reflected through the generation of jobs, the creation of wealth and income, increases
in the consumption of goods and services, and the generation of higher taxes for the
cities. This development is simultaneously responsible for urban densification,
increased pollution levels, and resource consumption, as well as problems such as
road congestion.
Second, the shift from an initial “unsustainable” state to a more sustainable state
implies the existence of a critical point at which pressure on the urban environment
tends to reverse. In the literature, this critical point is explained by five possible and
complementary dynamics: increased demand for goods and services that are less
harmful to the urban environment (Portney 2005); public interventions that address
the problems accompanying urban development in order to maintain and attract
citizens (Page and Shapiro 2010); public interventions in reaction to declining real
estate values that aim to improve the quality of the urban environment (Eichholtz
et al. 2013); the translation of political speech on sustainability into concrete actions
in order to be accountable to taxpayers (Planque and Lazzeri 2006); and compliance
with the normative sustainability policies imposed by higher levels of government
(Emelianoff 2007).
Third, from this critical point, socioeconomic and environmental concerns begin
to be taken into account simultaneously through different political processes relating
to sustainable development. The objective of these processes is to pursue economic
development while monitoring its impacts on the physical and social environments.
The KEC depicts the addition of a temporal dimension to the traditional approach to
USI interpretation.
The contribution of the three criteria suggested in this chapter, namely the USI
value, the minimization of compensation between indicators, and the improvement
of the city over time, is assessed through an empirical analysis of the performance of
Québec cities in terms of sustainability between 2006 and 2011.
10.5 Empirical Analysis
This empirical section is intended to analyze how the proposed criteria allow for a
more detailed interpretation of the performance of cities from a sustainability
perspective. The analysis focuses on the 25 largest cities in Québec, with particular
attention to Montreal, which is the most populous city in this province and the
second-largest city (after Toronto) in Canada. These cities were chosen because they
provide an opportunity to focus on interpreting their USIs, given that evaluations of
their performances in terms of sustainability have been relatively well documented.
In addition, the 25 largest cities have been the subject of sustainability assessments
(Rajaonson and Tanguay 2009; Tanguay and Rajaonson 2012). Therefore, the
information and data necessary for this analysis are more accessible than for other
similar cases, some of which are listed in Moonen and Clark (2013).
The indicators presented in Table 10.1 are based on 20 USIs developed in
Tanguay et al. (2010). Two intermediate indices were calculated: an environmental
190
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson
in the consumption of goods and services, and the generation of higher taxes for the
cities. This development is simultaneously responsible for urban densification,
increased pollution levels, and resource consumption, as well as problems such as
road congestion.
Second, the shift from an initial “unsustainable” state to a more sustainable state
implies the existence of a critical point at which pressure on the urban environment
tends to reverse. In the literature, this critical point is explained by five possible and
complementary dynamics: increased demand for goods and services that are less
harmful to the urban environment (Portney 2005); public interventions that address
the problems accompanying urban development in order to maintain and attract
citizens (Page and Shapiro 2010); public interventions in reaction to declining real
estate values that aim to improve the quality of the urban environment (Eichholtz
et al. 2013); the translation of political speech on sustainability into concrete actions
in order to be accountable to taxpayers (Planque and Lazzeri 2006); and compliance
with the normative sustainability policies imposed by higher levels of government
(Emelianoff 2007).
Third, from this critical point, socioeconomic and environmental concerns begin
to be taken into account simultaneously through different political processes relating
to sustainable development. The objective of these processes is to pursue economic
development while monitoring its impacts on the physical and social environments.
The KEC depicts the addition of a temporal dimension to the traditional approach to
USI interpretation.
The contribution of the three criteria suggested in this chapter, namely the USI
value, the minimization of compensation between indicators, and the improvement
of the city over time, is assessed through an empirical analysis of the performance of
Québec cities in terms of sustainability between 2006 and 2011.
10.5 Empirical Analysis
This empirical section is intended to analyze how the proposed criteria allow for a
more detailed interpretation of the performance of cities from a sustainability
perspective. The analysis focuses on the 25 largest cities in Québec, with particular
attention to Montreal, which is the most populous city in this province and the
second-largest city (after Toronto) in Canada. These cities were chosen because they
provide an opportunity to focus on interpreting their USIs, given that evaluations of
their performances in terms of sustainability have been relatively well documented.
In addition, the 25 largest cities have been the subject of sustainability assessments
(Rajaonson and Tanguay 2009; Tanguay and Rajaonson 2012). Therefore, the
information and data necessary for this analysis are more accessible than for other
similar cases, some of which are listed in Moonen and Clark (2013).
The indicators presented in Table 10.1 are based on 20 USIs developed in
Tanguay et al. (2010). Two intermediate indices were calculated: an environmental
190
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson