UK SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX 2016
Putting people at the heart of city sustainability
NA SEOUL AM EN RD VI URT MSTE S ARI KF H A N N P E FRA UNIC G HA IN
NIL NA A W I N O W LK AT C D HELI A A IR O
AG
HOUSTON C HI C
ABI
DH
CA PE
AB U
AN
UH
W
SC OW
TA U AR GD EN H
M O
DD AH
TO
MA
ST OC
RI C
H
JA N E N EIR NA O L I JO IM HA A
I DE PE AI TLAN A
U
K HO LM
S AN
CA MADRID H N LOS ANG NEW SYDN B E G AM EL ER YOR EY R EN B NVTA SHENZHE ES RA EV UR LO K P N G ND A IN HIL BRISB WE RO A AN E D E SH LEE A RIYA DS DH N
W O RLE
4
NE
E
O
OR
Y
Z
P S I N GA
AS IT LL IT C DA A W
CH
B JE ES HA A IR DO OS EN BU
E
GO
D
NJIN AM TIA NGAL MAN HA UR BE U MU NO MB I J AI AK C
P I TS SB LY UR ON GH T
RI O
LO U
M L PEN BER O N UE CO TER G CHES ON AG GH MAN GK A N N PR BUR LO HO E P R C E N R I BA D NTW ASGOW W AM ER L A UBLIN GL ARS V RD D EA AW TORONTO B TE COU TR O RNE S MA T N N OU L CAU STON RO VA MO ELB BRUSSE M MIL E TON HAM O A C N M G NG CIS IN MI FRAN ATTLE WASHINGTON T OK LL BIR SE N YO SA M E I A R M O I M I LIS KUA ALT BO LA I B BA LU N BANGKOK TAMPA M DU S D N PU E ET A I H T R H R A OI LP T IS SA T A L K N C DE O S ZHOU SA U TI ANG A AP OP MU GU N A L IA AI H BU G N TA XICO CI IS ME BU TY S RG EI NE N JIN G
NE I B RO K
CONTENTS 1. FOREWORD 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX 3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 3.2 THE FINDINGS 3.3 OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS 3.4 PEOPLE SUB-INDEX 3.5 PLANET SUB-INDEX
3.6 PROFIT SUB-INDEX
4.
UK SPOTLIGHT 4.1 LONDON 4.2 BIRMINGHAM 4.3 EDINBURGH 4.4 MANCHESTER 4.5 LEEDS
5. SPOTLIGHT ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES - DEMOGRAPHICS 6. PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF CITY SUSTAINABILITY 7. APPENDICES 7.1 METHODOLOGY AND INDICATORS 8. FURTHER READING
1. FOREWORD PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE CENTRE OF CITY PROSPERITY If cities are the engines of growth then their pistons will need to work a great deal harder over the coming years. With Britain now gradually uncoupling itself from the EU, the race is on for each major city in the UK to demonstrate just how competitive it can be on a global, national and even regional scale.
“What is the city but the people?” William Shakespeare
T
he city rhetoric we are used to is all about numbers – growing levels of investment, housing targets, meeting carbon reduction targets and increasing capital values. But failing to look beyond the spreadsheet can mean that we lose sight of the most important aspect of all, our people and their communities. A city’s strength and character come from its people. With everything that has happened in the UK in recent times, one thing that has become abundantly clear. The need to spread prosperity more evenly across the country is ever more pressing. Be it through job creation, improving transport or simply by making our towns and cities more healthy and affordable, the devolution agenda has to work for the benefit of people. If we get this right, everything else – from lessening our environmental impact to boosting economic growth – will naturally follow. As the 2016 Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index shows, cities across the country have very different priorities. The question is, how can they ensure that as they develop
and implement plans to meet the challenges they face, they do so in a way that puts people first? London’s position as world-leading cultural hub and leading financial services centre is something of a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. Economic strength and robust environmental credentials are all well and good, but an inevitable by-product of this should not be a dearth of affordable property and an over stretched transport network. Ambitious cities – of which the UK has many – will have an important role to play in a national economy increasingly reliant on global trade and investment. Ensuring the likes of Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester are ready to meet this challenge will mean attracting investment, creating jobs and doing so within a context of improving the quality of life of their people. This means modernising aging transport networks, building homes where people want to live and investing in the social infrastructure that makes a city an attractive, fulfilling place to be.
The devolution agenda is giving city leaders greater powers to determine their own destinies and make a tangible difference to their cities and their citizens. However, with the instability we have seen in recent months unlikely to abate for the foreseeable future, each and every move needs to be carefully managed. Every penny that is spent needs to go towards improving the quality of life for communities, protecting the environment and growing enterprise. Only then can we say our cities are genuinely sustainable. Richard Bonner UK Cities Director, Arcadis
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The index ranks 100 global cities on three dimensions of sustainability: people, planet and profit. These represent social, environmental and economic sustainability to offer an indicative picture of the health and wealth of cities for the present and the future. • Cities around the world are not effectively balancing these three pillars of sustainability. While taking the lead in some areas, cities often underperform in one element of which negatively impacts their overall performance. • Zurich leads the global ranking and tops the planet sub-index too; but while it scores highly in profit, it appears in 27th place for people. • British financial centres of London and Edinburgh lead the way when it comes to profit, with both featuring in the top ten worldwide. • From an environmental point of view, UK cities tend to perform relatively strongly. Most feature in first quarter of the planet ranking, ahead of every US counterpart and many major European cities.
• Generally speaking, UK regional cities’ overall sustainability would benefit from increasing their profit rankings through attracting investment and encouraging economic prosperity. • A consistent theme across all UK cities is the need to improve transport infrastructure. Better mobility would improve the quality of life for communities and further open the nation’s cities up to investment. • Should regional cities fulfil their economic potential, they should learn lessons from London. The nation’s capital has seen economic prosperity come at a high social cost, with affordability and income inequality impacting quality of life. • Globally, no city sits in the top ten for all three sub-rankings, showing that all cities have growth opportunities. Stockholm and Vienna achieve the best balance, appearing in the top 15 across people, planet and profit.
3. SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX
3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY Cities are under pressure from all angles. Some pressures can be modeled and forecasted, such as population growth and mobility needs, but others, political uncertainly or flash floods for example, are more difficult to predict. Balancing the immediate needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow is at the heart of being a sustainable city, and of this report. As the needs of the present can encompass almost anything, it is necessary to focus on certain dimensions to assess how cities are performing at this essential task. The Sustainable Cities Index seeks to do this through an indication of urban sustainability that encompasses measures of the social, environmental and economic health of cities, as shown in Figure 1. These are the three ‘P’s – people, planet and profit.
Arcadis partnered with the Centre for Economic and Business Research (Cebr) to explore how cities are doing across these three areas. Cebr assessed 100 of the world’s leading cities, using 32 different indicators, to develop an indicative ranking of the sustainability of each. A city receives a score on each of the three pillars of sustainability and a city’s overall score is equal to the average of the three sub-indices. A full list of these indicators can be found in Table 1 in the appendix to this report.
FIGURE 1: THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY
PEOPLE
PLANET
PROFIT
SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
Measures social performance including quality of life
Captures 'green' factors like energy, pollution & emissions
Assesses business environment & economic health
The People sub-index rates health (life expectancy and obesity), education (literacy and universities), income inequality, work-life balance, the dependency ratio, crime, housing and living costs. These indicators can be broadly thought of as capturing “quality of life”.
The Planet sub-index ranks cities on energy consumption and renewable energy share, green space within cities, recycling and composting rates, greenhouse gas emissions, natural catastrophe risk, drinking water, sanitation and air pollution. These indicators can broadly be thought of as capturing “green factors”.
The Profit sub-index examines performance from a business perspective, combining measures of transport infrastructure (rail, air and traffic congestion), ease of doing business, tourism, GDP per capita, the city’s importance in global economic networks, connectivity in terms of mobile and broadband access and employment rates. These indicators can broadly be thought of as capturing “economic health”.
While geographical factors such as location, climate and access to resources all make like-for-like comparisons problematic, the report gives cities the opportunity to measure their overarching performance across these three areas, each vital for sustainability, to benchmark and learn from higher placed cities and take action to sustain future performance.
3.2 THE FINDINGS The research indicates that there are three significant areas of correlation: • No one city is effectively balancing all three areas of sustainability. Many cities do well in two of the people, planet and profit ratings, but very few do well in all three, indicating the challenge that cities have in balancing all three needs effectively to ensure long-term sustainability. • There is a geographical bias, with European cities achieving higher scores overall and emerging cities towards the bottom of the Index. Comparing cities with their geographical peers or with similar sustainability challenges (such as age demographics) therefore offers a better comparison. • The challenge of putting people at the heart of a city’s sustainability is one that many cities struggle with. A clear vision and identity for the city is the starting point of this process, and has the benefit of giving people, business and finance a much clearer idea of what will attract them to the city in question. The built and natural environment has a critical part to play in forming a city’s unique identity. The report is divided into the overall ranking and sub-indices of people, planet and profit. It explores each of these in depth, and contains profiles of some of the key cities in the Index.
3.3 OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS Cities around the world are living at extremes and exhibit polarised performance across the three pillars of sustainability The Swiss city of Zurich tops the overall Sustainable Cities Index, scoring particularly well across the planet and profit categories. With the exception of Singapore and Seoul, the top ten ranked cities are mostly from northern and central Europe – three of the top ten are in Germany alone. Around the middle of the Index are cities from southern Europe, the U.S. and some cities of the Middle East. The U.S. cities show a differing performance across the categories. Overall they rank far higher for profit compared to people and planet, which brings them down in the overall rankings. New York leads the pack at 26th, while Tampa (68th) and Detroit (69th) finish out the U.S. rankings. The lower half of the Index contains all of the mainland Chinese cities, with cities from Latin America mostly following. The less advanced Asia-Pacific metropolises are a little further down, with the least-developed cities in the Index, predominantly those in India and Africa, finishing the Index. The cities of the Middle East are spread throughout the lower half. A clear link between economic development and environmental sustainability is apparent.
Therefore, cities in advanced economies are largely at the top while those in emerging and developing economies tend to cluster towards the bottom. The tension inherent in a sustainable economy, be it a city or a country, is whether future generations’ well-being is jeopardised by today’s lifestyles. At present, all advanced economies put future standards of living at risk through high emissions of greenhouse gases, by not recycling enough of the finite resources we use and by depleting our nonrenewable energy sources. Some contain the adverse effects of these activities better than others, and this report seeks to show how different cities compare in this respect. As such, the Sustainable Cities Index does not look like a typical development ranking. Some emerging economies are unexpectedly high relative to a “standard” development ranking, while some developed economies fall down in their obligations to the future. We can look at the three sub-indices to see in which dimensions of sustainability cities are performing well and in which they have opportunities for further investment and improvement.
FIGURE 2: OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS: ZURICH ON TOP OF THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX (SOURCE CEBR)
ZURICH 1
PHILADELPHIA 51
SINGAPORE 2
DUBAI 52
STOCKHOLM 3
BALTIMORE 53
VIENNA 4
MIAMI 54
LONDON 5
KUALA LUMPUR 55
FRANKFURT 6
DALLAS 56
SEOUL 7
MOSCOW 57
HAMBURG 8
ABU DHABI 58
PRAGUE 9
HOUSTON 59
MUNICH 10
CHICAGO 60
AMSTERDAM 11
NEW ORLEANS 61
GENEVA 12
PITTSBURGH 62
EDINBURGH 13
ATLANTA 63
COPENHAGEN 14
SHENZHEN 64
PARIS 15
INDIANAPOLIS 65
HONG KONG 16
ATHENS 66
BERLIN 17
BANGKOK 67
CANBERRA 18
TAMPA 68
ROTTERDAM 19
DETROIT 69
MADRID 20
KUWAIT CITY 70
SYDNEY 21
SANTIAGO 71
ROME 22
DOHA 72
VANCOUVER 23
BEIJING 73
BARCELONA 24
SHANGHAI 74
MANCHESTER 25
MUSCAT 75
NEW YORK 26
RIYADH 76
WELLINGTON 27
ISTANBUL 77
MONTREAL 28
GUANGZHOU 78
ANTWERP 29
SAO PAULO 79
BRISBANE 30
BUENOS AIRES 80
BIRMINGHAM 31
JEDDAH 81
MELBOURNE 32
RIO DE JANEIRO 82
TORONTO 33
LIMA 83
BOSTON 34
MEXICO CITY 84
DUBLIN 35
TIANJIN 85
GLASGOW 36
AMMAN 86
WARSAW 37
HANOI 87
LEEDS 38
JAKARTA 88
SAN FRANCISCO 39
CHENNAI 89
BRUSSELS 40
JOHANNESBURG 90
MACAU 41
BENGALURU 91
MILAN 42
MUMBAI 92
SEATTLE 43
CHENGDU 93
WASHINGTON 44
WUHAN 94
TOKYO 45
CAPE TOWN 95
LISBON 46
MANILA 96
LYON 47
NEW DELHI 97
TAIPEI 48
NAIROBI 98
DENVER 49
CAIRO 99
LOS ANGELES 50
KOLKATA 100 0
10
20
PEOPLE
30
40
50
60
70
80
PLANET
0
10
PROFIT
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
3.4 PEOPLE SUB-INDEX LOW INEQUALITY THE SECRET OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY The people sub-index measures social sustainability and gives some surprising results, showing a substantial degree of departure from many of the other ways of comparing cities. Seoul ranks first and, although the remaining top five cities are European, Muscat and Montreal enter the top ten, at 9th and 10th respectively. The U.S. cities are generally weighed down by a high degree of income inequality, high crime, obesity (as part of the health indicator), a lack of affordable housing and long working hours. Many cities that rank higher in the planet and profit sub-indices tend towards lower people rankings, often hampered by long working hours, a skewed distribution of wealth and the affordability of both housing and consumer goods and services. To some extent, cities with low affordability scores are victims of their own success. High land values, which in turn raise the prices of not just housing but also goods and services, are a result of successful urban economies. Over time, however, unaffordability
poses a threat to lower-paid workers who are essential to a city’s proper functioning, as well as the cheap workspaces that start-up businesses require. This illustrates the need for cities to address these issues to enable and drive future growth. The most reliable predictor of where a city ranks in the people sub-index is income inequality. This has strong links with the other indicators: crime, education, work-life balance, health and affordability. The link explains the high performance of many northern European cities and the low performance of cities in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. This pattern holds despite the unfavourable demographics in much of Europe versus Chinese cities (whose inhabitants are largely of working age). The power of equality to influence other social objectives has been noted by many social researchers (e.g. Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level) and its acknowledged effects on a range of issues such as health, drug abuse, education and obesity mean it is bound to correlate strongly with the people sub-index, as a broad social-sustainability indicator.
