Urban sustainability indicators re-visited: lessons from property-led urban development in China

Figures & data

Figure 1. The USI and its building blocks.

Source: Dijka and Zhang, 2005

Figure 2. Property-led Urban Development Model in China.

Source: Xu, 2017

Figure 3. Conceptual framework for developing indicator system.

Source: Xu, 2013

Table 1. Property-related urban sustainability indicator system.

Themes	Indicators	Sources	Connotations
Economic
General performance	(EC1) Economic growth	Keivani et al. (2001) and McCann (2004)	Pace and potential of economic growth; share of real estate
Real estate development	(EC2) Property development capacity	Ball et al. (1998) and Cao and Keivani (2007)	Scale and revenue of government land sale; productivity and flexibility of the development sector in response to market changes
	(EC3) Quantity of property stock
	(EC4) Quality of property stock
Real estate use	(EC5) Efficiency of property use	Keogh and D’arcy (1999) and Cao and Keivani (2007)	Vacancy rates of properties (residential, office and retail)
Real estate investment	(EC6) Property investability	Ball et al. (1998) and Adair et al. (2003)	Rental and price trends on investment potentials and risks
Infrastructure quality	(EC7) Public mass transit	Sinha (2003)	Infrastructure capacity facilitating property development, use and economic viability
	(EC8) General transport
Environmental
Energy use	(EN1) Energy efficiency of buildings	German Development Institute (2008)	Proportion of new buildings that meet energy standards
Land use	(EN2) Recycling of land	Burton (2002) and Bertaud (2007)	Efficiency and intensity of land use and reuse
	(EN3) Building density
Pollution	(EN4) Pollution level	Bell and Morse (2008) and Lam (2008)	Quality of air, water, green space and waste treatment
Social
Population change	(SO1) Population growth & migration	Jenks and Burgess (2000) and Woetzel et al. (2008)	Urbanisation rate and growth of urban population
Social housing	(SO2) Social housing provision	Wang (2000) and Jia and Meng (2008)	Quantity and quality of social housing affecting equity and stability
Social cohesion	(SO3) Demolition & relocation	Goldwurm et al. (1993) and He and Wu (2007)	Level of compensation and conditions of relocation
Cultural heritage	(SO4) Destruction to historic buildings	Wu et al. (2007)	Loss of cultural heritage and local identity
Institutional
Legal and regulatory framework	(IN1) Legal guidance	Chen (2005) and Arvanitidis (2006)	Clarity, certainty, sufficiency and enforcement of formal rules
	(IN2) Policy guidance
	(IN3) Courts & law enforceability
Urban governance & planning	(IN4) Transparency of government	Chigora (2007) and Wu et al. (2007)	Quality of urban governance, planning and implementation that shape urban outcomes
	(IN5) Role of non-government sector
	(IN6) Transparency of urban planning
Property market administration	(IN7) Government administration	Keogh and D’arcy (1994) and Cao and Keivani (2007)	Efficacy of regulating market operation and practices; independence of professional bodies; market transparency and professionalism
	(IN8) Professional bodies
	(IN9) Availability & quality of data
	(IN10) Skills & training

Table 2. Results of expert ratings on the 4 sectors, 15 themes and 26 indicators, respectively.

(A) Rank by (H)	(B) Rank by (E)	(C) Rank by (F)	(D) Rating of 4 sectors	(E) FN mean	(F) CN mean	(G) Difference	(H) Total mean	(I) Increment
1	2	1	Economic	4.73	4.50	0.23	4.63
2	1	2	Environmental	4.73	4.42	0.31	4.60	0.04
3	4	3	Institutional	4.44	4.33	0.10	4.39	0.20
4	3	4	Social	4.52	4.21	0.31	4.39	0.01
			Average of sectors	4.60	4.36	0.24	4.50	0.08
(A) Rank by (H)	(B) Rank by (E)	(C) Rank by (F)	(D) Rating of 15 themes	(e) FN mean	(F) CN mean	(G) Difference	(H) Total mean	(I) Increment
1	4	2	Land use	4.44	4.71	−0.27	4.55
2	7	1	General economic performance	4.30	4.75	−0.45	4.50	0.05
3	2	5	Infrastructure quality	4.48	4.46	0.03	4.47	0.03
4	1	8	Energy use	4.66	4.21	0.45	4.46	0.01
5	6	3	Urban governance & planning	4.36	4.50	−0.14	4.42	0.04
6	5	4	Legal & regulatory framework	4.36	4.48	−0.11	4.41	0.01
7	3	7	Pollution	4.45	4.22	0.23	4.35	0.06
8	9	6	Population change	4.03	4.46	−0.43	4.21	0.14
9	10	9	Social housing	4.00	4.08	−0.08	4.04	0.18
10	11	11	Real estate use	3.97	3.92	0.05	3.95	0.09
11	8	14	Social cohesion	4.13	3.58	0.54	3.89	0.05
12	12	12	Real estate development	3.91	3.71	0.20	3.82	0.07
13	14	10	Property market administration	3.63	4.08	−0.46	3.82	0.00
14	13	13	Real estate investment	3.72	3.63	0.09	3.68	0.14
15	15	15	Cultural heritage	3.59	3.57	0.03	3.58	0.10
			Average of themes	4.14	4.16	−0.02	4.14	0.07
(A) Rankby (H)	(B) Rank by (E)	(C) Rank by (F)	(D) Rating of 26 indicators	(E) FN mean	(F) CN mean	(G) Difference	(H) Total mean	(I) Increment
1	1	10	(EN1) Energy efficiency of buildings	4.73	4.33	0.39	4.56
2	2	12	(EC7) Public mass transit	4.66	4.25	0.41	4.48	0.08
3	3	2	(EN2) Recycling of land	4.41	4.58	−0.18	4.48	0.00
4	8	1	(EC1) Economic growth	4.13	4.71	−0.58	4.38	0.10
5	5	7	(IN3) Court & law enforceability	4.25	4.38	−0.13	4.30	0.08
6	7	4	(IN6) Transparency of urban planning	4.16	4.48	−0.32	4.29	0.01
7	4	14	(EN4) Pollution level	4.34	4.13	0.21	4.25	0.04
8	9	5	(IN2) Policy guidance	4.13	4.42	−0.29	4.25	0.00
9	6	8	(IN4) Transparency of government	4.16	4.35	−0.19	4.24	0.01
10	17	3	(IN1) Legal guidance	3.94	4.50	−0.56	4.18	0.06
11	14	6	(SO1) Population growth & migration	4.00	4.38	−0.38	4.16	0.01
12	16	11	(SO2) Social housing provision	3.97	4.29	−0.32	4.11	0.06
13	18	9	(IN7) Government administration	3.94	4.33	−0.40	4.11	0.00
14	12	13	(IN9) Availability & quality of data	4.03	4.21	−0.18	4.11	0.00
15	11	20	(EN3) Building density	4.03	3.83	0.20	3.95	0.16
16	13	19	(EC5) Efficiency of property use	4.00	3.83	0.17	3.93	0.02
17	15	17	(EC8) General transport	3.97	3.86	0.11	3.93	0.00
18	10	25	(IN10) Skills & training	4.13	3.58	0.54	3.89	0.03
19	19	16	(EC4) Quality of property stock	3.90	3.88	0.03	3.89	0.00
20	20	18	(IN8) Professional bodies	3.84	3.83	0.01	3.84	0.05
21	22	15	(IN5) Role of non-government sector	3.71	4.00	−0.29	3.83	0.01
22	21	22	(SO4) Destruction to historic buildings	3.74	3.79	−0.05	3.76	0.06
23	23	21	(EC6) Property investibility	3.69	3.79	−0.10	3.74	0.03
24	25	23	(EC2) Property development capacity	3.58	3.79	−0.21	3.67	0.06
25	24	24	(SO3) Demolition & relocation	3.60	3.75	−0.15	3.67	0.01
26	26	26	(EC3) Quantity of property stock	3.40	3.42	−0.02	3.41	0.26
			Average of indicators	4.02	4.10	−0.09	4.05	0.05

Notes: Mean of ratings: 1 = least important, 3 = important, 5 = most important.

Bold highlights are indicators with notable difference between CN and FN ratings. Source: Xu, 2013.

Table 3. Quartile distribution of indicators and key performance indicators (KPIs) by sector.

Grand mean by sector	Sorting based on aggregate mean of ratings (5=most important, 3=important, 1=least important)
	4th Quartile (KPIs) (4.26–5)	3rd Quartile (4.11–4.25)	2nd Quartile (3.84–4.10)	1st Quartile (3.41–3.83)
Economic	public mass transit (2), economic growth (4)		Efficiency of property use, general transport, quality of property stock	Property investibility, property development capacity, quantity of property stock
3.93
Environmental	Energy efficiency of buildings (1), recycling of land (3)	Pollution level	Building density
4.31
Social		Population growth & immigration, social housing provision		Destruction to historic buildings & sites, demolition & relocation
3.93
Institutional	Courts & law enforceability (5), transparency of urban planning (6)	Policy guidance, transparency of government, legal guidance, government administration, availability & quality of data	Skills & training, professional bodies	Role of non-governmental sector
4.10

Note: grand mean by sector = average of mean ratings on all indicators of each sector; KPIs are indicators with mean over 4.26 (the top quartile) (order in bracket). Source: Xu, 2013.

Figure 4. Indicator ratings by FN, CN and all participants.

Dijk MPV , Zhang M . 2005. Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers, evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 25:667–688.10.1016/j.eiar.2004.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xu Y . 2017. Property-led urban growth, institutional change and urban sustainability: the case of China in an international perspective. In: Caprotti F , Yu L , editors. Sustainable cities in Asia . London: Routledge; p. 322.

 Google Scholar

Xu Y . 2013. Property-led urban development in china: role, impact and future. Scholars' Press.

 Google Scholar

Keivani R , Parsa A , McGreal S . 2001. Globalisation, institutional structures and real estate markets in central european cities. Urban Studies. 38(13):2457–2476.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McCann EJ . 2004. Urban political economy beyond the 'Global City'. Urban Studies. 41(12):2315–2333.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ball M , Lizieri C , MacGregor BD . 1998. The economics of commercial property markets. Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Cao JA , Keivani R. 2007. Why china? Why now? The role of property markets in supporting economic and social development in china. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) & Shui On Land.

 Google Scholar

Keogh G , D’arcy E . 1999. Property market efficiency: an institutional economics perspective. Urban Stud. 36:2401–2414.10.1080/0042098992485

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Adair A , Berry J , McGreal S , Hutchison N , Watkins C , Gibb K . 2003. Urban regeneration and property investment performance. Journal of Property Research. 20(4):37–386.

 Google Scholar

Sinha KC . 2003. Sustainability and urban public transportation. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 129(4):331.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

German Development Institute. 2008. Energy efficiency in buildings in china - policies, barriers and opportunities.

 Google Scholar

Burton E . 2002. Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 29(2):219–250.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bertaud A. 2007. Urbanisation in china: land use efficiency issues. [accessed 2015 Nov 30]. http://alain-bertaud.com/AB_Files/AB_China_land_use_report_6.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Bell S , Morse S . 2008. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable?. 2nd ed. London.

 Google Scholar

Lam D . 2008. The reality of environmental sustainability in China. City. 12(2):245–254.

 Google Scholar

Jenks M , Burgess R . 2000. Compact cities: sustainable urban forms for developing countries. London: E. & F.N. Spon.

 Google Scholar

Woetzel J , Mendonca L , Devan J , Negri S . 2008. Preparing for china's urban billion. McKinsey Global Institute.

 Google Scholar

Wang Y . 2000. Housing reform and its impacts on the urban poor in China. Hous Stud. 15:845–864.10.1080/02673030020002573

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jia Z , Meng Q . 2008. International comparison study on social housing provision. Ltd: China Merchants Securities Co.

 Google Scholar

Goldwurm M , Santini M . 1993. Key issues in property-led urban restructuring: a European perspective. J Property Valuation Invest. 11(4):339–353.

 Google Scholar

He S , Wu F . 2007. Socio-spatial impacts of property-led redevelopment on China’s urban neighbourhoods. Cities. 24:194–208.10.1016/j.cities.2006.12.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu F , Xu J , Yeh AG-O . 2007. Urban development in post-reform china: state, market, space. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Chen C . 2005. Institutional legitimacy of an authoritarian state, china in the mirror of eastern europe. Problems of Post-Communism. 52(4):3–13.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arvanitidis P. A. 2006. Property market purpose efficiency: an exploratory analysis from an institutional economics perspective. The 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association (ERSA),Volvos, Aug 30–Sep 3.

 Google Scholar

Chigora P . 2007. Power in global governance. Alternatives Turkish J Int Relat. 14:387–403.

 Google Scholar

Keogh G , D'Arcy E . 1994. Market maturity and property market behaviour: a European comparison of mature and emergent markets. Journal of Property Research. 11(3):215–235.

 Google Scholar