sustainability

Article
Urbanization and Sustainability: Comparison of the
Processes in “BIC” Countries
Chen Zeng 1,2, *, Xiangzheng Deng 1, *, Jianing Dong 2 and Peiying Hu 2
1 Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
100101 Beijing, China
2 Department of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, 430070 Wuhan, China;
eternityandaday@126.com (J.D.); hupeiying@outlook.com (P.H.)
* Correspondence: lunarzeng@126.com (C.Z.); dengxz.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cn (X.D.); Tel.: +86-027-8728-4349 (C.Z.);
+86-010-6488-8980 (X.D.)

Academic Editor: Tan Yigitcanlar

Received: 8 March 2016; Accepted: 15 April 2016; Published: 22 April 2016

Abstract: The urbanized world has brought social, economic, and environmental sustainability
into challenged surroundings in rapidly rising countries, thereby requiring the exploration of their
intertwined relationships. This study regarded Brazil, India, and China as “BIC” countries to be the
representative study areas for our investigation of sustainability in the context of rapid urbanization.
In general, our work was synthesized into a comparison framework in four aspects: rural–urban
relation, industrial development, city development, and urban landscape pattern. We determined
that rural–urban dichotomy exists in all study areas, with India and China having a high degree.
China was identified as a manufacturing-based country in the past half-century, whereas Brazil
and India have the service sector as their primary industry. The distribution of large cities follows
a regional pattern, with Brazil being northeast-focused, China being southeast-focused, and India
being comparatively balanced. The Amazon forest in the north brings great challenges to Brazil
with respect to the conservation of its biodiversity and eco-environment. India and China have
encountered tremendous urban expansion or sprawl in the past several decades. The sustainability
issues in social, economic, and environmental aspects for Brazil, India, and China were summarized
in the context of rapid urbanization to provide references for other countries.

Keywords: urbanization; sustainability; Brazil; India; China

1. Introduction
The urbanized world has brought social, economic, and environmental sustainability into
increasingly challenged surroundings, which necessitate the exploration on their intertwined
relationships, particularly in the rapidly rising countries [1–3]. The urban population has increased
from 2.3 billion to 3.9 billion from 1994 to 2014, indicating that more than half of the world’s population
currently dwells in urban areas [4]. At the same time, urban ecosystems and landscapes have become
increasingly domesticated and vulnerable though urbanization [5]. A series of eco-environmental
problems such as resource consumption, biodiversity, climate change, and environmental degradation
have emerged and sprawled [6,7]. In the context of rapid urbanization, cities have become the engines
of socio-economic development, and resolving such problems in these highly dense urban areas
requires further investigation [8].
The relationship between urbanization and sustainability has long been the focus of numerous
studies [9]. In the recent surge of interest in sustainability, some scholars believe that urbanization
is the key to regional and global sustainability, whereas others regard urban sustainability as an
oxymoron [5]. For a long time, the interaction between urbanization and sustainability is embodied in

Sustainability 2016, 8, 400; doi:10.3390/su8040400 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 2 of 18

ecological sustainability, which is closely linked to ubiquitous urban sprawl and social sustainability
correlated with continuous urban population growth. In an ecological sense, the past several decades
have seen a widespread urban expansion in developing countries such as China and India. Such
expansion has put enormous strain on its supporting ecological systems. Impervious lands such
as settlements and highways have sprawled rapidly with the cost of cropland, forest, wetland, and
other lands with high ecological values in urban areas. In this case, although the urban landscape
has been transformed into a manageable pattern in terms of its connectivity and compactness [10],
the ecological habitat is greatly challenged because the urbanized landscape profoundly affects the
related ecological processes and services [11]. In a socio-economic sense, sustainability revolves around
two core themes (i.e., “social equity” and “economic balance”) all the way through [11,12]. Social
inequality is associated with issues such as social welfare for rural migrants [13], separation of peasants
from their land leading to the deterritorialization of the peasantry [14], weak social ties in the urban
setting with increasing rural–urban migration [15], and increasing health risks from air pollution,
occupational hazards, and traffic injury [16]. In its initial stage, urbanization positively affects the
social aspects, including social mobilization, literacy, political participation, education, income, and
health. However, these effects become negative when urbanization goes beyond the carrying capacity
of the city [17]. Economic balance mainly refers to a holistic framework for industrial development
in different sectors [18]. A number of developing countries have experienced rapid industrialization
and urbanization [19]. In recent years, the service sector, which requires a variety of manual labor,
has rapidly become the leading sector in the industrial structure of many countries [20]. Under this
industrial transformation, the requirements for natural resources and energy use have expanded,
thereby threatening the carrying capacity in certain areas. Consequently, economic balance is vital to
achieving the harmonious development between human activities and the natural environment [21].
In this study, Brazil, India, and China are considered “BIC” countries to be our representative
study areas for investigating sustainability and urbanization. Jim O’Neill first introduced the BRIC
countries—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—almost one and a half decades ago through a Global
Economics Paper of the Goldman Sachs entitled “Building Better Global Economic BICs” [22].
These countries with large geographic and demographic sizes and high economic potential have
experienced unprecedented boom in socio-economic development and have occupied increasingly
relevant positions in the world economy. However, a series of essential problems in this course, such
as increasing socio-economic discrepancies between rural and urban areas as well as air, aquatic, and
terrestrial pollution, cannot be disregarded [23]. Distinguishable development trajectories provide
characteristic references for exploring the sustainable urbanization pathways. As a result, Brazil, India,
and China are chosen as the representative countries of our study to summarize the similarities and
differences in the process of urbanization. Russia is excluded from such investigation because it has
undergone the remarkable dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the data analysis on the urbanization
of this country is inconsistent with those of other countries.

2. Framework of Probing into Urbanization and Sustainability

Urbanization and sustainability are two independent academic terms that have their own
definitions. These terms are also two dependent processes that give rise to the combined term “urban
sustainability” or “sustainable urbanization”. As illustrated in Figure 1, some important issues in
these integrated concepts, including human well-being, urban ecosystem service, urban resilience, and
urban planning, have been highlighted for a long time. Looking into the interaction of urbanization
and sustainability basically lies in the decomposition of human-oriented and land-dominated
urbanization, understanding of social and ecological sustainability, and the approaches to relate them
in a suitable and pragmatic manner. Social sustainability is closely associated with human-oriented
urbanization, in which coordination and structure are essential components and rural–urban and
industrial coordination are the primary reflections. The nexus between ecological sustainability and
land-dominated urbanization has been increasingly close. Urban system and urban landscape have
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 3 of 18

Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  3 of 18 
been transformed in the context of rapid urbanization; as a result, city development and urban
and urban landscape pattern need to be analyzed. In this sense, four aspects, namely, rural–urban 
landscape pattern need to be analyzed. In this sense, four aspects, namely, rural–urban relation,
relation, industrial development, city development, and urban landscape pattern, are considered the 
industrial development, city development, and urban landscape pattern, are considered the interface
interface 
that connectsthat  connects  urbanization 
urbanization and  sustainability. 
and sustainability. We  then  synthesized 
We then synthesized our studies our 
into studies  into  a 
a comparison
comparison  framework  in  these  aspects.  Given  that  urbanization  and  sustainability 
framework in these aspects. Given that urbanization and sustainability are evolving processes that are  evolving 
processes 
include that 
spatial andinclude  spatial 
temporal and  temporal 
dimensions, dimensions, 
we collected we 
annual collected 
data annual 
to reflect data  to  reflect 
the temporal the 
variations
temporal variations and implemented our analysis at the city and country levels. 
and implemented our analysis at the city and country levels.

 
Figure 1. Framework of probing into urbanization and sustainability. 
Figure 1. Framework of probing into urbanization and sustainability.

(1)  Rural–urban relation: Urbanization is a rate measured by the percentage of urban population to 
(1) Rural–urban relation: Urbanization is a rate measured by the percentage of urban population
total population and is a dynamic population shift from rural to urban areas. The proportion of 
to total population and is a dynamic population shift from rural to urban areas. The proportion
urban  and  rural  population  reflects  the  social  structure,  and  the  integrated  urban  and  rural 
of urban and rural population reflects the social structure, and the integrated urban and rural
development  is  the  ultimate  goal  of  urbanization.  The  analysis  of  the  rural–urban  relation 
development is the ultimate goal of urbanization. The analysis of the rural–urban relation
generally  incorporates  three  elements,  namely,  demographic  comparison,  the  gap  between 
generally incorporates three elements, namely, demographic comparison, the gap between urban
urban and rural socio‐economic developments, and the well‐being of the people. Therefore, we 
and rural socio-economic developments, and the well-being of the people. Therefore, we investigated
investigated  the  urban–rural  relation  primarily  from the  populations  of  these  areas and  their 
the urban–rural relation primarily from the populations of these areas and their related gaps.
related gaps. 
(2)(2) Industrial coordination: Industrial development defines the economic structure of urbanization,
Industrial coordination: Industrial development defines the economic structure of urbanization, 
which provides opportunities for progress in different industries. In most cases, the agricultural
which provides opportunities for progress in different industries. In most cases, the agricultural 
industry appears in rural areas more than other industries, whereas the manufacturing, service,
industry appears in rural areas more than other industries, whereas the manufacturing, service, and 
and construction industries are popular in urban areas. The divergence and convergence of
construction industries are popular in urban areas. The divergence and convergence of industrial 
industrial development also configure the role of marketing and the economic growth mechanism,
development also configure the role of marketing and the economic growth mechanism, which are 
which are closely associated
closely  associated  with contemporary
with  contemporary  urban development.
urban  development.  Hence,  we  Hence,
selected we selected
three  three
sectors  (i.e., 
sectors (i.e., agriculture, manufacturing, and service) that account for a large proportion
agriculture, manufacturing, and service) that account for a large proportion of the GDP to calculate  of the
GDP to calculate their proportions and represent economic sustainability. Urbanization is an
their proportions and represent economic sustainability. Urbanization is an entangled part of the 
entangled part ofdevelopment 
comprehensive  the comprehensive
in  each  development in each
country,  indicating  country,
the  indicating
necessity  theits 
to  measure  necessity to
pace  with 
measure its pace with industrialization. As such, we introduced the coordination ratio to quantify
industrialization.  As  such,  we  introduced  the  coordination  ratio  to  quantify  the  relation  of 
the relation of urbanization with industrial development and urban population growth.
urbanization with industrial development and urban population growth. 
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 4 of 18

IRt1 ´ IRt2
CR I “ (1)
URt1 ´ URt2
where CRI represents the coordination ratio between industrial development and urbanization,
URti is the urbanization rate, and IRti refers to the industrialization rate.
(3) City development: City is the political, cultural, and economic center of a region or country.
The urban system of a developing country is reflected in the city’s size and categorization,
which has experienced tremendous changes in the past several decades. Urbanization creates
unprecedented opportunities for cities, and a series of strategic planning and specific measures
have been taken to accommodate these changes. At the city level, we probed into city
development by analyzing representative large cities and their changes.
(4) Urban landscape pattern: Urbanization is also characterized by evident landscape changes, which
have been the focus in the context of “land-dominated” urbanization. Here, we first extracted
the land use distribution from medium-high resolution images and then employed landscape
pattern indices to describe the composition and configuration of an urban land use across a
landscape [24,25]. Specifically, we used Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI) and contagion index
(CONTAG) to perform landscape analysis at the city level. SHDI is an index based on information
theory widely applied in landscape ecology studies [26]. This index indicates the patch diversity
in the landscape and equals 0 when the landscape contains only one patch. It increases when
there are more patches with different land use categories. CONTAG measures the aggregation
level in the landscape; it approaches 0 when the patch types are maximally disaggregated and
equals 100 when all patch types are maximally aggregated [27]. Based on the analysis on city
development, we selected representative cities to calculate the means and standard deviations of
the landscape indices to reveal the landscape pattern of urban areas in each country.

As mentioned previously, the study areas included Brazil, India, and China. The primary datasets
from the World Bank were used to analyze socio-economic development. The land use maps from
global land use data with a spatial resolution of 30 m and were provided by the Chinese Academy of
Sciences were also adopted (GlobaLand 30). Dataset at the city level are retrieved from [28]. Other
auxiliary data on housing, migration and related issues in the process of urbanization are obtained
from a large amount of literature.

3. Sustainability in the Rural–Urban Relation

Brazil, India, and China have their own characteristics and common features in the urban–rural
relation. The baselines of the population in China and India are significantly higher than that in Brazil.
Although these countries show unremitting growth in urban population, the growths in Brazil and
India were linear and that in China was exponential between 1960 and 2013. Large disparities appear
in the rural population among these countries, with Brazil showing a slight declining trend, India
showing an obvious increase, and China showing an inverted U-shaped pattern. The growth rate of
urbanization is persistently significantly higher than that of the rural population growth in Brazil and
India. China embodied a distinct urbanization trajectory with fluctuations of growth rates in the urban
and rural populations before 1976. Since the implementation of its Reform and Opening-up Policy, the
level of urbanization in China increased to a high level, with a growth rate over 5%.

3.1. “Ambiguous” Rural–Urban Dichotomy in Brazil

Brazil is one of the typical cases of demographic transition in Latin American countries because
of its high urbanization level and periodical rural–urban migration over a few decades (Figure 2).
Brazil’s total population underwent an explosive growth from 72.8 million in 1960 to more than
200 million today, becoming the fifth most populated country in the world. This population growth
is mostly attributed to a high urban growth and rural–urban migration [29]. From a demographic
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 5 of 18
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  5 of 18 

slightly  over  1%  in  the  recent  decade,  although  its  urban  population  has  undergone  a  five‐fold 
point of view, Brazil saw a high urban growth rate of around 5% annually in the 1960s, which declined
increase from 35 million in 1960 to 170 million in 2013. By contrast, the rural population of Brazil 
to slightly over 1% in the recent decade, although its urban population has undergone a five-fold
declined from 40 million to nearly 30 million and underwent a negative growth by the end of the 
increase from 35 million in 1960 to 170 million in 2013. By contrast, the rural population of Brazil
1970s. Although the rural–urban disparity emerges and remains in demographic aspects, it has not 
declined from 40 million to nearly 30 million and underwent a negative growth by the end of the 1970s.
necessarily  been  regarded  as  a  negative  factor  of  a  sustainable  rural–urban  relation.  In  Brazil,  the 
Although the rural–urban disparity emerges and remains in demographic aspects, it has not necessarily
ambiguous rural–urban dichotomy is the true threat to social sustainability. In the 1990s, non‐farm 
been regarded as a negative factor of a sustainable rural–urban relation. In Brazil, the ambiguous
activities in rural areas increased because of the pseudo migrants. A proportion of the urban residents 
rural–urban dichotomy is the true threat to social sustainability. In the 1990s, non-farm activities
were  members  of  multi‐sited  households  and  participated  in  rural  land  use  decisions  [30–32].  In 
in rural areas increased because of the pseudo migrants. A proportion of the urban residents were
urban areas, poverty stricken or economically lagging areas always exist, giving rise to the favelas. 
members of multi-sited households and participated in rural land use decisions [30–32]. In urban areas,
This finding is also evidenced by the higher infant mortality rate in urban areas than in rural areas 
poverty stricken or economically lagging areas always exist, giving rise to the favelas. This finding
for  certain  groups  [33].  Fertility  and  mortality  rate,  widespread  favelas,  continued  migration,  and 
is also evidenced by the higher infant mortality rate in urban areas than in rural areas for certain
deconcentration process are key issues that affect the sustainability of rural–urban relations in Brazil 
groups [33]. Fertility and mortality rate, widespread favelas, continued migration, and deconcentration
[34]. 
process are key issues that affect the sustainability of rural–urban relations in Brazil [34].

