Energy & GHG

Jun 16, 2010

Is Darwin really Australia's most sustainable city?

The ACF's Sustainable Cities Index seems to be more about getting publicity than adding to the stock of useful information

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

So, who knew intuitively that Darwin and the Sunshine Coast are Australia’s most sustainable cities? These startling revelations are from the Australian Conservation Foundation’s newly released Sustainable Cities Index, which examined the country’s 20 largest cities across 15 indicators. Our least sustainable city is Perth, closely followed by Geelong.

And contrary to The Age’s headline that “Melbourne trails in sustainable cities index” and “pales in comparison with Darwin and Brisbane”, Melbourne is the 7th most sustainable of the 20 cities studied (Brisbane is 3rd).

I’ve previously looked at the inappropriateness of the Mercer and Economist indexes as measures of a city’s liveability and I think the ACF’s index is less useful. It seems to be more about publicity than useful research – a feeling reinforced by an absence of technical information on the methodology. It’s actually not an environmental sustainability index per se, but rather a mish-mash of environmental, quality of life and resilience indicators.

It includes indicators like subjective well-being, the rate of volunteering, unemployment levels and the proportion of the population with type 2 diabetes.

I’m sympathetic to the argument that sustainability connects deeply to other facets of life – as the ACF puts it, it’s about learning to live within our environmental means while maintaining social cohesion and liveability. But the fact is most readers of the newspapers that reported on this study (see here and here) think of sustainability as a largely environmental concept. I agree with them – there’s a danger that stretching the term to include liveability measures will ultimately devalue its usefulness and render it virtually meaningless. It would be more sensible to have two or three separate indexes rather than one.

Notwithstanding the confusion about what it’s intended to measure, does the Sustainable Cities Index approach its task in a sensible way? Straight off there are some worrying methodological issues.

First, there is no weighting of the 15 indicators – they are all of equal value. So, the level of education of a city’s citizens, for example, is just as important as their ecological footprint in assessing the relative sustainability of different cities. This is a major shortcoming. A handful of key variables usually account for most of the variation when studying social phenomena, so why would we expect this to be any different?

Second, the range of differences on some indicators is very small. For example, Darwin ranks second best on subjective wellbeing with a score of 76.6 whereas Perth ranks third last with a score of 74.3. Melbourne ranks fifth worse on public participation with only 12.6% of residents volunteering in some capacity, compared to the top city, Bendigo, where 17.5% of residents volunteer. These are small differences and the case isn’t made that they mean something, yet they feed into the overall score with the same weighting as other indicators.

Third, some of the measures are highly questionable even allowing for the inevitable simplification forced by the use of an index. Population density, for example, is used as a measure of quality of life – the higher it is, according to the report, the higher the quality of life. However anyone who’s followed the current population debate knows that there’s no consensus that higher density is better.

Many Australians, probably most, think density is bad – higher costs, higher congestion, more social conflict. The Premier knows what the polls are saying and announced a plan on the weekend to channel more growth to the regions as an alternative to further growth in Melbourne. I like density but I’m not falling for the idea that everyone else necessarily does.

The ACF seems to use density as a measure of accessibility to services like schools and medical services. It would be better to use a more direct measure that, for example, estimates the number of services available within a defined travel time, or simply use the average time it takes by different modes to get to key destinations like work.

Fourth, some of the indicators, notably the number of farmers’ markets and the number of green building projects, are simply out of scale with the other indicators which are mostly much more strategic. In regard to buildings, it would be preferable to use a much broader measure such as the environmental efficiency of all new buildings.

Overall, this isn’t a good index. It’s too unfocused about what it’s measuring and methodologically it’s made some bad choices. Darwin can get off the stage and Perth can relax. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s much more about getting publicity than about adding to the body of knowledge. Coming from an institution like the ACF, that’s disappointing.

PS: in light of my comments yesterday, it’s good to see that both the hard copy and the online editions of The Age ran this story with a link at the end to the ACF’s report – we need more of this.

(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “Is Darwin really Australia's most sustainable city?

  1. Does being the the most liveable city in the world mean anything? « The Melbourne Urbanist

    […] culture, education and infrastructure. However, as I’ve explained before (here, here and here), there are a number of reasons why liveability league tables are best left to the […]

  2. David Hunter

    Hi Alan,

    Good blog post. I wish I found it earlier. I was looking for information about the Tiara project in South Bank last month.

    At the time, the developer was deciding on diesel driving piling or a noise and vibration free technology and asked our opinion.

    We looked into the choices and voted for the silent gpile system because of the close proximity to the casino, neighbouring technology businesses and the even closer residential buildings. But the developer went with the old school piling technique instead of embracing the new green technology.

    Usually this is done to save cash but the hammer piling was more expensive. I am still shaking my head at the decision. I wonder why developers only want to be the leaders in marketing and not sustainable engineering. They could have won over the community, been thought leaders in the green building industry and saved time and money. hhhm.

    Anyway, this might be a good blog post for you in the coming months as the piling begins, titled ‘bang bang Southbank wake up Tiara is being built’.

    I write this because I found out that a new project in Darwin (Wharf 2) is considering the new silent piling technique, for the communities sake I hope the gpile team gets the contract. This could one more green construction leadership role and another reason that Darwin polls so well in the livability rankings. The ability and willingness to adapt and embrace new technologies for their community.

    I will keep you posted on the Wharf project Alan.

    To see a quick video demo of the noise and vibration free gpile technology have a look at this link:

    Keep up the good blog Alan.

    Regards, David.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details