Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
www.seipub.org/updr
A Study of Practical Urban Sustainability Evaluation Indicators in Italy and Japan –Focusing on Influences on Consciousness and Actions of Local Governments Kaichi Ichikawa*1, Hisashi Kubota2 Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, 255 Shimo-okubo, Sakura-ku, Saitama, 338-8570, Japan *1
ichikawa@dp.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp; 2 hisashi@dp.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp
Abstract In recent years, a movement to develop practical evaluation indicators aiming at promoting realization of sustainable cities began to appear in the private sectors in Japan. However, the issue is whether such evaluation indicators are implemented continuously and influence consciousness and actions of local governments. This paper is to verify the effectiveness of the evaluation indicators by identifying the influence of the indicators on consciousness and actions of local governments. In this study, a comparative analysis of the practical evaluation indicators of Europe and Japan was conducted based on interview surveys and questionnaire surveys. Europe has over ten years of experience in development of evaluation indicators towards urban sustainability. We adopted “Urban Ecosystem” of Italy among the European evaluation indicators as a case example because it represents the leading practical indicators in Europe. Meanwhile, “Nikkei Indicators” developed by a Japanese research institution was chosen as practical evaluation indicators of Japan. As a result of examining the degree of presence of “contribution to local governments”, a certain influence was observed on the consciousness and actions of respective local governments of both countries. Keywords Urban Sustainability; Practical Evaluation Indicators; Influences on Local Governments; Japanese and Italian Cities
Introduction Europe, more advanced compared with Japan in realization of sustainable cities, is also one step ahead in development of the practical evaluation indicators aiming to promote the realization of sustainable cities. The urban evaluation indicators adopted by the governments and private sectors in Europe emphasize that the three aspects of environment, economy and society (fairness and equality) called the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL), which focuses on environmental
preservation, are developed in a well-balanced manner. These indicators aim to develop economy and society under environmental constraints so as not to put a heavy burden on the environment in future. Like in Europe, a move to break away from fossil fuel to cope with the climate change and the increasing momentum of decoupling from nuclear power generation are prevailing recently in Japan. Japan is now urged to realize the sustainable cities based on the “TBL.” However, in order to promote such efforts, it is required to develop practical evaluation indicators that allow for defining sustainable cities specifically, and a study toward that goal is essential. Effectiveness of the practical evaluation indicators, however, needs to be recognized so that they may be accepted widely and established firmly in society. To confirm the effectiveness of the evaluation indicators, approaches from various viewpoints including validity of the calculation method of the indicators as well as validity of integration of the indicators are considered useful. However, as the objective of the practical evaluation indicators is to promote sustainable cities, the viewpoint of “contribution to local governments” or usefulness of the indicators in policies and actions of the local governments could serve as an important lead to confirm their effectiveness. This study, accordingly, aims to identify the “contribution of the practical evaluation indicators to local governments”, which began to develop based on TBL in Europe and Japan. As case examples of the practical evaluation indicators, "Urban Ecosystem" (“Ecosistema Urbano” in Italian)" developed by Ambiente Italia, a private research institution in Italy, and the "Nikkei Sustainable Urban Evaluation Indicators" (hereafter referred to as “Nikkei Indicators”) adopted by Nihon Keizai Shimbun
59
www.seipub.org/updr
(Nikkei, Inc.) for the investigation of municipalities across Japan, were used. Nihon Keizai Shimbun is one of Japanese media organizations. It is considered to be meaningful to identify the “contribution to local governments” in that it will serve as an important key to prove the effectiveness of the practical evaluation indicators. There are some past important studies on the usage of the evaluation indicators for sustainable cities. Tanguay (2009) analyzed the usage status of total of 17 kinds of sustainable urban evaluation indicators developed in Europe and North America. He revealed that, among the total of 188 individual indicators composing the 17 evaluation indicators, only 32 individual indicators were used 4 times or more and only 23 were used 5 times or more. Tanguay pointed out that the difficulty in consensus formation in the process of development of sustainable evaluation indicators resulted from ambiguity of the definition of sustainable development, and purpose of use and selection of indicators. He, further, proposed that a list of indicators be adopted which covered broad fields while minimizing the number of indicators. Regarding the effectiveness of evaluation indicators, Brugmann (1997) advocated the necessity for the development of indicators relating them to policy formation of local governments, based on the case examples ("Sustainable Seattle" created by a non-profit organization in Seattle, Washington, USA, etc.). He argued that it was not meaningful to develop indicators unrelated to the policies and the work of local governments. However, the effectiveness of the evaluation indicators was not analysed in his study, and not in Tanguay’s study either. In contrast, this study had a novelty in respect that it was conducted based on positive evidence through the case examples of typical evaluation indicators of Italy and Japan with a focus placed on “contribution to local governments” as a key to verify the effectiveness of evaluation indicators, while sharing the basic idea of Brugmann. “Contribution to local governments” is to assess whether the evaluation indicators are useful for the policies and actions of local governments. It is ,therefore, considered to be a highly important viewpoint in order to verify the effectiveness of evaluation indicators as a practical tool to accelerate the realization of sustainable cities. There has been so far no studies that explored the effectiveness of sustainable urban evaluation indicators from this
60
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
