmental, economic, and social sustainability,
respectively; j(En), j(Ec) and j(So) are the indicators measuring environmental, economic, and social
sustainability performance, respectively; and W1
jpEnq,W1
jpEcq, and W1
jpSoqdenote the general weighting
value of the indicator jin view of the three perspectives, respectively.
In this study, 111 countries are selected including developed and developing countries distributed
across five continents, namely Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. The surveyed period is
2000 to 2010.
3. Indicators for Measuring Sustainable Urbanization Performance
3.1. Candidate Indicators
There are a number of existing studies that present various indicator systems for examining
urban development and sustainable urbanization. These typical indicator systems that function at an
international level can be retrieved from the following sources.
Sample 1(S1)
: Urban indicator database [
58
]. The Urban Indicators Program of the United Nations
Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat) was established in 1988. The database helps individual
countries design, collect, and apply policy-oriented urban indicators.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 6 of 16
Sample 2(S2)
: United Nations Millennium Development Goals of Indicators [
59
]. In order to develop
a more equal, healthy, sustainable world, leaders from 189 nations issued Millennium Development
Goals (MDG); 60 indicators are defined in order to achieve these goals.
Sample 3(S3)
: Indicators of Sustainable Development [
36
]. The United Nations issued the indicators of
Sustainable Development for guiding nations to better sustainable development.
Sample 4(S4)
: Shen et al. [
60
] developed a set of 115 indicators for examining the variations between
different sustainable urbanization practices at an international level.
Sample 5(S5)
: The World Bank issued the World Development Indicators in 2012 [
61
]. These indicators
are grouped under six themes: worldview, people, the environment, the economy, states and markets,
and global links.
The differences can be appreciated between the above five sample indicator systems, both in
numbers of indicators and classifications. Some indicators are labeled with the same name but classified
in different dimensions in different indicator systems. For example, the indicator “population growth
(annual %)” is classified under the environmental dimension in S4 and S1, while it is under the
demographics dimension in S3 and S5.
With reference to the five sample indicator systems above, indicators for measuring sustainable
performance of urbanization are selected if they appear in three or more sample indicator systems.
As a result,
22 candidate indicators are selected under environmental, economic, and social categories,
as shown in Supplementary Table S1.
Considering that different countries are at different development stages, it is debatable whether
total emissions can be applied as an indicator for all countries. Therefore, the indicators “CO
2
emissions” and “Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs in ODP metric tons” in the environmental
category are scaled per capita. Furthermore, population density is added as an additional indictor for
measuring environmental performance. Consequently, a list of 23 candidate indicators is confirmed,
as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The confirmed candidate indicators.
Dimension Indicators
Environment (En)
En1-CO2emissions per capita (kt per capita)
En2-Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs in ODP metric tons per capita
En3-Forest area (% of land area)
En4-Marine protected areas (% of territorial waters)
En5-Electric power consumption (kWh per capita)
En6-Population growth (annual %)
En7-Population Density (%)
Economic (Ec)
Ec1-GDP per capita
Ec2-Gross savings (% of GDP)
Ec3-Employment-population ratio (annual %)
Ec4-Adjusted net savings as percentage of gross national income (GNI)
Ec5-Inflation Rate (annual %)
Ec6-Internet users (per 100 population)
Ec7-Fixed telephone lines (per 100 population)
Ec8-Mobile cellular telephone subscribers (per 100 population)
Social (So)
So1-School enrollment, primary (% net)
So2-Ratio of female to male primary enrollment (%)
So3-Life expectancy at birth, total (years)
So4-Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people)
So5-Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1000 live births)
So6-Intertional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population
So7-Improved water source (% of population with access)
So8-Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access)

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 7 of 16
Sustainable urbanization can be defined as “urbanization practice that complies with sustainable
development principles that combines environmental, social, and economic sustainability” [
4
,
62
].
Although the candidate indicators in this study (as shown in Table 1above) are selected with the
frequency principle among the five indicator systems, our approach is considered consistent with the
principle of sustainable urbanization. For example, Zhou et al. [
19
] agreed that urbanization is closely
associated with environmental, economic, and social sustainability in a city, which are the key variables
for assessing the performance of sustainable urbanization. For the environmental dimension, high
environmental sustainability during the urbanization process is considered as being when population
growth and human activity exert the least pressure on air, land, resources, and biodiversity [
63
,
64
].
