Next Article in Journal
Characteristics Analysis of Freight Mode Choice Model According to the Introduction of a New Freight Transport System
Next Article in Special Issue
An Integrated Indicator System and Evaluation Model for Regional Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
Research on an Improved Economic Value Estimation Model for Crop Irrigation Water in Arid Areas: From the Perspective of Water-Crop Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Urban Development System Measurement Based on Dissipative Structure Theory, the Grey Entropy Method and Coupling Theory: A Case Study in Chengdu, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/su11041208
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Key Factors in the Success of Eco-Communities in Taiwan’s Countryside: The Role of Government, Partner, and Community Group

by
Chen-Yi Sun
1,*,
Yen-An Chen
1 and
Xiuzhi Zhang
2
1
Department of Land Economics, National Chengchi University, Taipei 11605, Taiwan
2
School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(4), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041208
Submission received: 8 January 2019 / Revised: 16 February 2019 / Accepted: 20 February 2019 / Published: 25 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Collection Indicators, Assessment Tools, and Rating Systems for Mainstreaming Sustainability in Urban Planning and Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ideals of the successful implementation of an eco-community involve several key elements. This study used a literature review to clarify the key factors for the successful implementation of an eco-community and established the influence of these key elements through expert questionnaires. The results of the study showed that the most crucial part of building a successful eco-community is the community group, followed by the partners who assist the community, and finally the assistance and support of the government. The leader of a community plays the most critical role, followed by the community group, and community self-consciousness. In addition, if the community can establish partnerships with experts, scholars, nongovernmental organizations, and nonprofit organizations, and construct a stable autonomous financial system, the eco-community is guaranteed to continue operating.

1. Introduction

In the face of the destructive effect of human activities on various environmental resources, numerous scholars and planners are committed to incorporating ecological conservation and sustainable development ideas into their planning concepts.
Ample literature has proposed to mitigate the destruction of the ecological environment caused by industrialization and urbanization using concepts, such as the “sustainable community” [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], “eco-community” [5,8,9,10,11,12], “low-carbon community” [13], “sustainable city” [2,5,14,15,16,17], “green city” [14,17,18,19,20], “low-carbon city” [21], “eco-city” [5,12,15,16,18], and “eco-urbanism” [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The eco-city approach advocates balancing the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of development. Incidentally, the eco-community approach has its origin in the eco-city itself. Therefore, the ultimate objective of both approaches remains the same: working together for better social, economic, and environmental outcomes [5].
In defining an eco-city, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that “in an eco-city, people would be conscious of their local and global responsibilities for the environment, environmental problems would be addressed continually and proactively, environmental considerations would be integral to a wide range of policies and sectoral activities, and greater attention would be given to providing a better quality of life for all urban citizens” [15].
Eco-Urbanism appeared first in 1998 and was defined by the author as “the development of multi-dimensional sustainable human communities within harmonious and balanced built environments” [28]. However, Community is a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. Whether in urban or rural communities, people’s sustainable lifestyle can be consistent with the spirit of eco-city, eco-community, and eco-urbanism. To promote sustainable development and the concept of ecological communities, in 1996, Taiwan’s government officially announced the intention of its public and private sectors to promote environmental protection, energy conservation, and carbon reduction [12,14,29,30]. In 1999, the green building assessment system (Ecology, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction, and Health, EEWH) was established in Taiwan [31,32], and in 2009, the green building assessment system of eco-community (EEWH-EC) was set as a standard for assessing eco-communities [33].
The promotion of eco-communities must begin with the composition of a community, a partnership between the public sector, private sector, and community, and the participation of community residents in public policy research to condense community self-consciousness and aggregate the actions of community residents [34]. However, after several earthquakes and windstorms, Taiwan gradually introduced the community’s disaster prevention concept and adaptive planning to the overall construction of the community [35,36]. Since the 1980s, the concepts of energy conservation [12], ecological conservation [8,31,33], and sustainable development [3,34,35,37,38] have been more actively integrated into the overall community construction projects. Under this context of development, the plan is to establish a community self-consciousness and aggregate the actions of community residents before gradually creating a sustainable eco-community [39].
In terms of sustainable development, rural areas have more potential than urban areas [9,35]. In addition to their roles as food suppliers, rural areas are essential to providing resource conservation, diversity of landscapes, and recreational opportunities. The internal structure of rural areas has particularly different characteristics from urban communities. The degree of identity between residents and community affairs is higher than that of urban areas. In addition, the environmental problems in rural areas are simple, thus, allowing rural eco-communities a certain degree of creativity and success [35]. To achieve sustainable development, the development of eco-cities and eco-communities has always been the direction of the efforts of governments [3,14,33,40]. In Taiwan, the practice of the eco-community concept by rural communities will simultaneously achieve both rural development and ecological conservation objectives. However, the promotion of the eco-community requires effort from all parties [3].
In fact, the eco-community lacks a comprehensive strategy of practice and promotion at the implementation level as a basis for the establishment of eco-communities and the implementation of related programs [2,13,41,42]. The purpose of eco-communities requires further clarification and promotion. The development of eco-communities also necessitates long-term and comprehensive policy support [3,12,30,35]. Rural areas may be the areas with the most potential and the most suitable areas for implementing sustainable projects. Therefore, in this study, we only focus on some main factors of creating successful eco-community in the countryside in Taiwan.
Numerous existing studies have investigated the various critical roles for building successful eco-communities [2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,18,31,33,35,36,38,39,40,43,44,45,46,47,48,49], but they lack a systematic investigation and discussion. Therefore, this study explored the key factors of these different roles, which urban areas also have, for promoting the ecology in rural communities and establishing a complete rural eco-community practice and promotion strategy. These relevant indicators will become a basis for evaluation and will continue to guide and assist the achievement of sustainable development [16,45,50,51].

2. Materials and Methods

Investigating the key factors for rural eco-community development, this study integrated both qualitative and quantitative research and employed literature analysis and expert survey research methods. First, through literature analysis, previous records of community development and eco-communities were analyzed to learn from valuable experience. Subsequently, the results of previous academic research were organized to identify the key factors of eco-community development.
This study integrated the overall construction of the community and relevant literature on eco-communities. It included elements of community formation and the overall operational relationship and success of a community from the theoretical perspective, and it summarized the core focus of a community’s overall success. Moreover, this study focused on the background, connotation, and evaluation indicators of the formation of eco-communities. It integrated the functionalities with diverse emphases and organized the resource background and content of different communities. Through the community building and eco-community literature discussion and mutual verification, the key factors driving rural eco-communities were deduced and used as a basis for the follow-up expert questionnaire.
Some studies have mentioned that eco-communities involve a training system [8,47,48]; incentives, subsidies, or tax breaks [3,14,29,30,35]; an evaluation system [1,4,14,31,32,33,41]; praise or reward [3]; an experience exchange platform [5,9,11,39,47,51]; and a counseling and guidance mechanism [3,9,13] as the key government-related factors. Some articles have reported that partnerships (e.g., between schools, mutual benefit organizations [9,44], nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) [8,36,38,43,44], experts or scholars [8,36,44], partner communities [8,9], and representatives [1,40,41]) could play major roles in building a sustainable community. Furthermore, some research results indicate that having a leader [9,36,41,49], a community group [46,48], self-consciousness [47,48], an independent finance system [18,49], an eco-education [8,47,48], and an eco-development blueprint [9,32,39,50] is the foundation and guarantee of the successful establishment of an eco-community.
In addition, this research used the concept of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the results of the literature analysis were used as the basis for an expert survey. This study used the AHP [45,52,53], literature discussion, and case study to obtain the key factor structure of rural eco-community practice. It designed an expert questionnaire and conducted questionnaire surveys for experts in the industry, government departments, academic circles, communities, and other fields. The data of the valid questionnaires were collected to analyze various statistics, and the consistency was verified to control the credibility of the results.
Through the pairwise comparison of the AHP, the weight values of the relative influences of factors promoting rural eco-community were obtained, and the most crucial factors were identified. The main reasons for adopting the AHP were as follows. 1. Expert opinions are more forward-looking than historical data. 2. The AHP can systematically and hierarchically solve complex problems, and the first level of the target is divided into distinct levels. In turn, the problem can be divided into separate levels of projects and factors. The relevant level factors are analyzed through mutual comparison to determine the meanings filled in the expert questionnaires, and the hierarchical index weights or priority selection schemes are obtained through statistical analysis.
This research questionnaire employed the theoretical design of the AHP. The questionnaire’s scale was used to measure the scoring based on the purpose, content, and explanation of the questionnaire. In addition, after analysis of the hierarchical structure, the experts were asked to provide the relative influences of each evaluation factor. Targeted at experts from industries, government departments, academic institutions, and communities, 25 surveys were collected and statistically analyzed. All of the valid questionnaires were calculated and confirmed to pass the consistency check (Inconsistency Ratio > 0.1). The 23 valid expert questionnaires (recovery rate 92%) encompassed five professionals, six scholars, seven government officials, and five community leaders (Table 1).
This study was conducted in the respect of professions and considering the opinions of industries, the government, academics, and the public. It was aimed at academic, government, industry, and community fields that are familiar with eco-communities, environmental conservation, energy conservation, carbon reduction, community building, and urban planning. Questionnaires were issued to these experts for investigation. The questionnaire survey period extended from 30 March to 22 April 2015. A total of 23 questionnaires were distributed and collected, and a consistency check of each questionnaire was conducted. All the questionnaires were verified. Valid questionnaires were included in the basic data during weight calculation.
Using the internal factors and external support resources of the community to form the hierarchy, a key factor indicator framework for rural eco-community development was established with the first level comprising three factors, “A. Government”, “B. Partner”, and “C. Team”, and the second layer was composed of over 18 factor indicators (Table 2).

3. Results

In this study, the weight ratio of all the selected items in the software construction was filtered according to this criterion. An overall consistency check and a weight value calculation were performed. After confirming that the overall consistency check qualified, a software program was used to perform a hierarchical weight analysis and obtain the overall hierarchical weight result.
According to the survey analysis results (Table 3), “C. Team” had the greatest weight value of 59.7%. The top five factors in the key factor hierarchy weight were “C1. Leader” (20.2%), “C2. Community group” (15.0%), “C3. Community self-consciousness” (11.7%), “B4. Experts or scholars” (6.5%), and “C4. Independent finance” (5.3%). These findings demonstrate that experts believe the main success factors in building an organized structure are a community leader with active attitudes and competency and a community with high public participation levels. If the community self-consciousness can be raised and the actions of the community coordinated, they will become the main factors in developing eco-communities. As critical factors in the ecological community development, the community should perform self-reviews on the rich natural environment or valuable cultural environment of the rural community at the beginning to establish the objectives of ecological development.

4. Discussion

According to the results of the expert questionnaire, the “leaders” with the highest weight value (20.2%) and the “community group” (15.0%) are the most critical factors for promoting a rural eco-community. This result is consistent with the conclusions of the existing literature [9,36]. Even though some of the research literature results show that the government is very helpful to the eco-community, according to the results of this study, community leaders and community teams play a more important role. Promoting the operation of eco-communities should be the primary task of the community. If we promote the eco-community as part of community action, it is crucial to promote it with a voluntarily formed organization by selecting competent leaders and community groups within the community. This is also the main reason why several relevant assessment indicators incorporate community organizations into the assessment system [51].
The tasks of the community leaders and the community groups are to combine and mobilize the resources [9] and strength of the community as well as to confirm the direction and concept of the community’s ecological development. Subsequently, the ecological imagination may be embodied. Through the discussion, feedback and correction of community residents, a common ecological concept and team spirit (community “self-consciousness”, 11.7%) are formed, and ecological goals in line with the community characteristics are set accordingly.
The formation of community self-consciousness is based on the common interests of the community [47]. The power of community self-consciousness is the service function of the community. In community development work, an organization specializing in coordinating and planning various operations is required to facilitate combination and mobilization. A strong community can, thus, be formed based on the existing resources and strength, development of a collective building power, formation of a common philosophy, and team spirit.
Financial support is required for the normal function of the community [49]. The community must increase the funding for ecological goals and daily operations, expand the source of community group funding, balance the financial revenues and expenditures of the community, and seek financial autonomy (5.3%) to enable the community to progress toward ecological goals. If a community can establish a work team based on development goals, increase self-employment income through organizing exchange activities and selling various types of agricultural products, and appropriately seek government project plan grants and private sector project grants, it can be regarded as a financially autonomous community capable of promoting everything based on community goals. Therefore, setting some development goals and blueprints for the eco-community is a crucial part of sustainable development [9].
The community should gradually integrate external resources according to its ecological goals and needs. The external resources of the community come from the public and private sectors, including funding, human resources, and professional counseling (6.5%), cooperation and alliances, and exchange of experiences between communities. Community involvement in government programs or competitions is recommended for incentives, grants, tax breaks, participation in government-sponsored eco-community talent training programs (5.0%), and professional assistance from experts, academics, or community planners. In addition, the community can also form alliances with various organizational units (4.5%) to focus on financial resources, grow together, and actively seek NGOs or NPOs (4.3%) to assist the community or provide them with resources and donations. In fact, several successful examples of eco-communities’ practice are based on partnerships with NPOs or NGOs that have corporate social responsibility [38,43].
In addition, the community can independently develop eco-communities that meet its needs, identify ecological goals, and integrate future resources into the community to properly plan for the future ecological development blueprint (4.0%). To ensure the sustainable protection and planning of the resources, the community will strengthen the ecological education among residents (3.4%), and provide the residents with ecological care, ecological awareness, ecological knowledge, ecological determination, and ecological conservation actions.
The community should maintain openness in their opinion exchange, public participation, and resources. In addition, other communities should actively conduct exchanges of ecological technology, professional talents, community resources, and information. These exchanges could be mutual observation and learning with other partner communities (3.4%), development of eco-communities (3.1%) with community proximity schools and primary schools, and urging the government to help establish community communication platforms for eco-community-related information exchange (2.0%).
According to the results from the literature analysis, government is important for eco-community. Nevertheless, based on the result of key factor weight analysis, this study proposes that the development of rural eco-community should be spontaneous. In addition, the strategies should be formed using both bottom-up and top-down approaches to enable the growth of the community while taking external factors into consideration. In addition, the results of this study provide a more comprehensive approach than numerous existing relevant studies, in that they clearly address the key tasks that different roles should be responsible for when establishing successful eco-communities.

5. Conclusions

Environmental protection and sustainable development have become common concerns worldwide. The development of eco-communities is an international vision that is both forward-looking and challenging. An ecological community is based on the health and comfort of people. It can be based on a comprehensive and systematic environmental design for the ecological living environment while emphasizing the environmental design concept of coexistence with the global environment and sustainable development.
The ideals of the successful implementation of an eco-community involve numerous key elements. After literature review and key factor weight analysis results, the strategy should be formed from the bottom up, and the community can self-grow while considering external factors. The practice and promotion strategy recommendations under different roles, such as those of the government and community partners, can be referenced for more flexibility in the promotion of eco-communities.

5.1. Community Role—the Practice and Promotion Strategy of Community Autonomy

The community must be composed of excellent leaders and community groups to form a spontaneous organization. According to the results from existing literature, the effective use of resources inside and outside the community is crucial for the sustainable governance of the community [36]. Through the exploration of the community’s natural environment and human resources and through the growth and learning within the community, self-consciousness is developed, and the ecological goals in line with the community characteristics are set accordingly. The community’s financial revenues and expenditures should be balanced for financial autonomy to develop independently toward ecological goals. The community also should combine external resources (government, partners) to properly plan the blueprint of future ecological development. Thus, the overall plan can be closely integrated within the lives of residents and implemented in normal work, and the self-improvement and promotion of the eco-community can be maintained.