viewpoint. "Urban Ecosystem" of Italy is chosen because it represents Europe’s leading practical evaluation indicators to facilitate formation of sustainable cities. It also has great influence on development of indicators in Europe and is highly appreciated among the concerned personnel of local governments in Italy. There also exists no such evaluation indicators in Europe as Ecosystem that has been used for evaluating local governments every year over a long period of time. Meanwhile, the Nikkei Indicators is chosen as evaluation indicators of Japan since it is the only practical evaluation indicator available in Japan to implement external evaluation of the urban sustainability and to urge local governments to form sustainable cities. It is also the only case example that the evaluation indicators have been implemented continuously targeting local governments. Materials and Method In this study, analysis of the evaluation indicators of Italy was made through literature surveys and interview surveys first. Persons interviewed locally include the key persons of “Ambiente Italia”, an private institute for environmental sustainability in Milan, Italy, and those who are in charge of the environment policy departments of local governments of Ferrara City and Bologna City. These cities were the subjects of evaluation. With respect to the evaluation indicators of Japan (“Nikkei Indicators”), questionnaire surveys of local governments were conducted in addition to literature surveys. Interview surveys to local governments were also carried out in order to complement the questionnaire surveys. Outline of Urban Evaluation Indicators of Italy First, outline of the "Ecosystem", which is the practical urban evaluation indicators in Italy, is provided in the following. The “Urban Ecosystem”, urban evaluation indicators, is an evaluation project to monitor the level of efforts of over 100 provincial capital cities toward urban sustainability. This project was entrusted to the “Ambiente Italia” by the “Legambiente”, largest Italian environmental NGO. The “Urban Ecosystem” has been implemented every year by Ambiente Italia since 1994. It is well recognized among the experts and
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
municipal concerned personnel in Europe since it constitutes the main part of the European Common Indicators (ECI) and the current evaluation indicators of the European Green Capital Award. Table 1 shows the main indicators of total 25 indicators. TABLE 1. MAIN INDICATORS OF “URBAN ECOSYSTEM”
<Air> NO2 concentrations（μg/mc） PM10 concentrations （μg/mc） <Water> Domestic water consumption per inhabitant (ℓ) <Refuse> Emissions of domestic waste per inhabitant per year(kg) <Mobility> Passengers per year travelling on public transport Number of registered cars per 100 inhabitants <Urban environment> Pedestrian areas per inhabitant(m2) Public green areas availability per inhabitant (m2) <Energy> Ｒｅｎｅｗａｌ ｅｎｅｒｇy(solar power generation in public buildings, etc)
It features many transportation-related indicators including “spread of automobiles,” “pedestrian zone,” “automobile-traffic restricted area” and “bicycle path,” which are incorporated in the urban environmental category. Every year, the Ecosystem sends a written inquiry to the mayor and person responsible for environmental policy in every city. The written inquiry consists of questionnaire on a piece of A4 size paper created for every indicator. A perfect score is 100 points. Point allocation is 21 points for “atmosphere,” 14 points for “water,” 20 points for “transportation,” 13 points for “wastes,” 15 points for “urban environment,” and 17 points for the “energy policy” category. If the three indicators “pedestrian zone,” “automobile-traffic restricted area,” and “bicycle path” (point allocation is 8 in total) included in the “urban environment” category are regarded as “transportation-related” indicators, point allocation for “transportation” comes to a conspicuously high 28 points. In 2010, Belluno, a small city in Veneto Province (population 36,618) won 1st place (71.5 points). Many small to medium-size cities in the northern and central part of Italy including Belluno ranked high. But big
www.seipub.org/updr
cities such as Rome (75th place, 45.78 points) and Milan (63rd place, 48.18 points) fared badly. Outline of Urban Evaluation Indicators of Japan Next, the "Nikkei Indicators", practical urban evaluation indicators in Japan, is outlined below. Nikkei Research Institute of Nikkei, Inc. developed Nikkei Indicators in 2007, which serves as practical evaluation indicators to conduct external assessment of sustainability of all cities in Japan. It has been designed with reference to various evaluation indicators in Europe more advanced in their design and implementation. The following three aspects (TBL) are defined as criteria to measure and assess the sustainability of each city: (1) environment (2) economy and (3) social fairness and equality. Table 2 shows the main content of the Nikkei Indicators. The environmental evaluation criteria covers eight fields as shown below: 1) Establishment of environmental management system 2) Present status of environmental quality (atmosphere, water quality, soil) 3) Measures against climate change 4) Measures for waste disposal 5) Transportation management 6) Urban life environment 7) Measures for energy 8) Modal split (number of private passenger cars, accessibility to public transportation, etc.). As the number of years implementing the indicator items grew, the number of environmental indicators increased, reaching 61 items in the survey of 2011. With these indicator items, not only political efforts but also qualitative levels were assessed. Basically, one point was allocated to each indicator, and adjusted standard deviation scores were counted regardless of the number of indicators. The adjusted standard deviation scores were then counted as the point score for the corresponding field and an average value of the adjusted standard deviation scores of eight fields were defined as the score for environmental aspect. The aspect of economy consists of six indicators for two fields of “industry” and “municipal finance.” The aspect of social stability consists of 23 indicators for seven fields of “composition of population and social vitality,” “residential environment,” “welfare,” “medical service,” “educational service,” “culture and leisure,” and “safety.” The total number of indicators
61
www.seipub.org/updr
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
for the three evaluation aspects is 90. For the two evaluation aspects of economy and society, all indicators were once converted into adjusted standard deviation scores, and average value of the adjusted standard deviation scores was counted as the score for each evaluation criteria. In this way, the Nikkei measures every city based on all the three aspects of TBL (=evaluation criteria) as well as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;urban sustainabilityâ&#x20AC;? that represents an overall evaluation. TABLE 2. MAIN INDICATORS SET IN NIKKEI SUSTAINABLE CITY SURVEY
adjusted standard weighted.
deviation
score)
is
double-
The average adjusted standard deviation score was then obtained through calculation of the weighted average of each adjusted standard deviation score of the three evaluation aspects, and was used as the score for overall evaluation. Thus, a city that develops in a well-balanced form in the three aspects of the TBL is the ideal image of city that the Nikkei Indicators aims for.
Introduction of community cycle system
Regarding the survey method to collect indicator data, we entrusted Nikkei Research, a research firm of the Nikkei group, to do mailing, collection of inquiry forms, and aggregate calculation. A survey was conducted every two years, in 2007, 2009 and 2011, targeting all local governments throughout Japan. To collect the specific indicator data, survey forms concerning many of the indicators on the environment and a part of indicators on society were mailed. Assessment was then conducted based on the responses from the local governments. As for a part of the indicators on the environment such as the ratio of passengers of railways and buses per travelling population and other indicators including indicators on the economy, national statistical data and data created by other private research institutes were used.
Accessibility to public transportation (ratio of residences located within 500m from stations=%)
Grades of the evaluation result in the 3rd survey conducted in 2011 are provided below.
(2011)
Environment Introduction of environmental managent system Introduction of guideline for green procurement Degree of achievement of each environmental standard such as CO,SO2,Ox,NO2,SPM(%) 2
CO emission per capita Ratio of low-emission vehicle Emissions of domestic wastes per inhabitant per day Introduction of community bus and number of uses per capita
Cars per inhabitant Adoption rate of sewage system (%) Area of city parks per inhabitant (m 2 ) Total accumulated capacity of the solar power generation facilities installed by inhabitants and businesses Economy "GRP" (Gross Regional Product) equivalent amount per capita ([agricultural production amount + industry delivery amount+ commercial annual sales] per capita) Real debt expenditure ratio Social stability Number of retail stores per 1000 inhabitants Number of hospitals and medical clinics per 1000 inhabitants Total number of library book stock per per 1000 inhabitants Number of criminal offenses per 1000 inhabitants
To totalize, the aspect of environment (average
62
a) Among the cities subjected to the evaluation, many cities of big metropolitan areas such as Tokyo enforcing environmental measures with strong financial power ranked high in overall evaluation. This suggests that it is generally easier for cities with strong financial power to tackle environmental preservation. However, quite a number of cities were devoted to enforcing environmental policies including transportation management and introduction of renewable energy, regardless of their financial and economic power. b) Only few cities were developing in a well-balanced form in the three evaluation aspects of environment, economy and social stability. No city gained a score of 60 or more in all of the three evaluation aspects. Only 70 cities won a score of 50 or more, which accounted for a little over 10% of the total.
Ecosystem and Nikkei Indicators differ in the subject
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
fields of evaluation. The subject field of the former is quality of environment in a broad sense while the latter covers the fields of environment, economy and society focusing on the environment. In addition, the former targets only provincial capital cities in Italy while the latter conducts the evaluation on a larger scale, targeting all cities in Japan. "Contribution to Local Governments" of the Evaluation Indicators The evaluation indicators of Italy and Japan have been outlined above. First, the viewpoint of whether the evaluation indicators have an influence on policies and actions of local governments was set as an analytical framework to check the effectiveness of evaluation indicators. The following viewpoints were then set as specific standards to explore the “contribution to local governments”: (1) Level of continuity of implementation (including maintaining lineup and number of participating cities) (2) Scale of influence on consciousness and actions of local governments We adopted these two viewpoints considering that temporal continuity and influence on actions and policies of local governments are the most important to examine the degree of contribution to local governments. “Contribution to Local Governments” of “Ecosystem” 1) Viewpoint of “Continuity of Implementation” We first focused an attention on “starting year and duration of implementation” to analyze the continuity of implementation. As a result, it was confirmed that “Urban Ecosystem” of Italy has been continuing for more than 15 years since its implementation started. It is also observed that “Urban Ecosystem” enjoys high continuity in terms of the lineup and number of participating cities as well. The subject cities are more than 100 provincial capital cities in Italy. Participation is not compulsory, but all subject cities participate in the survey every year. Ms. Maria Bellini, President of Ambiente Italia said in an interview that the evaluation results were posted as a special topic on the separate edition of the Italy’s largest economic paper “il Sole 24 ore” (Milan) in October every year. She added that it
www.seipub.org/updr
had a positive impact on the local governments in implementation of the evaluation indicators. 2) Viewpoint of “Influences on Consciousnesss and Actions of Local Governments” Next, investigation on the second viewpoint “influences on consciousness and actions of local governments” was conducted through interview surveys. The city of Parma (population of about 180,000), a midsized city of Emilia-Romagna province, is a typical case. According to Mr. Lorenzo Bono, senior researcher of Ambiente Italia, Parma always ranks at the top level in overall evaluation. It has been, from the beginning, focusing its efforts on improvement of public transportation system (buses) and bicycle paths. It has also devoted its efforts to promoting bicycle policy for “sustainable mobility”, taking the opportunity of adding “introduction of bike-sharing” as one of the evaluation indicators several years ago. The bicycle paths have now been extended from 90 km to 160 km. They also launched a plan to set up 10 bicycles at every 10 stations exclusively for the purpose of bike-sharing Mr. Bono pointed out in an interview, that Parma City’s case was a good example that had a positive influence on the policies of local governments. Parma has been strengthening its efforts every year during these 10 years, to make improvements in environmental aspect, including conditions of use and supply of public-transportation services. Accordingly, its ranking rose. (28th place in 2001, 20th place in 2004, and 3rd place in 2010.) In addition to Parma, cities such as Bologna and Ferrara are actively utilizing the evaluation indicators for their policies from the viewpoint of PDCA. (Mr. Bono said.) An interview was also conducted to local governments with respect to effectiveness of the evaluation indicators. In an interview in July, 2007, Ms. Paola Poggillini of midsized city of Ferrara City (population of around 130,000) stated that they were utilizing the Ecosystem such as indicators for the “EcoBudget”(municipal accounts based on the view point of environment). Remarking that monitoring of these indicators was very useful for communication with citizens, she emphasized that they were contributing to the reinforcement of accountability and communication with the
63
www.seipub.org/updr
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
citizens.
Nikkei, Inc. that conducted the survey.
An interview survey was also carried out to Bologna City (population of around 380,000), one of large cities in Italy. Mr. Giovanni Fini, Coordinator of “Environmental Quality” of the Bureau of Environment and Energy of the city, pointed out in the interview that external evaluation indicators had influences on the consciousness and actions of local governments in (a)enhancement of competitive consciousness by comparison with others and (b)change in policies and actions.
Surveys with Nikkei Indicators were implemented in 2007, 2009 and 2011. Response rate was investigated in the surveys. As a result, it was found that the response rate of subject local governments increased as the number of surveys grew in all subject cities across Japan, as shown in Figure 1. From the above high response rate exceeding 80% and increase of response rate year by year, “continuity of evaluation implementation” is considered relatively high.
As to the influences on actions, he mentioned collection (recycling) of separated refuse as a specific example. He added that although the city had been behind other cities in collection of separated refuse, they started installing large refuse containers in the central district of the city and collecting itemized refuse such as paper since 2011, which led to the increase of recycling rate.
Next, a survey was conducted on the lineup of responding local governments. It found that those who responded to all three inquiries comprised 349 cities, which accounted for 72.6% of the respondents in the 1st survey. It also revealed that, of the 654 cities having responded in the 3rd survey, 584 cities accounting for about 90% responded in the 1st or the 2nd survey. Consequently, it is concluded that, with respect to Nikkei Indicators, “continuity of evaluation implementation” is deemed generally high.
Based on the suggestions obtained from the foregoing case study of the evaluation indicators, influences on the municipal consciousness and actions are classified as follows:
Nikkei Indicators was planned to be implemented in 2013 since it had been implemented every other year.
1) Encouragement to create new policies (bike sharing, etc.) 2) Contribution to the development of a local agenda (action plan for sustainable city strategy) and decision-making regarding sustainable policies
90
% 80
3) Contribution to creation of tools for accountability to and communications with citizens
79.5 (641)
80.8 (654)
70
4) Contribution to vitalization of municipal activities through competition with other cities subjected to evaluation "Contribution to Local Governments" of the "Nikkei Indicators" 1) Viewpoint of "Continuity of Implementation" Next, “Contribution to local governments" of the "Nikkei Indicators" is made clear herein. First, in order to confirm the primary criterion “continuity of evaluation implementation, a survey was conducted as to how many local governments were participating in the efforts and also whether there was any change in the lineup of participants. The survey was based on the data of research reports issued by Nikkei Research Institute of
64
60 59.8 (481)
50 2007
2009
2011 year
FIG 1.TRANSITION OF RESPONSE RATE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO THE NIKKEI INDICATORS
It was, however, not implemented in 2013 from the force of circumstances of the implementing body. 2) Viewpoint of “Influences on Consciousnes and Actions of LocalGgovernments” First, questionnaire survey was conducted in December, 2011 in order to examine the influence of Nikkei Indicators on the consciousness and actions of local governments toward development
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
www.seipub.org/updr
of sustainable cities. 630 cities were selected, as the subjects for the questionnaire survey, from among the 654 cities having responded to the “3rd Survey on Urban Sustainability” instituted in July 2011. The 23 wards of Tokyo were excluded from the nationwide ranking by evaluation results, by the evaluating body (Nikkei Research Institute of Nikkei, Inc.). Kishiwada City of Osaka, which gave inadequate responses, was also excluded. Details of survey method are as follows: Inquiry forms (questionnaire and reply sheets in Excel format) titled “Inquiry for local governments of Nikkei Sustainable City Survey” were sent by email to personnel of the 630 cities responsible for reply (mainly personnel in planning departments and departments related to environmental policies) in early December 2011. Of the 630 municipalities, 245 cities responded to the questionnaire survey, accounting for the response rate of 38.9%. This seems that since the inquiry survey was for the purpose of academic study and its result was not to be publicized by the media, it might have negatively influenced the motivation of respondents. Before exploring the influences on policies and actions of local governments, investigation was conducted as to the views of responsible personnel of the responding local governments regarding the evaluation system based on the Nikkei Indicators. We asked first the local governments about their thinking on ranking by the evaluation results, requesting them to select one answer from the following items: a) Very useful as a reference b) Useful as a reference to some extent c) Not so useful as a reference d) Not useful as a reference at all e) No specific opinion. Figure 2 shows the results. The response largest in number was “Useful as a reference to some extent,” accounting for 61.6% (151 cities) of the total. The local governments having responded “Very useful as a reference” (6.9%，17 cities) and “Useful as a reference” combined accounted for nearly 70 percent.
Very usuful as a reference 6.9%
Not useful as a reference 1.2%
No specific opinion 21.2%
Useful as a reference to some extent 61.6%
Not so useful as a reference 9.0%
FIG.2. THINKING ABOUT RANKING BY EVALUATION RESULTS(Ｎ＝245)
From the ranking results, it can be gathered that many local governments seemed to be withholding comment on their positioning provided in the evaluation results. However, many of them showed a great interest in the ranking by evaluation results. The local governments having responded “Very useful as a reference” and “Useful as a reference to some extent” were asked to select multiple answers from the followings as reason(s) for their responses: a) Become possible to compare policy and actions with other local governments b) Become easier to set a goal for policy and actions c) Useful for providing citizens with city’s administrative information d) Others. 0
50
100
Become possible to compare policy and actions with local governments
150
200 152
Become easier to set a goal for policy and actions
56
Useful for providing citizens with city's administrative information
27
Others
5
No answer
2
FIG 3. REASON FOR RESPONSE(MULTIPLE RESPONSES,N=245)
The results of the survey are shown in Figure 3. The local governments having responded “Become possible to compare policy and actions with other local governments” accounted for 90.5% (152 cities) and those having responded “Become easier to set a goal for policy and actions” accounted for 33.3% (56 cities). In conclusion, it is discovered that quite a number of local governments take the system positively for the reason that it allows for
65
www.seipub.org/updr
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
comparison with other local governments and providing citizens with administrative information.
-To implement or review specific policies in the environmental field
Next, a survey was conducted as to whether Nikkei Indicators have influences on the policies and actions of local governments toward realization of sustainable cities.
-To provide citizens with information on municipal administration
We first asked local governments about their intentions regarding utilizing the urban sustainability evaluation based on the TBL for their policies and work, requesting them to select one answer from the followings: (a) Wish to utilize to a great degree (b) Wish to utilize to some extent (c) No intention to utilize so much (d) No intention to utilize at all (e) No specific opinion. As shown in Figure 4, “No specific opinion” was the answer largest in number (60.8%, 149 cities). “Wish to utilize to some extent” came next, which was answered by 22.9% of respondants (56 cities). Combining those 56 cities with those expressing “wish to utilize to a great degree” (2.4% 6 cities), 62 cities gave positive responses, which accounted for 25.3% of the respondents. No answer 0.4%
Wish to utilize to a great degree 2.4%
Wish to utilize to some extent 22.9% No specific opinion 60.8%
No intention to utilize so much 11.8%
No intention to utilize at all 1.6%
FIG.4 THINKING ABOUT UTILIZING TBL EVALUATION ASPECTS FOR POLICIES AND WORK (N＝245)
“Implementation or review of specific policies in the environmental field” accounted for 56.5% (35 cities), a relatively large number. “Creation or review of the city’s basic plan and comprehensive plan” (34 cities) and “development of a basic environmental plan in the environmental field and local agenda (33 cities)” exceeded half of the respondents. A stance of utilizing the evaluation indicators actively for municipal administration was observed. Meanwhile, we looked into the relation between the evaluation result by the ranking and response to the question of thinking about the evaluation system. As a result, it was revealed that many of the 62 cities having provided a positive response of “Wish to utilize to a great degree” or “Wish to utilize to some extent” were not necessarily ranked high in the overall evaluation. Figure 5 shows the details of the relation between the ranking and response to the question of thinking about the evaluation system (with response consolidated into three items, “Wish to utilize,” “No intention to utilize” and “No specific opinion.”). Of the 62 cities, only 15 (accounting for 24.2% of the total) ranked in the top 99 while 35 cities (accounting for 56.5% of the total) ranked in the top 200. 21 cities ranked in the top 300 corresponding to less than half of the subject cities (630 cities) accounted for 33.9% of the total. 0%
20%
Wishing to utilize"(total 62 cities) 4.8 8.1
40%
11.3
60%
19.4
80%
22.6
24.2
100%
9.7 rank 1-9 rank 10-29 rank 30-99
No intention to utilize"(total 33 cities)
6.1 9.1 3.0
18.2
27.3
rank 100-199
36.4
rank 200-299 rank 300-499 rank beyond 500
Concerning these 62 cities, intentions as to how they wish to utilize the evaluation indicators were investigated. They were requested to make multiple choices from the following: -To create or review the city’s basic plan and comprehensive plan -To develop a basic plan in the environmental field and local agenda
66
No specific opinion"(total 149 cities) 4.0
16.8
16.1
16.1
28.9
18.1
FIG.5 RELATION BETWEEN RANKING AND RESPONSE TO QUESTION OF THINKING ABOUT THE EVALUATION SYSTEM
Evaluation by ranking is expected to encourage the local governments ranked low to redouble their efforts. Although the survey conducted this time did not necessarily give a result that met such
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
expectation, it was interesting to learn that many of the local governments ranked low have a positive view of TBL. In the meantime, time factors need to be emphasized in order to examine the influence on policies and actions of local governments. In the preceding section, we reviewed the fact that local governments wishing to utilize the urbansustainability evaluation based on TBL for their own policies and work constituted 62 cities of 245 cities, which accounted for 25.3% of the total. For these 245 cities, differences in evaluation contents were investigated. The contents were summarized into 3 items: 1) Wish to utilize 2) No intention to utilize 3) No specific opinion. In conducting the investigation, the 245 cities were classified into 1) local governments having responded to the previous survey in 2009 as well as year-2011 survey and 2) those having not responded to the previous survey but responded to the 2011 survey. Of the local governments having responded only to the 2011 survey (39cities), those responding “wish to utilize” accounted for 20.5%, whereas, of the local governments having responded to both surveys (206 cities), those responding “wish to utilize” accounted for 26.2% and surpassed the former local governments by 4.7 points. It suggests that the local governments that responded continuously have a more positive view about the evaluation system. However, it is not possible, from this result only, to see in detail how the responding local governments view the past surveys. We therefore asked, in the previous survey, the local governments responding to the third survey conducted in 2011 about to what extent they knew about the past two surveys (first survey in 2007 and second survey in 2009). One answer was to be selected from the following choices:
www.seipub.org/updr
as the duty has been handed over to a successor. c) Although the person in charge has changed, we know the results of the ranking of the local goverement as the duty has been handed over to a successor. d) Although the person in charge has changed but the duty has not been handed over to a successor, we know the results of the ranking. e) As the person in charge has changed but the duty has not been handed over to a successor, we know almost nothing. f) Others. 116 of 245 cities (47.3%) responded “As the person in charge has changed but the duty has not been handed over to successor, we know almost nothing”, which was largest in number. The reason for this response is presumed that local governments necessarily do not place an importance on responding to private surveys. The local governments that responded “We know an outline of the survey” include 43 of 245 cities (17.6%) with the response “We know an outline of the survey result” and 40 cities with the response “We know the ranking only,” which add up to 83 cities and account for 33.9 percent. We additionally asked these 83 cities whether they were utilizing the evaluation system based on TBL for promoting their policies and work. One answer was to be selected from the following choices: a) Utilizing the three evaluation aspects of TBL to a great degree b) Utilizing the three evaluation aspects of TBL to some extent c) Not utilizing the three evaluation aspects of TBL so much d) Not utilizing the three evaluation aspects of TBL at all e) No specific opinion. Figure 6 shows its results.
a) The person in charge has not changed and we know an outline of the survey method and results.
“Utilizing to a great degree” accounted for 4.8% (four cities) and “Utilizing to some extent” accounted for 28.9% (24 cities). Both responses combined accounted for 33.7%.
b) Although the person in charge has changed, we know an outline of the survey method and results
An interesting point to note was that this number surpassed, by over 8 points, the ratio of the local
67
www.seipub.org/updr
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
governments (25.3%) having replied “Wish to utilize” in response to a similar question based on the survey of July, 2011. It was also found that, as compared with the response rate (26.2%) of local governments having responded from the 2009’s survey, the number surpassed it by over 7 points. No answer 1.2%
No specific opinion 40.5%
29.85% (25 cities), which was largest in number. The responses “Development of municipal comprehensive plan” (23 cities) and “Making the basic environmental plan and local agenda” (18 cities) followed in number. Among these cities, Mitaka City of Tokyo was making efforts to create policies toward the realization of a sustainable city triggered by the Nikkei Indicators. The survey of Mitaka City revealed that, inspired by winning the 1st place of ranking in overall evaluation in the first survey (2007) based on the Nikkei Indicators, they established a “Sustainable City Mitaka Study Group” in the “Mitaka Research Institute,” a think tank of the city, in April, 2011. They then compiled, in December, 2011, a report on a desirable sustainable city, which integrated three viewpoints of “environmental preservation,” “development of economy,” and “society and culture.”
Utilizing to a great degree 4.8%
Utilizing to some extent 28.6%
Not utilizing so much 16.7% Not utilizing at all 8.3%
FIG.6 WHETHER TBL EVALUATION SYSTEM ARE USED FOR POLICIES AND WORK(N=83) 0
10
20
30
Implementation of policies in the environmental field
25
Development of municipal comprehensive plan
23
Making of basic environmental plan and local agenda Providing citizens with municipal information
18 12
Others
No answer
22 19
FIG.7 HOW EVALUATION INDICATORS SET IN THE SURVEY ARE UTILIZED?
Furthermore, a survey of 83 cities was conducted with respect to what kind of undertakings they were utilizing the evaluation indicators for. Figure 7 shows the results. In the survey, multiple answers were to be selected from the following choices: a) Development of the municipal comprehensive plan b) Making the basic environmental plan and local agenda c) Implementation of policies in the environmental field d) Providing citizens with municipal information e) Others. As a result, the response “Implementation of policies in the environmental field” accounted for
68
Moreover, Mitaka City launched the realization of the policy for sustainability embracing comprehensively the three elements of environmental problems, vitalization of economy and solutions for social problems in their 4th basic plan (a long-term plan targeting fiscal year 2022). They also set out new policies taking environment, economy and society of TBL into account, which included establishment of the “encouragement system for development of an environmentally friendly city” in 2013. In that system, financial incentives are granted to developers engaging in large-scale housing development on conditions that solar power generation and fuel battery cogeneration facilities be introduced. Maebashi City of Gunma Prefecture, having responded “Others,” stated specifically that they were utilizing TBL for implementation or review of the concrete policies in order to realize the future of the city declared in the sixth comprehensive plan of Maebashi City. Likewise, Okazaki City of Aichi Prefecture stressed that TBL was utilized as a means for benchmarking other cities as in the cities in Europe, remarking “TBL is serving to inspire the enthusiasm of the city by way of ranking and digitizing the deviation value.” They also stated, in a survey conducted separate from the inquiry survey, that they were considering utilizing the Nikkei Indicators for developing their secondstage comprehensive plan covering six years starting in 2015.
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
www.seipub.org/updr
Comparative analysis of Both Evaluation Indicators of Italy and Japan
Result revealed that “continuity of implementation” of both indicators was relatively high.
1) First, the following two points were investigated with respect to the “continuity of implementation” of the evaluation indicators of Italy and Japan as shown in Table 3; “starting year and duration of implementation” and “change in lineup of participating cities”.
Italy’s “Urban Ecosystem,” has been continuously implemented for more than 15 years from the beginning. Furthermore, all provincial capital cities are taking part in the project every year. It can be said, therefore, that contribution to local governments is quite significant.
TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF THE PRACTICAL URBAN SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION INDICATORS OF ITALY AND JAPAN
Name of country
Italy
Japan
Name of evaluation indicators
Urban Ecosystem ("Ecosistema urbano" in Italian)
"Nikkei Uraban Sustainability Evaluation Indicators"
Implementing body
Legambiente (NGO), Ambiente Italia (Italian private research Research institute of Nikkei, institute for environmental Inc sustainability)
Cities due for evaluation
All capital cities of provinces in Italy
All cities in Japan
Field due for evaluation
Environmental sustainability
Environment, economy and society
Number of evaluation indicator items
25
90(environment:61,economy:6, society:23)
Handling of evaluation results
Continuity of implementation
Influences of evaluation result on the consciousness and actions of local governments
Starting year and duration of implementation
Publication of ranking through Publication of ranking through national newspaper in Italy national newspaper in Japan Implemented every other year Implemented every year since since 2007 (not implemented 1994 in 2013)
Lineup of participating cities
All cities participating
Response rate has increased; most recently on 80 % level
Vitalization of local government activities through comparison with other cities
Influence observed
Great influence observed
Setting of goals for policies and actions
Influence observed
Moderate influence observed
Creation of communication tools for citizens
Influence observed
Slight influence observed
Creation of new policies
Slight influence obsered
Slight influence observed
69
www.seipub.org/updr
Investigation was also conducted with respect to the degree of “continuity of implementation of evaluation,” which was set forth as the first criterion to explore the “contribution to local governments” of Nikkei Indicators. It focused on: a) response rate, and b) lineup of responding local governments. As a result, it was found that: - Response rate increased as the number of surveys grew (three in total), reaching the 80% level in the latest year 2011’s survey, with 654 of 809 cities having responded. - As for the lineup of local governments, those having responded every year accounted for 72.6% of local governments (481 cities) that had responded to the 1 st survey. It was also discovered that, of the 654 cities having responded in the 3rd survey, 584 cities responded in the 1st or 2nd survey as well, which accounted for about 90% of the total. It has, thus, been made clear that “continuity of implementation of evaluation” is relatively high. High level of continuity of the evaluation indicators of both countires is attributed largely to the media’s prominent coverage of evaluation results including ranking, which has given a stimulus to enthusiasm of local governments for participation. 2) Next, the influence of evaluation results on consciousness and actions of local governments was analyzed by categorizing the influences into the following four items; (a)Vitalization of local government activities by comparison with others (=benchmarking) (b)Setting of goals of policies and undertakings (c)Formation of communication tools with citizens (d) Creation of new policies Although only qualitative analysis through interviews could be conducted concerning the Ecosystem of Italy, it was confirmed that evaluation results had generally influences on every item. As a specific example that indicated the influence on new policies, the momentum of introducing bike sharing began to grow among local governments since it was set, in the “Urban Ecosystem”, as one of the evaluation indicators as a means to promote use of bicycles. On the other hand, quantitative analysis (= questionnaire survey) was made in detail concerning the Nikkei Indicators.
70
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
As a result, it was revealed that the evaluation results had great influences on the “vitalization of local government activities through comparison with others(=benchmarking). It was also confirmed that there were relatively important influences on the “setting of goals of policies and undertakings” In contrast, influences on the “creation of communication tools with citizens” as well as the “creation of new policies” were slight. Conclusions In this study, the viewpoint of “contribution to local governments” was first introduced as a lead to confirm the effectiveness of the urban-sustainability evaluation system. As an analytical framework to explore the “contribution to local governments,” two criteria were set: 1) continuity of implementation of evaluation and 2) influence on consciousness and actions towards sustainable cities. Then, through comparison of the "Ecosystem" of Italy and the "Nikkei Indicators" of Japan used as the case examples of practical evaluation indicators, the following knowledge was acquired concerning "the contribution to local governments" 1) First, with respect to the “continuity of implementation”, focus was placed on the “starting year and duration of implementation” as well as “change in lineup of participating cities" and a certain degree of continuity was observed on the indicators of both countries. It is deemed that it stems from the prominent coverage by the media of the evaluation results of both countries including ranking, which has enhanced the motivation of the local governments for participation. 2) Influence on the policies and actions of local governments was limited. Regarding the Nikkei Indicators of Japan, quantitative analysis was made. -As for the consciousness of the evaluation system of local governments, nearly 70% of cities had a positive view about “ranking by evaluation result,” expressing that it was “useful as a reference” because they could make a comparison with other cities. Meanwhile, quite a number of local governments had a negative view about actual utilization of the urbansustainability evaluation system based on TBL. 3) It was, however, confirmed that, among the local
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
governments having received consistently similar ratings, relatively more local governments had a positive thinking about utilizing the evaluation indicators for their policies and work effectively than those that underwent the evaluation based on TBL for the first time. It is suggested from this finding that, by implementing the evaluation continuously, the number of local governments that reflect the evaluation system on their policies and work will likely increase. In fact, the surveys and interviews of advanced local governments including Mitaka City ascertained that, among the local governments responding to Nikkei surveys continuously, the number of cities already utilizing the evaluation indicators for implementing their specific policies in the environmental field as well as for creating comprehensive plans began to increase. 4) In this study, quantitative analysis of Italy could not be made. It will be a future subject of the study to implement, in addition to literature and interview surveys, questionnaire surveys to local governments like Japan and enhance the accuracy of comparative analysis of Japan and Italy. Also, as to the Nikkei Indicators, quite a number of local governments reserved judgment, expressing “no specific opinion” as to reflection of the evaluation system in their policies and work. It is accordingly regarded as one of future subjects of the study to discover actual conditions of those local governments that reserved judgment. The background and reasons for those reserving judgment need to be identified through further interviews and detailed literature researches including ones on the Internet.
www.seipub.org/updr
As for Bologna City, an interview was conducted to Mr. Giovanni Fini, Coordinator of Environmental Quality of Environment and Energy Bureau, at its city government office on September 18, 2012. 2. Interview with Mitaka City was conducted with Mr. Yoshitaka Iwasaki, Manager of the Environmental Policy Department, on February 21, 2013. 3. Interview with Okazaki City was conducted with Mr. Akinori Okada of the Planning Department of Planning and Finance Division on January 16, 2012. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to those persons in Italy and Japan who responded to the survey. REFERENCES
Ambiente Italia. “Ecosistema Urbano -XVII edizione.” (2010) Ambiente Italia. “Ecosistema Urbano -XVIII edizione.” (2011) Ambiente Italia. “Ecosistema Urbano -XIX edizione.” (2012) Ambiente Italia. “Ecosistema Urbano -XX edizione.” (2013) Ambiente Italia. “Measuring Urban Sustainability- Analysis of the European Green Award 2010 & 2011 application round.” (2010) Brugmann, Jeb. “Is there a method in our measurement ? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning.” Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Vol.2, No.1, 59-72 (1997) Ichikawa, Kaichi & Kubota, Hisashi. “A study on practical
Notes
urban sustainability evaluation indicators in Europe.”
1. An interview was conducted to Ms. Maria Berini, President of Ambiente Italia at its headquarters on July 2, 2007. Mr. Berini is one of the prominent experts in urban environmental policies in Europe and responsible for evaluation of the local government environmental management field of the European Green Capital Award.
Journal of JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers) Vol.68,
Furthermore, an interview was conducted to Mr. Lorenzo Bono, Project Manager and Senior Researcher of Ambiente Italia, at its headquarters in Milan on June 23, 2011 and September 14, 2012. An interview was also conducted to Ms. Paola Poggipollini who is in charge of environmental management policy of Ferrara City at its city government office on July 3, 2007.
No.5, I_479-I_490 (2012) (in Japanese) Mitaka Research Institute of Mitaka City. “Sustainable City Mitaka Study Group” Report.” (2011) (in Japanese) Nikkei
Research
Institute,
Nationwide Urban
Nikkei,
Inc.
“2011
(3rd)
Sustainability Evaluation Study
Report.” Nikkei, Inc. (2012) (in Japanese) Nikkei Research Institute, Nikkei, Inc. “Challenge to Sustainable Cities—Nationwide Urban Sustainability Evaluation Study Report.” Nikkei,Inc.( 2010)
(in
Japanese) Tanguay, Georges., et.al, “Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of use of local indicators.” Ecological Indicators 10, 407-418 (2010)
71
www.seipub.org/updr
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our Common Future.â&#x20AC;? Oxford University Press (1987) Kaichi Ichikawa graduated from Waseda University in March, 1984. He is now a senior research fellow of the department of urban studies in Nikkei (Japan Economic
72
Urban Planning and Design Research (UPDR) Volume 2, 2014
Journal) and also pursues his Doctolate in the research field of urban sustainable development planning under guidance of Professor Hisashi Kubota in Saitama University. Hisashi Kubota is a Professor at Saitama University. He received Doctoral Degree in urban transportation planning from Tokyo University in 1988. He curently works as an expert in the field of urban transportation planning in national and regional committees.