Citizen Centric Cities - The Sustainable Cities Index 2018 - Arcadis
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Citizen Centric Cities
The Sustainable Cities Index 2018
Foreword
T
he 2018 edition of Arcadis’ Sustainable Cities Index
(SCI) explores city sustainability from the perspective
of the citizen. We seek to understand in more depth
how different cities enable different citizen groups to
meet their particular needs.
In many cities, citizens face huge This points to a series of core
challenges to meet their basic challenges for all cities that
needs of survival, including shelter, influence not only how they seek
access to food, water and warmth. to improve their performance,
Once these are met, the human but also how they prepare for a
need for community, managing digitally-driven transformation. It
society and moving from “A to B” is important to look at how cities
take on far greater importance. maintain services at current levels
Cities are powerful engines that of performance as they evolve,
bring people together and allow specifically if they use innovation
for resource sharing to meet to ensure that currently
collective needs. Our study recognized needs and wants are
highlights that emerging needs, met. Second, how they allocate
such as digital connectivity, are new resources to meet changing
being addressed in cities at all citizen requirements – prioritizing
levels of sustainability. initiatives to ensure that the
greatest benefits are delivered.
A critical point is that human Finally, how do cities ensure
needs are fundamentally that they are fit for the future –
hierarchical in nature. And if preserving resources so that the
certain needs are not met, needs of tomorrow’s citizens can
for example if housing is too be met as well as responding to
expensive, then dissatisfaction changes in business models and
will follow. The SCI and other economic circumstances.
studies show that even highly
developed cities can struggle In the 2018 edition of the SCI,
to meet the basic needs of their we continue our exploration of
citizens. As a result, the level of the People, Profit and Planet
peoples’ satisfaction associated dimensions of city sustainability,
with their purpose or well-being building a greater understanding
are undermined. Viewed from a of the underlying characteristics
citizen’s perspective, a city that is of cities that enable some to
highly ranked as sustainable but outperform their peers. Our
with elevated levels of congestion intention is that by initiating
not meeting accessibility needs, is further debate on the nature
not truly sustainable. of long-term success, cities will
continue to challenge themselves
to meet the needs of their people
for both today and tomorrow.
John Batten, Global Cities Director
3
Executive summary
T
he Sustainable Cities Index
ranks 100 global cities on three
pillars of sustainability: People
(social), Planet (environmental)
and Profit (economic).
The SCI overall findings highlight York, San Francisco and Seattle
the following: are the only U.S. cities in the top
• The importance of the Profit 20. Two additional cities, Tokyo
pillar as a driver for long-term and Sydney, are lower – ranking
sustainability high for People, but need to
• The need for mid-ranking improve in both Profit and Planet.
cities to improve their
performance across all Major cities across Africa and Asia
pillars as a differentiator are represented in the bottom
• The growing potential 10 of the rankings. Importantly,
for cities to use the digital it is the Profit performance of
evolution of their service these cities, particularly related
provision to promote to ease of doing business and
engagement with citizens output that contributes to their
and as a key means of weak relative performance.
improving the citizen Growing a robust local economy the top 50 cities. Edinburgh tops
experience of city life. is a critical aspect of long-term the sub-index, and the other
sustainability, particularly given cities have scores within +/- 10%.
London is ranked the world’s
the close association of economic Affordability of city life, access
most sustainable city in 2018
performance with improved to public transport and income
with particularly high scores in
quality of life. inequality are the big swing
the People and Profit pillars. The
results highlight that strengths variables. A cluster of cities at the
Although coastal cities including bottom of the rankings highlights
reflected in London’s status can
New York and Seattle feature the challenge of meeting
offset challenges associated with
in the top 20, most U.S. cities citizen needs in many emerging
affordability and congestion.
fall in the bottom half of the economies. The affordability,
London’s Planet ranking is lower,
ranking. U.S. cities tend to score health, education and digital
but still in the upper quartile,
evenly across the three pillars, infrastructure indicators all
reflecting air quality and waste
highlighting that these cities face point to deep-seated challenges
management issues seen in other
broad challenges across all pillars associated with improving life
large cities.
to improve their sustainability. experiences in emerging cities.
In Latin America, Santiago, São
Stockholm, Edinburgh, Singapore
Paulo, Mexico City and Buenos A group of smaller European
and Vienna complete the top five
Aires are all tightly clustered at cities led by Stockholm, sit at
in the Index. Whereas Stockholm
the top of the bottom quartile, the top of the Planet sub-index.
and Vienna score highly against
typically scoring better in People Determinants of a high ranking
Planet criteria, Edinburgh is
and Planet than in the Profit pillar. include low carbon energy
aligned more closely to the People
agenda. Singapore is highest infrastructure and significant
Kuala Lumpur benefits from green spaces. The expanded 2018
ranked in the Profit sub-index
consistent scores across all pillars Index also tracks investment
by a considerable margin.
and outranks all the cities in China in low carbon transport
except for Shenzhen as well as infrastructure, including bike
The top 20 sustainable cities are
a number of U.S. and European sharing and electric vehicle
mostly established European
cities. incentives – highlighting the rapid
metropolises. Additionally,
representing Asia are Singapore, adoption of these solutions in
Performance across the People
Hong Kong and Seoul - both well- many cities.
pillar is relatively consistent across
established trading cities. New
4
The Profit sub-index highlights The city clusters are:
the extreme disparities in income. • Balanced Innovators: Thirty-
The top of the sub-index is five cities in the SCI fall into this
dominated by global financial cluster and have an average
centers. Singapore, London and ranking of 21st. Particularly
Hong Kong head up the list and strong in People and Profit
hold a sizeable lead over New York sub-indices.
in 4th place. Sixty cities, ranging • Post-industrial Opportunists:
from Oslo in 15th place to Lyon Thirty-three cities in the SCI fall
in 74th place, have scores within into this cluster and have an
a range of +/-20% highlighting average ranking of 49th. Typical
complementary strengths in strengths are aligned to the
employment, tourism or ease People and Planet sub-indices.
of doing business. Ten cities, all Cities in this cluster are mostly
U.S. with some in Europe and
in developing countries have a
Australia.
lower ranking due to challenges in
output, ease of doing business and • Evolutionary Cities: Nineteen
cities in the SCI fall into this
innovation infrastructure.
cluster and have an average
ranking of 84th. Cities are
The research features new
particularly weak in the Profit
work on city archetypes and pillar. The cluster includes highly
clusters aimed at explaining the disrupted Western cities such as
implications of a citizen experience Athens as well as a number of
showing a close correlation to large, emerging market cities.
the SCI rankings. The four city • Fast-growing Megacities:
clusters used are based on an Thirteen cities in the SCI fall into
analysis of the citizen experiences this cluster and have an average
of city living combined with the ranking of 85th. The Profit pillar
Index data. is also weaker for this cluster.
Cities in this cluster include very
large cities from China and India.
5
6
Citizen centric cities
Building a sustainable partnership
O
ur latest update of the SCI highlights the rapid impact
that digital technologies are having on the citizens’
experience of the city and on the relationship between
city and its people. As the adoption of automated
city services expands and as cities become more reliant on citizen-
sourced data to support basic functions, this relationship will
become even more complex.
The rapid development of urban be managed more effectively on Reflecting on the findings of
mobility solutions, whether behalf of all stakeholders. On the the SCI and growing evidence
delivered by mass transit, negative side, greater awareness of the importance of the citizen
ridesharing or ultimately by of the pace and scale of change perspective, we highlight three
connected and autonomous may detract from city living and aspects of citizen centric cities
vehicles (CAV) is perhaps the some stakeholders - whether that will be critical in underpinning
most extreme example of this businesses, politicians or an long-term city sustainability.
rapidly evolving trend. Changes elite may wield disproportionate • Short-term vs. long-term:
in mobility are already irreversibly influence over future investment Compared to the long-term
shifting the way in which cities and management priorities. challenges of city sustainability,
operate – only 15% of private-hire many aspects of digital
car journeys are now undertaken "The additional dynamism disruption are inconsequential
by licensed taxi cab in San “noise”. Cities must keep their
Francisco – the harbinger of much
lent to cities through focus on long-term resilience,
greater change that could occur digital disruption is both a even as they navigate their way
if Mobility as a Service (MaaS) through short-term change.
threat and an opportunity • Firm foundations: The SCI data
develops at the pace predicted
by forecasters. for city leaders." consistently highlights that the
foundations of city sustainability
The citizen centric analysis However, the real negative is are an educated and healthy
presented in the SCI highlights that new technologies are not, workforce, effective low-carbon
on current trajectories, going infrastructure and ease of
the dramatic impact of change
anywhere far enough or fast doing business. Irrespective of
affecting most city dwellers’
where a city is positioned in the
experience of their city. There enough to mitigate many of the
SCI rankings, these attributes
is little evidence of stability and negative impacts of city living.
should never be put at risk by
balance in many citizens’ lives, The cities at the top of the Index city planning.
even in the highly sustainable have succeeded in achieving a
• Share the journey: City
cities at the top of the rankings. degree of sustainable balance not sustainability is a long-
only due to an historic economic term project and cities are
The additional dynamism lent to legacy but also due to far-sighted increasingly connected.
cities through digital disruption is decisions taken to manage the Maintaining a city’s long-term
both a threat and an opportunity impacts of growth. London’s competitiveness and resilience
for city leaders. On the positive sewers, New York’s grid-based will need to be a shared
side, emerging opportunities for planning and Copenhagen’s green mission. User perspectives,
greater understanding of how infrastructure are all examples data and digital platforms
cities operate through data as of far-sighted thinking that has enable unprecedented levels of
well as means to communicate to helped to mitigate some of the collaboration and cities have a
key role in leading the way.
citizens through a range of digital problems of today and of the
platforms should enable cities to future.
7
What enables a city to meet present and
future needs?
S
ustainable cities can be thought of as places that are
planned and managed with consideration for social,
economic, environmental impact, providing a resilient
habitat for existing populations, without compromising
the ability of future generations to experience the same.
Accordingly, measures of sustainability need to be able to measure
current city performance, ability to mitigate future impacts as well
as investment in future capability – ideally measured from the
perspective of the citizen.
8The three pillars The Sustainable Cities Index is a broad measure of sustainability, encompassing measures of the social,
environmental and economic health of cities as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The three pillars of sustainability
Reflects social mobility Describes management of Assesses business
and quality of energy use, pollution and environment and economic
opportunity and life emissions performance
Social Environmental Economic
People Planet Profit
The Sustainable The UN SDGs emphasize
the cross-cutting nature of
• Investment in low carbon
infrastructure (renewable
Cities Index ranks sustainability initiatives and the energy, bicycle infrastructure
and electric vehicle incentives)
necessity for all cities to take a
100 global cities balanced approach in developing • City resilience (natural
an agenda. In this release of the catastrophe exposure and risk
on three pillars of SCI, we bring an additional focus monitoring).
sustainability: People, on how the characteristics of
cities contribute to, or hold back,
Metrics underpinning the Profit
sub-index include:
Planet and Profit. the development of sustainability
• Effectiveness of transport
initiatives. Understanding citizen
The three pillars are needs and how cities function is infrastructure (rail, air and traffic
key to identifying how initiatives congestion)
closely aligned to to improve sustainability • Economic performance (GDP
per capita, employment rates,
the UN Sustainable performance can be effectively
implemented. ease of doing business, tourism,
position in global economic
Development Goals networks)
Metrics used to build the People
(SDGs) and track sub-index indicators measure city • Business infrastructure (Mobile
and broadband connectivity,
performance in terms of:
progress against UN • Personal well-being (health,
employment rates and
university technology research).
SDG commitments education, crime),
In 2018 we have revised the
• Working life (income inequality,
covering: working hours, the dependency indicators of the indices to give
ratio) greater emphasis to the digital
• Health and well-being
• Urban living (transport capabilities of cities. We use the
• Water and sanitation adoption of digital solutions as
accessibility, digital services and
• Industry, innovation and other amenities). a proxy measure for the pace
infrastructure at which cities are equipping
• Inclusive, safe, resilient and Data included in the Planet sub- themselves to meet future
sustainable cities index ranks cities according to needs. Connectivity, mobility,
• Climate change impacts environmental impacts covering: citizen engagement and disaster
• Life on land • Immediate needs of citizens management are all areas where
• Partnership. (water supplies, sanitation and the adoption of new digital
air pollution) solutions will enable cities
• Long-term impacts (energy to accelerate their sustainable
consumption, recycling rates, development.
greenhouse gas emissions)
9Overall results
L
ondon tops the Index, ranking second in both People
and Profit as well as ranking 11th against the Planet
sub-index. London is one of few high performing
balanced cities in the Index with similar scores across
the three pillars.
• Most highly ranked cities score well in one or two well in the Profit Pillar, while cities more to the
pillars. This is exemplified by Singapore and Hong east such as Prague, Warsaw and Moscow
Kong, both of which are in the top 10 driven by very face greater challenges associated with their
high Profit rankings and middle of the road People sustainability agenda.
and Planet rankings. Most of the top 10 cities do • Many of the European cities are increasingly
have very high Planet scores - these are Northern reliant on automated systems and data to
European cities, exemplified by Stockholm and support their effective operation. They are also
Frankfurt which have been highly successful in sensitive to corporate priorities for what makes a
combining economic prosperity and environmental successful and sustainable city. We term the citizen
stewardship. experience in these cities Balanced Innovators.
• The U.S. has four cities in the upper quartile. The • In Asia, we find a clear distinction between the
Profit pillar is typically strong for these cities, well-established Seoul and Tokyo and a large
New York ranked 14th overall and 4th in Profit. group of cities in China and emerging markets.
Interestingly, Seattle, ranked 19th, is the epitome of Of 23 cities in the sample, 14 are in the bottom
a balanced city, ranking around the upper quartile quartile, facing significant challenges across all
in all three pillars. We include a large sample pillars. The performance gap affecting cities in
of U.S. cities in the Index and 15 of them rank the bottom quarter of the ranking is particularly
between 50th and 75th, an exceptionally consistent daunting - figure 2 highlights that scores are
pattern. These cities are mid to low ranking across disproportionately low. Delivering sustainable
all pillars, highlighting the complex challenge that growth from such a baseline will require huge
post-industrial cities face. Most of the U.S. cities progress against the agenda set out by the UN
are in the process of a post-industrial transition, SDGs. These cities are characterized by higher
where cities are having to balance immediate levels of informality. We have developed two
investment in response to change with long-term models to describe these cities - Evolutionary Cities
sustainability. Sometimes this investment comes and Fast-growing Megacities, reflecting the scale
at the expense of legacy employment and with of cities in these clusters and the balance between
a greater sense of competition between city organized and informal activities in the cities.
peers for available investment. We describe the
• All cities in Latin America can be found in the
citizen experience in these cities as Post-industrial
lowest quartile. All seven cities in the sample are
Opportunists.
clustered within a range of 10 cities at the top end
• Sixteen European cities are in the upper quartile. of quartile rankings. Latin American cities score
Many of these, Amsterdam and Vienna, for relatively well in People and Planet but do less well
example, are balanced cities where our measures in the Profit rankings. This is a common pattern
suggest that the needs of citizens, business and the for lower ranking cities. Citizen experience in Latin
environment are all served well. Cities in Southern American cities most closely fits the Evolutionary
Europe such as Spain, Italy, and Greece, score less Cities cluster.
• Overall, the results of the Index highlight that
a cluster of relatively small European cities are
“Our neighborhood is very good. People particularly successful in balancing well-being
and economic performance and are taking steps
are so caring, and we can spend a lot of to mitigate some aspects of environmental
impact. However, further down the scale, cities
time with our neighbors.” which represent the fastest growing economies,
in Asia, South America and Africa all face huge
challenges to deliver citizen-centric growth while
Pooja, 44, New Delhi, India mitigating wider environmental impacts. Analysis
of the three pillars provides further insight into
these challenges.
10Figure 2: Overall Index Rankings
1 London 51 Houston
2 Stockholm 52 Philadelphia
3 Edinburgh 53 Denver
4 Singapore 54 Warsaw
5 Vienna 55 Honolulu
6 Zurich 56 Melbourne
7 Munich 57 Budapest
8 Oslo 58 Moscow
9 Hong Kong 59 Dallas
10 Frankfurt 60 Pittsburgh
11 Copenhagen 61 New Orleans
12 Amsterdam 62 Lisbon
13 Seoul 63 Miami
14 New York 64 Indianapolis
15 Paris 65 Jacksonville
16 San Francisco 66 Shenzhen
17 Hamburg 67 Kuala Lumpur
18 Berlin 68 Baltimore
19 Seattle 69 Phoenix
20 Dublin 70 Atlanta
21 Madrid 71 Detroit
22 Boston 72 Tampa
23 Prague 73 Beijing
24 Taipei 74 Guangzhou
25 Ottawa 75 Athens
26 Vancouver 76 Shanghai
27 Rotterdam 77 Santiago
28 Barcelona 78 Sao Paulo
29 Manchester 79 Mexico City
30 Toronto 80 Bangkok
31 Montreal 81 Buenos Aires
32 Glasgow 82 Istanbul
33 Tokyo 83 Tianjin
34 Sydney 84 Rio de Janeiro
35 Canberra 85 Lima
36 Geneva 86 Salvador
37 Calgary 87 Wuhan
38 Birmingham 88 Chennai
39 Washington 89 New Delhi
40 Rome 90 Chengdu
41 Macau 91 Bengaluru
42 Milan 92 Johannesburg
43 Antwerp 93 Mumbai
44 Brisbane 94 Jakarta
45 Los Angeles 95 Manila
46 Lyon 96 Nairobi
47 Brussels 97 Cape Town
48 Chicago 98 Hanoi
49 Wellington 99 Cairo
50 Leeds 100 Kolkata
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
People Planet ProfitThe People sub-index
T
he People sub-index measures social sustainability
- quality of life in the present and prospects for
improvement for future generations. Our working
hypothesis is that factors like good health and education
hold the key to current social sustainability, and that a city’s digital
infrastructure will set the foundation for future quality of life. The
People sub-index addresses UN SDGs dealing with poverty, health
and well-being, education and reduced inequalities.
• Edinburgh ranks first here based on the • Santiago and Buenos Aires score relatively highly
combination of a highly educated and healthy in the People sub-index based on reasonably
workforce, a reasonably equal distribution of strong scores in health and education, making
income and low crime rate. them peers of many cities in the U.S. However,
• The rest of the top 10 includes smaller cities cities in Brazil, Mexico and Peru rank much lower
from Europe, developed cities in Asia and San as a result of poorer educational attainment and
Francisco representing the U.S. All these cities have digital provision.
strengths and weaknesses, but a recurring feature • The bottom three cities are all found in Africa but
of these cities is their relatively high education cities from all continents other than Europe and
scores, reflecting university rankings as well as Oceania can be found in the lower quartile. Scores
participation rates. There are also some indications are particularly low for health and education
of a better digital experience. All cities in the top 10 outcomes, affordability and digital capability.
form part of the Balanced Innovator cluster. Crime, income inequality and work-life balance
• Typically, cities in Europe, developed Asia and are worse than for other cities but in reality, the
Oceania score well in the People sub-index. Cities performance of most cities in the lower half of the
in the U.S. are lacking, with only two in the upper sub-index is significantly worse than the top half
quartile. The citizen experience of U.S. cities is of the sub-index, highlighting common challenges
affected by higher than average income inequality, for many cities in Africa, Asia, Southern Europe
crime and limited access to public transport. Many and the U.S. This finding highlights challenges
U.S. Post-industrial Opportunist cities are ranked for the citizen experience across most city types,
below 50th in the sub-index. particularly in Evolutionary Cities such as Jakarta
or Cape Town.
• As part of our increased focus on the forward-
looking capability of the city, we have also looked
“There's a real shortage of housing. That's at how cities are using technology to improve
quality of life for their citizens. Our ranking takes
why house prices and trending prices are into account digital services associated with
transport and property taxes as well as measures
sky high. You pay a lot of money for not a of connectivity including the affordability of
broadband and the availability of Wi-Fi.
lot of space.” • The top 10 cities score well across these metrics,
with cities such as San Francisco clearly having
Kirsten, 27, Amsterdam, Netherlands many digital advantages. However, aspects of
digital services including Wi-Fi and digitally-
accessed transport are widely available in a large
share of the cities sampled, only in the bottom
quartile does a real digital gap emerge. Digital
is a strong point for U.S. cities, with only three
cities having low levels of digital integration in the
transport system.
12Figure 3: People sub-index
1 Edinburgh 51 Beijing
2 London 52 Washington
3 Paris 53 Guangzhou
4 Taipei 54 Toronto
5 Stockholm 55 Shenzhen
6 Prague 56 Lisbon
7 Seoul 57 Budapest
8 Amsterdam 58 Honolulu
9 San Francisco 59 Kuala Lumpur
10 Madrid 60 Santiago
11 Tokyo 61 Houston
12 Manchester 62 Dallas
13 Rotterdam 63 Pittsburgh
14 Moscow 64 Jacksonville
15 Canberra 65 Buenos Aires
16 Macau 66 Philadelphia
17 Lyon 67 Shanghai
18 Dublin 68 Denver
19 Vienna 69 Geneva
20 Seattle 70 Chicago
21 Hong Kong 71 Phoenix
22 Wellington 72 Atlanta
23 Glasgow 73 Miami
24 Barcelona 74 Tampa
25 Sydney 75 Istanbul
26 Brussels 76 Tianjin
27 Milan 77 Indianapolis
28 Frankfurt 78 Mexico City
29 Ottawa 79 Baltimore
30 New York 80 Sao Paulo
31 Singapore 81 New Orleans
32 Oslo 82 Chengdu
33 Birmingham 83 Wuhan
34 Montreal 84 Detroit
35 Munich 85 Bangkok
36 Berlin 86 Chennai
37 Rome 87 New Delhi
38 Melbourne 88 Lima
39 Calgary 89 Cairo
40 Copenhagen 90 Rio de Janeiro
41 Warsaw 91 Bengaluru
42 Hamburg 92 Hanoi
43 Zurich 93 Manila
44 Boston 94 Mumbai
45 Brisbane 95 Salvador
46 Vancouver 96 Kolkata
47 Leeds 97 Jakarta
48 Athens 98 Cape Town
49 Antwerp 99 Johannesburg
50 Los Angeles 100 Nairobi
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Affordability Education Health Public transport Digital
Income inequality Work-life balance Crime Demographics Cultural offeringsThe Planet sub-index
T
he Planet sub-index measures the sustainable attributes
of a city such as green space and pollution in addition to
leading indicators of environmental mitigation such as
support for low carbon transport. The Planet sub-index
addresses UN SDGs for clean water and sanitation, clean energy
and climate action.
• Our data highlights that all cities in the upper • The natural attributes of Latin American cities
quartile of the Planet sub-index are European or including São Paulo and Salvador mean that
North American cities including four from Canada. these cities score highly across most of the Planet
Asian cities including Hong Kong and Singapore sub-index rankings and appear in the top half of
which score well overall do less well in the Planet the rankings. Waste management tends to be
sub-index – partly due to resilience risks associated challenging in these cities, leading to lower scores
with their exposure to natural catastrophe. This is a for some cities including Buenos Aires.
problem also faced by many cities in the U.S. • Cities in the lowest quartile come mostly from
• Stockholm leads the Sustainable Cities Index Asia and Africa. Hanoi comes at the bottom of
on the Planet pillar, thanks to investment in the rankings, facing legacy challenges associated
sustainable infrastructure, low emissions and good limited green space, high levels of air pollution and
air quality. For the top 10 cities, distinguishing poor waste management provision. Low levels
features tend to be the legacy of lots of green of access to resources means that greenhouse
space, below average air pollution and effective gas emissions in the bottom 10 cities including
waste management. As a leading indicator of Kolkata and Cairo are as low as those in the top 10.
investment in low-carbon infrastructure, all However, investment in low carbon technologies
of these cities have made significantly larger will inevitably be a lower priority when basic citizen
investments in bicycle infrastructure than many of needs like water and waste management still
their peers. need to be fixed. There are an equal number of
• The remainder of cities in the top half of the sub- Evolutionary Cities and Fast-growing Megacities in
index are located in Europe, Oceania, Brazil and the bottom quartile.
(mostly) coastal cities in the U.S. These all fit the • The presence of developed world cities including
Balanced Innovators. Accordingly, this means that Athens, Atlanta, Istanbul, Melbourne and Moscow
14 cities in the U.S., including Chicago, Houston in the bottom quartile highlights that there is no
and Los Angeles are in the bottom half of the sub- room for complacency. There are few common
index. All U.S. cities have a below-average energy themes linking these cities other than isolated,
use profile, and these three cities also have limited very low scores in single indicators such as GHG
green space provision as well as sub-par waste emissions (Melbourne), waste management
management. In paradox, in car-loving U.S. cities, (Moscow) or green space (Atlanta and Athens).
air quality is typically good, although greenhouse However, given low levels of investment in
gas (GHG) emissions tend to be on the high side. mitigation technologies such as Electric Vehicles
and bicycle infrastructure, there is inconclusive
evidence as to whether these cities are actively
addressing their challenges.
“Since arriving six months ago, I have • Across the Index, many cities are at risk to natural
catastrophes. Even top 10 cities like Munich have
begun to feel healthier and more relaxed. a high exposure to flood risk. We have added a
natural disaster monitoring indicator to assess how
While the city feels so equal and fair, I wish early warning technology is being used to mitigate
these risks. The indicator highlights that the 10
it was easier to really connect with people cities with the greatest risk exposure have below
par early warning systems. Interestingly, some
and make new friends.” cities with the lowest risk profile including Calgary
and Ottawa, have highly developed warning
Erik, 26, Stockholm, Sweden systems, demonstrating the extent to which some
cities are prepared to invest in their citizen’s long-
term quality of life.
14Figure 4: Planet sub-index
1 Stockholm 51 Calgary
2 Frankfurt 52 Chicago
3 Zurich 53 Brisbane
4 Vienna 54 Denver
5 Copenhagen 55 Jacksonville
6 Oslo 56 Detroit
7 Hamburg 57 Miami
8 Berlin 58 Phoenix
9 Munich 59 Houston
10 Montreal 60 Los Angeles
11 London 61 Nairobi
12 Geneva 62 Budapest
13 Ottawa 63 Tokyo
14 Toronto 64 Shenzhen
15 Madrid 65 Tampa
16 Amsterdam 66 Baltimore
17 Vancouver 67 Dallas
18 Edinburgh 68 Prague
19 Glasgow 69 Pittsburgh
20 New York 70 Mexico City
21 Manchester 71 Guangzhou
22 Barcelona 72 Taipei
23 New Orleans 73 Macau
24 Rome 74 Warsaw
25 Paris 75 Johannesburg
26 Seattle 76 Shanghai
27 Birmingham 77 Santiago
28 Leeds 78 Atlanta
29 Boston 79 Athens
30 Seoul 80 Tianjin
31 Dublin 81 Melbourne
32 Salvador 82 Buenos Aires
33 Sao Paulo 83 Kuala Lumpur
34 Antwerp 84 Bengaluru
35 Lyon 85 Beijing
36 Philadelphia 86 New Delhi
37 Honolulu 87 Moscow
38 Rotterdam 88 Istanbul
39 Lisbon 89 Mumbai
40 Milan 90 Wuhan
41 Singapore 91 Manila
42 Wellington 92 Chennai
43 San Francisco 93 Chengdu
44 Canberra 94 Bangkok
45 Washington 95 Cape Town
46 Brussels 96 Jakarta
47 Rio de Janeiro 97 Lima
48 Indianapolis 98 Cairo
49 Sydney 99 Kolkata
50 Hong Kong 100 Hanoi
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Energy Air pollution Greenhouse gas emissions Waste management Water & sanitation Green spaces
Bicycle infrastructure Electric vehicle incentives Environmental exposure Negative emmission Natural disaster
technologies monitoringThe Profit sub-index
T
he Profit pillar • Looking at regional groupings of cities across
the sample, U.S. cities perform better against
measures the the Profit sub-index than other elements of the
Index. Interestingly, highly ranked cities including
economic health of Chicago, Houston and Denver do not perform
anywhere near as well under either the People
a city, incorporating or Planet metrics. The long-term prioritization
of economic performance over other aspects of
indicators that reflect the sustainability has given many U.S. cities a legacy
that is particularly challenging to overturn.
productive capacity of cities • By contrast in Europe, while the top 12 economic
performers do well across all metrics, there is a
today, as well as the presence further block of 15 cities including cities in the UK,
of infrastructure and regulatory France and Italy that do not score so highly. In the
UK this may reflect the consequences of economic
enablers that support growth over-centralization, whereas elsewhere in Europe
the data points to issues faced by many European
and prosperity in the present and cities in reinventing themselves for the new
economy – particularly with respect to tourism,
the future. UN SDGs addressed transport infrastructure and connectivity. This
mixed pattern of performance means that
by the Profit pillar include the innovator/opportunist model is less effective
in explaining city performance at the lower end
economic growth, innovation of the spectrum.
• Latin American cities are all in the bottom quartile
and infrastructure. and score lowest across the Profit sub-index.
This result reflects below-par scores across most
metrics including output, tourism and connectivity.
• The Profit sub-index has the greatest dispersion
• A key feature of the Profit sub-index are the
across the three pillars. The top ten cities including
particularly low scores for the lowest ranked
New York, Hong Kong and Zurich score much
cities in the Index—highlighting huge barriers to
higher than in the other sub-indices, while the
economic, social and environmental progress.
lower quartile does much worse. These results
Low scores for ease of doing business and
highlight that inequality of economic performance
relative output are the main drivers but scores
is central to the challenge of city sustainability.
are low across the board. These challenges are
• Singapore, London and Hong Kong come out also evidenced across the bottom 25 cities.
comfortably on top in this pillar breaking away There is a close relationship between poor Profit
from other top-performing cities on transportation, rankings, low People rankings and a low overall
ease of doing business and connectivity. Index ranking. Sixteen of the bottom cities are
Singapore is the stand-out city with high levels of Evolutionary Cities where informal patterns of
employment delivering correspondingly high levels working are common in commerce and the service
of output. The remaining top 10, comprising U.S. industry. The impact of these practices on ease
coastal cities, as well as Seoul and three European of doing business may help to explain why the
cities including Zurich all score well on ease of differential in performance on the Profit pillar is
doing business and output, but the performance of so marked.
the transport system is much more mixed.
• In the Profit pillar, we have included digital
connectivity and university technology research
and development as forward indicators for
sustainable growth. Singapore, London and Hong
“The air pollution used to be really bad... Kong have outstanding scores in these areas,
and the top 10. New York, San Francisco and
you couldn’t even see the sky on some Boston also do well. These results highlight that
economically strong cities will often continue to
days. Things are getting better now as have an advantage in reinventing themselves as
well as sustaining current performance.
they start to clean things up, but it’s a bit
incredible how bad things got.”
Zhang, 43, Shenzhen, China
16Figure 5: Profit sub-index
1 Singapore 51 Budapest
2 London 52 Miami
3 Hong Kong 53 Moscow
4 New York 54 Detroit
5 Munich 55 Ottawa
6 Edinburgh 56 Indianapolis
7 San Francisco 57 Manchester
8 Boston 58 Glasgow
9 Zurich 59 Birmingham
10 Seoul 60 Milan
11 Stockholm 61 Montreal
12 Prague 62 Rome
13 Taipei 63 New Orleans
14 Oslo 64 Bangkok
15 Copenhagen 65 Leeds
16 Vienna 66 Brussels
17 Amsterdam 67 Beijing
18 Paris 68 Phoenix
19 Dublin 69 Jacksonville
20 Seattle 70 Shenzhen
21 Chicago 71 Tampa
22 Houston 72 Wellington
23 Denver 73 Lisbon
24 Hamburg 74 Lyon
25 Los Angeles 75 Shanghai
26 Washington 76 Athens
27 Warsaw 77 Guangzhou
28 Tokyo 78 Lima
29 Geneva 79 Santiago
30 Vancouver 80 Istanbul
31 Sydney 81 Mexico City
32 Berlin 82 Jakarta
33 Calgary 83 Tianjin
34 Frankfurt 84 Johannesburg
35 Macau 85 Buenos Aires
36 Toronto 86 Sao Paulo
37 Kuala Lumpur 87 Chennai
38 Rotterdam 88 Cape Town
39 Brisbane 89 Wuhan
40 Pittsburgh 90 Mumbai
41 Dallas 91 Hanoi
42 Philadelphia 92 Bengaluru
43 Melbourne 93 Rio de Janeiro
44 Antwerp 94 New Delhi
45 Atlanta 95 Salvador
46 Baltimore 96 Chengdu
47 Barcelona 97 Nairobi
48 Honolulu 98 Manila
49 Madrid 99 Cairo
50 Canberra 100 Kolkata
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Employment Economic Development Ease of Doing Business Transportation Infrastructure
Tourism Connectivity University Technology ResearchExplaining patterns of city sustainability
City Clusters
W
hy is one city more sustainable than another? Is
it because of physical attributes such as a safe,
resilient location or as a result of far-sighted
investment in green space? Is it the result of
long periods of investment in health, education and transport
infrastructure, or the impact of more recent actions taken to
mitigate the impacts of unfettered growth? Most importantly,
how do these drivers relate to citizen needs, both now and in the
future? When comparing cities at opposite ends of the spectrum,
these differences appear easy to spot, often in the levels of
health and education infrastructure and the levels of meaningful
employment, but as one compares peer cities, the differences are
harder to discern.
1819
To provide greater insight into the factors that
influence city development and performance, we
have developed a deeper understanding of how
citizens and cities relate.
Figure 6: Creating city clusters
This insight is derived from city archetypes based
on urban ethnographic research into how cities are
evolving and the experience of the citizens living
within them. The results of this research is a set of
four city clusters.
ple
Pla
Our starting point for developing the clusters is
Peo
net
that all cities are composites of different citizen
experiences. Elements of a fast-growing city where Sustainable
citizen needs are met in part through an informal Cities Index
economy can be found alongside aspects of the
most advanced, smart city technologies, where
services and infrastructure are integrated using data
and digital platforms. These experiences of a city,
whether Informal or Sensing for example, help to
connect the citizen to the city. Profit
Our research has focused on eight archetypes that
highlight how cities are experienced by citizens. A
single archetype is not intended to describe a city.
ng Acce
In each city, the archetypes combine to define the nsi ssi
character of a city clusters. More detail about the Se ble
archetypes can be found in the Appendix.
Au
t
ien
tom
Resil
ated
Citizen Centric
City Archetypes
ce d
Info
la n
rm
Ba
al
En
ter
p u pted
ris e D is r
s Post
ator Ind
nov us
In t
d
ria
ce
lO
an
City
ppo
Bal
Clusters
rtunists
Formed by assigning relevance to
Ev o lu t
each of the indicators in the
sub-indices for each archetype
io n
es
ar
iti
Ci
ac
y
tie
s eg
M
Fast- grow ing
20Figure 7: City archetypes detail
Using integrated Using accessible
sensors to manage city infrastructure to
services enable all people
to go about their
daily lives
g Acce
ensin ssib
S le
At risk from Run to an
disruption and heavily increasing extent
invested in mitigation automated
Au
nt
measures processes and AI
tom
ilie
Res
ated
Info
ce d
la n
rm
Ba
al
Unplanned cities Prosperous,
where citizens create healthy and with a
their own services good work-life
and structures balance
En d
ter
p r u pte
ris e D is
Aligned to the needs Facing economic
of businesses and decline and
their employees needing to
re-invent
21Fast-growing
Figure 8: City clusters and archetype relationship
Megacities,
Post-industrial Balanced
Opportunists, Innovators
Evolutionary
Cities, Balanced
Innovators
Post-industrial
When looking at the clusters, our first hypothesis
Opportunists
is that a highly developed, world city will be
experienced in a radically different way to a rapidly
developing, emerging economy city. Our second
hypothesis is that the detailed difference between
peer cities described by a cluster will explain in
part their differing sustainability performance
All city clusters feature a different balance
of archetypes that lead to different citizen
experiences. Furthermore, not all people will
be familiar with the experiences associated with
each archetype.
As a result, differences in cities reflect how widely
Evolutionary
available an experience is as well as its character. Cities
For example, in a rapidly developing city, experiences
associated with resilience, sensing and automation
may only be available to an elite, whereas the
experience of a large share of the population will
be much more precarious and informal. By contrast,
in highly developed city like Hong Kong, the
experience of a highly Automated and Accessible
city infrastructure is almost ubiquitous.
Fast-growing
Megacities
Disrupted Informal Balanced Resilient
Automated Sensing Accesible Enterprise
22Cluster one.
Figure 9 Cluster 1: Balanced Innovators
Balanced
Innovators.
Thirty-five cities fit this profile, all of which are in Balanced
the top half of the Index. All but one of the top Innovators
25 cities in the Index are classified as Balanced
Innovators. This suggests a close association
between the attributes of a sustainable city. The
key citizen experiences associated with this profile
are convenience and security associated with
Automation and Sensing and high quality of life
associated with an absence of Disruption as well
as the infrastructure necessary for a Connected
city. Cities that match the Balanced Innovator
Disrupted Informal Balanced Resilient
profile need to be prosperous and as a result,
many of the service industry dominated cities of Automated Sensing Accesible Enterprise
Northern Europe, Coastal U.S. and Asia fit within
this profile. Looking forward, the role of technology
in enabling seamless infrastructure and in
supporting high expectations for service quality Cities
will grow exponentially.
Amsterdam / Antwerp / Barcelona / Berlin
The challenges that these cities face include / Boston / Brisbane / Brussels / Canberra /
addressing an aging population – which requires Copenhagen / Dublin / Edinburgh / Frankfurt
affordable housing and a diverse range of services. / Geneva / Hamburg / Hong Kong / London /
As they prosper, and their development accelerates, Macau / Madrid / Milan / Munich / New York /
the ties that bind these cities socially and politically Oslo / Paris / Prague / Rome / San Francisco /
to their hinterlands may become strained, Seattle / Seoul / Singapore / Stockholm / Sydney
particularly given these cities continuing need for / Taipei / Tokyo / Vienna / Zurich.
investment. This is reflected in the pace of change
associated with the Balanced Innovator city, both Defining city archetypes:
in terms of citizen expectation and the need for
investment and innovation. Enterprise - Aligned to the needs of businesses
and their employees.
Automated - Run to an increasing extent
automated processes and AI.
Sensing - Using integrated sensors to manage
city services.
“People take a lot of pride in where they live here and
care for each other.”
Jane, 30, Melbourne, Australia
Accessible – using accessible infrastructure to enable all people to go about thei
Automated – run to an increasing extent automated processes and AI
Disrupted – facing economic decline and needing to re-invent
23
Balanced – prosperous, healthy and with a good work-life balanceFigure 10 Cluster 2: Post-industrial Opportunists
Cluster two.
Post-industrial
Opportunists.
Post-industrial
Opportunists
Thirty-three cities fit this profile, all of which
are place in the middle two quartiles of the SCI.
Accordingly, these are cities that in most cases
deliver a good quality of life, but which have
room to improve. The cluster consists mainly of
American cities together with some European and
Australian cities. Citizen experiences supported by
a growing role of technology are mostly positive
Disrupted Informal Balanced Resilient
but might potentially be undermined by the impact
of automation on legacy employment. Cities that Automated Sensing Accesible Enterprise
match this profile have a more balanced economy
so are less likely to be faced with the economic
dislocation that has been seen in some recession-
hit cities such as Detroit. However, even though Cities
these cities tend to be relatively well-managed,
there may well be underlying tensions associated Atlanta / Baltimore / Birmingham / Budapest /
with the need to assure city resilience and to assure Calgary / Chicago / Dallas / Denver / Glasgow /
long-term sustainability of the city’s economic Honolulu / Houston / Indianapolis / Jacksonville /
model in response to change. Looking forward, Leeds / Lisbon / Los Angeles /Lyon / Manchester
these cities will likely be competing against one- / Melbourne / Miami / Montreal / Moscow / New
another to attract new investment and new Orleans / Ottawa / Philadelphia / Phoenix /
city dwellers. Pittsburgh /Rotterdam / Toronto / Vancouver /
Warsaw / Washington / Wellington.
The challenges that these cities face are often
associated with the need to compete by driving Defining city archetypes.
change. The adaptation of city infrastructure to
accommodate digital innovation is a good example Accessible - Using accessible infrastructure to
of these challenges, with citizens increasingly enable all people to go about their daily lives.
concerned about how data is used and how
Automated - Run to an increasing extent
accountable organizations delivering city services
automated processes and AI.
will be in the future. Another challenge is associated
with the increasing dynamism of these cities. Resilient - At risk from disruption and heavily
As a result, the work-life balance and integrated invested in mitigation measures.
communities associated with the Balanced archetype Sensing - Using integrated sensors to manage
is less present. This can be seen in the war for talent city services.
between cities, manifested as a competition for
employers and the people that they bring. The
competition run by Amazon for their second U.S. HQ
has vividly brought this reality to life over the past
year. Given the potential pace of change and sense of
dislocation in these cities, it is also essential that they
retain a sense of coherent identity around which a
diverse but increasingly connected group of citizens
can rally around. Manchester’s resilience following
terrorist attack in 2017 was built on just such a strong
shared sense of city identity.
Accessible – using accessible infrastructure to enable all people to go about their
Automated – run to an increasing extent automated processes and AI
24
Disrupted – facing economic decline and needing to re-inventFigure 11 Cluster 3: Evolutionary Cities
Cluster three.
Evolutionary
Cities.
Evolutionary
Cities
Nineteen cities fit this profile. All of these cities in
the bottom third of the SCI. This is a very diverse
group that includes rapidly growing cities in
emerging markets as well as cities in developed
economies that are changing rapidly in response
to new circumstances. Core citizen experiences
in these cities are focused on aspects of informal Disrupted Informal Balanced Resilient
entrepreneurialism - articulated possibly as micro-
Automated Sensing Accesible Enterprise
enterprise or alternatively as community self-help.
One driver of the informal economy is the role of
citizen enterprise in delivering services where city
authorities are absent. Another driver is the core
Cities
role of community – often at a really local level. On
this basis, communities within the city are likely Athens / Bangkok / Buenos Aires / Cape
to be far more sustainable than the aggregate Town / Detroit, Hanoi / Istanbul / Jakarta /
city itself. Enterprise also has a key role – shaping Johannesburg / Kuala Lumpur / Lima / Manila /
service delivery according to market logic than a Mexico City / Nairobi / Rio de Janeiro / Salvador,
public service agenda. Santiago / Sao Paulo / Tampa.
A key challenge that Evolutionary Cities face is the Defining city archetypes.
level of disruption affecting cities that are at a turning
point in their trajectory. This disruption might affect Enterprise - Aligned to the needs of businesses
jobs, crime levels and even mobility choices. As a and their employees.
result, the citizen experience can be focused much
more on the downside associated with the change. Informal - Unplanned cities where citizens create
This is why the drive obtained from Enterprise and their own services and structures.
Informal aspects of citizen experience is so important Disrupted - Facing economic decline and
in building momentum around initiatives that will needing to re-invent.
improve the quality of life.
From the perspective of citizen experience,
where people have less overall control over city
development and service delivery, there is a much
greater likelihood of dissatisfaction – either due
to the variable provision of services or due to the
disruption of tight-knit networks and communities
when development finally occurs. These factors
are significant barriers to consistent sustainable
development in cities.
“Don’t move here if you’re tired because you’ll
need a lot of energy to do everything that the city
has to offer.” Accessible – using accessible infrastructure to enable all people to go about thei
Automated – run to an increasing extent automated processes and AI
Jennifer, 48 São Paulo, Brazil
Disrupted – facing economic decline and needing to re-invent
25 Balanced – prosperous, healthy and with a good work-life balanceFigure 12 Cluster 4: Fast-growing Megacities
Cluster four.
Fast-growing
megacities.
Fast-growing
Megacities
Thirteen cities fit this profile. All but three of these
cities are in the bottom quartile of the Index.
All are located in rapidly growing economies
including China and India, subject to high levels
of inward-migration, investment in infrastructure
and change. Cities like Mumbai, Shanghai and
Disrupted Informal Balanced Resilient
Shenzhen exhibit significant inequality in terms of
income and access to resources and opportunity. Automated Sensing Accesible Enterprise
Citizen experiences include high levels of informal
economic activity as well as the powerful influence
of enterprise – often directed by the state to
deliver development and services. Citizens have Cities
little control over the way in which the city evolves
but paradoxically the models suggest that many Beijing / Bengaluru / Cairo / Chengdu / Chennai
citizens retain a sense of stability through kinship / Guangzhou / Kolkata / Mumbai / New Delhi /
and community links highlighted by the Balanced Shanghai / Shenzhen / Tianjin / Wuhan.
city archetype. Supporting these social networks
Defining city archetypes.
through periods of rapid growth will demonstrate
the extent to which these cities can thrive in line
Enterprise - Aligned to the needs of businesses
with the people agenda.
and their employees.
A key challenge for the city is engagement with the Informal - Unplanned cities where citizens create
citizen. A good example of this is citizen experience their own services and structures.
of technology in comparison to other city clusters.
Resilient - At risk from disruption and heavily
This is not necessarily a reflection on the level of
invested in mitigation measures.
technological advancement as some of these cities,
particularly in China, have a very sophisticated
technology infrastructure. This is more a reflection
on other citizen priorities. Another key problem is the
accommodation of informal development – providing
the basic infrastructure necessary to accommodate
fast population growth. This challenge is reflected in
the problems that many of these cities face with air
quality as well as provision of food and clean water.
Long-term resilience for these cities, some of which
are exposed to a relatively high disaster risk, will be
an important aspect of citizen’s experience as these
cities continue to absorb growth.
“As a woman I don't feel secure especially at night. It is
very unsafe for a woman to travel alone at night and
even staying alone at home is also unsafe.”
Accessible – using accessible infrastructure to enable all people to go about thei
Sangeeta, New Delhi, India Automated – run to an increasing extent automated processes and AI
Disrupted – facing economic decline and needing to re-invent
26 Balanced – prosperous, healthy and with a good work-life balanceAppendix
Disclaimer, authorship and
acknowledgements
This report was commissioned by Arcadis and credible sources (e.g. the World Health Organization,
informed by research produced by the Centre for CDP, Siemens etc.) Most sources are publicly
Economics and Business Research Ltd (Cebr), an available. With Arcadis wanting to include 100 cities
independent economics and business research in a global report, we had to use a data set that
consultancy established in 1992. The expert could be comparable. There are a lot of varied data
commentary was compiled by a cross section of sources around the world. Finding like-for-like data
Arcadis’ city and sustainability experts. The views for all 100 selected cities limited our selection of
expressed herein are those of the authors only and sources. Some geographies or cities that did not have
are based upon their independent research. While sufficient, comparable data were excluded. We focus
every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy on data and sources that are credible, comparable
of the material in this document, neither the Cebr and valid. City-level data was used wherever possible,
nor Arcadis will be liable for any loss or damages though in some cases only national-level data exists.
incurred through the use of this report. Where there is no comparable city-level data across
countries, the national value is taken, and a national
Data is constantly changing. Both Cebr and Arcadis database is used to scale the cities so that they were
have made every effort to ensure the quality and given a spread around the national average.
accuracy of the data. Cebr used its vast databases
and connections to compile the data from globally
Methodology
The Sustainable Cities Index is constructed by Several of the indicators have outlying values – these
a three-stage averaging process. Some of the are defined as observations two standard deviations
indicators are composites, meaning these take an away from the mean. These are given the maximum
average of their component sub-indicators. In most or minimum score, as appropriate, and the next-
cases this is the simple average, however given the highest/lowest value is defined as the boundary
importance of housing costs to household spending observation which is used to calculate the scores of
the affordability index was weighted 70:30 in favor the other (non-outlier) values.
of housing. The three sub-indices are calculated
by taking weighted averages of their component City-level data are used wherever possible, though
indicators and the overall score is calculated by in some cases only national-level data exist. Where
taking the simple average of the three sub-indices. there is no comparable city-level data across
countries, the national value is taken, and a national
Even where there is no weighting system applied, database is used to scale the cities so that they are
since the number of indicators differs across sub- given a spread around the national average.
indices, the weights in the overall index do implicitly
differ. The same applies for the sub-indicators: two In 2018 we have revised the calculation of the
components which go into one indicator will naturally indices to give greater emphasis to the digital
have half the weight of another indicator within the capabilities of cities. We use the adoption of digital
same pillar which has only one component. solutions as a proxy measure for the pace at which
cities are equipping themselves to meet future
The averaging process demands that the scores needs. Connectivity, mobility, citizen engagement
be converted into common units, for which we use and disaster management are all areas where the
percentages. Each is scaled such that the worst- adoption of new digital solutions will enable cities to
performing city receives 0% and the best performer accelerate their sustainable development.
receives 100%. Since the sub-indices and the overall
index are simply averages of the indicators, they are 1 The Weighting used for each indicator are shown in
also measured in percentage terms. the table.
27You can also read