Population
180 (Million) Growth rate 6.0%

160 5.0%

140 4.0%

120 3.0%

100 2.0%

80 1.0%

60 0.0%
BRA_Urban
40 -1.0%
BRA_Rural
20 -2.0% BRA_U_Rate
0 -3.0% BRA_R_Rate

 
Figure 2. Variations of urban and rural population (growth rates) in Brazil from 1960 to 2013. 
Figure 2. Variations of urban and rural population (growth rates) in Brazil from 1960 to 2013.

3.2. Growth with Barriers in India 
3.2. Growth with Barriers in India
The urban and rural areas in India have shown simultaneous and similar growth, with the urban 
The urban and rural areas in India have shown simultaneous and similar growth, with the urban
population growing more rapidly than the rural population (Figure 3). In 1960, the urban population 
population growing more rapidly than the rural population (Figure 3). In 1960, the urban population
of  India  was
of India was  over
over  80
80 million,
million,  which
which  was
was  less
less than
than aa quarter
quarter ofof the
the rural
rural population.
population.  In  2013,  this
In 2013, this 
number increased 
number increased to 400 million,  which  was
to 400 million, which was almost  half of
almost half of the
the rural
rural population.
population.  In 
In the 1970s,  the 
the 1970s, the
urban population of India experienced an abrupt growth rate that rose to a high level of 4%, which 
urban population of India experienced an abrupt growth rate that rose to a high level of 4%, which
was largely attributed to massive public‐sector investment and rapid urbanization. Since 1980, the 
was largely attributed to massive public-sector investment and rapid urbanization. Since 1980, the
urban and rural population growth rates of India have started to decline. Although the urbanization 
urban and rural population growth rates of India have started to decline. Although the urbanization
in India has brought growth for its urban and rural populations, the obstacles in social mobility and 
in India has brought growth for its urban and rural populations, the obstacles in social mobility and
the popularity of squatter developments have limited the population growth and the improvement 
the popularity of squatter developments have limited the population growth and the improvement of
of living standards in the country. The caste system remains entrenched in spite of government efforts 
living standards in the country. The caste system remains entrenched in spite of government efforts
to uproot it, and a considerable portion of the Indian population, particularly dark‐skinned Indians, 
to uproot it, and a considerable portion of the Indian population, particularly dark-skinned Indians,
are forced to perform jobs deemed to be inferior with profitless manual labor. Comparable to Brazil, 
are forced to perform jobs deemed to be inferior with profitless manual labor. Comparable to Brazil,
India has slums that are pervasive and have migrated from rural to urban areas. As a result, social 
India has slums that are pervasive and have migrated from rural to urban areas. As a result, social
sustainability remains a sensitive issue in the context of the traditional hierarchical system in India 
sustainability remains a sensitive issue in the context of the traditional hierarchical system in India
although its urban and rural populations appear to be changing stably. 
although its urban and rural populations appear to be changing stably.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 6 of 18
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  6 of 18 

900 Population Growth rate 4.5%

(Million)
800 4.0%

700 3.5%

600 3.0%

500 2.5%

400 2.0%

300 1.5%

200 1.0% INA_Urban

100 0.5% INA_Rural
0 0.0% INA_U_Rate
1,960.00
1,962.00
1,964.00
1,966.00
1,968.00
1,970.00
1,972.00
1,974.00
1,976.00
1,978.00
1,980.00
1,982.00
1,984.00
1,986.00
1,988.00
1,990.00
1,992.00
1,994.00
1,996.00
1,998.00
2,000.00
2,002.00
2,004.00
2,006.00
2,008.00
2,010.00
2,012.00
INA_R_Rural

 
Figure 3. Variations of urban and rural populations (growth rates) in India from 1960 to 2013. 
Figure 3. Variations of urban and rural populations (growth rates) in India from 1960 to 2013.

3.3. Unprecedented Urbanization with Apparent Discrepancy in China 
3.3. Unprecedented Urbanization with Apparent Discrepancy in China
InIn China, the urban and rural populations have experienced tremendous changes, with the rural 
China, the urban and rural populations have experienced tremendous changes, with the
population being five times greater than the urban population in 1960 but with the urban population 
rural population being five times greater than the urban population in 1960 but with the urban
exceeding exceeding
population the  rural the
population  in  2013 in(Figure 
rural population 4).  The 
2013 (Figure urban 
4). The population 
urban populationin in
China 
Chinapresents 
presents a 
continuous growth, and the margin of this growth is greater since 1980 when the Cultural Revolution 
a continuous growth, and the margin of this growth is greater since 1980 when the Cultural Revolution
ended. In 2013, the urban population reached 721 million, accounting for 53% of the total population. 
ended. In 2013, the urban population reached 721 million, accounting for 53% of the total population.
Nonetheless, the rural population increased more rapidly than the urban population in the 1960s and 
Nonetheless, the rural population increased more rapidly than the urban population in the 1960s
1970s, but began to undergo a plateau in the 1980s. The rural population started to decline when it 
and 1970s, but began to undergo a plateau in the 1980s. The rural population started to decline
reached the peak of 836 million at the beginning of the 1990s. The growth rate of urban population 
when it reached the peak of 836 million at the beginning of the 1990s. The growth rate of urban
showed  an  irregular  pattern,  where  an  abrupt  drop  occurred  in  1963  and  lasted  until  1976.  This 
population showed an irregular pattern, where an abrupt drop occurred in 1963 and lasted until
decade  corresponded  to  the  Cultural  Revolution  in  China,  during  which  a  large  number  of 
1976. This decade corresponded to the Cultural Revolution in China, during which a large number of
intellectuals were sent to the countryside for farming. This event brought great social instability and 
intellectuals were sent to the countryside for farming. This event brought great social instability and
impeded the urbanization process in China since its independence. Thereafter, the growth rate of the 
impeded the urbanization process in China since its independence. Thereafter, the growth rate of the
urban  population  in  China  increased  dramatically  to  the  level  of  approximately  5%  before  the 
urban population in China increased dramatically to the level of approximately 5% before the Cultural
Cultural  Revolution.  In  the  1980s,  the  Reform  and  Opening‐up  Policy  was  implemented.  Cities, 
Revolution. In the 1980s, the Reform and Opening-up Policy was implemented. Cities, towns, and
towns, and counties have ushered in a new era of development although the growth rate of the urban 
counties have ushered in a new era of development although the growth rate of the urban population
population  still  declined  continuously  and  slightly.  The  growth  rate  of  the  rural  population 
still declined continuously and slightly. The growth rate of the rural population experienced a high
experienced a  high level during  the  Cultural  Revolution  but  began  to  decline  since  the  1970s and 
level during the Cultural Revolution but began to decline since the 1970s and demonstrated a negative
demonstrated a negative growth in the 1990s. Nowadays, the livelihood of the rural migrants and 
growth in the 1990s. Nowadays, the livelihood of the rural migrants and rural poor remains a difficult
rural poor remains a difficult problem to solve. The wide gap between the urban residents and rural 
problem to solve. The wide gap between the urban residents and rural migrants has led to the social
migrants has led to the social polarization in a number of megacities in China. Remote villages are 
polarization in a number of megacities in China. Remote villages are still highly lagging and suffer
still  highly  lagging  and  suffer  from  poverty  problems.  To  address  these  issues  and  achieve  a 
from poverty problems. To address these issues and achieve a sustainable rural–urban relation, New
sustainable rural–urban relation, New Urbanization Planning has been issued in China to promote a 
Urbanization Planning has been issued in China to promote a harmonious, coordinated, and united
harmonious, coordinated, and united rural–urban development. 
rural–urban development.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  7 of 18 
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 7 of 18

900 Population 7.0%

(Million) Growth rate
800 6.0%

700 5.0%
4.0%
600
3.0%
500
2.0%
400
1.0%
300
0.0%
200 -1.0% CHN_Urban
100 -2.0% CHN_Rural
0 -3.0%
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
 
Figure 4. Variations of urban and rural population (growth rates) in China from 1960 to 2013.
Figure 4. Variations of urban and rural population (growth rates) in China from 1960 to 2013. 
4. Sustainability in Industrial Development
4. Sustainability in Industrial Development 
4.1. Industrial Structure
4.1. Industrial Structure 
The importance of Brazil, India, and China in world economy is noticeable, and their sustainability
The  importance 
in industrial of  Brazil, 
development India, concern
is a great and  China 
of thein  world 
global economy 
economy. In is  noticeable, 
2013, the BRICand  their 
economies
sustainability in industrial development is a great concern of the global economy. In 2013, the BRIC 
accounted for one-fifth of the world’s GDP, constituting an irreplaceable proportion of the global
economies accounted for one‐fifth of the world’s GDP, constituting an irreplaceable proportion of the 
economic development. The annual average growth rates of the GDPs of China, Brazil, and India
global economic development. The annual average growth rates of the GDPs of China, Brazil, and 
amount to 14.96%, 8.56%, and 8.34%, respectively, significantly higher than those of many developed
India  amount 
countries. to  regard
With 14.96%, 
to8.56%,  and  8.34%, 
the industrial respectively, 
structure, significantly 
Table 1 summarizes thehigher  than ofthose 
proportion of  many 
the agricultural,
developed countries. With regard to the industrial structure, Table 1 summarizes the proportion of 
manufacturing, and service sectors in GDP from 1960 to 2013.
the agricultural, manufacturing, and service sectors in GDP from 1960 to 2013. 
Table 1. Proportion of the different industrial sectors in GDP from 1960 to 2013.
Table 1. Proportion of the different industrial sectors in GDP from 1960 to 2013. 
Agricultural Sector (%) Manufacturing Sector (%) Service Sector (%)
Agricultural Sector (%)  Manufacturing Sector (%) Service Sector (%) 
  BRA
BRA  INA  INACHN  CHN BRA BRA INA
INA CHN
CHN BRABRA  INA INA  CHN CHN
1960  1960
20.59  20.5942.56  42.5623.38 
23.38 37.07 
37.07 19.3
19.3  44.49
44.49  42.34
42.34  38.14 38.14 
32.13 32.13 
1970  1970
12.35  12.3541.95  41.9535.22 
35.22 38.3 
38.3 20.48
20.48  40.49
40.49  49.35
49.35  37.57 37.57 
24.29 24.29 
1980  1980
11.01  11.0135.39  35.3930.17 
30.17 43.83 
43.83 24.29
24.29  48.22
48.22  45.16
45.16  40.32 40.32 
21.6 21.6 
1990  1990
8.1  8.129.02  29.0227.12 
27.12 38.69 
38.69 26.49
26.49  41.34
41.34  53.21
53.21  44.48 44.48 
31.54 31.54 
2000 5.6 23.02 15.06 27.73 26 45.92 66.67 50.98 39.02
2000  5.6  23.02  15.06  27.73  26  45.92  66.67  50.98  39.02 
2010 5.3 18.21 10.1 28.07 27.16 46.67 66.63 54.64 43.24
2010  5.3  18.21  10.1  28.07  27.16  46.67  66.63  54.64  43.24 
2013 5.71 17.95 10.01 24.98 30.73 43.89 69.32 51.31 46.09
2013  5.71  17.95  10.01  24.98  30.73  43.89  69.32  51.31  46.09 

Despitethe 
Despite  the generally 
generally decreasing
decreasing share
share  of of 
the the 
agricultural sectorsector 
agricultural  in GDP,in the process
GDP,  the  of production
process  of 
transferring to the industrialized and service sectors is inevitable. In general, the service industry
production transferring to the industrialized and service sectors is inevitable. In general, the service 
dominated the GDP of Brazil since 1960, and India saw a shift in its prominent industry from agriculture
industry dominated the GDP of Brazil since 1960, and India saw a shift in its prominent industry 
to the
from  service industry
agriculture  to  the since 1980.
service  Before since 
industry  2000, industrialization brought
1980.  Before  2000,  a large proportion
industrialization  brought  of industrial
a  large 
outcome, and the service sector caught up gradually in China. Specifically, the contribution of
proportion of industrial outcome, and the service sector caught up gradually in China. Specifically, 
the agricultural sector to the GDP decreased between twofold and fourfold in the past 50 years,
the contribution of the agricultural sector to the GDP decreased between twofold and fourfold in the 
and the service sector increased in the same period by 13.17% in India and by 26.98% in Brazil.
past 50 years, and the service sector increased in the same period by 13.17% in India and by 26.98% 
The industrial structure determines land use structure, resource consumption, and energy use to some
in Brazil. The industrial structure determines land use structure, resource consumption, and energy 
extent. Theextent. 
use  to  some  declining
The trend of the
declining  proportion
trend  of the agricultural
of  the  proportion  sector to the
of  the  agricultural  GDPto 
sector  is the 
unavoidable
GDP  is 
considering the demand for high-valued productions. However, such trend is closely related to
unavoidable considering the demand for high‐valued productions. However, such trend is closely 
food security
related  to  food and conservation
security  issues in largely
and  conservation  populated
issues  in  countries. countries. 
largely  populated  As a result,As thea guarantee
result,  the of
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 8 of 18

a considerable proportion in agriculture is vital for socio-economic sustainability. Industrialization

brought great opportunities for the manufacturing and construction sectors, but these sectors are
generally high-resource-consuming industries that produce various pollutants detrimental to the
environment. Therefore, the service sector has gradually replaced the manufacturing sector as the
dominant sector in the industrial structure in many countries such as India and China. The service
sector is usually labor-focused and knowledge-based, requiring stability in human resources. In sum,
the changes in the economic structure of Brazil, India, and China conform to the urbanized context,
and the requirements for their sustainable development may affect their industrial development
profoundly in the future.

4.2. Industrial Coordination with Urbanization

The sustainability in industrial development lies not only in its own structure but also in its
coordination with urbanization. According to the formula cited in Section 2, the coordination ratio is
calculated, and the result is shown in Table 2. In Brazil, the coordination ratio with the agricultural
industry started at 0.45 in 1960, indicating that urbanization grew twice as fast as the development
in agriculture. In 2013, the ratio declined to 0.067 largely because of the stagnation of the agriculture
sector in recent years. India and China exhibited the same case in the 1990s, with the declining trend of
the coordination ratio with agricultural industry. However, the growth rate of agriculture was higher
than that of urbanization in India and China before 2000, conforming to the fact that these countries are
well known as important agricultural countries. Later, the urbanization ratio increased rapidly, and all
coordination ratios with these three sectors declined. Most of these ratios declined to below 1, which
implied that industrial development began to lag behind urbanization. In the manufacturing industry,
China prevails in the coordination ratio since 1960 because of its unprecedented industrialization.
The growth rate of urbanization surpassed the industrial growth rate until the most recent decade. India
has topped in the coordination ratio with the service industry from 1960 to 2013. In Brazil, the growth
rates of the manufacturing and service sectors were slower than that of urbanization in the past 50 years,
indicating that urbanization has helped promote industrial development. In essence, the proposition
of coordination ratio is the reflection of a synchronized process between industrial development and
urbanization. Although the relationships between various sectors and urbanization differ from one
another, a sustainable urbanization requires a relatively stable change. When urbanization grows
significantly faster than industrial development, the economy is likely to be incapable of supporting
the urbanized population. Contrarily, when industrial development such as the progress in the
manufacturing or service sector precedes urbanization to a great extent, city development should be
strengthened to improve people’s livelihood and living standards. In general, adjusting industrial
development or urbanization is necessary to realize an increasingly sustainable urbanization.

Table 2. Coordination ratio for the agricultural, manufacturing, and service sectors from 1960 to 2013.

Coordination Ratio with Coordination Ratio with Coordination Ratio with

Agricultural Industry Manufacturing Industry Service Industry
BRA INA CHN BRA INA CHN BRA INA CHN
1960 0.4463 2.3745 1.4432 0.8034 1.0767 2.7457 0.9177 2.1278 1.9828
1970 0.2208 2.1232 2.0239 0.6851 1.0363 2.3272 0.8828 1.9012 1.396
1980 0.1682 1.5321 1.5587 0.6694 1.0515 2.4911 0.6898 1.7458 1.116
1990 0.1096 1.1361 1.0255 0.5234 1.037 1.5634 0.7198 1.7412 1.1929
2000 0.069 0.8321 0.4199 0.3416 0.9397 1.2798 0.8211 1.8426 1.0876
2010 0.0629 0.5886 0.2051 0.3328 0.878 0.9481 0.79 1.7665 0.8783
2013 0.067 0.5612 0.1883 0.2933 0.9606 0.8256 0.8138 1.6038 0.867
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 9 of 18

5. Sustainability in City Development

As the spatial agglomeration of production, wealth, and consumption, cities command an
increasingly dominant role in the global economy. The rapid urban growth throughout the developing
world is seriously outstripping the capacity of most cities to provide adequate services for their citizens.
Over the next 30 years, virtually all of the world’s population growth is expected to be concentrated in
urban areas in the developing world. Consequently, a sustainable urban system has been highlighted
to balance city development at different levels and in different regions.
City developments in Brazil, India, and China experience different trajectories, whereas the crucial
roles of large cities are the same. Table 3 lists the number of cities in the BIC countries with populations
greater than five million and in the range of one million to five million in 1990, 2000, and 2010. India
and China have the most cities with populations over five million and in the range of one million to
five million in 1990. In 2010, China ranks first with 14 cities with populations greater than five million
and with 70 cities with populations ranging from one million to five million. The population of Brazil
lags behind those of India and China, especially in medium-highly populated cities. Tables 4–6 list the
top 10 cities in Brazil, India, and China with the largest populations in 2010.

Table 3. Number of cities in the BIC countries with large population.

More than 5 Million 1 Million to 5 Million

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
Brazil 2 2 2 9 11 12
India 4 6 8 19 29 42
China 2 6 14 30 56 70

Most of the large cities in Brazil, such as Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador, and Belo Horizonte,
are located on the eastern coastal area. Many of the cities in Brazil are located on a coastline of more
than 8600 km, which encompasses approximately 20% of the total Brazilian population distributed
within 17 states, 395 municipalities, and 16 metropolitan regions [35]. The abundance in natural
resources in coastal zones clearly explains this intensive distribution. The urbanization in these cities is
also associated with the “spreading” of the historical urban–industrial concentration in the southeast.
Historically, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have become the densest and most dynamic urbanized cities
with an integrated urban system in the 1950s, and this superiority remains until now. The population
of Sao Paulo peaked at 11.79 million and that of Rio de Janeiro reached 6.45 million in 2014, ranking at
141 and 229, respectively, according to the Global City Competitiveness index in 2011–2012. However,
the population growth rates in these megalopolises lagged behind in the past two decades. From 2010
to 2014, the population growth rate in Rio de Janeiro was 2.11%. As found in many other countries, this
phenomenon was largely attributed to the economic and industrial decentralization since the 1970s.
The readjustment of the regional development strategy gradually made both cities lose the momentum
and stimulated the development of Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, and other well-equipped selective
and externalities-rich areas. Since the 1990s, with the formation of Brasilia’s hinterland and the process
of regional metropolization, a new socio-spatial dynamics of the Brazilian urbanization was observed
in the Center-West Region [34]. Brasilia saw a noticeable population growth from 1991 to 2010, most
of which was attributed to the absorbing of an expressive contingent of northeast immigration. As a
large regional center in the north, Manaus exhibited an expressive urbanization expansion and was
characterized as a migrant pull center. The population of this city was slightly above one million in
1991 and even doubled at the end of 2014.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 10 of 18

Table 4. Top 10 cities with the largest population in Brazil (million).

Name Location 1991 2000 2010 2014 rate00_91 rate10_00 rate14_10

Sao Paulo East 9.41 9.81 11.15 11.79 4.25% 13.65% 5.71%
Rio de Janeiro East 5.48 5.86 6.32 6.45 6.88% 7.90% 2.11%
Salvador East 2.07 2.44 2.67 2.90 17.78% 9.53% 8.49%
Brasilia Middle 1.52 1.96 2.48 2.75 29.40% 26.55% 10.98%
Fortaleza Northeast 1.77 2.14 2.45 2.57 21.08% 14.51% 4.88%
Belo Horizonte East 2.01 2.24 2.38 2.49 11.19% 6.10% 4.88%
Manaus North 1.01 1.40 1.79 2.01 38.76% 28.36% 12.11%
Curitiba East 1.32 1.59 1.75 1.86 20.71% 10.37% 6.42%
Recife East 1.30 1.42 1.54 1.61 9.60% 8.07% 4.60%
Porto Alegre East 1.25 1.32 1.41 1.47 5.87% 6.71% 4.48%

The city development in India does not show apparent spatial clustering. Three large
cities—Mumbai in the west, Delhi in the north, and Kolkata in the east—with enormous populations,
present the economic rewards and unique challenges in urbanization [36]. Since 2000, the populations
of all these cities have exceeded 10 million, with Mumbai peaking at 18.39 million, Delhi at 16.35 million,
Kolkata at 14.06 million in 2010. The singularity of the distribution of Indian cities was caused not
only by the preponderance of these megalopolises but also by the presence of a set of “secondary
cities” with large populations such as Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Ahmadabad, and Pune having
populations of between four million and nine million in 2010 [37]. In the past two decades, cities
in the west such as Ahmadabad, Pune, and Surat developed rapidly with a population growth rate
reaching 85.1% in Surat from 1990 to 2000. Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Ahmadabad were
cities whose population growth rates were higher in 2000–2010 than those in 1990–2000. In particular,
the population of Bangalore increased from 5.7 million to 8.52 million from 2000 to 2010, with a growth
rate reaching 49.44%. This finding justified the statement that the region around Bangalore, in the
“corridor” linking Hyderabad, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Delhi, experienced the most burgeoning
city development. In general, city development is a two-tier hierarchy system in India, with Mumbai,
Delhi, and Kolkata in the first class originating from the influence of the colonial period (the gateways
to India by sea) and the rest of the cities with populations greater than five million as the second class,
whose developments are promoted by endogenous urbanization over several centuries [37].

Table 5. Top 10 cities with the largest population in India (million).

Name Location 1991 2000 2010 Rate00_90 Rate10_00

Mumbai West 12.60 16.43 18.39 30.47% 11.93%
Delhi North 8.42 12.88 16.35 52.96% 26.96%
Kolkata East 11.02 13.21 14.06 19.81% 6.45%
Chennai Southeast 5.42 6.56 8.65 20.99% 31.91%
Bangalore South 4.13 5.70 8.52 38.04% 49.44%
Hyderabad Middle 4.34 5.74 7.68 32.17% 33.70%
Ahmadabad West 3.31 4.53 6.36 36.62% 40.50%
Pune West 2.49 3.76 5.06 50.79% 34.49%
Surat West 1.52 2.81 4.59 85.10% 63.30%
Jaipur North 1.52 2.32 3.05 52.98% 31.15%

The urban development in China demonstrates an apparent spatial heterogeneity, with the
northwestern cities lagging behind the southeastern cities. Beijing (the capital city of China), Shanghai
(the harbor city in the east), and Guangzhou (the city in the southern coast) are the most developed
cities, with populations of 16.45 million, 20.22 million, and 10.64 million in 2010, respectively. With
remarkable economic, social, cultural, and political positions, these cities have also been the ideal
destination for trans-city immigration for a long time. In the past two decades, the Chinese cities in the
southern part have also experienced unprecedented development in terms of their socio-economic
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 11 of 18

performances. In 1990–2000, the population growth of Dongguan peaked to 600.68%, and Foshan had
a high growth rate of 144.47%. As the first economic zone established after the Reform and Opening-up
Policy, Shenzhen has expanded at an extraordinary pace, and its population exceeded 10 million by the
end of 2010. In 2014, China adjusted its “city categorization standard,” and all the cities listed in Table 6
are the newly defined megalopolises and metropolises according to this new categorization. China
has also implemented a series of strategic policies to promote regional development in the middle
and western parts of the country, where Wuhan (7.54 million in 2010), Chengdu (6.32 million in 2010),
and Chongqing (6.26 million in 2010) are three representative centers driving regional development.
In general, the population growth in 1990–2000 is greater than that in 2000–2010. With the rapid
population growth in large cities, the eco-environment has been seriously threatened with intensive
anthropogenic activities. As a result, cities such as Beijing have issued various population control
policies and adjusted their urban planning to promote sustainable city development.

Table 6. Top 10 cities with the largest population in China (million).

Name Location 1991 2000 2010 Rate00_90 Rate10_00

Shanghai East 7.82 14.23 20.22 81.94% 42.07%
Beijing North 5.52 10.30 16.45 86.54% 59.67%
Guangzhou South 3.51 8.09 10.64 130.53% 31.52%
Shenzhen South 1.08 6.48 10.36 499.13% 59.84%
Tianjin North 4.09 6.76 9.29 65.14% 37.52%
Wuhan Middle 3.79 6.79 7.54 79.01% 11.11%
Dongguan South 0.55 3.87 7.27 600.68% 87.89%
Foshan South 0.90 4.01 6.77 344.47% 69.02%
Chengdu Middle-West 1.87 4.27 6.32 128.90% 47.83%
Chongqing Middle-West 2.52 4.91 6.26 95.05% 27.50%

The investigation of city developments in Brazil, India, and China has shown that cities have been
categorized into different levels. The coastal areas in Brazil and China have exhibited strengths with
respect to city development, whereas Indian cities are spatially balanced. Increased urbanization level
and growth rate have accelerated the expansion of cities demographically and spatially. Nevertheless,
city development has brought great challenges to these urban agglomerations because the carrying
capacity of natural resources is limited. As a result, sustainable urban development is expected to be
in a balanced state between concentration and deconcentration, thereby requiring the adjustment of
city size.

6. Sustainability in Landscape Pattern

In an urbanized world, landscape pattern has experienced various changes and has been closely
linked to biodiversity and other ecological features. Urbanization is not simply a dichotomous
diffusion–coalescence switching process but a spiraling process of shifting dominance among multiple
growth modes: the wax and wane of infilling, edge-expansion, and leapfrogging across a landscape [11].
Each mode reshapes the urban structure, and landscape metrics have often served as tools for assessing
the changes in pattern, process, and function [38]. In our study, land use structure and landscape
ecological indices were used to analyze the sustainability in landscape pattern.

6.1. Land Use Structure

Figure 5 illustrates the land use distribution in Brazil, India, and China in 2010. All these countries
have abundant natural resources. The dominant land use types in Brazil, Russia, India, and China are
forest (49.05%), forest (52.82%), cropland (62.41%), and grassland (29.34%), respectively, corresponding
to their particular industrial development characteristics. Compared with Brazil, a large proportion of
India (4.44%) and China (1.56%) is composed of impervious lands that constitute the urban areas. Brazil
exhibits a dividing line between its southeastern and northwestern parts in terms of the distribution of
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  12 of 18
12 of 18 

terms of the distribution of cropland and forest. The Amazon forest has occupied large areas in Brazil, 
cropland and forest. The Amazon forest has occupied large areas in Brazil, whose most developed
whose most developed cities are entrenched in the southeastern area. India is a “cropland country,” 
cities are entrenched in the southeastern area. India is a “cropland country,” where croplands are
where croplands are spread in all directions and forests are interspersed or found around the edges. 
spread in all
In  China,  directionsare 
croplands  and forests arein 
distributed  interspersed or found
the  northeastern  around
area,  the edges.
grasslands  and Inforests 
China,occupy 
croplands a 
are
considerable  area  in  the  southwestern  part,  and  bare  land  comprises  the  strip  area  of  land  in inthe 
distributed in the northeastern area, grasslands and forests occupy a considerable area the
southwestern part, and bare land comprises the strip area of land in the northwestern part.
northwestern part. 

Area   
Land Use Type  Percentage 
(106 km2) 
Bareland  0.0053  0.06% 
Cropland  1.2983  15.19% 
Forest  4.1920  49.05% 
Grassland  1.3480  15.77% 
Impervious surface  0.0333  0.39% 
Shrub  1.1705  13.70% 
Water  0.1299  1.52% 
Wetland  0.3689 
 
4.32% 

(a)

Area   
Land Use Type  Percentage 
(106 km2) 
Bareland  0.1404  4.44% 
Cropland  1.9723  62.41% 
Forest  0.6075  19.22% 
Grassland  0.0665  2.11% 
Impervious 
0.0507  1.61% 
surface 
Shrub  0.2478  7.84% 
Water  0.0422  1.33% 
Wetland  0.0114  0.36% 
Permanent snow 
0.0212  0.67% 
or ice   

(b)
Area   
Land Use Type  Percentage 
(106 km2) 
Bareland  2.0381  20.71% 
Cropland  2.1299  21.64% 
Forest  2.2023  22.37% 
Grassland  0.1011  1.03% 
Impervious 
0.1822  1.85% 
surface 
Shrub    2.8882  29.34% 
Tundra  0.0000  0.000001% 
Water    0.1534  1.56% 
Wetland  0.0424  0.43% 
Permanent snow 
0.1054  1.07% 
or ice   

(c)

Figure 5. Land use in the BIC countries in 2010: (a) Brazil; (b) India; and (c) China. 
Figure 5. Land use in the BIC countries in 2010: (a) Brazil; (b) India; and (c) China.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 13 of 18

Land use structure is greatly influenced by physical background, especially in large countries
such as Brazil, India, and China. Although the sustainability in land use can hardly be measured,
a resilient land use structure is considered a more complex and abundant system. In recent years,
rapid urbanization has led to the sprawl of urban areas, and the amount of natural resources such
as forest and water areas has been seriously reduced. This finding is evidently observed in India
and China, where the impervious surface continues to increase. To achieve sustainability in land
use structure, vulnerable natural lands must be protected, and urban areas should be monitored and
controlled accordingly.

6.2. Landscape Diversity and Aggregation

The most direct approach for measuring landscape pattern is to apply indices in landscape
ecology to reveal spatial features for the manifestation of ecological resilience. Section 5 discusses the
sustainability in cities, and Section 6.1 explains the sustainability in land use structure. To explore urban
landscape patterns, we combined these works and selected sample cities with the largest populations
in Brazil, India, and China to measure their landscape pattern using land use data. A total of 113 cities
were extracted from Brazil, 102 from India, and 93 from China considering data availability and the
consistency in urban boundary. All these cities are either economic and political centers or urban
agglomeration with large geographical areas and have experienced noticeable development in recent
years. As explained in Section 2, we chose SHDI and CONTAG as representative landscape ecological
indices to reflect the land use diversity and contagion degree, respectively. As aforementioned, we
selected sample cities for the landscape pattern analysis in each country. Table 7 represents the average
value and standard deviation of CONTAG and SHDI of all the cities in different countries. Figure 6
illustrates the scatterplot of the values of SHDI and CONTAG of the sample cities in Brazil, India, and
China. Compared with the case in Brazil, the range of the values of the contagion index is larger and
the high values appear more in India and China, indicating that the patches in these countries are still
aggregated in the urban landscape. SHDI is high in Brazil, implying that the patch types are equitable
in urban areas. The disparity among the cities with respect to landscape diversity and aggregation
level is the greatest in India and the least in Brazil. In general, when the patch types are increasingly
diversified and disaggregated, the urban landscape becomes resilient. As a result, India and China still
have a great potential to enrich their urban land use pattern to make it sustainable.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400  14 of 18 

1.8
SHDI China (113)
1.6
Brazil (79)
1.4 India (93)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
CONTAG
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
 
Figure 6. Landscape index of cities in the BIC countries.
Figure 6. Landscape index of cities in the BIC countries. 

7. Comparison of Sustainable Development in BIC 
In this section, the sustainability status quo is discussed in the context of rapid urbanization and 
is  decomposed  into  four  parts,  namely,  rural–urban  relation,  industry,  city  development,  and 
landscape pattern in Brazil, India, and China. These countries were selected as research subjects not 
only  because  of  their  identification  as  “BIC”  countries  worldwide  but  also  in  view  of  their 
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 14 of 18

Table 7. Means and standard deviations of Shannon diversity index (SHDI) and contagion
index (CONTAG).

Brazil India China

Country
AVE MSD AVE MSD AVE MSD
CONTAG 66.51 8.58 53.32 21.39 76.49 12.60
SHDI 1.0423 0.2511 0.8835 0.4423 0.7302 0.3008
Note: AVE refers to the average value; MSD refers to the mean standard deviation.

7. Comparison of Sustainable Development in BIC

In this section, the sustainability status quo is discussed in the context of rapid urbanization and is
decomposed into four parts, namely, rural–urban relation, industry, city development, and landscape
pattern in Brazil, India, and China. These countries were selected as research subjects not only because
of their identification as “BIC” countries worldwide but also in view of their representativeness as
fast-growing, developing countries that encounter various sustainability problems. The distinguishing
features were identified for comparisons and policy implications by exploring the trajectories of
urbanization and related sustainable issues in these countries (Table 8).
The relationships between urban and rural residents as well as their living conditions determine
social sustainability. The urban population of BIC continues to grow, but the changes in their rural
population vary from one another. We determined that the rural–urban dichotomy exists in these
countries, with India and China having a higher degree than Brazil. In Brazil and India, poverty
problems appear in urban and rural areas, and favelas and slums emerge on a large scale. In China,
many remote villages are highly impoverished and backward. Even in urban areas, the Chinese
characteristic “urban villages” appear to accommodate rural migrants and low-income residents.
The number of urban residents in developing countries is predicted to increase, thereby requiring
the reduction of the urban–rural gap and the acquisition of the solution to the extreme poverty
problem. “Encouraging” policies such as the reform in housing and employment system need to be
implemented for rural migrants or rural residents. The coordination of urban and rural development
is an indispensable means to relieve the increasing socio-economic pressure and ecological conflicts in
urban agglomerations and to improve human well-being in an all-around manner.
The economic outputs in the agricultural, manufacturing, and service sectors demonstrate the
sustainability of industrial structure and economic development. The sectors that dominate Brazil,
India, and China vary. The service sector is dominant in Brazil, justifying its superior position
in economic development among the three countries. The industrial transformation of India is
remarkable, and its dominant sector has gradually changed from agriculture to the service sector.
Accordingly, a considerable proportion of the agricultural outputs, the number of high-tech products,
and its related business have grown tremendously in the country. In the past half-decade, China has
been considered an industrial country because its manufacturing sector continues to be the primary
economic contributor. However, China’s manufacturing industry is a highly resource-consumed sector
and threatens its environmental sustainability to a great extent, whereas its agriculture development is
closely associated with food security. In this sense, the industrial transformation in India should be
affirmed, and China devotes great efforts to strengthen its service sector and optimize its industrial
structure. The relationship between economic development and urbanization growth rate is a useful
indicator of a harmonious development. Brazil has a typical economic-lead pattern, but its different
sectors show different relationships with urbanization in terms of their growth rate in India and China.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 15 of 18

Table 8. Comparison of sustainability in Brazil, India, and China.

Aspect Brazil India China

Rural–urban gap
Medium Dichotomy Distinct Dichotomy Distinct Dichotomy
Rural–urban population growth
Rural–urban
relation UP growth; RP grows
UP growth; RP stable Simultaneous UP and RP growth
first and then declines
Poverty problem
Favelas Slums Urban village
Industrial structure
SV dominated AGC to service sector MNF dominated
Industry Compared with the growth rate of urbanization
AG and MNF are faster than SV but
Faster Faster and then slower
become slower; SV is slow
Number of large cities
Stable Increase Tremendous increase
Distribution and size variation
City development
Northeast-focused Balanced Southeast-focused
Explosive size growth
Size growth stable Size growth stable
in the 1990s
Land use structure
Forest-dominated Cropland-dominated Mixed
Land use distribution
Northwest-southeast Northwest-southeast
Urban landscape Randomly distributed
dividing line dividing line
pattern
Spatial distribution
Medium Clustered Scattered
Degree of diversification in land use
Diversified Dominated Dominated

Cities are the aggregation of resources, wealth, and knowledge, and city development is the
embodiment of urban sustainability. In the past half-decade, the number of large cities remains stable
in Brazil and shows great increases in India and China. The distribution of these large cities follows
a regional pattern, with Brazil being northeast-focused, China being southeast-focused, and India
being comparatively balanced. The population size of these large cities has continuously increased in
the past several decades. In China, the growth is more rapid in the 1990s when counties and towns
developed massively than in other periods. In the face of approaching growth limits in mega-cities in
countries such as China, urban planning is oriented to be regionally balanced. Medium-sized cities and
towns with predictable potential are also encouraged to be supported for development. Sustainability
in cities at different levels is an issue of strategic layout in guaranteeing spatial superiority and
spatial equilibrium.
Landscape pattern is an important issue in Brazil, India, and China not only because of their large
geographical areas but also on account of their distinctive land use pattern. In general, abundance
in resources is conducive to natural resilience and improved ecosystem service. Approximately 60%
of Brazil is occupied by the Amazon forest, making this country a special place as “the kingdom
of plants and animals.” This distinction also brings great challenges to Brazil with respect to the
conservation of biodiversity and eco-environment. Physical difference determines the appearance of
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 16 of 18

the northwest–southeast dividing line in land use distribution, in which human activities concentrate
in the southeastern area. In the 1950s and 1960s, Brazil approved the opening of Amazon regions,
where new towns and cities began to thrive. In the past half-decade, the conflicts between rapid
urbanization and the protection of natural environmental have increasingly become severe, and they
have aroused widespread attention on conservation measures. India is a cropland-dominated country
whose land distribution is relatively random, whereas the land use in China is primarily mixed with
cropland, forest, and grassland. Both of these countries have encountered tremendous urban expansion
or sprawl in the past several decades, and the loss of arable land has made food security a critical
issue for the growing population. Similar to the land use in Brazil, the land use distribution in India
and China also shows a northwest–southeast dividing line because the development is apparently
lagging behind the northwestern area. In the future, based on the characteristic physical conditions,
adjusting measures are expected to be undertaken to improve resource efficiency and achieve an
improved ecological environment. Landscape pattern is a socio-ecological term that measures the
spatial aggregation or dispersion in urban areas and reflects the spatial vulnerability and resilience
in urban ecosystem. In most cases, the fundamental data sources are considered land use maps in
raster format. We chose more than 80 representative cities to explore urban landscape patterns using
landscape indices such as CONTAG and SHDI. Among the BIC, China shows the most obvious land
use fragmentation, and India has the least. India and China have extremely high population densities,
which necessitate intensive land use. Compared with India, China has experienced a significantly
faster urbanization with extensive use of urban and rural settlement. In recent years, a series of policies
have been implemented to promote the intensive use of resources and energy in cities, towns, counties,
and villages. Brazil shows the highest degree of land use diversity, whereas India has the least value.
This phenomenon is partly attributed to the difference in biodiversity and ecological resilience among
such countries. A healthy urban ecosystem requires the diversity in land use to guarantee ecological
balance, especially in “vulnerable” urban environments. In this sense, India and China should take
specific measures to protect their urban ecosystem such as delineating the conservation zones to realize
urban sustainability.
The urbanized world has brought challenges and opportunities for a sustainable urban
environment. This study explores the interaction between urbanization and sustainability from
four aspects, namely, rural–urban relation, industrial coordination, city development, and urban
landscape pattern. As part of the “BRIC” countries, Brazil, India, and China are used as the study
areas to reveal their distinctive trajectories. In general, these countries show obvious rural–urban gaps
with characteristic poverty problems threatening social sustainability. The industrial structures of
these countries are inclined to be dominated by the service sector, whereas the agricultural sector is
important for food security, and the manufacturing sector is still a formidable component in China’s
economy. Similar to India, Brazil and China also demonstrate spatial clustering in the distribution
of city development, and the most recent decade has seen the decline of the growth rate of these
agglomerations largely attributed to the limits of natural carrying capacity. With respect to landscape
pattern, China is more dispersed in urban land use than the other two countries, thereby requiring
an increasingly pragmatic and intensive land use program. The landscape diversity in Brazil is the
highest, increasing the country’s resilience in urban ecosystem. All these qualitative and quantitative
analyses are undertaken to compare representative developing countries and provide reference for
sustainable urban development in the context of rapid urbanization in the future.

