22 4 2003 7 GEO GRAPHICAL RESEARCH Vol. 22, No. 4 J uly, 2003 1, Philip James 2, 3 (11, 200062 ; 21 (University of Salford), Salford, GM, U K; 31, 200062) :,,, 4 7 5,, : ; ; : K92815 ; C91218 ; F06113 : 100020585 (2003) 0420484211 1 1992, 21 1994 [1 ] 10,,, 21 [2 ],,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ; : 2002212218 ; : 2003204224 : (70073008) ; (2002BZH003) : (1965 - ),,,,, 20 Email : yuanwen @kj1ecnu1edu1cn
4 : 485 21,,,, 2000,, [3 ] [4 ] 1995, [5 ] [6 11 ],,,, 2, : (1) 21,,,, (2), 5, 2000, [12 ] (3),, (4),,,, (5),,, 3 311 31111, 86,, 60 86,,,, 17 ( 1)
486 22 1 Tab11 The f irst2step sustainable indicators of Chongming community development 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 31112,, 1 17,,,,,, 31113,, 312 2001 3 2002 4, 4 31211 149 40, 40, 36 12 14, 33 4, 31212,, 4 6, 6, 6 : ; ; ; ; ;
4 : 487 2 Tab12 The consultative results of government off iial and teachers group CO 2 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 8 3 3 3 3 3 2 17 16 1 3 3 1 3 3 14 17 1 3 3 1 3 3 14 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 12 15 22 3 3 2 3 3 12 5 3 1 3 1 3 22 9 13 2 1 3 0 1 2 9 12 3 21 3 3 3 23 8 7 2 2 1 0 2 1 8 2 3 3 1 21 3 21 8 10 3 2 2 23 3 0 7 1 2 2 3 0 3 23 7 3 21 3 2 21 3 1 7 11 3 23 3 3 3 23 6 6 3 21 0 1 3 23 3 9 22 21 3 21 2 22 21 29 24 42 14 47 2 3 Tab13 The consultative results of students group CO 2 5 2 2 2 2 0 0 8 6 2 2 1 2 2 22 7 16 0 2 2 0 2 1 7 17 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 2 2 2 22 2 2 0 6 15 21 2 1 0 2 2 6 9 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 14 2 0 2 2 21 0 5 8 0 2 1 0 2 21 4 3 2 2 0 0 2 22 4 4 2 0 0 2 0 22 2 12 2 22 2 2 0 22 2 1 2 0 22 2 2 22 2 7 2 22 22 2 2 22 0 13 0 21 2 0 1 22 0 10 0 0 22 2 0 22 22 11 22 0 22 0 0 2 22 15 9 7 22 20 212
488 22 4 Tab14 The consultative results of workers and farmers groups 15 10 0 10 11 3 2 1 4 7 0 7 14 2 3 21 17 6 0 6 3 3 5 22 6 6 1 5 9 2 5 23 12 6 2 4 13 1 5 24 1 6 3 3 2 2 6 24 7 3 1 2 10 1 6 25 8 3 1 2 5 0 5 25 16 3 2 1,,,,,, ( 3 4 ),, 1 0-1, 6, 5 1-1 2 4, 11, 4 411 2 4,,,,,,, 5,,,,
4 : 489,,,,,,,,, 20,, 412,, 2 4, 10, ; 10 ; 10, 5 5,, (1) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4),,, 10,, 5 Tab15 Summary of rankings for each group 17 3 4 3 1 15 5 4 1 1 16 3 2 9 3 8 2 9 7 4 4 5 11 2 4 14 1 8 11 6 6 16 2 4 7 5 7 1 16 8 12 9 11 5 9 2 8 4 14 10 1 12 11 6 11 7 9 14 7 12 3 12 9 12 13 9 17 4 13 14 13 7 14 14 15 11 15 16 9 16 10 12 16 16 17
490 22 413, 6 6 2 3,,,,, 21 21, 6 6 Tab16 Comparison among different sustainable development indicators 21 21 (9) (8) (5) (5) (6) (3) (10) (11) (1) (22) (24) (25) (4) (7) (10) (1) (26) (12) (14) (20) (21) : ; ; 6,
4 : 491,,, ; 21,, 21, 11, 5, 45 % 30 %, 17 %, 4, 414 4 7,, 14, 7 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 ( ) 81 ( ) 91 141 GDP 101 111 ( ) 121 131 7 ( 1991 2000) Tab17 Annual Data of each indicators during 1991 2000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 88 % 88 % 90110 % 91150 % 93134 % 93134 % 2 2318 % 24110 % 24180 % 24190 % 24190 % 3 0162 0143 0152 0152 0146 0144 0153 0153 0148 0152 4 82130 % 85160 % 88110 % 91130 % 92112 % 92119 % 5 71 % 75 % 85120 % 90140 % 93130 % 97130 % 6 80 % 81 % 82 % 82 % 83 % 83 % 84 % 86 % 92 % 95 % 7 1408 1551 2015 2506 3095 3503 3876 4033 4198 4364 8 2801 3558 4495 6032 7600 8152 9055 9477 10287 11458 9 10 7160 % 7140 % 7180 % 8100 % 7170 % 7170 % 7140 % 7100 % 6190 % 6170 % 11 57862 65071 76985 96340 158785 184003 161796 150812 130899 129023 12 85150 % 88170 % 91150 % 13 2511 % 2811 % 2912 % 2510 % 2719 % 3111 % 3411 % 3619 % 3717 % 3815 % 14 01107 01126 01236 01308 01300 01210 01104 01106 01109 01110 :,
492 22 7,, +, -, 0, + -,,, - +, 8 8 Tab18 The results of Chongming community sustainability assessment 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 0 + + + 0 2 0 + + + 0 3 + - 0 + + - 0 + - 4 + + + + + 5 + + + + + 6 + + 0 + 0 + + + + 7 + + + + + + + + + 8 + + + + + + + + + 9 10 - + + - 0 - - - - 11 + + + + + + + + + 12 + + 13 + + - + + + + + + 14 + + + - - - + + + + + + + + + + + +,, 1995,, 1992 1996, 1996 2000,,,, 10,,,,,,,, 8118 % 2216 %, 2319 % 5418 %,,,, 5
4 : 493,, 1994,,, 90,,,,,,,,,, 4 7 4,, : [ 1 ]. 21. :,19941 [ 2 ] 21. 21. :,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,2002 8 19 1 [ 5 ] 1 1 19991 [ 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 : 317 3371 [11 ] Valentin A, Spangenberg J H1A guide to community sustainability indicators1 Environmental Impact Assessment Re2 view, 2000,20 : 381 3921 [ 12 ] 1 120001
494 22 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 200062, 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 200062, 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 1991220001 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