Sustainable Cities Index 2016 (UK Version)

UK SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX 2016

Putting people at the heart of city sustainability

NA SEOUL AM EN RD VI URT MSTE S ARI KF H A N N P E FRA UNIC G HA IN

NIL NA A W I N O W LK AT C D HELI A A IR O

AG

HOUSTON C HI C

ABI

DH

CA PE

AB U

AN

UH

W

SC OW

TA U AR GD EN H

M O

DD AH

TO

MA

ST OC

RI C

H

JA N E N EIR NA O L I JO IM HA A

I DE PE AI TLAN A

U

K HO LM

S AN

CA MADRID H N LOS ANG NEW SYDN B E G AM EL ER YOR EY R EN B NVTA SHENZHE ES RA EV UR LO K P N G ND A IN HIL BRISB WE RO A AN E D E SH LEE A RIYA DS DH N

W O RLE

4

NE

E

O

OR

Y

Z

P S I N GA

AS IT LL IT C DA A W

CH

B JE ES HA A IR DO OS EN BU

E

GO

D

NJIN AM TIA NGAL MAN HA UR BE U MU NO MB I J AI AK C

P I TS SB LY UR ON GH T

RI O

LO U

M L PEN BER O N UE CO TER G CHES ON AG GH MAN GK A N N PR BUR LO HO E P R C E N R I BA D NTW ASGOW W AM ER L A UBLIN GL ARS V RD D EA AW TORONTO B TE COU TR O RNE S MA T N N OU L CAU STON RO VA MO ELB BRUSSE M MIL E TON HAM O A C N M G NG CIS IN MI FRAN ATTLE WASHINGTON T OK LL BIR SE N YO SA M E I A R M O I M I LIS KUA ALT BO LA I B BA LU N BANGKOK TAMPA M DU S D N PU E ET A I H T R H R A OI LP T IS SA T A L K N C DE O S ZHOU SA U TI ANG A AP OP MU GU N A L IA AI H BU G N TA XICO CI IS ME BU TY S RG EI NE N JIN G

NE I B RO K

CONTENTS 1. FOREWORD 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX 3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY

3.2 THE FINDINGS

3.3 OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS

3.4 PEOPLE SUB-INDEX

3.5 PLANET SUB-INDEX

3.6 PROFIT SUB-INDEX

4.

UK SPOTLIGHT 4.1 LONDON 4.2 BIRMINGHAM 4.3 EDINBURGH 4.4 MANCHESTER 4.5 LEEDS

5. SPOTLIGHT ON GLOBAL

CHALLENGES - DEMOGRAPHICS 6. PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF

CITY SUSTAINABILITY 7. APPENDICES

7.1 METHODOLOGY AND INDICATORS 8. FURTHER READING

1. FOREWORD PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE CENTRE OF CITY PROSPERITY If cities are the engines of growth then their pistons will need to work a great deal harder over the coming years. With Britain now gradually uncoupling itself from the EU, the race is on for each major city in the UK to demonstrate just how competitive it can be on a global, national and even regional scale.

“What is the city but the people?”

William Shakespeare

T

he city rhetoric we are used to is all about numbers – growing levels of investment, housing targets, meeting carbon reduction targets and increasing capital values. But failing to look beyond the spreadsheet can mean that we lose sight of the most important aspect of all, our people and their communities.

A city’s strength and character come from its people. With everything that has happened in the UK in recent times, one thing that has become abundantly clear.

The need to spread prosperity more evenly across the country is ever more pressing. Be it through job creation, improving transport or simply by making our towns and cities more healthy and affordable, the devolution agenda has to work for the benefit of people. If we get this right, everything else – from lessening our environmental impact to boosting economic growth – will naturally follow.

As the 2016 Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index shows, cities across the country have very different priorities. The question is, how can they ensure that as they develop

and implement plans to meet the challenges they face, they do so in a way that puts people first?

London’s position as world-leading cultural hub and leading financial services centre is something of a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. Economic strength and robust environmental credentials are all well and good, but an inevitable by-product of this should not be a dearth of affordable property and an over stretched transport network.

Ambitious cities – of which the UK has many – will have an important role to play in a national economy increasingly reliant on global trade and investment. Ensuring the likes of Birmingham, Edinburgh and Manchester are ready to meet this challenge will mean attracting investment, creating jobs and doing so within a context of improving the quality of life of their people. This means modernising aging transport networks, building homes where people want to live and investing in the social infrastructure that makes a city an attractive, fulfilling place to be.

The devolution agenda is giving city leaders greater powers to determine their own destinies and make a tangible difference to their cities and their citizens. However, with the instability we have seen in recent months unlikely to abate for the foreseeable future, each and every move needs to be carefully managed. Every penny that is spent needs to go towards improving the quality of life for communities, protecting the environment and growing enterprise. Only then can we say our cities are genuinely sustainable.

Richard Bonner UK Cities Director, Arcadis

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The index ranks 100 global cities on three dimensions of sustainability: people, planet and profit. These represent social, environmental and economic sustainability to offer an indicative picture of the health and wealth of cities for the present and the future.

• Cities around the world are not effectively balancing these three pillars of sustainability.

While taking the lead in some areas, cities often underperform in one element of which negatively impacts their overall performance.

• Zurich leads the global ranking and tops the planet sub-index too; but while it scores highly in profit, it appears in 27th place for people.

• British financial centres of London and Edinburgh lead the way when it comes to profit, with both featuring in the top ten worldwide.

• From an environmental point of view, UK cities tend to perform relatively strongly. Most feature in first quarter of the planet ranking, ahead of every US counterpart and many major European cities.

• Generally speaking, UK regional cities’ overall sustainability would benefit from increasing their profit rankings through attracting investment and encouraging economic prosperity.

• A consistent theme across all UK cities is the need to improve transport infrastructure. Better mobility would improve the quality of life for communities and further open the nation’s cities up to investment.

• Should regional cities fulfil their economic potential, they should learn lessons from London.

The nation’s capital has seen economic prosperity come at a high social cost, with affordability and income inequality impacting quality of life.

• Globally, no city sits in the top ten for all three sub-rankings, showing that all cities have growth opportunities. Stockholm and Vienna achieve the best balance, appearing in the top 15 across people, planet and profit.

3. SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX

3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF URBAN SUSTAINABILITY Cities are under pressure from all angles. Some pressures can be modeled and forecasted, such as population growth and mobility needs, but others, political uncertainly or flash floods for example, are more difficult to predict. Balancing the immediate needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow is at the heart of being a sustainable city, and of this report.

As the needs of the present can encompass almost anything, it is necessary to focus on certain dimensions to assess how cities are performing at this essential task. The Sustainable Cities Index seeks to do this through an indication of urban sustainability that encompasses measures of the social, environmental and economic health of cities, as shown in Figure 1. These are the three ‘P’s – people, planet and profit.

Arcadis partnered with the Centre for Economic and Business Research (Cebr) to explore how cities are doing across these three areas. Cebr assessed 100 of the world’s leading cities, using 32 different indicators, to develop an indicative ranking of the sustainability of each. A city receives a score on each of the three pillars of sustainability and a city’s overall score is equal to the average of the three sub-indices. A full list of these indicators can be found in Table 1 in the appendix to this report.

FIGURE 1: THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY

PEOPLE

PLANET

PROFIT

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

Measures social performance including quality of life

Captures 'green' factors like energy, pollution & emissions

Assesses business environment & economic health

The People sub-index rates health (life expectancy and obesity), education (literacy and universities), income inequality, work-life balance, the dependency ratio, crime, housing and living costs. These indicators can be broadly thought of as capturing “quality of life”.

The Planet sub-index ranks cities on energy consumption and renewable energy share, green space within cities, recycling and composting rates, greenhouse gas emissions, natural catastrophe risk, drinking water, sanitation and air pollution. These indicators can broadly be thought of as capturing “green factors”.

The Profit sub-index examines performance from a business perspective, combining measures of transport infrastructure (rail, air and traffic congestion), ease of doing business, tourism, GDP per capita, the city’s importance in global economic networks, connectivity in terms of mobile and broadband access and employment rates. These indicators can broadly be thought of as capturing “economic health”.

While geographical factors such as location, climate and access to resources all make like-for-like comparisons problematic, the report gives cities the opportunity to measure their overarching performance across these three areas, each vital for sustainability, to benchmark and learn from higher placed cities and take action to sustain future performance.

3.2 THE FINDINGS The research indicates that there are three significant areas of correlation: • No one city is effectively balancing all three areas of sustainability. Many cities do well in two of the people, planet and profit ratings, but very few do well in all three, indicating the challenge that cities have in balancing all three needs effectively to ensure long-term sustainability.

• There is a geographical bias, with European cities achieving higher scores overall and emerging cities towards the bottom of the Index. Comparing cities with their geographical peers or with similar sustainability challenges (such as age demographics) therefore offers a better comparison.

• The challenge of putting people at the heart of a city’s sustainability is one that many cities struggle with. A clear vision and identity for the city is the starting point of this process, and has the benefit of giving people, business and finance a much clearer idea of what will attract them to the city in question. The built and natural environment has a critical part to play in forming a city’s unique identity.

The report is divided into the overall ranking and sub-indices of people, planet and profit. It explores each of these in depth, and contains profiles of some of the key cities in the Index.

3.3 OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS Cities around the world are living at extremes and exhibit polarised performance across the three pillars of sustainability The Swiss city of Zurich tops the overall Sustainable Cities Index, scoring particularly well across the planet and profit categories. With the exception of Singapore and Seoul, the top ten ranked cities are mostly from northern and central Europe – three of the top ten are in Germany alone.

Around the middle of the Index are cities from southern Europe, the U.S. and some cities of the Middle East. The U.S. cities show a differing performance across the categories. Overall they rank far higher for profit compared to people and planet, which brings them down in the overall rankings.

New York leads the pack at 26th, while Tampa (68th) and Detroit (69th) finish out the U.S. rankings.

The lower half of the Index contains all of the mainland Chinese cities, with cities from Latin America mostly following. The less advanced Asia-Pacific metropolises are a little further down, with the least-developed cities in the Index, predominantly those in India and Africa, finishing the Index. The cities of the Middle East are spread throughout the lower half.

A clear link between economic development and environmental sustainability is apparent.

Therefore, cities in advanced economies are largely at the top while those in emerging and developing economies tend to cluster towards the bottom.

The tension inherent in a sustainable economy, be it a city or a country, is whether future generations’ well-being is jeopardised by today’s lifestyles.

At present, all advanced economies put future standards of living at risk through high emissions of greenhouse gases, by not recycling enough of the finite resources we use and by depleting our nonrenewable energy sources. Some contain the adverse effects of these activities better than others, and this report seeks to show how different cities compare in this respect.

As such, the Sustainable Cities Index does not look like a typical development ranking.

Some emerging economies are unexpectedly high relative to a “standard” development ranking, while some developed economies fall down in their obligations to the future. We can look at the three sub-indices to see in which dimensions of sustainability cities are performing well and in which they have opportunities for further investment and improvement.

FIGURE 2: OVERALL INDEX RANKINGS: ZURICH ON TOP OF THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX (SOURCE CEBR)

ZURICH 1

PHILADELPHIA 51

SINGAPORE 2

DUBAI 52

STOCKHOLM 3

BALTIMORE 53

VIENNA 4

MIAMI 54

LONDON 5

KUALA LUMPUR 55

FRANKFURT 6

DALLAS 56

SEOUL 7

MOSCOW 57

HAMBURG 8

ABU DHABI 58

PRAGUE 9

HOUSTON 59

MUNICH 10

CHICAGO 60

AMSTERDAM 11

NEW ORLEANS 61

GENEVA 12

PITTSBURGH 62

EDINBURGH 13

ATLANTA 63

COPENHAGEN 14

SHENZHEN 64

PARIS 15

INDIANAPOLIS 65

HONG KONG 16

ATHENS 66

BERLIN 17

BANGKOK 67

CANBERRA 18

TAMPA 68

ROTTERDAM 19

DETROIT 69

MADRID 20

KUWAIT CITY 70

SYDNEY 21

SANTIAGO 71

ROME 22

DOHA 72

VANCOUVER 23

BEIJING 73

BARCELONA 24

SHANGHAI 74

MANCHESTER 25

MUSCAT 75

NEW YORK 26

RIYADH 76

WELLINGTON 27

ISTANBUL 77

MONTREAL 28

GUANGZHOU 78

ANTWERP 29

SAO PAULO 79

BRISBANE 30

BUENOS AIRES 80

BIRMINGHAM 31

JEDDAH 81

MELBOURNE 32

RIO DE JANEIRO 82

TORONTO 33

LIMA 83

BOSTON 34

MEXICO CITY 84

DUBLIN 35

TIANJIN 85

GLASGOW 36

AMMAN 86

WARSAW 37

HANOI 87

LEEDS 38

JAKARTA 88

SAN FRANCISCO 39

CHENNAI 89

BRUSSELS 40

JOHANNESBURG 90

MACAU 41

BENGALURU 91

MILAN 42

MUMBAI 92

SEATTLE 43

CHENGDU 93

WASHINGTON 44

WUHAN 94

TOKYO 45

CAPE TOWN 95

LISBON 46

MANILA 96

LYON 47

NEW DELHI 97

TAIPEI 48

NAIROBI 98

DENVER 49

CAIRO 99

LOS ANGELES 50

KOLKATA 100 0

10

20

PEOPLE

30

40

50

60

70

80

PLANET

0

10

PROFIT

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

3.4 PEOPLE SUB-INDEX LOW INEQUALITY THE SECRET OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY The people sub-index measures social sustainability and gives some surprising results, showing a substantial degree of departure from many of the other ways of comparing cities. Seoul ranks first and, although the remaining top five cities are European, Muscat and Montreal enter the top ten, at 9th and 10th respectively. The U.S. cities are generally weighed down by a high degree of income inequality, high crime, obesity (as part of the health indicator), a lack of affordable housing and long working hours. Many cities that rank higher in the planet and profit sub-indices tend towards lower people rankings, often hampered by long working hours, a skewed distribution of wealth and the affordability of both housing and consumer goods and services.

To some extent, cities with low affordability scores are victims of their own success. High land values, which in turn raise the prices of not just housing but also goods and services, are a result of successful urban economies. Over time, however, unaffordability

poses a threat to lower-paid workers who are essential to a city’s proper functioning, as well as the cheap workspaces that start-up businesses require. This illustrates the need for cities to address these issues to enable and drive future growth.

The most reliable predictor of where a city ranks in the people sub-index is income inequality.

This has strong links with the other indicators: crime, education, work-life balance, health and affordability. The link explains the high performance of many northern European cities and the low performance of cities in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

This pattern holds despite the unfavourable demographics in much of Europe versus Chinese cities (whose inhabitants are largely of working age). The power of equality to influence other social objectives has been noted by many social researchers (e.g. Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level) and its acknowledged effects on a range of issues such as health, drug abuse, education and obesity mean it is bound to correlate strongly with the people sub-index, as a broad social-sustainability indicator.

FIGURE 3: PEOPLE SUB-INDEX: AFTER SEOUL, EUROPE LEADS THE WAY (SOURCE CEBR) SEOUL 1

PITTSBURGH 51

ROTTERDAM 2

ATHENS 52

HAMBURG 3

KUALA LUMPUR 53

VIENNA 4

SAN FRANCISCO 54

BERLIN 5

DUBAI 55

PRAGUE 6

RIYADH 56

AMSTERDAM 7

DOHA 57

MUNICH 8

JAKARTA 58

MUSCAT 9

JEDDAH 59

MONTREAL 10

ABU DHABI 60

ANTWERP 11

SEATTLE 61

BRUSSELS 12

WUHAN 62

BARCELONA 13

CHENGDU 63

STOCKHOLM 14

BANGKOK 64

WARSAW 15

GUANGZHOU 65

FRANKFURT 16

PHILADELPHIA 66

CANBERRA 17

WASHINGTON 67

MADRID 18

TIANJIN 68

LYON 19

MACAU 69

PARIS 20

ATLANTA 70

BRISBANE 21

AMMAN 71

MELBOURNE 22

DETROIT 72

VANCOUVER 23

SHENZHEN 73

COPENHAGEN 24

CHICAGO 74

SYDNEY 25

BENGALURU 75

LEEDS 26

CHENNAI 76

ZURICH 27

NEW YORK 77

BIRMINGHAM 28

KOLKATA 78

LISBON 29

HOUSTON 79

GENEVA 30

BALTIMORE 80

MANCHESTER 31

HONG KONG 81

TAIPEI 32

DALLAS 82

ROME 33

INDIANAPOLIS 83

MILAN 34

TAMPA 84

MOSCOW 35

SANTIAGO 85

KUWAIT CITY 36

MUMBAI 86

LONDON 37

NEW DELHI 87

EDINBURGH 38

BUENOS AIRES 88

DUBLIN 39

MIAMI 89

TORONTO 40

ISTANBUL 90

BOSTON 41

LIMA 91

GLASGOW 42

CAIRO 92

SHANGHAI 43

NEW ORLEANS 93

TOKYO 44

MANILA 94

BEIJING 45

RIO DE JANEIRO 95

HANOI 46

MEXICO CITY 96

DENVER 47

SAO PAULO 97

SINGAPORE 48

NAIROBI 98

LOS ANGELES 49

JOHANNESBURG 99

WELLINGTON 50

CAPE TOWN 100 DEMOGRAPHICS

EDUCATION

INCOME INEQUALITY

WORK-LIFE BALANCE

CRIME

HEALTH

AFFORDABILITY

3.5 PLANET SUB-INDEX ENERGY SUPERPOWERS FIND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY MORE DIFFICULT The Swiss cities of Zurich and Geneva dominate the top three positions in the planet subindex (first and third places respectively) with Stockholm in second. Wellington and Sydney join the top ten which is otherwise made up of European cities.

U.S. cities are negatively affected by their high per-capita emissions, energy use and lower amount of green spaces. San Francisco (53rd) and Los Angeles (60th) feature in the lower half of the sub-index.

While these two Californian cities have the highest recycling rates in the world, they also have the highest exposure to natural disasters. This indicator affects developed and emerging cities alike and, while there is some reflection in the rankings of the degree to which cities prepare themselves, some are inevitably left vulnerable and exposed regardless of the

actions they’ve taken to reduce risk in this area.

Middle Eastern cities also feature towards the bottom of this subindex. One cause of this is the energy indicator, which measures the proportion of electricity from renewable sources, the energy intensity (i.e. the amount of energy consumed to produce each dollar of GDP), and energy use per capita.

The Middle Eastern cities are using an increasing proportion of renewable energy but, given their vast fossil fuel resources, incentives to conserve energy are much weaker than elsewhere. Moscow is in a similar predicament and also appears near the bottom at 87th.

There are also a few unexpected high performers in emerging economies. For example, Bengaluru is fairly high (62nd); while its performance for waste management is one of the worst in the sub-index, the city makes up for it by having very low greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.

