Environment and Economy. In contrast, Cairo, Mexico City, and Mumbai are
lowly positioned both in Environment and Economy. Beijing, Shanghai, and
Hong Kong do well in Economy but do poorly in Environment. São Paulo and
Madrid, on the other hand, do well in Environment but do poorly in Economy.
European cities are generally well scored for both Economy and Environment.
(b) Top Four Cities
The GPCI’s top four cities London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are differently evaluated in terms of Environment. Tokyo and London tend to show
advantage over New York and Paris. Tokyo and London are in the top ten for
several indicators and are highly ranked for the other indicators under Environment as well. New York and Paris are in the middle rank in most of the
Environment indicators. Tokyo ranks #1 in Environment. Although it does not
do well in Percentage of Renewable Energy Used, the city is in the top ten for six
out of nine of the Environment indicators.
(c) Six Major Asian Cities
An analysis of the six top Asian cities in GPCI-2013’s comprehensive
ranking—Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing—
reveals a sign of divergence within the highly developed Asian cities. All of
the six cities are in the top ten for Economy. For Environment, Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are in the top ten (#1, #8, and #12, respectively), but Hong
Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing are in the bottom 10 (#31, #34, and #39,
respectively).
A comparison of the cities’ positions for the nine Environment indicators
shows the relative strengths and weaknesses of each city in relation to the
specific aspects of environment. Tokyo has six out of nine Environment indicators placed in the top ten and one placed in the bottom ten. Beijing’s strength lies
in Number of Companies with ISO14001 Certification and CO 2 Emissions, and
its weakness in Density of SPM, Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 , The Level of
Green Coverage, and Comfort Level of Temperature.
Although Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are ranked higher than Shanghai and
Beijing for many of the indicators, this does not mean that the Chinese cities
always underperform. On the contrary, Shanghai and Beijing perform far better
than the established Asian cities for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used.
(d) Six Major European Cities
Six European cities—London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna, and Frankfurt—are in the top ten for GPCI-2013’s comprehensive ranking and are highly
positioned in Economy and Environment. London, GPCI-2013’s overall #1, is
highly ranked in Economy and Environment. The other cities are in the top half
for Economy and Environment. The relatively high compatibility in Economy
and Environment is characteristic of the six European cities. Vancouver, Tokyo,
Singapore, and Seoul are the only North American and Asian cities that are in the
top half for both functions.
The six European cities also stand out as they perform well beyond only
Economy and Environment. None of their urban functions are rated below #30
for GPCI-2013. This may be due to the fact that, in their long-term development,
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
223
lowly positioned both in Environment and Economy. Beijing, Shanghai, and
Hong Kong do well in Economy but do poorly in Environment. São Paulo and
Madrid, on the other hand, do well in Environment but do poorly in Economy.
European cities are generally well scored for both Economy and Environment.
(b) Top Four Cities
The GPCI’s top four cities London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are differently evaluated in terms of Environment. Tokyo and London tend to show
advantage over New York and Paris. Tokyo and London are in the top ten for
several indicators and are highly ranked for the other indicators under Environment as well. New York and Paris are in the middle rank in most of the
Environment indicators. Tokyo ranks #1 in Environment. Although it does not
do well in Percentage of Renewable Energy Used, the city is in the top ten for six
out of nine of the Environment indicators.
(c) Six Major Asian Cities
An analysis of the six top Asian cities in GPCI-2013’s comprehensive
ranking—Tokyo, Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing—
reveals a sign of divergence within the highly developed Asian cities. All of
the six cities are in the top ten for Economy. For Environment, Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are in the top ten (#1, #8, and #12, respectively), but Hong
Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing are in the bottom 10 (#31, #34, and #39,
respectively).
A comparison of the cities’ positions for the nine Environment indicators
shows the relative strengths and weaknesses of each city in relation to the
specific aspects of environment. Tokyo has six out of nine Environment indicators placed in the top ten and one placed in the bottom ten. Beijing’s strength lies
in Number of Companies with ISO14001 Certification and CO 2 Emissions, and
its weakness in Density of SPM, Density of SO 2 —Density of NO 2 , The Level of
Green Coverage, and Comfort Level of Temperature.
Although Tokyo, Singapore, and Seoul are ranked higher than Shanghai and
Beijing for many of the indicators, this does not mean that the Chinese cities
always underperform. On the contrary, Shanghai and Beijing perform far better
than the established Asian cities for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used.
(d) Six Major European Cities
Six European cities—London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Vienna, and Frankfurt—are in the top ten for GPCI-2013’s comprehensive ranking and are highly
positioned in Economy and Environment. London, GPCI-2013’s overall #1, is
highly ranked in Economy and Environment. The other cities are in the top half
for Economy and Environment. The relatively high compatibility in Economy
and Environment is characteristic of the six European cities. Vancouver, Tokyo,
Singapore, and Seoul are the only North American and Asian cities that are in the
top half for both functions.
The six European cities also stand out as they perform well beyond only
Economy and Environment. None of their urban functions are rated below #30
for GPCI-2013. This may be due to the fact that, in their long-term development,
11 Sustainability and Urban Functions from the Perspective of the Global Power City. . .
223