A DEA-Based Performance Evaluation of Ecological Land Development of Cities

Youn-Jien Lin, Sung-Lin Hsueh, Han-Yi Chen

Ekoloji, 2018, Issue 106, Pages: 25-30, Article No: e106002


Download Full Text (PDF)


Because of population clustering, the density of land use continues to increase in cities, which will drive up property prices and worsen the quality of living environments. Because of its natural environment, ecological land can provide a better environment for living and/or leisure. Moreover, with people paying more attention to leisure activities and more convenient urban-rural traffic, the development of ecological land has become an inevitable trend. In this study, the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method is used to evaluate the ecological land development efficiency of nine cities (DMUs) in Fujian Province, mainland China. According to the analysis results, it is found that one DMU is a robustly strong unit in terms of the ecological land development, three DMUs are marginal inefficient units, and the remaining five DMUs are significantly inefficient units. Moreover, through the sensitivity analysis, key influence factors of ecological land development in the city are analyzed and found. By conducting the DEA analysis with the exclusion of the input and output factors, the sensitivity of each factor to the efficiency value is measured. Based on the analysis results, suggestions are made in this study in the hope of providing helpful references for reasonable land development and sustainable development of the environment in the city.


urban ecology, ecological land, eco-management, performance evaluation


  • Andersson E, Tengö M, Phearson TM, Kremer P (2015) Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 12: 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002
  • Berzina I, Grizane T, Jurgelane I (2015) The Tourism Service Consumption Model for the Sustainability of the Special Protection Areas. Procedia Computer Science, 43: 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.12.009
  • Buchel S, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 12: 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014
  • Campbell LK, Svendsen ES, Sonti NF, Johnson ML (2016) A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62: 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.014
  • Chang LF, Huang SL (2015) Assessing urban flooding vulnerability with an emergy approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143: 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.004
  • Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Giovannini E, Lovins H, McGlade J, Pickett KE, Ragnarsdottir KV, Roberts D, De Vogli R, Wilkinson R (2014) Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505: 283–285. https://doi.org/10.1038/505283a
  • Eigenbrod F (2016) Redefining Landscape Structure for Ecosystem Services. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 1: 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-016-0010-0
  • Hsueh SL (2015) Assessing the effectiveness of community-promoted environmental protection policy by using a Delphi-fuzzy method: A case study on solar power and plain afforestation in Taiwan, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49: 1286-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.008
  • Hsueh SL, Su FL (2016) Critical factors that influence the success of cultivating seed teachers in environmental education, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science and Technology Education, 12(11): 2817-2833.
  • Hsueh SL, Su FL (2017) Discussion of environmental education based on the social and cultural characteristics of the community‒an MCDM approach. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15(2): 183-196. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1502_183196
  • Hung HC, Yang CY, Chien CY, Liu YC (2016) Building resilience: Mainstreaming community participation into integrated assessment of resilience to climatic hazards in metropolitan land use management. Land Use Policy, 50: 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.029
  • Ibes DC (2016) Integrating Ecosystem Services into Urban Park Planning & Design. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 9(1): Article 1.
  • Liu KS, Hsueh SL, Chen HY (2018) Relationships between Environmental Education, Environmental Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions toward Ecolodging, Open House International, 43(2): 5-12.
  • Liu KS, Liao YT, Hsueh SL (2017) Implementing smart green building architecture to residential project based on Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15(2): 159-171. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1502_159171
  • Palliwoda J, Kowarik I, Lippe M (2017) Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157: 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003
  • Phearson TM, Hamstead ZA, Kremer P (2014) Urban Ecosystem Services for Resilience Planning and Management in New York City. AMBIO, 43: 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0509-8
  • Speak AF, Mizgajski A, Borysiak J (2015) Allotment gardens and parks: Provision of ecosystem services with an emphasis on biodiversity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14: 772–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.007
  • Sutton PC, Anderson SJ (2016) Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City’s Central Park. Ecosystem Services, 19: 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.003
  • Swapan MSH, Iftekhar MS, Li X (2017) Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia. Cities, 61: 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003