Tools for measuring urban sustainability: 5 tips for surviving
By Jesper Ole Jensen, Senior Researcher AAU
Photo by Adeolu Eletu on Unsplash
Measuring urban sustainability is gaining a lot of attention from planners, politicians, and researchers, and therefore we continuously see new tools and scorecards being developed for measuring the slippery concept “sustainable cities”. There is a large variety in the types tools developed; in the simplest form, it can be indicators for the urban environment (e.g. air quality, biodiversity, water quality in lakes, energy use in municipal buildings, etc.) for the entire city that the municipality publishes once a year. At a next level, such indicators could be linked to the goals for the city, and a policy on how to achieve the goals, a baseline that describes the outset, a choice of initiatives to make a change, and monitoring that tells us if we’re on the right track. And after that, repeat the whole circle again. This is also known as the “Plan, Do, Check, Act” methodology, and describes the basic EMS (Environmental Management System) approach on how companies and institutions work (or should work) with continuous environmental improvements.
Measuring sustainability in a broader sense, including social and economic measures, becomes even more complex, but several tools have this ambition – e.g. sustainability certification for buildings and urban districts (e.g. DGNB, BREEAM, LEED), IFHP’s Social City or the Social Progress Index. There are numerous other tools as well, that have been developed, and then soon forgotten – but there are tools that survive, and manage to be integrated into the practices amongst urban planners. Based on a comparison between various tools across European countries, several reasons for the survival and use have been identified, which can serve as guidelines for tool-developers:
Photo by William Iven on Unsplash
Make the tool legitimate and credible: This can be around the indicators used, e.g. that they are based on up to date scientific knowledge, research or “best practice”, acknowledged methodologies (e.g. LCA-analysis), or it can be based on a broad consensus amongst relevant stakeholders.
Involve central stakeholders and make it local: The messages of the tool might be true, but if they are not received or understood by the stakeholders who are ideally to act upon the messages that the tool delivers, then nothing is gained. Therefore, stakeholders should be involved early in the process of the tool design and of the selection of indicators, and discuss options of local adaptation of the tool. Experiences show that the interest in planning, tools and measurements is largest when the context is local, therefore the measurements and monitoring should be as local as possible – e.g. as the municipality of Albertslund’s Green Accounting of neighborhoods in the municipality, published annually. However, focussing on the local level may represent a challenge regarding data availability.
Give clear message and demonstrate alternatives: If the tools should have an impact, other than serving as being verification or rubber-stamp for existing plans, the tool should demonstrate alternative solutions, and how that would affect the score. In some assessments, this option does not fully exist (e.g. LCA-analysis on district scale), thus limiting the value of creating change.. Often, structural indicators can create a feeling of not being able to change much, although local projects and initiatives might have long-term impacts e.g. through changes in practices. Therefore there is a strategic dimension in the choice of indicators, e.g. by including actions where stakeholders have real choices.
Increase benefits, reduce costs: Tools are often complex and time consuming to use, therefore it becomes easier simply not to use the tool – and this is what happens to most non-compulsory tools. So, the tools should include clear benefits, e.g. on visibility, PR, economic benefits, higher user satisfaction or productivity, etc. The main death reason amongst tools is that the efforts needed are not reflected in the benefits of the tool. This also means that the efforts should be reduced; the tools should be user-friendly, good data should be available, and the tools should link up to other already existing routines. There is a difficult balance between legitimacy and data collection – high legitimacy often requires large data input, but reduces the attractiveness and transparency of the tool – and vice versa; if the tools become too simplistic they might lose credibility.
Create a connection to overall plans and initiatives: The use of a tool will increase if it links up to existing procedures, plans, goals and initiatives in the organization; if a non-compulsory tool delivers answers, assessments or data to some of these “mandatory” processes, the chance for good use and thus survival of the tool will increase. In contrast, being a “stand-alone” tool makes it more difficult to convince decision-makers to spend resources on using the tool.
To sum up, experiences show that it’s important that we learn how to frame the measurements of urban sustainability, and to communicate the results to all stakeholders, so we know when and where to take action. More than ever, there is a need to measure the sustainable development of our cities, and to develop the tools to do that.
Author: Jesper Ole Jensen, Senior Researcher, The Faculty of Engineering and Science Division for Town, Housing and Property (THP) at Aalborg University