9.4 Comparative Assessment Methods for City
Sustainability
Based on this definition of city sustainability, the question is how can the city
sustainability of each city be assessed and compared with other cities? Let us
examine five scenarios.
(a) If a city is unable to meet all limiting conditions, that city is not sustainable. On
the other hand, if it meets all limiting conditions, it is considered a “sustainable
city.”
This is exactly according to the definition of city sustainability. Unless a city
meets the minimum necessary conditions, it is deemed to be unsustainable. If all
limiting conditions are met, the city will be referred to as a sustainable city, but it
should be noted that this simply means a city meeting the minimum necessary
conditions for sustainability. In this case, although it is unclear as to whether the
level of economic and social satisfaction is sufficiently high, the city is at least
considered a city that meets the environmental and equity limitations, and I
believe that essentially there is no problem in calling it a “sustainable city.”
(b) Suppose that City A is a sustainable city. If a sustainable city generating greater
benefits than City A in terms of maximization exists, City A is considered to be
“a sustainable city not at the highest level.”
While City A meets the minimum necessary conditions for city sustainability,
there is still some leeway for enabling an increase in economic and social
benefits. On the other hand, if City A were the most highly sustainable city
under the current circumstances, City A may become the ideal image or the
objective in the sustainability of cities. City A may then become the subject for
benchmarking or best practice.
(c) When City B is not a sustainable city, and City D is, City D will always be
assessed higher than City B. Even if City B generates greater benefits than City
D in maximization conditions, City D will be assessed as higher than City B.
This means that meeting the minimum necessary conditions for city sustainability is given maximum priority. It also indicates a value that cannot be
assessed at all even if the economic output is quite substantial unless the limiting
conditions for environmental aspects are met. This indicates a course for determining how to assess and deal with conditions when economic expansion
clashes with environmental limitations.
(d) Let us make a comparative assessment of the two sustainable cities E and F. If
benefits indicated by maximization conditions can be expressed by a single value
(for example, a unit of money such as yen) and if the value of the benefits of City
E are greater than that of City F, City E is considered mildly more sustainable
than City F.
This case takes the same approach as a typical cost-benefit analysis. The
reason the author uses the word “mildly” here is because only the value of the
total benefits is being compared, and despite City E having lower benefits in
170
K. Mori
Sustainability
Based on this definition of city sustainability, the question is how can the city
sustainability of each city be assessed and compared with other cities? Let us
examine five scenarios.
(a) If a city is unable to meet all limiting conditions, that city is not sustainable. On
the other hand, if it meets all limiting conditions, it is considered a “sustainable
city.”
This is exactly according to the definition of city sustainability. Unless a city
meets the minimum necessary conditions, it is deemed to be unsustainable. If all
limiting conditions are met, the city will be referred to as a sustainable city, but it
should be noted that this simply means a city meeting the minimum necessary
conditions for sustainability. In this case, although it is unclear as to whether the
level of economic and social satisfaction is sufficiently high, the city is at least
considered a city that meets the environmental and equity limitations, and I
believe that essentially there is no problem in calling it a “sustainable city.”
(b) Suppose that City A is a sustainable city. If a sustainable city generating greater
benefits than City A in terms of maximization exists, City A is considered to be
“a sustainable city not at the highest level.”
While City A meets the minimum necessary conditions for city sustainability,
there is still some leeway for enabling an increase in economic and social
benefits. On the other hand, if City A were the most highly sustainable city
under the current circumstances, City A may become the ideal image or the
objective in the sustainability of cities. City A may then become the subject for
benchmarking or best practice.
(c) When City B is not a sustainable city, and City D is, City D will always be
assessed higher than City B. Even if City B generates greater benefits than City
D in maximization conditions, City D will be assessed as higher than City B.
This means that meeting the minimum necessary conditions for city sustainability is given maximum priority. It also indicates a value that cannot be
assessed at all even if the economic output is quite substantial unless the limiting
conditions for environmental aspects are met. This indicates a course for determining how to assess and deal with conditions when economic expansion
clashes with environmental limitations.
(d) Let us make a comparative assessment of the two sustainable cities E and F. If
benefits indicated by maximization conditions can be expressed by a single value
(for example, a unit of money such as yen) and if the value of the benefits of City
E are greater than that of City F, City E is considered mildly more sustainable
than City F.
This case takes the same approach as a typical cost-benefit analysis. The
reason the author uses the word “mildly” here is because only the value of the
total benefits is being compared, and despite City E having lower benefits in
170
K. Mori