4.7 Article

Development of sustainability indicators by communities in China: a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 68, Issue 3, Pages 253-261

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00063-X

Keywords

sustainable development; China; public engagement; indicators

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Public participation as a means of identifying sustainability indicators for Chongming County, Shanghai, China was evaluated by an international group drawing on established best practice. An initial 'long list' of 86 sustainability indicators, based on previous indicator systems developed in China, was identified. This 'long list' was reduced via consultations with local academics and local-government officers from Shanghai City and Chongming County to a 'short list' of 17 indicators. This short-list was subjected to further community consultation involving 159 local-government officers, teachers, students (aged 12-14 years), farmers and workers. Data from the consultations indicated differences in the understanding of sustainable development among the different sectors. By combining the data from the different sectors it was possible to identify a consensus around 4 core and 7 additional indicators. These are proposed as indicators which could be used to steer local activities directed towards sustainable development. The list of indicators produced by the people of Chongming Island was compared to local indicator systems in Europe. In comparison with European lists the Chongming list was found to have a greater emphasis on economic development but a similar level of concern for environmental matters. This study has special significance as it reports on the implementation of a process involving local resident participation in the process of sustainable development in China. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available