As shown
in Table 1, Shen et al. [
60
] and Scipioni et al. [
65
,
66
] selected the indicators carbon emissions
and consumption (En1) of ozone-depleting (En2) to evaluate air quality. The performance of indicator
forest area (En3) is used to assess the land protection [
19
,
50
], marine-protected areas (En4) are employed
to monitor the biodiversity protection level, and the indicators Electric power consumption (En5),
population growth (En6), and population density (En7) measure the pressure on resources [
61
,
67
].
For the economic dimension, good economic sustainability during urbanization is characterized by
a high GDP level, strong economic development potential, strong labor markets, stable economic
conditions, and modern technology [
44
,
60
]. As shown in Table 1, the GDP level can be measured as
GDP per capita (Ec1). In addition, the research by Mason [
68
] opined that savings would contribute
to economic growth, which in turn indicates that the indicators gross savings (Ec2) and adjusted
net savings (Ec3) are applicable in monitoring the economic development potential. Nickell [
69
]
revealed that the employment rate (Ec4) is an important variable that reflects the quality of labor
markets.
As Pradhan
et al. [
70
] pointed out, the inflation rate (Ec5) can reflect the stability of economic
development. Furthermore, the indicators Internet users (Ec6), fixed telephone lines (Ec7), and
mobile cellular telephone subscribers (Ec8) are usually applied to evaluate modern technology [
11
,
61
].
For the social dimension, a sustainable society is characterized by equal education, comprehensive
medical treatment, social safety, and modern infrastructure [
1
,
19
]. Sharma [
71
] used the indicators of
school enrollment (So1) and ratio of female to male primary enrollment (So2) to monitor equal access
to education and gender discrimination. The values of life expectancy at birth (So3), incidence of
tuberculosis (So4), and mortality rate (So5) can reflect the comprehensive medical treatment level [
60
].
The research by Semyonov et al. [
72
] adopted the intentional homicide rate (So6) to represent the
crime rate, which can be used to assess social safety. The indicators improved water source (So7) and
improved sanitation facilities (So8) are included in the World Bank indicator system to evaluate the
modern infrastructure level. Therefore, in this study, the confirmed candidate indicators shown in
Table 1are validated, enabling us to measure these sustainable urbanization requirements.
3.2. Selection of Indicators
A Spearman correlation analysis is conducted to select indicators from the 23 candidates for
further analysis. As mentioned before, correlation analysis ensures the independence of the selected
indicators. The correlation analysis is conducted for three dimensions of indicators separately, using
the statistics package SPSS 20.
The data used for the correlation analysis give the performance of all the candidate indicators
listed in Table 2for the period 2000 to 2010 in 111 selected countries. The sources for these performance
data are two worldwide databases, the United Nation Database [
73
] and the World Bank Database [
2
].
By using the data collected, the Spearman correlation analysis is conducted and the correlation results
are shown in Supplementary Tables S2–S4.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 8 of 16
Table 2. The selected indicators for measuring sustainable performance of urbanization.
Dimension Indicators Data Source
Environment (En)
En1-CO2emissions per capita (kt per capita) World Bank
En2-Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs in ODP metric tons per capita United Nation
En3-Forest area (% of land area) World Bank
En4-Marine protected areas (% of territorial waters) United Nation
En5-Electric power consumption (kWh per capita) World Bank
En6-Population growth (annual %) World Bank
En7-Density (%) World Bank
Economic (Ec)
Ec1-GDP per capita World Bank
Ec2-Gross savings (% of GDP) United Nation
Ec3-Employment-population ratio (annual %) World Bank
Ec4-Inflation Rate (annual %) United Nation
Ec5-Mobile cellular telephone subscribers( per 100 population) World Bank
Social (So)
So1-School enrollment, primary (% net) World Bank
So2-Ratio of female to male primary enrollment (%) United Nation
So3-Life expectancy at birth, total (years) World Bank
So4-Intentional homicide, number and rate per 100,000 population United Nation
So5-Improved water source (% of population with access) World Bank
As shown in Supplementary Table S2, all the indicators in the environmental dimension
are independent according to the rule of judgment (
|r|
< 0.8), as addressed before. The data in
Supplementary Table S3 demonstrate that there are strong correlations between economic indicators
Ec1 & Ec6, Ec1 & Ec7, and Ec2 & Ec4. Therefore, the indicators Ec4, Ec6, and Ec7 are omitted. The
remaining five economic indicators will be applied for further analysis. Furthermore, the data in
Supplementary Table S4 suggest that there are strong correlations between So3 & So4, So3 & So5,
and So7 & So8. Therefore, the indicators So4, So5, and So7 are omitted from the list. As a result, 17
independent indicators are selected for further analysis, as shown in Table 2.
4. Analysis Results of Sustainable Urbanization Performance among the Selected Countries
By using the 17 indicators confirmed in Table 2in the analytical models defined in the methodology
section, the performance of sustainable urbanization in various countries can be calculated.
The weighting values between the 17 indicators need to be established firstly. As discussed in
the methodology section in referring to Model (6), a general weighing value for individual indicators
will be established for application to all selected countries. The computation for the general weight is
through the Entropy method, which involves a complicated process of applying Models (1)–(6). The
final results of the weighting values for the 17 indicators are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Weighting values between the selected indicators.
Indicator (En) Weight (%) Indicator (Ec) Weight (%) Indicator (So) Weight (%)
En-1 5.043 Ec-1 8.045 So-1 6.684
En-2 4.914 Ec-2 5.757 So-2 6.542
En-3 4.986 Ec-3 5.934 So-3 6.341
En-4 6.756 Ec-4 5.359 So-4 5.635
En-5 5.732 Ec-5 6.486 So-5 4.179
En-6 5.362
En-7 6.245
By applying Equations (7)–(10), further calculations are conducted for each selected country
to determine the performance of sustainable urbanization, environmental sustainability, economic
sustainability, and social sustainability, respectively. The analysis results are shown in Supplementary
Table S5.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 9 of 16
5. Discussion
The discussion is conducted in three parts, including the performance ranking, a global
perspective on the sustainable performance of urbanization, and the relationship between sustainable
performance and the urbanization rate.
5.1. The Ranking on Sustainable Urbanization Performance
In referring to the column SU (rank) in Supplementary Table S5, the selected countries are ranked
according to their overall performance in implementing sustainable urbanization, with the top five
performers being Sweden, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, and Demark, and the five worst
countries being Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
However, this ranking will be different if consideration is given to the three sustainability dimensions
separately. For example, in the environmental dimension, the top five performers are Norway, Sweden,
Romania, Denmark, and Germany, and the worst five are Nigeria, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, India, and
Syria. It is interesting to note that Romania is the only developing country among the five countries
with the best environmental sustainability. The study by Constantin [
74
] explained that the good
environmental sustainability performance of Romania is due to a series of environmental protection
strategies implemented at the regional level in the long run. For example, Teodorescu [
75
] explained
that in Romania there is a national plan to improve the sustainability of the environment by protecting
and creating green spaces in urban areas. Nistoreanu [
76
] pointed out that the Romanian government
has been devoting efforts to the promotion of ecotourism by protecting environmental resources such
as fresh air and forests. On the other hand, when the economic dimension is considered, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway are the best five, and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Mozambique, Yemen Namibia, and Tajikistan are the five poorest. Furthermore, from the
perspective of social sustainability, Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Japan are the best
five, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Angola, Togo, and Mozambique are
the worst five.
The analysis results demonstrate that better sustainability performance is gained from good
coordination between economic, social, and environmental dimensions during the urbanization
process. There are countries that appear in the lower ranks because they focus on one dimension
without giving proper attention to the interaction of all three. For example, Romania is ranked as one
of the best in environmental sustainability but is positioned 38th in overall sustainable urbanization
performance. On the contrary, Sweden is not a frontrunner in any one dimension of performance, but
its overall sustainable performance is the best, indicating that Sweden has been practicing the best
balance between the three sustainability dimensions.
The overall worst performing countries are mainly the least developed countries in Africa.
They are not only poor in performing the three dimensions individually, but also very poor in
coordinating the development between the three dimensions. In any case, they are far behind the
developed countries.
5.2. A Global Perspective on the Sustainable Performance of Urbanization
The selected countries in the study can be classified into four groups according to their overall
sustainable performance of urbanization: very good countries are ranked between 1 and 30, good are
ranked between 31 and 60, poor are ranked between 61 and 90, and very poor are ranked between 91
and 111. Such a classification can be demonstrated in the map of Figure 1.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 10 of 16
Sustainability 2016, 8, 783 10 of 16
Figure 1. A global perspective on sustainable urbanization performance.
Not estimated
Figure 1. A global perspective on sustainable urbanization performance.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 11 of 16
It can be seen from Figure 1that most of the countries in the “very good” group are in Europe.
