City sustainability ranking must be treated with caution, but act as a fillip for reform

Spring means many things for urban geographers, but one is a slew of rankings of the world’s cities, whether for growth, liveability, smartness or even sustainability. As urban environments continuously evolve, it is of course essential to regularly examine whether and how they work, focusing on the effectiveness of public services and how local insights can address emerging urban challenges.

Photo by Pawel Nolbert on Unsplash

City performance evaluations have become a global trend, with both public and private organizations developing comprehensive ranking systems. These measurement tools claim to provide guidance for local policymaking, with a particular focus on sustainability initiatives. The rankings reflect an underlying competitive dynamic where cities strive to demonstrate their economic potential and attractiveness.

Each index is supported and funded by an organisation that will have its own agenda and priorities and therefore must be viewed through that lens. The Happy City Index from the Institute of Quality of Life, a new think tank devoted to understanding and enhancing the quality of life in urban areas. It takes its inspiration from Plato’s comment in The Republic that “this City is what it is because our citizens are what they are”. It places Copenhagen first, followed by Zurich and Singapore.

The World’s Best Cities by Ipsos and a consultancy called Resonance, has ranked cities according to which is, err, the best. Using a combination of core statistics and user-generated data from online sources such as Google, Tripadvisor and Instagram to measure liveability, lovability, and prosperity, it puts London first, followed by New York and Paris.

Then there is IESE Business School's 2025 Cities in Motion Index which assesses urban centres globally, examining their sustainability and citizen well-being across nine critical dimensions. For the third consecutive year, London has been crowned the world's most intelligent city, with New York and Paris secured the second and third places, respectively

But as this blog looks at sustainability, what might world cities look like when ranked on that measure? The proliferation of urban ranking systems has been significant in recent years. One of the best known as The Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index that has been running for a decade. Developed in collaboration with the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), it uses the widely accepted three core pillars of sustainability of the environment, society and economy that it calls Planet, People and Profit.

The assessment for this year is not out yet but 2024’s gives the top five places to western Europe. Amsterdam tops the table, followed by Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Frankfurt and Munich. The next one is expected in June.

One academic research team examined 21 different urban sustainability rankings, focusing on their methodological approaches and underlying mechanisms. The study revealed several critical limitations in these evaluation tools. Specifically, the rankings often oversimplified complex urban dynamics, lacked transparency in their data collection and scoring processes, and demonstrated inherent biases.

As the authors state, city rankings, benchmarks and indexes have become a central instrument for assessing and monitoring cities, with the implication that planners, investors and potential residents will take decisions based on the rank placings. The primary issue is that public presentations of results tend to emphasize the final numerical score while largely overlooking the critical methodological foundations. In other words, there is not enough focus on the methodology — or the black box as they call it — that is used to produce the rankings.

They find that the publicly available information is insufficiently detailed to enable a comprehensive assessment of the scientific integrity of these measurement and monitoring tools. Moreover, the complex analytical mechanisms make it extremely challenging — if not entirely impossible— to critically examine how a city's specific score is actually derived.

These methodological shortcomings have notable consequences. The rankings tend to marginalise poorly performing cities and inadvertently reinforce existing urban stereotypes. The findings highlight the need for more nuanced and comprehensive approaches to understanding urban performance and sustainability.

However, ranking can play a role if they act as an incentive for city leaders to raise their game and take steps that will raise their ranking by improving conditions for residents on the ground. Of course, the “black box” concerns apply here, but if the reforms are focused then an uplift in the ranking can be a sign for business, investors and potential residents to come to that city in pursuit of greater sustainability.

Photo by Kelly Kiernan on Unsplash

Sitting uncomfortably: public health goes down the drain as toilet access dries up

When people think about what is needed to make a city sustainable, a public toilet will probably be low on that list — if it’s there at all. But this most convenient of conveniences is vanishing from cities like London, making us all — but certain groups particularly — much worse off.

Some time back, my late mother was visiting London and needed, as she would say, to spend a penny. She went into an Italian café, ordered a coffee, paid the money and asked if they had a toilet. Returning to the counter, the owner asked what coffee she wanted. “No, don’t worry about that. I just needed to use your lavatory. Please give a coffee to the next customer.”

The owner might have been happy to let her use the facilities without buying a coffee but many cafes either have signs reading “For paying customers only” or a lock on the door, for which the combination is available only on a till receipt for a drink.

My mum, with her old school values, was disappointed by the lack of public toilets but also aware of what bargain she needed to strike. But for many people and especially lower income mothers in cities with overpriced coffee, that is not an option.

Public toilets are essential for everyone, regardless of age, class, ethnicity, gender or physical and mental abilities. They are particularly crucial for the elderly, people with disabilities, menstruating and pregnant women, families with young children and visitors. Although the Public Health Act 1936 allows local governments to provide public toilets, it does not require them to do so. This lack of obligation, combined with concerns about potential problems these facilities might cause, has likely contributed to fewer public toilets being available in recent years.

Public toilet availability in London has significantly decreased over the past decade, according to recent findings from Age UK London. The data show that between the 2013/14 financial year and now, public toilet closures have outpaced openings by a ratio of 3:1. In concrete numbers, 97 public toilets have been permanently shut down during this period, while only 32 new facilities have been established. In February, the British Toilet Association initiated a campaign advocating for legislation to require local councils to increase the number of public facilities available.

My own borough, Camden in northwest London, may have as few as three public toilets still open (of which one is closed for an upgrade). Of the others, one became a cocktail bar (now shut), another a coffee bar, a third is a music studio and a fourth is, pardon the pun, “to let”. The gap is filled to some extent by what academics have called “away from home toilets” — for example in restaurants, shopping malls and department stores.

To let, London NW1

Music studio, London NW5

Shopping centres have certainly supplemented provision, but they are few and far between, while department stores tend to be in traditional town and city centres such as Oxford Street and Croydon. This leaves the unspoken deal whereby staff and managers at big pubs and large counter-service hamburger joints turn a blind eye to people coming in just to use the facilities. Some railway stations woefully installed turnstiles that required payment although some — such as Victoria — have now correctly reverted to free provision.

The reason to reverse this trend is that inadequate public toilet facilities interfere with effective health initiatives, economic growth, social integration and environmental conservation efforts. For governments aiming to develop sustainable urban centres and encourage use of public transport, bicycles, and pedestrian travel, sufficient public restrooms are crucial as they represent a critical but often overlooked component. Limited toilet availability restricts people's freedom of movement and ability to navigate cities effectively.

Of course, what I am writing about could be seen as a “first world problem”. While the United Kingdom faces serious deficiencies in public toilet provision, global conditions are substantially worse: of the world's 7 billion inhabitants, over 2 billion lack access to basic necessities including water, sanitation, electricity and toilets. Mobile phones now outnumber toilets worldwide. In our increasingly urbanised world where half of people live in cities, one-third reside in informal settlements.

Both situations are imperfect, and the gravity of the global situation should not be an obstacle to rich countries pulling their belt up a bit. The outstanding example is Tokyo. A groundbreaking initiative in Japan is highlighting this typically overlooked infrastructure to showcase the significance of toilet design globally.

THE TOKYO TOILET Project engaged renowned architects and artists to transform public restrooms across the city into spaces fostering creativity, community, and inclusion. The initiative has already developed 17 new facilities designed by 16 different creators throughout the Shibuya area, each featuring unique designs and characteristics that have turned the project into both an internet phenomenon and a popular attraction for visitors.

The results received international attention thanks to the Wim Wenders film Perfect Day that centres around the daily routine of a public toilet cleaner. If that is what it takes to flush some excitement into this overlooked infrastructure, so be it.

Derelict, London NW5

Working toilet, London NW3

London is becoming dangerously inequal — the consequences of inaction are severe

Cities will always contain stark inequalities between rich and poor. As Plato wrote two millennia ago, they are “a combination of many … two at least — one of rich folk, the other of poor”. That has been true of great cities such as London, New York, and Paris and is still the case now. But are cities such as London reaching the point where that divide is forcing an exodus that will ultimately make it unsustainable?

Hardly a week goes by without news of another state school in London planning to shut its doors or merge with a neighbour because of falling school rolls. March 2025 saw staff, pupils and parents at two Islington primary schools threatened with closure hire old Routemaster buses to launch a public appeal for a halt.

Part of the reason is a demographic “timebomb” that is expected to see a 13 per cent fall in the primary and nursery school population in England by 2032, according to the Department of Education. That fall will impact London more significantly: the number of five-year-olds in the capital is forecast to fall by almost a tenth. The projected student enrolment for reception classes in London — the entry year into primary school — is expected to decline by almost 8 per cent from 96,424 students to 89,121 in the four years to 2027 alone, according to data from London Councils, which represents the 32 London boroughs and the City of London.

The reasons are multiple. Several inner London primary schools are set to close or combine due to declining enrolment, as families relocate to find more affordable housing and childcare options, and European residents departed first after Brexit and then during the Covid-19 pandemic.

On top of that are the pressures from the cost of living, primarily housing. Historic rises in house prices have put property purchase out of the reach of many, pushing the poorest groups into rented housing. But rents have been pushed up as demand has risen; data from the Office for National Statistics show living costs for private renters rose faster than any other group in 2024.

Private renter households experience highest inflation in 12 months to December 2024

Weak rental laws put the power in the landlord’s hands making six-month tenancies standard and until recently allowing non-reason evictions. That is before one thinks about illegal overcrowded lets. So, these tenants will too flee in pursuit of more affordable homes. Those who want to keep their jobs in the capital will have to commute longer distances, leaving them more tired as a result.

London faces significant poverty issues, with 2.2 million of its nine million residents living in poverty - the second highest rate in any English region according to new Joseph Rowntree Foundation findings. Child poverty is even more severe, affecting over one-third (34.8%) of London's children. The report warns that rising social housing rents could worsen poverty levels, as benefit caps may leave low-income tenants without adequate coverage for housing costs.

But London’s population is not shrinking, so these urban emigrants are being replaced by new blood. Housing developments in London are catering for single people and young couples coming to take high-paid jobs in the city, before moving out to have families. Where more affordable “social” housing is built it is often as a few units attached to a private development (which are often negotiated away by the developer who insists that including those makes project financially unjustifiable).

Is it fanciful to think this cannot continue and could lead to a fracturing of the city? Not according to an academic study by King’s College London, which warns that wealth inequality risks triggering “societal collapse” within the next decade. Growing poverty alongside increasing wealth inequality and an excess of elite individuals in society tends to lead to societal breakdown unless deliberate measures are taken to prevent this outcome, it warns. Although focused on the UK it is likely applicable to its biggest nine million-strong city.

London faces economic pressures that are dispersing long-standing ethnic communities and altering neighbourhood cultural identities, it notes. The city is experiencing social unrest with violent demonstrations between rival groups, coordinated attacks targeting government and corporate facilities, shortages of essential supplies like food and fuel, healthcare systems under strain, and transportation failures caused by extreme weather conditions. Despite having greater resources available to manage these challenges, London is still confronting violence and disorder from protesters and rioters who have come from elsewhere.

The hope is that policymakers both in London and nationally can take action now to avert that. The Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, and London Councils have set out a 100-page growth plan that includes a goal to raise the “real household weekly income” of the lowest-earning 20 per cent of Londoners by 20 per cent within a decade.

There is an emerging consensus on how to achieve that. University of Oxford professor Ian Goldin in his book Age of the City written with Economist writer Tom Lee-Devlin, identifies three pillars — fairer schooling, fairer housing, and fairer public transport. Dave Hill, a journalist and author specialising in London, suggests better health, skills and jobs, more affordable housing, and nurturing small businesses.

The vision of a sustainable city can never be fully realised when a quarter of its population is struggling to make ends meet, often barely surviving. The wealth gap in the UK presents serious and growing challenges, but they are not impossible to overcome. With strong political will, a variety of effective policies, regulations, and reforms can be introduced and accepted by the public to tackle the risks associated with this disparity. Urgent action on wealth inequality is necessary, as the consequences of inaction are far too severe.