BELLAGIO CONFERENCE REPORT - TOMORROW'S CITY TODAY ECO-CITY INDICATORS, STANDARDS & FRAMEWORKS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
INTERNATIONAL
ECO-CITIES
INITIATIVE
TOMORROW’S CITY TODAY
ECO-CITY INDICATORS, STANDARDS
& FRAMEWORKS
BELLAGIO CONFERENCE REPORT
2 BELLAGIO STATEMENT 6 CONCEPTUAL 10 EMERGING 15 LOCAL INDICATOR
PERSPECTIVES INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES
FRAMEWORKS
5 INTRODUCTION 8 GLOBAL OVERVIEW 13 NATIONAL 20 OUTLOOK
INDICATOR SCHEMES
EDITOR DECEMBER
SIMON JOSS 2012
ISBN: 978-0-9570527-2-7 The report should be referenced as follows: Joss, S. (ed.) 2012. Tomorrow’s City Today: Eco-City Indicators, Standards & Frameworks. Bellagio Conference Report. London: University of Westminster. Copyright © University of Westminster (International Eco-Cities Initiative), 2012. This publication may be reproduced and disseminated in whole or in part for educational and non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this report may be made for resale or any commercial purpose whatsoever without prior written permission from the University of Westminster. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. CREDITS Robert Cowley acted as Editorial Assistant on the Bellagio project, as part of which he conducted the video interviews of participants and assisted with the writing of this report. Daniel Tomozeiu acted as Facilitator for the conference and contributed background research for Table 2. Logos used in this report are registered trademarks and the copyright of the respective organisations featured, and reproduced by permission. The BREEAM logo is the copyright of BRE Ltd. The Community Capital Tool case study draws on Roseland, 2012 (see reading list). The conference group photograph was provided by the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center, and that of the Bellagio Center by Hongxing Xie. Design by Afroditi Kapassa, Intern Graphic Designer (Design for Communication, MA, University of Westminster).
TOMORROW’S CITY TODAY
ECO-CITY INDICATORS, STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORKS
Bellagio statement
This statement contains the conclusions
and recommendations as agreed by
the participants of the international
conference Tomorrow’s City Today
held in Bellagio, Italy, in September
2012. The event gathered together
international experts to discuss the scope
for developing and using indicators,
standards and frameworks for urban
sustainability, or eco-city, initiatives
around the world. The event was hosted
by the International Eco-Cities Initiative
and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation
(New York).
The conference participants hope that
the recommendations contained in the
Bellagio statement will make a valuable
contribution to policy-making, planning
and practice, at a time when a significant
growth in diverse ‘eco-city’ initiatives
across continents has been accompanied
by the emergence of various indicator
and accreditation schemes vying for Jutta Berns-Mumbi Ecocentric cc, Johannesburg, South Africa
international acceptance. Vatsal Bhatt Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA
Robert Cowley University of Westminster, London, UK
Tu Lan Do Urban Development Agency, Ministry of Construction, Ha Noi
City, Vietnam
Shanfeng Dong Bluepath City Consulting Co. Ltd, Beijing, China
Cate Harris Lend Lease, Millers Point, NSW, Australia
Simon Joss University of Westminster, London, UK
Gerd Lintz Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional
Development, Dresden, Germany
Arthur Molella Lemelson Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA
Bernhard Müller Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional
Development, Dresden, Germany
Luis A Paredes Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Quezon City,
the Philippines
Sue Riddlestone BioRegional, Surrey, UK
Mark Roseland Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada
Yvonne Rydin University College London, UK
Debashis Sen Department of Urban Development, Government of West Ben-
gal, Kolkata, India
Hiroaki Suzuki World Bank, Washington DC, USA
Daniel Tomozeiu University of Westminster, London, UK
Hongxing Xie Innovation Center for Clean-air Solutions, Beijing, China
1
BELLAGIO STATEMENT
General observations
1.The concept of sustainable development has existed for at least two decades, with some agreement over the scope of its
broad goals. However, in considering the design, development and use of indicators, standards and frameworks for urban
sustainability, one needs to bear in mind that this has not necessarily translated into a consensus on how these goals should be
structured, combined or achieved. Various actors prioritise different aspects of social, economic, and
environmental sustainability.
2. Likewise, one needs to bear in mind that urban sustainability can mean quite different things conceptually and practically
depending on scale: an initiative covering a large metropolitan area is likely to differ significantly from a
neighbourhood-based project.
3.Also, it is important to acknowledge that the contents and design of indicators involve various knowledge sources and claims.
As tools for intervening in governance, indicators (and related frameworks) carry an inherently political dimension.
4. In thinking about indicators (and related frameworks), it may be useful to consider that they involve issues of both substance
(relating to urban sustainability) and processes (related to governance).
5. In considering indicators, standards and frameworks, attention should be paid to the differences in the nature of priorities, to
complexity and to uncertainty at various levels (for example, city-wide level versus operational/site-specific level; and public
authority perspective versus business perspective).
6. There is an ongoing need for research into the comparability of indicators, standards and frameworks, especially at an
international level. Such research should also critically engage with the wider debate about the purpose of,
and need for, international frameworks for urban sustainability.
Observations, lessons and recommendations pertaining to individual initiatives
1. Indicators and frameworks should be designed, implemented and engaged within the context of local policy, practice and
culture. Equally, they should be informed by local environmental and economic conditions.
2. It is important to be as specific as possible about the purpose of indicator sets. Indicators may vary depending, for example, on
whether they refer to short-term or long-term goals, or on the specific context (research, policy or organisational) in which they
are to be used.
3. The way in which indicators are presented needs to be tailored to the intended audience(s) – for example, more technical for
expert audiences and more accessible for wider audiences. Indicators should always be presented as clearly and accessibly as
possible without this resulting in over-simplification.
4. Indicators should ideally integrate different dimensions of sustainability encompassing environmental, economic and social
aspects of sustainable development. In addition, the definition of local indicators should take into account the interaction
between the local and other levels (regional, national, international). Furthermore, in defining indicators, consideration should
be given to the various stages of an initiative’s life-cycle.
5. When designing, implementing and monitoring indicators and frameworks, it is vital to engage with various stakeholders
(in particular local residents in addition to business and political communities), based on existing best practices. This should
include awareness-building as well as joint learning initiatives.
6. Compliance with indicators and related processes should be enhanced, where appropriate (particularly at local site level),
through contracted commitment and firm action plans.
7. Given the need for indicators and frameworks to be effective in policy-making and market-led development, both political and
business leadership is vital. Also important is the need for enabling incentives, building on existing political or business cases
for seeking accreditation.
2
Observations, lessons and recommendations pertaining to international frameworks
1. International frameworks should aim to outline high-level principles and goals, rather than to achieve overly detailed and technical
standards. These goals and principles should be ambitious as well as aspirational. They should engage with both the substance
and processes of urban sustainability. They should aim to assist planners, policy makers, developers and communities in designing,
applying and monitoring urban sustainability indicators.
2.Similar to local and national indicators, international frameworks should address the ‘triple bottom line’ of sustainability, balancing
environmental, economic and social aspects.
3. While international indicators should specify (and reflect) clear mid- to long-term goals and targets, flexibility is required to allow
the means of attaining these goals to be decided at local level. Such indicators are, therefore, likely to be performance-based.
4. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the creation of international frameworks should build upon and take advantage of the rich
variety of existing practices. This will help mobilise available data, existing institutional capacity and lead to greater
resource efficiency.
5. Certification thus far has focused on site-specific initiatives and developments, and has mainly been driven by private accreditation
schemes. A case can be made for more open-access certification levelled at whole city initiatives. Consideration needs to be given
to which bodies are best placed to act as certifiers, given the needs for transparency, international compatibility and
international acceptance.
6. The effectiveness of future international frameworks will derive as much from commonalities of content and process (to facilitate
cross-comparisons) as from the degree to which they allow for customisation at local level (to foster local engagement and
relevance). Further research should seek to understand best practice in terms of reconciling these two complementary functions.
14 September 2012, Bellagio
3
PREFACE
This report is the result of a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “I came to this conference
collaborative initiative co-ordinated by We are indebted to all participants quite sceptical about
the International Eco-Cities Initiative for their individual as well as joint urban sustainability
(University of Westminster, London/ efforts in support of this conference. indicators… but, listening
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore/ The report is testament to the high to the range of initiatives
Smithsonian Institution, Washington quality of discussion, shared learning that have been presented,
DC). It is based on the joint work by and collaborative work enjoyed at the from different countries
a group of international experts who conference. It gives unprecedented and of different types, I
met in autumn 2012 to discuss the insight into current global thinking and can see that sustainability
development of indicators, standards practice concerning the use of eco-city indicators provide a space for having a
and frameworks for urban sustainability indicators, standards and frameworks ‘conversation’ about urban sustainability.”
initiatives. The group – made up of in a variety of organisational, national
18 leading researchers, policy-makers and cultural contexts. As such, the Yvonne Rydin,
and practitioners from 14 countries findings and recommendations University College London (UK)
from around the world – convened contained in this report should prove
for a three-day conference held at the useful for researchers, policy-makers and
Rockefeller Bellagio Center in Bellagio, practitioners alike at a time of significant “You do need indicators
Italy, 12–14 September 2012. The growth in diverse eco-city initiatives to evaluate the claims that
report summarises the proceedings of the around the world. are being made because
conference Tomorrow’s City: Developing We are equally indebted to the the stakes are very high
International Standards and Policy for Rockefeller Foundation (New York), for this. But standardising
Eco-Cities, and includes the Bellagio which supported this initiative with a these evaluative criteria
statement, jointly drawn up by the generous grant covering both conference can be very difficult;
participants at the end of the conference. and international travel costs and which it’s very difficult to
assisted the organisers with invaluable standardise anything
professional advice. On behalf of all even within a locality – let alone in an
participants, we are most grateful for international setting.”
the unparalleled hospitality shown to us
by the Rockefeller Bellagio Center staff, Arthur Molella,
making this a unique experience. Smithsonian Institute (USA)
The authors invite further dialogue on
any of the issues raised in this report.
Enquiries and correspondence may “I think that over the next
be directed to individual participants, decade or so there will
or to the Editor, Simon Joss, at josss@ be a real shake-down – a
westminster.ac.uk. coalescing, a congealing,
a cohesion. But I’m not
Simon Joss / Arthur Molella / sure that will be good.
Robert Kargon That depends on what
International Eco-Cities Initiative we do now.”
London, December 2012 Mark Roseland,
Simon Fraser University (Canada)
4
INTRODUCTION
‘Eco-city’ is an umbrella term that covers various notions of, and approaches to, sustainable urbanism,
rather than a conceptually coherent and practically uniform phenomenon. It brings together multiple forms
of sustainable development applied at different urban scales and locally contextualised. Sister terms include
‘climate-neutral city’, ‘low-carbon city’, ‘smart city’, ‘sustainable city’, ‘transition towns’, among others.
Recent years have seen a growing Accompanying these developments, there performance, and inform related policy-
interest globally in ‘eco-city’ initiatives of have been increasing calls for indicators, making at local, national and
various kinds. A 2011 census1 identified standards and frameworks to guide international levels.
over 170 initiatives internationally, urban sustainability policy, planning The Bellagio Conference Tomorrow’s
which represents a significant increase and implementation. Already, there are City Today (see Table 1) was designed
compared with only a decade earlier. a dozen or so schemes competing for to make a major contribution to this
However challenging it may be to recognition at international level; many debate through an intensive, three-day
demarcate the ‘eco-city’ conceptually more are deployed at national and sub- programme of presentations, workshops
and to gauge the precise extent of national levels. While these indicator and round-table discussion among a select
practical developments, there is clear schemes share a common goal of group of internationally leading experts.
evidence of increased activity across capturing and measuring various urban The following sections summarise the
the world. The dual challenges of sustainability dimensions, at the same conference proceedings. The joint statement
global climate change concerns and time they differ significantly in terms of of recommendations agreed by the
unprecedented urbanisation are key conceptual definitions, methodological participants at the end of the conference
factors that have prompted a plethora approaches and modes of operation. is contained in the Bellagio statement
of actors – cities, national governments, Consequently, there is a need to generate reproduced on the preceding pages.
international organisations, private more systematic knowledge and policy
developers, technology firms, among analysis of how various indicator systems 1
Joss, S., Tomozeiu, D. & Cowley, R. 2011.
others – to get engaged in conceptual, and endorsement schemes compare; Eco-Cities: A Global Survey 2011
(Eco-City Profiles). London: University of Westminster.
policy and practical innovation. A recent whether there is scope for closer integration 2
United Nations Environment Programme. 2012.
UN report2 reflected current thinking by to achieve international standards; and 21 Issues for the 21st Century. Results of the
arguing that “the key to sustainability lies what are the implications for policy- UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental
in the concept of ‘green cities’ or making. This, in turn, should help improve Issues. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
‘eco cities’”. urban sustainability planning and Programme; page iv.
TOMORROW’S CITY TODAY
DEVELOPING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND POLICY FOR ECO-CITIES
ROCKEFELLER BELLAGIO CENTER, ITALY, 12-14 SEPTEMBER 2012
Day 1—Mapping & comparing ‘eco-city’ frameworks
am Thematic overview I: indicators & frameworks as governance–issues and challenges S Joss
Thematic overview II: the sustainable city Y Rydin
Thematic overview III: comparison of urban sustainability indicators & frameworks D Tomozeiu
pm International framework schemes: case studies
Climate+ Program (Clinton Climate Initiative) C Harris
Community Capital Tool (Simon Fraser University) M Roseland
Eco2 Cities (World Bank) H Suzuki
One Planet Communities (BioRegional) S Riddlestone
Day 2—Evaluating the use of urban sustainability frameworks
am Municipal indicator use: case studies
Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) T L Do
Menlyn Main, Pretoria (South Africa) J Berns-Mumbi
Tianjin Binhai Eco-City (China) S Dong
pm National & municipal indicator use: case studies
BREEAM Communities Y Rydin
German urban sustainability frameworks B Müller
Greenest City 2020, Vancouver (Canada) M Roseland
Low-Carbon Cities China H Xie
Surat/Gandhinagar Solar Cities (India) V Bhatt & D Sen
Victoria Harbour, Melbourne (Australia) C Harris
Day 3—Identifying multi-level policy requirements and opportunities
am Eco-city frameworks: lessons for individual initiatives
pm Eco-city frameworks: international lessons
Recommendations: towards international standards and frameworks
Table 1. Bellagio conference programme
5
CONCEPTUAL
PERSPECTIVES
Eco-city indicators, standards and In considering the function of eco-city As a process of constructing knowledge,
frameworks variously act as interventions indicators, standards and frameworks, it is not surprising to see the present
in governing processes for urban it is useful to take into account both abundance of indicators, showing
sustainability. They do so by providing generic features of indicators – as can considerable variance, given the growing
information, generating knowledge, be observed more broadly in other areas interest in, and evolving nature of, urban
shaping agendas, serving as tools for of sustainable development and other sustainability. Still, from a practitioner
performance management and engaging policy fields – and the particular urban perspective in particular, the plethora
various actors in ‘social learning’ and contexts in which they are applied here. of available urban sustainable indicators
knowledge exchange. Thus, at one end of Concerning the former, research and poses the conundrum of which (set of)
the spectrum, they can be understood as practical experience over the last two indicators to use. It is partly for this
a technical exercise for specifying and decades or so have demonstrated the reason that there has been growing
assessing various urban sustainability ‘constructed’ nature of indicators. While focus on national and international eco-
dimensions; at the other end, they can indicators may be defined and presented city frameworks as a way of guiding,
be seen as an inherently socio-political in technical and, thus, seemingly neutral standardising and ultimately accrediting
process in the governance of sustainable terms – say, relating to the rate of urban urban sustainability initiatives. As
city initiatives. public transport use across a specified conceptual and practical knowledge
period of time – they are essentially about urban sustainability further evolves,
the product of socially constructed one may expect to see a consolidation
Indicators are tools for (1) specifying knowledge. As such, they reflect the of indicators in the form of standards
urban sustainability, (2) defining particular ways in which those involved and/or frameworks in the coming years
related targets in measurable in defining indicators frame issues, and decades. This will, however, require
(quantifiable) ways, and (3) monitoring make assumptions and set targets. a clear distinction between indicators
performance. They typically have a The social construction of indicators defined as common principles and broad
temporal dimension, with reference to is not problematic in itself, but it does targets for use in frameworks at national
past/present base values and targets prompt important questions about: and international levels, and indicators
for specified future periods. Individual who is involved in the process of their specifically defined for use in individual
indicators necessarily involve the conceptualisation; how indicator data is initiatives and settings.
reduction of complex information to captured, analysed and communicated;
singular dimensions. and how indicators are justified
and warranted.
Standards are commonly agreed
norms, based on the aggregate
assessment and integration of various POLICY CONTEXT/
POLITICAL CULTURE
indicator measures. Designed to be
applicable across initiatives and sites,
they are typically negotiated through
formal consensus processes.
Frameworks are schemes combining FRAMEWORKS
sets of common targets and indicators URBAN GOVERNANCE
under an overarching programme. SETTING STANDARDS PROCESS
Their purpose is: (1) defining INDICATORS
urban sustainability coherently and
comprehensively; (2) providing a
more standardised approach to
implementing urban sustainability
across initiatives; and (3) offering
TECHNICAL SOCIAL
integrated management packages,
DIMENSIONS DIMENSIONS
in the form of either open-source or
certification-based step-by-step guides.
Figure 1: Indicators in the context of urban sustainability
6
One of the challenges of developing sustainability dimensions into market Integration, cohesion and co-ordination
and using eco-city indicators is how to structures. This, however, depends on are at the centre of governing efforts
take adequate account of the multiple the perceived robustness, legitimacy and which variously seek to assemble diverse
complexity of urban sustainability, acceptance of indicators in the planning, public, private and civil society actors in
while keeping the conceptual and policy and regulatory processes. often new types of arrangements (e.g.
technical language of indicators The process of generating knowledge public-private partnerships) with a view
sufficiently clear for use by various about, and managing strategies for, to working together to develop and
actors. Here, it is useful to consider urban sustainability is also intimately implement urban sustainability initiatives.
how indicators relate to, and engage bound up with particular urban settings As such, indicators are typically part
with, urban sustainability as governing and governance modes. These relate of new governance modes. Together
process and context (Fig 1). Two key to various urban systems (physical, with the future-oriented nature of urban
functionalities can be discerned: (1) environmental, socio-economic, sustainability, this then also points to the
relating to generating knowledge about political), scale (neighbourhood/district, role of indicators as innovative practices.
urban sustainability; and (2) relating to city, metropolitan, city-region), and life From this perspective, indicators and
managing urban sustainability strategies cycles (development, implementation, related frameworks have an important
and initiatives. Concerning the former, policy/electoral cycle). Furthermore, they role in providing spaces and opportunities
this process involves various ‘epistemic relate to context-specific political, socio- to learn about, discuss and practise
communities’ (technical, policy, social), economic and cultural conditions. This urban sustainability.
from environmental scientists to urban underscores the multiple complexity of In summary, conceptually it may be
planners and from policy-makers to urban sustainability with which indicators useful to approach eco-city indicators,
citizen groups. In other words, indicators have to engage. It further points to the standards and frameworks in terms of
– if they are to be place-specific and importance of issues of integration and several distinct yet related governing
relevant to given organisational and cohesion that any meaningful discussion functions that engage with various aspects
policy processes as well as communities and use of urban sustainability indicators of urban sustainability, rather than in terms
– should mobilise and integrate various need to address. of a narrow technical functionality (as can
knowledge sources (including local Thus, rather than producing atomistic be found in some academic literature and
ones). Concerning the latter function, this lists of indicators, an integrated policy practice). Table 2 summarises three
entails guiding initiatives through project approach requires connections to be prevailing governing functions, including
development and implementation and made between various interrelated definitional work (A), performance
contributing to policy deliberation. Here, sustainability dimensions. For example, assessment (B) and social learning (C).
indicators serve to concretise urban choices over land use, office:residential Such an approach is also useful for
sustainability policy in relation to specific building ratios, and the provision of discerning various indicator types; for
projects and settings; in doing so they, service facilities will co-determine the example, ones used for carrying out
in turn, facilitate wider policy formation nature of, and potential for, sustainable technical assessments; setting overarching
and social learning. An important transport. Similarly, urban infrastructure principles and targets; guiding particular
condition of indicators’ management is intimately related to socio-metabolic local initiatives; managing organisational
function is the ability to provide market resource flows. Indicators should reflect and project performance; and engaging
incentives: indicators, particularly when and articulate this interdependence. various publics. It further clarifies the
used in conjunction with certification underlying modes of knowledge involved
processes, have the potential to integrate (analytical, managerial, communicative)
and indicates the main audiences engaged.
FUNCTION MODE AUDIENCES
A – Definitional Work – conceptualising urban sustainability – conceptual/analytical – research community
– designing contents – planners
– structuring issues – policy-makers
B – Performance Assessment – assessing efficiency – performance management – planners
– monitoring performance – policy-making – developers
– evaluating policy alternatives – policy-makers
C – Social Learning – integrating social values – c ommunicative – citizens
– social learning deliberation – stakeholders
– co-producing action – planners
Table 2. Governance functions of eco-city indicators. Source: Joss, S., Cowley, R. & Tomozeiu, D. 2012. “Eco-city indicators: governance challenges.”
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, vol 155: 109-120.
7
GLOBAL
OVERVIEW
It is probably the case that the majority of towns and cities across the world have sustainability goals and indicators of some form or
another integrated in their strategic plans and planning policies. Attempting to catalogue them all would be impractical. Table 3 is,
therefore, limited to indicator, standard and framework schemes associated with explicit eco-city policies, programmes and initiatives.
The list is almost certainly not exhaustive, but it does briefly summarise the internationally most prominent schemes variously led by
cities, national governments, international governmental and non-governmental organisations, and business organisations.
Name of Initiative Organisation Features
INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES
Eco2 Cities World Bank Open-access framework to provide practical and scalable,
analytical and operational framework for cities. Incorporates
process-oriented indicators, with content-related indicator targets
set locally.
Green City Index Siemens Technical tool for assessing urban sustainability based on global
data from ≥120 large cities. Includes approx. 30 indicators
in nine categories (e.g. buildings, CO2 emissions, energy,
transport, waste, water).
Global City Government of Ontario/ Membership-based, standardised method for comparing
Indicators Facility University of Toronto ‘city performance’, including sustainability dimensions.
Includes 115 indicators relating to ‘city services’ and
‘quality of life’ categories.
Green Cities OECD Assessment programme with focus on ‘green growth’ and
Programme sustainability policies for metropolitan areas. Based on multi-city
analyses, the scheme aims to advise city leaders on policy
‘best practice’.
Hitachi Smart Cities Hitachi Development of standardised ‘smart city measurement
indicators’, with special focus on urban infrastructure, and urban
management systems.
ICLEI Star ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Jointly developed with US Green Building Council as a ‘national
Community Index standard’ for sustainable communities. 81 goals and ten guiding
principles serve as resource tool for sustainability assessments
and plans.
IEFS Ecocity Builders International Ecocity Framework and Standards acts as a
methodology/certification platform based on the urban
environment as a wider bioregional system. Designed to be used
with other rating systems.
Living Building International Living Future Institute Urban sustainability design framework and certification
Challenge programme, focused on buildings and neighbourhoods. Includes
seven performance areas: beauty, energy, equity, health,
materials, site, water.
One Planet BioRegional Multi-stage certification scheme based on ecological footprint
Communities analysis and ten corresponding principles. Action plans produced
through benchmarking measurement and stakeholder workshops.
RFSC European Union The Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities provides
an online toolkit to assist European cities in developing and
assessing urban sustainability strategies and action across
planning and policy cycles.
SlimCity World Economic Forum Annual survey-based assessment of ‘eco-efficiency’ (energy,
mobility, resources etc.) measures, with recommended use of
World Bank city indicators and metrics.
Smarter Cities IBM ‘Smarter cities assessment’ tool for customised key performance
Challenge indicator (KPI) measurements and city benchmarking (against
peer cities) based on global data. Offers ‘intelligent operations
centre’ solutions.
8NATIONAL EXAMPLES
BREEAM Communities BRE UK/Global Multi-stage assessment and certification scheme designed for urban
master planning. Covers six urban sustainability areas (energy,
governance, innovation, land use, socio-economic development,
transport).
CASBEE UD Japan GreenBuild Council Assessment system for ‘built environment efficiency’ (incl. districts/
cities) regarding economic, environmental, and social criteria. In
association with Japan Sustainable Building Consortium.
DGNB NSQ German Sustainable Building Council Certification system for new neighbourhoods, including 50 indicators
across six quality dimensions (environmental, economic, process,
socio-cultural, site, technical). Allows for flexibility across contexts.
Eco-city Development Chinese Society for Urban Studies Proposed national indicator framework, organised along five
Index System categories and 28 indicators. Specific targets for majority of
indicators, with eight indicators defined more flexibly in terms
of ‘innovative approaches’.
Enterprise Green Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. Not-for-profit certification programme to support sustainability
Communities, USA initiatives for affordable (low income) neighbourhoods. Free online
planning/indicator tool includes mandatory and optional criteria.
Green Communities US Environment Protection Agency Open access ‘assistance kit’ to guide community-led sustainability
action plans. Multi-stage process, including guidance on selection,
use and reporting of sustainable development indicators.
Green Star Green Building Council of Australia Rating tool providing best practice benchmarking and certification
Sustainable for community-level developments. Indicator areas include: design,
Communities economic prosperity, environment, governance, innovation, liveability.
IGBC Green Indian Green Building Council Three-stage rating/certification scheme for large-scale developments
Townships (incl. residential areas). Four indicator categories: community
Rating System development, environmental and land use planning,
resource management.
LEED ND US Green Building Council Multi-stage certification scheme operation at neighbourhood level.
Focus on green buildings, smart growth and urbanism, including
green infrastructure, integrated transport and liveable community.
Sustainable Audubon International Multi-stage certification scheme based on Audubon International
Communities Principles for sustainable resource management. Specific performance
indicators defined by community, with annual re-certification.
MUNICIPAL EXAMPLES
Caofeidian Eco-City Tangshan Municipality Purpose-built framework comprising 141 indicators (of which 109
planning and 32 management indicators) for city, neighbourhood
and building levels.
Eco-Metropolis 2015 City of Copenhagen Strategic vision statement aimed at making Copenhagen ‘the
environmental capital of Europe’. Includes ten indicator categories,
of which six are environmental and four social.
Greenest City 2020 City of Vancouver The Greenest City 2020 Action Plan incorporates ten headings
focusing on carbon emission, ecosystems, and waste.
15 high-level output indicators (targets) guide the step-by-step
implementation plan.
SolarCity Linz City of Linz Piloted for Linz, but designed as a replicable indicator framework
for master planning. Includes six categories (economy, environment,
facilities, planning, space, transport), each with six indicators.
