11.3 Analysis of GPCI’s Target Cities
An analysis of the GPCI scores and rankings helps us understand the relationship
between a city and its environment. As previously mentioned, Environment is one of
the six analytic categories that gauge a city’s comprehensive power. Among the
other five functions (Economy, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction,
Livability, and Accessibility), Economy is considered to bear the most direct
relevance to Environment. Historically, the degree of development of industrialization and exploitation of natural resources has had a direct influence on the conditions
of natural environment. At the same time, the city’s ability to control and improve
the urban environment depends on its ability to secure a sufficient financial basis. In
this sense, the relationship between Environment and Economy does not necessarily
take the form of “trade-off” as is often believed. By focusing on the relationship
between Environment and Economy, the rest of this section will explore how cities
of various scales and developmental stages achieve sustainability.
11.3.1 Forty Global Cities
The results of GPCI-2013 show some patterns in the comprehensive, Environment,
and Economy rankings (IUS-MMF 2014).
First, cities rated highly for the comprehensive ranking also tend to be rated
highly for Economy. Twelve out of the 15 top cities for the comprehensive ranking
are also in the top 15 for Economy. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Singapore
are in the top ten for both of the rankings.
Second, cities rated highly for Economy are not necessarily rated highly for
Environment. Only seven out of the 15 top cities for Economy are also in the top
15 for Environment. Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong are in the top ten for
Economy, but in the bottom ten for Environment.
Third, cities rated highly for Environment are not necessarily rated highly for
Economy or for the comprehensive ranking. São Paulo, for example, ranks #5 for
Environment but #37 for Economy and #38 for the comprehensive ranking. Madrid
ranks #7 for Environment, but #32 for Economy ranking and #17 for the comprehensive ranking. Stockholm ranks #2 for Environment but #19 for Economy and #16
for the comprehensive ranking.
Figure 11.1 visualizes the relationship among the three rankings (Comprehensive,
Economy, and Environment). In this figure, the cities are sorted by the comprehensive position from the left (best performing) to the right (worst performing). First, the
cities rated highly for the comprehensive ranking (on the left) tend to be rated higher
in Economy than the lower ranking cities in the comprehensive ranking (on the
right). Second, the cities rated highly for Economy are not necessarily rated highly
for Environment. Third, the cities rated highly for Environment are not necessarily
rated highly for Economy or for the comprehensive ranking. In Fig. 11.1, these
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
211
An analysis of the GPCI scores and rankings helps us understand the relationship
between a city and its environment. As previously mentioned, Environment is one of
the six analytic categories that gauge a city’s comprehensive power. Among the
other five functions (Economy, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction,
Livability, and Accessibility), Economy is considered to bear the most direct
relevance to Environment. Historically, the degree of development of industrialization and exploitation of natural resources has had a direct influence on the conditions
of natural environment. At the same time, the city’s ability to control and improve
the urban environment depends on its ability to secure a sufficient financial basis. In
this sense, the relationship between Environment and Economy does not necessarily
take the form of “trade-off” as is often believed. By focusing on the relationship
between Environment and Economy, the rest of this section will explore how cities
of various scales and developmental stages achieve sustainability.
11.3.1 Forty Global Cities
The results of GPCI-2013 show some patterns in the comprehensive, Environment,
and Economy rankings (IUS-MMF 2014).
First, cities rated highly for the comprehensive ranking also tend to be rated
highly for Economy. Twelve out of the 15 top cities for the comprehensive ranking
are also in the top 15 for Economy. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Singapore
are in the top ten for both of the rankings.
Second, cities rated highly for Economy are not necessarily rated highly for
Environment. Only seven out of the 15 top cities for Economy are also in the top
15 for Environment. Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong are in the top ten for
Economy, but in the bottom ten for Environment.
Third, cities rated highly for Environment are not necessarily rated highly for
Economy or for the comprehensive ranking. São Paulo, for example, ranks #5 for
Environment but #37 for Economy and #38 for the comprehensive ranking. Madrid
ranks #7 for Environment, but #32 for Economy ranking and #17 for the comprehensive ranking. Stockholm ranks #2 for Environment but #19 for Economy and #16
for the comprehensive ranking.
Figure 11.1 visualizes the relationship among the three rankings (Comprehensive,
Economy, and Environment). In this figure, the cities are sorted by the comprehensive position from the left (best performing) to the right (worst performing). First, the
cities rated highly for the comprehensive ranking (on the left) tend to be rated higher
in Economy than the lower ranking cities in the comprehensive ranking (on the
right). Second, the cities rated highly for Economy are not necessarily rated highly
for Environment. Third, the cities rated highly for Environment are not necessarily
rated highly for Economy or for the comprehensive ranking. In Fig. 11.1, these
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
211