Carolien Gehrels explains the Sustainable Cities Index and its applications

Carolien Gehrels is European Cities Director at Arcadis, a global natural and built asset design and consultancy firm. She leads Arcadis’ European Big Urban Clients programme, which works with cities and large clients to attract investment and development. Previously Carolien worked as managing director of Berenschot Citymarketing and communications, then as Vice Mayor for Arts & Culture and Economic Affairs for Amsterdam.

In September 2016, Arcadis published the 2016 Sustainable Cities Index. The index presents the sustainability of 100 global cities measured with 32 indicators across three dimensions people, planet and profit. The Swiss city Zurich topped the 2016 Sustainable Cities Index. 

Can you introduce your work with Arcadis and the Sustainable Cities Index?

As European Cities Director, I work with Arcadis’ clients to improve the quality of life in cities. We combine local leadership with global expertise. For example, if a city has pressure on its mobility system, we try to find solutions to make mobility smarter and more sustainable. My role is to connect clients with the right specialists, and one approach is through city-to-city learning. For example, something innovative in Amsterdam could be exported to Berlin or Paris. The Sustainable Cities Index is a tool that can support city-to-city learning.

How did you choose the 100 cities that were covered in the index?

There were a number of criteria to choose the cities included in the index. Firstly, we covered the mega cities such as Tokyo, Los Angeles and Beijing. Secondly, we also wanted to cover as much as the globe as possible, so we included cities from Africa, South America and Australia of course. However, we also wanted to include cities that performed well and can show best practises – we suspected Zurich would score well. So we tried to select cities that would be inspiring. Therefore, it is a combination of factors – it is about size, quality and about geographic balance.

In fact we doubled the number of cities included compared to the 2015 report. Cities are interested in the index and disappointed if they are not included. Antwerp was disappointed not to be on the list last year, so we included them. Similarly, Dutch cities Utrecht and Eindhoven asked us to be included, so we did some additional research. They would have finished 8 and 26 on the 2016 list respectively.

Are there any limitations in the methodology that was applied? How easy is it to rank cities?

In developing the methodology, we tried to be as scientific as possible. For example, we tried to use data sources that we consider to be robust (such as from the World Bank, the OECD, and WHO etc.). However, there are limitations in any method. As an example, Amsterdam was surprised to perform poorly on “Green Spaces”. Amsterdam might have plenty of green space, but a lot of it is private gardens and waterways, which were not included as the indicator we applied focused on public green space. Therefore, that is why they thought they would perform better, but it also gives them an opportunity to improve, or to live with this.

So do you see urban planners using the data from an index like yours to influence decision-making?

Sure, take again Amsterdam, the city often complains that there are too many tourists, but when you compare the numbers to Paris or London, it is not so much. So you can ask - how do those cities handle their tourists? The challenge is to learn from other cities to find better solutions. Geneva or Rotterdam can also see they have very modest tourism numbers, so they have opportunities to grow. Based on this the cities can task their counsellors to find out how to improve.

From your experience, particularly with Amsterdam, do you perceive that cities have more agency or power to determine their own development than they did in the past?

If you mean in comparison to nations, well yes, I see it is growing. At the national level, people recognise that a lot is at stake if a city fails. Likewise, even so they can learn from each other each city is unique, so the challenges they face are different. What works in Paris is not always right for Berlin or Warsaw. City decision makers have to deal with their own challenges, so it is important they have their own agency, and increasingly they do. For example, in Rotterdam and Amsterdam the cities have their own economic development boards. These usually cooperate with the CEOs from big companies as well as knowledge institutions, and you see very good results.