Tianjin Binhai Ecocity Singapore and Chinese governments 26 tailor-made Key Performance Indicators with focus on resource
efficiency, and incorporating Sino-Singaporean national standards.
Treasure Island Treasure Island Development Sustainability master plan incorporating four indicator categories
Authority (community, energy, resilience, waste), each with specific indicator
targets. Incorporates LEED ND and Climate+ Development Program.
Table 3. Overview of ‘eco-city’ indicator schemes & frameworks 9EMERGING INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS The local, place-specific conditions framed in terms of a synergy between “I see the significance of urban sustainability are always economic and ecological sustainability. of indicators as a way going to be a key determinant of how In this case, characteristically, the of trying to define – and indicators, standards and frameworks set of broad indicators also places perhaps, ultimately, are defined and applied. At the same particular emphasis on governance to quantify – different time, a clear trend can be observed processes, including social learning and aspects of the eco-city. towards international schemes aimed performance management. Of course, that’s not a at generically guiding the design, Following from this, international straightforward thing planning and implementation of various schemes typically take into consideration to do, either from a conceptual or a eco-city initiatives. Four such prominent the need for their broad principles and practical point of view” international schemes are introduced here. indicators to be aligned with particular They demonstrate some of the variety policies and processes on the ground. Simon Joss, of underlying conceptual approaches, Since the local settings in which they are University of Westminster indicator types and roles, organisations to be used are so varied, international involved, and the use across global schemes need to be flexible enough to regions. From a comparative perspective, avoid tensions with local policies and “When you’re questions arise as to what key similarities concerns over legitimacy. Different developing indicators, and differences can be identified, and approaches are used to facilitate this you need to do so how these international approaches global—local interaction. Eco2 Cities, in a way that makes interrelate with national and local practices. for example offers a tool and resources measurement easy One obvious feature of each of the four designed to enable municipal actors to and data comparable. (and other) frameworks is the express define for themselves specific, locally The Mayor of London purpose of common applicability in relevant goals and indicators for urban wants London to be an different contexts around the world, in sustainability, based on the broad exemplary ‘green city’. contrast to frameworks primarily defined principles outlined in the framework. But how do we know unless we can by, and grounded in, particular local, The purpose of the latter, then, is not so compare it with other cities?” regional or national contingencies. The much to impose particular targets and Clinton Climate Initiative’s Climate Positive measures of urban sustainability, but Sue Riddlestone, Program (Climate+) is a case in point: it to facilitate a collaborative process of BioRegional (UK) currently includes 18 municipal initiatives analysis, planning and learning among across continents, from Australia to the relevant municipal stakeholders. In USA and from Brazil to Sweden. Its the case of the Climate+ Program, the “We have to think about common framework is centred upon the framework’s focus on output indicators the local context, but also output-oriented goal of achieving carbon- (climate-positive development at about how an indicator positive development, with a particular operational stage) means that there system can be operated focus on energy, transport and waste. is flexibility concerning the means of in the long run. If we It supports partner projects individually implementation, thus allowing for local keep changing it, it through a multi-stage accreditation process variation. In other words, while setting becomes hard to aim at and facilitates collaborative knowledge an overall development goal, it does not long-term goals.” exchange among network partners. The prescribe the specific actions or related other schemes discussed here, too, use indicators which need to be adopted Hongxing Xie, broad common frameworks, albeit each locally, in order to reach that goal. Innovation Centre for Clean-air Solutions placing different emphasis on particular In considering the interaction between (China) substantive and procedural aspects of international frameworks and local urban sustainability. initiatives, one also needs to consider the This, then, points to a second feature of raison d’être and motivations of those “More recently, the international frameworks: they typically promoting international schemes. These business community has set out principles and goals of urban have a bearing on both how urban seen that standardised, sustainability in broad terms, rather than sustainability is conceptualised and the certified projects detailing measures through specifically nature of global—local interaction. For become a marketing defined (or technologically prescriptive) example, several global technology firms issue. So they are indicators. For example, BioRegional’s have begun to offer their own brand of stepping in… and One Planet Communities framework urban sustainability frameworks. These sustainability gets an outlines ten ‘common international typically emphasise smart technological additional component.” principles’, commensurate with its overall solutions and are offered as commercial principle of striving for ‘one planet products. Similarly, various international Bernhard Mueller, living’ based on ecological footprint ‘green building/neighbourhood’ Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and analysis. In similar vein, the World certification schemes are commercially Regional Development (Germany) Bank’s Eco2 Cities initiative promotes marketed by competing organisations. broad principles of urban sustainability 10
The four examples discussed here are Climate Positive Development Program
either by public bodies (Eco2 Cities,
Community Capital Tool) or charitable
organisations/foundations (One Planet
Communities, Climate+ Program)
whose aim is to support and enable
the development and implementation
of initiatives on the ground as well as
to encourage shared practice learning
across initiatives. To this end, the
One Planet Communities scheme, for
example, is available on an open-
source basis. BioRegional aims to move
towards full open-source accreditation,
thus potentially overcoming resource
problems in developing countries. Future
development may see international
bodies providing funding for open-
source accreditation to take place. The Climate+ Program was launched in The global—local interaction is
The Community Capital Tool 2009 by the Clinton Climate Initiative characterised by the application
addresses the problem of resources and currently involves 18 mostly ‘in- of an internationally applicable
in poorer localities in a different way. fill’ urban projects around the world. output indicator (= carbon positive
As a cheaper and quicker alternative The programme’s focus is on achieving development) which, however, is not in
to its main comprehensive ‘balance carbon neutral/positive developments conflict with (in fact it encourages) local
sheet’ instrument (which entails formal through carbon emission cuts and flexibility in the means of reaching it. The
measurement processes), its ‘scan’ carbon credits (measured as outcome at scheme explicitly requires local decision-
tool is based more on self-generated, operational stage; excluding construction making on strategy for meeting the
qualitative assessment. In this way, lack stage). Indicators are defined in relation output target. This may involve importing
of resources and capacity to implement a to three main areas: energy, transport complementary sets of indicators from
whole standardised framework or process and waste. The programme operates on elsewhere (e.g. LEED ND). In terms
need not mean that a locality is entirely the basis of a multi-stage accreditation of urban sustainability definition, the
excluded from a common process of scheme. Since 2011, the Climate+ scheme deliberately espouses a narrow
moving towards the sustainability goals Program has been run by the C40 Cities primary focus on carbon emissions, as a
enshrined in the scheme. Climate Leadership group, in partnership means of enabling the management and
Indicators in these four frameworks with the Clinton Climate Initiative. measurement of tangible outputs.
(and elsewhere) should not be
understood as standards in the sense
of agreed common norms applicable Eco2 Cities
universally. (Such standards are up to city-wide level. It focuses on a
not currently available, although comprehensive integrated sustainable
international bodies, such as the urban development framework – rather
International Standards Organisation, than prescribing specific technology
ISO, are reported to be working in or policy solutions – which seeks to
the area.) encourage synergy between economic
Instead, from the aforementioned and ecological sustainability. It assists
governance perspective, their local stakeholders in defining priorities in
function can be seen as facilitating each case, following which indicators
conceptualisation (definitional work), are introduced, with cities choosing
integrated planning (performance these as required.
management) and collaborative action Eco2 Cities represents a prime example
(social learning) on urban sustainability The Eco2 Cities initiative was launched in of an initiative taking inspiration from
through shared, international processes. 2010 as part of the World Bank’s Urban existing best practice initiatives, thus
Together, as an aggregated process, and Local Government Strategy, and is illustrating the process of ongoing
the various global frameworks – aimed at cities in the developing world. learning and experimentation in the field
complemented by national and local Its approach was shaped by an analysis of urban sustainability. The emphasis on
schemes – may over time contribute of ‘best practice’ urban sustainability the process of sustainability framework
to standardisation. One can, indeed, initiatives around the world (including definition and implementation, rather
speculate that the years to come may see Curitiba, Stockholm and Yokohama). than on specific indicator content, allows
a growing concentration into just a few The initiative currently supports a series for the alignment of high-level goals and
dominant approaches. of ‘catalyst’ pilot projects in Vietnam, local engagement, with a strong social
the Philippines and Indonesia, with learning element.
the intention that these can be scaled 11The benefits of greater global integration One Planet Living/Communities Community Capital Tool
– through current international
frameworks or future standards – are
threefold: first, it emphasises common
interests and concerns shared by cities,
centred upon the idea of the physical
‘limits’ of the planet (resources,
environmental vulnerability etc.). This
reflects the existing commonality of
themes found across otherwise disparate
types of ‘eco-city’ initiatives, including
reducing carbon emissions, ensuring
clean water provision, improving
biodiversity, as well as related themes,
such as promoting sustainable socio-
economic wellbeing and supporting Six forms of Community Capital
civic participation.
Ten principles of One Planet Living
The second benefit lies in the incentives
for both local and national governments
to improve their sustainability: successful NGO BioRegional’s ‘One Planet Living’ The Community Capital Tool was
performers stand to benefit from being concept is derived from ‘ecological developed in partnership between
branded as distinctively ‘green’ in a footprinting’ and conceptualised Simon Fraser University (Canada) and
competitive national or international around ten principles (see above), with Tilburg University (the Netherlands). It
environment, while reticent cities, regions specific indicators for each of these. conceptualises community capital as
and nations will face keener social It is currently operational in initiatives having six mutually reinforcing forms
pressure to improve their performance. at different scales – One Planet (see above) with specific indicators
League tables – such as the Japanese Communities and One Planet Regions – attached to each. Thus, it represents a
eco-town awards and the European but is also being used as a framework conscious move away from the ’three
Union sustainable city competition for One Planet Companies. It functions pillar’ (environment, economy and
– can provide useful incentives as a formal (paid for) accreditation society) approach to sustainability.
at national and regional levels to process, but is also investigating a fully It takes two forms: a ‘balance sheet’
encourage cities to become engaged in open-source approach (with training instrument (with formalised measurement
urban sustainability development. and tools provided). The process process); and a more simple ‘community
The third benefit of globally more involves benchmark measurement scan’ (more subjective, quicker, and
integrated approaches is comparability followed by key stakeholder workshops, based on local people’s perceptions).
and replicability. This incentivises private leading to an action plan and ongoing The ‘scan’ is available free online in
developers by making accreditation and measurements. It is now being applied English, Spanish, and Portuguese. In
certification feasible and meaningful in 51 countries (in 12 of which formal both cases, it tool designed to allow for
from a business perspective. It also, accreditation has been achieved). accessible visualisation of results through
more widely, benefits researchers, policy- The open-source model is one way simple diagrams.
makers, planners and communities by in which the constraints imposed by The divergence from the three pillar
improving comparative knowledge and capacity and budget problems in less model of sustainability is a response
encouraging policy transfer and wealthy cities can be overcome. The to the lack of agreement about how
shared practice. variety of contexts in which it has been sustainability should be defined in
Finally, the question of who should adopted reflects ‘best practice’ in at practice. The ‘community scan’ version
conduct any monitoring is also a key least three respects: first, the deliberate of the tool represents an example of
one. For international frameworks to simplicity of its presentation and use may an approach which actively aims to be
be effective, it would seem vital for have been instrumental in securing buy- inclusive of cities in developing countries.
