for a trade-off between scientific relevance and the policy objectives of municipalities; and operational indicators that are compatible to diverse urban contexts and
flexible enough for individualized benchmarking purposes. Using this approach,
29 key indicators were identified from a list of 188 USI extracted from 17 studies
focusing on USI. In order to reach this number of indicators, the proposed selection
strategy was based on “the union between the most frequently used indicators and
those that maximally include the integrated dimensions and sub-dimensions of
sustainable development” (Tanguay et al. 2010).
Following this initial research, Rajaonson and Tanguay (2009) experimented
with the use of these indicators on the 25 cities in Québec and assessed their relative
performance. The study enabled an overview of the relative performance of the cities
and allowed for identifying the strength and weakness of each city and category of
cities. Additionally, the study suggested the modification of the tridimensional
framework of the USIs (economic, social, and environmental dimensions) by opposing a socioeconomic segment, which encompasses both social and economic dimensions, to an environmental segment. The relevance of the two-segments framework
is based on the fact that, conceptually, it reflects the main opposition between an
anthropocentric and an environmentalist vision of sustainable development that led
to the international negotiation series in the 1970s and 1980s (Boutaud 2004). In
addition, it allows reflecting on the two main perceptions of sustainability in the
urban context (i.e., as a synonym of environmental concerns or as an equivalent of
quality of life). Finally, from a methodological standpoint, it facilitates the interpretation of the indicators as it allows observing asymmetry between the socioeconomic
and environmental concerns, which will help decision-makers in policy planning.
Lastly, Tanguay and Rajaonson (2012) provided new evidence on the evolution
of the cities’ sustainability performance over time and updated the USIs used to
achieve the first assessment of the Québec cities by performing several comparisons
over time and between categories of cities. The analysis reveals the existence of
patterns relative to the category of cities. For example, metropolitan cities like
Montréal and Québec generally show relatively high performance in the environmental index. However, when we take a closer look at the indicators, their environmental performance is mostly attributed to the efficiencies of transit systems and
their density, which are proxies of lower GHG emissions in transportation. Suburban
cities are likely to have a certain balance between socioeconomic and environmental
performance. However, a closer look at the USI allows us to realize that these
apparent good-standing environmental and socioeconomic indexes hide important
weaknesses such as relative water consumption per capita compared to the average
consumption in Québec and Canada, as well as relatively high car dependency,
which indicates higher GHG emission in transportation. Finally, Tanguay and
Rajaonson (2012) identify several issues, which are further discussed in the following section.
186
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson
flexible enough for individualized benchmarking purposes. Using this approach,
29 key indicators were identified from a list of 188 USI extracted from 17 studies
focusing on USI. In order to reach this number of indicators, the proposed selection
strategy was based on “the union between the most frequently used indicators and
those that maximally include the integrated dimensions and sub-dimensions of
sustainable development” (Tanguay et al. 2010).
Following this initial research, Rajaonson and Tanguay (2009) experimented
with the use of these indicators on the 25 cities in Québec and assessed their relative
performance. The study enabled an overview of the relative performance of the cities
and allowed for identifying the strength and weakness of each city and category of
cities. Additionally, the study suggested the modification of the tridimensional
framework of the USIs (economic, social, and environmental dimensions) by opposing a socioeconomic segment, which encompasses both social and economic dimensions, to an environmental segment. The relevance of the two-segments framework
is based on the fact that, conceptually, it reflects the main opposition between an
anthropocentric and an environmentalist vision of sustainable development that led
to the international negotiation series in the 1970s and 1980s (Boutaud 2004). In
addition, it allows reflecting on the two main perceptions of sustainability in the
urban context (i.e., as a synonym of environmental concerns or as an equivalent of
quality of life). Finally, from a methodological standpoint, it facilitates the interpretation of the indicators as it allows observing asymmetry between the socioeconomic
and environmental concerns, which will help decision-makers in policy planning.
Lastly, Tanguay and Rajaonson (2012) provided new evidence on the evolution
of the cities’ sustainability performance over time and updated the USIs used to
achieve the first assessment of the Québec cities by performing several comparisons
over time and between categories of cities. The analysis reveals the existence of
patterns relative to the category of cities. For example, metropolitan cities like
Montréal and Québec generally show relatively high performance in the environmental index. However, when we take a closer look at the indicators, their environmental performance is mostly attributed to the efficiencies of transit systems and
their density, which are proxies of lower GHG emissions in transportation. Suburban
cities are likely to have a certain balance between socioeconomic and environmental
performance. However, a closer look at the USI allows us to realize that these
apparent good-standing environmental and socioeconomic indexes hide important
weaknesses such as relative water consumption per capita compared to the average
consumption in Québec and Canada, as well as relatively high car dependency,
which indicates higher GHG emission in transportation. Finally, Tanguay and
Rajaonson (2012) identify several issues, which are further discussed in the following section.
186
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson