Sustainable city rankings are highly contested but Montréal earns its titles

A great pleasure to to be in #Montréal, the “most #sustainable destination in North America”. These titles are highly contested, but the Canadian #city has a lot going for it.

As urban sustainability becomes an increasingly desired accolade for city planners, thus the titles that are awarded annually become a focus of attention and competition. The tourism authority in Montréal is keen to highlight its status as the most sustainable destination city in North America.

But look closer and the reality is that it is 33rd out of the 100 destinations analysed by the Global Destination Sustainability Movement, whose index is based on destination management, the environment, social issues, and suppliers. In fact Canada held nine of the top 10 slots in the region with only Washington DC going into the list.

Other indices are available; such as that from sustainable-economy research firm Corporate Knights that ranked Montréal 14th – but it was only the fourth best in Canada, showing that the methodology is crucial in determining the rankings. It looks at environmental and social factors but adjusts them according to cities’ ranking on the UN human development index, which includes life expectancy, education and income per head; income inequality and economic output per person. Design and engineering company Arcadis ranked Montréal 24th in 2022 (and eighth best in North America) but the city did not make the cut in 2024.

This is not to criticise the array of indices, which are useful in incentivising city authorities to raise their sustainability game, whether that is to attract interest from tourists, employers or investors. But it highlights the importance of understanding what is being measured, by whom, and why.

Critical analysis of a range of indices by a team of Iranian academics identified the risk that reliance on such indices can have adverse outcomes in terms of urban development, increases in inequalities, and the diminution in importance of cultural values such as social and spatial justice and public participation.

Rank and file them

The risk is that urban development strategies will be threatened by  conventional ranking systems that overlooked complex interactions while solidifying traditional typecasts. These can, of course, be offset by ensuring that it is clear what the agenda of the indexation is and constantly reviewing the ways that the results are published and presented.  In particular urban sustainability agenda will be different for a developed than a developing city. While issues such as greenhouse gas emissions are a priority versus for the former, crime and poverty are the more urgent problems for the latter.

The reason for the focus on Montréal was a holiday visit, rather than a scientific analysis. But from a very personal and non-codified perspective, the city has a lot going for it. Its investment into cycling infrastructure has made two wheel transport safe and effective without impacting motor traffic directly.

It’s four-line metro system is the third busiest in north America behind New York City and Mexico City with a fifth line under construction and a sixth on the drawing board. The council has a 10-year plan through to 2030 with  four action areas, three scales, and 20 action priorities and a 2050 plan to increase the amount of affordable housing while at the same improving green-oriented mobility, safety, quality of life and climate resilience.

Urban sustainable rankings are a mixed blessing. They can distract from long-term development agendas especially if observers do not look closely at what the methodology and is and whom they are aimed at. But on the positive side they can both incentivise and support efforts by city authorities to set urban transformation targets, win approval from citizens, and attract outside investment to help fund those.

My personal perspective – as a European self-funded tourist – was that Montréal was a very liveable city thanks to its public transport, bike-friendly streets, the range of small non-chain restaurants representing all cuisines, and network of small and large scale parks. That is also a reminder that each individual take on sustainability is different, and that the personal is distinct from the institutional.