5.2. Government Role–Government Practice and Promotion Strategy

The government should be inspired by the social work of grassroots talent (community leaders, community groups) and conduct eco-community talent training to equip the population with ecological awareness, knowledge, and skills. The government should also use its influence to turn knowledge into action and promote community ecology education to the most basic members of the community as the core of the community’s natural environment, human environment, and ecological system. Furthermore, the government must develop action plans and establish policies to provide incentives (rewards, subsidies) and assistance (consultation and counseling) based on the ecological development of the community, and promote influential partners in the community. Therefore, community planners (such as scholars, NGOs, and NPOs) can enter the community and provide technical coaching. In addition, the government can also select eco-community models, build community-to-community exchange platforms, promote community-based eco-concepts, observe exchanges, and broaden the community’s vision. Finally, the eco-community assessment system will be promoted to review the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of the eco-community and to examine the sustainability of the eco-community development.

5.3. Partner Role–Collaboration Practice and Promotion Strategy

Good interaction and cooperation between partners and community organizations are two of the keys to promoting the development of eco-communities. Experts, scholars, community planners, NGOs, or NPOs can provide the community with professional technical services, build a foundation of trust, a consensus on cooperation, and partnerships. Through the integration of these external partners into the operation of the community, based on the concept of protecting the natural and human environment, the eco-community is guided through ecological learning, resource integration, communication, and coordination. The aim is to develop the community self-consciousness and reach a consensus between partners and communities. Partners can either directly guide the community or jointly implement government plans with the community and strive for rewards and subsidies in a mutually beneficial manner. Sharing resources and mutual benefits between communities and partners can enable the community to grow and enhance its benefits for sustainable development.
In conclusion, community leaders and community groups play the most critical roles in creating or maintaining a sustainable community. Furthermore, communities must intend to strengthen their self-consciousness and build a stable community management financial system to establish the foundation for a successful eco-community. Finally, the community can be assisted by partnerships with experts, scholars, NGOs, and NPOs. Education, training, and tax relief should be actively requested from the government. Ultimately, the community will achieve its goal of building a sustainable eco-community.

Author Contributions

C.-Y.S. contributed to the conceptual design of the study, data collection, drafting the article, and final approval. Y.-A.C. contributed to the conceptual design of the study, data collection, drafting the article, and final approval. X.Z. contributed to the conceptual design of the study, drafting the article, and final approval.

Funding

This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology, grant number 102-2621-M-004-006-MY3 and 105-2410-H-004-194.

