10.3 Key Findings and Issues
Several lessons can be learned from the USI experience in Québec. First,
the indicators have several advantages and are essential tools. They capture the
multidimensional nature of sustainability, while the other approaches such as the
ecological footprint require the transformation of the compiled information into a
particular variable that has a limited scope. The indicators can then be interpreted
with ease (e.g., air quality, water consumption), while the other approaches including monetization of pollution and creating an input-output model typically require
the creation of a new scale of values. Also, other tools such as life cycle assessment,
although valuable, involve more complex calculations (e.g., calculation of energy
efficiency) and analysis (e.g., modeling) compared to an indicator-based approach.
In this respect, most of the other approaches are difficult to use in contemporary
decision-making processes, which often involve several actors that have different
levels of expertise. Finally, evaluation using USI is relatively flexible and can be
adjusted according to the objectives covered by the evaluation process (e.g.,
backcasting vs. forecasting), the targeted users (e.g., experts vs. citizens), and the
type of information analyzed (e.g., quantitative vs. qualitative) (Holman 2009).
Second, despite these advantages, the use of indicators presents several weaknesses, which have served as a starting point for new research. Sustainability
indicators have become too numerous, which has partially driven research
concerning the development of “optimal” indicators (Tanguay et al. 2010; Pires
et al. 2014). In addition, since indicators serve as inputs for decision-making
processes by leading the design and improvement of sustainability-related policies,
their development has sparked debates about the necessary trade-off between the
level of accuracy for scientists, the level of practicality for planners, and the level of
accessibility for a wide audience (Fraser et al. 2006; Turcu 2013; Tatham et al.
2014). The estimation of indicators also poses methodological problems (e.g.,
weighting), which continue to motivate current research (Floridi et al. 2011). Finally,
the development of a sustainability index has often been criticized (Cruz and
Marques 2014). However, it remains a prominent goal of research (Mori and
Christodoulou 2012) because such an index would contribute to the knowledge
about urban sustainability, for example, as a dependent variable used in regression
analyses.
Finally, once the indicators are measured, their respective score is interpreted to
determine the best-performing cities. Interpreting the scores is a fundamental step in
measuring sustainability, but it has not yet garnered much attention among authors
and researchers. Indeed, a review of the existing indicator-based assessments of
sustainability shows that the best-performing cities are solely identified based on
how they scored. For example, in typical approaches, the estimated score of each city
corresponds to the aggregation of indicators in the form of indexes (Rajaonson and
Tanguay 2009). In more contemporary approaches however the indicators are not
aggregated. An evaluation sheet or “scorecard” helps determine how each city
scored against identified objectives for each indicator (Cruz and Marques 2014).
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
187
Several lessons can be learned from the USI experience in Québec. First,
the indicators have several advantages and are essential tools. They capture the
multidimensional nature of sustainability, while the other approaches such as the
ecological footprint require the transformation of the compiled information into a
particular variable that has a limited scope. The indicators can then be interpreted
with ease (e.g., air quality, water consumption), while the other approaches including monetization of pollution and creating an input-output model typically require
the creation of a new scale of values. Also, other tools such as life cycle assessment,
although valuable, involve more complex calculations (e.g., calculation of energy
efficiency) and analysis (e.g., modeling) compared to an indicator-based approach.
In this respect, most of the other approaches are difficult to use in contemporary
decision-making processes, which often involve several actors that have different
levels of expertise. Finally, evaluation using USI is relatively flexible and can be
adjusted according to the objectives covered by the evaluation process (e.g.,
backcasting vs. forecasting), the targeted users (e.g., experts vs. citizens), and the
type of information analyzed (e.g., quantitative vs. qualitative) (Holman 2009).
Second, despite these advantages, the use of indicators presents several weaknesses, which have served as a starting point for new research. Sustainability
indicators have become too numerous, which has partially driven research
concerning the development of “optimal” indicators (Tanguay et al. 2010; Pires
et al. 2014). In addition, since indicators serve as inputs for decision-making
processes by leading the design and improvement of sustainability-related policies,
their development has sparked debates about the necessary trade-off between the
level of accuracy for scientists, the level of practicality for planners, and the level of
accessibility for a wide audience (Fraser et al. 2006; Turcu 2013; Tatham et al.
2014). The estimation of indicators also poses methodological problems (e.g.,
weighting), which continue to motivate current research (Floridi et al. 2011). Finally,
the development of a sustainability index has often been criticized (Cruz and
Marques 2014). However, it remains a prominent goal of research (Mori and
Christodoulou 2012) because such an index would contribute to the knowledge
about urban sustainability, for example, as a dependent variable used in regression
analyses.
Finally, once the indicators are measured, their respective score is interpreted to
determine the best-performing cities. Interpreting the scores is a fundamental step in
measuring sustainability, but it has not yet garnered much attention among authors
and researchers. Indeed, a review of the existing indicator-based assessments of
sustainability shows that the best-performing cities are solely identified based on
how they scored. For example, in typical approaches, the estimated score of each city
corresponds to the aggregation of indicators in the form of indexes (Rajaonson and
Tanguay 2009). In more contemporary approaches however the indicators are not
aggregated. An evaluation sheet or “scorecard” helps determine how each city
scored against identified objectives for each indicator (Cruz and Marques 2014).
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
187