10.4.2 Criterion 2: Minimal Compensation Between
Indicators
When interpreting USIs, a very high score in one indicator often compensates for
low scores in others. For instance, a city that shows poor socioeconomic results can
often be ranked among leading sustainable cities due to its very high environmental
results. In this case, the USI interpretation becomes problematic given the
multidimensional character of sustainability, which implies the need for achieving
high performance both socioeconomically and environmentally. In this context,
minimal compensation between socioeconomic and environmental results becomes
a relevant criterion. The significance of such a criterion is conceptually justified
considering that sustainable development is generally acknowledged as a model of
development that integrates both anthropic and environmental preoccupations, a
dichotomy that initiated a series of international conferences on development and
the environment in the late 1970s (Boutaud 2004). In addition, there is extensive
empirical evidence of its relevance. For instance, sustainability policies that have
taken climate change into account have resulted in numerous initiatives promoting
sustainability through decreased energy consumption and low greenhouse gas emissions for neighborhoods and/or buildings. According to Mancebo (2013), these
“eco-districts” do not solve the issue of sustainability, mostly due to the cost of
construction and development, which makes them non-equitable projects since these
factors often result in the eviction of poor populations who are relocated to more
marginal areas. As a result, these initiatives could become incompatible with the
objectives of sustainable cities. This example illustrates that sustainability is not
solely determined by environmental projects; it is an urban development path from
which the population also benefits, both socially and economically. Consequently,
environmental issues are considered to be of equal importance.
10.4.3 Criterion 3: Improvement Over Time
For a given city, the shift to a more sustainable development path implies changes
that are measured over time. Thus, as depicted in Portney and Berry (2013), the
temporal dimension of sustainability is best described by the Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC) for three main reasons.
First, the KEC depicts the passage from an “unsustainable” state of development
of urban regions during the Industrial Revolution, characterized by a high level of
degradation of the natural, social, and built environment, to a more sustainable state
characterized by an improvement in this environment. In the KEC, the initial state
results from an ambivalent process inherent to urbanization. Hence, the transformation of natural spaces for human activities advances urbanization while directly
contributing to the loss of natural spaces and the use of large quantities of resources
such as water and energy. Also, the development of these human activities is
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
189
Indicators
When interpreting USIs, a very high score in one indicator often compensates for
low scores in others. For instance, a city that shows poor socioeconomic results can
often be ranked among leading sustainable cities due to its very high environmental
results. In this case, the USI interpretation becomes problematic given the
multidimensional character of sustainability, which implies the need for achieving
high performance both socioeconomically and environmentally. In this context,
minimal compensation between socioeconomic and environmental results becomes
a relevant criterion. The significance of such a criterion is conceptually justified
considering that sustainable development is generally acknowledged as a model of
development that integrates both anthropic and environmental preoccupations, a
dichotomy that initiated a series of international conferences on development and
the environment in the late 1970s (Boutaud 2004). In addition, there is extensive
empirical evidence of its relevance. For instance, sustainability policies that have
taken climate change into account have resulted in numerous initiatives promoting
sustainability through decreased energy consumption and low greenhouse gas emissions for neighborhoods and/or buildings. According to Mancebo (2013), these
“eco-districts” do not solve the issue of sustainability, mostly due to the cost of
construction and development, which makes them non-equitable projects since these
factors often result in the eviction of poor populations who are relocated to more
marginal areas. As a result, these initiatives could become incompatible with the
objectives of sustainable cities. This example illustrates that sustainability is not
solely determined by environmental projects; it is an urban development path from
which the population also benefits, both socially and economically. Consequently,
environmental issues are considered to be of equal importance.
10.4.3 Criterion 3: Improvement Over Time
For a given city, the shift to a more sustainable development path implies changes
that are measured over time. Thus, as depicted in Portney and Berry (2013), the
temporal dimension of sustainability is best described by the Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC) for three main reasons.
First, the KEC depicts the passage from an “unsustainable” state of development
of urban regions during the Industrial Revolution, characterized by a high level of
degradation of the natural, social, and built environment, to a more sustainable state
characterized by an improvement in this environment. In the KEC, the initial state
results from an ambivalent process inherent to urbanization. Hence, the transformation of natural spaces for human activities advances urbanization while directly
contributing to the loss of natural spaces and the use of large quantities of resources
such as water and energy. Also, the development of these human activities is
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
189