10.6 Conclusion: Implications for Megacities
There are three main implications for megacities we acknowledge from the research
on USIs in Québec. First, the selection of indicators requires a comprehensive
strategy that addresses the following issues: the search for a parsimonious set of
indicators that are scientifically recognized, simple to monitor, and that can be
implemented into the policy planning of the megacity where many stakeholders
with different backgrounds and levels of expertise are often involved; next, the
adaptation of the triple bottom line approach of sustainability to the urban context
by framing the indicators into socioeconomic and environmental dimensions in
order to address both the anthropocentric and environmentalist perceptions of
urban area sustainability; and finally, the use of both quantitative and qualitative
indicators, which have often been treated separately because of methodological
concerns, but that can now be overcome using appropriate statistical tools.
Next, the use of a common set of USIs has several advantages. First, it allows for
the assessment of a megacity’s performance both over time and in comparison with
other urban regions. It also gives a signal to local governments about the efficiency
of their policies and helps them reassess their priorities. Megacities with relatively
high socioeconomic performance should emphasize environmental issues and take
appropriate action to tackle their weaknesses. The reverse applies to megacities with
high environmental performance while at the same time ensuring that the latter is not
solely attributable to outstanding performance in a single topic. Secondly, the use of
a common set of USIs allows the public to be informed about issues such as water
consumption, transportation habits, waste management, and participation in elections, all of which help to raise awareness and empower citizens so that they can
make their contribution to the objective of sustainable development. Thirdly, generic
USIs allow support for regional and national goals by helping to provide a standard
diagnosis of the sustainability performance of different urban areas. Finally, the
contribution of USIs to sustainability assessment goes beyond the objectives for
which they were developed. For example, the selection process of USIs enables an
understanding that existing statistics are insufficient to properly assess sustainability
and often enforce the use of proxies that are not always accurate. As pointed out by
the European Environmental Agency (2004), by comparing megacities using a
common set of USIs, such cities would gradually develop a more critical attitude
toward their own initiatives. They would thus better maintain a certain level of
performance and would tend to avoid passive attitudes by simply making the
minimum effort. In other words, competition would encourage megacities to excel,
promote mutual learning, help overcome resistance to change, and create a more
receptive environment for new ideas. As the comparability issues of megacities may
arise as an argument against adopting a common set of indicators, we underline that
beyond their unique cultural, historical, political, and geographical background,
megacities are urban phenomena that share many characteristics that distinguish
them from other spatial organizations, such as rural areas, towns, and smaller cities.
These characteristics include activities and functions that mainly focus on
200
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson
There are three main implications for megacities we acknowledge from the research
on USIs in Québec. First, the selection of indicators requires a comprehensive
strategy that addresses the following issues: the search for a parsimonious set of
indicators that are scientifically recognized, simple to monitor, and that can be
implemented into the policy planning of the megacity where many stakeholders
with different backgrounds and levels of expertise are often involved; next, the
adaptation of the triple bottom line approach of sustainability to the urban context
by framing the indicators into socioeconomic and environmental dimensions in
order to address both the anthropocentric and environmentalist perceptions of
urban area sustainability; and finally, the use of both quantitative and qualitative
indicators, which have often been treated separately because of methodological
concerns, but that can now be overcome using appropriate statistical tools.
Next, the use of a common set of USIs has several advantages. First, it allows for
the assessment of a megacity’s performance both over time and in comparison with
other urban regions. It also gives a signal to local governments about the efficiency
of their policies and helps them reassess their priorities. Megacities with relatively
high socioeconomic performance should emphasize environmental issues and take
appropriate action to tackle their weaknesses. The reverse applies to megacities with
high environmental performance while at the same time ensuring that the latter is not
solely attributable to outstanding performance in a single topic. Secondly, the use of
a common set of USIs allows the public to be informed about issues such as water
consumption, transportation habits, waste management, and participation in elections, all of which help to raise awareness and empower citizens so that they can
make their contribution to the objective of sustainable development. Thirdly, generic
USIs allow support for regional and national goals by helping to provide a standard
diagnosis of the sustainability performance of different urban areas. Finally, the
contribution of USIs to sustainability assessment goes beyond the objectives for
which they were developed. For example, the selection process of USIs enables an
understanding that existing statistics are insufficient to properly assess sustainability
and often enforce the use of proxies that are not always accurate. As pointed out by
the European Environmental Agency (2004), by comparing megacities using a
common set of USIs, such cities would gradually develop a more critical attitude
toward their own initiatives. They would thus better maintain a certain level of
performance and would tend to avoid passive attitudes by simply making the
minimum effort. In other words, competition would encourage megacities to excel,
promote mutual learning, help overcome resistance to change, and create a more
receptive environment for new ideas. As the comparability issues of megacities may
arise as an argument against adopting a common set of indicators, we underline that
beyond their unique cultural, historical, political, and geographical background,
megacities are urban phenomena that share many characteristics that distinguish
them from other spatial organizations, such as rural areas, towns, and smaller cities.
These characteristics include activities and functions that mainly focus on
200
G. A. Tanguay and J. Rajaonson