the sustainable

cities index
ranking the largest 20 British cities

October 2007
contents
This report was compiled by Claire Cowley, Peter Madden, Tara Quinn and
1 introduction 3
Tom Winter. The authors would like to thank the following people and
organisations for their advice and assistance: Stephen Hall – DEFRA, Phillipa
2 the indicators 4 Lynch - Audit Commission, Kieran Stanley - Environment Agency and a range of
local authority officers from the 20 cities who provided data and help. Please note
3 the cities 6 that the report is the responsibility of Forum for the Future alone, and has not
been endorsed by any of these people or organisations.

4 the top 20 7
Forum for the Future - the sustainable development charity - works in partnership
with leading organisations in business and the public sector. Our vision is of
5 lessons from this ranking 13
business and communities thriving in a future that is environmentally sustainable
and socially just. We believe that a sustainable future can be achieved, that it is
6 conclusion 15 the only way business and communities will prosper, but that we need bold
action now to make it happen. We play our part by inspiring and challenging
7 appendices 16 organisations with positive visions of a sustainable future; finding innovative,
practical ways to help realise those visions; training leaders to bring about
change; and sharing success through our communications.

www.forumforthefuture.org.uk

Registered charity number: 1040519

Registered office: Overseas House,

19-23 Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN

Designed by Ideas

2
contents

1 introduction
This study ranks Britain’s 20 largest cities according to social, schemes have taken environmental issues properly into account,
economic and environmental performance. Through it, Forum and they will generate emissions that will cause huge problems in
for the Future hopes to bring some rigour to the debate about years to come. The time is now right to transform that approach.
‘green’ and sustainable cities. We also hope that the ranking
will engender healthy competition amongst our leading cities. Britain has a strong urban tradition. We should be leading the
way in showing the world how to live sustainably in cities.
the importance of cities Yet most of the examples generally highlighted in the literature
– such as Curitiba, Mannheim and Gothenburg - tend to be from
Every year more and more people worldwide end up living in other parts of the world.
cities. We are now a majority urban world, and this trend will
intensify. The environmental implications of this are enormous, Some UK cities do want to turn this round. Leicester says it was
making some issues (public transport, waste minimisation and the first ‘Environment city’, declaring its intent as early as the Rio
low-carbon housing) easier to deal and some (total energy Summit in 1992. Leeds and Peterborough set a similar path not
consumption, air pollution and overall quality of life) a great long after, and others are now joining the fray - Manchester has
deal harder. set itself the goal of becoming ‘the Greenest City in Britain by
2010’, Bristol wants to become a ‘Green Capital’, Sheffield calls
As mega-cities such as Mumbai, Sao Paulo and Shanghai grow itself ‘The Green City’ while London intends to be nothing less
we have no choice but to learn to live together in sustainable than ‘the most sustainable city in the world’.
ways. This will mean providing a high quality of life for all urban
residents. It will also mean reducing the impact that cities have Laudable as these aspirations are, they lack common, clear and
on the wider world. The impact of cities tends to extend beyond objective baselines against which to measure progress. Many of
their population or geographical area, with urban areas having a these claims have not been externally assessed. Forum for the
disproportionate environmental impact on the rest of the world. Future therefore felt that an objective study, where cities could be
London, for example, has an ecological footprint 293 times its rated against others according to a broad range of criteria and
geographical area (a land-mass roughly twice the size of the UK). benchmark themselves to measure future progress, was overdue.

sustainable cities in the UK We hope this index will help cities themselves, and people within
them, make progress towards living in a more sustainable
In the UK, around nine in ten people live in urban areas. Many of way and to reduce their overall impact on the environment.
our cities have seen substantial regeneration over the last The real issue is a simple one: how can we blend the economic
decade, and huge new investments in further urban regeneration dynamism of cities with the need to create cohesive, high quality
are now underway. Unfortunately, very few of these mega- communities within environmental limits?

3
 2 the indicators
Forum for the Future chose three baskets of indicators against Measuring these two baskets gives a more balanced approach.
which to rank the cities. But we felt that we needed a third set of measures to capture the
contents progress each city is making on the journey toward sustainability.
• The Environmental Impact of the city – the impact of the The Future Proofing category rates cities in terms of their
city on the wider environment in terms of resource use progress, and how well they are preparing for the future.
and pollution.
Within these three categories, we also took care to select at least
• The Quality of Life for residents – what the city is like to some indicators which reflect how city dwellers themselves rate
live in for all its citizens. their area, particularly in terms of ‘liveability’. We used a total
of 13 indicators, spread across the three baskets.
• Future Proofing – how well the city is preparing itself for a
sustainable future. This kind of study can be carried out using a range of different
types of indicators and definitions. Quality of life indicators are
These index categories were selected to reflect the sustainability potentially very diverse and subjective, with listings compiled to
of each city in a fair and balanced way. For example, if we just include everything from happiness to the weather. We believe
looked at the first category of indicators – the Environmental that the indicators we have selected provide a ranking that is
Impact of the city – then this might not reflect what the city is like rigorous and fair. The indicators use existing data on aspects
to live in. Past research suggests that focusing on these criteria of performance on which cities are already expected to make
alone could favour less wealthy cities, where residents can have improvements. We will be able to measure these indicators
a lower environmental impact because of disadvantage. year-on-year.

Alternately, looking just at Quality of Life indicators would

tend to produce results which favoured the richer
cities disproportionately.

4
 what are the 13 indicators? 6. Resident satisfaction with green space.

The indicators are as follows. A full description can be found 7. Resident satisfaction with local bus service.
in appendix 1.
8. Unemployment - the number of claimants as a percentage
contents A. Environmental Impact of working age population.

This basket of indicators reflects the wider environmental 9. Education - percentage of the working age population with
impact of the city. NVQ2 or equivalent.

1. Air quality - the annual average for particulates. C. Future Proofing

2. River water quality – the percentage of rivers where biological This set of indicators reflects, in more dynamic terms, the
and chemical qualities were deemed to be good or fair. progress the city is making towards sustainability.

3. Ecological footprint - the impact of services, housing, travel 10. Local authority commitments on climate change - local
and housing on the environment. authorities were rated against three criteria on how they are
tackling climate change.
4. Waste collected per head - a partial proxy for the resources
used per capita. 11. Green business per capita - the number of environmental
businesses listed on yell.com.
There is, as yet, no robust data on C02 emissions per capita on a
city-by-city basis. 12. Biodiversity – percentage of land deemed to favour
biodiversity.
B. Quality of Life
13. Recycling – improvement in recycling between 2000/01
This basket of indicators reflects what the city is like to live in and 2005/06, and the overall level of recycling.
and how it is performing in broader sustainability terms.
Where data was not available for an individual city, we used the
5. Healthy life expectancy at 65 - the number of years a person average across the other cities in the index.
can expect to live in “good” or “fairly good” self-perceived
general health.

5
 3 the cities
ii iii
why these places? The 20 cities we rated are as follows:

Forum for the Future selected the 20 major cities in its rankings
Birmingham Leicester
by using Office for National Statistics population data, and the
availability of data sets, many of which are based on local Bradford Liverpool
authority boundaries. The decision as to which indicators to use Brighton and Hove London
was based primarily on how well collated figures would represent Bristol Manchester
a complete picture of sustainability, as noted above, and to an
Cardiff Newcastle
extent whether data were available at local authority level.
contents Coventry Nottingham
We made a qualitative assessment as to the definition of a ‘city’, Edinburgh Plymouth
considering the list of the largest local authority urban areas.
Glasgow Sheffield
Some metropolitan areas were not included as they were made
up of a range of smaller urban areas rather than one distinct city. Hull Sunderland
However, data is generally available from all local authorities for Leeds Wolverhampton
the indicators we have used. We encouraged local authorities
and areas not covered here to rate themselves against our
criteria to see how well they perform.

6
 4 the top 20
so, who won? differences by index category

Our study shows that, in 2007, of the top 20 cities by population, For the Environmental Impact indicators, incorporating air quality,
Brighton and Hove is currently the most sustainable in Great water quality, ecological footprint and household waste per
Britain. Edinburgh comes second, while Bristol is in third place. capita, Wolverhampton comes bottom and Bradford comes top.
Liverpool is the least sustainable of this top 20, with Hull in If we were judging on this ranking alone, Bradford would be the
18th place and Birmingham coming 19th. greenest city.

overall ranking overall score

The Quality of Life index draws on data such as levels of
1 Brighton and Hove 166.9 education and employment, the provision of green space and
2 Edinburgh 156.3 public transport, and life expectancy at 65. On this index
3 Bristol 154.4 Brighton and Hove comes top, while Hull comes bottom.

4 Plymouth 148.3
The Future Proofing index seeks to quantify the extent to which
5 Leeds 141.1 a city is preparing for anticipated social and environmental
contents
6 Cardiff 136.1 changes. It measures the council’s response to climate change,
the number of ‘green businesses’ in the area, biodiversity and the
7 Sheffield 133.5
trends in composting and recycling. On this index Brighton and
8 Newcastle 133.3 Hove again comes top whilst Liverpool comes bottom.
9 Bradford 129.9
10 London 127.6
11 Nottingham 122.7
12 Manchester 120.2
13 Sunderland 118.6
14 Leicester 109.0
15 Glasgow 104.7
16 Wolverhampton 101.8
17 Coventry 97.5
18 Hull 91.0
19 Birmingham 79.4
20 Liverpool 76.7

7
 ranking for Environmental Impact ranking for Quality of Life
city score city score
1 Bradford 61.0 1 Brighton and Hove 74.4
2 Bristol 57.0 2 Edinburgh 62.8
3 Plymouth 55.5 3 Bristol 56.4
4 Cardiff 50.5 4 Cardiff 55.6
5 Sunderland 49.0 5 Plymouth 52.8
6 Newcastle 47.5 6 London 51.6
7 Hull 46.0 7 Leeds 49.6
8 Leicester 45.0 8 Manchester 45.2
9 Leeds 42.5 9 Newcastle 44.8
10 Sheffield 41.5 10 Wolverhampton 38.8
11 Glasgow 41.0 11 Leicester 38.0

contents 12 Coventry 39.5 12 Nottingham 37.2

13 Liverpool 37.5 13 Sheffield 36.0
14 Edinburgh 36.5 14 Bradford 32.4
15 Brighton and Hove 35.5 15 Birmingham 30.4
16 Nottingham 33.5 16 Coventry 30.0
17 London 31.0 17 Glasgow 27.2
18 Manchester 31.0 18 Liverpool 27.2
19 Birmingham 30.0 19 Sunderland 25.6
20 Wolverhampton 29.0 20 Hull 24.0

8
 ranking for Future Proofing
city score
1 Brighton and Hove 57.0
2 Edinburgh 57.0
3 Sheffield 56.0
4 Nottingham 52.0
5 Leeds 49.0
6 London 45.0
7 Manchester 44.0
8 Sunderland 44.0
9 Bristol 41.0
10 Newcastle 41.0
11 Plymouth 40.0
12 Bradford 36.5
contents
13 Glasgow 36.5
14 Wolverhampton 34.0
15 Cardiff 30.0
16 Coventry 28.0
17 Leicester 26.0
18 Hull 21.0
19 Birmingham 19.0
20 Liverpool 12.0

9
 the top performing cities council signed up to Scotland’s Climate Change Declaration,
and recently giving the green light for a new tram system, due
Overall, Brighton and Hove came top of all the cities rated in for completion in 2011. The Scottish capital scored very well on
Great Britain. It was also top of both Quality of Life index and air quality, although the waste and ecological footprint scores
the Future Proofing index, though it was 15th on the index for were relatively poor. Employment, education and healthy life
Environmental Impact. Priority areas within its Sustainable expectancy were all rated well for the city. The transport score
Community Strategy include the promotion of: sustainable was only average. Green business and recycling were rated well.
transport, resource efficiency and environmental enhancement, The high Quality of Life rating reflects the city’s overall affluence,
and a healthy and sustainable economy. More widely the city capital city and UNESCO World Heritage Site status, as well as
council’s current strategic goals include ensuring that it wealth of public open spaces. The high score for Future Proofing
contributes to the UK Sustainable Development Strategy. is encouraging as it indicates that the city realises that there is
much still to be done in terms of sustainability.
The fact that Brighton and Hove is in the South East, the most
affluent region of the country, is reflected perhaps in the higher Bristol comes third on the overall index. The city came second
scores for the quality of life cluster and the lower score for on the Environmental Impact index after Bradford. On Quality of
environmental impact. Brighton also has a very green population. Life it was third and on Future Proofing it was ninth. Bristol has
In the 2005 General Election, the Green Party won 22% of the aspirations to become a ‘Green Capital’. The Bristol Partnership
contents vote in the Brighton Pavilion constituency, the highest ever Green has set an ambitious agenda for the city towards creating a high
vote in a Westminster parliamentary election. quality environment, tackling the causes of climate change and
creating a clean and attractive built and natural environment.
Although the score for waste collected per head was good, air Bristol is also home to a number of high-profile green
and water quality and particularly ecological impact let Brighton organisations, such as the Environment Agency, Sustrans and
and Hove down. Public transport, green space, healthy life the Soil Association. The city performs well on the impact
expectancy and education all came up well for the city, with indicator with only air quality being significantly lower than
employment also being rated positively. Local authority average in the rankings.
commitment to tackle climate change was rated very well,
along with recycling. Biodiversity and green business scores On Quality of Life, the city’s transport is rated very poorly by its
were middling. citizens pulling down the score for this index, as all other scores
in this group are reasonably high.
Edinburgh came second on the overall index. The city came 14th
on the Environmental Impact index (above Brighton and Hove) Biodiversity and recycling scores are relatively low in the
and second on both the Quality and Life and Future Proofing Future Proofing index although the city gains the top score for
indexes. This is borne out in its current actions, with the city green businesses.

10
 the poorer performers Air and water quality indicators let Birmingham down in the
Environmental Impact basket, although waste collected
Liverpool, which will be the European Capital of Culture in 2008, per capita and ecological impact measures were rated
came bottom in our overall rankings. It was rated as 13th on more positively.
Environmental Impact, scored 18th on Quality of Life, and came
bottom for Future Proofing. On the Quality of Life indicators, Birmingham was rated poorly
for employment and for education. Transport and healthy life
Liverpool was bottom on water quality of the 20 cities, but did expectancy were middling in the rankings with green space
not perform so badly on air quality and ecological impact. scoring relatively well.
The figure for waste collected per head for the city was one
of the most positive. Birmingham scored relatively poorly on local authority action on
climate change, biodiversity and green business, although the
Employment, education and healthy life expectancy let Liverpool recycling indicator was slightly more positive for the area.
down in the quality of life indicators with the city performing
relatively well on transport. Birmingham City Council’s Plan 2006+ has a cleaner, greener,
safer city as a key priority, with a focus on improving the city’s
All indicators for Future Proofing came out relatively poorly transport and tackling congestion. However, more attention to
contents for Liverpool, as suggested by its placing in this basket of Future Proofing is required.
indicators overall.
Hull came 18th out of 20 in the overall ranking. The city came 7th
However, the city does not lack ambition in terms of its future on the Environmental Impact ranking, last on the Quality of Life
sustainability. In its Corporate Plan, Liverpool City Council is ranking and 18th on the Future Proofing ranking. Hull’s waste
aiming for a green and sustainable city, with key priorities score was relatively poor, with air and water quality average. The
including: waste minimisation, recycling, green transport, Environmental Impact indicator was relatively positive for the city.
renewable energy and energy and water conservation. If it Although transport was rated relatively highly, all other quality of
delivers on these priorities, Liverpool could make progress life indicators let Hull down.
against indicators within all three baskets, although further
development of plans in relation to climate change is required Recycling rates were relatively positive but again all other
to substantially improve the city’s future-proofing. indicators let the city down in this basket.

Birmingham came 19th in the overall rankings. Although Hull City Council’s Community Strategy 2006-2011 targets an
Birmingham has made huge advances over recent years in the overall increase in quality of life for those living and working in
quality of its public spaces, it clearly has some way to go on the the city. The focus should help to deliver improvements in
wider sustainability issues. The city came 19th on Environmental the city’s Quality of Life indicator, but like the other poorer
Impact, 15th on Quality of Life and 19th for Future Proofing. performers, the focus in relation to Future Proofing must
be further developed.

11
 other cities in the list Environmental Impact, reflecting the size of its Environmental
Impact. It was sixth in the Quality of Life ranking. In Future
Plymouth came fourth on the overall index. Some might see this Proofing, the city also came sixth.
as a surprisingly high score for a city which suffers from the
physical legacy of 1960s development. However, it scored Nottingham came 11th out of 20 in the overall ranking. The city
consistently well across a range of categories, also coming third came 16th on the Environmental Impact index, 12th on the
on Environmental Impact (after Bradford and Bristol), fifth on Quality of Life index, but fourth on the Future Proofing index.
Quality of Life and 11th on Future Proofing.
Manchester came 12th in the overall ranking. On the
Leeds came fifth on the overall index, ninth on Environmental Environmental Impact ranking, Manchester came 18th but on
Impact, seventh on Quality of Life and fifth on Future Proofing. Quality of Life the city came eighth. Future Proofing was best
though – the city came seventh on this.
Cardiff came sixth on the overall index, fourth on Environmental
Impact, fourth on Quality of Life and 15th on Future Proofing. Sunderland came 13th in the overall ranking. This was despite
coming fifth on the Environmental Impact ranking and eighth on
Sheffield came seventh on the overall index. The city has more the Future Proofing ranking. The city was let down by its 19th
than 200 parks, woodlands and gardens. It has been working to place in the Quality of Life ranking.
contents fulfil a fully integrated Environmental Strategy for the last three
years, with a strong emphasis on it’s green spaces and urban Leicester came 14th in the overall ranking. The city came 8th on
fringe woodlands, so we might expect it to do better in coming the Environmental Impact and 11th on Quality of Life. On Future
years. Sheffield came 10th on Environmental Impact, 13th on Proofing the city came 17th out of 20. Fifteen years ago,
Quality of Life and third on Future Proofing. Leicester showed early leadership in tackling environmental
issues. It has now slipped back.
Newcastle came eighth out of 20 in the overall ranking. The city
came sixth on the Environmental Impact index. It came ninth on Glasgow came 15th in the overall ranking. The city came 11th
the Quality of Life index and 10th on the Future Proofing index. on Environmental Impact, but 17th on Quality of Life.
On Future Proofing the city came 13th.
Bradford came ninth in the overall ranking despite coming first
in the Environmental Impact index. The city came 14th on the Wolverhampton came 16th in the overall ranking, despite coming
Quality of Life index and 12th on the Future Proofing index. bottom of the Environmental Impact ranking.
The city came 10th on the Quality of Life index and 14th on the
London has taken a lead on climate change, with one of the Future Proofing index.
most ambitious civic climate change action Plans in the world.
The London Climate Change Agency is a model that many other Coventry came 17th in the overall ranking. The city came 12th on
cities are now looking to follow. Overall, however it only came the Environmental Impact ranking and 16th on the Quality of Life
10th out of 20 in the ranking. The city came 17th on ranking. It also came 16th on the Future Proofing ranking.

12
 5 lessons from this index
overall, our cities still have a long way to go of their income from tourism, and it makes sense therefore for
them to invest in a high quality physical and green environment.
British cities still have a long way to go on the journey to
sustainability. For example, while we can congratulate Brighton the Midlands needs to catch-up
and Hove on coming first, it still has a very high environmental
footprint. Cities like Bristol and Plymouth perform well on Quality The four cities from the Midlands which we included in the
of Life and Environmental Impact, but poorly on Future Proofing. survey – Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester and Wolverhampton
They may be storing up problems for the future, particularly if – all fell in the bottom third of the table. It is not clear why they
they experience rapid economic and population growth. performed so badly.

Performance needs to improve across the board in cities such as iconic projects are not the answer
Hull, Birmingham Liverpool, Coventry. They are doing badly and
do not appear to be preparing well for the future. The dominant model of city development over the past 10 years
of ‘urban renaissance’ has emphasised iconic architecture and
affluence helps grand projects to help re-brand and boost cities. The stars of this
model of development - Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and
Unsurprisingly, the wealthier cities tend to do better in the index. Birmingham - have invested heavily in this form of civic
These cities may have more resources to devote to sustainability leadership and redevelopment.
issues. And affluence might explain why voters here are more
concerned about green issues: the average vote for the Green The index would seem to indicate this formula is weak at
Party in the 2005 General Election was seven per cent across the delivering environmentally and overall quality of life, and may
contents top three cities, and only one per cent across the bottom three. distract from broader set of criteria of what makes a successful,
sustainable and liveable city. Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool,
service-based cities do well Birmingham are all in the bottom half of the table, pointing to a
need to widen the debate and review the model, rather than all
Again, this is not surprising. The top cities tend to be ones which chasing a narrow formula for success.
are building their future in the service industries, and do not have
to deal with such a difficult industrial legacy. Of these service The English cities that perform better are Leeds, Bristol and
industries, tourism would appear to be particularly influential. Plymouth, all cities which have not gone down the iconic
Both Brighton and Hove (first) and Edinburgh (second) earn a lot ‘trophy-collecting’ regeneration road.

13
 leadership and resources are vital

The local authorities of all 20 cities have corporate priorities

and statements of intent in relation to climate change and/or
sustainability, quality of life and environmental impact. On the
surface this would indicate that they are switched on and
committed to making strides towards sustainability. However,
as the Future Proofing indicators highlight, the challenge lies in
translating these top level aims into meaningful targets, with
properly resourced programmes of activity to achieve them.
Without strong leadership and resources there is a danger
that our cities will not be able to meet the sustainability
challenges ahead and improve their overall performance
in relation to the index.

contents

14
 6 conclusion
One of today’s most compelling challenges is to ensure that all
urban settlements meet the needs of their citizens as sustainably
as possible. This is a huge challenge. Over the course of the next
few years, Forum for the Future will be working to help cities
make progress in achieving that overarching objective.

Forum for the Future intends to update this ranking every year, to
assess cities’ progress towards sustainability and to encourage
improvement. We hope that cities themselves, as well as smaller
towns and local authority areas, will use the data indices as their
own rankings of progress. We are also keen to involve local
authorities and others in discussion as to the study and ways
we can encourage each other to move towards a much more
sustainable future.

contents

15
 7 appendices environmental and social terms. The indicator measured the percentage of
residents who think that for their local area, over the past 3 years, the parks
and opens spaces have got better or stayed the same. Data for Cardiff was
appendix 1 – the 13 indicators taken from Cardiff Service Questionnaire July 2006 – the percentage of local
residents rating parks good and very good.
A. Environmental Impact 7. Resident’s satisfaction with local bus service (England: DCLG; Wales; Cardiff
Service Questionnaire 2006; Scotland: Scottish Executive) – This was chosen
This basket of indicators reflects the wider environmental impact of the city. to reflect the standard of public transport in cities. England – percentage of all
respondents satisfied with local bus service. Scotland – percentage of
1. Air quality – the annual average of PM10 (particulates) for local authority respondents who thought that buses were on time. Cardiff - percentage of
areas - taken from the UK air quality archive 2004 (hosted by AEA Energy respondents very and fairly satisfied with local bus services overall.
and Environment on behalf of DEFRA). These particulates are a significant 8. Unemployment (number of claimants as a percentage of working age
pollutant in the UK, shown to have detrimental impacts on health. population- NOMIS) – This was chosen to reflect the economic status of
The indicator was chosen as a suitable figure to reflect ambient air quality in a city and its population.
local authority areas. 9. Education - percentage of the working age population with NVQ2 or
2. River water quality – percentage of rivers where biological and chemical equivalent (NOMIS). This indicator reflects a broader range of attainment
qualities were deemed to be “good” or “fair” as rated by the Environmental outside of the narrower scope of GCSE and A-Level performance.
Agency in 2005. This was chosen to reflect a city’s impacts on, and
management of, its rivers and the potential impact on the ecosystems reliant C. Future Proofing
on them. We took the total score from 200 (sum of percentage of river water
deemed to have good and fair chemical quality + the percentage of river This set of indicators reflects the progress the city is making towards
water quality deemed to be biologically good and fair). sustainability.
3. Ecological footprint (Ecological Budget UK 2006) – This indicator considers
the impact of services, housing, travel and housing on the environment. 10. Local authority commitment on climate change – Local authorities were
It measures the global hectares of land needed to sustain the population asked three questions relating to how they are tackling climate change. (a)
4. Amount of waste collected per head (Audit Commission) – This indicator is Does the council have a published climate change action plan or equivalent?
a proxy for resource use per capita. (b) Does it have ring-fenced resources designated for tackling climate
change? (c) Do the council’s CO2 targets exceed the government’s?
B. Quality of Life Some councils have action plans set up for council buildings but to be
awarded points the action plan had to be city-wide. To be awarded points for
This basket of indicators reflects what the city is like to live in the climate change action plan it also had to published and on their website.
for all its residents and how it is performing in broader sustainability terms. 11. Green business per capita – Number of green businesses on yell.com under
the categories of Environmental Consultants, Water Conservation and
5. Healthy life expectancy at 65 (ONS) – This indicator reflects the number of Management, Energy Saving Consultants, Conservation Groups and
years a person can expect to live in “good” or “fairly good” self-perceived Pollution Control divided by local authority population as defined by ONS.
general health. This indicator was chosen as a loose reflection of the number of ‘green’
6. Resident satisfaction with green space (England: Audit Commission; Cardiff: orientated businesses in a city. These businesses should help the city
Cardiff Service Questionnaire) – This was chosen because the accessibility prepare for a future in which sustainability is taken more seriously.
and quality of green space in a city is integral to sustainability both in

contents

16
 12. Biodiversity – percentage of land deemed to favour biodiversity
(Environment Agency 2000).
13. Recycling – improvement in recycling between 2000/01 and 2005/06, and
the overall level of recycling (England: DEFRA; Scotland: SEPA; Cardiff:
Cardiff City Council). This was chosen to reflect a city’s effort in increasing
its recycling rate, reducing its impact and making a contribution to a more
sustainable future. Improvement was measured by change in percentage of
recycling and composting between 2000/01 to 2005/06. Then extra points
were added onto the resulting ranking to reward authorities with high
recycling rates in 2005/06, three points for those over 15%, six points for
those over 20% and nine points for those over 25%.

The following caveats about the data should be noted:

• Water quality: data were not available for Brighton or Edinburgh so an

average was taken from the 18 other cities for these areas’ indicators.
• Household waste collected per capita: Cardiff was unable to provide data so
an average was taken from the 19 other cities.
• Green space: Comparable data not available for Scotland so an average
of the 18 other cities was taken.
• Recycling: Newcastle and Coventry data were not available for the 2000/01
baseline, so an average was taken from 1999 and 2000 data.
• Biodiversity: Data was not available for Cardiff so an average was
calculated from the other cities.

contents

17
 Appendix 2 – ranking in the different indicator baskets

ranking for Environmental Impact

City Air quality Water quality Waste collected Ecological Aggregate ranking
per head footprint for first basket

1 Bradford 17 15 15 14 61

2 Bristol 9 18.5 14 15.5 57

3 Plymouth 15 18.5 2 20 55.5

4 Cardiff 13 18.5 8 11 50.5

5 Sunderland 16 12 4 17 49

6 Newcastle 18 18.5 7 4 47.5

7 Hull 10 11 6 19 46

8 Leicester 1 16 18 10 45

9 Leeds 14 8 12 8.5 42.5

10 Sheffield 12 13 10 6.5 41.5

11 Glasgow 19 6 3 13 41

12 Coventry 4 7 13 15.5 39.5

13 Liverpool 11 1 19 6.5 37.5

14 Edinburgh 20 9.5 5 2 36.5

15 Brighton and Hove 8 9.5 17 1 35.5

16 Nottingham 2 14 9 8.5 33.5

17 London 3 5 20 3 31

18 Manchester 6 4 16 5 31

19 Birmingham 5 2 11 12 30

20 Wolverhampton 7 3 1 18 29
contents

18
 Appendix 2 – ranking in the different indicator baskets

ranking for Quality of Life

City Employment Transport Education Green space Healthy life Weighted ranking
expectancy for second basket

1 Brighton and Hove 15 20 19 19 20 74.4

2 Edinburgh 20 10 20 9.5 19 62.8

3 Bristol 18.5 1 15 20 16 56.4

4 Cardiff 18.5 15 18 5 13 55.6

5 Plymouth 17 5 11 16 17 52.8

6 London 13 12.5 10 11 18 51.6

7 Leeds 14 5 16 13 14 49.6

8 Manchester 9 12.5 14 17 4 45.2

9 Newcastle 11 7 17 15 6 44.8

10 Wolverhampton 4 14 1 18 11.5 38.8

11 Leicester 5 18.5 2 12 10 38

12 Nottingham 6 18.5 7 8 7 37.2

13 Sheffield 16 8 9 4 8 36

14 Bradford 12 10 5 2 11.5 32.4

15 Birmingham 1 10 4 14 9 30.4

16 Coventry 7 2 12.5 1 15 30

17 Glasgow 8 3 12.5 9.5 1 27.2

18 Liverpool 3 16 6 7 2 27.2

19 Sunderland 10 5 8 6 3 25.6

20 Hull 2 17 3 3 5 24
contents

19
 Appendix 2 – ranking in the different indicator baskets

ranking for Future Proofing

City Climate Biodiversity Green Change in Aggregate ranking
change strategy business recycling for 3rd basket

1 Brighton and Hove 10 11 12 24 57

2 Edinburgh 0 13 19 25 57

3 Sheffield 5 17 15 19 56

4 Nottingham 5 9 18 20 52

5 Leeds 5 18 7 19 49

6 London 15 8 5 17 45

7 Manchester 0 16 11 17 44

8 Sunderland 0 20 1 23 44

9 Bristol 10 6 20 5 41

10 Newcastle 5 10 17 9 41

11 Plymouth 0 15 14 11 40

12 Bradford 5 19 2 10.5 36.5

13 Glasgow 0 13 16 7.5 36.5

14 Wolverhampton 0 1 9 24 34

15 Cardiff 0 13 13 4 30

16 Coventry 0 7 8 13 28

17 Leicester 10 2 10 4 26

18 Hull 0 3 3 15 21

19 Birmingham 0 4 6 9 19

20 Liverpool 0 5 4 3 12
contents

20
 Appendix 3 - sources

1. Air quality. The annual average of PM10 (particulates) 9. Education. Number of people with NVQ 2 equivalent: e.g. 5 or more GCSEs
for Local Authority areas. Source: UK Air Quality Archive – 2004 levels. at grades A-C, intermediate GNVQ, NVQ 2, intermediate 2 national
qualification (Scotland) or equivalent as percentage of the working
2. River water quality. The percentage of rivers where biological and chemical population. Data taken from NOMIS. Stats are for Jan 2006 – Dec 2006.
quality is deemed to be good or fair. Data was not available for Brighton or
Edinburgh and so an average from the 18 other cities was used. Source: UK 10. Climate change. Local authorities were asked three questions. 1. Does the
Defra e-Digest Environment Statistics, Inland water quality and use. council have a published climate change action plan or equivalent? 2. Does
it have ring fenced resources going towards climate change? 3. Does the
3. Ecological impact. Source: Ecological Budget UK. council’s CO2 targets exceed the government’s? For each question
answered yes the authority was awarded five points. Some councils have
v
4. Kg of waste collected per head. Source: DEFRA (England) SEPA (Scotland) action plans set up for council buildings but to be awarded points the action
and Cardiff City Council (Wales). plan had to be city-wide. To be awarded points for the climate change action
plan it had to published and on their website.
vi
5. Healthy life expectancy at 65. Source: ONS (England and Wales) 2001;
Scottish Executive (Scotland) 2000. 11. Green Business. Number of green business (on yell.com) found under these
five headings, per head of population. 1. Environmental Consultants.
6. Green space. Source: Audit Commission (England) - % of residents who 2. Water Conservation and Management. 3. Energy Saving Consultants.
think that for their local area, over the past three years, that quality of parks 4. Conservation Groups. 5. Pollution Control. Data gathered September.
and opens spaces have got better or stayed the same. Web source: Data for
Cardiff taken from Cardiff Service Questionnaire July 2006 - percentage of 12. Biodiversity. Percentage of land deemed to favour biodiversity, provided by
local residents rating parks good and very good. Comparable data not the Environment Agency from Land Use Cover 2000. Data not available for
available for Scotland so an average of the 18 other cities was taken Wales and Scotland so an average was calculated from the other cities.

7. Transport. England and Wales: percentage of residents satisfied with the 13. Recycling. Percentage change in household composting and recycling from
local bus service. Taken from two different sources: In England this is a 2000/2001 to 2005/2006. Newcastle and Coventry data not available to
vii
BVPI, the data for Cardiff was taken from the 2006 Cardiff City Council 2000/2001 - an average from 1999 and 2002 data was taken. English data
service questionnaire. Scottish data is on the Scottish Executive website from DEFRA. Scottish Data from SEPA. Welsh data from Cardiff City Council.
and is taken from the National Household Survey, percentage of Points were added on to rankings to ensure that councils that had high
respondents that felt that their buses are on time. recycling rates in 2000/01 were not penalised. Three points added on if
2005/06 the percentages was over 15%. Six points if over 20%.
8. Unemployment. Job Seeker’s Allowance claimants as percentage of working Nine points if over 25%.
viii
age population, taken from NOMIS. Stats for July 2007.

contents

21
 footnotes
i ‘City Limits’ report, Best Foot Forward, 2002.
ii Belfast was not included because of unavailability of data in many categories
and therefore the index is not UK wide
iii London data was calculated by using an average of all local authorities within
the Greater London Authority boundary, except for the indicator on climate
change strategy.
iv Since the two other baskets both used four sets of indicators and this basket
used five, the Quality of Life basket has been weighted to make it equal to
the other baskets in the final analysis.
v DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
SEPA – Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.
vi ONS – Office for National Statistics.
vii Best Value Performance Indicator, indicators which all English local
authorities have to collect on certain services.
vii NOMIS – web based national database of labour market statistics.

contents

22