Acknowledgments: This research is supported by the research funds from state key program of National Natural
Science Foundation of China (71533004), key program of International Cooperation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
(131A11KYSB20130023) and the Innovative Supporting Projects from Huazhong Agricultural University (34115181,
2662015PY166).
Author Contributions: Chen Zeng and Xiangzheng Deng conceived and designed the experiments; Jianing Dong
performed the experiments; Peiying Hu analyzed the data; Chen Zeng wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 17 of 18

References
1. Bai, X.; Chen, J.; Shi, P. Landscape urbanization and economic growth in China: Positive feedbacks and
sustainability dilemmas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 132–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Douglas, I. Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: understanding the links to human health and well-being.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 385–392. [CrossRef]
3. Macomber, J.D. Building sustainable cities. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2013, 91, 40–50.
4. The World Bank. Release of World Development Indicators 2015. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/
news/release-of-world-development-indicators-2015 (accessed on 15 April 2016).
5. Wu, J. Urban sustainability: An inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc. Ecol. 2010, 25, 1–4. [CrossRef]
6. Hossain, M.S. Panel estimation for CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness
and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 6991–6999. [CrossRef]
7. Cumming, G.S.; Buerkert, A.; Hoffmann, E.M.; Schlecht, E.; von Cramon-Taubadel, S.; Tscharntke, T.
Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature 2014, 515, 50–57.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Wu, J.G. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2014, 125, 209–221. [CrossRef]
9. Rogers, D.S.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Antons, D.C.; Munoz, P.; Bai, X.; Fragkias, M.; Gutscher, H. A vision for
human well-being: transition to social sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 61–73. [CrossRef]
10. Sakieh, Y.; Amiri, B.J.; Danekar, A.; Feghhi, J.; Dezhkam, S. Scenario-based evaluation of urban development
sustainability: an integrative modeling approach to compromise between urbanization suitability index and
landscape pattern. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 17, 1343–1365. [CrossRef]
11. Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Power, S.; Brown, C. The social dimensions of sustainable development: defining
urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2009. [CrossRef]
12. Li, C.; Li, J.; Wu, J. Quantifying the speed, growth modes, and landscape pattern changes of urbanization: a
hierarchical patch dynamics approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1875–1888. [CrossRef]
13. Fu, G. The Sustainability Issues of Chinese Food Security in the Context of Industrialization and Urbanization,
2013. Available online: http://repo.lib.ryukoku.ac.jp/jspui/handle/10519/5030 (accessed on 15 April 2016).
14. Hsing, Y.T. The great urban transformation: Politics of land and property in China. OUP Catalogue, Available
online: https://ideas.repec.org/b/oxp/obooks/9780199644599.html (accessed on 15 April 2016).
15. Chen, X.; Frank, K.A.; Dietz, T.; Liu, J. Weak ties, labor migration, and environmental impacts: toward a
sociology of sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2012. [CrossRef]
16. Li, X.H.; Liu, J.L.; Gibson, V.; Zhu, Y.G. Urban sustainability and human health in China, East Asia and
Southeast Asia. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 436–442. [CrossRef]
17. Shen, L.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Y. An alternative model for evaluating sustainable urbanization. Cities
2012, 29, 32–39. [CrossRef]
18. Pieper, U. Deindustrialisation and the social and economic sustainability nexus in developing countries:
Cross-country evidence on productivity and employment. J. Dev. Stud. 2000, 36, 66–99. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, C.; Han, J.; Fan, P. Measuring the Level of Industrial Green Development and Exploring Its Influencing
Factors: Empirical Evidence from China’s 30 Provinces. Sustainability 2016, 8, 153. [CrossRef]
20. Carballo-Penela, A.; Castromán-Diz, J.L. Environmental policies for sustainable development: an analysis
of the drivers of proactive environmental strategies in the service sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24,
802–818. [CrossRef]
21. Anand, S.; Sen, A. Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev. 2000, 28, 2029–2049.
[CrossRef]
22. O’neill, J. Building better global economic BRICs. Available online: http://www.goldmansachs.com/
our-thinking/archive/building-better.html (accessed on 15 April 2016).
23. Gryczka, M. Changing role of BRIC countries in technology-driven international division of labor.
Bus. Econ. Horiz. 2010, 21, 89–97. [CrossRef]
24. Lafortezza, R.; Corry, R.C.; Sanesi, G.; Brown, R.D. Quantitative approaches to landscape spatial planning:
clues from landscape ecology. In Sustainable Development and Planning II; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2005;
pp. 239–250.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 400 18 of 18

25. Gu, X.; Dai, B.; Chen, B. Landscape effects of land consolidation projects in Central China—A case study of
Tianmen City, Hubei Province. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2008, 18, 41–46. [CrossRef]
26. Uuemaa, E.; Roosaare, J.; Kanal, A.; Mander, Ü. Spatial correlograms of soil cover as an indicator of landscape
heterogeneity. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 783–794. [CrossRef]
27. McGarigal, K.; Cushman, S.A.; Neel, M.C.; Ene, E. FRAGSTATS, Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for
Categorical Maps. Computer Software Program Produced by the Authors at the University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Available online: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (accessed on
15 April 2016).
28. City population. Available online: http://www.citypopulation.de/ (assessed on 15 January 2016).
29. Willaarts, B.; Pardo, I.; Mora, G.D.L. Urbanization, socio-economic changes and population growth in Brazil:
dietary shifts and environmental implications. Available online: http://oa.upm.es/25979/ (accessed on 15
April 2016).
30. Reardon, T.; Berdegué, J.; Escobar, G. Rural nonfarm employment and incomes in Latin America: overview
and policy implications. World Dev. 2001, 29, 395–409. [CrossRef]
31. Browder, J.O. The urban-rural interface: Urbanization and tropical forest cover change. Urban Ecosyst. 2002,
6, 21–41. [CrossRef]
32. Padoch, C.; Brondizio, E.; Costa, S.; Pinedo-Vasquez, M.; Sears, R.R.; Siqueira, A. Urban forest and rural
cities: multi-sited households, consumption patterns, and forest resources in Amazonia. Ecol. Soc. 2008,
13, 2.
33. Oya-Sawyer, D.; Fernandez-Castilla, R.; Monte-Mor, R.L. The impact of urbanization and industrialization
on mortality in Brazil. World Health Stat. Q. 1987, 40, 84–95. [PubMed]
34. Matos, R.; Baeninger, R. Migration and Urbanization in Brazil: Processes of Spatial Concentration and
Deconcentration and the Recent Debate. Available online: www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/iussp2001/cd/
Sessao_Especial_Matos_Baeninger_Text.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2016).
35. Martins, R.D.A.; da Costa Ferreira, L. Governing climate change: urbanization, vulnerability and challenges
for the northern coast of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Sustentabilidade em Debate 2011, 2, 55–82.
36. D’Silva, M.U.; Agarwal, V.; Sohn, S.; Sharma, V. Urbanization and Strategic Health Communication in India.
In Strategic Urban Health Communication; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 159–172.
37. Swerts, E.; Pumain, D.; Denis, E. The future of India’s urbanization. Futures 2014, 56, 43–52. [CrossRef]
38. Renetzeder, C.; Schindler, S.; Peterseil, J.; Prinz, M.A.; Mücher, S.; Wrbka, T. Can we measure ecological
sustainability? Landscape pattern as an indicator for naturalness and land use intensity at regional, national
and European level. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 39–48. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).