FIGURE 3: PEOPLE SUB-INDEX: AFTER SEOUL, EUROPE LEADS THE WAY (SOURCE CEBR) SEOUL 1
PITTSBURGH 51
ROTTERDAM 2
ATHENS 52
HAMBURG 3
KUALA LUMPUR 53
VIENNA 4
SAN FRANCISCO 54
BERLIN 5
DUBAI 55
PRAGUE 6
RIYADH 56
AMSTERDAM 7
DOHA 57
MUNICH 8
JAKARTA 58
MUSCAT 9
JEDDAH 59
MONTREAL 10
ABU DHABI 60
ANTWERP 11
SEATTLE 61
BRUSSELS 12
WUHAN 62
BARCELONA 13
CHENGDU 63
STOCKHOLM 14
BANGKOK 64
WARSAW 15
GUANGZHOU 65
FRANKFURT 16
PHILADELPHIA 66
CANBERRA 17
WASHINGTON 67
MADRID 18
TIANJIN 68
LYON 19
MACAU 69
PARIS 20
ATLANTA 70
BRISBANE 21
AMMAN 71
MELBOURNE 22
DETROIT 72
VANCOUVER 23
SHENZHEN 73
COPENHAGEN 24
CHICAGO 74
SYDNEY 25
BENGALURU 75
LEEDS 26
CHENNAI 76
ZURICH 27
NEW YORK 77
BIRMINGHAM 28
KOLKATA 78
LISBON 29
HOUSTON 79
GENEVA 30
BALTIMORE 80
MANCHESTER 31
HONG KONG 81
TAIPEI 32
DALLAS 82
ROME 33
INDIANAPOLIS 83
MILAN 34
TAMPA 84
MOSCOW 35
SANTIAGO 85
KUWAIT CITY 36
MUMBAI 86
LONDON 37
NEW DELHI 87
EDINBURGH 38
BUENOS AIRES 88
DUBLIN 39
MIAMI 89
TORONTO 40
ISTANBUL 90
BOSTON 41
LIMA 91
GLASGOW 42
CAIRO 92
SHANGHAI 43
NEW ORLEANS 93
TOKYO 44
MANILA 94
BEIJING 45
RIO DE JANEIRO 95
HANOI 46
MEXICO CITY 96
DENVER 47
SAO PAULO 97
SINGAPORE 48
NAIROBI 98
LOS ANGELES 49
JOHANNESBURG 99
WELLINGTON 50
CAPE TOWN 100 DEMOGRAPHICS
EDUCATION
INCOME INEQUALITY
WORK-LIFE BALANCE
CRIME
HEALTH
AFFORDABILITY
3.5 PLANET SUB-INDEX ENERGY SUPERPOWERS FIND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY MORE DIFFICULT The Swiss cities of Zurich and Geneva dominate the top three positions in the planet subindex (first and third places respectively) with Stockholm in second. Wellington and Sydney join the top ten which is otherwise made up of European cities. U.S. cities are negatively affected by their high per-capita emissions, energy use and lower amount of green spaces. San Francisco (53rd) and Los Angeles (60th) feature in the lower half of the sub-index. While these two Californian cities have the highest recycling rates in the world, they also have the highest exposure to natural disasters. This indicator affects developed and emerging cities alike and, while there is some reflection in the rankings of the degree to which cities prepare themselves, some are inevitably left vulnerable and exposed regardless of the
actions they’ve taken to reduce risk in this area. Middle Eastern cities also feature towards the bottom of this subindex. One cause of this is the energy indicator, which measures the proportion of electricity from renewable sources, the energy intensity (i.e. the amount of energy consumed to produce each dollar of GDP), and energy use per capita. The Middle Eastern cities are using an increasing proportion of renewable energy but, given their vast fossil fuel resources, incentives to conserve energy are much weaker than elsewhere. Moscow is in a similar predicament and also appears near the bottom at 87th. There are also a few unexpected high performers in emerging economies. For example, Bengaluru is fairly high (62nd); while its performance for waste management is one of the worst in the sub-index, the city makes up for it by having very low greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.