Acknowledgments

The support of the Ministry of Science and Technology (project MOST 102-2621-M-004-006-MY3 and 105-2410-H-004-194) and Lin Zengjie Land Science Development Fund is gratefully acknowledged. This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. AtKisson, A. Developing indicators of sustainable community: Lessons from sustainable Seattle. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996, 16, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brecher, W.P. Sustainability as Community: Healing in a Japanese Ecovillage. Available online: http://japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol13/iss3/brecher.html (accessed on 1 December 2018).
  3. Roseland, M. Sustainable community development: Integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Prog. Plan. 2000, 54, 73–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xia, B.; Chen, Q.; Skitmore, M.; Zuo, J.; Li, M. Comparison of sustainable community rating tools in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Surjan, A.K.; Shaw, R.J.S.S. ‘Eco-city’ to ‘disaster-resilient eco-community’: A concerted approach in the coastal city of Puri, India. Sustain. Sci. 2008, 3, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zou, T.; Su, Y.; Wang, Y. Examining Relationships between Social Capital, Emotion Experience and Life Satisfaction for Sustainable Community. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Moyle, C.-L. Resilient and Sustainable Communities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Niesenbaum, R.A.; Gorka, B. Community-Based Eco-Education: Sound Ecology and Effective Education. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 33, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Phoochinda, W.J.E. Development; Sustainability. Application of the Eco-Industrial concept to community environmantal management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Post David, M.; Palkovacs Eric, P. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: Interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1629–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Espinosa, A.; Walker, J. Complexity management in practice: A Viable System Model intervention in an Irish eco-community. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 225, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Han, X.; Pei, J.; Liu, J.; Xu, L. Multi-objective building energy consumption prediction and optimization for eco-community planning. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, X.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Feng, J.; Wu, Y. Delivering a low-carbon community in China: Technology vs. strategy? Habitat Int. 2013, 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Lin, S.J.; Lu, I.J.; Lewis, C. Grey relation performance correlations among economics, energy use and carbon dioxide emission in Taiwan. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1948–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. OECD. Innovative Policies for Sustainable Urban Development. The Ecological City; OECD: Paris, France, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  16. Roseland, M. Dimensions of the eco-city. Cities 1997, 14, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wikantiyoso, R.; Tutuko, P. Planning Review: Green City Design Approach for Global Warming Anticipatory. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 1, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Fei, J.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhi, Q. Towards Eco-city: The Role of Green Innovation. Energy Procedia 2016, 104, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, C.Y.; Lee, K.P.; Lin, T.P.; Lee, S.H. Vegetation as a Material of Roof and City to Cool down the Temperature. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 461, 552–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sun, C.Y.; Lin, Y.J.; Sung, W.P.; Ou, W.S.; Lu, K.M. Green Roof as a Green Material of Building in Mitigating Heat Island Effect in Taipei City. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 193–194, 368–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, H.; Yan, X.; Liao, Q. Integrating Low-carbon Concepts in Urban Planning: Practices in Xiamen and Implications. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 1, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Sharifi, A. From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caprotti, F. Eco-urbanism and the Eco-city, or, Denying the Right to the City? Antipode 2014, 46, 1285–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rapoport, E. Globalising sustainable urbanism: The role of international masterplanners. Area 2015, 47, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Caprotti, F. Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China. Cities 2014, 36, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Caprotti, F.; Springer, C.; Harmer, N. ‘Eco’ For Whom? Envisioning Eco-urbanism in the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, China. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2015, 39, 495–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Holden, M.; Li, C.; Molina, A. The Emergence and Spread of Ecourban Neighbourhoods around the World. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11418–11437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ruano, M. Eco-Urbanism: Sustainable Human Settlements; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  29. Huang, Y.-H.; Wu, J.-H. Analyzing the driving forces behind CO2 emissions and reduction strategies for energy-intensive sectors in Taiwan, 1996–2006. Energy 2013, 57, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chuang, M.C.; Ma, H.W. Energy security and improvements in the function of diversity indices—Taiwan energy supply structure case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hsieh, T.T.; Chiang, C.M.; Ho, M.C.; Lai, K.P. The Application of Green Building Materials to Sustainable Building for Environmental Protection in Taiwan. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 343–344, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hsieh, T.-T.; Lai, K.-P.; Chiang, C.-M.; Ho, M.-C. Eco-Efficiency Model for Green Building Material in a Subtropical Climate. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2013, 30, 555–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chuang, H.W.; Lin, H.T.; Ho, M.C. The Eco-Community Evaluation System of Taiwan: An Introduction to EEWH-EC. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 71–78, 3466–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Conroy, M.M.; Berke, P.R. What Makes a Good Sustainable Development Plan? An Analysis of Factors That Influence Principles of Sustainable Development. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2004, 36, 1381–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Chang, K.F.; Chou, P. Integrating intelligent living, production and disaster prevention into a sustainable community assessment system for the rural village regeneration in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Multimedia Technology, Hangzhou, China, 26–28 July 2011; pp. 6410–6413. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, L.-R.; Chen, S.; Chen, J. Community Resilience after Disaster in Taiwan: A Case Study of Jialan Village with the Strengths Perspective. J. Soc. Work Disabil. Rehabil. 2013, 12, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Bithas, K.P.; Christofakis, M. Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and operational conditions. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 14, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Moon, J. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Macaulay, A.C.; Commanda, L.E.; Freeman, W.L.; Gibson, N.; McCabe, M.L.; Robbins, C.M.; Twohig, P.L. Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. BMJ 1999, 319, 774–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Panyathanakun, V.; Tantayanon, S.; Tingsabhat, C.; Charmondusit, K. Development of eco-industrial estates in Thailand: Initiatives in the northern region community-based eco-industrial estate. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. E. Innes, J.; Booher, D.E. Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence. Plan. Theory Pract. 2000, 1, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mo, X.; Wang, W. Review on a Practical Approach of Sustainable Urban Design Strategy in the Perspective of Conflict in Shanghai. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 2, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wikantiyoso, R.; Suhartono, T. The Role of CSR in the Revitalization of Urban Open Space for Better Sustainable Urban Development. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 6, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jones, N.; Collins, K.; Vaughan, J.; Benedikz, T.; Brosnan, J. The Role of Partnerships in Urban Forestry. In Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book; Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 187–205. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ali, H.H.; Al Nsairat, S.F. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries—Case of Jordan. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chatterton, P. Towards an Agenda for Post-carbon Cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s First Ecological, Affordable Cohousing Community. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 1654–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Duguid, F.; Mündel, K.; Schugurensky, D. Volunteer work, informal learning, and the quest for sustainable communities in Canada. Can. J. Study Adult Educ. 2007, 20, 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  48. Simpson, L. Community Informatics and Sustainability: Why Social Capital Matters. In Proceedings of the Community Informatics Research Network 2004 Colloquium and Conference Proceedings, Prato, Italy, 29 September–1 October 2004; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  49. Vincent, V.C.; Thompson, W. Assessing Community Support and Sustainability for Ecotourism Development. J. Travel Res. 2002, 41, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 1573–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Haapio, A. Towards sustainable urban communities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 32, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Saaty, T.L. Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science; Gass, S.I., Fu, M.C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 52–64. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Expert background information from expert questionnaire.
Table 1. Expert background information from expert questionnaire.
No.ClassificationTitleExpertise or Practical Experience
1ProfessionalGeneral managerAssistance of enterprises and communities in energy saving, carbon reduction, creation of a controlled and healthy environment
2General managerEnergy-saving and carbon-reducing systems for air conditioning, electricity, lighting, solar energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s low-carbon home; counseling in energy conservation planning
3General managerEnergy saving and carbon reduction, resource recycling, green building materials, organic waste recycling technology
4Deputy general managerEnvironmental quality planning management; planning and design of various environmental projects
5General managerTechnical consultancy in the fields of urban planning, architecture, landscape, civil engineering, and environmental engineering
6Government officialDirectorUrban renewal, urban planning, cultural assets, community building
7Deputy DirectorNatural environment conservation, hillside resource survey planning, soil and water conservation
8DirectorUrban planning practice, landscape design, urban space transformation
9Technical SpecialistUrban renewal, urban planning, community building
10Deputy executive secretaryPlanning and analyzing the knowledge elements of eco-communities and promoting the establishment of demo eco-communities
