A Sensitivity Model (SM) approach to analyze urban development in Taiwan based on sustainability indicators Shu-Li Huang a , Chia-Tsung Yeh a, ⁎, William W. Budd b , Li-Ling Chen c a Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Taipei University, Taipei,104 Taiwan b Division of Governmental Studies and Services, Washington State University, PO Box 644870, Troy Hall 310, Pullman, WA 99164-4870, United States c Department of Private Participation in Infrastructures, CECI Engineering Consultants, Inc. Taipei, 106 Taiwan ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 27 April 2007 Received in revised form 11 December 2007 Accepted 14 March 2008 Available online 16 June 2008 Keywords: Pattern recognition Semi-quantitative simulation Sensitivity Model Tools Sustainability indicators Urban development Sustainability indicators have been widely developed to monitor and assess sustainable development. They are expected to guide political decision-making based on their capability to represent states and trends of development. However, using indicators to assess the sustainability of urban strategies and policies has limitations — as they neither reflect the systemic interactions among them, nor provide normative indications in what direction they should be developed. This paper uses a semi-quantitative systematic model tool (Sensitivity Model Tools, SM) to analyze the role of urban development in Taiwan's sustainability. The results indicate that the natural environment in urban area is one of the most critical components and the urban economic production plays a highly active role in affecting Taiwan's sustainable development. The semi-quantitative simulation model integrates sustainability indicators and urban development policy to provide decision-makers with information about the impacts of their decisions on urban development. The system approach incorporated by this paper can be seen as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a sustainability assessment. The participatory process of expert participants for providing judgments on the relations between indicator variables is also discussed. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The concept sustainability refers to the manner in which the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of a community are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987). Earlier approaches to addressing sustainability have placed rather differing emphases on these various needs (e.g., Pearce and Turner, 1990; Pezzoli, 1997; Rees, 1999; Sachs, 1999), which in turn lead to variations in the types of indicators used to measure the success of these sustainability efforts. There are, of course, inevitable tradeoffs associated with the attempts to achieve such sustainability goals simultaneously (Campbell, 1996). The tension between promoting economic growth and the equitable sharing of opportunities arising from the claims on the use of property as both a private resource and public good creates property conflict. The tension arising from the competitive claims on the use of natural resources creates a resource conflict. And the challenge of improving the situation of the poor through economic growth while protecting the environment creates a development conflict. Resolving these tensions and conflicts is an ongoing process for all communities. Moreover, this also means that capturing the dynamics of these tensions within any indicator framework is equally challenging. Sound urban management, however, relies on the understanding of complex urban systems, as well as the handling of harmonious relationships between urban areas and their supporting environ- ments. Urban sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept that includes environmental, economic and social dimensions. Moreover, sustainable decision-making involves political decisions at the local, regional and national levels that create and promote a balanced social–environmental system. Within this setting, the definition and measurement of the indicators of urban sustainability becomes crucial. Indicators must be able to quantify change, identify and measure key processes, and provide a framework for setting targets and monitoring performance. Urban sustainability indicators must therefore not only integrate, but they must also be forward-looking, distributional and ideally be the result of the inputs from multiple stakeholders (Alberti, 1996). To begin to monitor sustainable development in Taiwan, the National Science Council of Taiwan organized an interdisciplinary research team to develop a system of Taiwan Sustainable Develop- ment Indicators (SDI) and the indicators system has been transferred to the Council for Economic Planning and Development and announced to public annually (CEPD, 2004). The Taiwan SDI were developed using the pressure–state–response (PSR) framework (OECD, 1993, 2000; UNCSD, 2001) for the purpose of framing their Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (2009) 116–125 ⁎ Corresponding author. 69, Jian-Guo N. Rd., Sec. 2, Taipei,104 Taiwan. Tel.: +886 2 25009713; fax: +886 2 25054954. E-mail addresses: shuli@mail.ntpu.edu.tw (S.-L. Huang), alexyeh@url.com.tw (C.-T. Yeh), budd@wsu.edu (W.W. Budd), lily@ceci.com.tw (L.-L. Chen). 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.03.003 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar