10.5.1 Indicators’ Estimation and Cities’ Comparability
The estimation of each indicator’s score is the first criterion in measuring sustainability. It raises the issue of cities’ comparability, which is the subject of significant
debate. According to Senecal (2008), the ranking of cities would involve too many
variables to allow an objective comparison. For instance, the comparison of cities
from an environmental sustainability perspective would involve excessive methodological compromise, especially because of the diversity of issues and the context
specific to each territory. Such a point of view seems justified if one considers
Montréal for example, which is difficult to compare to other Québec cities in terms
of urban transportation. With 3.8 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area, the
city has the most extensive transit network in Québec and one of the largest in North
America. Additionally, the city is endowed with a massive infrastructure that is not
found in other cities in the province. However, according to Valentin and
Spangenberg (2000), a comparison of cities remains valid and necessary despite
the imperfections inherent to such an exercise. Thus, the authors argue the need to
establish a minimum number of basic indicators for the comparison of cities given
that, regardless of their size, they have several common functions (e.g., management
of drinking water and waste materials).
Some empirical evidence regarding the comparison of cities could be drawn from
the Québec experience. The overall ranking of the 25 largest cities of the Province
from a sustainability perspective is presented in Table 10.2. It shows that there are
only three cities in the top ten whose global performances are a result of both their
environmental and socioeconomic indices being above average: Levis (#3), Brossard (#4), and Québec City (#6). Montréal is ranked 15 although the city is credited
with the highest environmental performance (EI ¼ 0.48). This observation highlights the extent to which compensation between indicators is influential in measuring sustainability. Additionally, it is not possible to relate indicators’ compensation
issues to the size of the cities considering that the respective population of Lévis,
Brossard, and Québec City are 79,273, 138,769, and 516,622 inhabitants (Statistics
Canada 2011). Nonetheless, the case of Montréal is unique. For instance, as stressed
by Glaeser (2011), big cities tend to attract lower income populations. It is therefore
not surprising that Montréal shows low socioeconomic performance. This has direct
implications in terms of the environment, which explains why Montreal displays the
highest environmental performance. For example, its commuting system is far less
harmful to the environment due to density and the fact that the car ownership rate is
lower; energy consumption per capita is also lower in big cities given that
low-income households have limited budgets to allocate to their housing expense
including energy consumption (Langevin et al. 2013).
Grouping cities according to three categories or profiles (namely: central cities,
suburbs, and average-size cities) allows for direct comparison and interpretation of
the results of cities with the same characteristics. These rankings are presented in
Table 10.3, in which two major trends can be noted. First, socioeconomically,
suburban cities generally score well while the opposite trend is observed for the
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
193
The estimation of each indicator’s score is the first criterion in measuring sustainability. It raises the issue of cities’ comparability, which is the subject of significant
debate. According to Senecal (2008), the ranking of cities would involve too many
variables to allow an objective comparison. For instance, the comparison of cities
from an environmental sustainability perspective would involve excessive methodological compromise, especially because of the diversity of issues and the context
specific to each territory. Such a point of view seems justified if one considers
Montréal for example, which is difficult to compare to other Québec cities in terms
of urban transportation. With 3.8 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area, the
city has the most extensive transit network in Québec and one of the largest in North
America. Additionally, the city is endowed with a massive infrastructure that is not
found in other cities in the province. However, according to Valentin and
Spangenberg (2000), a comparison of cities remains valid and necessary despite
the imperfections inherent to such an exercise. Thus, the authors argue the need to
establish a minimum number of basic indicators for the comparison of cities given
that, regardless of their size, they have several common functions (e.g., management
of drinking water and waste materials).
Some empirical evidence regarding the comparison of cities could be drawn from
the Québec experience. The overall ranking of the 25 largest cities of the Province
from a sustainability perspective is presented in Table 10.2. It shows that there are
only three cities in the top ten whose global performances are a result of both their
environmental and socioeconomic indices being above average: Levis (#3), Brossard (#4), and Québec City (#6). Montréal is ranked 15 although the city is credited
with the highest environmental performance (EI ¼ 0.48). This observation highlights the extent to which compensation between indicators is influential in measuring sustainability. Additionally, it is not possible to relate indicators’ compensation
issues to the size of the cities considering that the respective population of Lévis,
Brossard, and Québec City are 79,273, 138,769, and 516,622 inhabitants (Statistics
Canada 2011). Nonetheless, the case of Montréal is unique. For instance, as stressed
by Glaeser (2011), big cities tend to attract lower income populations. It is therefore
not surprising that Montréal shows low socioeconomic performance. This has direct
implications in terms of the environment, which explains why Montreal displays the
highest environmental performance. For example, its commuting system is far less
harmful to the environment due to density and the fact that the car ownership rate is
lower; energy consumption per capita is also lower in big cities given that
low-income households have limited budgets to allocate to their housing expense
including energy consumption (Langevin et al. 2013).
Grouping cities according to three categories or profiles (namely: central cities,
suburbs, and average-size cities) allows for direct comparison and interpretation of
the results of cities with the same characteristics. These rankings are presented in
Table 10.3, in which two major trends can be noted. First, socioeconomically,
suburban cities generally score well while the opposite trend is observed for the
10 The Urban Sustainability Indicators in Québec
193