such as, for example, ensuring that the water supply systems and consumption do not
compromise the needs of future generations. As a result, aspects of sustainability that
do not affect the quality of life for that particular time are not prioritized.
Third, from a methodological point of view, there are three main approaches with
regard to the elaboration of USI. The first approach was examined by gathering
studies that consider sustainability to be a complex subject that requires the use of
sophisticated techniques and scientific methods to measure, evaluate, and facilitate
operational monitoring (e.g., life cycle assessment, ecological footprint) (Ness et al.
2007). It often results in a set of USI that are scientifically valid, but very few of these
are popular among policymakers and stakeholders because of their complexity. The
second approach is based on specific needs and/or policy objectives, which are
usually tailored to justify the relevance and value of the adopted USI (Gahin et al.
2003; Reed et al. 2006). Such a set of USI is often obtained from a consensus
between the stakeholders, and usually disregards the need for a neutral, credible, and
reproducible system (Rametsteiner et al. 2010). The third, more recent approach,
includes studies that attempt to reconcile the visions of the two previous approaches,
recognizing their weaknesses and seeking the best possible compromise (Holman
2009). In this approach, the choice of key sustainability indicators comes from a
process where scientific preoccupation meets the local policy objectives.
Finally, at the operational level, there are two main approaches in the use of
sustainability indicators: the use of a customized benchmark for each city, and the
use of a common set of USI where relative performances are rated. In the first
approach, the use of individualized benchmarking involves the identification of USI
that are suitable to the specifics of a given city. This is the most favorable approach
for most municipal managers because it can be adjusted according to the concerns
and characteristics of each territory (Bell and Morse 2008). However, this approach
has the risk of creating USI that deviate from the fundamental principles of sustainability. The second approach consists of using key indicators that are generally
compatible with any urban context. Such a system allows city managers to compare
their performance in terms of sustainable development with that of other municipalities. In addition, it allows municipalities to adopt a more critical attitude toward their
own initiatives and to derive mutual learning through the sharing of experiences.
Furthermore, this system enables cities to compare their performance and overcomes
resistance to change by creating room for new ideas and adjustments (European
Environment Agency 2004). For supra-municipal governments, this comparison
provides a diagnosis of the problems affecting cities with the same characteristics.
Such observations can guide the broad policy guidelines on the scale of a province or
region. This approach however is often criticized for its methodological limitations
such as data compatibility and the introduction of a significant degree of subjectivity
in the selection of indicators, the selection of a conceptual framework, and the choice
of a weighting system for the indicators.
Given such diverse perspectives on sustainability assessment, Tanguay et al.
(2010) developed an approach to select a set of parsimonious indicators with the
following three characteristics: conceptual indicators that integrate and address both
environmental and socioeconomic concerns; methodological indicators that allow
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
185
compromise the needs of future generations. As a result, aspects of sustainability that
do not affect the quality of life for that particular time are not prioritized.
Third, from a methodological point of view, there are three main approaches with
regard to the elaboration of USI. The first approach was examined by gathering
studies that consider sustainability to be a complex subject that requires the use of
sophisticated techniques and scientific methods to measure, evaluate, and facilitate
operational monitoring (e.g., life cycle assessment, ecological footprint) (Ness et al.
2007). It often results in a set of USI that are scientifically valid, but very few of these
are popular among policymakers and stakeholders because of their complexity. The
second approach is based on specific needs and/or policy objectives, which are
usually tailored to justify the relevance and value of the adopted USI (Gahin et al.
2003; Reed et al. 2006). Such a set of USI is often obtained from a consensus
between the stakeholders, and usually disregards the need for a neutral, credible, and
reproducible system (Rametsteiner et al. 2010). The third, more recent approach,
includes studies that attempt to reconcile the visions of the two previous approaches,
recognizing their weaknesses and seeking the best possible compromise (Holman
2009). In this approach, the choice of key sustainability indicators comes from a
process where scientific preoccupation meets the local policy objectives.
Finally, at the operational level, there are two main approaches in the use of
sustainability indicators: the use of a customized benchmark for each city, and the
use of a common set of USI where relative performances are rated. In the first
approach, the use of individualized benchmarking involves the identification of USI
that are suitable to the specifics of a given city. This is the most favorable approach
for most municipal managers because it can be adjusted according to the concerns
and characteristics of each territory (Bell and Morse 2008). However, this approach
has the risk of creating USI that deviate from the fundamental principles of sustainability. The second approach consists of using key indicators that are generally
compatible with any urban context. Such a system allows city managers to compare
their performance in terms of sustainable development with that of other municipalities. In addition, it allows municipalities to adopt a more critical attitude toward their
own initiatives and to derive mutual learning through the sharing of experiences.
Furthermore, this system enables cities to compare their performance and overcomes
resistance to change by creating room for new ideas and adjustments (European
Environment Agency 2004). For supra-municipal governments, this comparison
provides a diagnosis of the problems affecting cities with the same characteristics.
Such observations can guide the broad policy guidelines on the scale of a province or
region. This approach however is often criticized for its methodological limitations
such as data compatibility and the introduction of a significant degree of subjectivity
in the selection of indicators, the selection of a conceptual framework, and the choice
of a weighting system for the indicators.
Given such diverse perspectives on sustainability assessment, Tanguay et al.
(2010) developed an approach to select a set of parsimonious indicators with the
following three characteristics: conceptual indicators that integrate and address both
environmental and socioeconomic concerns; methodological indicators that allow
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
185