In other words, Europe is the best region from the perspective of overall sustainable performance of
urbanization. Sustainable development has been effectively implemented in Europe, as echoed by
the study of Rotmans et al. [
77
], which found that sustainable development has been recognized as
the basic development principle in Europe, and various projects have been implemented to promote
sustainable development. The countries in Asia are in various performing groups, with some “good”
and some “poor.” For example, Japan, the most developed country in Asia, is ranked 8th among all
the surveyed countries. Thailand, renowned for its tourism, is ranked in the good group. Indonesia,
the biggest island country in Asia, is ranked in the poor group. China, the country with the largest
population, is ranked in the very poor group. While the countries in the Americas and Oceania are
not as good as those in Europe, their sustainable performance of urbanization is generally considered
good with the exception of a few poor ones. Most of the African countries are in the “very poor” group
from the viewpoint of overall sustainable urbanization performance.
5.3. Relationship between Sustainable Performance and Urbanization Rate
According to Northam’s Theory [
3
], the urbanization process is depicted as an “S” curve,
including an initial stage, an acceleration stage, and a terminal stage. The initial stage has a slow
pace until the urbanization rate reaches about 30%. The acceleration stage begins with a pronounced
pace. Urbanization reaches the terminal stage when the ratio of the urban population is over 70%.
It is considered
that sustainable performance will be different when an urbanization process is at a
different stage. For supporting this argument, a regression analysis is conducted using the data for
sustainable urbanization performance in Supplementary Table S5 and the urbanization rate collected
from the World Bank database. Figure 2a–c illustrate the regression analysis results between sustainable
performance and urbanization rate.
Sustainability 2016, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
It can be seen from Figure 1 that most of the countries in the “very good” group are in Europe.
In other words, Europe is the best region from the perspective of overall sustainable performance of
urbanization. Sustainable development has been effectively implemented in Europe, as echoed by
the study of Rotmans et al. [77], which found that sustainable development has been recognized as
the basic development principle in Europe, and various projects have been implemented to promote
sustainable development. The countries in Asia are in various performing groups, with some “good”
and some “poor.” For example, Japan, the most developed country in Asia, is ranked 8th among all
the surveyed countries. Thailand, renowned for its tourism, is ranked in the good group. Indonesia,
the biggest island country in Asia, is ranked in the poor group. China, the country with the largest
population, is ranked in the very poor group. While the countries in the Americas and Oceania are
not as good as those in Europe, their sustainable performance of urbanization is generally
considered good with the exception of a few poor ones. Most of the African countries are in the
“very poor” group from the viewpoint of overall sustainable urbanization performance.
5.3. Relationship between Sustainable Performance and Urbanization Rate
According to Northam’s Theory [3], the urbanization process is depicted as an “S” curve,
including an initial stage, an acceleration stage, and a terminal stage. The initial stage has a slow
pace until the urbanization rate reaches about 30%. The acceleration stage begins with a pronounced
pace. Urbanization reaches the terminal stage when the ratio of the urban population is over 70%. It
is considered that sustainable performance will be different when an urbanization process is at a
different stage. For supporting this argument, a regression analysis is conducted using the data for
sustainable urbanization performance in Supplementary Table S5 and the urbanization rate
collected from the World Bank database. Figure 2a–c illustrate the regression analysis results
between sustainable performance and urbanization rate.
Figure 2. Regression analysis between sustainable performance and urbanization rate at different
urbanization stages. (a) The initial stage (b) The acceleration stage (c) The terminal stage.
According to Figure 2a, there is a negative correlation between urbanization rate and
sustainable performance when urbanization is at an initial stage, with an R-squared value of 0.292.
This is echoed in the study by Henderson [78], who points out that urbanization at an initial stage is
economy-driven, with little attention to environmental and social sustainability. Shen et al. [31] also
suggested that in the initial urbanization stage, the urbanization rate is low, and therefore the
influence of urbanization on economic and social development is limited. This explains why the
sustainable urbanization performance is poor in those countries where urbanization is at an initial
stage.
Nevertheless, according to Figure 2b, there is a strong positive correlation between the
urbanization rate and sustainable performance when urbanization is at the acceleration stage, with
an R-squared value of 0.641. At this stage, urbanization can bring better sustainability performance.
The social benefits and economic development brought by urbanization in this stage are particularly
obvious. As opined by Dyson [79], urbanization at the acceleration stage can provide new
Figure 2.
Regression analysis between sustainable performance and urbanization rate at different
urbanization stages. (a) The initial stage (b) The acceleration stage (c) The terminal stage.
According to Figure 2a, there is a negative correlation between urbanization rate and sustainable
performance when urbanization is at an initial stage, with an R-squared value of 0.292. This is echoed
in the study by Henderson [
78
], who points out that urbanization at an initial stage is economy-driven,
with little attention to environmental and social sustainability. Shen et al. [
31
] also suggested that in
the initial urbanization stage, the urbanization rate is low, and therefore the influence of urbanization
on economic and social development is limited. This explains why the sustainable urbanization
performance is poor in those countries where urbanization is at an initial stage.
Nevertheless, according to Figure 2b, there is a strong positive correlation between the
urbanization rate and sustainable performance when urbanization is at the acceleration stage, with
an R-squared value of 0.641. At this stage, urbanization can bring better sustainability performance.
The social benefits and economic development brought by urbanization in this stage are particularly

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 12 of 16
obvious. As opined by Dyson [
79
], urbanization at the acceleration stage can provide new opportunities
and update the industrial structure to improve social services and promote economic development.
This echoes the argument raised before that urbanization, particularly in developing countries, is a
major national strategy for promoting social and economic sustainable development. Furthermore,
Figure 2c suggests that there is no significant correlation between urbanization rate and sustainable
performance when urbanization is at the terminal stage. It is considered that there is limited
driving force for further development when an urbanization process is almost complete in a specific
place. Under such circumstances, problems may arise such as obsolescent urban infrastructure,
unemployment, shortage of resources, damage to the environment, and so on. Some countries at this
stage may nevertheless be able to incorporate rehabilitation and redevelopment strategies for enabling
sustainable development in urbanized areas.
6. Conclusions
This paper measures the sustainable urbanization performance from a global perspective. The
results suggest that the best performers in terms of overall sustainable urbanization during the
surveyed period are Sweden, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The best performers
are mainly developed countries in Europe. Other good performers include Brazil, Romania, and
Thailand. Poor performers are mainly distributed in Africa and Asia. The regression analysis in
the study suggests that there is a negative correlation between urbanization rate and sustainable
performance when urbanization is at the initial stage, and a positive correlation when urbanization is
at the acceleration stage. There is no significant correlation between urbanization rate and sustainable
performance if the urbanization is completed.
The two major take-home messages of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, it is
imperative to pursue development that is balanced between economic, environmental, and social
dimensions in order to achieve better sustainability performance during the urbanization process.
Many countries with poor sustainable performance are found to be interested in only one dimension
and not giving sufficient attention to the others. Take China as an example: its urbanization is typically
economy-driven, giving less attention to environmental protection. Secondly, it is important to share
best practice in sustainable urbanization between various countries. In general, developed countries
perform better on sustainable performance than developing countries. Sharing these good experiences
particularly among less developed countries will make effective contributions to the global mission of
sustainable development. In this context, developed countries can assist poor-performing countries
by sharing knowledge and management skills in the process of urbanization. In future studies, this
research team will investigate mechanisms for effectively promoting experience-sharing in practicing
sustainable urbanization between different countries.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/8/783/s1,
Table S1: Candidate indicators for measuring sustainable performance of urbanization, Table S2: Correlation
coefficients between seven environmental indicators for the period 2000–2010, Table S3: Correlation coefficients
between eight economic indicators for the period 2000–2010, Table S4: Correlation coefficients between eight social
indicators for the period 2000–2010, Table S5: The sustainable performance of urbanization-a global perspective.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by the Social Science Foundation of China under Grant No.
“15BJY038” and “15AZD025”. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments, which greatly helped us to clarify and improve the contents of the paper.
Author Contributions:
All authors contributed equally to the designed research, researched and analyzed the
data, and wrote the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Shen, L.; Zhou, J. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable urbanization in China.
Habitat Int. 2014,44, 111–120. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 13 of 16
2.
World Bank. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS/countries/1W?
display=graph (accessed on 2 June 2015).
3. Northam, R.M. Urban Geography; John Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 1979.
4.
Zhou, J.; Zhang, X.; Shen, L. Urbanization bubble: Four quadrants measurement model. Cities
2015
,46, 8–15.
[CrossRef]
5.
Larson, K.L.; White, D.D.; Gober, P.; Wutich, A. Decision-Making under Uncertainty for Water Sustainability
and Urban Climate Change Adaptation. Sustainability 2015,7, 14761–14784. [CrossRef]
6.
Childers, D.L.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M.; Marshall, V.; McGrath, B.; Pickett, S.T.A. An ecology for cities: A
transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience and urban sustainability.
Sustainability 2015,7, 3774–3791. [CrossRef]
7.
Dewan, A.M.; Kabir, M.H.; Nahar, K.; Rahman, M.Z. Urbanisation and environmental degradation in Dhaka
Metropolitan Area of Bangladesh. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2012,11, 118–147. [CrossRef]
8.
Squires, G.D. Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, & Policy Responses; The Urban Insitute: Washington, DC,
USA, 2002.
9.
Johnson, M.P. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: A survey of the literature and proposed research
agenda. Environ. Plan. A 2001,33, 717–735. [CrossRef]
10.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Teriman, S. Rethinking sustainable urban development: towards an integrated planning and
development process. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015,12, 341–352. [CrossRef]
11.
Shen, L.; Zhou, J.; Skitmore, M.; Xia, B. Application of a hybrid Entropy–McKinsey Matrix method in
evaluating sustainable urbanization: A China case study. Cities 2015,42, 186–194. [CrossRef]
12.
Schultz, B. Flood management under rapid urbanisation and industrialisation in flood-prone areas: A need
for serious consideration. Irrig. Drain. 2006,55. [CrossRef]
13.
Swan, A. How increased urbanisation has induced flooding problems in the UK: A lesson for African cities?
Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2010,35, 643–647. [CrossRef]
14.
Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y. Effect of Land Cover Changes on Flooding: Example from Greater Dhaka of
Bangladesh. Int. J. Geoinform. 2008,4, 11–12.
15.
Dewan, A.M.; Islam, M.M.; Kumamoto, T.; Nishigaki, M. Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning
in Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water Resour. Manag.
2007
,21,
1601–1612. [CrossRef]
16.
Dewan, A.M.; Kumamoto, T.; Nishigaki, M. Flood hazard delineation in greater Dhaka, Bangladesh using an
integrated GIS and remote sensing approach. Geocarto Int. 2006,21, 33–38. [CrossRef]
17.
Dewan, A.M.; Humayun Kabir, M.; Monirul Islam, M.; Kumamoto, T.; Nishigaki, M. Delineating flood risk
areas in Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using geoinformatics. Georisk 2007,1, 190–201. [CrossRef]
18.
Yigitcanlar, T. Smart cities: an effective urban development and management model? Aust. Plan.
2015
,52,
27–34. [CrossRef]
19.
Zhou, J.; Shen, L.; Song, X.; Zhang, X. Selection and modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: A
responsibility-based method. Ecol. Indic. 2015,56, 87–95. [CrossRef]
20.
UN-Habitat, Urban Management Programme (UMP). Available online: http://www.unhabitat.org/
categories.asp?catid=374 (accessed on 5 October 2012).
21. United Nations. United Nations Millennium Declaration: Resolution; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
22.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 2004 Istanbul Summit. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/2004_Istanbul_summit (accessed on 8 August 2016).
23.
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030—Planning Vision and Strategy, 2007. Available online:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/SEA/eng/file/ExecutiveSummary(Eng).pdf (accessed on 8 August 2016).
24.
Melbourne City Council, City Plan 2010—Towards a Thriving and Sustainable City. Available online: http:
//www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/Publications/CityPlan2010_part1.pdf (accessed on
18 July 2015).
25.
Plan, S.G. Beyond Clean and Green towards Environmental Sustainability; Ministry of the Environment and
Water Resources: Singapore, 2012.
26.
Mexico City Government, Green Plan “Plan Verde”. Available online: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/
sustainable-cities/all-cases/social-city/mexico-city-successful-environmental-management/ (accessed on
8 August 2016).

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 14 of 16
27.
Iskandar Regional Development Authority, Comprehensive Development Plan for Iskandar Malaysia.
Avaialbe online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskandar_Malaysia#Comprehensive_Development_Plan_
.28CDP.29 (accessed on 8 August 2016).
28.
Shen, L.-Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Zhang, X.; Yi, P. Experience mining for decision making on implementing sustainable
urbanization—An innovative approach. Autom. Constr. 2013,29, 40–49. [CrossRef]
29.
Moussiopoulos, N.; Achillas, C.; Vlachokostas, C.; Spyridi, D.; Nikolaou, K. Environmental, social and
economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators
for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 2010,27, 377–384. [CrossRef]
30.
Zhang, X. Sustainable urbanization: A bi-dimensional matrix model. J. Clean. Prod.
2015
,134, 425–433.
[CrossRef]
31.
Shen, L.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y. An alternative model for evaluating sustainable urbanization. Cities
2012,29, 32–39. [CrossRef]
32.
Mori, K.; Yamashita, T. Methodological framework of sustainability assessment in City Sustainability Index
(CSI): A concept of constraint and maximisation indicators. Habitat Int. 2015,45, 10–14. [CrossRef]
33.
Dewan, A.M.; Corner, R.J. Spatiotemporal analysis of urban growth, sprawl and structure. In Dhaka Megacity;
Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 99–121.
34.
Xu, Z.; Coors, V. Combining system dynamics model, GIS and 3D visualization in sustainability assessment
of urban residential development. Build. Environ. 2012,47, 272–287. [CrossRef]
35.
Zhou, J.Y.; Shen, L.Y.; Ren, W.J.; Rong, W. Comparative study on sustainable urban development indicator
systems in China. Jian She Guan Li Guo Ji Xue Bao 2013,1, 29–48.
36.
United Nations. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies; United Nations
Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
37.
Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S. Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indic.
2010
,10,
157–166. [CrossRef]
38.
Shen, L.; Jiao, L.; He, B.; Li, L. Evaluation on the utility efficiency of metro infrastructure projects in China
from sustainable development perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015,33, 528–536. [CrossRef]
39.
Weber, C.; Puissant, A. Urbanization pressure and modeling of urban growth: Example of the Tunis
Metropolitan Area. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003,86, 341–352. [CrossRef]
40.
Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y. Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: Using remote
sensing to promote sustainable urbanization. Appl. Geogr. 2009,29, 390–401. [CrossRef]
41.
Weiland, U.; Kindler, A.; Banzhaf, E.; Ebert, A.; Reyes-Paecke, S. Indicators for sustainable land use
management in Santiago de Chile. Ecol. Indic. 2011,11, 1074–1083. [CrossRef]
42.
Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Jiang, S. Sustainable infrastructure projects in balancing urban-rural
development: Towards the goal of efficiency and equity. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,107, 445–454. [CrossRef]
43.
Hernández-Moreno, S.; De Hoyos-Martínez, J. Indicators of urban sustainability in Mexico. Theor. Empir. Res.
Urban Manag. 2010,7, 46–60.
44.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F.; Dizdaroglu, D. Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban
sustainability assessment approach. Habitat Int. 2015,45, 36–46. [CrossRef]
45.
Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Rahman, M.Z. Dynamics of land use/cover changes and the analysis of
landscape fragmentation in Dhaka Metropolitan, Bangladesh. GeoJournal 2012,77, 315–330. [CrossRef]
46.
Jensen, J.O. Sustainability profile for urban districts in Copenhagen. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Cities
and Regions: Enabling Vision or Empty Talk? Örebro, Sweden, 11–13 March 2009.
47.
Reddy, B.S.; Balachandra, P. Benchmarking Urban Sustainability—A Composite Index for Mumbai and Bangalore;
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research: Mumbai, India, 2013.
48.
Byomkesh, T.; Nakagoshi, N.; Dewan, A.M. Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka,
Bangladesh. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2012,8, 45–58. [CrossRef]
49.
Haghshenas, H.; Vaziri, M. Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecol. Indic.
2012,15, 115–121. [CrossRef]
50.
Li, F.; Liu, X.; Hu, D.; Wang, R.; Yang, W.; Li, D.; Zhao, D. Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach
for assessing urban sustainable development: A case study for China’s Jining City.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009
,
90, 134–142. [CrossRef]
51.
Schwarz, N. Urban form revisited—Selecting indicators for characterising European cities.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010,96, 29–47. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 15 of 16
52.
Recanatesi, F.; Clemente, M.; Grigoriadis, E.; Ranalli, F.; Zitti, M.; Salvati, L. A Fifty-Year Sustainability
Assessment of Italian Agro-Forest Districts. Sustainability 2015,8, 32. [CrossRef]
53.
Lasage, R.; Muis, S.; Sardella, C.S.E.; van Drunen, M.A.; Verburg, P.H.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. A Stepwise,
Participatory Approach to Design and Implement Community Based Adaptation to Drought in the Peruvian
Andes. Sustainability 2015,7, 1742–1773. [CrossRef]
54.
Cheung, W.W.; Pitcher, T.J.; Pauly, D. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction
vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 2005,124, 97–111. [CrossRef]
55.
Zhao, H.; Li, N. Performance Evaluation for Sustainability of Strong Smart Grid by Using Stochastic AHP
and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Sustainability 2016,8, 129. [CrossRef]
56.
Chung, E.-S.; Won, K.; Kim, Y.; Lee, H. Water resource vulnerability characteristics by district’s population
size in a changing climate using subjective and objective weights. Sustainability
2014
,6, 6141–6157. [CrossRef]
57.
Wang, S.; Fang, C.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Ma, H. Quantifying the relationship between urban development
intensity and carbon dioxide emissions using a panel data analysis. Ecol. Indic.
2015
,49, 121–131. [CrossRef]
58.
UN-Habitat, Global Urban Indicators Database. Available online: http://unhabitat.org/books/global-
urban-indicators-database (accessed on 11 October 2015).
59.
DESA, UN-DESA. Official list of MDG Indicators; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Statistics
Division: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
60.
Shen, L.-Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators—A
comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011,35, 17–29. [CrossRef]
61. World Bank. World Development Indicators 2012; World Bank Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
62.
Roy, M. Planning for sustainable urbanisation in fast growing cities: Mitigation and adaptation issues
addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat Int. 2009,33, 276–286. [CrossRef]
63.
Dizdaroglu, D.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Dawes, L.A. Sustainable urban futures: An ecological approach to sustainable
urban development. In Proceedings of the Second Infrastructure Theme Postgraduate Conference 2009:
Rethinking Sustainable Development-Planning, Infrastructure Engineering, Design and Managing Urban
Infrastructure, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 9 July 2010;
pp. 187–195.
64.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dizdaroglu, D. Assessing Urban Ecosystem Sustainability: An Indexing Approach.
Available online:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30968394/Assessing-urban-
ecosystem-sustainability-an-indexing-approach.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&
Expires=1468819753&Signature=dqbGGXjzNGsfUhgrzvlV3FYqR7w%3D&response-content-disposition=
inline%3B%20filename%3DAssessing_urban_ecosystem_sustainability.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2014).
65.
Scipioni, A.; Mazzi, A.; Mason, M.; Manzardo, A. The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban
sustainable development: The case study of Padua Municipality. Ecol. Indic. 2009,9, 364–380. [CrossRef]
66.
Shuai, C.; Jiao, L.; Song, X.; Shen, L. Decoupling Analysis on the Relationship between Economic
Development and Environment Degradation in China. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on
Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Springer: Singapore, Singapore, 2017; pp. 1207–1216.
67.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F. Developing a sustainability assessment model: The sustainable infrastructure, land-use,
environment and transport model. Sustainability 2010,2, 321–340. [CrossRef]
68.
Mason, A. Saving, economic growth, and demographic change. Popul. Dev. Rev.
1988
,14, 113–144. [CrossRef]
69.
Nickell, S. Unemployment and labor market rigidities: Europe versus North America. J. Econ. Perspect.
1997
,
11, 55–74. [CrossRef]
70.
Pradhan, R.P.; Arvin, M.B.; Bahmani, S. Causal nexus between economic growth, inflation, and stock market
development: The case of OECD countries. Glob. Financ. J. 2015,27, 98–111. [CrossRef]
71.
Sharma, M. Education: A Challange for Women with Special Reference to South Central Asian Countries.
Int. J. Sci. Res. 2016,4, 674–675.
72.
Semyonov, M.; Gorodzeisky, A.; Glikman, A. Neighborhood ethnic composition and resident perceptions of
safety in European countries. Soc. Probl. 2012,59, 117–135.
73. United Nation. Databases. Available online: http://data.un.org/ (accessed on 18 July 2016).
74.
Constantin, D. Tourism and environmentally sustainable regional development: The case of Romania.
In Proceedings
of the 40th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Vienna, Austria,
29 August–1 September 2000; Volume 29.

Sustainability 2016,8, 783 16 of 16
75.
Teodorescu, G. Climate change impact on urban ecosystems and sustainable development of cities in
Romania. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2010,6, 103–112.
76.
Nistoreanu, P. The Ecotourism-Element of the Sustainable Development of the Local Rural Communities in
Romania. Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2005,7, 42–47.
77.
Rotmans, J.; van Asselt, M.; Anastasi, C.; Greeuw, S.; Mellors, J.; Peters, S.; Rothman, D.; Rijkens, N. Visions
for a sustainable Europe. Futures 2000,32, 809–831. [CrossRef]
78.
Henderson, V. The urbanization process and economic growth: The so-what question. J. Econ. Growth
2003
,
8, 47–71. [CrossRef]
79.
Dyson, T. The role of the demographic transition in the process of urbanization. Popul. Dev. Rev.
2011
,37,
34–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).