SUSTAINABILITY IN PRACTICE - Sciences Po · 2019-07-18 · contributing to the most recent Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index (SCI). The SCI explores the People, Profit and Planet dimensions

SUSTAINABILITY IN PRACTICE Comparative review of London, Paris, Hong Kong & New York City

Hillary Birch

Adrienne Evans

Dominika Mocova

Emma Pacchiodo

Sixiao Yang

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 3 METHODOLOGY 3 URBAN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES OF THE FOUR CITIES 6 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 7

AFFORDABILITY & INCOME INEQUALITY 10 POLARISED METROPOLISES 11 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY & GOVERNANCE 13 TOWARDS SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE HOUSING 14

Transforming the Housing Market through Local Fiscal Measures 15 Creating Affordable Living within the Private Housing Market 15 Improving Affordability by Maximising Potential for City Spaces 16

TACKLE INEQUALITY TO ADDRESS URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 17

HEALTH & WELL-BEING 18 BETTER HEALTH THROUGH URBAN MOBILITY 19 URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS 22 SPATIAL PLANNING IS A DETERMINANT OF URBAN HEALTH 24

CARBON EMISSIONS 25 CARBON EMISSIONS IN LONDON, HONG KONG, PARIS & NYC 26 CITIES AS POLICY LEADERS OR FOLLOWERS 27 ENERGY SYSTEMS 29 HOUSING STOCK 30 AIR POLLUTION 33 REACH CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION TRANSVERSALLY 34

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT 35 ACCESSIBILITY 35 ELECTRIC AND HYBRID BUSES 36 ELECTRIC VEHICLE INCENTIVES 37 BICYCLE INITIATIVES 38 AIR POLLUTION 39 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT IS MULTIMODAL 41

WASTE MANAGEMENT 43 GOVERNANCE OF WASTE 43 WASTE COLLECTION & TREATMENT 44 WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY 46 CARBON EMISSIONS 48 WASTE MANAGEMENT UNDERPINS SUSTAINABLE URBAN GROWTH 48

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & EMPLOYMENT 50

Sustainability in Practice, 2019 1

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE FOUR CITIES 51 LEVERAGING ENTREPRENEURSHIP 53 HARNESS CITY-LEVEL POLICIES TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH 55

SMART CITY INITIATIVES 56 ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS IN DECISION MAKING THROUGH DIGITAL TOOLS 56 SMART CITY GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS 58 DIGITAL INCLUSION IN SMART CITIES 59 THE PROMISE OF OPEN DATA 60 SMART CITIES MUST ACTIVELY PURSUE SUSTAINABILITY 62

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 63 THE POTENTIAL OF INTERMODALITY 63 FINANCING RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE 68 MULTILATERAL PLANNING SUPPORTS ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY 71

CONCLUSION 72

ENDNOTES 74


INTRODUCTION

This report is an in-depth comparative analysis of London, New York, Paris and Hong Kong,

contributing to the most recent Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index (SCI). The SCI explores the

People, Profit and Planet dimensions of city sustainability in order to develop a deeper

understanding of the underlying characteristics that enable some cities to put sustainability

into practise more successfully than others. The SCI is intended to drive discussion on the

nature of this long-term success as cities strive to meet the needs of their people today and

into the future. To build off the SCI, this report explores the cities in-depth in order to identify

trends and policies that determine London’s, New York’s, Paris’ and Hong Kong’s

successes.

A number of trends were brought to light in the latest SCI, trends that will be explored more

fully in this comparative review. In the rise of digital disruptions and shifts to a

knowledge-based economy,cities must take on these changes while remaining focused on

long-term resilience. To do so, the SCI highlighted how urban sustainability comes from a

wide range of policies that focus on three main components: building an educated and

healthy workforce, implementing low-carbon infrastructure and facilitating entrepreneurship

in the city.

The comparative analysis in this report builds upon these findings, offering deeper

understanding of the role of urban policies in promoting sustainable urban practices today

and in the long term.

METHODOLOGY The methodology for this report is based on the results and methodology of the biannual SCI

from which this comparative analysis is developed. As mentioned above, the SCI is based on

three pillars of sustainability: People, Planet, and Profit.


In the SCI each of these pillars is broken down into 7 to 11 subcomponents for each city

which are then weighted to produce a score of the pillar:

PEOPLE education; health; demographics; income inequality; affordability;

work-life-balance; crime; access to public transport services; transport

applications and digital capabilities; cultural offerings; cost of

broadband; digital public services (property tax); WiFi availability

PLANET environnemental exposure; green spaces; energy; air pollution;

greenhouse gas emissions; waste management; drinking water and

sanitation; bicycle infrastructures; electric vehicle incentives;

negatives emissions technologies - carbon capture and storage;

natural disaster monitoring

PROFIT transport infrastructure; economic development; ease of doing

business; tourism; connectivity ; employment ; university technology

research

The scores for the three pillars are combined to produce an overall score which denotes the

overall rank of the city within the index.

For this comparative report, London, New York, Hong Kong and Paris were selected

according to their significance as a global metropolis with urban populations over five million,

their rank near the top of the SCI, in which 100 cities are ranked, as well as their overall

comparability in terms of geography, governance, and economic development. London is


ranked first in the SCI followed by Hong Kong that is ranked as 9th; New York is in the 14th

position followed closely by Paris in the 15th position.

Building off of the SCI, this comparative study includes a broader approach to the collection

of appropriate data beyond those used in the Index itself, including a mix of academic

studies, key stakeholder reports and news articles to add further nuance to the initial SCI

results. In-person interviews and field visits were conducted in London in May 2019 with a

diverse range of stakeholders engaged in sustainability policies, key findings from which are

included in this report.

Primarily, this report makes connections to past and present policies that drive sustainable performance in these four cities, highlighting the key policy levers that inform the city's overall ranking across the three pillars. The case-study methodology of

this report complements the SCI which is largely driven by quantitative analysis under each

indicator. In this report for each pillar, best practices from each city are brought forward,

based on current drivers of policy performance, key challenges to city-level policies, and

future prospects of policy success. Through this approach it is possible to distinguish what

drives a city’s performance on the SCI ranking, allowing for substantive comparative analysis

that is both quantitative and qualitative.

Additionally, this report identifies key challenges and opportunities faced by each city. To do so, the report synthesizes projections for policies and its impacts on sustainability,

developing a comparative analysis of past policies that drive current performance. The report

also suggests future opportunities and challenges that can help inform the practise of

sustainability in other cities as well as the work of practitioners such as Arcadis.

Finally, the report is less broad in scope than the original SCI in order to best structure the large amount of information data collected during this analysis.

Importantly, certain subcomponents that were included in the initial SCI have been merged

where there is significant overlap in terms of content or framing with regards to key policy

areas. As such, the comparisons made here that not intended to cover all the policy areas or

subcomponents of the SCI, but rather to demonstrate important lessons that other cities

could adapt as their own.


URBAN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES OF THE FOUR CITIES

Key to understanding city’s sustainability lies in understanding how policies decisions are

made. For example, to what extent is the decision-making independent from other levels of

governance? How fractured is the power within the city? Who has the ability to create and

implement new initiatives? To answer these questions, a presentation of governance

structures is necessary.

London, the capital of the United Kingdom, consists of 32 boroughs that carried out a

majority of local government functions. Since 2000, the Greater London Authority, placed

under the Mayor’s authority, oversees the metropolitan level Currently, the mayor of London

is Labour’s Sadiq Khan who will be up for election in 2020. GLA’s role is to facilitate

coordination between boroughs and set the general mayoral strategy for London as a whole,

since individual boroughs have very different identities, struggles, political affiliations and

goals. Metropolitan police and transport, with Transport for London, are a sole responsibility

of GLA. However, the capacity to innovate and introduce new measures highly depends on

resources that are very limited, especially at the GLA level. Additionally, borough councils

after important budgetary cuts are mostly dependent on property and business council tax,

transforming the power dynamics in London’s governance.

New York City (NYC), the most populous city in the USA, was consolidated into its present

form of five boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) within one

city government in 1898. The strong mayor-council system in NYC relies on elected mayor

representing the executive branch of power, and the council as the legislative body. The

city’s government is in charge of public education, water supply, security, and welfare

services. Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, is currently serving his second and final term as the

Mayor, so the elections in 2021 mean a new political direction for the city. In addition to the

NYC government, there exists smaller governmental entities - 5 borough boards with elected

presidents and 59 community boards appointed by the borough president. Despite strong

and complex city governance, the power of state and federal government on NYC,

controlling and setting the agenda for transport and social housing respectively, should not

be underestimated, as different levels of governance constantly interplay.

Hong Kong is a region of the People’s Republic of China with a unique separation from the

national government. Indeed, its official name is the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region, most commonly called Hong Kong (HK). The metropolis is headed by a Chief


Executive, currently Carrie Lam since July 2017. The executive council, a cabinet full of

advisers, guides her on main policy determinations. At the highest level, the legislative

council passes and supports public expenditure. It also regulates the city's administration. At

the district level, eighteen district councils guide the management of policies in their

corresponding sections. Then, the government, as an executive, is composed of the

government secretariat and diverse departments. Government secretariat bureau expresses

procedures and launches parliamentary motions. Finally, departments execute regulation,

implement plans and produce assistance to the district's population.

Paris is the capital of France. Since 1860, the municipality is composed of twenty municipal

“arrondissements” or districts. Each of Paris's twenty arrondissements has its own "city"-hall

and a directly elected assembly, which names an arrondissement mayor. A range of

members from every arrondissement assembly makes the Council of Paris. There are

currently 163 councilors for Paris. This city council chooses the mayor of Paris. Anne Hildago

has been chosen as Mayor in 2014 and will hold the office until 2020. Moreover, Paris is a

département, a subregional authority level. At this particular level of governance, Ms. Hidalgo

is also the head of the département assisted by the Council of Paris. Paris is also the capital

of the region called Île-de-France since 1976, it includes Paris and seven nearby

départements. For better efficiency, the metropolitan area called Grand Paris has been

created to strengthen the city’s role on the international scene.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Overall, through this in-depth analysis of Hong Kong, London, NYC, and Paris, important

trends across the four cities emerge, demonstrating how cities can successfully put

sustainability into practise:

Engage in multilateral policy-making: Engaging across traditional policy silos both within

and between city and regional institutions appears as a key determinant of a city’s ability to

put sustainability in practise. London has been particularly successful at leveraging

multilateral policy, allowing its transport sector to move the city towards greater sustainability.

Transport for London (TfL) offers and excellent example of how an integrated transport

management across different transport modalities determines future growth and allows a

shift to sustainable transportation. This model uniquely combines functions normally

separated in cities, from transportation planning of major roads to public transportation.


London’s government can set cohesive priorities with TfL, offering an excellent mechanism

through which transformative policies for sustainability can be implemented. Tackle economic and social inequalities: These cities have not been able to cope with

growing inequalities through local policies. As is demonstrated in this comparative analysis,

inequalities in large cities are consistently higher than the national averages, despite these

cities being global economic hubs. Growing urban inequalities coupled with increasing

poverty rates are not sustainable in the long run as they impact other factors such as health,

crime and economic development. Meanwhile, cities are in global competition for capital, so

redistributive measures that going hand-in-hand with taxation appear to risk international

investment that cities require to thrive. Additionally, measures that could tackle inequality are

rarely under the purview of city level or metropolitan governance, making local policies that

could reduce the polarisation of society even more difficult to implement. However there a

examples of city’s leading efforts to lessen inequalities at the city-level. For example, Paris

has taken an advantage of the support of the national government by introducing new fiscal

measures that tackle high vacancy rate and the commercial use of housing in the city. This

report shows how economic and social inequalities need to be a focus as these challenges

continue to grow.

Pursue transversal policy objectives: This study found that policies which address not just

one component of the SCI but many demonstrate some of the most significant results and

hold the greatest potential for transformative approaches to sustainability in practise. For

example, London’s Health Streets Approach, which seeks to change the built environment to

improve health for individuals, has significant positive impacts on sustainable transportation

while improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. NYC has similarly been

able to harness the benefits of transversal policy through its hugely successful Clean Heat

program that both improved air quality and reduced carbon emissions in the city. In Paris, the

Velib’ bike-sharing scheme is another example of how city-level policies focusing on active

transport can have positive impacts across pillars, limiting carbon emissions, promoting

better well-being and health, while also improving connectivity in a city.

Leverage entrepreneurship: The knowledge-based economy has expanded what local

level governments can do to influence a city’s economic development. In this way,

governments can serve as a public entrepreneur and venture capitalist, allowing for greater

economic prosperity which underpins sustainability in a city. New York City has successfully


positioned itself as a global tech city in order to diversify its economy and support economic

growth. The Mayor’s Office and the New York City Economic Development Corporation have

lead efforts to promote NYC as a tech hub while also implementing coordinated policies to

address NYC’s weakness. This deliberate promotion of a city as a tech destination can allow

cities to leverage their comparative advantages to attract economic development. Hong

Kong similarly leverages its comparative advantages as an emerging smart city, ensuring its

competitiveness on the global stage. However, to ensure long-term sustainability such

policies must not run in opposition to the pressing need to reduce economic inequalities and

achieve greener urban development objectives.


THE PEOPLE SUB-INDEX

The ranking of cities in the People Pillar reflects quality of life and opportunities leading to

social mobility for its residents. London scored the best out of the four cities and is at the

second position, closely followed by Paris at the third position. Hong Kong and NYC did

considerably worse and were ranked respectively 21st and 30th. This most important

subcomponents included here are income inequality and affordability, especially around

housing, are discussed. Secondly, health and well-being are analysed. Throughout these

comparisons, attention is given to policies that achieved significant results and provide best

practice examples of how cities can put sustainability in practice.

AFFORDABILITY & INCOME INEQUALITY

Affordability and income inequality combined represent 23% of the People Pillar with the

former rightly weighted as the most important subcomponent of the People pillar at 15%. The

two strongly impact quality of life, but indirectly influence other key subcomponents to city’s

sustainability, such as crime, health, or education. However, despite their high ranking as

sustainable cities, London, Paris, New York City, and Hong Kong all seem to be defined by

their lack of affordability, especially when it comes to skyrocketing housing prices. An

average price of property in Hong Kong currently corresponds to 19.4 years of average

income, making it the least affordable city in the world.1 Average rent outside of the city

centre in Hong Kong is still unattainable for a large portion of the population, since it is twice

as high as the minimum wage. Similarly, only 0.3% of those who make minimum wage in

NYC can afford to pay the market rent. Moreover, the current minimum wage in both London

and Paris can barely cover rent for one bedroom flat.2 3

However, what seems to be a failure from the perspective of sustainability can often indicate

an economic success of these cities, since they succeeded in attracting large amounts of

national and international capital leading to increasing prices, as the market caters to a more

high-end demand. In 2018, NYC was home to 103 billionaires, 10 more than in Hong Kong.4

These high-performing metropolises are not only home to rich individuals, but also home to


companies worth billions, including new dynamic ones. London is the most dynamic in

Europe with 36 ‘unicorn’ companies (startups worth than USD $1 billion), 31 more than

Paris.5 These two sides of polarisation of metropolises - extreme poverty side by side with

unbelievable wealth seem to be an inherent characteristic of a modern day successful city.

Addressing affordability and income inequality on the city level proves to be a difficult task,

as they are the result of national and global economy. Moreover, any redistributive and fiscal

measures are fixed or approved on the national level. Cities often initiate projects requiring

large funding to increase their housing stock to improve affordability. Those often fail either

due to lack of resources, time constraints or the necessity to produce profit in return, making

the new structures again unavailable for low income populations. On the other hand, Paris

has taken an advantage of the support of the national government by introducing new fiscal

measures that tackle high vacancy rate or commercial use of housing in the city; policies

deemed successful as they are being copied in other cities. Moreover, an efficient way to

improve quality of life while taking advantage of empty spaces in the city is their innovative,

flexible and low-cost use, as it is the case in London.

POLARISED METROPOLISES

Growing income inequalities are a mirror of both enormous success and plummeting

affordability of these cities that are otherwise successful in the SCI. The former are most

traditionally measured by Gini coefficient that, if higher than 0.5, indicates an unequal

society. All Hong Kong, Paris, NYC, and London (with the highest Gini coefficient worldwide

at around 0.53 in Hong Kong and NYC) surpass this threshold.6 What is more concerning is

that the Gini coefficient of all four cities keeps increasing every year, leading to a more and

more polarized society. This process seems to be linked to an evolution of political will, which

actively supports markets that consequently attracts new capital. It opposes welfare oriented

public policies popular after the Second World War, and puts local residents in disadvantage.

Neoliberal measures that accelerated economic growth of London, NYC, and Hong Kong

since the 1990s facilitated capital mobility and its concentration in these financial hubs, while

dispersing production and hence weakening organisation of workers and urban dwellers.7 An

example of such policies is the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act in NYC, that abandoned mitigating risks on new incoming capital by

welfare benefits. As observed in the SCI, despite similarly high rates of income inequality,


Paris is doing substantially better when it comes to affordability, mainly due to nation-wide

fiscal redistributive policies.

What is extremely worrisome is that income inequality, as well as poverty are increasing; for

example, in London, over the last ten years the poverty rates among young people increased

by 70%.8 Similarly, homeless population in Hong Kong has been consistently growing over

the last five years. Only in the last year, it increased by 22%.9 Hence, cities need to address

needs of all their residents as increasing polarisation of the society is unsustainable in the

long run and would have negative impacts on the economic development and profit in the

cities. On the other hand, most redistributive measures that could decrease the gap between

the high and low income groups are not a competence of the city level governance.

Nevertheless, despite income inequality being an inherent part of a capitalist city, local public

authorities have the power to

impact its spatial distribution. This

power can be observed through the

concentration of low income

populations, and specifically

affordable housing, in certain parts

of the city. London has opted for

the mixed-communities approach,

mixing low, middle and high

incomes in one borough. Hence,

the income inequality is very

visible: Kensington & Chelsea, one

of the wealthiest areas in London,

was also home to Grenfell tower.

Furthermore, 25% of all homes in

Westminster are classified as

public (affordable) housing.10 Due

to the strong polarization of the

housing market in central London,

most of the middle class is pushed

out to Greater London, as they can

not afford properties on the private market, and they do not qualify for public housing.11 In


NYC, there are stark differences in poverty rates between neighbourhoods; it is 30.8% in

Borough Park (Brooklyn) but 8.8% in Greenwich Village/Soho (Manhattan).12

As opposed to NYC, low income populations in Paris are concentrated in the same areas

since 1970s. Most of Paris’s affordable housing is located in the North (18th, 19th, and the

20th arrondissements) and in the East (13th arrondissement), which each has over 30,000

affordable housing units.13 In the wealthiest neighbourhoods (6th and 7th arrondissements)

less than 3% of all housing is affordable, despite the national legal requirement for each

municipality to have at least 20% of public housing.14 In Hong Kong, due to its small surface

(relative to the size of population) and extremely high density (6,300 people/km2), poverty

does not seem to accumulate in one area.

Despite a different spatial concentration of income inequalities in the four cities, there is no

consensus on what solution improves overall quality of life while being the most cost

effective for local authorities. Some academics argue in favour of mixed-communities as they

believe in a strong neighbourhood effect improving employability, income, education and

even health of working class families.15 On the other hand, others argue that the

neighbourhood effect can even have a negative impact on low income populations, and

maintaining mixed-communities puts too much pressure on a local public budget.16 Finally, it

is important to mention that spatial concentration of affordable housing is a good indicator for

New York City (and to a certain extent for Paris and London) of relative poverty, as only

46.9% of families work, and 13.3% receive public assistance.17 On the other hand, in Hong

Kong affordable public housing is also available to the “sandwich class” that has higher

income than low-income populations traditionally targeted by public affordable housing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY & GOVERNANCE

Despite differences in the definition of affordability across cities (for example in London,

affordability is defined as housing at 80% of the market value; in Hong Kong, any housing

run by the Government of Hong Kong, etc.), there is a affordable housing crisis in London,

Paris, and NYC. The most dire situation is in Hong Kong where over 200,000 people live in

subdivided flats, some of them in “cage houses” - on a few meters square in very poor living

conditions.18 The situation has escalated to the point that “one third of the rental class is

considering leaving the city entirely”.19 This dynamic is mostly due to the city’s dependency

on the influx of developer’s capital, as the money coming from the 50 year long leases of


land from the city to private companies represents one third of city’s resources.20 Until 2018,

the land was actioned through a “black box” process (i.e. bids are not public) which

furthermore drove speculation and prices high. This process meant more income for the city,

but even less affordability for its residents. The dependency on private markets is the most

visible in Hong Kong, but it is incredibly important in the three other cities as well, since

buying real estate is perceived as a safe investment.

Despite the primacy of capital on the housing

market, local public authorities still remain the key

player when it comes to affordability. In Paris, in

2017 there were 237,878 affordable housing units

with an average rent of 7.74€/m2, a third of the

market price.21 The New York City Housing Authority

(NYCHA) houses 400,000 people, which makes it

the largest in the USA.22 Hong Kong provides the

greatest number of units, where almost a half of the

population lives in government rental public

housing.23 As this demonstrates, a relatively high

supply of affordable housing is not sufficient to

decrease market prices.

Affordable housing is governed on all levels, going from the federal or national until the

smallest local authorities, which makes coordination difficult. London and Paris tried to

address this issue through creation (in 2000 and 2017 respectively) of metropolitan

authorities setting affordable housing strategy. This means a big change in governance,

especially in London, where number of council houses managed by boroughs plummeted,

while GLA is now the main provider of new affordable housing units.24 25

TOWARDS SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE HOUSING

To address the many issues of affordability, local authorities are introducing new initiatives

targeting low-income populations and their access to housing. These measures have a wide

range - from redistributive fiscal measures to creative use of city’s space.


Transforming the Housing Market through Local Fiscal Measures

Local authorities are trying to mitigate the polarisation of the housing market by introducing

new fiscal measures. Paris is the leader of the movement, as the tax on vacant housing

(TLV) was introduced in 1998. Owners of vacant apartments have to pay 12.5% of the rental

value the first year of vacancy and 25% in following years to the municipality. However, the

success of this measure is mitigated by its mismanagement.26 Furthermore, Paris introduced

a secondary home tax, that started at 20% of the rental value, but was increased to 60% in

2017.27 Lastly, the city tries to increase an access to accommodation for long-term residents,

by taxing flats available for short-term rentals. In 2017, there were 60,000 Airbnb flats in

central Paris, representing around 7% of its total housing stock.28 Hence, currently owners

can only rent them out for a short stay 120 days a year, or they need to get a permission

form the City of Paris, which allows the city to gain more control.29 In 2017, the City of Paris

made over a million euros in fines due to this measure.30

London followed in Paris’s footsteps by introducing the empty home tax in 2017 in certain

boroughs, such as Kensington & Chelsea, Islington or Westminster. The tax needs to be

paid after two years of vacancy and it is equal to 100% of the council property tax. Debates

around introducing similar vacancy tax also arose in both Hong Kong and NYC. The threat of

a very steep tax in Hong Kong has already cause an effect as there is more pressure on the

real estate market.31 Hence, it seems that introducing local taxes to better manage the

housing market is also an important tool to increase local budgets. Especially in London,

where the national parliament is planning to restructure financing of local councils, increasing

their income is crucial. On the other hand, a simple vacancy tax might not be enough as

many of the “empty” homes are still used a few weeks a year as a secondary residence. Due

to cities’ dependency on national parliaments, in this case, the government of Hong Kong

has a larger space to operate and make a difference as it is largely independent.

Creating Affordable Living within the Private Housing Market

Local authorities have also been introducing measures to create more affordable housing by

using existing structures, instead of only building new housing units, as increasing housing

supply doesn’t lead to a decrease in prices, as many new apartments would be captured by

foreign capital and used as an investment. “Louez Solidaire” (Solidarity Rent) is a

transformative initiative by the City of Paris converting private housing units into a more


affordable living. The programme has helped families affected by a loss of housing to quickly

move from shelters to better living conditions. The landlords receive a fixed rent of

18,49€/m2, which is about 4€/m2 less than the average market price in Paris.32 As a

compensation, the City guarantees regular payments, as well as maintenance of the

apartments, on the top of an 85% real estate tax reduction. Since 2007, 1,323 housing units

have been a part of the programme, and, as of 2018, 1,040 units were still active.33 The

Parisian initiative was inspired by the temporary housing policy in London. Similar

programme introduced in Hong Kong in 2017, called the Community Housing Movement,

plans to create upto 1,000 affordable housing units.34 As opposed to the European

examples, this plan is mainly funded by NGOs. Despite the fact that these programmes offer

a quick fix for the systemic lack of affordable housing, it is not a long-term solution.

Improving Affordability by Maximising Potential for City Spaces

Finally, the local governments try to reassert their power on the housing market. However,

these efforts are often controversial, and their outcomes uncertain. The new land reclamation

proposed by the Chief Executive Carrie Lam in Lantau (Hong Kong) would create 1,700 ha

of land by building artificial islands and could potentially house 400,000 families of which

70% would pay affordable rents.35 Nonetheless, the biggest project up to date raises many

economic and environmental concerns around pollution. In Paris, due high density, the focus

is on converting hospitals, or churches into housing, as it is the case with plans for

mixed-income housing Nouvelle Maison Saint Charles.36 Similarly, the USD $ 7.5 billion De

Blasio’s plan promised relieving pressure off the housing market in NYC City by rezoning

and increasing density, hence housing more people. However, only 25-30% of the housing

units would have to be affordable. The opposition points out that the large investment will not

have an impact on those in need and will only push for further gentrification, making the city

even less affordable.37 Hence, the question of how to make the best use of empty vacant

buildings or land seems to be unsolved.

A potential answer is a strategy used in London over the last decade by many of actors -

from borough councils to small private companies. The ‘Meanwhile use’ maximises utility of

empty land and properties by putting them to temporary use. It provides an efficient answer

to long-term vacancies and slow turn-over on the real estate market, as London’s vacant

spaces have a high potential to improve local housing supply and economy. Today, there are

51 meanwhile areas operating, but the potential of this initiative seems endless, as there are


over 22,000 vacant commercial spaces and over 75% of vacant land with permission to build

is currently not used.38 39 In addition to the flexibility that this approach offers, a great

advantage of this strategy is affordability- ‘Meanwhile use’ requires only low investment and

hence allows to experiment with a plethora of new economic activities, as well as more

community focused non-market uses such as affordable housing, education or arts. Around

30% of all meanwhile use areas are used as workspace, 20% are mixed-use. On the top of

the 10% of these spaces dedicated purely for housing, there are up to 7,000 people housed

through the property guardianship.40 One of flagship projects, PLACE/Ladywell, funded by

Lewisham Council, combines housing, spaces for creatives, as well as a café.41 ‘Meanwhile

use’ spaces are understood to have overall positive impact on the surrounding area.42

Hence, this strategy is a leading example of how to alleviate pressure on housing markets,

while also creating a positive influence on economy and local community building without

requiring large public investments. TACKLE INEQUALITY TO ADDRESS URBAN SUSTAINABILITY

Consequently, despite of Paris, NYC, Hong Kong, and especially London ranking high in the

SCI, they all face important challenges, especially when it comes to affordability. High rates

of income inequalities seem to be inherent to global cities where free market plays a key

role. It is important to recognize that between the state, big private developers looking to

maximise their profit, as well as relatively small local government budgets, the city

governance is very dependent on other actors. Nevertheless, cities dispose of means to

address needs of its low-income residents. The most pressing issue in all four cities, and

beyond, is the housing market; ownership is unattainable for most locals, as prices were

driven high by global demand. On the other hand, the private and public sector failed to

answer needs of middle and lower class for affordable housing. Hence, with growing

populations, it is necessary to increase the affordable housing stock while keeping ecological

sustainability in mind, as well. Furthermore, cities should focus on increasing the potential of

the spaces that already exist, as empty houses or short-term rentals are a problem. London

and Paris offer an answer to these issues with diverse temporary usage of vacant spaces

with ‘Meanwhile Use’ strategy, as well as converting housing units on the private market into

affordable ones with ‘Louez Solidaire’ initiative. Finally, with increasing income inequalities

city governance should also focus on redistributive measures creating more equal and

sustainable society.


HEALTH & WELL-BEING A key finding from the SCI is that a healthy workforce is an important foundation for urban

sustainability as health is important for economic productivity and overall well-being. London,

Hong Kong, Paris generally perform well with regards to health in the SCI, while NYC ranks

lowest under this metric. In this section, the Health and Demographics indicators from the

SCI have been merged given the number of overlaps in policy priorities at the city level.

Overall, these subcomponents are weighted as 16% of the People Pillar. Policies that impact

the health of urban dwellers also influence a number of other key indicators from the SCI

such as natural disasters monitoring with the urban heat island effect and sustainable

transportation.

While the literature widely acknowledges that cities impact the health of urban residents

through a variety of means, from air quality, to food policy, and spatial planning, the

responsibility for health service delivery is often out of the scope of local authorities. In Paris,

city-level authorities such as the Mayor and Council of Paris are not responsible for

overseeing senior public health officials. Rather, the success of the Regional Health Plan is

monitored by the France’s national Department of Health, while local councils throughout the

region support its delivery.43 Hong Kong has a similarly centralized health system. Given its

colonial past, the health care system of Hong Kong is loosely based on the National Health

Service system in the UK. Within this, responsibility for health services is centralized through

the Department of Health, charged with formulating healthcare policies and the provision of

basic healthcare services.44

In London, the 32 boroughs and the City of London Corporation have the responsibility for

health delivery under the National Health Service. Health and Wellbeing Strategies are led

by local authorities at the borough level, while the Mayor of London has devolved

responsibilities related to wider determinants of health such as city planning, transportation

and other sustainability measures.45 Unlike in Paris and Hong Kong, London’s devolved

health delivery strategy provides opportunities for greater policy flexibility, but this devolution

also poses a challenge as it requires that there be significant coordination between different

levels of government.46 The local government of NYC is considered to be the most directly

accountable for health delivery as compared the other cities’ under study here. NYC’s Mayor

directly appoints the city’s Health Commissioner which allows for significant oversight at the

local level. While this direct accountability can serve to simplify the policy process, NYC still


faces many challenges as the city has yet to fully address significant inequalities in health

within its population, compounded by issues of poor health insurance coverage driven by

state and national policies.47

As will be demonstrated in the following sections, London and Paris are particularly strong

with regards to ensuring good health of its citizens, in part driven by their attention to

ensuring citizens can have an active lifestyle. NYC and Hong Kong face significant

challenges ensuring the health of their citizens due in part to national level dynamics, for

example, the lack of national public health insurance in the United States, as well as limited

early uptake of active mobility in the transport sector and increasing health risks in an era of

climate change.

BETTER HEALTH THROUGH URBAN MOBILITY Given the varied and often limited role city governments play in the delivery of health

services, it is necessary to reconsider how local-level policies impact the health of urban

residents. There is a growing literature on how the built form of a city, including its streets,

density, buildings, and transportation system, has direct effects on health outcomes. As

such, urban design and transport planning can directly and indirectly affect

non-communicable diseases. For example, in London, the lack of physical activity is

currently one of the biggest threats to the health of the city’s residents, resulting in high rates

of diabetes, dementia, depression, heart disease and cancer.48 In Hong Kong, approximately

a third of non-communicable disease in the city could be prevented through a more active

lifestyle as underlying risk factors for these disease can addressed through population-based

interventions that encourage healthy lifestyles.49 Similarly, NYC estimates that increased

physical activity could prevent an estimated 6,300 preventable deaths annually.50 Likewise,

French, including Parisians, are not active enough as they lead the most sedentary lifestyle

in Europe. According to the survey, their lack of activity is due to transport infrastructures that

do not cater enough to pedestrians and bikes.51

With the significant health burden attributed to sedentary lifestyle in cities, fostering positive

health outcomes requires policies that prioritise walking, cycling, and public transport use

over private motor vehicle travel.52 For cities this means good urban design practices that are

embedded in city-wide and regional level integrated policies. A leading example of this can

be found in London. Launched in 2017 by Transport of London (TfL) in support of the


Mayor’s “A City for Londoner’s” plan, the Healthy Streets Approach is a transformative policy

framework that aims to improve air quality, reduce congestion and make London's

communities healthier places to live and work. This approach is the framework for the

Mayor’s 25 year Transport Strategy and is integrated into the Mayor's statutory strategies

such as the London Plan. It sees the prioritization of active modes of transit through changes

to spatial planning and infrastructure. In TfL’s recent 2016 Business Plan, all street spending

was brought together into a £2.1 billion Healthy Streets portfolio to direct investment towards

delivering on Healthy Streets Indicators, doing away with previous funding silos between

transport modes.53

Healthy Street Indicators

Source: Transport for London, Healthy Streets for London, 2017

Healthy Streets grew out of an earlier £100 million program called ‘mini-Holland’ that sought

to protect vulnerable road users like cyclists.54 This program has been associated with

increased use of active travel, increasingly positive perception of the local cycling

environment, and a more positive overall perception of the local environment by residents.55

Even though data collected on outcomes from the initial years of London-wide Healthy

Streets program have yet to be released, the cost savings of pilot sites have been calculated,

demonstrating significant results. For example, the redesign of Holborn Circus junction has

resulted in an estimated £2.959m in health benefits per year.56 This innovative approach has


the potential to greatly improve not only the health of individuals but also to build greener,

more sustainable and active cities. Through this program, London is world leader in adopting

public health goals as the basis for its city-wide transport strategy, mobilizing both financial

resources and political leadership to achieve better health outcomes for urban residents. It

has also served to facilitate other policy frameworks aimed at increasing urban sustainability,

such as the Vision Zero Plan which seeks to eliminate all road injuries and deaths in the

city’s transport system by 2041.57

Another example of urban planning policies that create positive health outcomes can be

found in Paris. Although not explicitly framed with the goal of mobilizing urban planning to

achieve a healthy city, Paris has undertaken a number of initiatives to augment transport

modes for active mobility, including the development of a bike and electric car sharing

scheme and traffic bans along the Seine river to create pedestrian public spaces.58 In just ten

years, between 2001 to 2010, car use declined in both the center city and the inner suburbs

while the average number of walking trips increased and daily bicycle trips doubled.59 This

success has been attributed to a number of factors, including the high visibility of small-scale

successful policies within Paris, as well as the reconceptualization of transport policy at the

level of the city and region that allowed for the institutionalization of more transformative

urban transport.60

While NYC has made recent efforts to address active mobility, there has been significantly

less progress in this regard when compared to London or Paris. For example, the city faced

significant public contestation over the introduction of bike lanes, including the widely

publicized legal challenge against the prospect Park West bike lane in 2011.61 Given this, the

city was slower to implement active mobility infrastructure, but has since made significant

strides as in 2017 the city added 24.9 miles of protected bikes lines.62

Similarly, Hong Kong has been slower to adopt the standards of active mobility but, the city’s

density means that it’s urban planning is conducive to active modes of transport and new

developments are being created with multimodal transit in mind.63 For example, the city

government recognized that Kowloon East could serve as a second Central Business

District, and a plan was developed to use this site as smart city pilot aimed at enhancing its

overall competitiveness through improved mobility and walkability, environmental quality,

infrastructure and quality of life. The Energizing Kowloon East project highlights the

possibility of leveraging smart city investments to promote better sustainability of new urban


developments, a potential model for future smart city initiatives elsewhere to harness active

mobility.

URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECTS

Another important way in which cities impact the health of residents is with regard to the

challenges of urban heat islands (UHI). UHI result from lowered evaporative cooling as a

result of changing surfaces in cities that increase heat storage due to less vegetation cover

and more impervious land coverage. For example, dark surfaces such as asphalt roads or

rooftops can reach temperatures 30–40 °C higher than surrounding air and most cities show

a large heat island effect, being on average 5–11 °C warmer than surrounding rural areas.64

This in turn has significant impacts on health in cites as heat stress can causes illnesses

such as cardiovascular stress, thermal exhaustion, or even heat stroke. A heat stroke can

lead to respiratory distress, kidney failure, liver failure and blood clots which may in turn

result in death.65 Extreme heat events tend to impact disproportionately the urban poor,

elderly and sick, all populations that lack the economic means and social support systems

necessary to seek refuge during extreme heat events.66

Paris and London face similar prospect of rising urban heat. In London, it is expected the

current UHI temperatures will increase due to growing demands for cooling requirements of

current and new buildings.67 As such, city-level policies require that a cooling hierarchy, such

as the inclusion of passive cooling so as not to increase residual heat, be incorporated into

the design process so that buildings will be better equipped to manage their cooling needs

and to adapt to the changing climate they will experience over their lifetime.68 Temperatures

in Paris are on average 2.5 degree celsius higher than surrounding areas and while the city

has similar policies in place to regulate cooling systems in new building, one of its biggest

challenges in addressing UHI is that heat events in the city are not monitored in real time by

meteorological measurements.69

Due to the risk posed by rising temperatures in cities, spatial policies hold significant

potential for mitigating these effects. Given Hong Kong’s density and climate, the

government has recognized that a key public health challenge is the intensification of UHI

that has been aggravated by global warming. An increase in urban temperatures and

decrease urban winds have led to an increase in the number of very hot days and nights in

the city, placing increase demands on energy consumption, while also contributing to a rise


in heat stress-related health problems.70 In order to better plan and regulate urban

developments, the city developed an Urban Climatic Planning Recommendation Map for

Hong Kong (UC-ReMap) that includes five Urban Climatic Planning Zones (UCPZ).71 These

climatic maps are powerful tools for urban planners to synthesize climatic, topographic, and

urban morphological information so that interpretations based on these maps can inform

mitigation measures at different spatial scales in the city.72 This approach has significant

impacts on the city’s built form as street grids in newly planned areas have been better laid

out in order to account for wind and urban ventilation characteristics uncovered through this

mapping and zoning.73

Hong Kong during a Summer Heat Wave

Source: "28312-Kowloon" by xiquinhosilva, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

NYC faces similar risks with regards to UHI and its urban greening approach offers a leading

example for how a greener city can contribute to the improved health of urban residents. The

MillionTreesNYC is a public-private partnership through which one million new trees were

planted throughout the City’s five boroughs. Launched in 2007 with $350 million contributed

from the city’s budget, the program involved the participation of 50,000 volunteers and

increased NYC’s urban forest by almost 20%.74 Studies in NYC show that in addition to

providing cooler urban environments and access to shade during extreme heat events, there

was also an increase in positive self assessment of health for individuals who lived near

trees and green spaces.75 A similar result was shown in London where it was demonstrated


that street trees are a positive urban asset that can decrease the risk of negative mental

health outcomes, such as depression.76

SPATIAL PLANNING IS A DETERMINANT OF URBAN HEALTH

The SCI found that crucial component of urban sustainability is the development and

maintenance of a healthy workforce. While London and Paris varying in terms of the level of

local responsibility for health service delivery, both cities have become leaders in developing

policies to transform the transport sector to deliver key public health outcomes. NYC and

Hong Kong are slower to take on the challenge of active transport but recent developments

suggest these cities are making important progress. Additionally, climate change and the rise

in extreme heat events in cities represent further challenges to urban sustainability and

health. While Paris and London are regulating to buildings with regards to cooling demands,

Hong Kong has harnessed data to model heat variations for better urban planning and NYC

offers an important example of how urban greening can mitigate these extreme weather

events and promote better health overall. In summary, health and sustainability are best

achieved at a city level when understood in a transversal fashion, supporting not only better

health outcomes but greener cities, greater resilience and more sustainable urban transport.


The Planet Pillar in the SCI measures the sustainable attributes of a city and its

environmental mitigation. Within the SCI there are 11 sub-indicators of this pillar, ranging

from energy, to electric vehicle incentives, to disaster monitoring. Of the four cities under

review here, London performs best, ranking 11th, followed by New York City (20th), Paris

(25th) and finally Hong Kong, ranked 50th. To explain their ranking, certain subcomponents

of have been merged where there are a number of overlaps in policy priorities at the city

level, as such the following comparative review is organized around carbon emissions,

sustainable transport, and waste management. Particular attention is given to policies that

achieved substantial results and provide best practice examples of how cities can affect

change.

CARBON EMISSIONS

The SCI identifies low-carbon infrastructure as being a key component of a city’s

sustainability. Correspondingly, research has demonstrated that release of greenhouse

gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere has contributed to the warming of our planet and today,

climate change represents one of the most important threats to our planet.77 In the Index,

subcomponents that relate to carbon emission reduction are weighted as 28% of the Planet

pillar, including greenhouse gas emissions (12%), energy (12%), and negative emissions

technology (4%). Air pollution is also impacted by carbon emission reduction, weighted as

12% in the Planet Pillar.

While GHGs occur from a number of sources, in cities both geophysical factors, such as

climate and access to resources, and technical factors like power generation, design of the

urban form, and waste management determine the overall levels of GHGs that are

attributable to any given city.78 For example, the location of a city determines its role in the

global shipping industry, meaning that some cities will see higher GHGs from the

international transport industry than others. Another important factor that shapes the level of

GHGs at the level of the city is the income of its residents. In cities that have higher per


capita incomes there may be larger house sizes and a lower threshold at which heating is

switched on, which influence heating and industrial fuel use.79 The level of GHGs is also

influenced by urban planning, including a city’s density, the age of buildings, and its existing

transport infrastructure.

While the level of GHGs attributable to a city varies significantly depending on geography

and technology, so too does the ability of cities to directly influence the level of GHGs

produced within their boundaries. Cities are embedded in multilevel governance systems, in

which their ability to implement policies is limited to certain domains, while higher levels of

government that are regional or national in scope have control over policy areas that have

more influence over total level of GHGs. Consistent with this challenge are differing political

incentives at different scales. For example, studies have found that higher level governments

are often reluctant to participate in climate change policies that are considered most

important for cities such as urban and land-use planning, sustainability principles, and

electricity supply and transmission.80 Furthermore, there is often a tension between what

city-level policy makers understand as important for urban GHG reduction and what national

policy makers consider as regional or national priorities. For example, many local

governments in the United States express strong support for an emissions trading schemes,

but national or state level governments are less included to view this policy approach

favourably.81

As will be demonstrated in the following sections, carbon emissions in the four cities under

comparison here have been reduced in recent years but there is still significant progress that

needs to be made before any city claim to be carbon neutral. This is a particular challenge

given that energy systems, which contribute significantly to carbon emissions, are not under

the direct control of city governments. Therefore, innovative approaches need to be put in

place to address a city’s housing stock as a major contributor to GHGs through

improvements to energy efficiency. Such policies can also achieve other important

sustainability objections, such as the improvement of a city’s air quality.

CARBON EMISSIONS IN LONDON, HONG KONG, PARIS & NYC

For all cities included in this comparison, the primary sectors through which GHGs are

produced are stationary energy (buildings), transportation, and waste. While transportation

contributes a significant amount to overall emissions, buildings continue to be the largest


driver GHGs in cities and will be the focus of this section. Transportation will be discussed

later in the report. Within the SCI, Paris and London perform the best with regards to GHGs,

followed by NYC and lastly Hong Kong.

All cities have measured reductions in their GHGs. The Greater London area is responsible

for 8% of the United Kingdom’s total GHG emissions, approximately 35 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide per year.82 The city has made significant strides towards reducing the city’s

overall emissions, in 2015 London’s GHG emissions were 25% lower than 1990 levels.83

New York City’s GHGs in 2016 were estimated at 52.0 million metric tons of carbon dioxide

but since 2005, GHG emissions have decreased by approximately 15% despite significant

increases in population and economic activity.84 In Paris, the city produced an estimated 25.6

million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2014, 9.2% reduction in carbon emissions since 2004.85

Hong Kong reported in 2015 that its emissions accounted for 41.6 million tonnes of carbon

dioxide equivalent (CO2-e), decreasing by about 7.5 per cent compared with 2014 levels.86

However in all cities, there remains a significant gap between reductions to-date and

reductions needed in order to be carbon neutral. For example, it is projected that London

would need to have reduced its emissions by 60 per cent by 2025 to be on track to reducing

London’s CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.87 Given this monumental challenges, cities

must develop innovative policies to address their energy consumption. Only policies that are

transformative and system-level will be able to make progress towards carbon-neutral cities

in the future.

CITIES AS POLICY LEADERS OR FOLLOWERS

London, Paris and NYC are actively institutionalizing carbon emission reduction measures in

the absence of strong national level initiatives, while observers have noted that Hong Kong’s

policies regarding carbon emissions have largely been in response to national level actions

in mainland China. New York City has been pointed to as a leader in climate change

adaptation in the United States, with Mayor Bloomberg signing an executive order to make

the goals of the international Paris Agreement apply to NYC after President Trump withdrew

the United States from the agreement.88 Paris has similarly been seen as key actor in

promoting policies to reduce carbon emissions. For example the Agence parisienne du

climat was established in 2013 to drive energy transition of Paris by assisting with

operational projects, particularly the energy retrofit of buildings.89 In London, Mayors have


embedded core principles carbon emission reduction into London-wide strategies. In the

early 2000s then Mayor Ken Livingstone used his planning powers in the London Plan to

promote the use of on-site renewable energy generation and combined heat and power, as

well as the formation of the London Energy Partnership to assess the barriers and

opportunities for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the city.90 In the years since,

successive administrations have continued to place importance on London-wide climate

strategies, with this being facilitated by a number of factors including the commitment of key

individuals to climate action, the interim successes of pervious policies, a positive climate of

public opinion, a lack of clear opposition, and the emergence of new market opportunities in

the carbon economy.91

In Hong Kong by contrast, the city government has been seen to be slower to take on the

challenge of climate change and carbon emissions reduction. Observers note that the

Chinese government is the agenda setter with regard to climate change mitigation measures.

For example, it was only after an announcement of the voluntary national greenhouse gas

reduction target by the Central Government in 2009 that Hong Kong authorities developed

and ratified an agreement on Hong Kong/Guangdong Cooperation to reduce greenhouse

gases.92 This is in spite of the One Country Two Systems which was first proposed by Deng

Xiaoping in the early 1980s as way to reconcile the communist mainland with historically

Chinese territories—Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau—that had capitalist economies.93 This

framework which allows Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy in domestic policy, including

executive, legislative and independent judicial power, along with final adjudication and the

maintenance of its capitalist system.94 Some argue that such administrative independence

could allow for Hong Kong to take on a significant leadership role with regard to carbon

emission reduction, but Hong Kong currently has no dedicated climate authority unlike

similar cities in Asia such as Singapore, Seoul and Tokyo.95 The Steering Committee on

Climate Change, currently chaired by the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, was set up to

direct, monitor and coordinate efforts with regards to climate change policy but since its first

meeting in April 2016 there has been no information released regarding its activities.96

As the above comparisons highlight, even context of multilevel governance, where cities

have less power to enact policies to pursue climate change policies, city level administrations

in NYC, Paris and London have been leading actors in pursuing GHG reduction. Hong Kong,

by contrast, has been a passive actor in this regard, only taking on the challenge of GHG


reductions following national leadership. This differentiation explains, in part, Hong Kong's

poor performance in the SCI’s planet pillar where it is ranked 50th.

ENERGY SYSTEMS

While energy consumption in cities contributes significantly to GHGs, cities often do not have

the authority to implement policies to address issues of sustainability in the energy system

directly. As such, a city’s ability to reduce carbon emissions stemming from this sector is very

much dependent on the type of energy system in place at the national level. For example,

France's decision to pursue low carbon nuclear power has made zero-carbon urban energy

policy goal possible and has meant that the carbon reduction measures in the city focus less

on policies such as heat recapture, commonplace in cities like London and NYC, and more

on other renewable sources such as solar power, with 50,000 m2 of solar panels installed in

Paris.97 Similarly, NYC and Hong Kong mostly rely on fossil fuel energy making the transition

towards more sustainable means difficult. Transforming the energy supply is especially

difficult for Hong Kong, which has very usable land that could be used for energy production.

Hence, it relies on consumer’s choices with mandatory labelling of electronics, also

compulsory in the EU an the USA, rating their energy efficiency introduced in 2008 in efforts

to minimise energy consumption through individual behaviours.98

2015 Emissions by Sector in London

Source: United Kingdom, Greater London Authority. “London Environment Strategy.” 2018


London readily acknowledges that it will not be able to achieve the ambitious carbon

reduction goals it sets for itself without action from the national government. In recent

London Environmental Strategy, which lays out the city’s plan to be carbon neutral by 2050,

the GLA directly emplores the national government to act by decarbonizing UK’s electricity

grid, stating “...it also requires far greater action from government, or the devolution of

powers to London to take the necessary action. Current national policies are not sufficient to

enable London to meet these carbon budgets.” 99 Hence, cities create their own

smaller-scale initiatives to understand and re-evaluate their energy use, and how they could

address their deficiencies. For that reason, the government of NYC, as well as GLA in

London and Velib’ in Paris, have created online heat maps, identifying opportunities for

improving energy efficiency. In London, Licence Lite policy on the GLA level facilitates

supplying energy from smaller local alternative sources, as it lowers requirements to obtain

the licence.100 Thus, GLA can now buy excess electricity generated by London boroughs and

other public bodies for fair prices. Most of the energy powers other public services such as

Transport for London or NHS, allowing the metropolitan governance to obtain more power in

energy affairs. Paris is equally advocating for a decentralised energy model allowing cities to

regain direct control over its energy networks and grids at the metropolitan level. More

successful actions towards reducing carbon footprint were made at the borough level in

London. City Corporation, the council of City of London, managed to turn towards 100%

renewable energy supply. HOUSING STOCK

Given that cities are restricted in their policy options, adopting energy efficiency measures for

existing buildings is one of the most important and cost-effective means available to combat

climate change at the city-level. As such, NYC, London, and Paris have all undertaken some

form of program to implement building retrofits within their boundaries. These efforts share a

number of important features, including targeting both citizens and businesses, levering

combined instruments (financial incentives and technical support), as well as promoting

renewable energy in the new built sectors through standards, regulation and incentives. For

example, in London the RE:FIT and RE:NEW programs were launched 2009 to make public

sector workplaces and residential homes more energy efficient through retrofits and

upgrades. The programs, which continue to this day, offers the assistance of technical

experts get retrofit projects up, running and successfully implemented.101 As of 2018 the

program had supported the investment of over £130 million in energy efficiency measures


across 37,000 homes in London, which is estimated to save 32,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide

per year.102 Paris has similarly established an agency responsible for building retrofits in the

city, the above mentioned Agency Parisien du climate, which has to-date engaged 87,409

residential units in the retrofit process.103

New York City has been particularly active in this regard and has a unique approach to its

retrofit program. Studies show that buildings in NYC are responsible for more than 70% of

the city’s GHGs.104 The city has a diverse building stock, with approximately one million

structures within its boundaries, the majority of which are residential buildings that are more

than 50 years old.105 Understanding that the buildings present an important for carbon

emission reduction, the city government established the New York City Energy Efficiency

Corporation (NYCEEC) in 2011 with a capital investment of USD 37.5 million.106 It was

created with a mandate to foster clean-energy financing by driving private capital towards the

carbon reduction emission objectives of the NYC government. To date, it has financed more

than USD $152 million for clean energy projects across 10.1 million square feet of NYC

buildings.107 While NYCEEC was initially established as a unit of the NYC government, it is

now an independent nonprofit organization with contractual ties to the NYC government,

staffed by financial experts and engineers specializing in building energy system. Key to

NYCEEC’s success is its ability to combine public, private, and philanthropic investment,

levering public sector funding with private capital.108 It is focused on building sectors that

present important challenges for energy efficiency, with a significant portfolio of clean energy

projects in multi-tenanted multifamily and commercial properties. This financing has achieved

significant results, eliminating over 749,000 metric tonnes of greenhouse gases in NYC and

created over 1,600 jobs.109


Sustainability Impact of NYCEEC

Source: “Our Impact,” NYCEEC, May 2019

While building retrofit programs in London, Paris, and NYC have been in place for over a

decade, Hong Kong has only recently launched such as initiative, further explaining Hong

Kong’s poor performance on the planet pillar of the SCI. The city developed the “4Ts”

(transparency, together, timeline, targets) approach in 2017 which will seek to address

energy efficiency in the city’s buildings which account for about 90% of the electricity used in

Hong Kong and over 60% of the carbon emissions.110

However, as the case of Paris demonstrates, promoting greater energy efficiency is not

without its challenges, particularly with regards to the implementation of new infrastructures

and programs at the city-level. As with most of the other cities in the comparison, local and

regional authorities in France have very limited capabilities to directly shape the energy

sector given that it is configured according prerogatives of the national state and major

energy companies such as GDF Suez.111 Therefore, Paris can only act within its domains to

address GHGs through spatial planning, building construction and refurbishment but even

these domains are not without constraint. For example, attempts by previous Mayor Delanoe

to see Paris become the world capital of solar energy were severely hindered by “... the

notoriously strict development guidelines concerning any alteration to Paris-built

environment.”112 The importance of preserving Paris’ built form “...sits somewhat

uncomfortably alongside the Mayor’s ecological–energetic ambitions, as the way new energy


technologies are authorized in a large extent of Paris’ territory continues to be a

case-by-case compromise between the locally articulated aspirations and the nationally

imposed development priorities concerning the conservation of the national heritage.”113 AIR POLLUTION

Importantly, the reduction of GHGs in a city also has significant positive consequences on air

quality and policies and programs can be most effective when both emission reduction and

air pollution are considered. All cities under consideration here have undertaken some form

of program to reduce emissions coming from buildings, impacting both air quality and GHGs.

For example, Hong Kong’s Air Pollution Ordinance has made explicit regulations on dark

smoke from buildings, which is a heavy pollutant.114 Paris’ efforts to implement solar energy

in the city, as mentioned above, is another approach to reducing dependency on polluting oil

and gases that fuel homes.115 Likewise, London regulates heavy fuels used in building

heating and energy provisioning, with the Clean Air Act standardizing chimney heights in the

city so as to ensure emissions are better dispersed when emitted.116

An interesting example of this is New York City’s Clean Heat program which not only

improved air quality in the city but also served to retrofit residential buildings for better energy

efficiency. Active between 2011 and 2015, the Clean Heat program made impressive

progress towards reducing air pollution by offering technical assistance and incentives for

fuel-efficiency upgrades and cleaner fuels, as well as “how to” guides that emphasized

outreach and education. The program saw nearly 6,000 heating oil conversions to cleaner

fuel were completed. From 2008 to 2014, key air pollutants levels fell by 67% in NYC and the

city estimated that improved air quality has resulted in 1,600 fewer asthma emergency

department visits and 780 fewer deaths a year.117 In addition to these public health benefits,

the program also resulted in significant reductions in GHG emissions. It is estimated that the

program reduced the city’s GHG emissions by roughly 800,000 metric tons—or the

equivalent of removing more than 160,000 passenger vehicles from the roads.118 In cities

with aging housing stock, clean heat programs such as NYC’s offer a promising approach to

modernize building functions while also addressing environmental and public health

concerns.


REACH CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION TRANSVERSALLY

The SCI and this in-depth analysis that is included above demonstrate how cities can drive

sustainability through carbon emission reduction. While national and regional level policies

and incentives dictate a large part of how a city can become carbon neutral, for example with

changes to the nation-wide energy system, cities can play a significant role in reducing GHG

with investments in housing stock. As demonstrated in Paris, London, and NYC, building

retrofit programs offer a clear path towards reduced GHGs, while also opening potential

avenues to reach other sustainability goals, such as improvements to air quality and thereby

improved public health. Such policies can mobilize both private and public investment,

creating not only more environmental friendly buildings but also economic opportunity that

supports overall sustainability in a city.


SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT Transportation, is one of the main issues of the Planet pillar in the SCI. Sustainable modes of

transportation as electric vehicle incentives, weighting 8% in the SCI, or bicycle

infrastructures, weighting 8%, play a major role in achieving a more sustainable metropolis.

Public transport also is important to reaching this purpose, as well as, air pollution, weighting

12%. Sustainable modes of transportation are transversal across all pillars of the SCI and

have an impact on many subcomponents. This has been a combination of public transports,

electric vehicles incentives and bicycle infrastructures subcomponents.

Sustainable improvements related to mobility practices necessitates the development of

linkages among environmental security, commercial productivity, and social advancement.

Regarding the environmental case, the literature considers that environmental issues affect

all features of transportation management. Concerning the business aspect, transportation

needs to be cost-effective and able to adjust itself according to varying requirements. For the

social concerns, the aspiration is to improve models of living and quality of life for the current

generation and those in the future.

