9.7 Discussion
9.7.1 Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach
Arguments often eventuate in deliberations regarding whether to take a top-down
approach or a bottom-up approach when applying a super-interdisciplinary approach
(Fraser et al. 2006; Reed et al. 2006; Singh and Murty 2009). A top-down approach
is generally superior when establishing thresholds for the selection of individual
indicators and indicator values to be included in the indicator list based on scientific
grounds and forecasts as much as possible. However, the drawback is that this
approach sometimes fails to lead to practical solutions when scientists and politicians impose problem-solving measures upon stakeholders who are key players in
resolving problems. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach is excellent in directly
involving many stakeholders in the preparation of indicator lists and setting thresholds for indicator values, and, therefore, getting many stakeholders to commit to
concrete solutions. The drawback here however is that stakeholders will select the
indicators themselves or make judgments about them, based on their nonscientific
thinking. Therefore, it is unwise to use either one of these approaches exclusively.
The City Sustainability Index (CSI) presents two types of indicators: limiting
indicators and maximization indicators, and it is possible to consider a different
approach that adopts these indicators. For example, a top-down approach may be
used for the limiting indicators and a bottom-up approach for the maximization
indicators. The limiting indicators are indicators for determining whether a city is
meeting the limiting conditions (thresholds) in relation to the environment as well as
economic and social equity, and an indicator for determining whether a city is
meeting the necessary minimum conditions for the sustainability of that city. Therefore, for limiting indicators, it is necessary to select indicators and set thresholds
based on a long-term view, global perspective, and scientific knowledge. If a
bottom-up approach is incorporated in this part, there is a possibility that important
indicators on a global scale may be omitted, depending on the preferences of local
stakeholders. If this happens, the very purpose of promoting the sustainability of a
city may be overlooked.
On the other hand, maximization indicators are indicators for measuring the
extent of the benefits a city generates in economic and social aspects, and they are
indicators to be assessed after the conditions of the limiting indicators are met. In
addition, there is a strong probability that the size of the benefit maximization
provided by the indicators may be influenced by the values and preferences of
stakeholders such as residents of that city. If a city meets the necessary minimum
conditions that the limiting indicators assign, there should be no objection to the
city’s maximization of economic and social benefits in any form. Therefore, stakeholders may be allowed to freely select and manage indicators for the maximization
indicators by adopting a bottom-up approach. In that case however it should be noted
that comparisons of cities in terms of maximization indicators would be conducted.
178
K. Mori
9.7.1 Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach
Arguments often eventuate in deliberations regarding whether to take a top-down
approach or a bottom-up approach when applying a super-interdisciplinary approach
(Fraser et al. 2006; Reed et al. 2006; Singh and Murty 2009). A top-down approach
is generally superior when establishing thresholds for the selection of individual
indicators and indicator values to be included in the indicator list based on scientific
grounds and forecasts as much as possible. However, the drawback is that this
approach sometimes fails to lead to practical solutions when scientists and politicians impose problem-solving measures upon stakeholders who are key players in
resolving problems. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach is excellent in directly
involving many stakeholders in the preparation of indicator lists and setting thresholds for indicator values, and, therefore, getting many stakeholders to commit to
concrete solutions. The drawback here however is that stakeholders will select the
indicators themselves or make judgments about them, based on their nonscientific
thinking. Therefore, it is unwise to use either one of these approaches exclusively.
The City Sustainability Index (CSI) presents two types of indicators: limiting
indicators and maximization indicators, and it is possible to consider a different
approach that adopts these indicators. For example, a top-down approach may be
used for the limiting indicators and a bottom-up approach for the maximization
indicators. The limiting indicators are indicators for determining whether a city is
meeting the limiting conditions (thresholds) in relation to the environment as well as
economic and social equity, and an indicator for determining whether a city is
meeting the necessary minimum conditions for the sustainability of that city. Therefore, for limiting indicators, it is necessary to select indicators and set thresholds
based on a long-term view, global perspective, and scientific knowledge. If a
bottom-up approach is incorporated in this part, there is a possibility that important
indicators on a global scale may be omitted, depending on the preferences of local
stakeholders. If this happens, the very purpose of promoting the sustainability of a
city may be overlooked.
On the other hand, maximization indicators are indicators for measuring the
extent of the benefits a city generates in economic and social aspects, and they are
indicators to be assessed after the conditions of the limiting indicators are met. In
addition, there is a strong probability that the size of the benefit maximization
provided by the indicators may be influenced by the values and preferences of
stakeholders such as residents of that city. If a city meets the necessary minimum
conditions that the limiting indicators assign, there should be no objection to the
city’s maximization of economic and social benefits in any form. Therefore, stakeholders may be allowed to freely select and manage indicators for the maximization
indicators by adopting a bottom-up approach. In that case however it should be noted
that comparisons of cities in terms of maximization indicators would be conducted.
178
K. Mori