In GPCI-2013, Tokyo ranks at the very top in Environment.
10 Its excellence in
this function is clearly marked in the indicators such as Number of Companies with
ISO14001 Certification (#1), Percentage of Paper Recycled (#9), CO 2 Emissions
(#3), Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 (#8), Water Quality (#9), and Comfort Level of
Temperature (#10). Although the city underperforms compared to many of the GPCI
cities for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used (#33), its high average scores for
other indicators—Tokyo ranks in the top ten in six out of nine Environment
indicators—result in the city’s leading position.
It is also notable that the four cities do not have many indicators under #31. In
most of the Environment indicators, London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo situate
themselves somewhere in between middle-tier #11–31 positions.
11.3.3 Six Major Asian Cities
The GPCI also gathers information on the Asian metropolises. Among the 12 Asian
cities in GPCI-2013, six (Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and
Beijing) are in the top 15 cities in the comprehensive ranking. The analysis of
their Environment and Economy scores illustrates the uneven patterns of sustainability among the Asian powerhouses.
Figure 11.4 shows the function-specific rankings of the six selected Asian cities in
GPCI-2014. The figure clearly illustrates that although these Asian cities are high in
Economy, their performance in the other functions greatly diverge. All of the cities
rank in the top ten for Economy, but their positions in the rest of the ranking are
dispersed. In GPCI-2013, there is a clear divide in terms of their positions in
Environment. Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are in the top fifteen (#1, #8, and #12,
respectively) for Environment, whereas Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing are in
the bottom ten (#31, #39, and #34, respectively) for the same function. It would be
safe to say that the former cities (Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul) have achieved a
compatibility of Economy and Environment and that the latter (Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing) have not.
A comparison of the Environment indicators reveals which environmental
aspects of the city are better or worse than those of the other cities. The results of
GPCI-2013 show how the six Asian cities are ranked for each of the indicators (IUSMMF 2014). Although it is difficult to spot an overall trend among these cities, the
varied performance of the cities is visible. For example, Tokyo’s strength lies in its
excellence in Number of Companies with ISO14001 Certification (#1), Percentage
of Paper Recycled (#9), CO 2 Emissions (#3), Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 (#8),
Water Quality (#9), and Comfort Level of Temperature (#10), whereas its weakness
lies in its Percentage of Renewable Energy Used (#33). Beijing performs well in
10 In GPCI-2014, Tokyo’s rank in Environment drops to #9 mainly due to the modifications made in
the Environment indicators.
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
215
10 Its excellence in
this function is clearly marked in the indicators such as Number of Companies with
ISO14001 Certification (#1), Percentage of Paper Recycled (#9), CO 2 Emissions
(#3), Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 (#8), Water Quality (#9), and Comfort Level of
Temperature (#10). Although the city underperforms compared to many of the GPCI
cities for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used (#33), its high average scores for
other indicators—Tokyo ranks in the top ten in six out of nine Environment
indicators—result in the city’s leading position.
It is also notable that the four cities do not have many indicators under #31. In
most of the Environment indicators, London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo situate
themselves somewhere in between middle-tier #11–31 positions.
11.3.3 Six Major Asian Cities
The GPCI also gathers information on the Asian metropolises. Among the 12 Asian
cities in GPCI-2013, six (Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and
Beijing) are in the top 15 cities in the comprehensive ranking. The analysis of
their Environment and Economy scores illustrates the uneven patterns of sustainability among the Asian powerhouses.
Figure 11.4 shows the function-specific rankings of the six selected Asian cities in
GPCI-2014. The figure clearly illustrates that although these Asian cities are high in
Economy, their performance in the other functions greatly diverge. All of the cities
rank in the top ten for Economy, but their positions in the rest of the ranking are
dispersed. In GPCI-2013, there is a clear divide in terms of their positions in
Environment. Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are in the top fifteen (#1, #8, and #12,
respectively) for Environment, whereas Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing are in
the bottom ten (#31, #39, and #34, respectively) for the same function. It would be
safe to say that the former cities (Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul) have achieved a
compatibility of Economy and Environment and that the latter (Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing) have not.
A comparison of the Environment indicators reveals which environmental
aspects of the city are better or worse than those of the other cities. The results of
GPCI-2013 show how the six Asian cities are ranked for each of the indicators (IUSMMF 2014). Although it is difficult to spot an overall trend among these cities, the
varied performance of the cities is visible. For example, Tokyo’s strength lies in its
excellence in Number of Companies with ISO14001 Certification (#1), Percentage
of Paper Recycled (#9), CO 2 Emissions (#3), Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 (#8),
Water Quality (#9), and Comfort Level of Temperature (#10), whereas its weakness
lies in its Percentage of Renewable Energy Used (#33). Beijing performs well in
10 In GPCI-2014, Tokyo’s rank in Environment drops to #9 mainly due to the modifications made in
the Environment indicators.
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
215