4

VIENNA

LONDON F

RANKFURT SEOUL

HONG KONG BERLIN

CANBER

RA ROTTERDAM

MA

DRI

D

SYDN

EY R

OME VANCOUVER BARCELONA MANCHESTER

NEW

YO

RK W

ELLINGTON MONTREAL ANTWERP

DUBLIN GLASGOW WARSAW

BRIS

BAN

E

BIRMINGHAM MELBOURNE TORONTO BOSTON

LEED

S SAN FRANCISCO BRUSSELS MACAU MILAN

S

EATTLE WASHINGTON TOKYO LISBON

LYON TAIPEI DENVER

LO

S A

NG

ELES

PHILADELPHIA D

UBAI BALTIMORE MIAMI KUALA LUMPUR DALLAS

PITSSBURGH ATLANTA S

HEN

ZHEN

INDIA

NAPOLIS ATHENS BANGKOK TAMPA DETROIT KUWAIT CITY

SANTIAGO DOHA BEIJING

SHANGHAI M

USCAT

RIYA

DH

ISTANBUL G

UANGZHOU SAO PAULO BUENOS AIRES JEDDAH

KOLKATA

NAIR

OBI CAI

RO

MAN

ILA

NEW

DH

ELI

WU

HAN

CAP

E TOWN

Z

URICH

MOSCOW A

BU D

HA

BI

HO

UST

ON

CH

ICAGO N

EW ORLEANS

CHENN

AI J

OHANNESBURG BENG

ALU

RU M

UM

BAI CHENGDU

RIO DE JANEI

RO LIM

A MEXICO CITY TIAN

JIN A

MM

AN H

ANOI JAKARTA

SINGAPORE STO

CKH

OLM

HAMBURG P

RAGUE MUNICH AMSTERDAM

GENEV

A E

DINBURGH COPENHAGEN PARIS

UK SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX 2016Putting people at the heart of city sustainability

CONTENTS1. 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

PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE CENTRE OF CITY PROSPERITYIf 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.

1. FOREWORD

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.

The 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

“What is the city but the people?”William Shakespeare

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.

PEOPLESOCIAL

PLANETENVIRONMENTAL

PROFITECONOMIC

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 tra�c 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.

FIGURE 1: THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY

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.

3.2 THE FINDINGSThe 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.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

KOLKATA 100 CAIRO 99

NAIROBI 98 NEW DELHI 97

MANILA 96 CAPE TOWN 95

WUHAN 94 CHENGDU 93

MUMBAI 92 BENGALURU 91

JOHANNESBURG 90 CHENNAI 89 JAKARTA 88

HANOI 87 AMMAN 86

TIANJIN 85 MEXICO CITY 84

LIMA 83 RIO DE JANEIRO 82

JEDDAH 81 BUENOS AIRES 80

SAO PAULO 79 GUANGZHOU 78

ISTANBUL 77 RIYADH 76

MUSCAT 75 SHANGHAI 74

BEIJING 73 DOHA 72

SANTIAGO 71 KUWAIT CITY 70

DETROIT 69 TAMPA 68

BANGKOK 67 ATHENS 66

INDIANAPOLIS 65 SHENZHEN 64

ATLANTA 63 PITTSBURGH 62

NEW ORLEANS 61 CHICAGO 60 HOUSTON 59

ABU DHABI 58 MOSCOW 57 DALLAS 56

KUALA LUMPUR 55 MIAMI 54

BALTIMORE 53 DUBAI 52

PHILADELPHIA 51

LOS ANGELES 50 DENVER 49

TAIPEI 48 LYON 47

LISBON 46 TOKYO 45

WASHINGTON 44 SEATTLE 43

MILAN 42 MACAU 41

BRUSSELS 40 SAN FRANCISCO 39

LEEDS 38 WARSAW 37

GLASGOW 36 DUBLIN 35

BOSTON 34 TORONTO 33

MELBOURNE 32 BIRMINGHAM 31

BRISBANE 30 ANTWERP 29

MONTREAL 28 WELLINGTON 27

NEW YORK 26 MANCHESTER 25

BARCELONA 24 VANCOUVER 23

ROME 22 SYDNEY 21 MADRID 20

ROTTERDAM 19 CANBERRA 18

BERLIN 17 HONG KONG 16

PARIS 15 COPENHAGEN 14

EDINBURGH 13 GENEVA 12

AMSTERDAM 11 MUNICH 10 PRAGUE 9

HAMBURG 8 SEOUL 7

FRANKFURT 6 LONDON 5 VIENNA 4

STOCKHOLM 3SINGAPORE 2

ZURICH 1

PEOPLE PLANET PROFIT

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

3.3 OVERALL INDEX RANKINGSCities 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 non-renewable 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.

DEMOGRAPHICS EDUCATION INCOME INEQUALITY

AFFORDABILITYWORK-LIFE BALANCE CRIME HEALTH

LIMA 91

MIAMI 89

DOHA 57

DUBAI 55

CAPE TOWN 100 JOHANNESBURG 99

NAIROBI 98 SAO PAULO 97

MEXICO CITY 96 RIO DE JANEIRO 95

MANILA 94 NEW ORLEANS 93

CAIRO 92

ISTANBUL 90

BUENOS AIRES 88 NEW DELHI 87

MUMBAI 86 SANTIAGO 85

TAMPA 84 INDIANAPOLIS 83

DALLAS 82 HONG KONG 81

BALTIMORE 80 HOUSTON 79

KOLKATA 78 NEW YORK 77

CHENNAI 76 BENGALURU 75

CHICAGO 74 SHENZHEN 73

DETROIT 72 AMMAN 71 ATLANTA 70 MACAU 69 TIANJIN 68

WASHINGTON 67 PHILADELPHIA 66 GUANGZHOU 65

BANGKOK 64 CHENGDU 63

WUHAN 62 SEATTLE 61

ABU DHABI 60 JEDDAH 59

JAKARTA 58

RIYADH 56

SAN FRANCISCO 54 KUALA LUMPUR 53

ATHENS 52 PITTSBURGH 51

WELLINGTON 50 LOS ANGELES 49

SINGAPORE 48 DENVER 47

HANOI 46 BEIJING 45

TOKYO 44 SHANGHAI 43

GLASGOW 42 BOSTON 41

TORONTO 40 DUBLIN 39

EDINBURGH 38 LONDON 37

KUWAIT CITY 36 MOSCOW 35

MILAN 34 ROME 33 TAIPEI 32

MANCHESTER 31 GENEVA 30 LISBON 29

BIRMINGHAM 28 ZURICH 27

LEEDS 26 SYDNEY 25

COPENHAGEN 24 VANCOUVER 23

MELBOURNE 22 BRISBANE 21

PARIS 20 LYON 19

MADRID 18 CANBERRA 17

FRANKFURT 16 WARSAW 15

STOCKHOLM 14 BARCELONA 13

BRUSSELS 12 ANTWERP 11

MONTREAL 10 MUSCAT 9

MUNICH 8 AMSTERDAM 7

PRAGUE 6 BERLIN 5 VIENNA 4

HAMBURG 3ROTTERDAM 2

SEOUL 1

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

LOW INEQUALITY THE SECRET OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITYThe 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.

3.4 PEOPLE SUB-INDEX

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ENERGY GREEN SPACE

DRINKING WATER AND SANITATIONAIR POLLUTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WASTE MANAGEMENT

KOLKATA 100 WUHAN 99

DOHA 98 BEIJING 97

DUBAI 96 ABU DHABI 95

LIMA 94 CAIRO 93

CHENGDU 92 SHANGHAI 91

NEW DELHI 90 KUWAIT CITY 89

MUSCAT 88 MOSCOW 87

MANILA 86 JAKARTA 85

KUALA LUMPUR 84 NAIROBI 83 RIYADH 82 JEDDAH 81

GUANGZHOU 80 BANGKOK 79

ATLANTA 78 TIANJIN 77

HANOI 76 MUMBAI 75

ISTANBUL 74 PITTSBURGH 73

JOHANNESBURG 72 TAIPEI 71

CAPE TOWN 70 CHENNAI 69

HOUSTON 68 CHICAGO 67

SHENZHEN 66 DETROIT 65 DENVER 64

BUENOS AIRES 63 BENGALURU 62

INDIANAPOLIS 61 LOS ANGELES 60

DALLAS 59 MEXICO CITY 58

SANTIAGO 57 TAMPA 56

AMMAN 55 WARSAW 54

SAN FRANCISCO 53 ATHENS 52 MACAU 51

TOKYO 50 MELBOURNE 49

WASHINGTON 48 MIAMI 47

PHILADELPHIA 46 BOSTON 45

NEW ORLEANS 44 LISBON 43

BALTIMORE 42 BRISBANE 41

LYON 40 DUBLIN 39

RIO DE JANEIRO 38 ANTWERP 37

MILAN 36 SEATTLE 35

BRUSSELS 34 NEW YORK 33

PARIS 32 PRAGUE 31

SAO PAULO 30 HONG KONG 29

TORONTO 28 MONTREAL 27

SEOUL 26 CANBERRA 25

MUNICH 24 BARCELONA 23 EDINBURGH 22

LEEDS 21 GLASGOW 20

AMSTERDAM 19 VANCOUVER 18 ROTTERDAM 17

BERLIN 16 BIRMINGHAM 15 MANCHESTER 14 COPENHAGEN 13

SINGAPORE 12 MADRID 11

HAMBURG 10 LONDON 9 SYDNEY 8

ROME 7 WELLINGTON 6

FRANKFURT 5 VIENNA 4

GENEVA 3 STOCKHOLM 2

ZURICH 1

ENERGY SUPERPOWERS FIND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY MORE DIFFICULTThe Swiss cities of Zurich and Geneva dominate the top three positions in the planet sub-index (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 sub-index. 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.

3.5 PLANET SUB-INDEXFIGURE 4: PLANET SUB-INDEX: SWISS CITIES GREENEST ON THE PLANET (SOURCE CEBR)

KOLKATA 100 BENGALURU 99

CAIRO 98 AMMAN 97

NEW DELHI 96 CHENNAI 95

HANOI 94 MUMBAI 93

CHENGDU 92 MANILA 91 NAIROBI 90 WUHAN 89

JAKARTA 88 TIANJIN 87

RIO DE JANEIRO 86 MUSCAT 85

SAO PAULO 84 MEXICO CITY 83

BUENOS AIRES 82 JEDDAH 81

CAPE TOWN 80 RIYADH 79

GUANGZHOU 78 SHANGHAI 77 SANTIAGO 76 ISTANBUL 75

LIMA 74 JOHANNESBURG 73

ATHENS 72 LYON 71

TAMPA 70 LEEDS 69

KUWAIT CITY 68 BEIJING 67

BRUSSELS 66 DETROIT 65

GLASGOW 64PITTSBURGH 63

INDIANAPOLIS 62 LISBON 61

BIRMINGHAM 60 NEW ORLEANS 59

WELLINGTON 58 MILAN 57

SHENZHEN 56 PHILADELPHIA 55

MONTREAL 54 BANGKOK 53

BALTIMORE 52MANCHESTER 51

DOHA 50 ROME 49

ATLANTA 48 LOS ANGELES 47 ROTTERDAM 46

CHICAGO 45 MOSCOW 44

BARCELONA 43 GENEVA 42

MIAMI 41 ANTWERP 40

DUBLIN 39 TORONTO 38 HOUSTON 37

WARSAW 36 SYDNEY 35 MADRID 34

SEATTLE 33 BERLIN 32

DALLAS 31 BRISBANE 30

VANCOUVER 29 TOKYO 28 TAIPEI 27

MELBOURNE 26HAMBURG 25

DENVER 24 FRANKFURT 23

BOSTON 22 WASHINGTON 21

CANBERRA 20KUALA LUMPUR 19

SEOUL 18COPENHAGEN 17

AMSTERDAM 16MACAU 15VIENNA 14

ABU DHABI 13SAN FRANCISCO 12

MUNICH 11STOCKHOLM 10

PARIS 9NEW YORK 8

PRAGUE 7EDINBURGH 6

ZURICH 5DUBAI 4

LONDON 3HONG KONG 2SINGAPORE 1

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EASE OF DOING BUSINESSTOURISM CONNECTIVITY EMPLOYMENT

THE KEY TO ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY: EASE OF DOING BUSINESSThe 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.

3.6 PROFIT SUB-INDEXFIGURE 5: PROFIT SUB-INDEX: GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTERS REIGN (SOURCE CEBR)

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.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

LEEDS 38

GLASGOW 36

BIRMINGHAM 31

MANCHESTER 25

EDINBURGH 13

LONDON 5

PEOPLEPLANETPROFIT

UK RANKINGS

4

4.1 CITY PROFILELONDONPEOPLE: 37 PLANET: 9 PROFIT: 3

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

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.

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.

PEOPLE: 37

PROFIT: 3

PLANET: 9

Mark Prior,

Arcadis Cities Director for London

mark.prior@arcadis.com

• 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.

4.2 CITY PROFILEBIRMINGHAMPEOPLE: 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.

Simon Marks,

Arcadis Cities Director for Birmingham

simon.marks@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 28

PROFIT:60

PLANET: 15

• 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.

4

4.3 CITY PROFILEEDINBURGHPEOPLE: 38 PLANET: 22 PROFIT: 6

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

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 post-Brexit 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.

Graham Hill,

Arcadis Cities Director for Edinburgh

graham.hill@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 38

PROFIT: 6

PLANET: 22

• 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.

4.4 CITY PROFILEMANCHESTERPEOPLE: 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.

Jonathan Moore,

Arcadis Cities Director for Manchester

jonathan.moore@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 31

PROFIT:51

PLANET: 14

• 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.

4

4.5 CITY PROFILELEEDSPEOPLE: 26 PLANET: 21 PROFIT: 69

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.

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

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.

Nick Kealey,

Arcadis Cities Director for Leeds

nick.kealey@arcadis.com

PEOPLE: 26

PROFIT: 69

PLANET: 21

• 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.

5. SPOTLIGHT ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES - DEMOGRAPHICSThe 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.

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

NAIROBI 100AMMAN 99MANILA 98

NEW DELHI 97MUMBAI 96

CAIRO 95BENGALURU 94

KOLKATA 93CAPE TOWN 92

JOHANNESBURG 91LIMA 90

MEXICO CITY 89MUSCAT 88RIYADH 87

JEDDAH 86JAKARTA 85

KUALA LUMPUR 84CHENNAI 83ISTANBUL 82

HANOI 81RIO DE JANEIRO 80

SAO PAULO 79KUWAIT CITY 78

BUENOS AIRES 77BOSTON 76

ABU DHABI 75DUBAI 74

DALLAS 73BRISBANE 72

DUBLIN 71MANAMA 70

PHILADELPHIA 69SANTIAGO 68

DENVER 67WASHINGTON 66INDIANAPOLIS 65

SINGAPORE 64LONDON 63ATLANTA 62

NEW ORLEANS 61LOS ANGELES 60

CANBERRA 59CHICAGO 58

DOHA 57LYON 56PARIS 55

CHENGDU 54MACAU 53

TIANJIN 52SHENZHEN 51

GUANGZHOU 50WUHAN 49BEIJING 48

SHANGHAI 47MELBOURNE 46

TAMPA 45SYDNEY 44

NEW YORK 43SEATTLE 42

WARSAW 41DETROIT 40

BANGKOK 39STOCKHOLM 38

MIAMI 37TAIPEI 36

SAN FRANCISCO 35MOSCOW 34

BALTIMORE 33PRAGUE 32

BIRMINGHAM 31TORONTO 30

LEEDS 29MANCHESTER 28

GENEVA 27SEOUL 26

LISBON 25ATHENS 24MADRID 23ZURICH 22

PITTSBURGH 21VANCOUVER 20

MONTREAL 19VIENNA 18

EDINBURGH 17GLASGOW 16

COPENHAGEN 15BARCELONA 14

ANTWERP 13BRUSSELS 12

MUNICH 11ROTTERDAM 10

AMSTERDAM 9HONG KONG 8

HOUSTON 7FRANKFURT 6

HAMBURG 5BERLIN 4MILAN 3ROME 2

TOKYO 1

FIGURE 6: CITIES IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES INDEX, BY MEDIAN AGE IN YEARS 1

6. PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART OF CITY SUSTAINABILITYCITIES, PEOPLE AND SUSTAINABILITYWhat 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 socio-economic), 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 decision-making, 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 COMMUNITYCities 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 CITYThe 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 ECOSYSTEMGiven 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 POWERTop down - bottom up, public - private, formal - informal

SYSTEMSMobility, housing, energy, water, food, health, education, air quality, culture, waste... Urbanism!

7. APPENDICES

INDICATOR NAME INDICATOR DESCRIPTION MAIN SOURCE SUB-INDEX

Education

Literacy rate World Bank

PeopleUniversity rankings QSShare of population with tertiary education

Barro & Lee, various national sources

HealthLife expectancy World Bank

PeopleObesity rate World Health Organization

Demographics Dependency ratio World Bank PeopleIncome Inequality Gini coefficient World Bank People

AffordabilityConsumer price index UBS Prices and Earnings

PeopleProperty prices UBS Prices and Earnings

Work-life balance Average annual hours worked OECD, UBS Prices and Earnings PeopleCrime Homicide rate UN Office on Drugs and Crime PeopleEnvironmental risks Natural catastrophe exposure The International Disaster Database PlanetGreen spaces Green space as % of city area Siemens Green City Index Planet

EnergyEnergy use Energy Information Administration (EIA)

PlanetRenewables share Energy Information Administration (EIA)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

Waste managementSolid waste management (landfill vs recycling) World Bank

PlanetShare of wastewater treated OECD & FAO Aquastat

Drinking water and sanitation

Access to drinking water (% of households) World Health Organization

PlanetAccess to improved sanitation (% of households) World Health Organization

Transport infrastructureCongestion TomTom Traffic Index

ProfitRail infrastructure Metrobits WorldAirport satisfaction Skytrax World Airport Awards 2015

Economic development GDP per capita Brookings Global Monitor ProfitEase of doing business Ease of Doing Business Index World Bank Profit

Tourism International visitors per year, absolute & per capita Euromonitor International Profit

Connectivity

Mobile connectivity United Nations Statistics Division

ProfitBroadband connectivity United Nations Statistics Division

Importance in global networks Geography Department, Loughborough University

Employment Number of people employed, % of city population Brookings Global Monitor Profit

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 orangeMETHODOLOGY

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 next-highest/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.

DISCLAIMERWhile 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis 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 ARCADISArcadis 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

LONDON PRIME RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE 2016

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INDEX

SUSTAINABILITY CITIES WATER INDEX

www.arcadis.com/uk

Arcadis United Kingdom

@ArcadisUK

Arcadis. Improving quality of life

Richard Bonner UK Cities Director

E richard.bonner@arcadis.com

@Richbonner

CONTACT US