different. Here a very subtle negative correlation is observed (Fig. 11.9, correlation
coefficient ¼ À0.2779). This tendency is presumably due to the fact that the
European cities, which have high scores for Environment, have relatively lower
scores for GDP Growth. The high GDP Growth scores of the emergent cities, which
have relatively lower scores for Environment, also contribute to this.
Indicators such as Nominal GDP, GDP per Capita, and GDP Growth are differently linked to a city’s environmental standing, reflecting the scale, quality, and
growth status of the city’s economic development.
11.4 Conclusion
This chapter discussed how cities of different size and developmental stage are
analyzed in their relation to sustainability. The Global Power City Index’s indicators
are used to explore such relationships, enabling us to systematically compare major
cities of the world. The GPCI’s focus on the comprehensive power of the city also
provides a basis for discussion of urban sustainability, as it is precisely the city’s
holistic constitution that defines the volume and quality of its activity and the
transformation of its urban space, affecting the lives of the residents.
Environment is one of the six analytical categories of the GPCI, which collectively establish the comprehensive power of a city. Among the other five categories
of urban function, Economy is considered to have the most direct relevance to
Environment. It is historically evident that the process of economic development
(e.g., industrialization and urbanization) has had influence on the natural environment. However, the relationship between Economy and Environment is not necessarily a tradeoff as is popularly believed. Today, the city’s ability to control and
improve its environment requires a certain economic capacity of the government and
its citizens. For these reasons, the city’s relative performance in Economy and
Environment is likely to reflect its status in development.
The key findings are summarized as follows.
(a) Environment and Economy in GPCI
An analysis of the GPCI scores of the 40 target cities reveals a few patterns in
the relationship among the Environment, Economy, and comprehensive rankings. First, the top-tier cities in the comprehensive ranking are also highly placed
in Environment. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, and Amsterdam
are among such cities. Second, the top-tier cities in Economy are not necessarily
high performers in Environment. New York, Beijing, and Hong Kong are highly
ranked in Economy but lowly positioned in Environment. Third, the top-tier
cities in Environment are not necessarily highly placed in Economy or in the
comprehensive ranking.
The balance between a city’s positions in Environment and Economy seems
to reflect its status in terms of economic development and environmental policy.
Tokyo, London, Singapore, Geneva, Zurich, and Seoul are highly ranked both in
222
H. Ichikawa and K. Sasaki
coefficient ¼ À0.2779). This tendency is presumably due to the fact that the
European cities, which have high scores for Environment, have relatively lower
scores for GDP Growth. The high GDP Growth scores of the emergent cities, which
have relatively lower scores for Environment, also contribute to this.
Indicators such as Nominal GDP, GDP per Capita, and GDP Growth are differently linked to a city’s environmental standing, reflecting the scale, quality, and
growth status of the city’s economic development.
11.4 Conclusion
This chapter discussed how cities of different size and developmental stage are
analyzed in their relation to sustainability. The Global Power City Index’s indicators
are used to explore such relationships, enabling us to systematically compare major
cities of the world. The GPCI’s focus on the comprehensive power of the city also
provides a basis for discussion of urban sustainability, as it is precisely the city’s
holistic constitution that defines the volume and quality of its activity and the
transformation of its urban space, affecting the lives of the residents.
Environment is one of the six analytical categories of the GPCI, which collectively establish the comprehensive power of a city. Among the other five categories
of urban function, Economy is considered to have the most direct relevance to
Environment. It is historically evident that the process of economic development
(e.g., industrialization and urbanization) has had influence on the natural environment. However, the relationship between Economy and Environment is not necessarily a tradeoff as is popularly believed. Today, the city’s ability to control and
improve its environment requires a certain economic capacity of the government and
its citizens. For these reasons, the city’s relative performance in Economy and
Environment is likely to reflect its status in development.
The key findings are summarized as follows.
(a) Environment and Economy in GPCI
An analysis of the GPCI scores of the 40 target cities reveals a few patterns in
the relationship among the Environment, Economy, and comprehensive rankings. First, the top-tier cities in the comprehensive ranking are also highly placed
in Environment. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, and Amsterdam
are among such cities. Second, the top-tier cities in Economy are not necessarily
high performers in Environment. New York, Beijing, and Hong Kong are highly
ranked in Economy but lowly positioned in Environment. Third, the top-tier
cities in Environment are not necessarily highly placed in Economy or in the
comprehensive ranking.
The balance between a city’s positions in Environment and Economy seems
to reflect its status in terms of economic development and environmental policy.
Tokyo, London, Singapore, Geneva, Zurich, and Seoul are highly ranked both in
222
H. Ichikawa and K. Sasaki