In both cases, the most sustainable cities display a high score for these indicators.
Yet, this interpretation is relatively limited and raises two main issues: it underestimates the potential problem of substitutability between the indicators, particularly
when they are aggregated into an index, and it does not consider the improvement of
the city over time, which is central to the assessment of sustainability (Bell and
Morse 2008). Because of these issues, the final indicator’s score is insufficient as a
criterion for determining the sustainability of cities. As we argue in the following
section, measuring the sustainability of cities requires a more detailed interpretation
of indicators using more objective criteria.
10.4 Criteria for Interpreting USI
In this section, the use of three performance criteria following the calculation of the
indicators is proposed in order to enrich the limited interpretation of the indicators’
scores. Accordingly, sustainable cities are the ones that maximize the value of all
indicators, which expresses the multidimensionality of sustainable development;
which minimizes the compensation between the values of socioeconomic and
environmental indicators, which reflects the pursuit of a win-win scenario between
anthropic development and environmental preservation; and which shows improvement over time, which is central to the intergenerational dimension of sustainable
development.
10.4.1 Criterion 1: USI Scores
In existing approaches, USI scores or values are used to determine whether cities are
sustainable or not—high values correspond with high sustainability. USIs are also
developed to identify areas in which cities are performing well and those in which
they still need to make progress. Additionally, they play roles that are not often
measurable. For instance, they stimulate debate thus contributing to the integration
of sustainability in most cities’ development policies (Hiremath et al. 2013). They
also play an educational role, encouraging city administrations to be self-critical
regarding their activities and promoting the sharing of experiences among cities
(Rajaonson and Tanguay 2009). They present the conceptualization of sustainability
transparently, particularly considering the absence of consensus surrounding its
definition and interpretation (Connelly 2007). Furthermore, according to Rajaonson
and Tanguay (2009), measuring USI allows for observations that provide relevant
insights, including comparisons between cities of the same size to identify exemplary cities that could serve as reference points for others; comparisons between
different categories of cities to detect patterns for each category; and the overall
ranking of cities according to their performance, which helps a given region or
country determine the performance range of its cities and develop policies
accordingly.
188
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson
Yet, this interpretation is relatively limited and raises two main issues: it underestimates the potential problem of substitutability between the indicators, particularly
when they are aggregated into an index, and it does not consider the improvement of
the city over time, which is central to the assessment of sustainability (Bell and
Morse 2008). Because of these issues, the final indicator’s score is insufficient as a
criterion for determining the sustainability of cities. As we argue in the following
section, measuring the sustainability of cities requires a more detailed interpretation
of indicators using more objective criteria.
10.4 Criteria for Interpreting USI
In this section, the use of three performance criteria following the calculation of the
indicators is proposed in order to enrich the limited interpretation of the indicators’
scores. Accordingly, sustainable cities are the ones that maximize the value of all
indicators, which expresses the multidimensionality of sustainable development;
which minimizes the compensation between the values of socioeconomic and
environmental indicators, which reflects the pursuit of a win-win scenario between
anthropic development and environmental preservation; and which shows improvement over time, which is central to the intergenerational dimension of sustainable
development.
10.4.1 Criterion 1: USI Scores
In existing approaches, USI scores or values are used to determine whether cities are
sustainable or not—high values correspond with high sustainability. USIs are also
developed to identify areas in which cities are performing well and those in which
they still need to make progress. Additionally, they play roles that are not often
measurable. For instance, they stimulate debate thus contributing to the integration
of sustainability in most cities’ development policies (Hiremath et al. 2013). They
also play an educational role, encouraging city administrations to be self-critical
regarding their activities and promoting the sharing of experiences among cities
(Rajaonson and Tanguay 2009). They present the conceptualization of sustainability
transparently, particularly considering the absence of consensus surrounding its
definition and interpretation (Connelly 2007). Furthermore, according to Rajaonson
and Tanguay (2009), measuring USI allows for observations that provide relevant
insights, including comparisons between cities of the same size to identify exemplary cities that could serve as reference points for others; comparisons between
different categories of cities to detect patterns for each category; and the overall
ranking of cities according to their performance, which helps a given region or
country determine the performance range of its cities and develop policies
accordingly.
188
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson