4 : ,,,, 2000,, [3 ] [4 ] 1995, [5 ] [6 11 ],,,, 2, : (1) 21,,,, (2), 5, 2000, [12 ] (3),, (4),,,, (5),,, , 86,, 60 86,,,, 17 ( 1)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "4 : ,,,, 2000,, [3 ] [4 ] 1995, [5 ] [6 11 ],,,, 2, : (1) 21,,,, (2), 5, 2000, [12 ] (3),, (4),,,, (5),,, , 86,, 60 86,,,, 17 ( 1)"

反班
7 years ago
Views:

22 4 2003 7 GEO GRAPHICAL RESEARCH Vol. 22, No.

1 GEO GRAPHICAL RESEARCH Vol. 22, No. 4 J uly, , Philip James 2, 3 (11, ; 21 (University of Salford), Salford, GM, U K; 31, ) :,,, 4 7 5,, : ; ; : K92815 ; C91218 ; F06113 : (2003) , [1 ] 10,,, 21 [2 ],,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ; : ; : : ( ) ; (2002BZH003) : ( ),,,,, 20

2 4 : ,,,, 2000,, [3 ] [4 ] 1995, [5 ] [6 11 ],,,, 2, : (1) 21,,,, (2), 5, 2000, [12 ] (3),, (4),,,, (5),,, , 86,, 60 86,,,, 17 ( 1)

3 Tab11 The f irst2step sustainable indicators of Chongming community development ,, 1 17,,,,,, 31113,, , , 40, , 33 4, 31212,, 4 6, 6, 6 : ; ; ; ; ;

4 4 : Tab12 The consultative results of government off iial and teachers group CO Tab13 The consultative results of students group CO

5 Tab14 The consultative results of workers and farmers groups ,,,,,, ( 3 4 ),, 1 0-1, 6, , 11, ,,,,,,, 5,,,,

6 4 : 489,,,,,,,,, 20,, 412,, 2 4, 10, ; 10 ; 10, 5 5,, (1) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4),,, 10,, 5 Tab15 Summary of rankings for each group

7 , ,,,,, 21 21, 6 6 Tab16 Comparison among different sustainable development indicators (9) (8) (5) (5) (6) (3) (10) (11) (1) (22) (24) (25) (4) (7) (10) (1) (26) (12) (14) (20) (21) : ; ; 6,

8 4 : 491,,, ; 21,, 21, 11, 5, 45 % 30 %, 17 %, 4, ,, 14, ( ) 81 ( ) GDP ( ) ( ) Tab17 Annual Data of each indicators during % 88 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 5 71 % 75 % % % % % 6 80 % 81 % 82 % 82 % 83 % 83 % 84 % 86 % 92 % 95 % % 7140 % 7180 % 8100 % 7170 % 7170 % 7140 % 7100 % 6190 % 6170 % % % % % 2811 % 2912 % 2510 % 2719 % 3111 % 3411 % 3619 % 3717 % 3815 % :,

9 ,, +, -, 0, + -,,, - +, 8 8 Tab18 The results of Chongming community sustainability assessment ,, 1995,, , ,,,, 10,,,,,,,, 8118 % 2216 %, 2319 % 5418 %,,,, 5

10 4 : 493,, 1994,,, 90,,,,,,,,,, 4 7 4,, : [ 1 ]. 21. :,19941 [ 2 ] :,19991 [ 3 ] Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. L ocal quality of lif e counts DETR. London,20001 [ 4 ] European Communities : Towards a local sustainability profile : European common indicators1 Technical Report1 Working Group on measuring, monitoring and evaluation in local sustainability1expert Group on the urban environment1office for Official Publication of the European Communities, 2000 htttp :/ / europa1eu1int/ comm/ environment/ urban/ indicatorsen1p1df, [ 5 ] [ 6 ],, 1 1,1998, (11) 1 [ 7 ], 1 1,2001, (6) 1 [ 8 ], 1 1,2000, (12) 1 [ 9 ], 1 1,1997,13 (1) 1 [ 10 ] Alexander G1Information2based tools for building community and sustainability1future,2000, 32 : [11 ] Valentin A, Spangenberg J H1A guide to community sustainability indicators1 Environmental Impact Assessment Re2 view, 2000,20 : [ 12 ]

11 Community sustainable development indicator systems in China : a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai YUAN Wen 1, Philip James 2, YAN G Kai 3 (11Yangtze River Institute, East China Normal University, Shanghai , China ; 21TIES, School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Allerton Building, Frederick Road, Salford, Greater Manchester, M6 6PU, U K; 31Department of Environmental Science, East China Normal University,Shanghai , China) Abstract :This paper explores t he community sustainable development indicator system which is established by means of group2based public participation under t he guidence of professional per2 sonnel but conforms to the situation in China. Chongming County in Shanghai was taken as a case. An initial long list of 86 indicators was identified based on previous indicator systems developed in China1 This long list was reduced via consultations with local scientists and gov2 ernment official from Shanghai City and Chongming County1This shortened list of 17 indica2 tors waiting for further community consultation involves 149 local authority officers, teachers, students (aged 12214), farmers and workers1the outcomes showed obvious difference in the understanding of sustainable development among various sectors1 By integrating data f rom t hese sectors it was possible to identify a system involving 4 cores and 7 additional indicators as the criteria to steer local sustainability1 Compared wit h ot her local indicator systems in Europe and the U K, local people in Chongming showed the same interest concerning on environment but with a stronger desire for economic development1 By using the sustainable indicators, the sus2 tainability of community development in Chongming Count y was appraised during And the results showed that in community level, Chongming had a general sustainable trend in that period1 This study, involving the residents of Chongming County, has special significance in discussing development issues because it is a region wit h good environmental quality and weak economy and as such is typical in many rural areas of China1 Key words : community sustainable development ; indicators ; public participation

. OER

. OER 20 4 2014 8 Open Education Research Vol. 20 No. 4 Aug. 2014 200062 G72 A 1007-2179 2014 04-0100 - 11 GDP 3000 50% 2014-2020 1978-2013 1. 7 7. 3 17. 9% 53. 7% 1. 02 193 658 2173 2005 1998 20113 53. 73%