FIGURE 4: PLANET SUB-INDEX: SWISS CITIES GREENEST ON THE PLANET (SOURCE CEBR) ZURICH 1
MACAU 51
STOCKHOLM 2
ATHENS 52
GENEVA 3
SAN FRANCISCO 53
VIENNA 4
WARSAW 54
FRANKFURT 5
AMMAN 55
WELLINGTON 6
TAMPA 56
ROME 7
SANTIAGO 57
SYDNEY 8
MEXICO CITY 58
LONDON 9
DALLAS 59
HAMBURG 10
LOS ANGELES 60
MADRID 11
INDIANAPOLIS 61
SINGAPORE 12
BENGALURU 62
COPENHAGEN 13
BUENOS AIRES 63
MANCHESTER 14
DENVER 64
BIRMINGHAM 15
DETROIT 65
BERLIN 16
SHENZHEN 66
ROTTERDAM 17
CHICAGO 67
VANCOUVER 18
HOUSTON 68
AMSTERDAM 19
CHENNAI 69
GLASGOW 20
CAPE TOWN 70
LEEDS 21
TAIPEI 71
EDINBURGH 22
JOHANNESBURG 72
BARCELONA 23
PITTSBURGH 73
MUNICH 24
ISTANBUL 74
CANBERRA 25
MUMBAI 75
SEOUL 26
HANOI 76
MONTREAL 27
TIANJIN 77
TORONTO 28
ATLANTA 78
HONG KONG 29
BANGKOK 79
SAO PAULO 30
GUANGZHOU 80
PRAGUE 31
JEDDAH 81
PARIS 32
RIYADH 82
NEW YORK 33
NAIROBI 83
BRUSSELS 34
KUALA LUMPUR 84
SEATTLE 35
JAKARTA 85
MILAN 36
MANILA 86
ANTWERP 37
MOSCOW 87
RIO DE JANEIRO 38
MUSCAT 88
DUBLIN 39
KUWAIT CITY 89
LYON 40
NEW DELHI 90
BRISBANE 41
SHANGHAI 91
BALTIMORE 42
CHENGDU 92
LISBON 43
CAIRO 93
NEW ORLEANS 44
LIMA 94
BOSTON 45
ABU DHABI 95
PHILADELPHIA 46
DUBAI 96
MIAMI 47
BEIJING 97
WASHINGTON 48
DOHA 98
MELBOURNE 49
WUHAN 99
TOKYO 50
KOLKATA 100 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
ENERGY
GREEN SPACE
AIR POLLUTION
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION
3.6 PROFIT SUB-INDEX THE KEY TO ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY: EASE OF DOING BUSINESS The profit sub-index measures economic sustainability. It is headed by the East Asian financial centres of Singapore and Hong Kong. These two cities are well known as recent developers and now rank among the most prosperous cities in the world. Their high scores derive from a strong performance across a number of metrics, particularly tourism, connectivity and ease of doing business. Completing the top five are London, Dubai and Zurich. The profit sub-index is related to cities’ wealth, as the economic development indicator is the city’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (essentially, average economic output). Global importance also plays a role via the indicators of tourism and importance to global networks, a metric that maps economic and commercial links between the cities of the world. However, this does not tell the whole story, as shown by major Latin American financial centers like Mexico City and São Paulo which rank 83rd and 84th respectively in the profit sub-index. If doing business is difficult, and transport networks are neglected, even economic powerhouses can struggle for sustainability in
the profit arena. For example, Brazil’s rapid transition from a star emerging economy to deep recession shows that sustainability requires stronger systems and foundations. Five American cities make the top 25 of the profit ranking, led by the financial capital of New York and followed by the digital hub of San Francisco. Shanghai, low in the ranking at 77th, is impacted by low GDP per capita, barriers to doing business and lower employment rates. In Europe, the profit sub-index reveals the split personalities of a number of cities. Istanbul, Athens, Lyon, Brussels, Leeds, Glasgow and Lisbon, for example, all sit in the bottom 40 cities for profit but are further ahead in the people and planet pillars. Of the indicators assessed in this ranking, the two that have the greatest impact on the profit rankings are ease of doing business and GDP per capita. The World Bank’s ease of doing business rating started in 2002 and assesses issues like how many days and procedures are needed to start a business, the ease of cross-border trade, and the ease of obtaining credit from banks. Economic sustainability requires investment in the future, without which a city would not fare as well on the other indicators.
FIGURE 5: PROFIT SUB-INDEX: GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTERS REIGN (SOURCE CEBR) SINGAPORE 1
MANCHESTER 51
HONG KONG 2
BALTIMORE 52
LONDON 3
BANGKOK 53
DUBAI 4
MONTREAL 54
ZURICH 5
PHILADELPHIA 55
EDINBURGH 6
SHENZHEN 56
PRAGUE 7
MILAN 57
NEW YORK 8
WELLINGTON 58
PARIS 9
NEW ORLEANS 59
STOCKHOLM 10
BIRMINGHAM 60
MUNICH 11
LISBON 61
SAN FRANCISCO 12
INDIANAPOLIS 62
ABU DHABI 13
PITTSBURGH 63
VIENNA 14
GLASGOW 64
MACAU 15
DETROIT 65
AMSTERDAM 16
BRUSSELS 66
COPENHAGEN 17
BEIJING 67
SEOUL 18
KUWAIT CITY 68
KUALA LUMPUR 19
LEEDS 69
CANBERRA 20
TAMPA 70
WASHINGTON 21
LYON 71
BOSTON 22
ATHENS 72
FRANKFURT 23
JOHANNESBURG 73
DENVER 24
LIMA 74
HAMBURG 25
ISTANBUL 75
MELBOURNE 26
SANTIAGO 76
TAIPEI 27
SHANGHAI 77
TOKYO 28
GUANGZHOU 78
VANCOUVER 29
RIYADH 79
BRISBANE 30
CAPE TOWN 80
DALLAS 31
JEDDAH 81
BERLIN 32
BUENOS AIRES 82
SEATTLE 33
MEXICO CITY 83
MADRID 34
SAO PAULO 84
SYDNEY 35
MUSCAT 85
WARSAW 36
RIO DE JANEIRO 86
HOUSTON 37
TIANJIN 87
TORONTO 38
JAKARTA 88
DUBLIN 39
WUHAN 89
ANTWERP 40
NAIROBI 90
MIAMI 41
MANILA 91
GENEVA 42
CHENGDU 92
BARCELONA 43
MUMBAI 93
MOSCOW 44
HANOI 94
CHICAGO 45
CHENNAI 95
ROTTERDAM 46
NEW DELHI 96
LOS ANGELES 47
AMMAN 97
ATLANTA 48
CAIRO 98
ROME 49
BENGALURU 99
DOHA 50
KOLKATA 100 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EASE OF DOING BUSINESS
TOURISM
CONNECTIVITY
EMPLOYMENT
4. UK SPOTLIGHT London (5th) and Edinburgh (13th) are the clear UK leaders in the Sustainable Cities Index with the other UK cities sitting between 25th and 38th spots. This trend can also be seen in the profit sub-index, with London ranking first in the UK and coming third globally, closely followed by Edinburgh which ranks sixth in the world. All other six UK cities perform significantly lower on profit, ranking between 51st and 69th globally, highlighting the notable contrast between the UK’s capitals and other major cities. However, when it comes to people, it’s a different story, with Leeds taking top spot, followed by Birmingham. Edinburgh mirrors the global trend of cities having a split personality as its high-flying second place in the UK for profit is in stark contrast to much lower positions for planet and people. For the purposes of this report, the UK has already been ‘Brexited’ from the rest of Europe, but it is clear that London in particular will remain a leading global, not just European, city. For others, particularly the Scottish cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, their future positions within the UK, or as a standalone country should another independence referendum be held, are less clear.
UK RANKINGS LONDON 5 EDINBURGH 13 MANCHESTER 25 BIRMINGHAM 31 GLASGOW 36 LEEDS 38 0
10
PEOPLE PLANET PROFIT
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
4.1 CITY PROFILE LONDON PEOPLE: 37 PLANET: 9 PROFIT: 3
PLANET: 9
London is one of the world’s foremost economic powerhouses. Sitting at the centre of global trade, London’s heavyweight position, combined with a long history of cultural and economic evolution, means it is well equipped to reap the long-term benefits of its status as a true world city. London’s history, its economic diversity, its dominance as a transport hub, multi-culturalism and transparency for investment have all combined to contribute to its success. With the right approach, London should be in a prime position to embrace the opportunities and challenges of the future. However, there can be no room for complacency. If the capital is to maintain its long term competitiveness, there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed. Not least of these are the mobility and housing challenges associated with a densely populated, and growing, urban metropolis. With London’s population projected to reach 10 million people by 2030, improving infrastructure capacity and providing the right number and type of homes that will enable people of different skills to live and work is critical. Twenty eight percent of the city’s population are living below the poverty line, and addressing income inequality and the high cost of living will do much to improve London’s people score and push it higher up the overall rankings. London has reached a tipping point, as the large differential between its people and profit rankings makes clear. However, in the aftermath of Brexit, the Mayor needs to persuade global businesses that London’s infrastructure priorities have not changed and that the capital remains just as viable outside of the EU. Increased devolution is required, with enhanced mayoral
4
PEOPLE: 37
powers to raise revenue, which will enable the capital’s priorities to be addressed. As well as ensuring we get maximum capacity from our existing assets, a commitment to borrowing for capital investment will give ever greater impetus to long term infrastructure plans such as HS2 and Crossrail. If London is to avoid becoming a victim of its own success, one of the biggest challenges now will be to ensure the capital captures and retains the benefit of this investment.
PROFIT: 3
• Europe’s largest metropolitan economy • More than 3,000 parks and green spaces makes it one of the greenest capitals in the world • Home to four UNESCO world heritage sites: Tower of London, Maritime Greenwich, Westminster Palace and Kew’s Royal Botanic Gardens.
Macro-economic factors may be forcing many people to think differently, but London will always attract those who contribute to long-term economic prosperity. People come to the city not just for work or investment opportunities, but also to enjoy the numerous cultural and heritage aspects synonymous with a dynamic and thriving capital city. They key for London now will be to deliver long term housing and regeneration measures. These will create far greater social and economic equality across all of its 32 boroughs. While the need to preserve London’s leading economic position is a given, if it is to move further up the rankings the social cost of its relatively poor people ranking needs to be addressed.
Mark Prior, Arcadis Cities Director for London mark.prior@arcadis.com
4.2 CITY PROFILE BIRMINGHAM PEOPLE: 28
PLANET: 15
PROFIT:60
• Boasts more green spaces than any other city in Europe • Attracts more foreign direct investment than any city outside of London • Is the UK’s most culturally mixed city.
Simon Marks, Arcadis Cities Director for Birmingham simon.marks@arcadis.com
PEOPLE: 28 PLANET: 15 PROFIT: 60
Birmingham is a city in the midst of huge change. Once an ailing post-industrial metropolis, a great deal is now resting on the Second City’s sizable shoulders. As part of the devolution agenda, the government has earmarked the West Midlands as an economic counterbalance to London, aimed at making the region a more prosperous and better place to live. After decades of underinvestment, this is clearly no easy task but things are moving forward quickly. 2017 will see the city appoint its first ever elected mayor, tasked with overseeing over one billion pounds of central government investment and large-scale regeneration works. The likes of Smithfield redevelopment and the Snow Hill regeneration plan – Birmingham’s answer to London’s Canary Wharf – will quite literally change the face of the city. These plans, however, are not merely designed to make the area look nice. This progress is emblematic of the way the West Midlands Combined Authority see the built environment and its potential to improve the regional economy. These programmes serve to better place Birmingham in the shop window to potential investors as well as improving the quality of life of its communities. However, despite the obvious progress, this is not yet enough to support a city of Birmingham’s size. As is evident by the poorer profit score, more needs to be done to improve productivity and produce a more sustainable local and regional economy. Major investors such as HSBC and Jaguar Land Rover see their futures in the area but the wider, residual prosperity of moves such as these takes time to filter down. In fact, the Second City scores down in sixtieth position in our profit ranking due, largely, to relatively poorer levels of employment and economic development. To make for a more balanced environment, the city
has a challenge on its hands to turn big investment into high quality employment. The much-maligned skills shortage is something that city leaders need to address with a degree of urgency. More job creation and upskilling local people are crucial. So, too, is genuinely affordable housing and securing Birmingham’s position as an international hub for advanced manufacturing and life sciences would go some way to helping the city attract the most skilled people and realise its potential. As, would improving mobility. Ambitious plans to overhaul the West Midlands road and rails networks are long overdue and the city – as well as the entire nation – is still holding its breath, waiting for the government to finally rubber stamp HS2. High speed connections to the capital and the north of England as well as reducing journey times across the Midlands will only serve to further increase investment and, consequentially, prosperity. Once these major projects are approved we could well see Birmingham take a huge step forward and make good on its promises to become an engine of national growth in every sense.
4.3 CITY PROFILE EDINBURGH PEOPLE: 38 PLANET: 22 PROFIT: 6
PLANET: 22
The capital of Scotland is the largest financial centre in the UK after London, meaning that its position as the UK’s second most economically sustainable city in this years’ index should come as no surprise. Its close alignment with the London financial markets means that the success of these two cities often goes hand-in-hand. Yet, even in its own right, Edinburgh is highly competitive on an international stage. With an economy based on financial services, technology, scientific research, life sciences, higher education and tourism, Edinburgh is home to one of the UK’s most productive and qualified workforces. Nearly one fifth of the population are in their 20s and just over 15 percent in their 30s. This underlines the high quality of life that is to be had in the region, with an increasing number of people choosing to stay in or relocate to the city. Yet, despite high levels of prosperity amongst the educated classes and white collar workers, Edinburgh still suffers from a relative lack of income equality. Insufficient access to opportunities in less privileged areas is holding Edinburgh back in the people rankings, and the challenge for the Scottish Government will be to improve community benefits, access to jobs and education standards. Typical of any thriving urban centre, as Edinburgh’s popularity increases, affordability issues come to the fore. For the first time the Scottish capital’s population has exceeded half a million, with current projections indicating it will overtake Glasgow in just a few decades. The resulting strain on housing provision, schools and transport links will need to be addressed if the city is to thrive. Addressing the housing crisis in Edinburgh, and indeed in Scotland more generally, is as urgent as in the rest of the UK. However, the commitment from the Scottish
4
PEOPLE: 38
Government to build 50,000 new affordable homes by 2020 is going to be a big ask. For many people the alternative is to move further away from the city centre, but for this to work transport infrastructure needs to significantly improve. Urban mobility is a major issue and one that is partially masked by its high performance in the profit rankings. The Forth Replacement Crossing and plans to extend the tram system will go some way towards alleviating regional gridlock and improving accessibility, but there needs to be a real focus on meeting Edinburgh’s transport needs for the future. Creating fit-for-purpose infrastructure capacity will be essential for enabling the city to remain competitive in the long term. However, in the current postBrexit environment, the lack of clarity around Scotland’s position both in relation to the rest of the UK and within the EU is generating some uncertainty around its investment proposition. As an internationally focused city, Edinburgh needs to capitalise on its vision to become more outward looking. The university is a massive incubator of talent, with all the attendant education, research and support services combining to create a real knowledge hub. International funding puts Edinburgh on the map as a world class city, and the city’s civic leadership now needs to be bolder in celebrating the Scottish capital’s differentiators and successes.
PROFIT: 6
• Boasts the biggest arts festival in the world, generating over £100 million for the local economy every year • Has the highest percentage of degree level or equivalent workers in the UK • Has 112 parks and more trees per head of population than any other city in the UK.
Graham Hill, Arcadis Cities Director for Edinburgh graham.hill@arcadis.com
4.4 CITY PROFILE MANCHESTER PEOPLE: 31
PLANET: 14
PROFIT:51
• Became the world’s first industrial city in the 18th Century • Is home to the biggest UK airport outside of London • The University of Manchester is the largest single-site university in the UK.
Jonathan Moore, Arcadis Cities Director for Manchester jonathan.moore@arcadis.com
PEOPLE: 31 PLANET: 14 PROFIT: 51
The “Capital of the North” is a prime example of one of the UK’s sleeping giants. Sitting at the heart of plans for a Northern Powerhouse and boasting strong manufacturing, logistics, science, technology and service sectors, Manchester’s ranking in the top quartile of this year’s Sustainable Cities Index is a positive indicator of the city’s potential. Manchester benefits from one of the UK’s most stable regional governments, and established civic leadership and direction have been in place for a number of years. The devolution agreement further underlined Manchester’s political power. Greater Manchester and NHS England have signed up to bring together £6 billion of NHS and social care budgets, resulting in joint planning and, consequentially, better care for patients. In addition, the March 2015 Budget announced a pilot scheme in the region to enable the retention of 100 percent of any extra business rate growth. The population of Greater Manchester is 2.8 million – and a combined 10.7 million across the Northern Powerhouse. Thanks to its world-class higher education institutions, Manchester also has the largest international student cohort outside of the capital, with a 55 percent student retention rate. The city’s social demographic is, therefore, highly mobile. Something which is indicative of the quality of life the city has to offer, and is driving big opportunities in the private rented sector. However, meeting the demands of housing supply across all tenures remains a challenge. Building more affordable and social housing needs to be a priority if the city is to live up to expectations. Manchester’s relatively high score for both people and planet is demonstrated by plans currently underway to advance the sustainability of the city through low carbon usage and smart transport systems. From an environmental perspective,
Manchester is set to benefit from the Climate Change Delivery Plan. This looks to turn the city into a ‘low-carbon authority’ by reducing emissions by 41 percent by the end of the decade. Additional plans include increasing biodiversity and green infrastructure, as well as improving the environmental performance of buildings through retrofitting. One area of concern, however, is Manchester’s bottom-half score for profit. Much is to be done if the city is to move up. The city suffers from relative level of income inequality and a skills capacity gap. A greater focus on skills and training will be fundamental for getting people back into work, and the government will need to create jobs at all levels in order to have a proper impact on economic competitiveness. A big plus is that Manchester is the third-most visited city in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors. With the second largest airport outside of London, further investment in transport infrastructure and measures to encourage FDI could significantly boost the local economy and raise the profile of the Manchester brand. To date, the local authority has been very commercially-led in terms of looking to bring investment into the city, but the challenge now will be for the regional government to advance the plan for a Northern Powerhouse and, in particular, its infrastructure strategy. Reducing journey times between all of the UK’s northern cities will benefit the entire Manchester city region and will be key to the city’s long-term prosperity.
4.5 CITY PROFILE LEEDS PEOPLE: 26 PLANET: 21 PROFIT: 69
PLANET: 21
Around twenty miles from the Yorkshire Dales is situated the city of Leeds. Boasting a long and distinguished industrial heritage, the city has undergone some major changes in recent decades and is widely known for being one of Britain’s leading centres for the legal profession. However, with the nation’s economic and political landscapes evolving faster than ever before, the city’s future direction is somewhat less clearly defined. Major commitments from central government to increase mobility across the country’s urban centres, devolve budgets and boost local spending powers have seen cities quickly position themselves to take advantage. However, across England rival administrations appear to have stolen something of a march. Manchester, Birmingham and nearby Sheffield are soon to be appointing their respective mayors and are already reaping the rewards of extensive foreign direct investment. Leeds, meanwhile – as illustrated by its relatively poorer performance in terms of profit – finds itself at a crossroads. In an era of regional devolution various cities around the country are jostling for position when it comes to funding. The city council’s stated aim is to make Leeds the ‘best city in the UK’ by 2030, but it will need to better push its own agenda if it is to realise this sizable aim. One area of opportunity is the proposed Northern Powerhouse that plans to create a ‘virtual city’ and act as an economic counterbalance to London. There is optimism that the strategy could make a real difference to the city and its people.
4
Where investment has been made, the results have been extremely promising. Former Chancellor George Osborne committed £2 billion to upgrading the region’s road and rail connections, as well as significantly improving links with Manchester via the upgrading of the Trans Pennine Line. Major
PEOPLE: 26
works such as these will prove vital to reducing journey times and increasing capacity. However, without a cohesive and ambitious city strategy, examples such as these could prove the exception rather than the norm. If Leeds is to significantly improve its long-term prospects, the top priorities must be to create more high calibre jobs and place itself in the shop window for investment. It needs better transport infrastructure and it needs regeneration but, most importantly, it needs a unified plan to deliver these aims. That said, one big positive for Leeds is its social sustainability. The index sees it rank ahead of any other British city for people. The city’s communities benefit from the likes of a relatively good work-life balance and lower levels of income inequality than many other areas of the country. Evidently, the potential truly is there, if only the city and its leaders can decide what it is they want Leeds to be.
PROFIT: 69
• Is a leading retail destination with one of the country’s largest pedestrianised shopping areas • Is the largest legal centre in the UK outside of the capital • Boasts one of the largest urban parks in Europe.
Nick Kealey, Arcadis Cities Director for Leeds nick.kealey@arcadis.com
5. SPOTLIGHT ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES - DEMOGRAPHICS The variance in median ages across the 100 cities in the Sustainable Cities Index is astonishing, ranging from just 18.7 years in Nairobi to 46.6 years in Tokyo. Demographics are particularly important to the economic and social elements of sustainability. They are economically significant because the production of a society depends on its workforce, which in most countries means those aged between approximately 16 and 65 years (with the exception of the unemployed, students and other non-participants in the labour force). However, the consumption of a society depends on its total population, and the ratio between those of working age and those outside it is an important factor in the standard of living. Demography is of social concern because two key public services – health and education – are mostly used by those outside working age, but funded by those within it. The amount available to spend on each person’s health and education is affected by how the resources are sourced; if few are providing the resources, but many need the services, the quality will suffer. So, in the short to medium term, it’s desirable to be “in the middle” in age terms – not to have too many people either in education or in later life. Cities that are highest on the demographic indicator are in the UAE, while China scores well too. Cities in Europe and the U.S. are challenged, but then so are Nairobi and Cairo, where huge young populations put immense pressure on education meaning these economies find it hard to provide proper training for their youth. However, seen over a longer horizon, a young cohort in education will eventually join the labour force and the population will hit the demographic “sweet spot”, just as China is experiencing, enabling far faster growth than can be achieved in the mature - in both senses - economies.
This changes the picture. Which economies are best placed demographically in the long run? This is crucially dependent on the median age of their inhabitants.
FIGURE 6: CITIES IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX, BY MEDIAN AGE IN YEARS 1
TOKYO 1 ROME 2 MILAN 3 BERLIN 4 HAMBURG 5 FRANKFURT 6 HOUSTON 7 HONG KONG 8 AMSTERDAM 9 ROTTERDAM 10 MUNICH 11 BRUSSELS 12 ANTWERP 13 BARCELONA 14 COPENHAGEN 15 GLASGOW 16 EDINBURGH 17 VIENNA 18 MONTREAL 19 VANCOUVER 20 PITTSBURGH 21 ZURICH 22 MADRID 23 ATHENS 24 LISBON 25 SEOUL 26 GENEVA 27 MANCHESTER 28 LEEDS 29 TORONTO 30 BIRMINGHAM 31 PRAGUE 32 BALTIMORE 33 MOSCOW 34 SAN FRANCISCO 35 TAIPEI 36 MIAMI 37 STOCKHOLM 38 BANGKOK 39 DETROIT 40 WARSAW 41 SEATTLE 42 NEW YORK 43 SYDNEY 44 TAMPA 45 MELBOURNE 46 SHANGHAI 47 BEIJING 48 WUHAN 49 GUANGZHOU 50
SHENZHEN 51 TIANJIN 52 MACAU 53 CHENGDU 54 PARIS 55 LYON 56 DOHA 57 CHICAGO 58 CANBERRA 59 LOS ANGELES 60 NEW ORLEANS 61 ATLANTA 62 LONDON 63 SINGAPORE 64 INDIANAPOLIS 65 WASHINGTON 66 DENVER 67 SANTIAGO 68 PHILADELPHIA 69 MANAMA 70 DUBLIN 71 BRISBANE 72 DALLAS 73 DUBAI 74 ABU DHABI 75 BOSTON 76 BUENOS AIRES 77 KUWAIT CITY 78 SAO PAULO 79 RIO DE JANEIRO 80 HANOI 81 ISTANBUL 82 CHENNAI 83 KUALA LUMPUR 84 JAKARTA 85 JEDDAH 86 RIYADH 87 MUSCAT 88 MEXICO CITY 89 LIMA 90 JOHANNESBURG 91 CAPE TOWN 92 KOLKATA 93 BENGALURU 94 CAIRO 95 MUMBAI 96 NEW DELHI 97 MANILA 98 AMMAN 99 NAIROBI 100
1Some cities did not have data available on the city level; here we have used national-level sources
6. PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF CITY SUSTAINABILITY CITIES, PEOPLE AND SUSTAINABILITY What makes a city sustainable for its people? It’s a question that is being asked more and more frequently by planners, developers and policymakers as they try to shape the conditions that help cities compete in what is an increasingly global tussle for talent and investment. A city’s character is formed by the dynamic mix of multiple influences that contribute to its appearance, culture and shared values. But, above all, a city’s strengths and its character come from its people. How can cities do more to ensure that, as they develop and implement strategies and policies to address the considerable challenges they face (from environmental to socioeconomic), they do so in a way that puts people at the forefront of their sustainability? On a fundamental level, providing adequate access to basic resources for all citizens, such as shelter, clean water and air, is essential. But for many cities – particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the developing world – this is far from straightforward. The systems that enable a city to function and thrive, from mobility to housing and culture to education, create a highly complex ecosystem of interacting and intersecting services and infrastructure that is under constant pressure to change, regenerate and respond to the developing needs of the population. The trend to localism and devolution of powers is evident across many urban centers, making questions of governance increasingly important. Cities’ governance varies from top-down to bottom-up, greater or lesser influence of private or public interests and a range of decisionmaking, from formal to informal processes and routes. A city’s values, too, are key drivers of its ‘personality’ affecting both the day-to-day experience of citizens
and creating the city’s wider image and global impression that can attract business, talent, investment and tourism. Of course, none of these elements is static. Cities can, and do, constantly reinvent themselves as they strive to compete and secure an advantage over each other. Throughout, people are at the heart of that change. If cities are today generally falling short of meeting the needs of their people, what changes do they need to make in order to improve? There are a number of key dimensions to address.
CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY Cities create a sense of community from built and natural assets. This is visible in the multiple neighbourhoods of which cities are comprised. Each has its own style and distinct sense of community. Scale is important, as it enables people to feel a strong connection to their core neighborhood community and, through that, with the wider secondary community of the entire city. A successful city, therefore, is likely to have many different neighborhoods with their own unique sense of themselves, but which, together, can form a common identity. To that end, the degree of equality evident in a city is important for shaping people’s experience and perceptions. When the differences in a city are too big and visible, this will affect inhabitants’ sense of community. People will struggle to build a common identification with parts of their city that are very different from their own. This is not to say that there should be no differences, for example, in income. Cities are inevitably associated with disparities in wealth. However, taking steps to ensure that all people enjoy at least a basic standard in the quality of life, with water and food, a dwelling, education and health and a sense of opportunity, is critical in binding a city’s diverse population together.
By doing so, citizens understand that everyone has their own role and responsibility in the city. Greater equality in a city drives a sense of inclusion in its people. When people feel included, they start collaborating, taking responsibility for their own areas and achieving greater wellbeing. A city attracts a variety of people, and it’s this diversity that makes a city productive: everybody feels empowered and incentivized to make a positive contribution that improves the quality of life for all and drives a more sustainable city environment.
BALANCING PEOPLE AND PROFIT Access to natural resources is critically important. As well as clean water and air, for example, the availability of green spaces is becoming a more important requirement and a source of differentiation for a city. In response, cities are developing some innovative solutions to address this need. Cities are beginning to build with, rather than against, nature. The natural capital within the city is being incorporated to create new spaces that can make a direct contribution to the shared quality of life available to citizens and can attract visitors. New York’s High Line turned an abandoned transport asset into an extremely popular and successful new urban park that has spurred economic development along its route.
BUILDING A RESILIENT CITY The physical, social and economic systems that together create a city need to be resilient in order to enable a city to grow and develop in a way that is sustainable and secures the greatest benefits for the widest possible group of people. Infrastructure that works, community cohesion and stability, and the conditions in which business can flourish are all key elements of a city that meets the
needs of its people. This is as true for developed cities, such as Miami that must balance its people and profit with its resiliency to flooding and climate change, as it is for developing cities in parts of Asia and Africa that strive to accelerate their development in the midst of resiliency pressures. According to the 2016 Arcadis Sustainable Cities Water Index, most cities across the world are in need of greater prioritisation to improve their resilience to extreme weather events and unforeseen water shortages. From rising sea levels and rapid urbanisation hindering permeability to lack of diverse water portfolios, the report finds that most cities need greater investment when it comes to their ability to withstand natural disasters and drinking water shortages. Cities that are proactive in responding to these resilience issues have a competitive advantage for future investment as well as in attracting people.
ASSESSING A CITY’S ECOSYSTEM Given all these competing needs, getting the right start is essential. Each city will have its own unique vision for achieving those aims. And each will need a distinct road map to reach its destination. But starting the journey begins with a clear assessment of where the city is today, and the outputs (positive and negative) arising from the interplay between its physical, social and economic systems.
Figure 7 shows three layers of assessment that city leaders should undertake in order to evaluate their city’s ecosystem. With that understanding in place, city planners and policymakers can start taking steps to shape a city with people and their wellbeing at its heart.
FIGURE 7: CITY ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT - THREE LAYERS VALUES AND COURAGE OF DECISION MAKERS
GOVERNANCE AND INVESTMENT POWER
Top down - bottom up, public - private, formal - informal
SYSTEMS
Mobility, housing, energy, water, food, health, education, air quality, culture, waste... Urbanism!
7. APPENDICES METHODOLOGY Table 1 shows the indicators that form the building blocks of the Sustainable Cities Index. The rightmost column shows which pillar each indicator belongs to. Indicators within each category are averaged to calculate the pillar’s score. Each city receives a percentage score reflecting its place in relation to the others.
WHAT’S NEW FOR 2016? Incorporating feedback from the first report published in 2015, Arcadis and Cebr have both sought to create a more indicative global picture of urban sustainability by including an additional 50 cities in the ranking and incorporating seven new indicators of sustainability in the Index. This provides a broader view of the world and captures the rapid globalisation of and competition between our cities. As a result of this, it would be inaccurate to compare the rankings to last year’s. Future reports will seek to follow the same methodology and allow year-on-year comparisons to be made. The Sustainable Cities Index is constructed by a three-stage averaging process. Some of the indicators are composites. These take the simple average of their component sub-indicators. The three sub-indices are calculated by taking simple averages of their component indicators. In turn, the overall score is calculated by taking the simple average of the three sub-indices. Therefore, there is no weighting system applied, although, since the number of indicators differs across sub-indices, the weights in the overall Index do differ. The same applies for the sub-indicators: two components which go into one indicator will naturally have half the weight of another indicator within the same pillar which has only one component to it. The averaging process demands that the scores be converted into common units, for which we use percentages. Each is scaled such that the worst-performing city receives 0% and the best performer receives 100%. Since the sub-indices and the overall Index are simply averages of the indicators, they are also measured in percentage terms. Several of the indicators have outlying values – these are defined as observations two standard deviations away from the mean. These are given the maximum or minimum score, as appropriate, and the nexthighest/lowest value is defined as the boundary observation which is used to calculate the scores of the other (non-outlier) values. City-level data is used wherever possible, though in some cases only national-level data exists. Where there is no comparable city-level data across countries, the national value is taken and a national database is used to scale the cities so that they are given a spread around the national average.
7.1 METHODOLOGY AND INDICATORS TABLE 1: LIST OF INDICATORS USED IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX. New indicators to the 2016 Index are shown in orange INDICATOR NAME
INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
MAIN SOURCE
Literacy rate
World Bank
University rankings
QS
Share of population with tertiary education
Barro & Lee, various national sources
Life expectancy
World Bank
Obesity rate
World Health Organization
Demographics
Dependency ratio
World Bank
People
Income Inequality
Gini coefficient
World Bank
People
Consumer price index
UBS Prices and Earnings
Property prices
UBS Prices and Earnings
Work-life balance
Average annual hours worked
OECD, UBS Prices and Earnings
People
Crime
Homicide rate
UN Office on Drugs and Crime
People
Environmental risks
Natural catastrophe exposure
The International Disaster Database
Planet
Green spaces
Green space as % of city area
Siemens Green City Index
Planet
Energy use
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Renewables share
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Education
Health
Affordability
Energy
SUB-INDEX People
People
People
Planet
Energy consumption per $ GDP
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Air pollution
Mean level of pollutants
World Health Organization
Planet
Greenhouse gas emissions
Emissions in metric tonnes (per capita)
CDP Cities open data
Planet
Solid waste management (landfill vs recycling)
World Bank
Share of wastewater treated
OECD & FAO Aquastat
Access to drinking water (% of households)
World Health Organization
Access to improved sanitation (% of households)
World Health Organization
Congestion
TomTom Traffic Index
Rail infrastructure
Metrobits World
Airport satisfaction
Skytrax World Airport Awards 2015
Economic development
GDP per capita
Brookings Global Monitor
Profit
Ease of doing business
Ease of Doing Business Index
World Bank
Profit
Tourism
International visitors per year, absolute & per capita
Euromonitor International
Profit
Mobile connectivity
United Nations Statistics Division
Broadband connectivity
United Nations Statistics Division
Importance in global networks
Geography Department, Loughborough University
Number of people employed, % of city population
Brookings Global Monitor
Waste management
Drinking water and sanitation
Transport infrastructure
Connectivity
Employment
Planet
Planet
Profit
Profit
Profit
DISCLAIMER While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material in this document, neither Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd nor Arcadis will be liable for any loss or damages incurred through the use of the report.
AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was commissioned by Arcadis and informed by research produced by Cebr, an independent economics and business research consultancy established in 1992. The expert commentary was compiled by a cross section of Arcadis’ city and sustainability experts. The views expressed herein are those of the authors only and are based upon independent research by them.
ABOUT ARCADIS Arcadis is the leading global design and consultancy firm for natural and built assets. Applying our deep market-sector insights and collective design, consultancy, engineering, project and management services we work in partnership with our clients to deliver exceptional and sustainable outcomes throughout the lifecycle of their natural and built assets. We are 27,000 people active in over 70 countries that generate €3.4 billion in revenues. We support UN-Habitat with knowledge and expertise to improve the quality of life in rapidly growing cities around the world. Arcadis. Improving quality of life. © 2016 Arcadis
8. FURTHER READING
BREXIT – MAKING THE MOST OF UNCERTAINTY
GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INDEX
LONDON PRIME RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE 2016
SUSTAINABILITY CITIES WATER INDEX
CONTACT US Richard Bonner UK Cities Director E richard.bonner@arcadis.com @Richbonner
Arcadis United Kingdom @ArcadisUK www.arcadis.com/uk
Arcadis. Improving quality of life