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!!