Transport issues are tackled at the city level in both Paris, with the Régie Autonome des

Transports Parisiens (RATP) and SNCF, and in New York with the Metropolitan

Transportation Agency (MTA). In London, the city and GLA are working in cooperation with

Transport for London on this matter. Finally, Hong Kong government has a department in

charge of transportation.

ACCESSIBILITY

If accessible and affordable to a majority of people in the city, public transportation can help

ensure greater sustainable development of a metropolis. Indeed, all the population will be

able to use sustainable modes of transportation. Public transportation aims to offer to its

users rapid transit nearby their home or work place. According to a report from the Institute

for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) published in 2016, the French capital is

offering this to 100% of its population. London gives this opportunity to 51% of its inhabitants,

and in New York City this is offered to 77% of the urban population. Accessibility in Hong

Kong in not included in this report.119


Public transportation is also takes into account accessibility and affordability. To answer this

issue the four cities have approached accessibility in different ways. Paris city is modernizing

its infrastructures with the Réseau Express Régional (RER) E, and is studying the eventuality

of a public transport gratuity for a more equal capital.120 London is implementing through the

TfL digital tools to make the city’s network more efficient and accessible for all. In Hong

Kong, the buses are accessible for all kinds of disabilities. The fleet spells the stop name and

write them down in Braille. In New York City, following the Americans with Disability Acts,

MTA is improving its station with accessibility and today about 25% of the city stations

accessible. 121 122

ELECTRIC AND HYBRID BUSES

Sustainable modes of public transportation is closely related to the implementation of hybrid

and electric buses. Both have been put in place on London’s streets by the city’s

transportation company, TfL, where 165 millions of journeys are made with buses daily.123

Presently, 2,500 double-deck buses in the capital are hybrid and about 100 are fully electric

and four routes in central London are entirely dedicated to electric buses of which there are

9,396 in service in 2019.124 The roll-out of this program was led by TfL and the Greater

London Authority as they followed the EURO VI standards, which define the quantity of

vehicle emission by new motorized transportation sold in the European Union. Even if the

policy is already successful, TfL desires to go further with full electric buses fleet. The city

also has implemented route River 1 (RV1), and special path for these buses.125

Following the same European directives, Paris and its transport system called RATP, has

implemented 74 fully electric buses, and has successfully put in place about 1800 electric

buses, the first of which will be delivered in 2020-2022.126 127 The RATP aims to reach

greater sustainable transportation by 2025. New York City plans to complete a fleet of 100%

electric buses by 2040.128 The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), in charge of the

transportation network, has firstly implemented ten buses in the city and purchased sixty new

ones in 2019.129


Lifetime Cost of Electric versus Diesel Buses in New York City (Costs equal savings on health)

Source : State of the Planet, Earth Institute, Columbia University, May 2016.

Finally, Hong Kong is trying to achieve the same objective as the three other metropolis.

Presently, approximately one-sixth of its bus fleet is with electric buses.130

ELECTRIC VEHICLE INCENTIVES

The number of electric vehicles worldwide is growing at a rapid rate. This individual

sustainable mode of transportation is achieving substantial success in the four SCI cities

under consideration here. Despite public transportation being a large share of transport

modality in these cities, cars remain prominent. Moving to an electric vehicle (EV) addresses

this environmental problem by helping to save money on fuel costs and reducing fine

particles such as PM2.5 for better air quality.

While this offers important positive environmental benefits, in London, the expansion of EV

has led to concerns on infrastructure for these vehicles, particularly the accessibility of a

charging points. Indeed, the growth in chargers across the city are not keeping up with the

quick increase in the use of these environmental friendly vehicles. According to Department

of Transport data released so far (from December 2016 to September 2017), the number of

electric vehicles in London increased by 50% in 2017.131 This increase can be explained by

the eligibility for Londoners to receive a 100% discount on the congestion charge and the

financial help of the national government on the acquisition of an electric car or motorcycle.

However, the number of charging points in London grew from an average of 1,586 in 2017 to

1,869 in 2018 – an increase of 17%, in contrast to the 50% increase in vehicles.132 New York


City is also facing limited electric vehicle plugs. The city has implemented about 30 000

plug-ins , but wants to achieve 1 million by 2025.133 Hong Kong answered the challenge of

chargers through the development of a medium plug that can reduce the time of charge by

up to 60%. In 2019, there were 2 242 chargers in the metropolis, including 860 medium

plugs one every ten kilometres.134

Paris is also facing charging plug issues but the city authority is more focused on the

development of EV. Indeed, electric vehicles are most used by the highest income

population given their prices, but there is an effort to democratize there use among the city’s

population. To reduce the use of diesel and polluting car, the Mayor of Paris is implementing

policies in favour of the EV drivers. Parking is free in the capital, for electric scooters and

electric cars. Finally, to facilitate the use of EV in Hong Kong, companies giving EV to their

employees received a 100% profits tax deduction in the first year of possession.135 Sharing

data has also been a help in the expansion of EV in Hong Kong as they give information

about plug availability and give the opportunity to reserve one through applications.

BICYCLE INITIATIVES Mobile transportation has earned notable recognition because of its function in developing

sustainable transportation methods. Bike-sharing schemes have demonstrated solid results

on building a greater cycling community, developing transition management, limiting

greenhouse gases, and promoting well-being and health.

Velib’ in Paris is one of the largest bike-share programs to-date in the world. After studies

showed that 70% of pollution and 40% of greenhouse emissions in European cities comes

from motorized transport, Paris officials implemented policies to deal with sustainability of

transport, decreasing traffic congestion, and improving Parisians’ active mobility.136 The

program opened in July 2007 with 10,000 bicycles. Presently, 1254 stations are in service

including more than 950 in Paris.137 Fifty-four municipalities in the Grand Paris Metropolis

have today a Vélib’ station. More than 163,000 people are subscribers to the program and

around 50,000 journeys are made every day.138 The use of bike-sharing in Paris provides

great health benefits as 8% of users say that bikes are used as a substitute for trips in a

car.139

London, is also succeeding in the implementation of bike-sharing, as well the building of bike

paths counting about 60 000 cycle trips daily (bike-sharing and individual ones).140 This


corresponds to an increase of 130% since the year 2000, which can be explained by the

efficiency of the mode in a city facing everyday congestion.141 The bike paths are carefully

designed by the London Cycling Design Standards. Biking in London has been made more

comfortable since, following the Mayor’s Strategy, the cycle superhighway has been tripled in

distance covered. In the city centre, buses and bike paths have been combined to avoid

congestion and improve safety. In New York City there are about 45 000 bike journeys daily

made with the bike-sharing network, Citi bike.142 As in London, the main reason of the

utilization of bike-share system by the New Yorkers is the impact on health, from active

mobility and improving air quality, and by the ease of management and speed that it can

procure.

Bike Efficiency (in time) in New York CIty

Source: Data from New York City TLC and Citibike. Todd Schneider, September 2017.

Looking at these cities that implemented bike-sharing with success, Hong Kong tried to

implement its first-ever network in April 2017, named gobee.bike. It reached 10 000 bikes but

faced a shut-down in 2018, because of financial losses. It was mainly linked to maintenance

costs.143 Therefore, Hong Kong needs to find new alternatives in bike-share system viability

in the next years to implement again a new system.

AIR POLLUTION


With regards to air pollution, a city’s transport system is often the major contributor to poor

air quality and subsequent public health problems. In Paris, for example, road traffic

generates almost two-thirds of nitrogen oxides emissions and more than half of fine

particulate emissions that contribute to air pollution in the city.144 It has been widely

documented that air pollution from vehicles contributes to early deaths, as in the case of

London, it is estimated that nearly 9000 people per year die of air pollution related

complications.145 While much attention to air pollution is often given during times in which

levels peak, for example in Paris in 2014-15, most health impacts are mostly caused by

chronic exposure, particularly for vulnerable people such as young children and the elderly,

and those who have preexisting respiratory and/or cardiovascular diseases.146 Such health

impacts also have significant financial costs. In Hong Kong, it is estimated that the direct

health costs of air pollution amounted to US$513 million in the year 2011 alone.147

The four cities under consideration here have all undertaken measures to reduce levels of

pollutants emitted by cars, composed of regulatory measures as well as incentives. While air

quality in London is a major driver of the city’s poor performance in the Planet Pillar of the

SCI, it does provide an important example of best practice due to the fact that much of the

city’s air pollution comes from the transport sector. While the the 2003 congestion charging

scheme in the center of London began as an effort to reduce traffic within the city during

work hours on weekdays, not directly intended as a policy to improve air pollution, this was

soon understood to be one of its potential benefits.148 Today, this policy has been a catalyst

for subsequent policies in the city that explicitly intend to improve air quality through

regulation of vehicles. This includes the new Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), launched this

year, whereby most vehicles including cars and vans will need to meet new, tighter exhaust

emission standards or be liable for a daily charge to drive within certain areas.149 This zone is

in addition to the Congestion Charge that remains in place. Outside of London, 12 countries

across Europe have their implemented low emission zones, following London’s example.150

Unlike in London, previous attempts to institute a congestion charge in Hong Kong have

failed as the city “... made no effort to effectively sell the scheme to the public resulting in a

lack of publicized information about funding, resource allocation, technical feasibility, equity,

costs and benefits, etc.”151 Observers note that during the process to policy creation and

implementation congestion pricing information sharing is a key element that allows the public

to better understand advantages and disadvantages to a program, facilitating its uptake.152 A

similar dynamic of failed policy making also took place in NYC which has only recently


agreeing to implement a congestion pricing plan which will see drivers soon pay more than

USD $10 to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan.153

It is widely understood that effects of air pollution on public health differ greatly depending on

population groups and geographic locations under consideration.154 Unlike the other cities in

this analysis, air pollution in Hong Kong presents a particular challenge given the city’s

geography which sees a significant amount of pollutants come from industry and power

plants the Pearl River Delta regional more broadly.155 The city made important progress in

improving air quality in the 1990s with a ban on fuels that were heavy in sulfur and is

currently implementing a phased ban on heavy polluting diesel commercial vehicles.156

However observers note that while city-level policies in can make important progress, a

regional approach to air pollution control in the Pearl River Delta is necessary in order to

successfully combat air pollution in the city itself.

While NYC and Hong Kong have been relatively slower to implement traffic restriction

measures, Paris has been largely successful at implementing diverse set of policies to

combat air pollution through transport policy. This includes regulatory measures, such as

circulation restrictions during high pollution period and implementing low-emission zones in

the city’s centre, as well as incentives that target buyers of hybrid and electric vehicles, as

mentioned above.157 Additionally, the city has sought to reorganize public space including the

closing of circulation axes for pedestrian. As already mentioned, Paris was first to develop

bicycle and electric automobile sharing programs and today the city provides financial

incentives to Parisians to encourage their use, pursuing a multifaceted approach to

improving air quality.158 However, while the city has made important progress, one of the

biggest challenges Paris faces with regards to air pollution is the périphérique, the the most

polluting infrastructure in Ile-de-France which contributes to 37% of the region’s nitrogen

oxides emissions and 35% of fine particulate emission. The périphérique includes nine

motorways and expressways that converge less than 4 km from the heart of Paris and it is

used by more than 1 million people, making up 40% of road traffic in Paris.159 Policies to

address the sustainability of this infrastructure will be an important next step for the city’s

efforts to improve air quality for its citizens. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT IS MULTIMODAL


The four cities under consideration here have implemented sustainable modes of

transportation in their metropolitan area, seeking to give access to everyone to new mobility

networks. Electric and hybrid buses have emerged in the four metropolis. All of them are

aiming to have a 100% electric buses fleet in the few years or decades and bicycle sharing

infrastructures have also been implemented in London, Paris and New York City. Not only

does this move towards different transport modes to improve the overall sustainability of

transit systems, it also offers important opportunities to improve air quality through reducing

car use and improving active transport. Overall, as the SCI suggests, transit systems offer

important opportunities to improve environmental security, commercial productivity, and

social advancement in large cities with growing populations and increasing economic activity.


WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste management, is one of the main subcomponent of the Planet pillar in the Sustainable

Cities Index (SCI), weighting 12% of the planet pillar. It impacts everyday life of cities’

inhabitants and is also linked with carbon emission, energy and smart cities. London, Paris,

New York City and Hong Kong implemented policies to improve the efficiency of their waste

collection and recycling, as well as management and treatment of wastes. According to the

SCI, Hong Kong and New York have a better ranking than Paris and London in waste

management.

Waste management is a challenge for large metropolitises throughout the world. Waste

management is ordinarily the role of the local authority and is most of the time one of the

largest expenditures in a city’s budget. Eliminating litter from households, institutions and

business is a main logistical and operational responsibility of city governments. Garbage

production is growing fast, especially in municipalities with growing community and business

enterprises, setting demanding requirements on public administrations to deal with

increasing prices and environmental consequences.

The daily waste excess from municipalities around the world can barely fit in-debris trucks

covering 5,000 kilometers in length.160 In 1900, the planet had 220 million metropolitan

inhabitants that generated 300,000 tonnes of trash by day.161 By 2000, this estimation grew

to 2.9 billion people contributing to 3 million tonnes of substantial excess every day. Around

the world, waste generation rates are assumed to triple by 2100, surpassing 11 million tons

by day.162 The global cost of dealing with this residue is increasing too, from $205 billion a

year in 2010 to $375 billion by 2025, with the highest expense growths in emerging

countries.163 Due to this quantity of garbage accumulation, a rising volume of trash is

recycled, combusted for power, or reprocessed as compost. GOVERNANCE OF WASTE

The four cities studied in the SCI present diverse ways of management of waste. In Paris,

New York City and London the governance of waste is controlled at the municipality level

whereas in Hong Kong, the waste issue is managed by one of the Government’s

Department. London’s Mayor is expected under the GLA Act to provide a local waste

management plan. Nevertheless, the Mayor’s office does not hold the responsibility for waste


management operations and it is the boroughs and private actors that will implement the

waste procedures. New York City waste is managed by two distinct methods. One is public

and the other one private. The public office – the New York City Department of Sanitation

(DSNY) – assists private houses, administration offices, and several charitable foundations.

Private business firms need to hire private firms to take their garbage. This is constituted of

diverse types of waste removal companies that are controlled via the City’s Business

Integrity Commission.164 In Hong Kong, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD)

supervises all of the metropolis’ waste management and is in charge of the establishment of

tools, plans to decrease waste and strategies for implementation. Waste collection and

transportation are mostly administered by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

Finally, the Parisian municipality is in command of waste supervision inside the twenty

arrondissements. The obligation for waste acquisition is proportionately distributed among

public services (Direction de la propreté et de l’eau) and private ones, individually being

accountable for ten arrondissements.165 Town authorities are adopting a waste management

process and are in charge of the transfer of waste to the Sytcom, a public actor aiming to

avoid waste going into landfills that could be reused. WASTE COLLECTION & TREATMENT

Within the four cities’ under consideration here, municipal waste treatment takes on a

mixture of components. New York City produces more than 14 million tonnes of waste per

year (reusable or not) in homes, companies and industrial places, streets, and building

areas.166 It demands a squadron of about 2,000 civil servants and 4,000 vehicles to handle

the metropolis waste through all the boroughs.167 London produces around 1.75 million

tonnes of food excess every year.168 Since the 1980s, Hong Kong’s city's waste

measurement has shown a growth of 85%, reflecting the city’s fast business development

and population increases during these past decades. The city creates above 18,000 tonnes

of waste per day, approximately 6 million tonnes yearly.169 In Paris, in 2016, the Sytcom

collected 2 4333 632 tonnes of household waste.170

In London, about a third of the food purchased is thrown away, the majority being still edible.

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) measures that food losses cost £50 per

month for the families in London. In Hong Kong, food is one of the largest waste issues.

Approximately 40% of the food in the metropolis is uneaten whereas it is still edible. This

creates about 3,500 tonnes of wasted eats food daily. In 2013, the average inhabitant of


Hong Kong produced 1.33 kg of waste each day. This number can be put in comparison with

the 0.97 kg in 1991.171 The majority of this excess ends up in landfills or incineration. It

generates about 250,000 tonnes of CO2 discharges. Some of these emissions are

transformed to produce heat and power as in London, but not enough given the large

amount of CO2 being produced in the city. In NYC 70.1% of waste is going to landfills.172

In Hong Kong, the increase in people and business enterprises have generated growing

demands on the metropolis’ landfills and waste management practices. Landfills are the

principal technique of waste control in the Asian metropolis.173 The waste is returned to the

landfills without previous control or sorting and is immediately dropped and covered with

earth. Private waste, which is produced from families and common spaces, is about 45% of

garbage placed in landfills.174 Generated due to Hong Kong’s constant building production,

building materials are estimated to be 25% of the city's landfill.175 The city's administration

tried to implement a regulation contrasting inert and non-inert supply, and this has enabled

the recuperation of 5.11 million tonnes of construction and demolition excess.176 The

implementation of this policy is facing some issues as the division of inert and non-inert

products by constructors is complicated and takes time.

Distribution of Waste in Hong Kong from 1991 to 2017

Source: “Solid Waste Management in Hong Kong”, Duane Jefferson, 2016.


In Paris, nowadays, 6.3% of waste ends up in the landfill, representing about 36 000

tones.177 However, the city did see an improvement in the management of bio-waste with a

treatment of 2145 tones in 2017.178

Indeed, in Paris, the separate waste scheme is effective, with the glass recycling being

approximately 100% and dry recyclables being collected at a rate above 71%.179

Nevertheless, studies indicated that there are still massive quantities of recyclables in

leftover garbage (i.e. plastic and paper).180 New York City is recycling 19.3% of its waste, and

convert 5% into energy.181

Destination of Waste in New York City

Source: Brooklyn Garbage Removal, 2019.

In Hong Kong, a government study that took place from 2001 to 2013 demonstrated that

10% recycled waste the metropolis achieved 48%182, twelve years later. The London

recycling percentage of total garbage is about 33%183. Recycling is a key challenge in waste

management. Hong Kong is dealing well with this issue. Concerning landfills, Paris having

good results according to Sytcom reports.184 WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY

The four cities that are under comparison here address their waste management strategy

over a long-term period. Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London, stated in his election

declaration that he aimed to achieve of 65% recycling rate by 2030, and the Deputy Mayor


for Environment and Energy strengthened the Mayor manifesto by declaring that they will

recycle 50% private house garbage by 2020. London also aims to end the landfill option for

bio-degradable garbage and possible convertible ones by 2026.185 The main aim of London

waste management strategy is to be a zero waste city. This follows the 2008 Waste

Framework Directive and the 2015 Circular Economy Package by the European Union that

pushes member states to reach diverse objectives between 2020 and 2030, including the

decline of the landfill to a culmination by 10% for all garbage and a prohibition of landfill

waste by 2030.186 This objective is also followed by Paris. Both European metropolises are

implementing local scale policies to reach the European Union directives and are working

with scientists to improve the efficiency of their waste policies. In 2014 the Paris city office

also started a “Zero-Waste path”. In 2015, the Mayor implemented a “Territoire zéro

gaspillage, zéro déchet” (Zero Waste Territory)187. The project intended to decrease families

garbage by 10% from 2010 to 2020188. A Compost Plan has additionally been approved in

2017, it shows the city’s directions to complete a root and door-to-door compilation of homes

eats waste. Two arrondissements are already involved in this plan. Similarly, New York City

also a goal of sending zero waste to landfills by 2030, as an element of its OneNYC vision

published in 2015.189 However, Hong Kong has no objectives concerning the reduction of

landfill.

New York City aims, by 2025, to have distributed waste management into three main sectors

of sanitation procedures: waste prevention, waste exportation, and industrial waste.190

However, in spite of the city’s growing population and increasing waste production, its waste

and recycling tonnage has decreased after the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP)

implementation thirteen years ago.191 Indeed, main policies of the plan have been

established in the diverses NYC districts since 2006. In order to address this challenge, the

implementation of unique stream recycling is ongoing. By 2020, paper, metal, glass, and

plastic would be put in a unique container. By turning to this method the city aims to improve

recycling acquisition and making it more efficient in future years.

In Hong Kong, the “Use Less, Waste Less” plan, implemented by the Secretary of

Environment, declared the purpose to decrease the per capita distribution percentage of

local garbage by 40% by 2022 by engaging with citizens to participate in the challenge of a

more sustainable city.192 To accomplish this end, the scheme suggests strategies and

procedures in three spheres: firstly, in plans and regulation to encourage behavioral

modifications to diminish waste at its origin, then focused on territory-wide waste decrease


operations to stimulate public consciousness and promote society's cooperation, and finally

the enrichment of waste-related foundation.193 Concerning the non-recyclable garbage, the

Environmental Protection Department is intending to generate a number of waste processing

tools, including a joined waste supervision ability (IWMF) on an artificial island near Shek

Kwu Chau, south of Lantau which will be implemented by 2022-2023.194

CARBON EMISSIONS

Finally, diminishing CO2 emissions, and moving to a low carbon circular economy is also an

aspiration for all of these cities under consideration here. For example, London’s waste

authorities have been required to expose their plan presenting how they can reach the

greenhouse gas Emissions Performance Standards. New York City’s Solid Waste

Management Plan is also intending to decrease yearly greenhouse gas emissions by 34,000

tonnes by redirecting 2,000 tonnes of daily waste from land-based waste treatment stations

in Brooklyn and Queens to marine ones.195

Reducing emissions from waste in Hong Kong presents an interesting tension in the policy

choices a city faces when deciding how to deal with CO2 emissions from waste

management. In Hong Kong it is estimated that 36% of the city’s CO2 emissions is due to

waste disposal.196 If Hong Kong wishes to reduce emissions associated with waste, it can

choose between purchasing landfill sites across the border in China or covering local landfill

sites and capturing the methane using it for power generation. While covering landfills would

result in a reduction in emissions, the policy choice to export waste to the mainland would

reduce reported emissions within the city’s territory at lower financial cost without actually

reducing overall emissions due to better waste management practices.197 This example

highlights the challenge of addressing waste management at different scales, as well as the

role of local governance structures in dictating which waste management policies are more

attractive than others.

WASTE MANAGEMENT UNDERPINS SUSTAINABLE URBAN GROWTH

Waste management is a major issue for many cities and even more important for large

metropolises with growing populations and increasing economic activity. All cities under

consideration here, Hong Kong, London, New York City and Paris, aim to improve their

waste management for a better economic results, better sustainable practices by citizens,


but most importantly for better environmental sustainability. As the SCI suggests, a city must

take into account waste management in order to ensure greater sustainability in the long

term. The objective to reduce and even eradicate landfill in New York, London and Paris is a

key challenge to achieve a better management of waste, reducing negatives impacts on the

planet.


The economic health of a city is represented in the SCI profit pillar. The profit pillar shows

that economic competitiveness is necessary for city sustainability. While increasing

economic performance can challenge city’s sustainability, they can also complement each

other. In fact, the lowest quartile of cities on the SCI Profit Pillar perform poorly on the Planet

and People pillars. However, the literature and SCI index show, green growth is possible

under certain conditions.198 Looking through the profit pillar, this report analyzes the cities’

productivity and potential for growth in the long-term and focuses on economic policies made

by the local government. In the Profit Pillar, London, Hong Kong and New York show

particular strength, ranking second, third and fourth respectively. Paris followed behind,

ranking eighteenth. To explain their ranking, the subcomponents transport infrastructure,

economic development & employment and connectivity are explored here. Particular

attention is given to policies that achieved substantial results and provide best practice

examples of how cities can affect change.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & EMPLOYMENT

Economic development and employment shape cities as reflected in their large weight in the

SCI’s Profit pillar at 36%. In this section, economic development and employment indicators

from the SCI have been merged given the many overlaps in policies addressing these

issues. These subcomponents are determinants of cities’ economic performance and

sustainability.199

Given the many factors that play into economic development, local governments’ role is often

limited in terms of direct influence. Much of economic development is a result of historical

factors. London, New York, Hong Kong and Paris have traditionally played a major role in

regional and global trade, which leads to their success today. Additionally, political, cultural

and economic factors continue to determine growth today; in this situation, corporations,

universities and other actors have a large role. In this context, public resources tend to

promote economic development by preventing market failures - when benefits or costs are


not weight appropriately in the private market. These methods include tax subsidies or

methods to increase business productivity, which could include services for small- or

medium-sized business, investment in schools or large infrastructure projects.200 Since local

governments do not often have tax powers, which belong to regional or national

governments, the role of local government focuses on increasing business productivity.

In this section, the economic status of each of these cities will be compared and their efforts

to promote economic growth and equality will be explored. Particularly, the role of

governments in promoting their city shows an innovative practice in economic development.

London, New York, Hong Kong and Paris use local government policy to brand their cities

and promote entrepreneurship in their comparative advantages, ranging from tech to

creativity. These cities’ successes provide examples for how to leverage market forces.

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE FOUR CITIES

London, Hong Kong, New York and Paris place near the top of the profit pillar of the SCI,

showing their role as global economic powerhouses in the knowledge-based economy.

London, New York and Hong Kong particularly succeed, placing second, third and forth in

the ranking. Their economies thrive as they function as global centers of business. Placing

eighteenth, Paris has a strong, but less global, economy.

Unemployment is a key indicator in the SCI as it represents productivity and economic

opportunities. London, Hong Kong and New York have low and stable rates of

unemployment, while Paris has a high though declining rate. London, New York and Hong

Kong have 4%, 4.2% and 3.3% unemployment rate respectively; these rates are neither too

high to suggest a recession nor too low to suggest a deficient labor supply and potential

inflation.201 202 Paris has a higher unemployment rate of 9.2%, as of 2016. Their high

unemployment stems from a stagnant rate of growth at only 0.6%. In contrast, New York,

Hong Kong and London show stable, though not dramatic, growth as expected of developed

economies. Between 2006 and 2014, they respectively have 1.5%, 3.1% and 2.4% growth

rates.203 These rates have picked up in recent years as the global economy has improved.

Hong Kong, notably, shows the strongest growth rates.

In terms of output, which represents economic development in the SCI index, all cities have

knowledge-based economies that result in high productivity. A knowledge-based economy is


where knowledge determines competitivity and efficiency; as opposed to manufacturing

economies, knowledge-based economies focus on diverse types professional services from

finance to science.204 Across these four cities, Paris experiences less relative productivity

than London and New York, while Hong Kong’s emerging economy catches up to these

global players. New York has the highest output due to its size, with a GDP over $1 trillion

and a GDP per capita of $71,08. Its industries are diverse, but focused on professionalization

and services, such as health care, professional, scientific & technical services and retail

trade. Paris follows with a GDP of 660 euro billion, but the statistics account for the entire

Île-de-France region, which includes non-metropolitan areas.205 GDP per capita is 54,600

euros. Their industries are again professional, focusing on commerce, transportation and

diverse services, but they play less of a global role, focusing on France. London places

behind Paris with a GDP of 408 billion pounds, but its GDP per capita outpaces Paris at USD

$67,455.206 London specializes in financial services, real estate and other high-productivity

service jobs. For instance, ⅔ of Fortune 500 companies have their hubs in London.207 Finally,

Hong Kong has the smallest economy, reflecting its small size, at around USD $350 billion.

Its GDP per capita is the lowest at $46,193.6. In spite of this, Hong Kong has a robust

economy as an emerging competitor to these established cities. Industries such as financial

services, tourism, trading and logistics, and professional and producer services have driven

this growth.208

Additionally, the uncertainty of Brexit means that output and unemployment may change for

London as the city is dependent on the global market. London’s withdrawal from the

European Union may dramatically impact their economy. According to the Greater London

Authority in 2016, “Europe accounted for 52 per cent of total UK service exports in 2013, with

the European Union accounting for around three-quarters of the European continent total.”209

This undetermined change leaves London’s position as 2nd in the Profit pillar in doubt.

London performs best on the above indicators, placing second in the profit ranking due to

their specialization in high-productivity jobs. New York and Hong Kong closely follow,

however, showing the strong competition between these global city economies. Hong Kong,

particularly, is emerging as a strong economy to rival these two cities. While Paris falls

behind on economic development, in the affordability section, it is shown as more affordable,

leading to questions on whether economic development in a knowledge-based economy is

linked with limited opportunities for some (see: Affordability section). This contradiction

shows how inequalities can challenge city sustainability.


LEVERAGING ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The knowledge-based economy has expanded the more traditional government role in

economic development. Changing economic forces reinforce these cities’ prosperity, as they

are places based on the “creative class” or knowledge-based economy.210 The triple helix of

economic development suggests that, alongside universities increasingly promoting

innovation and firms shifting to knowledge-based economies, government can serve as a

public entrepreneur and venture capitalist.211 This model is certainly not true for all cities, but

highly applicable to these global centers.

Reflecting this trend, along with the more traditional support of physical transportation for

growth, New York City focuses on economic transformation.212 Economic transformation

supports legacy, growing and entrepreneurial companies, along with connecting with

industry, through diverse tools. One major effort successfully positioned itself as a global

tech city in order to diversify its economy and support economic growth. The Mayor’s Office

and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the city’s official

non-profit corporation, lead efforts to promote NYC as a tech city.213 Their coordinated

policies targeted NYC’s weakness in venture capital, available workspaces and limited tech

community.214 Together, they pioneered an early tech incubator in 2009, after which

incubators widely appeared in 2011; they supported applied sciences in higher education, by

creating NYC’s Cornell Tech and strengthening the applied sciences departments of existing

universities; and they kick-started venture capital funding, through public private

partnerships.

NYCEDC Policy Actions by Identified Challenges

Source: Victor Mulas and Mikel Gastelu-Iturri, New York City: Transforming a City into a Tech Innovation Leader (World Bank Group, 2016)


Significantly, these government efforts demonstrated NYC’s commitment to the tech

sector.215 Since the early 2010s, the tech industry has boomed in NYC, as for example in

2016, over $6 billion in venture capital was invested, over 14,500 startups were running,

128,600 jobs were in the sector and 115,000 were tech jobs in non-tech sectors.216

Employment in the sector increased by 50% from 2010 to 2016. The tech sector’s growth

revitalized the city post-Great Recession and diversified the economy and today, NYC is

even outpacing Silicon Valley. While this growth was encouraged by NYC’s comparative

advantages in financing, advertising and media, a pool of talented workers, which not every

city will have, the local government policies strategically advanced NYC as the next tech

capital. As demonstrated by NYC, deliberate promotion can allow cities to leverage their

comparative advantages to attract economic development.

Jobs in New York City’s Tech Sector

Source: Office of the New York State Comptroller, The Technology Sector in New York City, 2018

Similarly, Paris plays to its comparative advantage and promotes itself as a shopping and art

capital. For instance, the city hosts L’Atelier Commun, low-cost diverse co-working spaces,

from performing art spaces to offices, for amateurs and professionals.217 This initiative

attempts to promote the creative industry.218 Meanwhile, London follows NYC’s policies

promote themselves and support emerging industries. At the GLA level, the London

Economic Action Partnership allocates resources for economic development. They promote

increasing skills and opportunities for Londoners through, supporting small businesses and

investing in development in key areas of the city.219 The results are uncertain due to the

recent nature of the initiative; LEAP was founded in 2017 following the transition from the

London Development Agency.220 221 Thus, London follows New York City’s path for


expanding the traditional view of economic development, beyond infrastructure, to fostering

innovation. Similarly, Hong Kong promotes some entrepreneurship. Its policies, including its

R&D centers in 2006, HK $5 billion financial support for innovation managed by the

Innovation and Technology Fund and funding to universities, mimic NYC’s policies.222

Despite these efforts, the majority of government efforts remain limited in scope and not

transversal in scale.223 The hands-off approach of the Hong Kong government has not

embraced a strong role beyond infrastructure projects to promote economic development,

but its connectivity projects attempt to change some of this in the future (see: Smart City

Initiatives).

HARNESS CITY-LEVEL POLICIES TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH

Economic development is essential for sustainability as it determines local government

budgets and local citizens’ prosperity. Despite its importance, local governments only play a

small role as economic development relies on diverse stakeholders from enterprises to

universities. In this role, however, they pursue traditional infrastructure projects to promotion

of business productivity. More recently, however, New York, London, Paris and Hong Kong

demonstrate how local governments can engage in the knowledge-based economy by

promoting entrepreneurship. These cities provide models on how governments can act as

innovators themselves.


SMART CITY INITIATIVES

The SCI highlights that digital connectivity has become an emerging need for cities in order

to improve their levels of sustainability. In the SCI, subcomponents that are related to

connectivity can be found across all the three pillars. In the People and Profit pillars, digital

services and digital infrastructure reflect a particular large weight. Connectivity, under the

Profit Pillar, indicates a city’s innovation and economic growth, determining 15% of the city’s

ranking.

The challenge of sustainable urban development has resulted in “smart cities” projects and

appeared as a topic of research and practice globally.224 A smart city is defined as a

high-tech intensive and advanced city that connects people, information and other urban

elements using new technologies in order to create a sustainable and innovative city.225

Today, more and more cities are showing interest in developing smart city projects to make

cities more efficient and sustainable. It is estimated that the global market for smart urban

systems for transport, energy, healthcare, water and waste will be around US$400 billion per

annum by 2020.226 Research has demonstrated smart cities’ contributions in achieving

sustainable urban outcomes.227 The high level of connectivity and the smart city policy have

positive impact on delivering sustainability in cities.

In this section, mobile connectivity, broadband connectivity and Internet speeds, key

indicators of a city’s level of connectivity in the SCI, have been included given their role in

sustainable growth and performance with regards to smart city development.

ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS IN DECISION MAKING THROUGH DIGITAL TOOLS

Smart technologies drive effective urban governance and policy making processes.228 Public

participation and private-public partnership can be improved by the use of technologies and

digital tools.229 While all the four cities engage their citizens as urban plans are implemented,

London is particularly strong at using new technologies to involve citizens in the decision

making process. The Greater London Authority (GLA) created the Talk London Online

Community to bring citizens into the policy making process.230 For example, 1,000 people per

borough engaged through the Talk London Online Community by 2016, for a total of 33,000

individuals.231


Three Layers of the Level of “Smartness” of a City

Source: McKinsey Global Institute “Smart Cities: Digital Solutions for a more liveable future.”(2018).

The case of Paris is another good example of how cities could introduce online tools to

engage citizens in decision making.232 The “Budget participatif” project launched in 2015,

which includes 5% of the City of Paris’s investment budget, engaged 158,000 participants in

2016 through online voting. In 2016, participatory budgeting was also launched in schools.233

These consultative processes have resulted in a number of smart city projects example, in

December 2015, the City of Paris began installing sensors in one of the busiest traffic circles

in the city – la Place de la Nation. Furthermore, realizing that “Smart” was not something that

could be achieved alone, Paris also set up a working group including companies such as

Cisco, IBM Corp. and other startup incubators, to define the “smart city” concept and strategy

for the city. 234 In order to engage private companies and business stakeholders, Paris is

creating 100,000 m2 of space for incubators and start-ups and invests €180 million in the

Digital City 2015-2020 master plan.235

Moreover, engaging other key stakeholders in a city is essential in the development of smart

city policies. In particular city governments have interest in engaging schools and universities

as they play a role in initiating smart districts. Cities are aware that education institutions are

key players to build innovative spaces. As such, in 2010, New York City’s Department of

Education (NYCDOE) launched its innovation strategy – the iZone: this project aims at

supporting the use of innovative and digital methods in schools.236 Over a two-year period

from 2011 to 2013, 360 students made significant gains in their ability to study and

communicate.237


Hong Kong is making efforts in engaging private sector to drive business growth and

technology innovation. To support private sector technology development, the government

has approved HK$116 million to fund around 850 small- and medium-sized enterprises’

digital transformation.238 In December of 2017, the Hong Kong government presented its

Smart City Blueprint. One key initiative is the HK $500 million TechConnect Block Vote for

funding technology projects. According to Google’s Smarter Digital City 2.0, since the launch

of the program in 2017, more than 40 projects from 20 government departments have

benefited.239 In addition, Hong Kong’s city government proposed a grant of USD $500 million

in the 2018 Policy Address to hold the Urban Science and Technology Challenge every year

for the next five years in order to encourage innovation projects.240

SMART CITY GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS

Several researchers highlight the importance of a structured governance framework to lead

smart city initiatives.241 To build a long-term smart city strategy capable to pursue

sustainability and meet the needs of the citizens, a solid governance framework is

necessary. London, Hong Kong, New York and Paris are all applying their own smart city

governance frameworks that are unique to themselves. However, there are similarities and

interesting differences across their governance models while the smart city practices are

implemented.

London and Hong Kong are leading their smart city initiatives with a single dedicated office.

The strong leadership of one single office is a crucial element for implementing effective

smart city projects.242 London and Hong Kong realise that the leadership of the city

government is essential in the implementation of smart city projects and driving the path to

innovation. Both cities appointed Chief Digital Officers to coordinate Smart City initiatives.

This approach is shown to be particularly efficient at the early stage of implementation of the

smart city initiatives since one single office simplifies the communication at the early stage

and centralises the data ownership.243

New York City is applying a more distributive framework when leading the Smart City

initiative. The Smart City Projects are implemented in different levels, including district,

municipality offices, city, metropolitan area. The responsibilities are distributed across each

level with their own resources and scope to deliver smart city solutions. This approach allows

for more specialised expertise to targeted problem areas.


The third leadership model to drive smart city solutions involves the private-public

partnerships by engaging with companies.244 This approach is used by the City of Paris. For

instance, Paris is working closely in partnership with Cisco, the local energy center to reduce

the energy cost by the buildings in the city.245 It is estimated by Cisco that up to 40% energy

can be saved by using PoE devices. 246

DIGITAL INCLUSION IN SMART CITIES

Cities should be aware that certain minority and vulnerable groups are less likely to access

to digital services. All the four cities are engaging actively in bringing digital services in public

spaces in order to give equal access to different groups.

Across Greater London, 5,969 public Wi-Fi hotspots were installed and £2 million is invested

through the Super Connected Cities Program to offer indoor public Wi-Fi in Galleries and

Museums.247 Similarly, more than 300 extracurricular workshops are offered by the City of

Paris, with educational activities which range from multimedia technology to learning to

code.248 In NYC, computers in public libraries are used on a daily basis by millions of citizens

to access government online services. Citizens use public computers to apply for public

assistance including food stamps and temporary cash assistance.

The city of Hong Kong established a web-based portal to elderly population in acquiring

digital skills. In 2017, the internet usage of the elderly households aged 65 years old or

above reached to 51%.249 Although it is still largely behind the overall rate of 89% among

younger groups, it increased by 13% compared to five years earlier.250 Since 2012, the Office

of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) of Hong Kong has launched a funding

project to support non-profit organisations to develop mobile apps that meet the needs of the

underprivileged groups in the city, including elderly, the disabled and ethnic minorities. 251

Overall, while London, Paris and New York are improving the digital inclusion in public

spaces, by better digital coverage in museums, galleries and other urban spaces, as well as

digital education through workshops and libraries. providing another model of digital

inclusion, Hong Kong is leading through a focus, not on public space, but on mobile

applications. Hong Kong is an excellent example of how cities work closely with non-profit


organisations to develop online applications to facilitate minority and vulnerable groups’

needs and access to digital services.

THE PROMISE OF OPEN DATA

The use of open data has emerged as a promise for cities to be more transparent and

accountable.252 Open data refers to “data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed

by anyone for any purpose.”253 All of the four cities have realised the importance of making

open data accessible in increasing civic engagement and improving urban services, such as

healthcare or transport.

The London Datastore, one of the first platforms to make public data open and accessible,

has engaged London’s developer community and resulted in numerous online apps that help

the city to function better.254 The Datastore receives over 30,000 visits a month, with over

450 transport apps having been created.255 Moreover, London’s Transport for London (TfL)

has released a significant volume of real-time transport data in a free unified application

programming interface (API) for more than 10 years. The available open data includes road

works, traffic incidents, arrival time of next bus/tube, etc. Based on the data, more than 600

applications (apps) have been created by external developers and start-ups, and they are

used by 42% of London citizens.256 The open data published by TfL creates economic

benefits and savings between £90 million to £130 million per year for travelers.257

London’s TfL’s Open Data Model

Source: Deloitte, Assessing the value of TfL’s open data and digital partnerships, (2017)


Paris has online portals that share large datasets and statistics on demographics, economic,

health, climate, and cultural activities within the city. The City of Paris is committed to

releasing data every 6 months and has 201 datasets online that cover issues across traffic,

health, climate, infrastructures etc.258 Get Covered NYC is a program launched by New York

City to help citizens sign up for and receive health insurance benefits by using data. Thanks

to this project, around 80,000 people were enrolled in new health insurance plans between

February 2017 and January 2018, exceeding the City’s initial goal of 50,000.259

Hong Kong is lagging behind in opening its data compared to the other three cities. Hong

Kong was only ranked only 24th in the Global Open Data Index (2016).260 The government

spent HK $1.2 million in developing the PSI portal and estimated HK $0.8 million for

maintaining the portal from 2015 to 2016. Up to May 2018, over one-third of 71 governmental

B/Ds did not provide data to the portal; only two of the city's four major transport operators

had contributed some data to it.261 The poor performance of Hong Kong is due to the

absence of an official open data policy and related institutions.262

New York City serves as an excellent example in its open data governance structure. In

order to implement open data initiatives, the city has a chief openplatform officer (COPO)

who oversees all open data initiatives and engages efforts from relevant stakeholders. Open

data coordinators are appointed within each public agency who enable the delivery of

datasets, address feedback and liaise with COPO.263

Open data is an excellent infrastructure for cities to improve its urban governance.264

However, the rise of the use of data also presents key challenges to cities, particularly with

regards to address the question of personal privacy of citizens. For instance, Hong Kong

takes the use of data by using facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and social media data

to identify crime potentials. The city is in partnership with Ping An Technology in building an

electronic personal identity (e-ID) system.265 This approach of Hong Kong should be

discussed as it raises critics and debates on privacy and human rights. In contrast to Hong

Kong, New York City devised open data policies that place a high priority on citizen privacy,

leading to the appointment of a Chief Privacy Officer in January 2019 to develop and adopt

the new privacy protection.266


Open data presents great opportunities and challenges for cities. All of the four cities have

made new promises in developing urban services by using open data. London is performing

particularly well in making its data open and accessible to citizens, its open data platform is

one of the earliest in the world. Paris made strong promises in releasing open data online

regularly and created numerous datasets. Hong Kong is working closely with private partners

by introducing high technologies to develop its open data platform. However, Hong Kong

should draw lesson from New York, which serves as a good example of placing priority on

data privacy.

SMART CITIES MUST ACTIVELY PURSUE SUSTAINABILITY

In the above analysis, all cities included in this comparison provide examples of how smart

city initiatives are great opportunities for cities to generate sustainable and economic growth.

London is performing particularly well in connectivity and digital infrastructures thanks to the

significant financial investments through the Super Connected Cities Program.267 However,

while the use of open data generates numerous economic and social benefits for cities and

sustainable development, its adoption has encountered “various barriers in terms of

legislation, technology, operation and use”.268 Despite of the barriers and concerns, smart

cities’ still have positive contributions in achieving sustainable urban outcomes.269 Hence,

there is a need to for cities to better understand the relation of the smart city and

sustainability concepts and cities must actively pursue sustainability while developing smart

city projects.270


TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE Transport strongly impacts city sustainability transversally through air pollution, congestion

and emissions, as reflected in the SCI. In the Index, transport subcomponents can be found

across pillars. While, in the people and profit pillars, transport accessibility and low-carbon

transport play a particular role, transport infrastructure, under the profit pillar, indicates a

city’s economic interactions. In the profit pillar, transportation determines 15% of the city’s

ranking. Additionally, as the consequences of transportation use include fuel consumption,

vehicle emissions and access to social and economic opportunity, transportation

infrastructure affects the other subcomponents carbon emissions and affordability.271

While the relationship between economic development and transport infrastructure is not

always clear, public transport facilitates economic growth. In developed countries with

high-quality and well-connected infrastructure, transport investment will not automatically

lead to economic development. While it supports economic development, it is dependent on

economic, financial, political and institutional factors.272 As global cities with

knowledge-based economies need to attract investment and talent, a quality public

transportation system with high connectivity and high efficiency is necessary.

In this section, Paris, London, New York and Hong Kong, provide examples of what running

an effective transport system can look like through their governance, their multimodal

policies and their financial stability. Through this comparative analysis, the local contexts of

each of the cities will be illustrated to show what lessons can be learned. This section starts

by introducing the institutional framework of their transport authority, which is linked with their

efficiency to operate transport systems and their ability to implement new policy and

infrastructure expansions. Finally, how to finance both public transport operations and

expansions is dealt with. THE POTENTIAL OF INTERMODALITY

Across Paris, London, New York and Hong Kong, the governance of the transport authority

determines its effectiveness and provides local context for how transportation policies are

implemented. An integrated transport management across modalities determines future

growth and allows a shift to sustainable transportation. This sustainable shift is a necessity

for global cities who must reduce environmental impacts on their population and provide


leadership on a sustainable economy.273 274 Particularly, incentives to encourage public

transportation use are not enough; they must be combined with restrictions on cars.275 The

need to reduce distance travelled, improve efficiency of public transportation networks and

shift to sustainable models of transport is key for sustainability and economic development.

London and Hong Kong lead the profit pillar, placing second and third respectively, as their

transport systems are both high-quality, well-connected and financially stable. In the past two

decades, London has transformed transportation governance as seen through its second

place in the profit pillar. In London, an extensive 402-kilometer rail network has developed

since 1883.276 While this historical infrasture determines much of what exists today, the

catalytic reforms of strategic planning in 2000 led to the creation of the Greater London

Authority and subsequent city-wide plan and newly consolidated Transport for London.277 278

The Transport for London Authority uniquely combines functions normally separated in cities,

from transportation planning of major roads to public transportation such as the

Underground, Overground and buses. Notably, however, suburban rail networks are

operated by private rail firms. Strong leadership of the Mayor, who appoints the board and

outlines the London Plan, sets cohesive priorities for which Transport for London approves

and must follow. Additionally, the scale of Transport for London fairly well matches London’s

metropolitan boundaries, allowing it to implement appropriately-sized projects. A few threats

to this shift, however, have arisen. Currently, TFL suffers from a 2% decline in TfL ridership

in 2018, a £1 operational budget deficiency and a £1.4 billion over-budget and delayed

Crossrail project.279 280 In spite of these challenges, TfL’s integration has shifted London’s

transportation towards sustainability, led by the integration of TfL.

This best practice integration drives reductions in emissions, decreasing congestion and

shifts towards public transportation by effectively implementing a new congestion charge.

London’s congestion charge, implemented in 2003, is a successful policy to reduce

congestion and emissions. The multimodal and metropolitan-level Transport for London

(TfL), created as part of the Greater London Authority in 2000, introduced this £5 congestion

charge.281 Cars were charged to enter center London between 7:00am and 6:30pm on

workdays. At the same time, the congestion charge was accompanied by a range of other

policy measures within TfL to help ensure its success and encourage the shift to public

transport. For instance, an expanded bus network increased options for commuters;

improved traffic management made driving more efficient; and the frequency and reliability of

trains in the London Underground increased.282


Overall, these integrated policies made substantial impact on a number of indicators. While

total travel demand grew in London by 18.6% from 2000 to 2016, the sustainable transport

mode share (including walking and cycling) increased by 10.6% to 52%.283 The charge was

estimated to produce a 30% decrease in congestion, a reduction of 19.5% in CO2 emissions

and 1,888 years of life saved due to a decline in pollutants.284 285 Due to the successful

results and relatively positive public reception, the charge has been progressively raised to

£10 today. This policy has also paved the way for Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low

Emission Zone that restricts vehicles not meeting emissions standards. By implementing a

multilateral policy change, Transport for London leads the shift towards sustainable

transportation.

Sustainable Transport Mode Shares in London

Source: Travel in London Transport for London, 2018

Hong Kong’s public transport authority Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation provides a

similarly strong, yet more recent, example of railway development that other cities can follow.

During the 1980s, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) created the

integrated and multimodal transport system; during the 90s, they expanded it; during the

2000s, they improved management.286 As a result of these waves of development, the MTR

now runs a 218-kilometer network, serving more than 4 million passenger trips a day. The

government controls 76.7% percent ownership after MTR sold the other shares on the Hong

Kong stock exchange in 2011. This privatization, to increase private investment and capital


flows, caused improvements on efficiency, competitiveness and profit.287 The MTR has

impressively efficient operations and continues to make rail expansions.

The efficiency of the agency, its integrated planning process and focus on multimodality

allows Hong Kong to implement innovative policies that restrict vehicles, while improving

public transportation. Over 90% of the population takes public transportation.288 The

centralized control of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which maintains much

independence from the national government in comparison to London, has discouraged cars

through vehicle registration and fuel taxes along with limited parking spaces.289 Additionally,

as in London, public transportation has been encouraged through improvements in services

and restrictions on vehicular usage. Unfortunately, due to expansion in road infrastructure

and rising car ownership, car share has been increasing.290 While Hong Kong needs to push

further on reducing vehicles, their effective policies provide an example of how to manage

sustainable transport.

While New York and Paris show less strength in transportation infrastructure, their future

plans take lessons from Hong Kong’s and London’s successes. Paris, placing fourteenth in

the profit pillar, has high-quality yet limited transport infrastructure. In Paris, the Île-de-France

Mobilités oversees all public transportation in the region from designing to financing to

implementing projects.291 This agency is run by the regional council of Île-de-France since

2005, taking over from central government officials. Unlike in London, the Parisian

government has only limited control. Meanwhile, the two carriers Transilien, outside of Paris,

and Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (RATP), inside Paris, are in charge of the

operation. The network runs buses, metros, RERs and trams. The network is relatively small,

only 200 kilometres long, and focused on the small, dense area of central Paris. While public

transportation is prioritized, the network is not well connected outside of Paris.

Following London’s and Hong Kong’s lead, current plans attempt to address these issues

with government coordination and an overconcentration on Paris, rather than the suburbs.

By 2030, Paris, through its Grand Paris project, aims to integrate the suburbs into its

centralized metro and connect one suburb to the next.292 This transport plan, as part of other

initiatives discussed under the economic development section of this paper, corresponds

with the metropolitan goals to encourage economic development in the suburbs. Two new

bodies were created to fulfill this project. The Société du Grand Paris is responsible for


building the project, while the Métropole du Grand Paris, governed by a metropolitan council,

will provide a new governance structure for the region.

New York City has even more drastic challenges than Paris; their transport infrastructure

faces large debt, decrepit infrastructure, overcapacity ridership and governance issues.

While NYC places in fourth position on the transport pillar, other strengths, such as economic

development and ease of doing business, make up for their weakness in transport. The

transportation system has suffered from deferred maintenance, declining ridership and

car-focused policies.293 294 The transportation system spans across three states and thirty

one counties, leading to fragmentation of operations and management. The Metropolitan

Transport Authority, responsible to New York State, runs the subways and buses of NYC,

the vehicular bridges and tunnels, and the intra-state regional transportation lines

Metro-North and LIRR.295

As a result of the deficient state of many transportation modes, a transportation emergency

was declared in 2017 by the New York State Governor. While NYC has two thirds of its

transit made by sustainable modes, with 23% of daily trips made by subway, 28% walking

and 8% by bus, this sustainability is threatened by ill-running transport and population

growth.296 The subway’s on-time performance has dropped to 63.4%, in comparison to Hong

Kong’s 99% and rail accidents became increasingly common. Thus, the ride share of the

subway is decreasing. The deficiency of the subway system challenges NYC’s future

sustainability and economic development.297

Due to the fragmented nature of transport governance, regional plans have been difficult to

execute. Recently, however, the critical situation has pushed the government to action. In

March 2019, New York State approved the congestion charge.298 Modelling after London,

this charge is expected to raise billions for the subway and reduce congestion. While plans

are not fully developed, the charge, starting in 2021, is expected only in central areas of

Manhattan and should be above $10 for cars and $25 for trucks. The MTA would collect and

receive these funds with the goal to raise money for subway improvement. This congestion

charge shows the potential for New York City to catch up to London or Hong Kong.

While rail infrastructure depends on historical policies, city’s current actions affect the future

of urban transportation. A well-planned and multimodal transportation policy is necessary;

thus, transport institutions must be structured and run to provide this policy. London and


Hong Kong provide key examples of effective transport, while New York and Paris attempt to

catch up. FINANCING RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

In order to run and improve these transportation systems, financing must be secured. The

financial performance of transport authorities is of particular importance, as many cities

receive declining subsidies from regional and national governments. The SCI reflects this,

considering the financial statements of transport providers and local government budgets.

Hong Kong and London’s innovative financing methods through property, without receiving

government subsidies, provide best practices. Paris shows a different yet effective model by

funding through taxes; meanwhile, NYC suffers from large financial constraints despite

efforts to fund through taxes. Furthermore, London and Hong Kong show how these

methods can achieve goals beyond transport, by providing affordable housing or

well-planned developments.

MTR Profit and Loss Trend, 1980-2005

Source: Cervero and Murakami, Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions

Hong Kong historically funds its transport system through innovative solutions, which London

has more recently imitated. Since 1980, Hong Kong’s Rail plus Property (R+P) model,


implemented by the MTR Corporation, provides a successful example of innovative financing

methods and integrated land use and transport development. Unlike most public transport

companies worldwide, this model allows MTR Corporation to be self-financing - without

government subsidies.299 300 The MTR made a profit of HK$16.01bn in 2012, a farebox

recovery of 185%. Meanwhile, average fares are much lower than New York, London and

Paris due to the ability of the agency to operate cost-effectively and supplement fares with

the R+P model.

In this model, the MTR company receives ownership development rights for land from the

Hong Kong government, its majority stakeholder. Significantly, the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region owns all land in the Hong Kong territory. Leases, typically around

50-years provide property development rights to individuals and companies. The MTR adds

transport in the area and pursues residential and commercial development through private

partnerships. In total, the MTR has developed over 13 million square meters of floor area.

These urban developments create dense, walkable communities, which in turn raise MTR

ridership and land prices.301

By receiving a lump sum from these developments, a portion of profits or portion of

properties from the developers, the MTR makes a consistent profit.302 In 2018, their profit on

property development was HK$2.57 billion, which comprises over half of the rail budget.303

These revenues finance rail operations and extensions, such as the Tseung Kwan O line.

Additionally, as the majority stakeholder, the Hong Kong government receives net financial

returns from MTR to fund other government services. Overall, increasing use of land value

capture mechanisms in transport-oriented developments has the potential to improve public

transport operations and expansions and offer transit-oriented and well-planned

developments.

While they rely on land they own in London, the TfL has similarly used property development

for the dual goals of expanding affordable housing and providing revenues for the company.

Several trends undermine TfL’s financial stability, but push them towards new innovative

financing solution. Declining ridership, the end of a central government grant and the

four-year fare freeze implemented in 2017 have contributed to the £1 billion operation budget

deficit per year.304 The authority no longer receives government subsidies; thus, fares,

making up over half of its income, and other income have to compensate.305 Along with

projected increases in ticket fares, upon the new Crossrail line’s completion, the authority


has realized financial opportunities through property development. The authority is the

largest property owner in London.306 Since 2012, the agency has pushed to improve its

institutional reputation, develop properties through public-private partnerships and rent out

the property for income. Not only has this increased revenue helped TfL financially, but also

TfL now achieves goals of 50% affordable housing in their developments. Hong Kong’s and

London’s two different models of property development help fund transportation systems and

also achieve diverse goals from integrated neighborhood planning to increased affordability.

In the greater Paris region, taxes provides a model of how to fund public transport. The cost

of transport in Île-de-France costs approximately 10 billion euros per year.307 51% comes

from employers, 27% comes from fares and 18% from the regional and local governments.

Significantly, employers pay taxes dependent on their location in Île-de-France.308 To a

lesser extent, New York and London also use taxes to fund their public transport. For

instance, one third of MTA’s budget is funded through statewide taxes, such as on

employers over a certain size, on trucking, telegraph and telecommunications companies

and on refining and selling petroleum, or on tax incremental financing, where the government

taxes windfall increases in property value.309 Meanwhile, Transport for London uses business

rates supplement on commercial buildings to capture windfalls, partially funding the Crossrail

line. Thus, Paris shows that capturing value from transport development can be received not

just through property, but also through taxes.

In spite of NYC’s funding through taxes, New York suffers the most greatly from lack of

financing, showing finances role in promoting transport infrastructure and economic

development. Currently, driven by the rising cost of health insurance, increased borrowing,

and the decline in subway and bus ridership, the MTA’s operating budget deficit is projected

to reach $262 million in 2020 to $634 million in 2022.310 By 2022, debt service is projected to

consume 18.6 percent of total revenue and 36.5 percent of fare and toll revenue. These gaps

are critical, particularly as more investment is needed to repair the subway. The large capital

investment plan, in order to fix the aforementioned infrastructure problems, has a funding

gap of over $15 billion.311 Significantly, the recently approved congestion charge hopes to fill

these gaps by raising $1 billion annually and use it to receive $15bill bonds to fund

improvements.312

While Hong Kong and London are some of the few cities in which public transport can turn a

profit, due to its exceptionally high density and value of land, these financing methods can


increase financial stability in other cities.313 These cities show innovative sources of income

through property development, while Paris shows that the value added by transportation can

be captured through taxes. New York, particularly, can learn from these innovations as it

aims to improve its deficient transportation system.

MULTILATERAL PLANNING SUPPORTS ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

Overall, Hong Kong and London provide excellent examples of innovative financing and

integrated transport planning. London’s TfL shows a recent integration of a transportation

system that realized improvements in sustainable transport, while Hong Kong’s MTR

provides an example of a newer system that innovatively financed its expansions. Paris

shows a well-run system with potential as it shifts to metropolitan control. By looking to Hong

Kong, London and Paris, other cities can learn from these diverse models how to expand

and effectively operate transportation systems. New York is one of the cities learning from

these models as it imitates London through a congestion charge. These cities provide

important lessons as sustainable, yet financially stable, transport is necessary for economic

development.


The SCI offers a well rounded understanding of social, environmental and economic

conditions that determine current levels of sustainability in cities and the potential for future

sustainable growth A closer analysis of London, Paris, New York City and Hong Kong in this

comparative report allows for the identification of key drivers of success, as well as

challenges, in terms of sustainability. Focusing on public policies and the role of local

authorities provides understanding of how cities can adapt, innovate and improve quality of

life for current and future residents despite new numerous challenges.

Identifying cities’ main strengths and weaknesses through the comparative research made it

possible to pinpoint best practices that produce positive outcomes across the three pillars,

and can serve as an inspiration for others. Firstly, the importance of sustainable urban

planning, such as green spaces and sustainable modes of public transportation, emerged as

solutions to air pollution and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and subsequently as a

way to improve public health. These cities also successfully mitigate negative effects of

climate change by upgrading their buildings with retrofit programs.

Secondly, the cities can use new digital technologies to promote their economic development

and innovate in order to remain competitive in the future.

Thirdly, however, economic success of these cities comes with high levels of inequality and

lack of affordability in the local housing market as the competition between local and foreign

capital pushes low income and middle class populations to the city’s outskirts - an issue that

must be address to maintain social stability.

Finally, best practices driving sustainability in Paris, London, New York City and Hong Kong

engage in multilateral policy-making and pursue transversal policies objectives across

institutions. This trend addresses cities’ limited capacity to act on issues that expand outside

of its the purview of its authority, as their urban governance is embedded in a broader

political systems. In addition, these cities must engage with a wide range of stakeholders


outside of government in order to ensure success. In their transversal actions, Paris, London,

New York City and Hong Kong can serve as inspirational examples for local authorities in

cities working towards sustainability.

Nonetheless, the context in which these best practices succeeded must be considered in

order to determine their transferability to other cities. A as all four cities studied here in depth

are knowledge-based economies and financial hubs. Moreover, the role of urban

governance, even though comparable in these metropolises, is different from one city to

another determining the role and scope of action of local administration. Hence, these

findings may be limited by various institutional, political and legal frameworks around the

world. All cities face their own challenges specific to their economic, social and

environmental context, and the best practices we identified may not always resolve them.

Still, these findings may help inspire cities on how to creatively use their resources to

improve the quality of life of their citizens.

Despite these challenges, this report identifies local best practices, while producing a

nuanced analysis of changing trends and ongoing challenges in all four cities. “Sustainability

in Practice” offers an in-depth insight on sustainability in four major global cities and provides

examples of successful and transferable public policies.


ENDNOTES 1. Demographia, “2018 Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.” 2. Greater London Authority, “London Rents Map.” 3. Nathaniel Coulaud, “Se loger à Paris coûte en moyenne 1 065 euros par mois.” Le Monde, November 1, 2018. 4. “Billionaire Census 2018.” Wealth X 5. Sam Forsdick, “London beats Berlin and Paris for the highest number of unicorn companies in Europe.” (Compelo, 2018) 6. Trust for London, “London’s Poverty Profile: Wealth Distribution.” 2018. 7. John H. Mollenkopf and Manuel Castells, “Dual City : Restructuring New York.” (New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 1991) 8. Interview with Kim Chaplain, Mayor’s Fund for London. May 9, 2019. 9. Phila Siu, “Number of registered Hong Kong homeless soars as sky-high rents force people to sleep rough.” (South China Morning Post, 2018) 10. Interview with professor Tony Travers, LSE. May 10, 2019. 11. Interview with professor Tony Travers, LSE. May 10, 2019. 12. “State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2018.” NYU Furman Center, 2018. 13. “Le Logement Parisien en Chiffres.” ADIL (N°18, October 2018). 14. “Le Logement Parisien en Chiffres.” ADIL (N°18, October 2018). 15. Delbert S. Elliott et al., ”The Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Adolescent Development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. ” 1996, 33(4), 389–426. 16. Paul Cheshire et al., “Policies for ‘Mixed Communities’: A Critical Evaluation.” (SERC, 2008) 17. “Fact sheet 2018.” NYCHA, 2018 18. Sebastien Raybaud, “50,000 Hong Kong students live in subdivided flats, cubicle homes, or cage homes.” (South China Morning Post, 2018). 19. “2018 H1 Hong Kong Property Market Prospective Survey.” (REA Group, 2018) 20. Uptin Saidi, “Here’s why Hong Kong housing is so expensive.” (CNBC, 2017) 21. “Le Logement Parisien en Chiffres.” ADIL (N°18, October 2018). 22. “Fact sheet 2018.” NYCHA, 2018 23. “Public Housing Development.” Hong Kong Housing Authority 24. “Housing in London 2015.” Mayor’s Office, 2015 25. “Housing in London 2015.” Mayor’s Office, 2015 26. Anne Boquet et al., “Évaluation de politique publique: Mobilisation des logements et des bureaux vacants.” (IGF, 2016). 27. “Résidence secondaire : impôts et taxes.” JDN, 2019 28. Marie Bartnik, “6 chiffres pour savoir ce que pèsent Airbnb et la location touristique à Paris.” (Le Figaro, January 4, 2017). 29. Le Figaro Immobilier, “Locations de type Airbnb: amendes et taxes en hausse.” (Le Figaro, November 24, 2017). 30. Le Figaro Immobilier, “Locations de type Airbnb: amendes et taxes en hausse.” (Le Figaro, November 24, 2017). 31. Sandy Li, “Looming vacancy tax is prying long-held flats from Hong Kong developers who kept them locked away for future appreciation riches.” (South China Morning Post, September 21, 2018). 32. OLAP, “Les loyers des logements du secteur libre non meublé en région Ile-de-France.” (2018). 33. ADIL, “Le Logement Parisien en Chiffres.” (N°18, October 2018). 34. Cheng Ying Fung et al., “Subdivided Flats in Hong Kong: The Evolution of Governance and Policy Instruments.” (University of Hong Kong, 2018) 35. Joyce Ng, “HK$624 billion Lantau reclamation project will be most expensive in Hong Kong’s history, but city will recoup costs, government says.” (South China Morning Post, March 19, 2019). 36. Jean Bernard Litzler, “À Paris, ce projet mêlera habitat social et logements à près de 20.000€/m².” (Le Figaro, 2018) 37. Henry Goldman, “NYC Comptroller Says Bill De Blasio Housing Plan Fails Needy Families.” (Bloomberg, 2018). 38. Nicolas Bosetti and Tom Colthorpe, “Meanwhile in London: Making Use of London’s Empty Spaces.” (Centre for London, 2018).


39. Josie Clarke, “Westfield London now largest shopping centre in Europe with launch of £600m extension.” (The Independent, March 20, 2018) 40. Bosetti and Colthorpe, “Meanwhile in London: Making Use of London’s Empty Spaces.” 41. “PLACE/Ladywell.” https://www.placeladywell.co.uk/ 42. Bosetti and Colthorpe, “Meanwhile in London: Making Use of London’s Empty Spaces.” 43. Y. G. Doyle, et al. "Addressing London's modern urban health challenges: learning from other global cities." Journal of Public Health 39, no. 4 (2017): 685-690. 44. Xiangyi Kong ,et al. "Overview of the health care system in Hong Kong and its referential significance to mainland China." Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 78, no. 10 (2015): 569-573. 45. Chris Ham, et al. “Leading healthcare in London: Time for a radical response.” The King’s Fund, 2013. 46. Y. G. Doyle, et al. "Addressing London's modern urban health challenges: learning from other global cities." 47. Y. G. Doyle, et al. "Addressing London's modern urban health challenges: learning from other global cities." 48. Transport for London. Improving the Health of Londoners: Transport action plan. 2014. 49. “Government launches “Towards 2025: Strategy and Action Plan to Prevent and Control Non-communicable Diseases in Hong Kong”” Hong Kong Department of Health. 2018. https://www.change4health.gov.hk/en/saptowards2025/news/20180504_t.html 50. NYC Health. Preventing Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries. 2011. 51. Marion Perroud. “Alerte, les salariés français sont parmi les plus sédentaires d'Europe” Challenges. 2018. 52. Billie Giles-Corti, et al. "City planning and population health: a global challenge." The lancet 388, no. 10062 (2016): 2912-2924. 53. London Greater Authority, Healthy Streets for London, 2017. 54. Rachel Aldred, et al. "Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London’s in-progress mini-Hollands programme." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 123 (2019): 147-169. 55. Rachel Aldred, et al. "Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation of London’s in-progress mini-Hollands programme." 56. Transport for London, Better Streets Delivered- 2, 2017. 57. “Vision Zero action plan.” Transport for London (2018). 58. Charlotte Halpern, and Patrick Le Galès. "From City Streets to Metropolitan-Scale Assemblage: Transport Policy Change in Paris and the Île-de-France Region." Harvard Graduate School of Design. 2016. 59. Charlotte Halpern, and Patrick Le Galès. "From City Streets to Metropolitan-Scale Assemblage: Transport Policy Change in Paris and the Île-de-France Region." 60. Charlotte Halpern, and Patrick Le Galès. "From City Streets to Metropolitan-Scale Assemblage: Transport Policy Change in Paris and the Île-de-France Region." 61. Michael Grynbaum, “New York Transportation Chief Defends Bike Lanes.” The New York Times. March 9, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/nyregion/10sadik-khan.html 62. “Protected Bike Lanes” NYC Department of Transit. 2018. 63. Govada, Sujata S et al. "Kowloon East: Hong Kong’s New Smart CBD." In Smart Economy in Smart Cities, pp. 229-243. Springer, Singapore, 2017. 64. Jonathan A. Patz, et al.. "Impact of regional climate change on human health." Nature 438, no. 7066 (2005): 310. 65. Laura Kleerekoper, et al. "How to make a city climate-proof, addressing the urban heat island effect." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 64 (2012): 30-38. 66. Jason Corburn, "Cities, climate change and urban heat island mitigation: Localising global environmental science." Urban studies 46, no. 2 (2009): 413-427. 67. Kolokotroni, Maria, et al. "London's urban heat island: Impact on current and future energy consumption in office buildings." Energy and buildings 47 (2012): 302-311. 68. “Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling” Mayor of London. www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response/poli-8 69. “Urban heat islands in Paris.” ARUP. 2013. 70. “Planning and Urban Design for a Liveable High-Density City.” Hong Kong 2030+. (2016).


https://www.placeladywell.co.uk/

https://www.change4health.gov.hk/en/saptowards2025/news/20180504_t.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/nyregion/10sadik-khan.html

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response/poli-8

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response/poli-8

71. “Planning and Urban Design for a Liveable High-Density City.” Hong Kong 2030+. (2016). 72. Edward Ng. "Towards planning and practical understanding of the need for meteorological and climatic information in the design of high-density cities: A case-based study of Hong Kong." International Journal of Climatology 32, no. 4 (2012): 582-598. 73. Edward Ng. "Towards planning and practical understanding of the need for meteorological and climatic information in the design of high-density cities: A case-based study of Hong Kong." 74. “The Daily Plant: Tuesday, November 25th 2015.” NYC Parks. https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/joyce-kilmer-park/dailyplant/23507 75. Colleen Reid, et al. "Is all urban green space the same? A comparison of the health benefits of trees and grass in New York City." International journal of environmental research and public health 14, no. 11 (2017): 1411. 76. Mark S. Taylor, et al. "Research note: Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, UK." Landscape and Urban Planning 136 (2015): 174-179. 77. Susan Solomon, et al. "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions." Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 106, no. 6 (2009): 1704-1709. 78. Christopher Kennedy, et al. "Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities." Energy policy 38, no. 9 (2010): 4828-4837. 79. Christopher Kennedy, et al. "Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities." 80. Stephen Jones. "Climate change policies of city governments in federal systems: an analysis of Vancouver, Melbourne and New York City." Regional Studies 47, no. 6 (2013): 974-992. 81. Stephen Jones. "Climate change policies of city governments in federal systems: an analysis of Vancouver, Melbourne and New York City." 82. Matt Thomas, “Zero Carbon London by 2050: Decentralised Energy Enabling Project” Mayor of London: 2018. 83. Matt Thomas, “Zero Carbon London by 2050: Decentralised Energy Enabling Project” 84. “Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2016” City of New York: 2017. 85. “Bilan du plan climat energie de Paris: 2004-2014.” Mairie de Paris (2016). 86. “Hong Kong greenhouse gas inventory for 2015 released,” Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (July 10, 2017). https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201707/10/P2017071000628.htm 87. Matt Thomas, “Zero Carbon London by 2050: Decentralised Energy Enabling Project” 88. Mark Watts. "Cities spearhead climate action." Nature Climate Change 7, no. 8 (2017): 537. 89. Agency Parisien du climate (2019). https://www.apc-paris.com/ 90. Harriet Bulkeley and Heike Schroeder. "Governing climate change post-2012: The role of global cities–London." Tyndall Center for Climate change research (2008). 91. Harriet Bulkeley, and Heike Schroeder. "Governing climate change post-2012: The role of global cities–London." 92. Mee Kam Ng. "A critical review of Hong Kong’s proposed climate change strategy and action agenda." Cities 29, no. 2 (2012): 88-98. 93. “Has “one country, two systems” been a success for Hong Kong?” The Economist . June 29, 2017. 94. Mee Kam Ng. "A critical review of Hong Kong’s proposed climate change strategy and action agenda." 95. “Paris Watch Climate Action Report: Hong Kong’s contribution to the Paris agreement goals” Paris Watch: Hong Kong (2018). 96. “Paris Watch Climate Action Report: Hong Kong’s contribution to the Paris agreement goals” Paris Watch: Hong Kong (2018). 97. Clémence Morlet, and James Keirstead. "A comparative analysis of urban energy governance in four European cities." Energy Policy 61 (2013): 852-863. 98. “Mandatory Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme” GovHK. 99. “London Environmental Strategy” Mayor of London: 2017. 100. “Licence Lite” Mayor of London: 2016. 101. “Energy in Buildings” Mayor of London. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/energy/energy-buildings 102. “RE:NEW wins Energy Efficiency Project of the Year Award.” Capita (July 1, 2018). https://www.capitaproperty.co.uk/insight/news/2018/renew-wins-energy-efficiency-project-of-the-year-award/ 103. Agency Parisien du climate (2019). https://www.apc-paris.com/


https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/joyce-kilmer-park/dailyplant/23507

https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201707/10/P2017071000628.htm

https://www.apc-paris.com/


https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/energy/energy-buildings

https://www.capitaproperty.co.uk/insight/news/2018/renew-wins-energy-efficiency-project-of-the-year-award/

https://www.capitaproperty.co.uk/insight/news/2018/renew-wins-energy-efficiency-project-of-the-year-award/


104. Parejo Navajas, Teresa. "The Energy Improvement of the Urban Existing Building Stock: A Proposal for Action Arising from Best Practice Examples." Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University (2015). 105. Parejo Navajas, Teresa. "The Energy Improvement of the Urban Existing Building Stock: A Proposal for Action Arising from Best Practice Examples." 106. “Our Impact,” NYCEEC, www.nyceec.com/infographic/ (May 23, 2019). 107. “Our Impact,” NYCEEC, www.nyceec.com/infographic/ 108. Seth Silverman. "Scaling Residential Retrofits in New York City: Financing, Standardization, and Streamlining." Environmental Claims Journal 27.1 (2015): 60-92. 109. Our Impact,” NYCEEC, www.nyceec.com/infographic/ 110. “Deepening Energy Savings in Existing Building” Hong Kong Environment Bureau. 2017. 111. Olivier Coutard, and Jonathan Rutherford. "Energy transition and city–region planning: understanding the spatial politics of systemic change." Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22.6 (2010): 711-727. 112. Anne Maassen. "Heterogeneity of lock-in and the role of strategic technological interventions in urban infrastructural transformations." European Planning Studies 20, no. 3 (2012): 441-460. 113. Anne Maassen. "Heterogeneity of lock-in and the role of strategic technological interventions in urban infrastructural transformations." 114. Cities and Sustainable Development” United Nations. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2003. 115. “Paris Climate Action Plan” Mairie de Paris. 2018. 116. “Building Emissions” The City of London. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/environmental-health/environmental-protection/air-quality/Pages/Air-Planning.aspx 117. Jeremy Hinsdale, “By the Numbers: Air Quality and Pollution in New York City” (Earth Institute: Columbia University: 2016) https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/06/06/air-quality-pollution-new-york-city/ 118. “About Clean Heat,” NYC Clean Heat, www.nyccleanheat.org/content/what-nyc-clean-heat (2015). 119. Michael Marks, People near transit: Improving Accessibility and Rapid Transit Coverage in Large Cities (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2016). 120. Eole: Prolongement du RER E (STIF, 2011). 121. Americans with Disability Act . (American Congress, 1990). 122. J. Patel, “Where the Subway limits New Yorker with Disabilities” (The New York Times, Fe 11, 2019) 123. Public transport journey by type of transport. (TfL Open Data, 2019) 124. Number of buses by type of bus in London. (TfL Open Data, 2019) 125. Route RV1, Review of Usage and Service Planning. (Transport for London Public Transport Service Planning, September 2018) 126. R. Minjares and al., A technical summary of Euro VI vehicle emissions standards (ICCT, June 2016). 127. Future Lines. (RATP Group Activity and Sustainable Development Report, 2017). 128. V. Barone, “New York Activists Push for all Electric City Fleet by 2040”. (Future Structure, April 26, 2019) 129. MTA Testing 10 new all-electric buses to reduce emissions and modernize public transport fleet. (MTA, January 8, 2018). 130. LCQ16: Electric buses. (The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, December 12, 2018) 131. Electric Vehicles. (London Assembly, Environment Committee, May 2018) 132. Dr R. Driver. The Provision of Rapid Charging Points in London, the case of government intervention (Analytically Driven, September 2017) 133. Promoting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations installations. (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, December 2017) 134. Promotion of Electric Vehicle in Hong Kong (Environmental Protection Department, 2019) 135. Promotion of Electric Vehicle in Hong Kong (Environmental Protection Department, 2019) 136. A European Strategy for low-emission mobility (European Commission, 2018). 137. Velib’ Paris - Stations disponibles website (URL: https://velib.philibert.inf) 138. Velib’ métropole. http://blog.velib-metropole.fr/blog/2018/10/23/la-situation-velib/


http://www.nyceec.com/infographic/



https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/environmental-health/environmental-protection/air-quality/Pages/Air-Planning.aspx