11Section chiefUrban design review, urban style transformation
12Section chiefEnvironmental education, green procurement, low-carbon community
13ScholarAdjunct assistant professorArchitectural and environmental design, green building and eco-community planning and design
14Associate ProfessorGreen building, landscape, and environmental planning, urban greening, heat island effect
15Associate ProfessorEnvironmental control, building energy efficiency, ventilation and air conditioning, building fire protection
16Assistant professorCommunity building, regional governance, urban and regional planning, architectural and environmental design
17Associate ProfessorEnvironmental planning and design, landscape design, green building planning and design
18Associate ProfessorUrban renewal and redevelopment, urban environmental planning and design, community-building practice, ecological environment planning and design
19Community leader or cadreChief of VillageEnvironmental landscape, community safety, social welfare and medical care, environmental protection and ecology
20ChairmanEnvironmental landscape, community safety, social welfare and medical care, environmental protection and ecology, humanities education
21Chief of VillageEnvironmental landscape, social welfare and medical care, humanitarian education, environmental protection and ecology
22Chief of VillageEnvironmental protection work and publicity, construction of green maps, energy saving, and carbon reduction
23Director generalCommunity industry, environmental landscape, community safety, social welfare and medical care, humanitarian education, environmental protection and ecology
Table
Table 2. Most crucial factor indicators for creating an eco-community.
Table 2. Most crucial factor indicators for creating an eco-community.
CategoryIndicatorCondition DescriptionReference
A. GovernmentA1. Training systemTrain community residents to obtain the relevant technology for creating an eco-community.[8,11,47,48]
A2. Incentives, subsidies or tax breaksPlan an eco-community and related policies, planning and enabling community organizations to compete, providing incentives or subsidies, providing community housing tax and land tax relief.[3,14,29,30,35]
A3. Evaluation systemEstablish a clear policy evaluation system for eco-communities, promote community application.[1,4,14,31,32,33,41,51]
A4. Praise or rewardSelect as a priority to promote a particular community object, counseling community development into an ecological demonstration community.[3]
A5. Experience exchange platformEstablish an eco-community communication platform to strengthen the experience-sharing between communities and enable them to inspire each other.[5,9,11,39,40,47,51]
A6. Counseling and guidance mechanismProvide eco-communities related technology consulting and counseling.[2,3,9,13]
B. PartnerB1. SchoolsAchieve the ideal eco-community by regrouping elementary schools or junior high schools together, share resources.[8,36,44]
B2. Mutual benefit organizationsEnable civil society organizations and the community to establish long-term cooperative relationships, share resources and financing, create a symbiotic partnership.[9,40,44]
B3. NGO or NPOProvide resources or donations to assist the community and develop the eco-community.[8,9,36,38,43,44]
B4. Experts or scholarsEstablish a long-term partnership with the community, and providing the community assistance and advice.[9,36,38,43,44]
B5. Partner communitiesInteract with other communities and becoming partners to observe and learn from each other.[8,9]
B6. RepresentativesAssist with community development.[1,40,41]
C. TeamC1. LeaderCommunity leaders with a positive attitude and excellent ability.[8,9,36,41,49]
C2. Community groupPublic participation in the community is high; moreover, a sound organization strengthens the community-building work.[8,9,34,46,48,51]
C3. Self-consciousnessCommunity residents have a high consensus.[39,47,48]
C4. Independent financeHigh community financial autonomy.[18,49]
C5. Eco-educationImplementation of ecological education, community resources survey, and environmental management for community residents.[8,47,48]
C6. Eco-development blueprintComplete and properly planned community eco-development, and gradual application.[9,32,39,50]
Table
Table 3. Most influential factor indicators for creating an eco-community (weights and ranking).
Table 3. Most influential factor indicators for creating an eco-community (weights and ranking).
Category (Weights)IndicatorCategory WeightsCategory RankingTotal WeightsTotal Ranking
A. Government (0.174)A1. Training system0.28710.0506
A2. Incentives, subsidies or tax breaks0.24420.0429
A3. Evaluation system0.09860.01717
A4. Praise or reward0.14530.02514
A5. Experience exchange platform0.11540.02015
A6. Counseling and guidance mechanism0.11250.0215
B. Partner (0.229)B1. Schools0.13750.03113
B2. Mutual benefit organizations0.19620.0457
B3. NGOs or NPOs0.18930.0438
B4. Experts or scholars0.28310.0654
B5. Partner communities0.14740.03411
B6. Representatives0.04760.01118
C. Team (0.597)C1. Leader0.33810.2021
C2. Community group0.25220.1502
C3. Self-consciousness0.19630.1173
C4. Independent finance0.08940.0535
C5. Eco-education0.05860.03411
C6. Eco-development blueprint0.06750.04010

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, C.-Y.; Chen, Y.-A.; Zhang, X. Key Factors in the Success of Eco-Communities in Taiwan’s Countryside: The Role of Government, Partner, and Community Group. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041208

AMA Style

Sun C-Y, Chen Y-A, Zhang X. Key Factors in the Success of Eco-Communities in Taiwan’s Countryside: The Role of Government, Partner, and Community Group. Sustainability. 2019; 11(4):1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Chen-Yi, Yen-An Chen, and Xiuzhi Zhang. 2019. "Key Factors in the Success of Eco-Communities in Taiwan’s Countryside: The Role of Government, Partner, and Community Group" Sustainability 11, no. 4: 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041208

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop