Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: An analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities

Accepted Manuscript Title: Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: an analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities Authors: Eleni Feleki, Christos Vlachokostas, Nicolas Moussiopoulos PII: DOI: Reference:

S2210-6707(18)30556-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.025 SCS 1223

To appear in: Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

22-3-2018 2-7-2018 18-8-2018

Please cite this article as: Feleki E, Vlachokostas C, Moussiopoulos N, Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: an analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities, Sustainable Cities and Society (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.025 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: an analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities

Eleni Feleki, Christos Vlachokostas, Nicolas Moussiopoulos Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece Corresponding author: Eleni Feleki, Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,

IP T

Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece, Tel.: +30 2310994109, Fax: +30 2310 996012, e-mail: [email protected]

U

Critical review of urban sustainability indices and systems of indicators 25 well-known sustainability tools are analysed and the indicators are compiled Aggregation of indicators and reflection to sustainability pillars Core set of categories and indicators that reflect sustainability in a balanced way Integration of sustainability with the spatial dimension

N

    

SC R

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

A

Abstract

M

A great number of tools that assess sustainability exist. The analysis of 18 urban sustainability indices and 7 urban

ED

sustainability systems of indicators that satisfy the research criteria, reveals a great variation in terms of variables used to express the level of sustainability and an unbalanced reflection on the ‘’traditional’’ dimensions of sustainability. Tools are

PT

often applied at any scale, not respecting the initial level of design, disabling the introduction of thresholds. The paper, attempts a cross-cutting research in the area of urban design and planning, through the reinforcement of continuous

CC E

monitoring and mainstreaming of sustainability policies, based on real data. It compiles variables composing the tools. Indicators are aggregated and reflection to the ‘’traditional’’ dimensions of sustainability, is revealed.

A

The aim is to propose a set of commonly accepted indicators, through the implementation of an innovative ‘’meet in the middle approach’’ that leads to the characterisation of sustainability in European urban areas. This is attempted through a top-down approach that leads to a set of indicators that meet certain criteria and the integration of experts’ viewpoint (bottom-up). The paper prepares the ground for an index that will bridge the gap between sustainability assessment tools and holistic characterisation of cities.

1

Keywords: spatial dimension, common characteristics, core indicators, thresholds, Mediterranean area

1. Introduction Cities impact significantly to the global performance. Indicatively, it is estimated that urban areas use 67–76% of global

IP T

energy supply (Athanassiadis et al., 2016) and contribute for 71–76% of global CO2-emissions caused by energy use (Seto et al., 2014). At the same time, urban population is expected to reach 6.5 billion by 2050 (McDonnell et al, 2016).

SC R

This bears impacts on quality and adequacy of resources (water, air, energy), while the socio-economic conditions will continue to be affected significantly in terms of employment rates, open spaces, human well-being, cost of life etc. The impact of such an enormous concentration of people, in combination with the existing impacts of cities, calls for a critical

U

overview, study and merging of scientific achievements in the field of sustainability assessment.

N

Urban sustainability indices and systems of indicators as tools of urban sustainability characterisation, have made their

A

appearance in the scientific field and practice of sustainability since the early 1990s. Their applications are numerous

M

(Bohringer et al. 2007), covering many sectors, e.g. urban sustainability (Moussiopoulos et. al, 2010), tourism (Michailidou

ED

et. al, 2015) water, energy, etc. A system of indicators is an ‘‘operational representation of attributes (quality, characteristic, property), according to Gallopin (1997), whereas an index is a more complex aggregate variable that

PT

combines multiple indicators using various normalisation and weighting schemes, according to Wu and Wu (2012). Indices, in particular, have emerged drastically after the Rio Summit in 1992, intending to face the environmental, social

CC E

and economic challenges and provide strategic insights to local decision-makers. However, according to Dong et al., (2016) no single assessment method can provide perfect evaluation for one city up-to-date due to the complex urban

A

nature, addressing different needs of economic, environmental and social perspectives. Also, according to Marsal-Llacuna et al. (2015), since 2006, sustainability assessment and monitoring has decreased considerably due to the failure of a synthetic index to summarise effectively and realistically the overall set of sustainability. Despite the fact that a large number of indices and systems of indicators is available, taking also into consideration the ISO 37120:2014 that establishes definitions and methodologies for a set of city indicators (46 core and 54 supportive) to measure delivery of services and quality of life, classifying and making the best use of them towards the overall 2

assessment and characterization of cities is still a challenge. Stakeholders’, including experts’ from the academia and the public authorities and citizens’ participation (European Commission, 2010) involvement in the conceptualisation and perception of indicators is also significant (Mascarenhas et al., 2009). Several reasons behind this unmet challenge are depicted. The scientific work of Lynch et al. (2011) explores the characteristics of existing systems of indicators and concludes that coverage of certain sustainability dimensions is insufficient. Even though the concept of sustainability is traditionally focusing three pillars (environment, economy and

IP T

social), there is still no globally accepted perception of sustainability. This is also quoted by Cabello et al. (2014). Furthermore, effective and realistic sustainability assessment goes hand in hand with requirements that need to be

SC R

respected either during the design or the application of a tool. Based on literature overview, the parameters that need to be considered during the design phase are: (i) the generic applicability of the tool, based on a solid justification of the variables selected to be measured (ii) the inclusion of thresholds (iii) reflection to the common characteristic of cities

U

(urban-specific indicators) (iv) reflection to the environmental and socio-economic pillar. Additionally, the scale for which

N

a tool has been designed has to be consistent with the scale of application. These parameters are considered as important

A

criteria that should be accounted for selection of indicators and the design of an assessment tool, but are not standing-

M

alone.

ED

Indicator selection is a continuous process which involves several issues, calls for clear design criteria and stakeholders’ participation (Huang et. al, 1998). Due to the fact that extensive research is dedicated on this issue, a large

PT

number of indicators is identified, based on different selection criteria, but no ‘’universally’’ accepted set exists. Additionally, the study of Luean et al (2017) brings out the fact that there is a need to simplify the sustainability evaluation

CC E

process that has become challenging because of the over-population of indicators. In this context Tanguay et al (2010) claim that we are allowed to accept the most cited indicators as the most relevant ones. This rationale has benefits but also drawbacks. The most referenced indicators should be simpler, more comprehensive, easy to calculate, with available

A

data (Kumar et al, 2015), but also their simplicity might put in compromise diversity, their ability to reflect the triple line of sustainability and the special characteristics, in depth. The current work inherits and combines the approaches of Tanguay et al (2010) and Huang et al (1998), eliminates the risks and serves diversity, through the implementation of the IndSelec strategy, discussed in section 3 and attempts the proposal of a set of core indicators for European cities that would eliminate subjectivity and would characterise urban 3

sustainability holistically. This is achieved through meticulous literature overview and compilation of indicators used by 17 indices and 8 systems of indicators that meet the criteria briefly discussed above. Additionally to their compilation, the indicators are categorised in an attempt to demonstrate their reflection against the three ‘’traditional’’ sustainability dimensions and the most ‘’popular’’ indicators reveal. The study is further completed with the integration of a bottom-up approach and the inclusion of participatory process with experts representing European local public authorities and academia. This holistic approach is intended to prove inspiring towards the introduction of new indices or systems in the

IP T

future and provide interesting insights for the redesign of existing ones. Having said the above, one part of the innovation of this paper lays upon the provision of generic guidelines to be

SC R

considered in future attempts to design and apply urban sustainability indices and systems of indicators. Furthermore, it is proposed to integrate the generic component with indicators selected for cities with common characteristics (casespecific component) reflecting an additional dimension, related to spatial characteristics. Discussion on the spatial

U

dimension of sustainability is raised. This has not been elsewhere discussed, at least up to the authors’ knowledge. The

N

ultimate aim is to reach a more subjective approach towards realistic urban sustainability characterisation.

A

2. Literature overview of urban sustainability assessment indices and systems of indicators

M

An initial literature overview of Journals, Technical Reports, Conference proceedings and EU initiatives reveals the

ED

parameters that need to be considered during the design phase of a sustainability assessment tool (index or system of indicators): (i) the generic applicability of the tool, based on a solid justification of the variables selected to be measured

PT

(ii) the inclusion of thresholds and the respect to the scale of application (iii) reflection to the environmental and socioeconomic pillar (iv) reflection to the homogeneity of cities. These parameters are analysed in the following sections.

CC E

2.1 Generic applicability of tools, based on solid justification of the indicators that are measured The design process of urban sustainability tools, is often subjected to the freedom to include (or exclude) several desirable or undesirable indicators. As depicted in the scientific work of Lazaroiu et al. (2012), it is usual that one city or

A

country is ranked very differently in various rankings, due to different indicators and methodological approaches used. At country level, Sweden has been ranked the most sustainable, among 180 countries, by the Wellbeing Index, fourth most sustainable, among 1460 using the Environmental Sustainability Index, and 13th least sustainable, among 149 countries, according to the Ecological Footprint Index (Mayer, 2008). This is to raise the fact that the rationale behind the selection of data to be monitored is very important. In the design phase of an assessment tool, the selection of the number and 4

type of variables that will compose it (and of the scale of application), must be well justified. Mechanisms that would eliminate the freedom to include or exclude several desirable or undesirable indicators from sustainability assessment indices and or systems) are needed order to eliminate it, or else, the objectivity of the results is identified, leading to biased decision-making (Singh et al, 2009). It is important to achieve sustainability assessment indications in a consistent, comparable way, no matter which index or the indicators’ system is used for the rating of cities. 2.2 Thresholds and scale of application

IP T

Meadows (1998) supports that an indicator can become a sustainability indicator only if a target is set. Assessment results are not giving managerial insights if they are not compared to agreed thresholds. For instance, the benchmarking,

SC R

bench-learning and most importantly the decision-making process may fail, if measured data are not comparable to specific, commonly agreed, thresholds (Adelle and Pallemaerts, 2009). Usually thresholds are not systematically defined reflecting the scale of application, although this is literally perceived as one of the most important prerequisites to indicate

U

the level up to which a system functions sustainably. Selection of appropriate thresholds is a challenging task to overcome

N

in order to assess sustainability at an agreed layer. Thresholds are scientifically determined or policy based. They could

A

be defined based on universal criteria, but finally decided also upon local conditions, given that the layer of application is

M

local. This step is instrumental in determining the type of indicator selected according to the local characteristics. For

ED

example, poverty reduction might be a universal criterion but the percentage reduction of people living below poverty line would be determined by the realistic local conditions and capacity. Mori and Christodoulou (2011) called for the absolute

PT

thresholds approach and indicated the line up to which the operation is sustainable, while Cook et al. (2017) include expert panels and nation-specific analysis for an integrated characterisation of environmental indicators. In practice, lack of

CC E

scientifically determined thresholds has been pointed out by many authors (Marletto & Mameli, 2012; Moldan et al, 2012, Mori and Christodoulou, 2012; Shen et al, 2011; Shen and Zhou 2011). Furthermore, the reflection to the scale (national or local) for which the tool is designed is also important, as the thresholds that must be set are different if the assessment

A

tool characterises sustainability at national, at local, or even at global level. Otherwise, the already challenging task to characterise sustainability becomes even more difficult when it is being measured on various dimensions (Singh et al., 2012). It seems that the establishment and application of a set of commonly used/ calculated indicators, reflecting the same scale (urban) and the same geo-political context (Europe) is the first step that enables the introduction of thresholds. 2.3 Sustainability dimensions 5

Lately, there is an increasing recognition of the fact that the three ‘’traditional’’ pillars of sustainability (environment, economy, society) need to be complimented by a fourth dimension (Dahl et al., 2012). The relation between the environment and the socio-economic world cannot be limited to the measurement of ecological and economic balances. Even from year 1995 (Cobb, 1995), some work has been devoted to indicators for the assessment of the quality of life. Moreover, well-being of humans, green aesthetic, institutional, cultural, ethical dimensions that would include variables reflecting on governance, justice, ethical issues, sustainability of heritage, are undoubtedly aspects affecting generations

IP T

over time. According to Booysen (2002) the selection of indicators can be done reflecting on several general dimensions. The analysis in the material to follow highlights an unbalanced representation of the three ‘’traditional’’ pillars, but also

SC R

reveals aspects that are not clearly addressing one of these pillars. Although these aspects are already discussed occasionally in literature a commonly accepted ground has not yet been found. 2.4 Spatialised urban-specific indicators

U

Scipioni et al., (2009) quoted that a definition of spatialised indicators with urban-specific context is of great interest.

N

Additionally, previous research on developing indicators to uniform urban planning and local development (Rae and Wong,

A

2012; Wong and Watkins, 2009; Wong, 2006) reveals that comparability of data is among the most important principles.

M

Tweed and Jones (2000) quoted that the reason of failure towards the introduction of a representative set of indicators

ED

used by several different cities is that existing approaches have mostly treated cities as social-economic-ecological systems that are internally homogeneous in space (e.g. have backyards, parking lots, parks, central business districts,

PT

residential areas, schools, rivers, and roads). Also, Wu (2010) argued that to accurately assess urban sustainability, spatial heterogeneity among cities is one of the issues that need to be considered. Following the same rationale, Lu Huang

CC E

et al. (2015) quoted that urban systems are patchy not only environmentally but also economically and socially. Additionally, the effort to contact sustainability assessment to cities with incomparable characteristics, introduces the inability to critically review the results in relation to minimum desired performance levels (Finco and Nijkamp, 2001). It is

A

meaningless to try to interpreter of a city's indicator values by making reference to the performance of other cities that do not share similar conditions (Wong 2015). Towards this direction to frame an assessment tool applicable by cities with common characteristics, the CAT-MED project (http://www.catmed.eu/indicator) has delivered a set of indicators to be monitored by Mediterranean cities. This set is also supported by thresholds and a full calculation methodology. The rationale behind this initiative is that a coastal Mediterranean city (e.g. compact, dense, presenting complexity of uses 6

with specific climatological characteristics and socio-cultural background) can barely produce comparable sustainability assessment results to Northern European cities, even if the same sustainability index or system of indicators is used. A simple example comes from the transport sector. Cities show varying degrees of automobile dependence. The justification of the extent of car use is closely linked to the city form and transportation patterns. According to Newman and Kenworthy (2000) dense south European cities, with mild winters, present lower air emissions from transportation (distances are covered by walking and cycling), in relation to northern cities that are sprawled and have different climate conditions.

IP T

3. Methodological scheme of the study A meticulous literature overview reveals: (i) a great number of sustainability assessment tools designed and applied at

SC R

international level and (ii) the perceptions about the ability of the tools to realistically characterise urban sustainability. In order to set the limits of the study, a two-steps Boolean search is contacted. The 1st Boolean search step is restricted to publications registered in scopus and to EU initiatives and projects available over the web. The 2nd Boolean search step

U

restricts the study to relevant fields of research, i.e. ‘’urban sustainability assessment indices/ systems of indicators/ tools,

N

designed for/ applied/ at European level’’. Additional inclusion/ exclusion criteria are set in order to finalise the limits of the

A

study: (i) the language of the publications (English), (ii) both theoretical approaches and practical implementations of

M

indices and of systems of indicators are taken into consideration (iii) the year of the publication was not considered as an

ED

exclusion criterion.

Undoubtedly, widely recognised tools (systems and indices) that characterise sustainability of individual cities at

PT

European and international level (Barcelona, Thessaloniki, Taipei, Seattle, etc.) exist. The indicators composing individual cities’ systems or indices, are not included in this analysis, as they are not considered to possess a generic applicability

CC E

dynamic. Also, tools developed in the framework of European funded projects are not included in the initial analysis, as these are developed respecting specific conditions/ frameworks/ programme requirements, however project outputs will be taken into consideration in future analysis.

A

This systematic approach elevates 18 indices and 7 systems of indicators that meet the criteria of the study (Phase I, Fig.1). The tools are presented in Table 1. The scale of application and the pillar they reflect is also depicted, resulting from the literature overview.

7

I Overviewed sustainability indices and systems of indicators. Tools

Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) Wellbeing Index (WI)

PT

Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Happy Planet Index (HPI)

CC E

Sustainable Society Index (SSI) Urban Ecosystem Europe (UEE) Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF) Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities (RFSC) Green City Index (GCI) Global City Indicators Programme (GCIP) City Sustainability Index (CSI) City Prosperity Index (CPI) European Green Capital Award (EGCA) Sustainable City Index (SCI) Sustainable Cities Index (SCI2) Sustainable Development οf Energy, Water And Environment Systems City Sustainability (SDEWES)

A

Publication year 1989 1990 1992 1992 1993 1994 1997 1998

Developer

Scale applied

Pillars reflected

Ref

Global, National Global, National Global, National National, Urban Global, National Global, National Global, Urban Global, Urban

Economic Social, Economic Environmental Environmental Economic Economic All All

[22] [24] [4],[54] [51] [23] [12] [50] [17]

Global, National

Environmental

[46]

Global, National Global, National

Environmental Environmental, Social Environmental Environmental, Social All All Environmental All

[15] [40]

Environmental Environmental All All Environmental All All Environmental, Society

[44],[53] [21] [36],[37] [52] [5],[6] [47] [2] [26]

1999

Index Index

1999 2001

Index Index

2006 2006

Index System System System

2006 2007 2007 2008

Sustainable Society Foundation ICLEI; Ambiente Italy Global Cities Institute French Ministry of Housing and Sustainable Homes

Global, National Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban

Index System Index Index System Index Index Index

2009 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015

Economic Intelligence Unit and Siemens Global City Indicators Facility Koichiro Mori UN-Habitat European Commission Sustainable Society Foundation Arcadis Kilkis

Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban Global, Urban

A

Index

Herman Daly and B. Cobb United Nations Development Programme Wackernagel and Rees United Nations World bank Redefining Progress UN-Habitat European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) Yale University and Columbia University IUCN and International Development Research Centre Yale University and Columbia University New Economics Foundation

M

Index Index Index System Index Index Index System

ED

Index Of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) Human Development Index (HDI) Ecological Footprint (EF) Local Agenda (LA) 21 Genuine Savings (GS) Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) City Development Index (CDI) Urban Sustainability Indicators (USI)

N U SC R

Table 1

Global, National Global, National

[14] [29] [47] [6] [20] [48]

8

Table 1 outlines at a first glance that certain tools do not reflect the three ‘’traditional’’ pillars of sustainability in a balanced way. The economic and social dimension is less reflected, while the environmental dimension is more usually addressed. This lack of balance among the three pillars of sustainability is more obvious in the case of the indices, rather than in the case of systems of indicators, which seem to have a more clear orientation. Moreover, Table 1 depicts the fact that tools are applied at different scales. Indices that have been designed to target the national level are used at the urban scale, or even tools designed to be applied at global level are used to characterise

IP T

urban sustainability, thus the inclusion of pragmatic thresholds is almost impossible. An attempt based on existing European framework and dialogue with experts, is presented in Table 5 and discussed in section 2.2. With regards to the

SC R

reflection to spatialized indicators, the only tool among the ones presented in Table 1 that is found to be applied at spatialized/ urban specific context (Mediterranean cities) is Ecological Footprint, which reflects only to the environmental pillar.

U

What is not obvious at a first glance, is the variation of the indicators used among the tools and the frequency of their

N

re-occurrence that would enable a justified agreement towards a common set of core indicators. This is the scope of

A

Phase II (Fig.1) that analyses and compiles the indicators composing the indices and the systems studied. This task aims

M

to highlight the most commonly used indicators, approached as the ones having a generic applicability dynamic. The

ED

indicators are recorded and then aggregated into categories and sub-categories. As the number of tools increases, some classification becomes necessary. Following the research outcomes of Kumar et al. (2015), a sustainability framework

PT

should reflect all the components of sustainable development and at least certain predetermined sub-categories which occur frequently should be particularly revealed. The categorization of the indicators is done taking into consideration: (i)

CC E

the structure adopted by the developers of the tools (ii) our knowledge on the different aspects that affect sustainability in the context of a city.

The classification is needed for the implementation of Phase III (Fig.1), during which a participatory process is initiated

A

with 15 experts representing the academia and European local authorities. This approach attempts to reach a consensus among the experts, using a Delphi-based methodology, to propose the most representative set of categories and indicators, selected among the most ‘’popular’’ ones for European urban areas and discuss thresholds. Thresholds are proposed taking into consideration European legal framework, policies and strategies, downscaled at urban level where appropriate. This approach (IndSelec strategy) incorporates a sound conceptual framework to conclude to the set of core 9

indicators constituting the generic component that better reflect the triple line of sustainability for European urban areas and also serve diversity. The overlapping between pillars and the reflection to dimensions(s) different than the ‘’traditional’’ ones is also raised and discussed. Discussion about the introduction of the spatial dimension of sustainability is also

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

elevated as a result from the implementation of Phases I-III (Fig.1).

ED

Fig.1 Methodological scheme of the study

4. Analysis - compilation of indicators

PT

The study of sustainability indices and systems of indicators leads to a record of 284 indicators. Out of them, 156 reflect the environmental pillar (54% of the total), 91 correspond to the social pillar (32%) and 39 address the economic pillar

CC E

(14%). Following the methodology, the indicators are grouped into sub-categories and categories, reflecting the three ‘’traditional’’ pillars. Indicators marked with (*) refer to indicators not directly referenced in the overviewed tools. These indicators are extracted from literature, in order to present a more complete picture to the audience.

A

4.1 Compilation of indicators - Environmental pillar A number of 156 indicators are recorded out of the total. The indicators are aggregated into categories. Fig. 2 reflects

the frequency of representation of each category, inside the pillar under discussion. The percentages are calculated on the basis of the number of indicators recorded per category, out of the total number of indicators reflecting the environmental pillar. 10

IP T

SC R

Fig. 2. Environmental indicators per category (%).

According to Fig.2, the categories of the environmental pillar correspond to: energy, 22% (34 out of the 156 indicators), air quality, 15% (23 out of the 156 indicators), climate, 13% (21 out of the 156 indicators) and water management, 13%

U

(20 out of the 156 indicators), followed by transportation (10%), nature and biodiversity (10%), waste management (8%)

N

and land use (4%). The indicators that appear under the category ‘’Other’’ that are sporadically intended are: culture, fire

M

use and management and territorial resilience.

A

and emergency, functionality of public spaces and living environment, green public procurement and purchasing, resource

ED

Table 2 presents the most frequently used categories, sub-categories and indicators reflecting the environmental pillar. The ‘’% frequency’’ column highlights the frequency of reflection of each sub-category inside the category. The indicators

PT

that are used to reflect each sub-category, as well as their measurement units are also depicted in the last column and are extracted directly from literature overview of sustainability assessment tools.

CC E

Table 2: Most frequently used sub-categories and indicators – environmental pillar. Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

A

Env1: Air quality

PM10

30%

PM10 concertation [mg/m3]

NO2

17%

PM2.5

13%

PM2.5 concertation [mg/m3]

Indoor pollution

9%

Household Air Quality

Noise pollution

9%

Noise levels in selected residential areas*

NO2 concertation [mg/m3], Average exposure to NO2

% of population exposed in high level of environmental noise* 11

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

SO2

4%

SO2 concentration [mg/m3]*

Ozone

4%

O3 concentration [mg/m3]*

policies

4%

Clean air policies [#]

Hg concentration

4%

Hg concentration [mg/m3]

Average level of

Number of times the limit values of selected air

4%

pollutants

pollutants are exceeded*

Env2: Energy Consumption of RES [% of total energy consumption] RES production per capita [kWh/inh]

IP T

Renewables share Solar energy production [Wh/m2/day] RES

Wind energy production [m/s]

35%

Geothermal energy production [mW/m2]

SC R

Biofuels production

Electricity production

Solar power generation in public buildings Depletion of Non-Renewables

U

Total energy consumption per capital [MWh/capita]

21%

M

A

Energy consumption

N

Household and services energy consumption per

Policies

15%

capita [kWh /inh] Energy consumption of residential buildings [MWh] Energy consumption in transportation [MWh] Energy efficient buildings initiatives [#] Sustainable energy plans [#] Changes in energy use for more than 4 years [%]

9%

Energy use

6%

Energy use per capita [toe/capita]

Public lighting policies

3%

[#]

Infrastructure

3%

Inhabitants connected to a district heating system [#]

Energy intensity

3%

Not available

3%

Energy efficient buildings standards [#]

3%

Not available

PT

ED

Energy saving

CC E

Energy efficiency standards Cogeneration

Household and services energy saving per year

A

Env3: Climate

CO2

Total CO2 emissions [t], [t/yr], [t/inh/year] 62%

CO2 emissions from buildings and inhabitants [t],[t/inh] CO2 transportation emissions [t], [t/inh] Trend in CO2 emissions [T/KWh]

Ecological footprint

50%

GHG

50%

Ecological footprint per capita [gha] Trend in carbon intensity Emissions per capita [t] Total amount of GHG emissions [t/city], [t/capita] 12

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

CO2 intensity

10%

Average CO2 intensity [tCO2/MWh]

Heating days

5%

[days oC]

Cooling days

5%

[days oC]

Infrastructure

30%

Leakages*; # of interruptions in water service

Water consumption

25%

Domestic water consumption (m3) per capita*

25%

% population with potable water supply service*

Env4: Water

sanitation Waste water treated

10%

Water efficiency

5%

Percentage of population served by waste water collection*

IP T

Drinkable water and

% water reused-recycled*

Env5: Nature &

SC R

biodiversity Loss of farmland

Soil quality or degradation Land loss (farmland,

Loss of primary forest

19%

wetland, forests)

Damage from logging roads

U

Loss of wetlands

N

Change in forest cover

A

Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth

13%

M

Biodiversity

13%

ED

Species

rate* Biodiversity in forest areas [10 years changes] Biodiversity in protected areas [% of total land] Species protection Fish stocks

Quality of surface water

6%

Presence of faecal coliforms in freshwater*

Natural environment

6%

[% of total area]

6%

Management/ emergency plans for protected areas*

6%

Nitrogen use efficiency

6%

Terrestrial protected areas (Global Biome Weights)

6%

Marine protected areas

PT

Natural catastrophe exposure

Nitrogen use

CC E

Terrestrial protected areas

Marine protected areas

Env6: Transportation

A

Size of non-car transport network Congestion

Infrastructure

44%

Rail infrastructure Airport satisfaction Underground and tram lines in the urban area Cycle paths and lanes availability

Mode split

31%

Use of public transportation [%] Use of non-car transport 13

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s) Transportation mode split [% of each mode of transportation] Public transportation use [# passengers travelling on public transport within the urban area] [# registered cars] Alternative modes of transportation [#]

Policies

19%

Green transport promotion [#] Congestion reduction policies [#]

Transportation time and

Average commute time and cost

IP T

6%

cost Env7:Waste

[Management of water sewage*50+official *50] Municipal solid waste

Total household waste [kg/inh]

46%

Municipal waste production per capita [kg/inh-year]

SC R

production

Volume of solid waste generated Household recycling percentage [%] Recycling

31%

Recycling rate [% diverted from waste stream]

15%

Policies

8%

M

A

Env8: Land use

Solid waste management [landfill vs recycling]

N

Landfill

U

Solid waste management [recycling vs landfill]

PT

Policies

57%

ED

Green areas

Urban planning and use

CC E

Spatial equity

Waste reduction policies [#] Green space [% of city area] Public green areas availability Preserved areas/ reservoirs/ waterways/parks [% of total land area] Trees in the city [% of city area and/or population size]

14%

Green land use policies [#] Urban farming [m3/inhabitant]*

14%

Proximity to basic services* Green areas [m3/inhabitant]*

14%

Population density*

Table 2 depicts not only the variation among indicators indenting to measure the same aspect, but also the fact that

A

some indicators are not sufficiently or not at all specified, leaving thus the freedom to experts and decision-makers to adopt a calculation method of their own. This freedom to include or exclude indicators from an assessment tool, in combination with the lack of a concrete methodology to calculate them precisely, leads to lack of data series, difficulties to set thresholds, differences in sustainability rankings and reduces the reliability of the results. 4.2. Social pillar 14

91 indicators are recorded. Some of them are more frequently used. Following the same rationale, Fig. 3 reflects the

SC R

IP T

frequency of representation of each category, inside the pillar under discussion.

Fig. 3. Social indicators per category (%).

Fig. 3 depicts a frequent representation of the health and wellbeing category (22 out of the 91 indicators recorded

U

intend to measure health & well-being, corresponding to 24%), followed by education, knowledge and culture category

N

(19 out of the 91 indicators, corresponding to 19%). Equity and social inclusion (14 out of 91 corresponding to 15%),

A

labour (12 out of 91, corresponding to 13%) and governance (10 out of 91, corresponding to 10%) are less frequently met,

M

while the categories that are more rarely met are those of housing (5%) and population (2%). Cross-cutting issues between

ED

environment and society that are intended are: proximity of citizens to green areas, certification of public authorities and level of implementation of Agenda 21 processes, reflecting to the socio-environmental category.

PT

Table 3 presents the most frequently intended categories, sub-categories and indicators, reflecting the social pillar. The ‘’% frequency’’ column highlights the frequency of reflection of each sub-category inside each category. The indicators

CC E

that are used to reflect each sub-category and the measurement units, are also depicted in the last column and are extracted directly from literature overview of sustainability assessment tools. Table 3. Most frequently used sub-categories and indicators – social pillar.

A

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

Soc1: Health & Well-being Life expectancy [# of years] Life Expectancy

35%

Homicide rate [# homicides/100000 inh] Suicide rate [# suicides/100000 inh] Years that people expect to live in good health [#]

Safety

27%

Crimes [# crimes/1000 inh] Violent crimes [% of total crimes] 15

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

People attacked [% of population] People affected by road accidents [% of population] Military expenditures [€] Deaths from armed conflicts and terrorism [#] Stability of family size Quality of Life

14%

Doctors [# doctors /1000 inh] Ability to satisfy basic needs (food, drink, sanitation) Adults’ obesity rate

Overweight population

14%

[% of adults with serious obesity]

Sports

5%

Civic engagement

5%

IP T

Children obesity rate [% of children with obesity] Physical activity [% of people> 19 yrs that meet the pattern of physical activity] Citizens’ voting participation

SC R

Soc2: Education, Knowledge & Culture

Expected years of schooling [total expected years of schooling for children <18 yrs]

U

Mean years of schooling [# years that a person aged> 25 57%

M

A

Education

N

has spent officially in education]

PT

leisure

ED

Culture, recreation and

Early school dropout in secondary education [% of population] Population qualified at highest level of education [% of population] Accessible cultural, recreational centers in a buffer zone in

16%

the urban area (#) per total population, Accessible listed historical buildings and sites (#) *

University density & ranking

11%

Personal development

11%

Technology and innovation

5%

CC E

School enrollment rates

University density [# universities/1000000 inh] Universities’ official rankings Gross enrollment rate in primary, secondary and tertiary education (combined enrollment) Accessible technological and innovation centers in a given buffer zone in the urban area per total population (#)*

Soc3: Equity & Social cohesion

A

Inequality of income/ consumption [Gini coefficient] Inequality of access to services and infrastructure

Social equity

43%

Intergenerational equity Population affected by poverty, unemployment, lack of access to education, information, training and leisure [% of population]

Gender equity

36%

Differences between men and women in income, education and parliamentary decision-making 16

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

Gender Gap Index Employment rate of women [% of men] City representation by women [% of representatives] Income difference [income of the richest 10% / income of Household equity

poorest 105%]

21%

Income inequity [% of population with <10% guaranteed minimum income]

Soc4: Governance Civil rights Individual freedom

30%

Freedom of the press Corruption

IP T

Freedom and civic rights

Participation in local elections [% of population] 30%

Active members of environmental, public health and cultural

SC R

Citizens participation

associations [% of population] Proper infrastructure

Infrastructure

20%

Social insurance

10%

Payment rate [# of payments per 1000 inh]

Social services

10%

Number of social houses per capita

N

U

Housing

71%

Underemployment rate Employment rate Unemployment rate Green jobs in the local economy [% of total] Average professional education years of labor force [#]

Occupation

15%

Average annual hours worked [#]

Female employment

14%

[% of total employees]

PT

Soc6: Housing

ED

Unemployment rates

M

A

Soc5: Labour

50%

Property prices

25%

Property pricing and rent-to-income*

Housing Quality

25%

Population in poor housing conditions [% of total]

Build-up a supply of housing

CC E

for everyone

Population threatened by loss of housing [% of total] Homeless population [% of total]

A

Soc7: Population

Dependency ratio

Age-population ratio of those typically not in the labor force 67%

(the dependent part ages 0 to 14 and 65+) and those typically in the labor force (the productive part ages 15 to 64

Population growth

33%

% growth over one decade

4.3 Economic pillar 17

A limited number of 39 indicators is recorded. The imbalance with regards to the numerical representation of environment and social indicators strongly highlights the small representation of the economic pillar in overall sustainability assessment, despite the fact that relevant data and economy statistics can be easily retrieved by nations and even by cities, thus lack of data cannot be claimed in this case. The 39 indicators have been recorded per category and the results

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

are depicted in Fig. 4.

M

Fig. 4. Economic indicators per category (%). The interaction between pillars is more obvious when investigating the economic pillar than anywhere else. Macro-

ED

economic category reflects GDP, public debt, city product, exports-imports and public finance, while microeconomic category reflects income, productivity and solvency ratio. The interaction of the economic with the environmental pillar is

PT

also important and measured in terms of green growth and circular economy and sustainable production and consumption.

CC E

Cooperation and innovative partnerships is also corresponding to the socio-economic category, as well as cost and value of durables and adjusted personal consumption. Business environment category reflects the ease of doing business (including connectivity) and specific economic sectors (e.g. tourism activity). Investments category reflects foreign direct

A

and net capital investments. The promotion of smart cities and innovation reflects overall the three pillars of sustainability. Table 4 presents the most frequently intended categories, sub-categories and indicators reflecting the economic

pillar. The ‘’% frequency’’ column highlights the frequency of reflection of each sub-category inside each category. The indicators that are used to reflect each sub-category and the measurement units, are also depicted in the last column and are extracted directly from literature overview of sustainability assessment tools. 18

Table 4. Most frequently used sub-categories and indicators – economic pillar. Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s)

Ec1: Macro-economic GDP per capita [€] Local GDP per capita GDP

58%

National GDP per capita Annual GDP growth rate Adjusted net saving as a percentage of GDP

17%

City product

8%

Solvency ratio [share capital/public debt] Level of a country's public debt [% of GDP] (log City Product - 4.61) x 100/5.99

IP T

Public debt

Net Export Growth rates [% increase of country’s Exports

8%

total exports minus the value of its total imports per

Public finance

8%

Cost of congestion

14%

SC R

annum] Solvency ratio

Ec2: Economic-environment

14%

Cost of air pollution

M

Cost of water pollution

Public expenditures attributed to water pollution Public expenditures attributed to household and ambient air pollution* Public expenditures attributed to noise pollution*

Cost of Ozone depletion

14%

Public expenditures attributed to ozone depletion*

ED

CC E

14%

GDP*

14%

Cost and value of

A

14%

Domestic material consumption per capita or per

Cost of noise pollution

PT

Ec3: Socio-economic

14%

A

Sustainable production and consumption

Material footprint per capita or per GDP*

N

economy

the city

U

Green growth and circular

Population in an average distance from the center of

Consumer durables

Cost: Calculated as a cost to avoid double counting the value provided by the durables themselves. 33%

Value: Household appliances, cars, etc. are not used up in one year and are considered a part of household capital. Their value is depreciated over a number of years.

Cooperation and innovative partnerships Adjusted personal consumption

17%

% businesses that participated in PPPs* for the implementation of innovative projects* Formula=(Personal consumption/IDI) x 100. Forms

17%

the base number from which the remaining indicators are added or subtracted.

Resilient local economy

17%

Cost of underemployment

17%

Regional products, i.e. production of certified products (*) Encompasses the chronically unemployed, discouraged workers, involuntary part-time workers 19

Category

Sub-category

% frequency

Indicator(s) and others with work-life restraints (lack of childcare or transportation).

Ec4: Micro-economic Gini co-efficient Income

60%

Gross national income at purchasing power per capita capital investment, formal/informal employment,

Productivity

20%

infilation, trade, savings, export/import, household income/consumption

Consumer price index

20%

cost" (i.e. the price of an item at a given year, e.g.: the price of bread in 2018) is divided by that of the

SC R

initial year Ec5: Investments 50%

Net capital investments

50%

Ease of doing business

33%

Connectivity

Capital investment in foreign markets minus incoming investments from other countries.

A 33%

Ease of Doing Business International visitors per year Mobile Connectivity Broadband connectivity Importance in global networks

ED

Ec7:Socio-econ-environment

33%

M

Tourism

from listed FDI’s per annum]

N

Ec6: Business environment

Foreign direct investments [Capital/Earnings accrued

U

Foreign direct investments

IP T

Updated cost/ base period cost x100; The "updated

PT

Innovation and promotion of smart cities (Giuliano Dall’O’ et al., 2017)

In the case of the economic pillar the lack of specific calculation methodology of the (limited) number of indicators used

CC E

among the tools, is more obvious than in the previous cases. 5. Results, Discussion & Future Challenges The analysis presented in the previous section reveals the categories and sub-categories that are most frequently

A

intended among the analysed indices and systems of indicators (depicted in Tables 2, 3, 4). Regarding the environmental pillar, it is depicted that in terms of air quality the most frequently indented sub-category that is monitored is PM10, expressed through PM10 concentration. In terms of energy, Renewable Energy Resources are monitored, mainly as a percentage of the total energy consumption. In terms of climate, CO2, Ecological Footprint and Green House Gas emissions are dominating, expressed through relevant variables. Infrastructure is important in the water management 20

category, while land loss (loss of farmland) is also monitored in terms of nature and bio-diversity. Referring to transportation, the most important sub-categories are infrastructure and modal split. The indicators that are most commonly used to monitor them are: the size of non-transport network and the percentage of each mode of transportation out of the total. In terms of waste management, municipal solid waste production and recycling are monitored, most importantly through calculation of total household wastes and recycling rate. Concerning the land use, green areas as a percentage of the city area is the most dominant sub-category.

IP T

Regarding the social pillar, health and well-being expressed through the sub-category of life-expectancy and monitored through life expectancy at birth is most importantly revealed. Education level and literacy rate are also significant in terms

SC R

of the education, knowledge and culture category, monitored through the expected years of schooling, for children<18 yrs. Regarding the equity and social cohesion category, the principal sub-category is social equity, expressed most significantly through the Gini coefficient. In terms of governance, freedom of civic rights and citizens’ participation are the

U

most important sub-categories, monitored through the number of civic rights and the percentage of participation in local

N

elections. The unemployment rate is the most frequently monitored indicator in terms of labour, while in terms of housing,

A

the population threatened by loss of housing is the most important variable that is measured. Finally, in terms of population,

M

the dependency ratio is the most frequently monitored sub-category, expressed through the indicator of age-population

ED

ratio of those typically not in the labour force and those typically in the labour force. Regarding the economic pillar, GDP per capita is the most frequently monitored macro-economic sub-category,

PT

expressed through the GDP per capita indicator. Income is the most frequently measured micro-economic sub-category, expressed through the Gini-coefficient. The sub-categories of foreign direct investments and net capital investments are

CC E

characterising the relevant category. Ease of doing business, tourism and connectivity are sub-categories that are used to monitor the business environment. The interactions and overlaps between the social and the economic pillar are obvious, intensified thus the perception to merge the two traditional pillars of sustainability into one, reflecting both socio-

A

economic aspects. Social sustainability seeks to preserve the environment through economic growth and the alleviation of poverty. At the same time, sustainable development expands the, traditionally, main concern linked to monetary capital to also consider natural, social and human assets. Only by integrating and interlinking economic, social and environmental sustainability in a balanced and commonly accepted way can negative synergies be arrested, positive synergies fostered

21

and urban development encouraged. Economic, social, and environmental sustainability form indispensable elements of a dynamic system and cannot be pursued in isolation or in an unbalanced way. Furthermore, the grouping of the indicators into categories outlines the reflection to dimensions other than the ‘’traditional’’ ones. The results are depicted in Fig. 5. Based on the results briefly presented above and on literature review, the core set of categories, sub-categories and indicators that reflect in a holistic and balanced way urban sustainability is

PT

ED

M

A

N

U

SC R

IP T

revealed. This is based on the frequency that they are intended in existing well-known indices and systems of indicators.

Fig. 5. Interactions and trade-offs between sustainability pillars.

CC E

Following the IndSelec strategy, a participatory process is initiated, with 15 experts and policy makers at European level. It leads to the determination of the categories and indicators in order to incorporate a sound conceptual framework and conclude with the set of core indicators that better reflect the triple line of sustainability. It is addressing european

A

urban areas and reinforces setting of thresholds. A consensus is reached after two rounds, using a Delphi-based methodology.

Table 5: Core set of indicators

22

I N U SC R

Sub-category Air quality

Description This indicator can be defined as the number of days per year in which a bad quality of air has been recorded, considering the most relevant contaminants. That is, the number of days in which the daily limits set by the European regulations have been exceeded for each of these pollutants.

Indicator formula Air quality (for each contaminant) = Number of days with bad air quality PM10: Number of days with more than 50 μg/m3 NO2: Number of days with more than 50 μg/m3 PM2,5: Number of days with more than 25 μg/m3 SO2: Number of days with more than 125 μg/m3 O3: Number of days with more than 120 μg/m3

RES Energy consumption

Measures the renewable energy consumption of the total energy consumption for the urban area activities.

CC E

PT

Env2: Energy

ED

M

A

Category Env1: Air quality

Env3: Climate

A

Env4: Water

Env5: Nature & biodiversity

Estimates the urban energy consumption per inhabitant, considering both the energy and fuel consumption.

CO2 emissions

Measures the CO2 eq. emissions produced within the local area.

Water consumption

Measures the water consumption (litres) per inhabitant and per day

Land loss

Measures the loss of land, in relation to the growth of population

Consumption of RES =

Consumption of Solar&Wind&Geothermal&Biowaste Energy

Energy consumption =

Total energy consumption

Electricity&Natural Gas&Hidrocarbon&LPGas Consumption X100 Total number of inhabitants

The methodology and calculation process for this indicator can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/common_indicators.htm Domestic water consumption volume Water consumption = X365 Number of inhabitants

Land consumption =

Land consumption rate Population growth rate

Desirable range The desirable levels in this set of indicators are defined at European Community level PM10: Daily limit value: 50 μg/m3. This value should not be exceeded more than 35 times per year NO2: Hourly limit value: 200 μg/m3. This value should not be exceeded more than 18 times per year. Annual limit value: 40 μg/m3 PM2,5: 25 µg/m3 SO2: Daily limit value: 125 μg/m3. This value should not be exceeded more than 3 times per year O3: Daily limit value: 120 μg/m3. This value should not be exceeded more than 25 times per year. [19] Maximization of the participation of Renewable Energy Sources in the energy balance of the cities by 20%, by 2020. [25] 20% reduction by 2020. [25]

20% reduction in emissions per capita and per year by 2020. [25] 100 litres per capita per day of water for domestic human consumption (drinking, cooking, personal hygiene and household cleaning). [81] National or regional Ordinances or Laws about use of land for residential purposes.

23

A

Recycling

Percentage of the city’s solid waste that is recycled

Green areas

Measures the existing green zones and recreation areas and the relation with the number of inhabitants

Life expectancy Safety

Soc2: Education, knowledge and culture Soc3: Equity and social inclusion

Education level

Area =

Recycling =

Life expectancy at birth

Pedestrian streets & walkaway area x100 Total streets and roads area

Urban solid waste volume recycled per year x100 Volume per year

Green areas =

Green zones x100 Number of inhabitants Number of years

Desirable range The minimum percentage of space for pedestrians could be set at 75% as a desirable level. [75]

Recycling rate at around 50%.

At least 10 to 15 square meters of green areas per capita, equally distributed in relation to population density. [81] > 72.0 years that was the average life expectancy at birth of the global population in 2016. [81] Monitor and minimize. >40% of population of 30–34 years old by year 2020. [25]

People attacked by terrorism Population qualified at highest level of education

% of population attacked by terrorism % of population 30-34 years old qualified at highest level of education

Population with disability at risk of poverty or social inclusion Citizens participation

Percentage of people with disabilities at risk of poverty or social exclusion

% of population with disabilities at risk of poverty or social exclusion

<30% [21]

Active members of environmental, public health and cultural associations, for the development of European solutions to common challenges

% of population that is activated in environmental, public health and cultural associations, for the development of European solutions to common challenges

Monitor and maximize citizens registered platform to encourage and facilitate the active participation of citizens and stakeholders. [13]

Unemployment rate

% of unemployed population labor force

To be set in respect to the EU Member States’ national targets. [24]

% of homeless population

To be set in respect to the EU Member States’ national targets. [24] Minimum density of 120 inhabitants. [75]

CC E

A

Soc5: Labour

Indicator formula

PT

Soc1: Health & Well-being

Soc4: Governance

N U SC R

I Env8: Land use

Description Percentage of pedestrian streets and walkways: This indicator measures the percentage of pedestrian streets over the total length and area of city streets and roads.)

M

Env7: Waste

Sub-category Infrastructure

ED

Category Env6: Transportation

Soc7:

Housing

The unemployment rate is the percentage of people in the (from 20-64 years old) who are unemployed Build-up a supply of housing for everyone

Soc8:

Population

Population density

Inhabitants per hectare

24

I Ec5: Investments

Foreign direct investments

Ec6: Business environment

Manufacturing

Εquivalised disposable income

Indicates the city’s openness to external competitiveness of economic, trade and investment policies. It is estimated at national level and downscaled at city level. Contribution of manufacturing to local GDP

Indicator formula GDP growth rate per capita

Selection among the costs of not implementing the environmental acquis, from the Final report (2011) % employability in R&D organizations

Τotal income of a household, after tax and other deductions, that is available for spending or saving, divided by the number of household members converted into equalised adults Foreign direct investment refers to direct investment equity flows in an economy. It is the sum of equity capital, reinvestment of earnings, and other capital.(% of GDP) % of manufacturing in local GDP

Desirable range The ideal rate is between 2-3 percent. Improvement in relation to current status. [20] At least 3% of local GDP Europe. [26] [24] [37]

To be set in respect to the 20% target by 2020. [22]

A

CC E

PT

Cooperation and innovative partnerships Income

N U SC R

Environmental economics

A

Ec2: Economicenvironment Ec3: Socioeconomic Ec4: Microeconomy

Description The GDP growth rate is how much more the economy produced than in the previous quarter. Cost of not implementing the environmental acquis in terms of waste, water, biodiversity, air, chemicals and noise Measures R&D and innovation

M

Sub-category GDP

ED

Category Ec1:Macroeconomy

25

Moreover, the application of the IndSelec strategy reveals a gap in the monitoring of spatialised indicators, reflecting the case-specific characteristics, common throughout a group of European cities. Specific elements of the urban fabric (such as narrow streets, population density, buildings compacity and complexity of uses and functions, as well as existence of large open spaces and squares as places of social exchange), cultural heritage (important driving force for certain forms of professional activity and entrepreneurship - tourism, gastronomy - in combination with characteristics of the landscape surrounding the cities) may impact on urban sustainability, positively or negatively and are not

IP T

systematically monitored. Indeed, parameters like culture, quality of life, well-being, green aesthetic, institutional framework, justice and equity, have already been discussed in several scientific papers as dimensions that need to be

SC R

reflected by overall sustainability. Nonetheless, they do not appear to be taken into consideration and monitored in a systematic way by the overviewed tools.

Thus, as a result of the IndSelec, integration of the spatial dimension, as a fourth pillar, in the traditional concept of

U

sustainability is raised. Spatial sustainability encompasses notions discussed above that will be monitored through

N

indicators, agreed and monitored with a common methodology, among cities with common characteristics. A common set

A

of variables will be the outcome of this process (i.e. characteristics of the urban structure, culture and heritage, life style

M

and social behavior, landscape, professional activities, etc) representing the case-specific component of urban

ED

sustainability. 6. Conclusions

PT

This paper presents an organised and methodical analysis to bridge the gap between sustainability assessment tools and realistic characterisation of urban areas. Initial literature assessment reveals the most common reasons of

CC E

inability of one single index to characterise sustainability in urban areas. In respect to the literature review findings, the analysis of 18 indices and 7 systems of indicators puts forward: i) the set of the most frequently used indicators ii) the most important categories and sub-categories that reflect each ‘’traditional’’ pillar of sustainability and the indicators that

A

measure them iii) aspects of sustainability that are monitored but are not clearly reflecting one of the ‘’traditional’’ pillars. Discussion towards the introduction of a new sustainability dimension, the spatial dimension, strongly linked to the structure of urban areas, culture, heritage, social patterns, professional activity, is raised, in order to merge and systematically monitor notions that are already discussed sporadically in the literature and are monitored through certain tools. 26

Following the IndSelec strategy we can reach to a common agreement on a set of core parameters that is representative for the characterisation of European urban areas. The core set of the most frequently intended indicators that is revealed from the discussion is proposed to form the basis of the “generic component” of sustainability assessment tools. This approach will reflect all pillars of sustainability in a balanced way and will be designed and applied for European cities, in order to be able to introduce thresholds and generate series of data over time. There is still much to discuss about indicators, indices and frameworks for sustainability, learn about standards and

IP T

target values and undoubtedly, the current state of knowledge has still numerous uncertainties. In any case, this paper analytically points out the necessity of considering sustainability characterisation in urban areas in a more holistic and

SC R

systematic way, learning from the deficiencies of the past. The future challenge for the authors is the integration of a casespecific set of indicators will form the basis of the ‘’case-specific’’ component that can vary according to the characteristics of a group of cities under study. The integrated urban sustainability assessment tool will be designed for and used by

U

European cities. The generic component of the tool will be composed by the core set of indicators highlighted in this

N

analysis. The case-specific component will be developed and tested for Mediterranean cities, capitalising on existing

M

A

experience.

References European Commission. 2. Air

quality

in

Europe.

ED

1. Adelle C., Pallemaerts M., 2009. Sustainable development indicators. Study – Seventh Framework Programme, Compare

the

current

air

quality

in

different

European

cities.

PT

(https://www.airqualitynow.eu/index.php. visited at 16/6/2018). 3. Arcadis 2016. Sustainable Cities Index. https://www.arcadis.com/media/0/6/6/%7B06687980-3179-47AD-89FD-

CC E

F6AFA76EBB73%7DSustainable%20Cities%20Index%202016%20Global%20Web.pdf (visited: 10.06.2017) 4. Athanassiadis A. Christis M., Bouillard P., Vercalsteren A., Crawford R. H., Khan A. Z., 2016. Comparing a territorialbased and a consumption-based approach to assess the local and global environmental performance of cities. Journal

A

of Cleaner Production 1-12 (Article in press). 5. Baabou W., Grunewald N., Ouellet-Plamondon C., Gressot M., Galli A., 2017. The Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean cities: Awareness creation and policy implications. Environmental Science and Policy 69, 94-104.

6. Berrini, M. & Bono, L. (2011) Measuring Urban Sustainability: Analysis of the European Green Capital Award. p.pp. 1–44. 7. Berrini, M. & Bono, L. (2007) Urban Ecosystem Europe. [online]

27

8. Bohringer C., Jochem P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable - A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics 63, 1-8. 9. Booysen F., 2002. An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research 59, 115–151. 10. Cabello J.M., Navarro E., Prieto F., Rodriguez B., Ruiz F., 2014. Multicriteria development of synthetic indicators of the environmental profile of the Spanish regions. Ecological Indicators 39, 10-23. 11. Canadian International Development Agency, 2012. Indicators for Sustainability. 12. CAT-MED project, http://www.catmed.eu/indicator (visited: 20.06.2017) participation

and

transparency-Closing

the

gap.

(https://europeanmovement.eu/wp-

IP T

13. Citizens’

content/uploads/2016/04/EMI_16_PolicyPosition_Transparency_17_Final_VIEW.pdf, visited at visited at 16/6/2018) 14. Cobb, C., Halstead, T., Rowe, J., 1995. The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology,

SC R

Redefining Progress, Washington DC.

15. Cook, D., Saviolidis, N.M., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Ólafsson, S., 2017. Measuring countries’ environmental sustainability performance—the development of a nation-specific indicator set. Ecological Indicators 74, 463–478. 16. Dong H., Fujita T., Geng Y., Dong L., Ohnishi S., Dou Y., Fujii M., 2016. A review on eco-city evaluation methods and

U

highlights for Integration. Ecological Indicators 60, 1184-1191.

N

17. Esty, D.C., Levy, M.A., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A., Kim, Ch. H., Anderson, B., 2006. Pilot Environmental

A

Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven. 18. Esty, D.C., Levy, M.A., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A., 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking 19. European

M

National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven. Commission.

Diractorate-General

Environment.

Air

quality

standards.

ED

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm Community level air quality, visited at 16/6/2018). 20. European Commission Directorate-General Environment. The costs of not implementing the environmental acquisreport.(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf,

PT

Final

16/6/2018)

Disability

Strategy

2010-2020

at

(https://eur-

CC E

21. European

visited

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:en:PDF, visited at 16/6/2018) 22. European Industrial Policy. (https://www.cece.eu/industry-and-market/european-industrial-policy, visited at 16/6/2018)

A

23. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1998. Urban Sustainability Indicators. Voula Mega and Jørn Pedersen

24. Europe

statistics

explained,

Employment

statistics.

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Employment_statistics, visited at 16/6/2018) 25. Europe

2020

strategy.

(https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-

coordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/european-semester/framework/europe2020-strategy_en, visited at 16/6/2018) 28

26. Europe 2020 indicators – R&D and innovation. (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_R%26D_and _innovation, visited at 16/6/2018) 27. Finco, 2010. Survey on perceptions of quality of life in 75 European cities. DG Regio. European Commission, Brussels. 28. Finco, A., Nijkamp, P., (200). Pathway to urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3, 289-309. 29. Gallopin G.C., 1997. Indicators and their use: information for decision-making. Moldan B, Billharz S (eds) Sustainability indicators. Wiley, New York, pp 13–28. 30. Global Cities Institute (2007) List of Indicators: Global City Indicators Facility [online]. 31. Global City Indicators Programme (www.cityindicators.org)

IP T

32. Guenno, G., Tiezzi, S., 1998. The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) for Italy. Worknote 5.98. Fondazione Enrico Mattei, Milano, Italy.

SC R

33. Hamilton K., 2000. Genuine Saving as a Sustainability Indicator. Environment Department Papers, 77, 1-15.

34. Hinterberger, F., et al., 1999. Sustainable Human Development Index. A Suggestion for Greening the UN Indicator of Social and Economic Welfare. Wuppertal Institute, Wuppertal, Düsseldorf, Germany.

35. Huang L., Wu J., Yan L., 2015. Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of indicators. Landscape

U

Ecological 30, 1175–1193.

N

36. Huang, S.-L., Wong, J.-H., Chen, T.-C., 1998. A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei's urban sustainability. Landscape Urban Planning. 42, 15–27.

A

37. Index Mundi (https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/BM.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS, visited at 13/07/2018)

M

38. ISO 37120:2014. Sustainable development of communities -- Indicators for city services and quality of life. Published: 2014-05

ED

39. Kilkis S., 2016. Sustainable development of energy, water, and environment systems index for Southeast European cities. Journal of Cleaner Production 130, 222-234. 40. Kumar, P., Bansod, B.K.S., Debnath, S.K., Thakur, P.K., Ghanshyam, C., 2015. Index-based groundwater 51, 38–49.

PT

vulnerability mapping models using hydrogeological settings: a critical evaluation. Environmental Impact Assessment.

CC E

41. Lazaroiu G.C., Roscia M., 2012. Definition methodology for the smart cities model. Energy 47, 326-332. 42. Luean W., Lu L., Li X., Ma C., 2017. Weight determination of sustainable development indicators using a global sensitivity analysis method. Sustainability 9(2) 303.

A

43. Lynch, A.J., Andreason, S., Eisenman, T., Robinson, J., Steif, K. & Birch, E.L. (2011) Sustainable Urban Development Indicators for the United States. White Paper Series on Sustainable Development.

44. Marks N, Simms A, Thompson S and Abdallah S (2006) The Happy Planet Index: An index of human well-being and environmental impact (London: nef). 45. Marletto, G., Mameli, F., 2012. A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test. Eur. Transp. Res. 4, 79–89.

29

46. Marsal-Llacuna M.-L., Colomer-Llinàs J., Meléndez-Frigola J., 2015. Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 90, 611–622. 47. Mascarenhas A., Coelho P., Subtil E., et al., 2009. The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators 10, 646-656. 48. Mascarenhas A., Nunes L.M., Ramos T.B., 2015. Selection of sustainability indicators for planning: combining stakeholders; participation and data reduction techniques, Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 295-307. 49. Mayer A.L., 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems

IP T

Environment International 34, 277–291. 50. McDonnell M.J, MacGregor-Fors I., 2016. The ecological future of cities. Science 20, 936-938.

51. Meadows, D., 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development – A Report to the Balaton

SC R

Group. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, USA, http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/resources.html#SIpapers. 52. Michailidou, A.V., Vlachokostas, C., & Moussiopoulos, N. (2015). A methodology to assess the overall environmental pressure attributed to tourism areas: A combined approach for typical all-sized hotels in Chalkidiki, Greece. Ecological Indicators, 50, 108-119.

U

53. Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., Hák, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators

N

and targets. Ecological Indicators 17, 4–13.

A

54. Mori K., Yamashita T., 2015. Methodological framework of sustainability assessment in City Sustainability Index (CSI): A concept of constraint and maximization indicators. Habitat International 45, 10-14.

M

55. Mori K., Christodoulou A., 2012. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32, 94–106.

ED

56. Moussiopoulos N., Achillas Ch., Vlachokostas C., Spyridi D., Nikolaou K., 2010. Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki,

PT

Greece. Cities 27, 377–384.

57. Newman P., Kenworthy J., 2000. The Ten Myths of Automobile Dependence. World Transport Policy & Practice 6,

CC E

15–twenty-five.

58. Phillis A., Kouikoglou V.S., Verdugo C., Urban Sustainability assessment and ranking of cities, 64, 254-265, 2017 59. Prescott-Allen, R., 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. Island Press, Washington DC. 60. Rae, A., Wong, C., 2012. Monitoring spatial planning policies: towards an analytical, adaptive and spatial approach

A

to a ‘wicked problem’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39, 880-896.

61. Scipioni A., Mazzi A., Mason M., 2009. The dashboard of sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: the case study of Padua municipality. Ecol Indic, 364–80. 62. Seto, K.C., Dhakal, S., Bigio, H., Blanco, H., Delgado, C., Dewar, D., Huang, L., Inaba, A.,Kansal, A., Lwasa, S., McMahon, J.E., Muller, D., Murakami, J., Nagendra, H., Ramaswami, A., 2014. Chapter 12: human settlements, infrastructure, and spatial planning. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickermeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlomer, S., von 30

Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA. 63. Shen, L.-Y., Ochoa, J.J., Shah, M.N., Zhang, X., 2011. The application of urban sustainability indicators–a comparison between various practices. Habitat International 35, 17–29. 64. Shen, L., Zhou, J., 2014. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable urbanization in China. Habitat International 44, 111–120. 65. Siemens,

2009.

European

Green

City

(visited:

IP T

https://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/en/pdf/report_german_gci.pdf

Index.

08.06.2017)

66. Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.

SC R

Ecol. Indic. 9, 189–212.

67. Singh R.K., Murty H.R., Gupta S.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 15, 281-299.

68. SOPAC (South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission), 2005. Building resilience in SIDS. The Environmental

U

Vulnerability Index (EVI) 2005. SOPAC Technical Report (Suva, Fiji Islands).

N

69. Sustainable Society Foundation (www.ssifindex.con) (visited: 30.06.2017)

A

70. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions, 2015. The Reference Framework on Sustainable Cities. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/ev_20151216_co07_en.pdf

M

12.06.2017)

(visited:

71. Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.-F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of

ED

the use of local indicators. Ecol. Ind. 10, 407–418. 72. Tweed, C., Jones, P., 2000. The role of models in arguments about urban sustainability. Environmental Impact

PT

Assessment Review 20 (3), 277–287

73. UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements), 2001. The State of the Worlds Cities 2001. UN, Nairobi.

CC E

74. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), 1993. Agenda 21. Rio Summit. ISBN 978-92-1-100509-7. 75. UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme), 2001. Global urban indicators database, version 2. https://unhabitat.org/books/global-urban-indicators-database/ (visited: 14.06.2017) 76. Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona

A

77. Venkatesh G., (2014). A critique of the European Green City Index. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57:3, 317-328.

78. Verma P., Raghubanski S., 2018. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecological Indicators 93, 282-291 79. Wackernagel, Mathis, Rees, William, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers. 31

80. Wong, C., Watkins, C., 2009. Conceptualising spatial planning outcomes: towards an integrative measurement framework. Town Planning Review 80(4/5), 481-516. Wong C., 2015. A framework for ‘City Prosperity Index’: Linking indicators, analysis and policy. Habitat International 45, 3-9. 81. Wong, C. (2006). Quantitative indicators for urban and regional planning: The interplay policy and methods. In Royal town planning institute library book series. London: Routledge. 82. World

Health

Organization.

Global

Health

Observatory

(GHO)

data.

(http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden_disease/life_tables/en/, visited at 16/6/2018) 83. Wu J.G., Wu T., 2012. Sustainability indicators and indices: an overview. Madu CN, Kuei C (eds) Handbook of

IP T

Sustainable Management. Imperial College Press, London, pp 65–86.

A

CC E

PT

ED

M

A

N

U

SC R

84. Wu J.G., (2010) Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research. Landscape Ecological 25, 1–4.

32