Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- 10 Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors
- 11 Sustainability Issues in Urban Systems from a Metabolic Perspective
- 12 Urban-Industrial Supply Systems
- 13 Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities
- 14 Ontology-Based Integration of Urban Sustainability Indicators
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
13 - Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities
from Part III - Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2020
Book contents
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- General Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Background
- Part II Integrative Approaches for Sustainability Assessment
- Part III Perspectives on Urban Sustainability
- 10 Conceptualizing Urban Systems for Sustainability Assessment: Four Powerful Metaphors
- 11 Sustainability Issues in Urban Systems from a Metabolic Perspective
- 12 Urban-Industrial Supply Systems
- 13 Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Cities
- 14 Ontology-Based Integration of Urban Sustainability Indicators
- Part IV Focal Points of Urban Sustainability
- Index
- References
Summary
Sustainability assessment initiatives at the local level have been increasing in number since the mid-1990s and are now plentiful. The definitions of sustainable development used in sustainability assessment instruments, however, vary widely. This chapter illustrates the diversity of sustainability assessment tools available at the local level by presenting two indicator-based instruments developed in Switzerland. The first one, Cercle Indicateurs, is an all-encompassing sustainability assessment tool; the second one, Swiss City Statistics, focuses on the well-being and quality of life dimensions of sustainability. The two instruments are presented and analysed according to the Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (Bellagio STAMP), which have been grouped into five categories: (1) conceptual framework, (2) time and spatial scale, (3) participation, (4) transparency and communication, and (5) continuity and capacity. We suggest that transparency about the rationale for setting up a sustainability assessment instrument and about its actual implementation is crucial, because these aspects influence how ‘sustainability’ is operationalised and therefore the result of the assessment.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sustainability Assessment of Urban Systems , pp. 311 - 331Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Boesch, A., de Montmollin, A., Kulig, A., Palm, V., Willi, V., & Zuinen, N. (2014). Getting Messages across Using Indicators: A Handbook Based on Experiences from Assessing Sustainable Development Indicators, 2014 edition. Luxembourg: Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union).Google Scholar
CORSTAT (Swiss Conference of regional statistical offices) & FSO (Swiss federal statistical office) (2012). Charter of Swiss Official Statistic, 3rd revised version.Google Scholar
de Vries, B. J. M., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Conceptualizing sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1006–1019.Google Scholar
Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) & European Statistical System Committee. (2017). European Statistics Code of Practice, revised edition 2017.Google Scholar
Gallopín, G. C. (1997). Indicators and their use: Information for decision-making. In Moldan, B and Billharz, S (eds.), Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Chichester: Wiley, pp.13–27.Google Scholar
Horn, R. V. (1993). Statistical Indicators for the Economic & Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Istat (Italian National Institute of Statistics) (2015). UrBes 2015 – Il benessere equo e sostenibile nelle città. www.istat.it/it/archivio/153995.Google Scholar
Lautenschütz, A.-K., & Pedrini, S. (2016). Indicateurs de qualité de vie dans les villes de l’Audit urbain. In Développement durable et qualité de vie dans les quartiers. Bern: ARE (Federal Office for Spatial Development), pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
Maggino, F. (2017). Developing indicators and managing the complexity. In Maggino, F, (ed.), Complexity in Society: From Indicators Construction to their Synthesis. Social Indicators Research Series, 70. Cham: Springer, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. (1998). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: A Report to the Balaton Group. Hartland Four Corners: The Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar
Neumann, U., & Seidel‐Schulze, A. (2010). Urban Audit Analysis II. Presented at the Statistische Woche 2010, SCORUS‐Session, Munich.Google Scholar
OECD. (1993). OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., and Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J., and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos, T. B. (2009). Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role of academia in this process: The Portuguese practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(12), 1101–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravetz, J. (2000). Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(1), 31–64.Google Scholar
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., and Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 119, 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneeberger, Y., & Jeanneret, B. (Eds.) (2018). Quality of Life in the Cities: Pocket Statistics 2018. Neuchâtel: FSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office).Google Scholar
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.Google Scholar
Sustainable Society Foundation. (2014). Sustainable City Index, SCI-2014. Retrieved from www.ssfindex.com/Google Scholar
Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., & Eijsackers, H. (2007). Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment & Development) (1992). Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations.Google Scholar
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) (2009). Measuring Sustainable Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Wachter, D. (2012). Benchmarking sustainable development in the Swiss confederation. In Fenna, A & Knüpling, F (eds.), Benchmarking in Federal Systems. Canberra: Productivity Commission and Forum of Federations, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
Willi, V., Wachtl, J., de Montmollin, A., Boesch, A., et al. (2012). Sustainable Development Report 2012. Neuchâtel: FSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office).Google Scholar
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations.Google Scholar
Yamato, N., Hamada, Y., Matsuda, M., Dustan, P., & Taki, N. (2017). Global Power City Index 2017: GPCI 10th Anniversary Special Edition. Tokyo: Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation.Google Scholar
Zoeteman, K., Mommaas, H., & Dagevos, J. (2016). Are larger cities more sustainable? Lessons from integrated sustainability monitoring in 403 Dutch municipalities. Environmental Development, 17, 57–72.Google Scholar