{"id":1391,"date":"2012-11-28T16:54:40","date_gmt":"2012-11-28T21:54:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/?p=1391"},"modified":"2015-06-01T14:16:04","modified_gmt":"2015-06-01T18:16:04","slug":"were-number-1-depending-the-values-embedded-in-most-green-city-lists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/2012\/11\/28\/were-number-1-depending-the-values-embedded-in-most-green-city-lists\/","title":{"rendered":"We\u2019re Number 1* (*Depending): The Values Embedded in \u201cMost Green City\u201d Lists"},"content":{"rendered":"

Who doesn\u2019t love a list? The 100 richest people in the world. The best guitar players of all time. The most beautiful beaches in the world. The world\u2019s \u201cgreenest cities\u201d. The USA\u2019s most livable cities. The most resilient cities.\u00a0For people interested in the particular theme of the list, the lists are fascinating. We can compare them against our own ideas and experience. We can debate and complain about the order. (I personally agree with Jimi Hendrix at number 1 in\u00a0Rolling Stone\u2019s list<\/a>\u00a0of guitar players, but think that Ry Cooder at #31<\/a> is scandalously low.)<\/p>\n

Some lists are based on simple and easily understood data, such as the Forbes list<\/a> of 2012\u2019s richest people in the world. Let\u2019s accept as correct Carlos Slim Hel\u00fa<\/a>\u2019s valoration ($69 billion) and agree he has the most scratch. Among the swells, Mukesh Ambani<\/a>, whose personal skyscraper<\/a> towers above Mumbai and has a green wall, is a laggard and in the (relative) poorhouse at #20. A list of the most beautiful beaches<\/a>, like the guitar players, is much more subjective, but nevertheless is grounded in a set of attributes, such as the beauty of the physical setting, the soft whiteness of the sand, and so on.<\/p>\n

Lists are about values<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
Is this city greener …(el Paseo de Mart\u00ed in Havana, Cuba) Photo by David Maddox<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The critical thing to keep in the front of one\u2019s mind when pondering all such lists is that they are based on values<\/span><\/strong>, which are in turn based on concepts of what is important. That is, lists are grounded in a set of underlying indicators: elements or attributes that the creators of the list believe to be most central to the idea of \u201cbest of\u201d in their particular category. If the creators left the attribute you<\/span> think is most important out of their set of attributes for valoration, well, it was because they<\/span> didn\u2019t think it was important enough.<\/p>\n

But if it is important it should be included in the foundational data that informs the list. And let\u2019s be clear: if an attribute is left out of a valuation, then it affects the overall rankings and<\/strong><\/span> our overall impression of what’s “important”.<\/p>\n

\"\"
…than this one? How would you know? View from Central Park toward Columbus Circle, New York City. Photo by David Maddox.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Let us not think of \u201cvalues\u201d as simply being opinions. For any personal interest of ours, each of us has a set of attributes \u2013 a mental conceptual model, if you will \u2013 that we believe are key to qualities that are central to the idea of \u201cbetter\u201d. It is the same with lists, whether they are subjective (e.g., most over-rated footballer<\/a>) or objective (i.e., something that is data- driven).<\/p>\n

In data-driven best-of lists the values of the creators are expressed, or revealed, in:<\/p>\n

(1) The attributes that are included in the valuation, and;<\/p>\n

(2) The relative weights that are given to each attribute.<\/p>\n

Note that the relative weighting of different attributes is also critical. Equal weighting is not an absence of weights, and essentially \u201cvalues\u201d all attributes equally. This is an expression of values.<\/p>\n

Comparative lists of the attributes of cities<\/strong><\/p>\n

What is great about data-driven lists is that they facilitate apples vs. apples comparisons.<\/p>\n

(1) We can compare a single city\u2019s performance through time: is it improving based on the attributes used?<\/p>\n

(2) We can compare among cities on standard scales, across time or across regions.<\/p>\n

(3) If we can understand what is going on in the data we have chosen to use, then we might understand how our values are being expressed in terms of city performance and, importantly, in which specific areas we are succeeding or failing.<\/p>\n

Certainly we can\u2019t include all<\/span> attributes into such rankings \u2013 that is the role of more detailed question-driven science and monitoring (say, Singapore’s city biodiversity index<\/a>). But knowing what is in them is critical to understanding what to think of the final list and how to use it for good. How is it, for example, that New York City often scores low on \u201cgreen\u201d when in fact we use less water per capita, less energy per capita, use more public transportation, and have a tree canopy of 24% of total area? It is because of the values expressed in the construction of the list. Right, it’s complicated.<\/p>\n

What can be great about lists is when they inspire (or sometimes embarrass) us into greater attention to both appropriate measurements and desired outcomes. At the heart of this idea is the importance of information in decision-making. My own city, New York, has generally been good at this \u2013 taking a information-rich and data-driven approach to planning.<\/p>\n

Under the hood of \u201cMost Green\u201d and \u201cMost Livable\u201d cities lists<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are quite a few \u201cmost green city\u201d and \u201cmost livable city\u201d lists. And let me say right now, and with emphasis, that I think they are generally interesting and can be useful. But it is also important to know what values lay inside them. So, what are the values inherent in such lists? What \u201cgreen\u201d attributes drive the ranking of cities?<\/p>\n

I can tell you that it is generally not<\/span> biodiversity or the performance of ecosystem services. Even green space (typically expressed as the total area of park land or open space) is given a relatively modest role. Although the methods are typically only seen through a veil, the principle drivers in most of these lists are attributes involving energy, transportation, and public transportation. Water use is rarely included. Air quality, which is really an outcome<\/span> related to energy and transportation, but which is also driven significantly by green infrastructure (e.g., parks and street trees), is occasionally included.<\/p>\n

Take for instance a popular and impressive valoration by Siemens, the Green City Index<\/a>. One element that is impressive is its attempt to include multiple cities across most regions of the world. Thus, we can ask about sustainable cities in Africa, or Asia, not just Europe and the U.S. (This is important because there are generally more data available in the U.S. and Europe, so I applaud Siemens for seeking out the harder to find data in other places.)<\/p>\n

The exact methods are not made public, but the list below shows the attributes they include.<\/p>\n