independent auditors to be involved. in from diverse users. Second, its relative The ‘social learning’ governance function
Here again, however, the particular emphasis on ‘health and happiness’ of indicators is clearly in evidence here,
implications for resource-limited settings may have significant appeal for the enabling communities of all types at
need to be considered. There may general public. Third, its adoption across least to deliberate on sustainability if
be an important role for international different countries suggests considerable not to implement a formalised
bodies, such as the UN or independent success in devising a common language measurement process.
research and audit organisations, to take through which sustainability can
on the responsibility of overseeing and be defined.
validating independent monitoring of
urban sustainability frameworks.
12NATIONAL
INDICATOR SCHEMES
Within the global–local spectrum of coupled with the trend towards global BREEAM Communities
urban sustainability indicator frameworks, marketisation of urban sustainability,
national schemes occupy an important has meant that such schemes are also
place: in relation to the local, they provide increasingly promoted internationally.
an overarching set of generic goals, Elsewhere, national indicator
targets and standards; in relation to the schemes are promoted by governmental
global, they provide models for bilateral agencies themselves, and developed
co-operation and adaptation in other through bilateral co-operation. The Low
national settings. Carbon City in China (LCCC) initiative
BREEAM Communities is an environmental
Historically, national schemes have is such an example: it is the result of assessment method and certification
often evolved from green building a co-operation between the Swiss and scheme relaunched in 2012 by BRE
indicators and/or codes. As sustainability Chinese governments. It uses a set of (Building Research Establishment Ltd), a
has become more broadly established indicators focusing primarily on low- private organisation and founding member
in urban policy (transcending from carbon innovation linked to economic of the UK Green Building Council. While
buildings to other urban policy areas), development. To date, seven Chinese the standard BREEAM environmental
and with growing interest in urban- municipalities have signed up to rating system (launched in 1990) is
scale developments by commercial the initiative. tailored to individual buildings (with over
operators, the original indicator schemes The extended focus – from ‘green’ 200,000 buildings certified worldwide),
have been expanded to encompass the buildings to sustainable neighbourhoods, BREEAM Communities is specifically
neighbourhood, district, or even the districts and even cities – brings with it designed for master planning at the
city as a whole. LEED ND and BREEAM the potential for extended functionality district/neighbourhood level concerning
Communities are examples of this recent of ‘national’ schemes: from primarily new, infill and regeneration projects.
trend. In addition, national schemes often serving as certification tools aimed at It acts as an independent, third party
draw on broader environmental policy developers, to acting as policy, planning assessment and certification standard for
(e.g. relating to air pollution, and monitoring tools involving various use at project design and authorisation
water quality, biodiversity) and socio- actor groups (planners, developers, stage. The scheme covers six categories:
economic policy (e.g. employment, communities). However, this should also governance; innovation; land use and
ecology; resources and energy; social
health care, education. prompt questions about: the balance
and economic wellbeing; and transport
Some indicator frameworks are between new (in-fill) developments – which
and movement. It uses a three-stage
embedded within national sustainability current schemes mainly focus on – and
sustainability assessment process relating
policies or initiatives, such as the UK retro-fit initiatives; the role of voluntary to: (1) the principle of development (issues
government’s Eco-Town initiative for versus mandated schemes (both have a and opportunities) concerning the selected
England. Most, however, should not role to play, though this requires careful site; (2) the overall layout of the proposed
be considered national in the sense balance); and the respective roles of development; and (3) design details, such
that they are based in government national trade organisations, local as use of technologies, landscaping issues,
agencies, or are directly linked to government and community groups in aesthetics, materials used etc. (Certification
national policy. Instead, they can be leading on urban sustainability initiatives. for individual buildings is covered by the
seen as national in the sense that they standard BREEAM rating system.)
are run nationwide by non-governmental One way in which BREEAM Communities
professional bodies on a voluntary ‘opt- “Because we all live on the aims to achieve national – and
in’ basis, rather than on a mandated same planet, we need an international – applicability is by avoiding
legislative basis. For example, LEED ND international framework. a prescriptive approach to design solutions.
is an initiative of the US Green Building But based on this frame, It uses a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach,
Council, a non-profit trade organisation; each country can have its with a mixture of mandatory and ‘trade-
BREEAM Communities is an initiative own indicators, and each able’ assessment criteria, to allow for
by BRE, a private UK organisation that city and region can also flexibility with regard to local conditions
emerged from the privatisation of the develop more specific indicators.” (commercial and other). The methodology
governmental agency, the Building was streamlined for the 2012 relaunch, so
Do Tu Lan, as to make the scheme more user-friendly
Research Establishment. DGNB NSQ is
Ministry of Construction (Vietnam) for developers.
a planning and certification scheme by
the German Sustainable Building Council
(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges “At the local level, an
Bauen, DGNB), aimed at in-fill urban indicator system can
developments (Neubau Stadtquartiere, make a city more quality
NSQ). These and similar indicator controlled. However,
frameworks act as quasi non-governmental an international eco-city
planning and accreditation schemes used indicators system is more
primarily by private developers and to about comparing – to give
a lesser extent by municipal authorities. us a common language.”
As such, they offer industry-accepted
standards for urban sustainability. The Shanfeng Dong,
Bluepath City Consulting (China) 13
success of these schemes at national level,You can also read
