Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c i t o t e n v

Review

Urban ecosystem health assessment: A review

Meirong Su a, Brian D. Fath b,c, Zhifeng Yang a,⁎
a
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
b
Biology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA
c
Dynamic Systems Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the important role of cities for regional, national, and international economic development and the
Received 24 December 2009 concurrent degradation of the urban environmental quality under rapid urbanization, a systematic diagnosis
Received in revised form 1 March 2010 of urban ecosystem health for sustainable ecological management is urgently needed. This paper reviews the
Accepted 2 March 2010
related research on urban ecosystem health assessment, beginning from the inception of urban ecosystem
Available online 26 March 2010
health concerns propelled by the development needs of urban ecosystems and the advances in ecosystem
health research. Concepts, standards, indicators, models, and case studies are introduced and discussed.
Keywords:
Urban ecosystem health Urban ecosystem health considers the integration of ecological, economic, social and human health factors,
Health assessment and as such it is a value-driven concept which is strongly influenced by human perceptions. There is not an
Ecosystem indicators absolute urban ecosystem standard because of the uncertainty caused by the changing human needs, targets,
Ecosystem model and expectation of urban ecosystem over time; thus, suitable approaches are still needed to establish health
standards of urban ecosystems. Several conceptual models and suitable indicator frameworks have been
proposed to organize the multiple factors to represent comprehensively the health characteristics of an
urban ecosystem, while certain mathematical methods have been applied to deal with the indicator
information to get a clear assessment of the urban ecosystem health status. Instead of perceiving the urban
ecosystem assessment as an instantaneous measurement of the health state, it is suggested to conceptualize
the urban ecosystem health as a process, which impels us to focus more studies on the dynamic trends of
health status and projecting possible development scenarios.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2425
2. Generation of urban ecosystem health concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2426
3. Urban ecosystem health concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2426
4. Urban ecosystem health assessment standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2427
5. Urban ecosystem health assessment methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2428
5.1. Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2428
5.2. Mathematical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2429
6. Urban ecosystem health assessment case studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2431
7. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2431
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2433
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2433

1. Introduction

Cities play many roles in human civilization, acting as centers for

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 86 10 58807951; fax: + 86 10 58800397. economic activity and social change as well as a cultural crucible in
E-mail address: zfyang@bnu.edu.cn (Z. Yang). which the concentration of people and activity allows the necessary

0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.009
2426 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434
critical mass for growth and maturation (Jacobs, 1961, 1984). Cultural
concepts of ecosystem and human health have been linked through
cities and human settlements since ancient times as evident in
religious tenets, philosophical systems, codes of conduct, and more
practical matters, such as wastewater treatment, sanitation, and
municipal waste management (Guidotti, 1995). The goal of a city is to
realize the benefits of dense population centers without compromis-
ing the ecological services or ecosystem health. Ecosystems satisfy
human demands by acting as a source for resources and a sink for
waste. Specifically, when the pressures are within the ecosystem's
regenerative capacity, it is able to realize self-restoration through
natural purification and other ecological processes. Early cities were
probably safer than the surrounding hinterland because of increasing
prosperity and better protection. The level of degradation was low.
However, as cities grew, they developed increasing problems with
resource shortages, waste disposal, itinerants, fresh food distribution,
and epidemics—the healthfulness of urban residents probably
declined relative to the peasantry (Guidotti, 1995). In spite of these
issues, cities continued to grow and concentrate. Today, cities now
hold more than half of the world's population, with many residents
living in squalid conditions putting pressure on local and regional
environmental resources. Therefore, there is a need for valid
indicators and methods of “health” assessment of urban ecosystems.
As a socioeconomic-ecological complex system (Ma and Wang, 1984),
an urban ecosystem consists of residents and their environment in
certain time and space scales, in which, ecological-speaking, con-
sumers are the dominant component lacking producers and decom-
posers. To support the huge consumption in urban ecosystems, a large
amount of materials and energy are extracted from the surrounding
countryside and beyond, which makes the urban ecosystem depen-
dent and fragile. The urban ecosystem status is indeed vital and thus a
comprehensive health assessment is urgent. This paper reviews the
related research to help us understand the rough contour of urban
ecosystem health assessment.
In order to understand the current concepts in urban ecosystem
health assessment, it is useful to review the history, from the early ideas
to the state-of-the-art. Although the future is not determined by history,
awareness of the development pathway is beneficial for finding related
problems and anticipating future prospects. Therefore, this paper begins
from the inception of urban ecosystem health concerns, followed by the
concepts, assessment standards, indicators and models, and case
studies.
2. Generation of urban ecosystem health concerns
Generally speaking, system dynamics are induced by both internal
factors and external drivers, and the genesis of the urban ecosystem
health concept was no different. Urban ecosystem health became a
scientific topic and received public concern due to both internal and
external reasons. For the former, various environmental problems,
erupting from rapid urban development, required that the health
status of the urban ecosystem be attended, while for the latter,
progress in ecosystem health research provided the theoretical
foundations and technical ability of assessing urban ecosystem health
status.
The word “health”, usually is applied to a human or other discrete
living organism. We diagnose the life around us as well, ill, or dead, and
when ill hopefully curable by doctors or veterinarians. When human
presence was lower and ecosystem services fully available, not much
attention was given to the health of the ecosystem. It was the Scottish
geologist (naturalist), Hutton (1788), who first linked the concept of
health with ecosystems. In a paper presented to the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, Hutton stated that the Earth is a super-organism with self-
maintainable ability regarding its health. He explained further that natural
ecosystems possess the common characteristics of a complex system
including a self-regulation mechanism of sustaining the integrity and
resilience, even though it is not the same as an organism (Rapport et al.,
1995). Meanwhile, scientific research mainly focused on traditional
disciplinary subjects, not much attention was paid to multidisciplinary
topics such as ecosystem health. Thus, after Hutton, there was a long quiet
before the ecosystem health topic resurfaced as an academic activity.
In 1929, Clements and Weaver (1929), in conjunction with their
concept of community succession and climax theory, envisaged the
ecosystem as a living individual, with attributes of health. A little later,
Leopold initiated the contemporary discussion about ecosystem
health by first proposing the concept of land ethic in 1941, in which
the “land” he defined is similar with the functioning ecosystem
(Milsky, 2004). Leopold's ideas were seminal in their contribution to
the development of concern for land health. In his eco-systemic view,
the land ethic incorporates ecology with aesthetics, stability, and
integrity. One measure to assess ecosystem integrity is based on how
it adapts and responds to external stresses (Guidotti, 1995). Together
these attributes comprise the land's health. Leopold used the term
“land sickness” to describe land dysfunction (Leopold, 1941) and he
also considered ecological renewability as its important feature of
landscape health.
In the following decades, advancements were made in related
subjects including stress ecology, ecosystem ecology, natural resource
management, environmental ethics, and ecosystem medicine attrib-
uting to the contribution of many respectable researchers and
academic societies (e.g., Woodwell (1970), Barrett (1976), Odum
(1979); Rapport et al. (1979, 1985); Costanza et al. (1992), Ecological
Society of America - see Table 1). It was becoming evident that
ecosystems were being seriously damaged by human activities; and,
as a result, human life quality was being negatively impacted. The
analogy between human and ecological health matured further
contributing to the development of a diagnosis heuristic for ecological
restoration. At the same time, a new consciousness of public concern
arose regarding ecosystem health caused by environmental pollution
and ecological degradation.
Due to the efforts of Ulanowicz (1986, 1992), Schaeffer et al. (1988),
Rapport (1989, 1992, 1993), Costanza et al. (1992), Mageau et al.
(1995), and others, the ecosystem health concept has attracted wide
attention and interest. Research and case studies on different scales
including farmland (Waltner-Toews, 1996), lake (Smol and Cumming,
1998), river (Boulton, 1999), bay and watershed (Costanza and Greer,
1998), forest (Menéndez et al., 1998), and desert grassland (Whitford,
1998) have been launched. Several related academic organizations were
established, with associated conferences (see Table 1). Many academic
journals and books were published (see Table 1), all advancing the
understanding of ecosystem health by researchers and the public.
In summary, when human activities resulted in adverse environ-
mental changes that jeopardize sustainability and impair ecological
functions and societal services (Vitousek et al., 1997; The Heitz Center,
2002), the inevitable social, economic, and human health costs
provided grounds for addressing the ecosystem health in a holistic
way (Rapport et al., 1998a). The time for integrated approaches to
environmental management had come. To fill this need for ecosystem
assessment, the ecosystem health concept was a welcome way to
assess the underlying stress or “health” of ecosystems.
3. Urban ecosystem health concept
Even though there is not any confirmed definition of urban
ecosystem health, just like the concept of ecosystem health, there
exist certain basic common characteristics: (1) ecosystem services
maintain a productive capacity, (2) system integrity is key component of
urban ecosystem health, and (3) assessing urban ecosystem health
requires a systems perspective. As a complex system composed of
natural, societal and economic components, the urban ecosystem is a
network of multiple interactive relationships, thus its health status
should take various factors into account in an integrated way rather than
 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434 2427

Table 1
Important historical events during the development of ecosystem health.

Time Event

b 1900 — Hutton (1788) first introduced natural health concept; Earth as a self-regulating, super-organism.
1900–1939 — Clements and Weaver (1929) regarded ecosystem as a living individual with healthy and unhealthy attributes; inspired by community succession and climax
hypothesis.
1940–1969 — Leopold (1941) first defined “Land health”; used “Land sickness” to describe land dysfunction.
— Soil and Health Society in New Zealand published the journal Soil and Health in 1942 (Zeng et al., 1999).
— Leopold proposed “Landscape health”; as “…the capacity of the land for self-renewal.”a (Rapport, 1998).
1970–1979 — Woodwell (1970) highlighted the affects of pollution stress on ecosystem structure and function.
— Barrett (1976) addressed the importance of stress ecology.
— Odum (1979) promoted systems ecology; ecosystem with self-regulation and feedback which can recover under certain stress; various unhealthy symptoms
under external stress do not need management intervention.
— Rapport et al. (1979) further developed Leopold's “land health” theory; put forward the term “Ecosystem medicine” as way to evaluate the ecosystem in an
integrated way.
1980–1989 — Ecological Society of America held a symposium “Integrated method for presenting and managing the stressed ecosystem” at the annual conference in 1984
(Costanza et al., 1992).
— Rapport et al. (1985) pointed out that the ecosystem cannot be regarded as an organism and does not respond independently under adversity.
— Ecologists like Costanza and Rapport stated ecosystems are dysfunctional under stress, thus unable to provide basic services for humans; raising ecosystem
health concept and call public attention to environmental degradation (Kristin, 1994).
— WHO first set up the Healthy Cities Project in 1986, intending to improve factors that influence citizen's health such as housing, environmental protection, social
benefit, education and urban planning, and finally prevent illness and promote health, by community participation and common efforts from various sections
(Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2007).
— Schaeffer et al. (1988) first discussed measuring ecosystem health; put forward assessment principles and methods.
— Rapport (1989) explained ecosystem health as the system's stability and sustainability which can be denoted by vigor, organization and resilience.
— Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society was established in Canada, 1989 (Zeng et al., 1999).
1990– — Rapport (1992) further developed Schaeffer's idea of defining health as “absence of disease” into integrated distress syndrome at the ecosystem scale. By this
time, ecosystem health was widely studied by scholars and researchers.
— Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health was published in 1992, renamed Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery in 1997 (Zeng et al., 1999)
— Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management (Costanza et al.) was published in 1992 (Ren et al., 2000).
— First international symposium on ecosystem health and medicine was organized in Ottawa, 1994; International Society for Ecosystem Health was established,
with regular subsequent symposia (Zeng et al., 1999).
— Journals Ecosystem Health and Journal for Ecosystem Health and Medicine were initiated in 1995 (Ren et al., 2000).
— Shear (1996) developed an ecosystem health assessment for the Great Lakes.
— Harpham (1996) compared urban ecosystem and public health between the urban and rural areas in Gambia.
— Journal Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management was started in 1998 (Zeng et al. 1999).
— Several important books about ecosystem health were published, e.g., Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-scale Ecosystem
(Rapport et al., 1995), Ecosystem Health (Rapport et al., 1998a), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems (Rapport et al., 2002), Ecosystem Sustainability and Health-A
Practical Approach (Waltner-Toews, 2004).
— Guo et al. (2002) started study on urban ecosystem health in China, introducing urban ecosystem health concept more fully in China.
a
The book “A Sand County Almanac” written by Aldo Leopold (1886–1948) was published posthumously. The final version was edited by a team of family and colleagues led by
his son, Luna Leopold, and published a year after his death by Oxford University Press.

only focus on such partial elements as water, soil, air or vegetation.
Regardless of the underlying environmental ethics (e.g., bio-centric
ethics, anthropocentrism, and holism), all inseparable components and
their relationships should be considered within the urban ecosystem,
for one must affect and be affected by others in the ecosystem.
The concept of ecosystem health has experienced roughly three
development phases, i.e., first focusing on the characteristics of ecosystem
itself (Karr et al., 1986; Ulanowicz, 1986, 1992; Schaeffer et al., 1988;
Schaeffer and Cox, 1992; Woodley et al., 1993; Costanza et al., 1998), then
turning to services for human (Rapport, 1989; National Research Council,
1994; Mageau et al., 1995; World Resources Institute, 1995), and finally
combined characteristics of ecosystem and services for humans
(O'Laughlin, 1996; Rapport et al., 1999). Building on the previous
experience of ecosystem health, the concept of urban ecosystem health
combines the ability to satisfy reasonable demand from human society
and maintain its own renewal and self-generative capacity. Therefore,
urban ecosystem health is an integrated subject that includes ecological,
socioeconomic and human health perspectives. To a certain degree, this
is inevitable because the most important characteristic of the urban
ecosystem is its dominance by humans.
Several concepts of urban ecosystem health have been developed
through the ongoing scientific research and management projects,
based on different frameworks, emphases and objectives, as cited and
analyzed in Table 2.
Different from many scientific concepts, urban ecosystem health is
not defined as a standard quantitative measurement, but rather
described as what healthy urban ecosystems should or should not
contain. This statement reflects the vagueness of urban ecosystem
health. Based on the acknowledged need to sustainably integrate
reasonable human demands and the ecosystem's ability for renewal, the
inclusive factors of a healthy urban ecosystem can be drafted from both
the human and ecological dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1.
4. Urban ecosystem health assessment standards
The terminology “health” is usually associated with certain
physiological standards, such that the system is considered healthy
until certain parameters do not conform to the normal range. For
example, human body temperature is between 36.2 °C and 37.5 °C
while the heart rate is between 60 to 100 bpm. Similarly, ecosystem
health can be measured with respect to standard reference conditions
(Campbell et al., 2004). The difficulty is in identifying the appropriate
state variables to measure and the range of acceptable values for those
states (Cabezas and Fath, 2002). In one approach, the features of the
impacted ecosystem are compared with one considered undisturbed
or pristine (Rapport, 1992, 1993; Calow, 1993), without any human
disturbances (Waltner-Toews, 2004). The difficulty is in finding
commensurate undisturbed systems.
The problem is even more acute when dealing with urban
ecosystems. On natural systems the human disturbance is subsequent
to its natural condition, whereas urban ecosystems are artificially
constructed. Therefore, it is much more difficult to assess the intact
condition of urban ecosystems. In fact, there does not exist an absolute
or fixed standard of the urban ecosystem because of the uncertainty
caused by the complexity and openness of the urban ecosystem as
well as changing human needs, targets, and expectation of urban
2428 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434

Table 2 is defined based on the eco-city's planning or suggested value from

Typical applications of urban ecosystem health concept. related literature or national standards, while that of the last (worst)
Originator Conception of urban Main feature grade is based on the worst value observable in a Chinese city for each
ecosystem health standard. And then, based on the two established anchor points, the
WHO Defined city health as a Pursues economic remaining three middle grades are determined through interpolation.
system “that is continually development and urban For example, the indicator “treatment rate of urban domestic waste
creating and improving those ecosystem to improve human water”, uses a five grade standard ranging from very healthy, relatively
physical and social health. Urban ecosystem
healthy, critically healthy, relatively unhealthy, and ill, defined as 100%,
environments and expanding integrates healthy lifestyles,
those community resources environment, and society. 95%, 70%, 50%, and 30%, respectively.
which enable people to As shown with the urban ecosystem health concept, the urban
mutually support each other ecosystem health standard should integrate ecological, socioeconomic
in performing all the and human health perspectives. However, it means that the urban
functions of life and in
ecosystem health standard is determined by simultaneously considering
developing to their maximum
potential” (Hancock and Duhl, the all three aspects, which are all influenced by human activities. Therefore,
1988). the urban ecosystem health standard is a kind of human interest or value
Int. Dev. Stated that urban ecosystem Urban population under preference (Ryder, 1990), for the urban ecosystem is established,
Research Centre health includes not only the certain socioeconomic,
constructed, impacted, managed and utilized by humans. Even though
health and integrity of the cultural, and political
natural and built conditions should be the researchers try to study the natural and ecological attributes of the
environment, but also health emphasized. urban ecosystem in view of the geographical, thermodynamic, or
of urban resident and whole biophysical perspectives, it is still impossible to remove the human imprint
society (Colin, 1997). and subjectivity when it comes to the health standard of urban ecosystems.
Hancock Based on the relationship Urban ecosystem health is
Consequently, the standard of urban ecosystem health may alter with time
among economy, similar with urban
environment, and society, put sustainability, which can be and changing subjective human needs, which means the health evaluation
forward the conceptual represented by the common results for the same ecosystem could be quite different in different time or
framework of healthy cities. focus, only the former pay under different human interests. One approach is to design standard values
And also summarized the six more attention to the human
for urban ecosystem health indicators now and redesign them when
related elements of healthy health.
urban ecosystem, including 1)
human expected objectives change over time, e.g., setting the standard of
population health and indicator “treatment rate of urban domestic waste water” in critically
distribution, 2) societal well- healthy range as 70% in 2005, which might be raised to 80% in 2015 if new
being, 3) government information about water borne illness is available. Another option is to
management and social
consider a more progressive approach in which health standards
equity, 4) human habitat
quality and convenience, 5) automatically update over time. A dynamic standard could be established
natural environment quality, using an optimal reference set according to the indicator values of different
and 6) impact of the urban assessed urban ecosystems through set pair analysis (Su et al., 2009b). The
ecosystem on the larger-scale
latter is theoretically more defensible, but practically more difficult to
natural ecosystem (Hancock,
2000).
implement.
Guo Understood urban ecosystem Healthy urban ecosystems
health from both ecological should possess multiple
and socioeconomic view, in characteristics from various 5. Urban ecosystem health assessment methods
which the former means the aspects, including vigor from
complex natural-economic- aspect of external
social urban ecosystem is representation, diversity and
To assess urban ecosystem health, the theoretical background from
stable and sustainable and harmony from structural systems ecology as well as practical guidance from the decision-making
resists external adverse aspect, and regulation and for urban planning and management should be taken into account. Thus,
factors, while the latter means efficiency from function certain methods that can link these two aspects are needed. Assessment
the urban ecosystem aspect.
indicators are selected as well-suited instruments to reflect the urban
sustainably provides
ecosystem services for urban ecosystem health status according to their characteristics of abstracting
resident (Guo, 2003). information from a complicated system to reduce the complexity and to
connect the theoretical ecological background with related political
practical requirements (Müller and Wiggering, 1999; Müller et al., 2000;
Müller and Lenz, 2006). Since multiple indicators from aspects of social,
ecosystem over time (Odum, 1989). Under this circumstance, suitable economic, ecological, and human health are all considered where the
alternative approaches are needed to establish health standards of ecological meaning of each individual indicator is ambiguous (unlike the
urban ecosystems. indicators of vigor, organization and resilience for the natural
Based on extensive case studies, the International Development ecosystems which have their own fixed measurement and sufficient
Research Centre and World Health Organization have put forward ecological information), then certain mathematical approaches are
criteria for what constitutes a healthy urban ecosystem, such as required to deal with the indicator information to get a comprehensive
ecological sustainability, social equity, public health, and effective and clear assessment of the urban ecosystem health status.
community management (Hancock, 2000; WHO Regional Office for
Western Pacific Region (WPRO), 2000). Their approach is similar to that
of finding a pristine natural ecosystem for assessing ecosystem health in 5.1. Indicators
that the standard range of the urban ecosystem health indicators is
based on conditions of a comparative eco-city, garden city, or those with Considering the different views of urban ecosystem health as well as
excellent performance in environmental protection (Guo et al., 2002; various priorities and objectives, scientists have developed several
Sang et al., 2006; Guan and Su, 2006; Peng et al., 2007). Taking Guo's indicators (Table 3), which directly focus on the topic of urban
research as an example (Guo et al., 2002), the standard of each indicator ecosystem health, and others address related research, e.g., Harpham
is divided into five grades, in which the reference of the first (best) grade (1996), Takano and Nakamura (1998), and WPRO (2000).
 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434 2429

Fig. 1. Basic inclusive factors of urban ecosystem health.

Except for the main urban ecosystem health indicators mentioned in tics. Third, amongst all the factors, human requirements are always
Table 3, certain explanations should be provided for clarity, such as: emphasized. Fourth, considering the states and physical driving
mechanisms, the indicators tend to be easy to understand and
(1) In addition to the WHO (Takano and Nakamura, 1998; WPRO,
regulate, which is convenient and beneficial for the practical urban
2000), other organizations, like United Nations Centre for
ecological management.
Human Settlements, International Institute for Sustainable
Development, and the International Joint Commission, have
5.2. Mathematical models
made efforts to set up indicators of urban sustainable
development, which are correlated with urban ecosystem
Besides the conceptual framework to establish a reasonable
health indicators (Guo, 2003).
indicator system, additional mathematical models are usually needed
(2) Besides the conceptual model of PSR (pressure–state–response)
to treat and process the indicator data to represent the internal
(Zeng et al., 2005), others have also been applied to organize
characteristics of urban ecosystem health and further satisfy a health
urban ecosystem health indicators, e.g., DPSEEA (driving force–
assessment.
pressure–state–exposure–effect–action) model, based on Spiegel
When considering the current mathematical models of urban
et al. (2001), which defined the health indicators at the
ecosystem health assessment, they can be summarized into two
individual, household, and neighborhood levels in the urban
categories: 1) understanding the urban ecosystem health's character
ecosystem.
and 2) dealing with problems emerge during the urban ecosystem
(3) Some set up the indicator framework from the features of the
health assessment. Concretely speaking, modeling urban ecosystem
urban ecosystem health, like vigor, function, and structure
health is difficult due to certain features such as fuzziness, hierarchy,
(Guo et al., 2002; Su et al., 2009b; Liu et al., 2009), while others
and multiple-attributes, and then such corresponding methods as
organize the urban ecosystem health indicators in view of
fuzzy synthetic assessment model (e.g., Guo et al., 2002; Zhou and
inclusive urban subsystems, e.g., natural, economic and social
Wang, 2005; Fan, 2006; Tao, 2008), fuzzy optimal assessment model
subsystems (Zhong and Peng, 2003; Wen and Xiong, 2008;
(Zeng et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2008), fuzzy assessment model combined
Rong, 2009), and ecological, agricultural, production and living
with analytic hierarchy process (Luo, 2006), set pair analysis (Su et al.,
land-use subsystems (Zeng et al., 2005).
2009a), relative vector comprehensive assessment model (Sang et al.,
(4) In addition to focusing on the spatial difference within urban
2006), attribute theory model (Yan, 2007; Wen and Xiong, 2008;
ecosystems (Hu et al., 2005; Tian et al., 2009), related indicators
Rong, 2009), and catastrophe progression method (Wei et al., 2008)
emphasizing the temporal dimensional characteristics are also
are applied. Taking Guo's paper (2002) as an example, the urban
established to denote the urban ecosystem health development
ecosystem health problem was designed as a fuzzy synthetic
over time (Zhang et al., 2006).
assessment model: H = W × R, where H is the final urban ecosystem
Even though different frameworks, including subsystem models health status matrix; W is the weights matrix for the five assessment
(e.g., Guo et al., 2002), PSR (e.g., Zeng et al., 2005), DPSEEA (e.g., factors (vigor, organizational structure, resilience, ecosystem services
Spiegel et al., 2001), distance index and coordination index (Hu et al., maintenance, and population health), i.e., W = (w1, w2, w3, w4, w5);
2005), and emergy (embodied energy) synthesis (e.g., Liu et al., 2009; and, R is the relative membership degree matrix to assign each factor a
Su et al., 2009b), are used to establish the urban ecosystem health standard grade (very healthy, relatively healthy, critically healthy,
indicators, certain common characteristics among these various relatively unhealthy, and ill), represented as follows:
approaches still can be found. First, all the frameworks pursue the
0 1
same objective, i.e., choosing and organizing multiple indicators in a R11 R12 R13 R14 R15
systematic integrated way to make sure the indicators can represent B R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 C
B C
the character of the urban ecosystem as comprehensively as possible R=B
B R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 C
C ð1Þ
@ R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 A
in a systems perspective. Second, factors from aspects of ecological
state, economic development, social progress, and population health R51 R52 R53 R54 R55 01
r1j
are included within the system perspective, which determines that   B r2j C
much data are required from multiple subjects and fields, e.g., in which Rij = W1′ W2′ … Wk′ × B C
@ … A, and rij means the
geographical and physical measure, ecological simulation, social rkj
assessment, trade information, economic and epidemiological statis- membership degree of the ith (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) assessing index to
2430 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434

Table 3
Main urban ecosystem health (UEH) indicators.

Person and reference Indicators Pros/cons

Harpham (1996) compared urban and rural health in Gambia. Economics Based on public health statistics,
Environment indicators are available and easily
Public health statistics understood; under-emphasizes
Health-seeking behavior economic and cultural factors.
Health expenditure
Nutrition
The World Health Organization: Internal character Human demand and community
(1) Building from Healthy Cities Project, proposed 79 healthy External performance role are emphasized, through
urban ecosystem indicators in 1996 Progress which the urban ecosystem are
(WHO Regional Office for Western Pacific Region, 2000). Management and monitoring expected to be more suitable for
Proving service human development. The indicator
Budget and finance system is complicated hindering
Community service data availability and reliability.
(2) Further developed 459 indicators of a healthy urban ecosystem in 1998 Human health
(Takano and Nakamura, 1998). Urban infrastructure
Environmental quality
Human housing and living environment
Community's role and action
Living pattern and prevention performance
Health care and environmental sanitation service
Education
Employment and industry
Income and domestic consumption
Local economic and demography statistics
Guo et al. (2002) taking the classic framework from Vigor: GDP per capita Framework of vigor, organizational
(Mageau et al., 1995; Rapport et al., 1998b) established UEH Organizational structure: the third industry ratio structure, resilience, ecosystem
indicators using 24 factors. Resilience: treatment rate of urban domestic sewage services, and population health has
Ecosystem services maintenance: comprehensive successful tradition and has been
environmental quality index widely used in UEH assessment.
Population health: mean human life time Whether the indicators are
sufficient and typical enough is an
open research question.
Zhong and Peng (2003) organized 30 UEH indicators using natural, economic Natural: atmospheric and water quality The traditional method of dividing
and social subsystems framework. Economic: GDP per capita, energy consumption per unit urban ecosystem into natural,
economic and social subsystems is
GDP easily acceptable, but the ad hoc
Societal: house area per capita, employment rate nature of the concrete indicators
questions the overall scientific
basis.
Zeng et al. (2005) established an indicator system within the PSR (pressure– Ecological: forest coverage rate and afforestation area per Using different land-use
state–response) framework under ecological, agricultural, production and capita subsystems in urban ecosystem is
living subsystems. Agricultural: farmland area per capita and grain meaningful for practical urban
production per area planning and construction, but the
Production and living: population density and house area PSR model's ability of reasonably
per capita reflecting ecosystem health state is
questioned to some degree.
Hu et al. (2005) put forward indices to measure the gap between urban Distance index The indices are useful to describe
developmental status quo of each factor and certain development objectives. Coordination index the spatial difference with urban
ecosystem, but confirming the
factors in urban ecosystems and
collecting enough data is difficult.
Su et al. (2009b) established a biophysical UEH indicator system using 17 Vigor: emergy density Based on emergy synthesis, UEH is
related emergy-based indices. Structure: emergy diversity assessed on a biophysical
index foundation. However, it is difficult
Resilience: carrying capacity density based on renewable to put the assessment result into
emergy practical management and
Ecosystem service: regulation in an easily
environmental loading ratio understanding way.
Population health: emergy investment ratio
Liu et al. (2009) developed an emergy-based UEH indicator integrating vigor, net emergy yield ratio By establishing an integrated
organizational structure, resilience and function maintenance. environmental loading ratio emergy-based indicator, it is clear
emergy exchange ratio and simple to assess UEH status.
emergy density However, whether the single

the jth standard (j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5); W′k means the weights of the kth
indicator under corresponding assessment factors. Based on these
values, the relative membership degree matrix, in view of each factor
and the comprehensive health state, marked as Rij and H respective-
ly, can be calculated to reflect the urban ecosystem health levels.
These levels are classified as very healthy, relatively healthy,
critically healthy, relatively unhealthy, or ill, according to the largest
membership degree value.
On the other hand, to address emergent problems within the
urban ecosystem health assessment, related models are developed to
reduce the influence of the existing problems on the final results. For
example, urban ecosystem complexity and its impact on decision-
making uncertainty were the main features of an urban ecosystem
health assessment model by Shi and Yan (2007). And according to the
problem of information loss when using the traditional assessment
methods, a matter element model was developed (Dai et al., 2007; Liu
 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434
et al., 2007). Choosing Dai's study as an example, the urban ecosystem
health was defined by a matter element model as R = (M, C, X), usually
defined as:
2 3
M C1 X1
6 C2 X2 7
R=4
∧ ∧ 5
Cn Xn
where M is the assessed object (urban ecosystem health state of a
certain city, which can be divided into five levels, e.g., very healthy,
relatively healthy, critically healthy, relatively unhealthy, and ill), C is
the characteristic of M according to the specific research question
(such as ecosystem health indicator), and X is the value of C.
According to the original values of each health indicator and their
designed standard values for each health grade, the relative
relatedness between the actual urban ecosystem health status and
each health standard can be obtained, from which the final health
levels of the urban ecosystem can be confirmed, according to the
largest relatedness principle. Retaining all original information in the
model, the assessed values and the standards in different grades were
confirmed to understand the urban ecosystem health level.
The weights of various indicators, which represent their relative
importance for integrated urban ecosystem health status, will have
great impact on the final assessment results. The problem of assigning
the indicator weights is still an open research question. There are
mainly two kinds of methods to define the indicator weight, i.e.,
subjective or objective methods. The widely used subjective method
usually defines indicator weights according to human judgment like
experts' or professional experiences, e.g., the Delphi method and the
analytic hierarchy process method (Yan et al., 2007; Bi and Guo,
2007). The objective approach is based on the statistical data analysis
such as entropy (Zhou and Wang, 2005; Shi and Yan, 2007), factor
analysis (Guan and Su, 2006), main component analysis (Lu et al.,
2008), standard deviation analysis methods (Sang et al., 2006).
Although the objective method seems and tries to be more scientific,
sometimes it does not work well in practice, for it ignores the experts'
and professional experiences which sometimes are applicable and
useful for the actual management of urban ecosystems.
Regardless of the conceptual approach for organizing indicators or
the accompanying mathematical model, the data requirements are
quite high and diverse, including characteristics of the environment,
ecology, economy, society, and health. When it comes to the data
requirements for assessing a specific urban ecosystem one has to
integrate simultaneously multiple factors. Even for models that
employ different methods or objectives, the data requirements are
similar including information at scales from city to regional, such as
statistical yearbooks, annals of local history, socioeconomic develop-
ment reports, environmental quality reports, industrial activity
information, natural geographical conditions, etc. And with so much
macroscopic socioeconomic data included in the models, there is a
tradeoff which limits precision often at the expense of generality and
predictability (Levins, 1966).
6. Urban ecosystem health assessment case studies
Based on the established indicators and mathematical models,
concrete case studies of urban ecosystem assessment have been
conducted, ranging in scales from urban clusters to the city and to
districts. Specifically, many studies of urban ecosystem health
assessment were conducted on Chinese cities, including the admin-
istrative capitals of the state and provinces with available abundant
statistics data, like Beijing (Zhou and Wang, 2005; Yu et al., 2008),
Shanghai (Zeng et al., 2005), Guangzhou (Guo et al., 2002), Nanjing
(Luo, 2006), Wuhan (Su et al., 2009a) and Chongqing (Yan, 2007), as
well as coastal cities like Ningbo (Hu et al., 2005), and cities with good
2431
environmental quality like Xiamen (Su et al., 2009a) and Dalian (Dai
et al., 2007), etc. Attention has also been paid to entire metropolitan
regions (Bi and Guo, 2007) in that future development trends will
influence the whole surrounding ecosystem (Fan, 2006; Yan et al.,
2007). It can be concluded that the main aspects of urban ecosystem
health assessment such as the economic, ecological and social
ð2Þ
performance have all been considered as influential factors for
choosing the cases, taking into account the sufficiency and availability
of data.
In addition to various spatial scales, the emphasis of temporal scale
can also differ within the case studies, including urban static form,
comparison of this static form among different cities, or the temporal
change analysis for a chosen urban ecosystem. The latter primarily
focuses on the cities' developmental direction after reviewing trends
in the urban ecosystem health status. For example, Yan et al. (2007)
assessed the urban ecosystem health status in the New District of
Northern Chongqing City based on established attribute theory
model; the results showed that evaluated district in 2003 was rated
as moderately healthy. Bi and Guo (2007) compared the urban
ecosystem health states of eight cities in the Yangtze River Delta in
2004 by using analytical hierarchy process. The result indicated that
the urban ecosystem health ranging from well to weak is Shanghai,
Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuxi, Ningbo, Changzhou, and Yangz-
hou. And choosing Beijing in 1996–2003 as a case, Zhou and Wang
(2005) conducted the urban ecosystem health assessment on
temporal dimension through fuzzy comprehensive evaluation meth-
od. The results showed that the relative urban ecosystem health status
of Beijing city roughly increased from 1996 to 2003.
Although with different emphases, all the case studies attempt to
give the integrated health status of the urban ecosystem and develop
more detailed analysis, concretely on the multiple factors of urban
ecosystem health, such as the vigor, structure, resilience, ecosystem
service maintenance and population health. The results provide
insight on how to improve the important economic, social and
ecological indicators. Regardless of the conceptual framework or
mathematical models, the final recommendations to improve the
urban ecosystem health condition are related to the macroscopic
perspective of socioeconomic development, environmental manage-
ment and ecological construction so that it is possible to link with
practical urban planning and management.
7. Discussion and conclusion
The very concept of “health” is a value-driven, mission-oriented
notion. It means that the concept of health is formed, constructed and
managed according to human goals and value preferences. Even
though the ability to maintain the internal ecosystem structure and
function is critical, the goal of the urban ecosystem health is
determined mostly by human values, in that human beings are the
main drivers of urban ecosystems. Thus, human need is emphasized in
the concept and indicators of urban ecosystem health, and the health
standard is also imprinted by human value preference. For example,
the indicator “standard-reaching rate of water quality of potable
water source”, is only important as meeting a human service not as a
natural ecosystem function.
When we review the development of urban areas (Fig. 2), the role
for human value-orientation is always the dominant force for health
assessment. Cities originated according to human needs such as
commercial trade or military defense, and then as the city expanded,
human activity reformed the urban ecosystem mainly based on
comparing its status quo (in fact, the urban ecological process existed
all the time and influenced the urban ecosystem status quo). Meeting
human needs was the first priority. Eventually, when the damaged
urban ecosystem also threatened human life, this compelled concern
over ecosystem health.
2432 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434
Fig. 2. Influencing factors of urban ecosystem health's generation.
By assessing ecosystem health, which combines analysis with
societal values, a diagnosis of probable consequences of current
behavior and options for changing course becomes available (Rapport
et al., 1998a). In other words, the human desire for the urban
ecosystem's mission must be admitted and emphasized by the concept
of urban ecosystem health. This makes it vital to be able to understand
and integrate human values into an ecological framework, which
depends on the scientific progress of many areas.
Coupling with the value-driven and goal-oriented character of urban
ecosystem health and the site-specific ecological features, a standard,
independent, reference state for urban ecosystem health does not exist.
While the search for such a standard continues, other more flexible
approaches have been pursued that allow for a comparison between
different existing urban ecosystems or the changing trends over time for
the same area (Hong and Fath, 2009). Both approaches are helpful for
finding the limiting factors of urban ecosystems and improving their
health levels.
As a goal, “health” begs for indicators and models to measure the
success of that goal. As for the urban ecosystem health indicators,
methodological issues still need to be resolved to confidently integrate
social, economic, ecological, resource, environmental, human health,
and other factors together (Dai et al., 2007; Guan and Su, 2006).
Certainly more suitable indicator frameworks or conceptual models are
needed to organize the multiple indicators in a more ordered and
regulated pattern. Conceptual models focusing on the macroscopic
system performance have easier access obtaining data and the results
are more conveniently understood and linked with management. In
some mathematical models (e.g., emergy synthesis, network analysis)
used to analyze the inner features (e.g., the biophysical foundation) of
the urban ecosystem, the indicator systems stem from systematic
foundations but the data are more difficult to obtain and the results are
harder to communicate to practical urban ecological regulation. An
effective bridge between holism and communication is yet to be
established.
Instead of perceiving the urban ecosystem assessment as an
instantaneous measurement of the health state according to the
indicators and models, it is suggested to conceptualize the urban
ecosystem health as a process (Boothroyd and Eberle, 1990) and regard
the various measures of economic development level, social progress,
environmental quality, and population health as outcomes reflecting
the previous effort. It is believed to give us much more hope and
prospect. That is exactly the role of urban ecosystem health assessment:
 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434
1) discover the comprehensive health status by integrating multiple
factors, 2) diagnose the limiting factors and confirm the developmental
orientation of certain urban ecosystem through spatial and temporal
analyses; and, 3) test the effect of management measures by
investigating urban dynamics. Based on this perspective, perhaps the
dynamic measure of how forcefully, effectively, and consistently the
urban complex responds to changes in human and societal health and
well-being and the integrity of natural ecosystems is most valuable
(McMullan, 1997). And beginning from this idea, the cultural factor
should be considered more in urban ecosystem health assessment, since
culture influences urban development over the long-term, and these
important drivers are more perceptually invisible and statistically
undetectable than other factors.
Research in urban ecosystem health assessment is driven by the rapid
pace of urbanization and the increasingly deteriorated urban environ-
ment it entails. This is particularly true for regions experiencing large
migration from rural to urban areas such as in China. This is one reason
there has been so much focus recently on developing and applying these
ideas in China, in spite of the fact that the first urban health study was
only started in 1994 (Peng et al., 2007). Over the past few decades there
has been much progress in the conceptual frameworks, the methodol-
ogies, the models, and applications to specific case studies. As a result, we
have a much better understanding of urban ecosystem health
particularly as a spatial comparison between different urban ecosystems.
Future research will focus more studies on the temporal scale to analyze
the dynamic trends and projecting possible development scenarios. Also,
studies on smaller scales like the community and the sub-region can be
developed with detailed geographical information and complemented
with stakeholder questionnaires to get more specific ecological and
socioeconomic data and also make the research more practical and
beneficial for urban well-being.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (grant nos. 40871056, 40901269), and National Basic Research
Program of China (973 Program, grant no. 2005CB724204). Meirong Su
conducted this research while on sabbatical at Towson University with
support from the above mentioned grants.
References
Barrett GW. Stress ecology. Bioscience 1976;26(3):192–4.
Bi DS, Guo XP. An evaluation on the urban ecosystem health of Changjiang Delta. Ecol Econ
2007(2):327–30 in Chinese.
Boothroyd P, Eberle M. Healthy communities: what they are, how they're made. CHS
Research Bulletin. Vancouver: UBC Center for Human Settlements, University of
British Columbia, Canada, August 1990; 1990. p. 1-12.
Boulton AJ. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practices, problems
and prognosis. Freshw Biol 1999;41:469–79.
Cabezas H, Fath BD. Towards a theory of sustainable systems. Fluid Phase Equilibria
2002;194–197:3-14.
Calow P. Ecosystems not optimized. J Aquat Ecosys Health 1993;2(1):55.
Campbell D, Meisch M, Demoss T, Pomponio J, Bradley MP. Keeping the books for
environmental systems: an emergy analysis of West Virginia. Environ Monit Assess
2004;94:217–30.
Clements FE, Weaver JE. Plant ecology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1929.
Colin M. Indicators of urban ecosystems health. International Development Research
Centre. Ottawa.1997. http://www.idrc.ca/ecohealth/indicators.html.
Costanza R, Greer J. The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: a model for sustainable
ecosystem management. In: Rapport DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins R,
editors. Ecosystem health. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.
p. 261–302.
Costanza R, Mageau M, Norton B, Patten BC. Predictors of ecosystem health. In: Rapport
DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins R, editors. Ecosystem health. Malden
and Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998. p. 240–50.
Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental
management. Washington, D.C: Island Press; 1992.
Dai XL, Ji K, Lv F, Yin HN. Urban ecosystem health assess based on matter element
model. Yunnan Geogr Environ Res 2007;19(2):58–63 in Chinese.
Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Building healthy cities.
Guidelines for implementing a healthy cities project in Hong Kong 2nd edition; 2007.
2433
Fan, YL. Studies on urban ecosystem health assessment—take main district of
Chongqing for example. Master's degree thesis. Chongqing: Southwest University,
2006. (in Chinese)
Guan DJ, Su WC. Study on evaluation method for urban ecosystem health and its application.
Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 2006;26(10):1716–22 in Chinese.
Guidotti TL. Perspective on the health of urban ecosystems. Ecosystem Health 1995;1
(3):141–9.
Guo, X.R. Urban ecosystem health assessment—case study on Guangzhou City. Doctoral
degree dissertation. Beijing: Beijing Normal University, 2003. (in Chinese)
Guo XR, Yang JR, Mao XQ. Primary studies on urban ecosystem health assessment. China
Environ Sci 2002;22(6):525–9 in Chinese.
Hancock T. Urban ecosystem and human health: a paper prepared for the seminar on CIID-
IDRC and urban development in Latin America, Montevideo, Uruguay. April 6–7, 2000.
http://www.idrc.ca/lacro/docs/conferencias/hancock.html.
Hancock T, Duhl LJ. Promoting health in the urban context. WHO Healthy Cities Papers
No.1; 1988.
Harpham T. Urban health in the Gambia: a review. Health & Place 1996;2(1):45–9.
Hong M, Fath BD. Measurement and spatial distribution of urban land use compactness
in Chaoyang District of Beijing, China. International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Interim Report 2009; IR-09-048.
Hu TL, Yang ZF, He MC, Zhao YW. An urban ecosystem health assessment method and
its application. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae 2005;25(2):269–74 in Chinese.
Hutton J. Member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture at Paris, 1. ; 1788. p. 209–304.
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm.
Jacobs J. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Modern Library; 1961.
Jacobs J. Cities and the wealth of nations: principles of economic life. New York:
Random House; 1984.
Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeier PL, Yant PR, Schlosser IJ. Assessing biological integrity in
running waters: a method and its rationale. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey;
1986.
Kristin S. Ecosystem health: a new paradigm for ecological assessment. Trends Ecol Evol
1994;9:456–7.
Leopold A. Wilderness as a land laboratory. Living Wilderness 1941;6:3.
Levins R. The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 1966;54:421–31.
Liu GY, Yang ZF, Chen B, Zhang LX, Zhang Y, Zhao YW, Jiang MM. Emergy-based urban
ecosystem health assessment: a case study of Baotou, China. Commun Nonlinear
Sci Numer Simul 2009;14(3):972–81.
Liu N, Ai NS, Fang Y, Yi CB. Application of the fuzzy matter element model based on
coefficients of entropy to evaluation of urban ecosystem health. (Science &
Technology Edition), 34(5). Journal of Chengdu University of Technology; 2007.
p. 589–95. in Chinese.
Lu Y, Zhu XD, Li YF, Sun X. An improved method and its application for urban ecosystem
health assessment. Environ Prot Sci 2008;34(5):46–8 59. (in Chinese).
Luo FQ. The appraisal of urban ecosystem health—a case study of Nanjing City. Master's
degree thesis. Nanjing: Hohai University, 2006. (in Chinese)
Ma SJ, Wang RS. The social- economic-natural complex ecosystem. Acta Ecologica Sinica
1984;4(1):1–9 in Chinese.
Mageau MT, Costanza R, Ulanowicz RE. The development and initial testing of a
quantitative assessment of ecosystem health. Ecosyst Health 1995;1(4):201–13.
McMullan C. Indicators of urban ecosystem health. 1997. Available on the website http:
//www.idrc.ca/en/ev-3459-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.
Menéndez L, Vilamajé D, Capote R. The health of some forest ecosystems of Cuba. In:
Rapport DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins R, editors. Ecosystem health.
Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998. p. 324–42.
Milsky, D.J. A Conceptual analysis of ecosystem health. Doctoral degree dissertation.
Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 2004.
Müller F, Hoffmann-Kroll R, Wiggering H. Indicating ecosystem integrity—theoretical
concepts and environmental requirements. Ecol Model 2000;130:13–23.
Müller F, Lenz R. Ecological indicator: theoretical fundamentals of consistent
applications in environmental management. Ecological Indicators 2006;6:1–5.
Müller F, Wiggering H. Environmental indicators determined to depict ecosystem
functionality. In: Pykh Y, Hyatt E, Lenz RJM, editors. Environmental indices.
Proceedings of the international conference INDEX. St. Petersburg; 1999. p. 64–82.
National Research Council. Rangeland health: new methods to classify, inventory and
monitor rangelands. Washington D.C: National Academy Press; 1994.
Odum EP. Perturbation theory and the subsidy–stress gradient. Bioscience 1979;29(6):
349–52.
Odum EP. Ecology and our endangered life-support systems. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates; 1989.
O'Laughlin J. Forest ecosystem health assessment issues: definition, measurement, and
management implications. EcosystHealth 1996;2(1):19–39.
Peng J, Wang YL, Wu JS, Zhang YQ. Evaluation for regional ecosystem health:
methodology and research progress. Acta Ecol Sin 2007;27(11):4877–85.
Rapport DJ. What constitute ecosystem health. Perspect Biol Med 1989;33(2):120–32.
Rapport DJ. What is clinical ecology? In: Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD, editors.
Ecosystem. Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press,
Washington D.C; 1992. p. 144–56.
Rapport DJ. Ecosystems not optimized: a reply. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 1993;2
(1):57.
Rapport DJ, Böhm G, Buckingham D, Cairns Jr J, Costanza R, Karr JR, de Kruijf HAM, Levins R,
McMichael AJ, Nielsen NO, Whitford WG. Ecosystem health: the concept, the ISEH, and
the important tasks ahead. Ecosystem Health 1999;5:82–90.
Rapport DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins R. Ecosystem health. Malden and Oxford:
Blackwell Science; 1998a.
Rapport DJ, Gauder C, Calow P. Evaluating and monitoring the health of large-scale
ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1995.
2434 M. Su et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2425–2434
Rapport DJ, Gaudet C, Karr JR, Baron JS, Bohlen C, Jackson W, Jones B, Naiman RJ, Norton B,
Pollock MM. Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical
process rapport. J EnvironManage 1998b;53:1-15.
Rapport DJ, Lasley WL, Rolston DE, Nielsen NO, Qualset CV, Damania AB. Managing for
healthy ecosystems. Boca Raton: Lewis Publisher; 2002.
Rapport DJ, Regier HA, Hutchson TC. Ecosystem behavior under stress. Am Nat 1985;125:
617–40.
Rapport DJ, Thorpe C, Regier HA. Ecosystem medicine. Bull Ecol Soc Am 1979;60:180–2.
Ren H, Wu JG, Peng SL. Evaluation and monitoring of ecosystem health. Trop Geogr
2000;20(4):310–6 in Chinese.
Rong SH. Urban ecology system evaluation using attributive theory. Journal of North China
Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power 2009;30(3):92–5 in Chinese.
Ryder RA. Ecosystem health, a human perception: definition, detection and the
dichotomous key. J Great Lakes Res 1990;16(4):619–24.
Sang YH, Chen XG, Wu RH, Peng XC. Comprehensive assessment of urban ecosystem
health. Chin JAppl Ecol 2006;17(7):1280–5 in Chinese.
Schaeffer DJ, Cox DK. Establishing ecosystem threshold criteria. In: Costanza R, Norton BG,
Haskell BD, editors. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management.
Washington D.C: Island Press; 1992. p. 157–69.
Schaeffer DJ, Henricks EE, Kerster HW. Ecosystem health: I measuring ecosystem health.
Environ Manage 1988;12(3):445–55.
Shear H. The development and use of indicators to assess the state of ecosystem health in the
Great Lakes. Ecosyst Health 1996;2:241–58.
Shi F, Yan LJ. Application and research of unascertained measure model for urban
ecosystem health assessment. Bull Sci Technol 2007;23(4):603–8 in Chinese.
Smol JP, Cumming BF. Paleolimnological assessments of ecosystem health: lake acidification
in Adirondack Park. In: Rapport DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins R, editors.
Ecosystem health. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998. p. 303–12.
Spiegel JM, Bonet M, Yassi A, Molina E, Concepcion M, Mast P. Developing ecosystem
health indicators in centro Habana: a community-based approach. Ecosystem
Health 2001;7(1):15–26.
Su MR, Yang ZF, Chen B. Set pair analysis for urban ecosystem health assessment.
Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2009a;14(4):1773–80.
Su MR, Yang ZF, Chen B, Ulgiati S. Urban ecosystem health assessment based on emergy
and set pair analysis—a comparative study of typical Chinese cities. Ecol Model
2009b;220(18):2341–8.
Takano T, Nakamura K. Indicators for healthy cities. WHO CC HCUPR Monograph No. 2Tokyo:
World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Healthy Cities and Urban Policy
Research; 1998.
Tao XY. Synthetic assessment of ecosystem health in typical resource-exhausted cities
in China. International Workshop on Geoscience and Remote Sensing; 2008.
p. 193–6.
The H. John Heitz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. The state of
the nation's ecosystem: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the
United States. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
Tian GE, Lu YH, Gu F, Liu NN, Chen XQ. Methodology of urban ecosystem health
assessment. J Chin Urban Forestry 2009;7(1):57–60 in Chinese.
Ulanowicz RE. Growth and development, ecosystem phenomenology. New York: Springer
Verlag; 1986.
Ulanowicz RE. Ecosystem health and trophic flow networks. In: Costanza R, Norton BG,
Haskell BD, editors. Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management.
Washington D.C: Island Press; 1992. p. 190–206.
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. Human dominance of earth's ecosystems.
Science 1997;277:494–9.
Waltner-Toews D. Ecosystem health: a framework for implementing sustainability in
agriculture. Bioscience 1996;46(9):686–9.
Waltner-Toews D. Ecosystem sustainability and health—a practical approach. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Wei T, Zhu XD, Li YF. Ecosystem health assessment of Xiamen City: the catastrophe
progression method. Acta Ecol Sin 2008;28(12):6312–20 in Chinese.
Wen XM, Xiong Y. Assessment on urban ecosystem health based on attribute theory. Syst Eng
2008;26(11):42–6 in Chinese.
Whitford WG. The desert grasslands. In: Rapport DJ, Costanza R, Epstein PR, Gaudet C, Levins
R, editors. Ecosystem health. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998. p. 313–23.
WHO Regional Office for Western Pacific Region. Regional guidelines for developing a healthy
cities project. Western Pacific Region Office, Manila; 2000.
Woodley S, Kay J, Francis G, Woodley S, Kay J, Francis G. Ecological integrity and the
management of ecosystems. Ottawa: St. Lucie Press; 1993.
Woodwell GM. Effects of pollution on the structure and physiology of ecosystems.
Science 1970;168:429–33.
Yan WT. Research on urban ecosystem health attribute synthetic assessment model and
application. Syst Eng, Theory Pract 2007;8:137–45 in Chinese.
Yan WT, Yuan XZ, Xing Z. Urban ecosystem health assessment based on attribute
theory: A case study in the New District of Northern Chongqing City. System
Engineering, Chinese Journal of Ecology 2007;26(10):1679–84 in Chinese.
Yu YJ, Guo HC, Liu Y, Jiang YM, Li YQ, Huang K. Syndromic city illnesses diagnosis and
urban ecosystem health assessment. Acta Ecol Sin 2008;28(4):1736–47 in Chinese.
Zeng DH, Jiang FQ, Fan ZP, Du XJ. Ecosystem health and sustainable development for human.
Chin J Appl Ecol 1999;10(6):751–6 in Chinese.
Zeng Y, Shen GX, Guang SF, Wang M. Assessment of urban ecosystem health in
Shanghai. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin 2005;14(2):208–12 in Chinese.
Zhang Y, Yang ZF, Li W. Analyses of urban ecosystem based on information entropy.
Ecol Model 2006;197:1-12.
Zhong YX, Peng W. Assessment of urban ecosystem health. Jiangxi Sci 2003;21(3):253–6 in
Chinese.
Zhou WH, Wang RS. An entropy weight approach on the fuzzy synthetic assessment of
Beijing urban ecosystem health, China. Acta Ecol Sin 2005;25(12):1344–51 in Chinese.