FIGURE 4: PLANET SUB-INDEX: SWISS CITIES GREENEST ON THE PLANET (SOURCE CEBR) ZURICH 1

MACAU 51

STOCKHOLM 2

ATHENS 52

GENEVA 3

SAN FRANCISCO 53

VIENNA 4

WARSAW 54

FRANKFURT 5

AMMAN 55

WELLINGTON 6

TAMPA 56

ROME 7

SANTIAGO 57

SYDNEY 8

MEXICO CITY 58

LONDON 9

DALLAS 59

HAMBURG 10

LOS ANGELES 60

MADRID 11

INDIANAPOLIS 61

SINGAPORE 12

BENGALURU 62

COPENHAGEN 13

BUENOS AIRES 63

MANCHESTER 14

DENVER 64

BIRMINGHAM 15

DETROIT 65

BERLIN 16

SHENZHEN 66

ROTTERDAM 17

CHICAGO 67

VANCOUVER 18

HOUSTON 68

AMSTERDAM 19

CHENNAI 69

GLASGOW 20

CAPE TOWN 70

LEEDS 21

TAIPEI 71

EDINBURGH 22

JOHANNESBURG 72

BARCELONA 23

PITTSBURGH 73

MUNICH 24

ISTANBUL 74

CANBERRA 25

MUMBAI 75

SEOUL 26

HANOI 76

MONTREAL 27

TIANJIN 77

TORONTO 28

ATLANTA 78

HONG KONG 29

BANGKOK 79

SAO PAULO 30

GUANGZHOU 80

PRAGUE 31

JEDDAH 81

PARIS 32

RIYADH 82

NEW YORK 33

NAIROBI 83

BRUSSELS 34

KUALA LUMPUR 84

SEATTLE 35

JAKARTA 85

MILAN 36

MANILA 86

ANTWERP 37

MOSCOW 87

RIO DE JANEIRO 38

MUSCAT 88

DUBLIN 39

KUWAIT CITY 89

LYON 40

NEW DELHI 90

BRISBANE 41

SHANGHAI 91

BALTIMORE 42

CHENGDU 92

LISBON 43

CAIRO 93

NEW ORLEANS 44

LIMA 94

BOSTON 45

ABU DHABI 95

PHILADELPHIA 46

DUBAI 96

MIAMI 47

BEIJING 97

WASHINGTON 48

DOHA 98

MELBOURNE 49

WUHAN 99

TOKYO 50

KOLKATA 100 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

ENERGY

GREEN SPACE

AIR POLLUTION

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION

3.6 PROFIT SUB-INDEX THE KEY TO ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY: EASE OF DOING BUSINESS The profit sub-index measures economic sustainability. It is headed by the East Asian financial centres of Singapore and Hong Kong. These two cities are well known as recent developers and now rank among the most prosperous cities in the world.

Their high scores derive from a strong performance across a number of metrics, particularly tourism, connectivity and ease of doing business. Completing the top five are London, Dubai and Zurich.

The profit sub-index is related to cities’ wealth, as the economic development indicator is the city’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (essentially, average economic output). Global importance also plays a role via the indicators of tourism and importance to global networks, a metric that maps economic and commercial links between the cities of the world. However, this does not tell the whole story, as shown by major Latin American financial centers like Mexico City and São Paulo which rank 83rd and 84th respectively in the profit sub-index.

If doing business is difficult, and transport networks are neglected, even economic powerhouses can struggle for sustainability in

the profit arena. For example, Brazil’s rapid transition from a star emerging economy to deep recession shows that sustainability requires stronger systems and foundations.

Five American cities make the top 25 of the profit ranking, led by the financial capital of New York and followed by the digital hub of San Francisco.

Shanghai, low in the ranking at 77th, is impacted by low GDP per capita, barriers to doing business and lower employment rates.

In Europe, the profit sub-index reveals the split personalities of a number of cities. Istanbul, Athens, Lyon, Brussels, Leeds, Glasgow and Lisbon, for example, all sit in the bottom 40 cities for profit but are further ahead in the people and planet pillars.

Of the indicators assessed in this ranking, the two that have the greatest impact on the profit rankings are ease of doing business and GDP per capita. The World Bank’s ease of doing business rating started in 2002 and assesses issues like how many days and procedures are needed to start a business, the ease of cross-border trade, and the ease of obtaining credit from banks. Economic sustainability requires investment in the future, without which a city would not fare as well on the other indicators.

FIGURE 5: PROFIT SUB-INDEX: GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTERS REIGN (SOURCE CEBR) SINGAPORE 1

MANCHESTER 51

HONG KONG 2

BALTIMORE 52

LONDON 3

BANGKOK 53

DUBAI 4

MONTREAL 54

ZURICH 5

PHILADELPHIA 55

EDINBURGH 6

SHENZHEN 56

PRAGUE 7

MILAN 57

NEW YORK 8

WELLINGTON 58

PARIS 9

NEW ORLEANS 59

STOCKHOLM 10

BIRMINGHAM 60

MUNICH 11

LISBON 61

SAN FRANCISCO 12

INDIANAPOLIS 62

ABU DHABI 13

PITTSBURGH 63

VIENNA 14

GLASGOW 64

MACAU 15

DETROIT 65

AMSTERDAM 16

BRUSSELS 66

COPENHAGEN 17

BEIJING 67

SEOUL 18

KUWAIT CITY 68

KUALA LUMPUR 19

LEEDS 69

CANBERRA 20

TAMPA 70

WASHINGTON 21

LYON 71

BOSTON 22

ATHENS 72

FRANKFURT 23

JOHANNESBURG 73

DENVER 24

LIMA 74

HAMBURG 25

ISTANBUL 75

MELBOURNE 26

SANTIAGO 76

TAIPEI 27

SHANGHAI 77

TOKYO 28

GUANGZHOU 78

VANCOUVER 29

RIYADH 79

BRISBANE 30

CAPE TOWN 80

DALLAS 31

JEDDAH 81

BERLIN 32

BUENOS AIRES 82

SEATTLE 33

MEXICO CITY 83

MADRID 34

SAO PAULO 84

SYDNEY 35

MUSCAT 85

WARSAW 36

RIO DE JANEIRO 86

HOUSTON 37

TIANJIN 87

TORONTO 38

JAKARTA 88

DUBLIN 39

WUHAN 89

ANTWERP 40

NAIROBI 90

MIAMI 41

MANILA 91

GENEVA 42

CHENGDU 92

BARCELONA 43

MUMBAI 93

MOSCOW 44

HANOI 94

CHICAGO 45

CHENNAI 95

ROTTERDAM 46

NEW DELHI 96

LOS ANGELES 47

AMMAN 97

ATLANTA 48

CAIRO 98

ROME 49

BENGALURU 99

DOHA 50

KOLKATA 100 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

TOURISM

CONNECTIVITY

EMPLOYMENT

4. UK SPOTLIGHT London (5th) and Edinburgh (13th) are the clear UK leaders in the Sustainable Cities Index with the other UK cities sitting between 25th and 38th spots.

This trend can also be seen in the profit sub-index, with London ranking first in the UK and coming third globally, closely followed by Edinburgh which ranks sixth in the world. All other six UK cities perform significantly lower on profit, ranking between 51st and 69th globally, highlighting the notable contrast between the UK’s capitals and other major cities.

However, when it comes to people, it’s a different story, with Leeds taking top spot, followed by Birmingham. Edinburgh mirrors the global trend of cities having a split personality as its high-flying second place in the UK for profit is in stark contrast to much lower positions for planet and people.

For the purposes of this report, the UK has already been ‘Brexited’ from the rest of Europe, but it is clear that London in particular will remain a leading global, not just European, city. For others, particularly the Scottish cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, their future positions within the UK, or as a standalone country should another independence referendum be held, are less clear.

UK RANKINGS LONDON 5 EDINBURGH 13 MANCHESTER 25 BIRMINGHAM 31 GLASGOW 36 LEEDS 38 0

10

PEOPLE PLANET PROFIT

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

4.1 CITY PROFILE LONDON PEOPLE: 37 PLANET: 9 PROFIT: 3

PLANET: 9

London is one of the world’s foremost economic powerhouses.

Sitting at the centre of global trade, London’s heavyweight position, combined with a long history of cultural and economic evolution, means it is well equipped to reap the long-term benefits of its status as a true world city.

London’s history, its economic diversity, its dominance as a transport hub, multi-culturalism and transparency for investment have all combined to contribute to its success. With the right approach, London should be in a prime position to embrace the opportunities and challenges of the future. However, there can be no room for complacency. If the capital is to maintain its long term competitiveness, there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed.

Not least of these are the mobility and housing challenges associated with a densely populated, and growing, urban metropolis. With London’s population projected to reach 10 million people by 2030, improving infrastructure capacity and providing the right number and type of homes that will enable people of different skills to live and work is critical. Twenty eight percent of the city’s population are living below the poverty line, and addressing income inequality and the high cost of living will do much to improve London’s people score and push it higher up the overall rankings.

London has reached a tipping point, as the large differential between its people and profit rankings makes clear. However, in the aftermath of Brexit, the Mayor needs to persuade global businesses that London’s infrastructure priorities have not changed and that the capital remains just as viable outside of the EU. Increased devolution is required, with enhanced mayoral

4

PEOPLE: 37

powers to raise revenue, which will enable the capital’s priorities to be addressed.

As well as ensuring we get maximum capacity from our existing assets, a commitment to borrowing for capital investment will give ever greater impetus to long term infrastructure plans such as HS2 and Crossrail. If London is to avoid becoming a victim of its own success, one of the biggest challenges now will be to ensure the capital captures and retains the benefit of this investment.

PROFIT: 3

• Europe’s largest metropolitan economy • More than 3,000 parks and green spaces makes it one of the greenest capitals in the world • Home to four UNESCO world heritage sites: Tower of London, Maritime Greenwich, Westminster Palace and Kew’s Royal Botanic Gardens.

Macro-economic factors may be forcing many people to think differently, but London will always attract those who contribute to long-term economic prosperity.

People come to the city not just for work or investment opportunities, but also to enjoy the numerous cultural and heritage aspects synonymous with a dynamic and thriving capital city.

They key for London now will be to deliver long term housing and regeneration measures. These will create far greater social and economic equality across all of its 32 boroughs. While the need to preserve London’s leading economic position is a given, if it is to move further up the rankings the social cost of its relatively poor people ranking needs to be addressed.

Mark Prior, Arcadis Cities Director for London mark.prior@arcadis.com

4.2 CITY PROFILE BIRMINGHAM PEOPLE: 28

PLANET: 15

PROFIT:60

• Boasts more green spaces than any other city in Europe • Attracts more foreign direct investment than any city outside of London • Is the UK’s most culturally mixed city.

Simon Marks, Arcadis Cities Director for Birmingham simon.marks@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 28 PLANET: 15 PROFIT: 60

Birmingham is a city in the midst of huge change. Once an ailing post-industrial metropolis, a great deal is now resting on the Second City’s sizable shoulders. As part of the devolution agenda, the government has earmarked the West Midlands as an economic counterbalance to London, aimed at making the region a more prosperous and better place to live.

After decades of underinvestment, this is clearly no easy task but things are moving forward quickly.

2017 will see the city appoint its first ever elected mayor, tasked with overseeing over one billion pounds of central government investment and large-scale regeneration works. The likes of Smithfield redevelopment and the Snow Hill regeneration plan – Birmingham’s answer to London’s Canary Wharf – will quite literally change the face of the city.

These plans, however, are not merely designed to make the area look nice. This progress is emblematic of the way the West Midlands Combined Authority see the built environment and its potential to improve the regional economy. These programmes serve to better place Birmingham in the shop window to potential investors as well as improving the quality of life of its communities.

However, despite the obvious progress, this is not yet enough to support a city of Birmingham’s size.

As is evident by the poorer profit score, more needs to be done to improve productivity and produce a more sustainable local and regional economy. Major investors such as HSBC and Jaguar Land Rover see their futures in the area but the wider, residual prosperity of moves such as these takes time to filter down.

In fact, the Second City scores down in sixtieth position in our profit ranking due, largely, to relatively poorer levels of employment and economic development. To make for a more balanced environment, the city

has a challenge on its hands to turn big investment into high quality employment.

The much-maligned skills shortage is something that city leaders need to address with a degree of urgency. More job creation and upskilling local people are crucial.

So, too, is genuinely affordable housing and securing Birmingham’s position as an international hub for advanced manufacturing and life sciences would go some way to helping the city attract the most skilled people and realise its potential.

As, would improving mobility.

Ambitious plans to overhaul the West Midlands road and rails networks are long overdue and the city – as well as the entire nation – is still holding its breath, waiting for the government to finally rubber stamp HS2. High speed connections to the capital and the north of England as well as reducing journey times across the Midlands will only serve to further increase investment and, consequentially, prosperity. Once these major projects are approved we could well see Birmingham take a huge step forward and make good on its promises to become an engine of national growth in every sense.

4.3 CITY PROFILE EDINBURGH PEOPLE: 38 PLANET: 22 PROFIT: 6

PLANET: 22

The capital of Scotland is the largest financial centre in the UK after London, meaning that its position as the UK’s second most economically sustainable city in this years’ index should come as no surprise. Its close alignment with the London financial markets means that the success of these two cities often goes hand-in-hand. Yet, even in its own right, Edinburgh is highly competitive on an international stage.

With an economy based on financial services, technology, scientific research, life sciences, higher education and tourism, Edinburgh is home to one of the UK’s most productive and qualified workforces. Nearly one fifth of the population are in their 20s and just over 15 percent in their 30s. This underlines the high quality of life that is to be had in the region, with an increasing number of people choosing to stay in or relocate to the city.

Yet, despite high levels of prosperity amongst the educated classes and white collar workers, Edinburgh still suffers from a relative lack of income equality. Insufficient access to opportunities in less privileged areas is holding Edinburgh back in the people rankings, and the challenge for the Scottish Government will be to improve community benefits, access to jobs and education standards.

Typical of any thriving urban centre, as Edinburgh’s popularity increases, affordability issues come to the fore. For the first time the Scottish capital’s population has exceeded half a million, with current projections indicating it will overtake Glasgow in just a few decades. The resulting strain on housing provision, schools and transport links will need to be addressed if the city is to thrive.

Addressing the housing crisis in Edinburgh, and indeed in Scotland more generally, is as urgent as in the rest of the UK. However, the commitment from the Scottish

4

PEOPLE: 38

Government to build 50,000 new affordable homes by 2020 is going to be a big ask. For many people the alternative is to move further away from the city centre, but for this to work transport infrastructure needs to significantly improve.

Urban mobility is a major issue and one that is partially masked by its high performance in the profit rankings. The Forth Replacement Crossing and plans to extend the tram system will go some way towards alleviating regional gridlock and improving accessibility, but there needs to be a real focus on meeting Edinburgh’s transport needs for the future. Creating fit-for-purpose infrastructure capacity will be essential for enabling the city to remain competitive in the long term. However, in the current postBrexit environment, the lack of clarity around Scotland’s position both in relation to the rest of the UK and within the EU is generating some uncertainty around its investment proposition.

As an internationally focused city, Edinburgh needs to capitalise on its vision to become more outward looking. The university is a massive incubator of talent, with all the attendant education, research and support services combining to create a real knowledge hub. International funding puts Edinburgh on the map as a world class city, and the city’s civic leadership now needs to be bolder in celebrating the Scottish capital’s differentiators and successes.

PROFIT: 6

• Boasts the biggest arts festival in the world, generating over £100 million for the local economy every year • Has the highest percentage of degree level or equivalent workers in the UK • Has 112 parks and more trees per head of population than any other city in the UK.

Graham Hill, Arcadis Cities Director for Edinburgh graham.hill@arcadis.com

4.4 CITY PROFILE MANCHESTER PEOPLE: 31

PLANET: 14

PROFIT:51

• Became the world’s first industrial city in the 18th Century • Is home to the biggest UK airport outside of London • The University of Manchester is the largest single-site university in the UK.

Jonathan Moore, Arcadis Cities Director for Manchester jonathan.moore@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 31 PLANET: 14 PROFIT: 51

The “Capital of the North” is a prime example of one of the UK’s sleeping giants. Sitting at the heart of plans for a Northern Powerhouse and boasting strong manufacturing, logistics, science, technology and service sectors, Manchester’s ranking in the top quartile of this year’s Sustainable Cities Index is a positive indicator of the city’s potential.

Manchester benefits from one of the UK’s most stable regional governments, and established civic leadership and direction have been in place for a number of years.

The devolution agreement further underlined Manchester’s political power.

Greater Manchester and NHS England have signed up to bring together £6 billion of NHS and social care budgets, resulting in joint planning and, consequentially, better care for patients. In addition, the March 2015 Budget announced a pilot scheme in the region to enable the retention of 100 percent of any extra business rate growth.

The population of Greater Manchester is 2.8 million – and a combined 10.7 million across the Northern Powerhouse. Thanks to its world-class higher education institutions, Manchester also has the largest international student cohort outside of the capital, with a 55 percent student retention rate.

The city’s social demographic is, therefore, highly mobile. Something which is indicative of the quality of life the city has to offer, and is driving big opportunities in the private rented sector. However, meeting the demands of housing supply across all tenures remains a challenge.

Building more affordable and social housing needs to be a priority if the city is to live up to expectations.

Manchester’s relatively high score for both people and planet is demonstrated by plans currently underway to advance the sustainability of the city through low carbon usage and smart transport systems. From an environmental perspective,

Manchester is set to benefit from the Climate Change Delivery Plan.

This looks to turn the city into a ‘low-carbon authority’ by reducing emissions by 41 percent by the end of the decade. Additional plans include increasing biodiversity and green infrastructure, as well as improving the environmental performance of buildings through retrofitting.

One area of concern, however, is Manchester’s bottom-half score for profit. Much is to be done if the city is to move up. The city suffers from relative level of income inequality and a skills capacity gap. A greater focus on skills and training will be fundamental for getting people back into work, and the government will need to create jobs at all levels in order to have a proper impact on economic competitiveness.

A big plus is that Manchester is the third-most visited city in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors. With the second largest airport outside of London, further investment in transport infrastructure and measures to encourage FDI could significantly boost the local economy and raise the profile of the Manchester brand. To date, the local authority has been very commercially-led in terms of looking to bring investment into the city, but the challenge now will be for the regional government to advance the plan for a Northern Powerhouse and, in particular, its infrastructure strategy. Reducing journey times between all of the UK’s northern cities will benefit the entire Manchester city region and will be key to the city’s long-term prosperity.

4.5 CITY PROFILE LEEDS PEOPLE: 26 PLANET: 21 PROFIT: 69

PLANET: 21

Around twenty miles from the Yorkshire Dales is situated the city of Leeds. Boasting a long and distinguished industrial heritage, the city has undergone some major changes in recent decades and is widely known for being one of Britain’s leading centres for the legal profession. However, with the nation’s economic and political landscapes evolving faster than ever before, the city’s future direction is somewhat less clearly defined.

Major commitments from central government to increase mobility across the country’s urban centres, devolve budgets and boost local spending powers have seen cities quickly position themselves to take advantage. However, across England rival administrations appear to have stolen something of a march. Manchester, Birmingham and nearby Sheffield are soon to be appointing their respective mayors and are already reaping the rewards of extensive foreign direct investment.

Leeds, meanwhile – as illustrated by its relatively poorer performance in terms of profit – finds itself at a crossroads. In an era of regional devolution various cities around the country are jostling for position when it comes to funding. The city council’s stated aim is to make Leeds the ‘best city in the UK’ by 2030, but it will need to better push its own agenda if it is to realise this sizable aim.

One area of opportunity is the proposed Northern Powerhouse that plans to create a ‘virtual city’ and act as an economic counterbalance to London. There is optimism that the strategy could make a real difference to the city and its people.

4

Where investment has been made, the results have been extremely promising. Former Chancellor George Osborne committed £2 billion to upgrading the region’s road and rail connections, as well as significantly improving links with Manchester via the upgrading of the Trans Pennine Line. Major

PEOPLE: 26

works such as these will prove vital to reducing journey times and increasing capacity. However, without a cohesive and ambitious city strategy, examples such as these could prove the exception rather than the norm.

If Leeds is to significantly improve its long-term prospects, the top priorities must be to create more high calibre jobs and place itself in the shop window for investment. It needs better transport infrastructure and it needs regeneration but, most importantly, it needs a unified plan to deliver these aims.

That said, one big positive for Leeds is its social sustainability. The index sees it rank ahead of any other British city for people. The city’s communities benefit from the likes of a relatively good work-life balance and lower levels of income inequality than many other areas of the country. Evidently, the potential truly is there, if only the city and its leaders can decide what it is they want Leeds to be.

PROFIT: 69

• Is a leading retail destination with one of the country’s largest pedestrianised shopping areas • Is the largest legal centre in the UK outside of the capital • Boasts one of the largest urban parks in Europe.

Nick Kealey, Arcadis Cities Director for Leeds nick.kealey@arcadis.com

5. SPOTLIGHT ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES - DEMOGRAPHICS The variance in median ages across the 100 cities in the Sustainable Cities Index is astonishing, ranging from just 18.7 years in Nairobi to 46.6 years in Tokyo.

Demographics are particularly important to the economic and social elements of sustainability.

They are economically significant because the production of a society depends on its workforce, which in most countries means those aged between approximately 16 and 65 years (with the exception of the unemployed, students and other non-participants in the labour force).

However, the consumption of a society depends on its total population, and the ratio between those of working age and those outside it is an important factor in the standard of living. Demography is of social concern because two key public services – health and education – are mostly used by those outside working age, but funded by those within it. The amount available to spend on each person’s health and education is affected by how the resources are sourced; if few are providing the resources, but many need the services, the quality will suffer.

So, in the short to medium term, it’s desirable to be “in the middle” in age terms – not to have too many people either in education or in later life. Cities that are highest on the demographic indicator are in the UAE, while China scores well too. Cities in Europe and the U.S. are challenged, but then so are Nairobi and Cairo, where huge young populations put immense pressure on education meaning these economies find it hard to provide proper training for their youth.

However, seen over a longer horizon, a young cohort in education will eventually join the labour force and the population will hit the demographic “sweet spot”, just as China is experiencing, enabling far faster growth than can be achieved in the mature - in both senses - economies.

This changes the picture. Which economies are best placed demographically in the long run?

This is crucially dependent on the median age of their inhabitants.

FIGURE 6: CITIES IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX,

BY MEDIAN AGE IN YEARS 1

TOKYO 1 ROME 2 MILAN 3 BERLIN 4 HAMBURG 5 FRANKFURT 6 HOUSTON 7 HONG KONG 8 AMSTERDAM 9 ROTTERDAM 10 MUNICH 11 BRUSSELS 12 ANTWERP 13 BARCELONA 14 COPENHAGEN 15 GLASGOW 16 EDINBURGH 17 VIENNA 18 MONTREAL 19 VANCOUVER 20 PITTSBURGH 21 ZURICH 22 MADRID 23 ATHENS 24 LISBON 25 SEOUL 26 GENEVA 27 MANCHESTER 28 LEEDS 29 TORONTO 30 BIRMINGHAM 31 PRAGUE 32 BALTIMORE 33 MOSCOW 34 SAN FRANCISCO 35 TAIPEI 36 MIAMI 37 STOCKHOLM 38 BANGKOK 39 DETROIT 40 WARSAW 41 SEATTLE 42 NEW YORK 43 SYDNEY 44 TAMPA 45 MELBOURNE 46 SHANGHAI 47 BEIJING 48 WUHAN 49 GUANGZHOU 50

SHENZHEN 51 TIANJIN 52 MACAU 53 CHENGDU 54 PARIS 55 LYON 56 DOHA 57 CHICAGO 58 CANBERRA 59 LOS ANGELES 60 NEW ORLEANS 61 ATLANTA 62 LONDON 63 SINGAPORE 64 INDIANAPOLIS 65 WASHINGTON 66 DENVER 67 SANTIAGO 68 PHILADELPHIA 69 MANAMA 70 DUBLIN 71 BRISBANE 72 DALLAS 73 DUBAI 74 ABU DHABI 75 BOSTON 76 BUENOS AIRES 77 KUWAIT CITY 78 SAO PAULO 79 RIO DE JANEIRO 80 HANOI 81 ISTANBUL 82 CHENNAI 83 KUALA LUMPUR 84 JAKARTA 85 JEDDAH 86 RIYADH 87 MUSCAT 88 MEXICO CITY 89 LIMA 90 JOHANNESBURG 91 CAPE TOWN 92 KOLKATA 93 BENGALURU 94 CAIRO 95 MUMBAI 96 NEW DELHI 97 MANILA 98 AMMAN 99 NAIROBI 100

1Some cities did not have data available on the city level; here we have used national-level sources

6. PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF CITY SUSTAINABILITY CITIES, PEOPLE AND SUSTAINABILITY What makes a city sustainable for its people? It’s a question that is being asked more and more frequently by planners, developers and policymakers as they try to shape the conditions that help cities compete in what is an increasingly global tussle for talent and investment. A city’s character is formed by the dynamic mix of multiple influences that contribute to its appearance, culture and shared values. But, above all, a city’s strengths and its character come from its people. How can cities do more to ensure that, as they develop and implement strategies and policies to address the considerable challenges they face (from environmental to socioeconomic), they do so in a way that puts people at the forefront of their sustainability?

On a fundamental level, providing adequate access to basic resources for all citizens, such as shelter, clean water and air, is essential.

But for many cities – particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the developing world – this is far from straightforward. The systems that enable a city to function and thrive, from mobility to housing and culture to education, create a highly complex ecosystem of interacting and intersecting services and infrastructure that is under constant pressure to change, regenerate and respond to the developing needs of the population.

The trend to localism and devolution of powers is evident across many urban centers, making questions of governance increasingly important. Cities’ governance varies from top-down to bottom-up, greater or lesser influence of private or public interests and a range of decisionmaking, from formal to informal processes and routes. A city’s values, too, are key drivers of its ‘personality’ affecting both the day-to-day experience of citizens

and creating the city’s wider image and global impression that can attract business, talent, investment and tourism.

Of course, none of these elements is static. Cities can, and do, constantly reinvent themselves as they strive to compete and secure an advantage over each other. Throughout, people are at the heart of that change. If cities are today generally falling short of meeting the needs of their people, what changes do they need to make in order to improve? There are a number of key dimensions to address.

CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY Cities create a sense of community from built and natural assets.

This is visible in the multiple neighbourhoods of which cities are comprised. Each has its own style and distinct sense of community.

Scale is important, as it enables people to feel a strong connection to their core neighborhood community and, through that, with the wider secondary community of the entire city. A successful city, therefore, is likely to have many different neighborhoods with their own unique sense of themselves, but which, together, can form a common identity.

To that end, the degree of equality evident in a city is important for shaping people’s experience and perceptions. When the differences in a city are too big and visible, this will affect inhabitants’ sense of community. People will struggle to build a common identification with parts of their city that are very different from their own. This is not to say that there should be no differences, for example, in income.

Cities are inevitably associated with disparities in wealth. However, taking steps to ensure that all people enjoy at least a basic standard in the quality of life, with water and food, a dwelling, education and health and a sense of opportunity, is critical in binding a city’s diverse population together.

By doing so, citizens understand that everyone has their own role and responsibility in the city.

Greater equality in a city drives a sense of inclusion in its people.

When people feel included, they start collaborating, taking responsibility for their own areas and achieving greater wellbeing.

A city attracts a variety of people, and it’s this diversity that makes a city productive: everybody feels empowered and incentivized to make a positive contribution that improves the quality of life for all and drives a more sustainable city environment.

BALANCING PEOPLE AND PROFIT Access to natural resources is critically important. As well as clean water and air, for example, the availability of green spaces is becoming a more important requirement and a source of differentiation for a city. In response, cities are developing some innovative solutions to address this need. Cities are beginning to build with, rather than against, nature. The natural capital within the city is being incorporated to create new spaces that can make a direct contribution to the shared quality of life available to citizens and can attract visitors. New York’s High Line turned an abandoned transport asset into an extremely popular and successful new urban park that has spurred economic development along its route.

BUILDING A RESILIENT CITY The physical, social and economic systems that together create a city need to be resilient in order to enable a city to grow and develop in a way that is sustainable and secures the greatest benefits for the widest possible group of people. Infrastructure that works, community cohesion and stability, and the conditions in which business can flourish are all key elements of a city that meets the

needs of its people. This is as true for developed cities, such as Miami that must balance its people and profit with its resiliency to flooding and climate change, as it is for developing cities in parts of Asia and Africa that strive to accelerate their development in the midst of resiliency pressures.

According to the 2016 Arcadis Sustainable Cities Water Index, most cities across the world are in need of greater prioritisation to improve their resilience to extreme weather events and unforeseen water shortages. From rising sea levels and rapid urbanisation hindering permeability to lack of diverse water portfolios, the report finds that most cities need greater investment when it comes to their ability to withstand natural disasters and drinking water shortages. Cities that are proactive in responding to these resilience issues have a competitive advantage for future investment as well as in attracting people.

ASSESSING A CITY’S ECOSYSTEM Given all these competing needs, getting the right start is essential.

Each city will have its own unique vision for achieving those aims.

And each will need a distinct road map to reach its destination. But starting the journey begins with a clear assessment of where the city is today, and the outputs (positive and negative) arising from the interplay between its physical, social and economic systems.

Figure 7 shows three layers of assessment that city leaders should undertake in order to evaluate their city’s ecosystem.

With that understanding in place, city planners and policymakers can start taking steps to shape a city with people and their wellbeing at its heart.

FIGURE 7: CITY ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT - THREE LAYERS VALUES AND COURAGE OF DECISION MAKERS

GOVERNANCE AND INVESTMENT POWER

Top down - bottom up, public - private, formal - informal

SYSTEMS

Mobility, housing, energy, water, food, health, education, air quality, culture, waste...

Urbanism!

7. APPENDICES METHODOLOGY Table 1 shows the indicators that form the building blocks of the Sustainable Cities Index. The rightmost column shows which pillar each indicator belongs to. Indicators within each category are averaged to calculate the pillar’s score. Each city receives a percentage score reflecting its place in relation to the others.

WHAT’S NEW FOR 2016?

Incorporating feedback from the first report published in 2015, Arcadis and Cebr have both sought to create a more indicative global picture of urban sustainability by including an additional 50 cities in the ranking and incorporating seven new indicators of sustainability in the Index. This provides a broader view of the world and captures the rapid globalisation of and competition between our cities. As a result of this, it would be inaccurate to compare the rankings to last year’s. Future reports will seek to follow the same methodology and allow year-on-year comparisons to be made.

The Sustainable Cities Index is constructed by a three-stage averaging process. Some of the indicators are composites. These take the simple average of their component sub-indicators. The three sub-indices are calculated by taking simple averages of their component indicators. In turn, the overall score is calculated by taking the simple average of the three sub-indices.

Therefore, there is no weighting system applied, although, since the number of indicators differs across sub-indices, the weights in the overall Index do differ. The same applies for the sub-indicators: two components which go into one indicator will naturally have half the weight of another indicator within the same pillar which has only one component to it.

The averaging process demands that the scores be converted into common units, for which we use percentages. Each is scaled such that the worst-performing city receives 0% and the best performer receives 100%.

Since the sub-indices and the overall Index are simply averages of the indicators, they are also measured in percentage terms.

Several of the indicators have outlying values – these are defined as observations two standard deviations away from the mean. These are given the maximum or minimum score, as appropriate, and the nexthighest/lowest value is defined as the boundary observation which is used to calculate the scores of the other (non-outlier) values.

City-level data is used wherever possible, though in some cases only national-level data exists. Where there is no comparable city-level data across countries, the national value is taken and a national database is used to scale the cities so that they are given a spread around the national average.

7.1 METHODOLOGY AND INDICATORS TABLE 1: LIST OF INDICATORS USED IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX. New indicators to the 2016 Index are shown in orange INDICATOR NAME

INDICATOR DESCRIPTION

MAIN SOURCE

Literacy rate

World Bank

University rankings

QS

Share of population with tertiary education

Barro & Lee, various national sources

Life expectancy

World Bank

Obesity rate

World Health Organization

Demographics

Dependency ratio

World Bank

People

Income Inequality

Gini coefficient

World Bank

People

Consumer price index

UBS Prices and Earnings

Property prices

UBS Prices and Earnings

Work-life balance

Average annual hours worked

OECD, UBS Prices and Earnings

People

Crime

Homicide rate

UN Office on Drugs and Crime

People

Environmental risks

Natural catastrophe exposure

The International Disaster Database

Planet

Green spaces

Green space as % of city area

Siemens Green City Index

Planet

Energy use

Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Renewables share

Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Education

Health

Affordability

Energy

SUB-INDEX People

People

People

Planet

Energy consumption per $ GDP

Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Air pollution

Mean level of pollutants

World Health Organization

Planet

Greenhouse gas emissions

Emissions in metric tonnes (per capita)

CDP Cities open data

Planet

Solid waste management (landfill vs recycling)

World Bank

Share of wastewater treated

OECD & FAO Aquastat

Access to drinking water (% of households)

World Health Organization

Access to improved sanitation (% of households)

World Health Organization

Congestion

TomTom Traffic Index

Rail infrastructure

Metrobits World

Airport satisfaction

Skytrax World Airport Awards 2015

Economic development

GDP per capita

Brookings Global Monitor

Profit

Ease of doing business

Ease of Doing Business Index

World Bank

Profit

Tourism

International visitors per year, absolute & per capita

Euromonitor International

Profit

Mobile connectivity

United Nations Statistics Division

Broadband connectivity

United Nations Statistics Division

Importance in global networks

Geography Department, Loughborough University

Number of people employed, % of city population

Brookings Global Monitor

Waste management

Drinking water and sanitation

Transport infrastructure

Connectivity

Employment

Planet

Planet

Profit

Profit

Profit

DISCLAIMER While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material in this document, neither Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd nor Arcadis will be liable for any loss or damages incurred through the use of the report.

AUTHORSHIP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was commissioned by Arcadis and informed by research produced by Cebr, an independent economics and business research consultancy established in 1992. The expert commentary was compiled by a cross section of Arcadis’ city and sustainability experts. The views expressed herein are those of the authors only and are based upon independent research by them.

ABOUT ARCADIS Arcadis is the leading global design and consultancy firm for natural and built assets. Applying our deep market-sector insights and collective design, consultancy, engineering, project and management services we work in partnership with our clients to deliver exceptional and sustainable outcomes throughout the lifecycle of their natural and built assets. We are 27,000 people active in over 70 countries that generate €3.4 billion in revenues. We support UN-Habitat with knowledge and expertise to improve the quality of life in rapidly growing cities around the world. Arcadis. Improving quality of life. © 2016 Arcadis

8. FURTHER READING

BREXIT – MAKING THE MOST OF UNCERTAINTY

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INDEX

LONDON PRIME RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE 2016

SUSTAINABILITY CITIES WATER INDEX

CONTACT US Richard Bonner UK Cities Director E richard.bonner@arcadis.com @Richbonner

Arcadis United Kingdom @ArcadisUK www.arcadis.com/uk

Arcadis. Improving quality of life