displayed very low performances. Second, there were cities that fell back in the
classification when the compensation between the indicators was reduced. These
cities were those with low performances in several indicators compensated by
specific areas in which they displayed relatively high performances. Montréal
progressed from 15–11 in the ranking when compensation was minimized, while
typical suburban cities generally progressed or remained at the same rank.
The assessment of the intermediate indices (EI and SEI) highlights possible
compensation between indicators, which renders them insufficient as the only
performance criteria with respect to sustainability. Ranking based on a
non-compensatory approach seems therefore more relevant.
10.5.3 Comparison of the Indicators Over Time
The third criterion allows for an assessment of the improvement of the cities to be
done by comparing the indicators over time. The cities’ rankings, based on the 2006
and 2011 Canadian censuses and complementary governmental sources, are compared in Table 10.5. According to this criterion, the best-performing cities improved
over time. Hence, the analysis of trends implies reflecting on two aspects. On the
ranking variation, advancing or dropping down one or two positions does not have
an important meaning because there is only minor variation between the scores
underlying the cities ranking. However, advancing or dropping down three positions
or more are important to reflect on, especially if the cities have adopted sustainable
development policies in the meantime. For the case of the cities in Québec, there is
no evidence of progress for cities that adopted sustainable development policies or
evidence for a drop in performance or stagnation for cities that did not adopt these
policies. In fact, several cities including Montréal have implemented sustainable
development plans between 2006 and 2011 (City of Montréal 2010) but did not
advance in the sustainability ranking. Conversely, other cities that have no specific
sustainability-related policies have shown progress in the ranking.
The other aspect to reflect on is the indicators’ value-trends for each city and for
each category of cities. These trends can be essential in setting and evaluation of
sustainability benchmarks. The analysis of the trends in indicator-scores between
2006 and 2011 allows for three main observations. First, from this perspective, it
appears that cities that have implemented a sustainable development plan improved
over time regardless of their position in the ranking. For instance, Montréal’s overall
performance improved while the city remains at the 15 position. The city displays
higher improvement in EI than in SEI, which is not surprising given that Montréal’s
SD strategic plan emphasizes environmental issues (City of Montréal 2010). Second,
for the majority of cities, the improvement over time is due to an improvement in
only one dimension. Thus, improvement in EI is not necessarily followed by an
improvement in SEI and vice versa. This observation raises the issue of prioritization
in the SD strategic plan, which is mainly focused on environmental matters
(Parkinson and Roseland 2002) and on quality of life objectives (Canadian
198
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson
classification when the compensation between the indicators was reduced. These
cities were those with low performances in several indicators compensated by
specific areas in which they displayed relatively high performances. Montréal
progressed from 15–11 in the ranking when compensation was minimized, while
typical suburban cities generally progressed or remained at the same rank.
The assessment of the intermediate indices (EI and SEI) highlights possible
compensation between indicators, which renders them insufficient as the only
performance criteria with respect to sustainability. Ranking based on a
non-compensatory approach seems therefore more relevant.
10.5.3 Comparison of the Indicators Over Time
The third criterion allows for an assessment of the improvement of the cities to be
done by comparing the indicators over time. The cities’ rankings, based on the 2006
and 2011 Canadian censuses and complementary governmental sources, are compared in Table 10.5. According to this criterion, the best-performing cities improved
over time. Hence, the analysis of trends implies reflecting on two aspects. On the
ranking variation, advancing or dropping down one or two positions does not have
an important meaning because there is only minor variation between the scores
underlying the cities ranking. However, advancing or dropping down three positions
or more are important to reflect on, especially if the cities have adopted sustainable
development policies in the meantime. For the case of the cities in Québec, there is
no evidence of progress for cities that adopted sustainable development policies or
evidence for a drop in performance or stagnation for cities that did not adopt these
policies. In fact, several cities including Montréal have implemented sustainable
development plans between 2006 and 2011 (City of Montréal 2010) but did not
advance in the sustainability ranking. Conversely, other cities that have no specific
sustainability-related policies have shown progress in the ranking.
The other aspect to reflect on is the indicators’ value-trends for each city and for
each category of cities. These trends can be essential in setting and evaluation of
sustainability benchmarks. The analysis of the trends in indicator-scores between
2006 and 2011 allows for three main observations. First, from this perspective, it
appears that cities that have implemented a sustainable development plan improved
over time regardless of their position in the ranking. For instance, Montréal’s overall
performance improved while the city remains at the 15 position. The city displays
higher improvement in EI than in SEI, which is not surprising given that Montréal’s
SD strategic plan emphasizes environmental issues (City of Montréal 2010). Second,
for the majority of cities, the improvement over time is due to an improvement in
only one dimension. Thus, improvement in EI is not necessarily followed by an
improvement in SEI and vice versa. This observation raises the issue of prioritization
in the SD strategic plan, which is mainly focused on environmental matters
(Parkinson and Roseland 2002) and on quality of life objectives (Canadian
198
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson