Post on 16-Jul-2020
transcript
John Dagevos (Telos/TiU/SFU) Scorus-Europe Conference, Brussels, June 16-17 2015
Measuring local sustainability. The Telos approach
Content of presentation
• Introduction on Telos
• Telos 3P methodology in general
• The Benchmark approach for all 403 Dutch municipalities
• Results
• City typology
• Feedback from municipalities
• The importance of geographical scale
• Continuation
Telos sustainability Balance
• Developed as a monitoring and as a development device
• Based upon 3 capital model (economic, socio-cultural, ecologic)
• Aimed at integrating:
• the importance of expert-knowledge
• the political-normative nature of notions of SD
• the need for stakeholder participation and involvement
• the importance of a mobilizing perspective
• Hence
• a transparent, visual interface
• based on stakeholder involvement
• enabling focus and a shared problem ownership
The visual interface: the Triangle
A model consisting of capitals, stocks, requirements, indicators and norms
Methodology: the basic ingredients of the Telos approach
Term
Description
Capital
The three essential parts, subsystems of the total societal system: the ecological, socio-cultural and economic part
Stock
The essential elements which together determine the quality and quantity of a Capital
Requirements
The long-term goals which are formulated for the development of a stock
Indicators
Measurements which can be used to operationalize the requirements.
Norms/objectives
Set of standards to assess indicator values from a sustainability point of view.
The sustainability balance sheet
Stock 1
Stock 3
Stock 2 Capital
theories
Requirem
ents
/goals
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Indicator 4
Norm
s
Two types
• Tailor made: a specific balancesheet for a specific municipality based on
their own (long term) policy goals and using as much as possible local data
• Benchmark: for all municipalities in the Netherlands with a given set of
stocks, goals, indicators and norms
Stocks per capital (benchmark) Ecological Capital Social-cultural capital Economic Capital
Nature & Landscape Social cohesion Labor
Soil & Groundwater Participation Spatial local conditions for business development
Surface Water Safety Infrastructure, connectivity, mobility
Air Housing & Living Conditions
Economic Structure
Energy and Climate Health Knowledge
Waste Education
Hinder & calamities Arts and Cultural heritage
Examples of indicators per stock Energy and Climate Waste Safety
Residual Heat/district or urban heating
Residual waste Vandalism
Wind energy Organic waste Violent crime
Solar energy Paper Crime against property
Use of natural gas at household level
Plastic Juvenile delinquency
Use of electricity at household level
Glass Feelings of unsafety
Energy labels of houses Traffic accidents
• Pies per stock showing
the results of each
indicator
• Pies per capital showing
the overall score of a
stock
• A triangle showing the
overall score of the
capitals
Visual language: Results shown in the form of colored graphs
• For all 403 Dutch municipalities
• Data collection:
• Based on public available data sources: National Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Health
Services of Municipalities (GGD), National Soil Sanitation Survey, Biodiversity
Network, National Climate Monitor etc.
• Indicators were excluded if they were not available for all 403 municipalities or not
recent enough.
• Database of more than 90 indicators for each municipality (in forthcoming
2015 version 105 indicators)
• Setting of the Sustainability goals per stock and norms for each indicator
• Setting of the requirements/log term goals done by Telos based a.o. on national /
EU policy goals and 15 years of experience in this field
• Setting of the norms for each indicator done by Telos based on policy documents,
(international) agreements (e.g. the Water Framework Directive), comparison,
expert judgement
National Monitor Approach
Aggregated scores
Ecological capital Socio-cultural capital Economic capital
Aggregated scores at capital level
Aggregated scores at the level of a stock e.g. energy and climate
35
40
45
50
55
60
Total score
Ecologicalcapital
Socio-culturalcapital
Economicalcapital
Size of the municipality (inhabitants)
Sust
ain
abili
ty s
core
in %
What explains the scores? City size matters
What explains the scores? Variables Overall
score Ecological
capital Economic
capital Soc. Cult.
Capital
Social housing (%) -0.131*** -0.0634 -0.0362 -0.294***
Elderly people (%) -0.261*** 0.230*** -0.642*** -0.369***
Inhabitants with non Western
Nationality (%
-0.178*** -0.129 0.0421 -0.446***
Firms in tourist industry (%) 0.142* 0.119* 0.213 0.0940
Density of houses 0.00170*** 0.00120 0.000988 0.00292***
Migration of firms 0.101*** 0.0820* 0.123** 0.0983*
Employment Manufacturing ind. (%) 0.0481 0.0925** 0.00627 0.0455
Employment Services (%) 0.115*** 0.188*** 0.0507 0.106*
Voting behavior: VVD (%) 0.182*** -0.0128 0.144*** 0.415***
Voting behavior: SGP (%) 0.126*** 0.00569 0.0868* 0.284***
R-squared 0.365 0.194 0.256 0.513
Robust standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Our dilemma
The dilemma: no new benchmark with best and worst performing
municipalities but a faire comparison: apples with apples and pears
with pears
• Our solution: A typology of municipalities
• We distinguished different types, not excluding each other:
• Historical towns, old industrial cities, central cities, new towns, rural
cities, dormitory suburbs, green cities, towns with declining
population or with a growing population
Building typologies
• Based on literature we distinguished a number of variables that could be
used in constructing the typology that also could be recognized by
policymakers.
• Variables
• Population development (growth, declining, risk), employment function
(centres of employment, dormitory towns), age of the houses (old vs.
new), amenities, land use (forests/natural area, agricultural area),
industrial past
Example of Fair comparison: comparing the scores of old industrial cities
Ecological
Social
cultural
Economic
Some patterns (preliminary results for 2015)
City-type Overall Ecological Economic Soc. Cult.
Growing ++ ++
Shrinking -- -- --
Green ++ ++ ++
Work ++ --
Dormitory - +
Centre - ++ --
Agricultural - -- -
Historic -
New ++
Tourist ++ + --
The importance of geographical scale for designing a sustainability monitor
• Some issues are strongly related to certain geographical levels and need first and
for all be monitored at those levels, others can be analyzed and monitored at a
higher level
• The interaction between different geographical levels is important in analyzing
and looking for solutions for sustainable development: partly because people are
performing/living at different levels (changing daily urban systems because of
growing mobility), partly because the different levels (neighborhood, municipal,
regional, national, global) are interacting and interdepend.
Feedback received from cities • They love the idea of fair benchmarking. They are tired of benchmarks
• They use it in their strategic visioning process
• In a number of cases the results are the basis at city level of a new political coalition
agreement and are used by the City council (e.g. of Tilburg) to give account of the
progress made towards sustainability
• They see it as instrument to stimulate integral thinking within the municipal
bureaucracy
• They see it as an instrument to have discussions with external stakeholders about
their contribution
• We more or less have developed a language to talk about sustainable development
Do’s and don’ts
• Depends on the type of monitor one is developing. A Tailor made
sustainability balance asks for a different approach than a benchmark.
• For the benchmark: combine this with a typology of municipalities to be
able to make a fair comparison
• Be aware of the importance of geographical scale. Some issues are strongly
related to certain geographical levels and need first and for all be
monitored at those levels, others can be analyzed and monitored at a
higher level
• The interaction between different geographical levels is important in
analyzing and looking for solutions for sustainable development: partly
because people are performing/living at different levels (changing daily
urban systems because of growing mobility), partly because the different
levels (neighborhood, municipal, regional, national, global) are interacting
and interdepend.
Next steps
• We’ve got an assignment from the Dutch ministry of Infrastructure and
Environment for monitoring and reporting the results at national level on a regular
basis. VNG is also involved.
• In the upcoming version of 2015 we’ll integrate more data out of the Dutch Energy
and Climate Monitor and of the Monitor for Sustainable Mobility
• We’re developing a policy monitor which, in combination with the results of our
National Monitor, can help to understand better which policies are more effective
• We’re developing time series for further scientific analysis
• We’ve got an assignment of the Dutch ministry of Interior for developing a
benchmark monitor for at least 100 European municipalities in relation to the EU
urban agenda and the Dutch presidency of the EU in 2016: we could use some
help from you!!
• Thanks for your attention and patience!!