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/environmental-health/environmental-protection/air-quality/Pages/Air-Planning.aspx

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/06/06/air-quality-pollution-new-york-city/

https://www.nyccleanheat.org/content/what-nyc-clean-heat

http://blog.velib-metropole.fr/blog/2018/10/23/la-situation-velib/

139. I. Otero and al., “Health impact of bike sharing system in Europe“ (Environment International : June 2016) 140. London’s cycling infrastructures. (London Assembly, Transport Committee, March 2018). 141. London’s cycling infrastructures. (London Assembly, Transport Committee, March 2018). 142. Cycling in The City, Cycling trends in New York City (New York DOT, May 2019) 143. Ko Tin Yau, “Bike-sharing Business model won’t work in Hong Kong” (Eijinsight on the pulse July 2018). 144. “Paris Resilience Strategy.” Mairie de Paris (2017). 145. Adam Vaughan. “Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study” The Guardian (15 July 2015). www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study 146. “Paris Resilience Strategy.” Mairie de Paris (2017). 147. “Health & Economic Loss” Hedley Environmental Index (n.d). http://hedleyindex.hku.hk/outcome_cost 148. Lucas RF Henneman et al. "Evaluating the effectiveness of air quality regulations: A review of accountability studies and frameworks." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 67, no. 2 (2017): 144-172. 149. “Ultra low emission zone” Transport for London. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone 150. Lucas RF Henneman, et al. "Evaluating the effectiveness of air quality regulations: A review of accountability studies and frameworks." 151. Ziyuan Gu et al. "Congestion pricing practices and public acceptance: A review of evidence." Case Studies on Transport Policy 6, no. 1 (2018): 94-101. 152. Ziyuan Gu, et al. "Congestion pricing practices and public acceptance: A review of evidence." 153. Azi Paybarah. “Congestion Pricing: Who Pays and Who Doesn’t” The New York Times (18 April 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/nyregion/newyorktoday/nyc-news-congestion-pricing.html 154. Bin Chen et al. "How do people in different places experience different levels of air pollution? Using worldwide Chinese as a lens." Environmental Pollution 238 (2018): 874-883. 155. Jiamin Ou, et al. "Demand-driven air pollutant emissions for a fast-developing region in China." Applied Energy 204 (2017): 131-142. 156. Lucas RF Henneman, et al. "Evaluating the effectiveness of air quality regulations: A review of accountability studies and frameworks." 157. “Paris leads the way in electro-mobility” OECD: Observer. (November 2015). http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/5305/Paris_leads_the_way_in_electro-mobility.html 158. “Paris Resilience Strategy.” Mairie de Paris (2017). 159. “Paris Resilience Strategy.” Mairie de Paris (2017). 160. S. Cohen and al., Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. (Columbia University Thesis, 2015) 161. S. Cohen and al., Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. 162. S. Cohen and al., Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. 163. S. Cohen and al., Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. 164. Getting the Fiscal Waste out of Solid Waste Collection in New York City. (Citizens Budget Commission, 2014) 165. Rapport annuel sur le prix et la qualité du service public de gestion des déchets à Paris . (Mairie de Paris, 2013). 166. Solid Waste Report. (PLANYC, A greener, greater New York, 2011). 167. Solid Waste Report. (PLANYC, A greener, greater New York, 2011) 168. London’s Environment Strategy (London City Hall, May 2018). 169. London’s Environment Strategy (London City Hall, May 2018). 170. Rapport d’activités 2017. (Sytcom, 2018). 171. S. Cohen and al., Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. (Columbia University Thesis, 2015) 172. D. Hubert. Ten years after: Assessing Progress on the City’s Solid Waste Management Plan. (New York City Independent Budget Office, April 2017). 173. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013). 174. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013). 175. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013).


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study

http://hedleyindex.hku.hk/outcome_cost

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/nyregion/newyorktoday/nyc-news-congestion-pricing.html

http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/5305/Paris_leads_the_way_in_electro-mobility.html

176. Dr Wilson W.S. Lu, Construction Waste - Hong Kong Style. (Waste management world website, 2013) 177. Rapport d’activités 2017. (Sytcom, 2018). 178. Rapport d’activités 2017. (Sytcom, 2018). 179. Rapport annuel sur le prix et la qualité du service public de gestion des déchets à Paris . (Mairie de Paris, 2013). 180. Capital Factsheet. Assessment of separate collection schemes in the 28 capitals of the EU. (European Commission, 2014). 181. DSNY - Solid Waste management website (URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/about/bureaus/solid-waste-management) 182. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013). 183. Department of Food Economic and Rural Affairs, Households Waste Recycling Rates, Borough. (London Datastore, February 2019). 184. Rapport d’activités 2017. (Sytcom, 2018). 185. London’s Environment Strategy (London City Hall, May 2018). 186. Rapport de la Commission au Parlement européen, au conseiln au comité économique et social européen et au comité des Régions relatif à la mise en œuvre du plan d’action en faveur d’une économie circulaire. (Commission Européenne, March 2019). 187. Territoire zéro gaspillage, zéro déchet. (ADEME, 2014). 188. Territoire zéro gaspillage, zéro déchet. (ADEME, 2014). 189. One New York, the Plan for a Strong and Just City (New York City, 2015) 190. Department of Sanitation data, Solid Waste Management Plan. (New York City Independent Budget Office, August 2017). 191. Department of Sanitation data, Solid Waste Management Plan. (New York City Independent Budget Office, August 2017). 192. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013). 193. Hong Kong Blueprint for sustainable use of resources 2013-2022. (Environment Bureau, 2013). 194. ELM Hong Kong 2030+, Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030. (Hong Kong Development Bureau, October 2016). 195. Cities 100: New York City - Zero Waste Plan to Eliminate Waste to Landfill . (C40, October 2015). 196. Paul G. Harris, et al. "Greenhouse gas emissions from cities and regions: international implications revealed by Hong Kong." Energy Policy 44 (2012): 416-424. 197. Paul G. Harris, et al. "Greenhouse gas emissions from cities and regions: international implications revealed by Hong Kong." 198. Paul Ekins, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: The Prospects for Green Growth (Routledge, 2000). 199. Paul Ekins, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: The Prospects for Green Growth (Routledge, 2000). 200. Timothy J. Bartik, Jobs, Productivity and Local Economic Development: What Implications Does Economic Research Have for the Role of Government? (National Tax Journal, 1994), 847-861. 201. NYC Quarterly Economic Update (New York City Comptroller, 2019). 202. Mark Wingham, London in Comparison with Other Global Cities (GLA Economics, 2016) 203. Mark Wingham, London in Comparison with Other Global Cities. 204. Knowledge-Based Economy, (OECD, 2005), https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6864. 205. Paris Region Key Figures 2018 (Paris Region, 2018). 206. Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018 – United Kingdom (OECD, 2019). 207. Mark Wingham, London in Comparison with Other Global Cities. 208. Census and Statistics Department, The Four Key Industries and Other Selected Industries (The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2019). 209. GLA Economics, Economic Evidence Base for London 2016 (Greater London Authority, 2016). 210. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited (Basic Books, 2012). 211. Henry Etzkowitz, Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Heliz Model of University-Industry-Government Relations (Social Sciences Information, 2003), 293-337. 212. Major Economic Development Initiatives (New York City Economic Development Corporation, 2019).


https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6864

213. Victor Mulas and Mikel Gastelu-Iturri, New York City: Transforming a City into a Tech Innovation Leader (World Bank Group, 2016). 214. Jonathan Bowles and David Giles, New Tech City (Center for an Urban Future, 2012). 215. Ugo Rossi and Arturo Di Bella, Start-up urbanism: New York, Rio de Janeiro and the global urbanization of technology-based economies (Environment and Planning, 2017), 999-1018. 216. Office of the New York State Comptroller, The Technology Sector in New York City (2018). 217. Elsa Vivant, Creatives in the city: Urban contradictions of the creative city (City, Culture and Society, 2013), 57-63. 218. Anna Aubry et al., The promotion of creative industries as a tool for urban planning: the case of the Territoire de la culture et de la création in Paris Region (International Journal for Cultural Policy, 2015). 121-138 219. LEAP Annual Report 2017/2018 (London Economic Action Partnership, 2018). 220. Stephen Syrett and Rob Baldock, Reshaping London’s Economic Governance: The Role of the London Development Agency (European Urban and Regional Studies, 2003), 69-86. 221. Andy Pike et al., Local institutions and Local Economic Development: the Local Enterprise Partnerships in England, 2010– (Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2015), 185-204. 222. Jue Wang, Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong (Research Policy, 2018), 399-412. 223. Xin Lin and Ray Poon, Financial Support for the Development of Cultural and Creative Industries: A Comparison between Shanghai and Hong Kong, (Shanghai-Hong Kong Development Institute, 2017). 224. T, Yigitcanlar, Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy 225. T. Bakıcı, E. Almirall, and J. Wareham, “A Smart City Initiative: The Case of Barcelona,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2: 1 (2012) 1–14. 226. T. Yigitcanlar, Technology and the City, Routledge, New York (2016) 227. T, Yigitcanlar, Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy 228. L. Marek, M. Campbell, L. Bui, Shaking for innovation: The (re)building of a (smart) city in a post disaster environment, Cities, 63 (2017), pp. 41-50 229. J. Cano, R. Hernandez, S. Ros, Distributed framework for electronic democracy in smart cities 230. Smart London Board (2013), Smart London Plan: Using the creative power of new technologies to serve London and improve Londoners’ lives, http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf 231. Smart London Board (2013), Smart London Plan: Using the creative power of new technologies to serve London and improve Londoners’ lives, http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf 232. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017, https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 233. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017, https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 234. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017, https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 235. Marie de Paris, Le plan stratégique “Paris intelligente et durable", 2017 https://www.paris.fr/services-et-infos-pratiques/innovation-et-recherche/ville-intelligente-et-durable/le-plan-strategique-paris-intelligente-et-durable-2706 236. NYC Gov, Building a Smart and Equitable City, 2015 https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/forward/documents/NYC-Smart-Equitable-City-Final.pdf 237. Center for Public Impact, New York City Innovation Zone, 2016, https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/new-york-city-innovation-zone/ 238. Google, Transforming Hong Kong for Tomorrow, Smarter Digital City 2.0, http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_smarter_digital_city_2_whitepaper.pdf 239. Google, Transforming Hong Kong for Tomorrow, Smarter Digital City 2.0, http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_smarter_digital_city_2_whitepaper.pdf 240. Open Gov, Hong Kong’s 2019 smart city initiatives, 2019 https://www.opengovasia.com/hong-kongs-2019-smart-city-initiatives/ 241. R.P. Dameri, C. Benevolo, Governing smart cities: An empirical analysis, Social Science Computer Review, 34 (6) (2016), pp. 693-707, 242. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25, 27–34


https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354



https://www.paris.fr/services-et-infos-pratiques/innovation-et-recherche/ville-intelligente-et-durable/le-plan-strategique-paris-intelligente-et-durable-2706

https://www.paris.fr/services-et-infos-pratiques/innovation-et-recherche/ville-intelligente-et-durable/le-plan-strategique-paris-intelligente-et-durable-2706

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/forward/documents/NYC-Smart-Equitable-City-Final.pdf

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/new-york-city-innovation-zone/

http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_smarter_digital_city_2_whitepaper.pdf

http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/google_smarter_digital_city_2_whitepaper.pdf

https://www.opengovasia.com/hong-kongs-2019-smart-city-initiatives/

243. Eden Strategy Institute, 2018 Top 50 Smart City Government https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3c517fec4eb767a04e73ff/t/5b513c57aa4a99f62d168e60/1532050650562/Eden-OXD_Top+50+Smart+City+Governments.pdf 244. Eden Strategy Institute, 2018, Top 50 Smart City Government 245. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017 https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 246. Cisco Public Facilities Management: Lower Costs and Carbon Footprint While Increasing Service Levels, https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/scc/cisco_public_facilities_management_solution_overview_us_0726.pdf 247. London Authorities, 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78556/ultrafast_broadband_phase_2_eligibility_criteria.pdf 248. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017 https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 249. Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat, Digital Inclusion in Hong Kong (2018), https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/1718issh26-digital-inclusion-in-hong-kong-20180604-e.pdf 250. Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat, Digital Inclusion in Hong Kong (2018), https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/1718issh26-digital-inclusion-in-hong-kong-20180604-e.pdf 251. Hong Kong’s Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO), Community Initiatives & IT Services, Digital Inclusion Mobile Apps, https://www.ogcio.gov.hk/en/our_work/community/develop_mobile_apps/ 252. Larissa C. Romualdo-Suzuki, “Data as Infrastructure for Smart Cities”, PhD Thesis. University College London (2015). 253. Open Knowledge International, What is open data?, 2015 http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/ (2015) 254. London Authorities, 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78556/ultrafast_broadband_phase_2_eligibility_criteria.pdf 255. London Authorities, 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78556/ultrafast_broadband_phase_2_eligibility_criteria.pdf 256. TfL, TfL's free open data boosts London's economy, 2017 https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/october/tfl-s-free-open-data-boosts-london-s-economy (2017) 257. Deloitte, Assessing the value of TfL's open data and digital partnerships, 2017 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/deloitte-report-tfl-open-data.pdf (2017) 258. Paris Autorities, Smart and Sustainable Paris, 2017 https://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/99354 259. NYC Government Website, Mayor de Blasio Appoints Laura Negrón As Chief Privacy Officer, https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/167-18/mayor-de-blasio-appoints-laura-negr-n-chief-privacy-officer 260. Global open data index, https://index.okfn.org/place/ 2016 261. E. Kao, Hong Kong government needs to improve access to public sector data to realise smart city ambition,https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2144201/hong-kong-government-needs-improve-access-public (2018) 262. P. Lam, Investigating the barriers faced by stakeholders in open data development: A study on Hong Kong as a“smart city”, Cities, 92, 2019, pp. 36-46 263. City of New York (2018). Open data policy and technical standards manual. https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Open-Data-Policy_TSM_v1.4_FINAL_04.02.18-1.pdf 264. P. Lam, Investigating the barriers faced by stakeholders in open data development: A study on Hong Kong as a“smart city”, Cities, 92, 2019, pp. 36-46 265. Smart City World, Hong Kong to implement electronic ID system, https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/smart-cities-news/smart-cities-news/hong-kong-to-implement-electronic-id-system-4038


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3c517fec4eb767a04e73ff/t/5b513c57aa4a99f62d168e60/1532050650562/Eden-OXD_Top+50+Smart+City+Governments.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3c517fec4eb767a04e73ff/t/5b513c57aa4a99f62d168e60/1532050650562/Eden-OXD_Top+50+Smart+City+Governments.pdf


https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/scc/cisco_public_facilities_management_solution_overview_us_0726.pdf

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/scc/cisco_public_facilities_management_solution_overview_us_0726.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78556/ultrafast_broadband_phase_2_eligibility_criteria.pdf



https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/1718issh26-digital-inclusion-in-hong-kong-20180604-e.pdf




http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/





https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/october/tfl-s-free-open-data-boosts-london-s-economy

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/october/tfl-s-free-open-data-boosts-london-s-economy

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/deloitte-report-tfl-open-data.pdf


https://index.okfn.org/place/

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2144201/hong-kong-government-needs-improve-access-public

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2144201/hong-kong-government-needs-improve-access-public

https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Open-Data-Policy_TSM_v1.4_FINAL_04.02.18-1.pdf

https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Open-Data-Policy_TSM_v1.4_FINAL_04.02.18-1.pdf

https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/smart-cities-news/smart-cities-news/hong-kong-to-implement-electronic-id-system-4038

https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/smart-cities-news/smart-cities-news/hong-kong-to-implement-electronic-id-system-4038

266. NYC Government Website, Mayor de Blasio Appoints Laura Negrón As Chief Privacy Officer, https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/167-18/mayor-de-blasio-appoints-laura-negr-n-chief-privacy-officer 267. London Authorities, 2012 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78556/ultrafast_broadband_phase_2_eligibility_criteria.pdf 268. E. Barry, F. Bannister, Barriers to open data release: A view from the top, Information Polity, 19 (1, 2) (2014), pp. 129-152 269. T, Yigitcanlar, Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy 270. F. Bifulco, M. Tregua, C. Amitrano, A. D'Auria, ICT and sustainability in smart cities management 271. Barbara C. Richardson, Sustainable transport: analysis framework (Journal of Transport Geography, 2015), 29-39. 272. David Banister and Joseph Berechman, Transport Investment and Economic Development (UCL Press, 2000). 273. Shin-Pei Tsay and Victoria Herrmann, Rethinking Urban Mobility: Sustainability Policies for the Century of the City (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2013). 274. Sustainable Cities and Transport, (United Nations Development Programme), https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/planet/sustainable-energy/sustainable-cities-and-transport.html 275. David Banister (ed.), Transport and Urban Development. 276. Facts & Figures (Transport for London, 2019). 277. Sharma and Peter Newman, Urban Rail and Sustainable Development. 278. Claus Hedegaard Sørensen et al., Strategies to Manage Barriers in Policy Formation and Implementation of Road Pricing Packages (Transport Research, 2013), 40-52. 279. TfL Finances: The End of the Line? (London Assembly, Budget and Performance Committee, 2018). 280. London's Transport Is Vital to the Capital's Future (Financial Times, 2018). 281. Pietro Zito and Giuseppe Salvo, Toward an Urban Transport Sustainability Index: an European Comparison (European Transport Research Review, 2011), 179–195. 282. Claus Hedegaard Sørensen et al., Strategies to Manage Barriers in Policy Formation and Implementation of Road Pricing Packages (Transport Research, 2013), 40-52. 283. Travel in London (Transport for London, 2018). 284. C Tonne et al., Air Pollution and Mortality Benefits of the London Congestion Charge: Spatial and Socioeconomic Inequalities (Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 2008), 620-627. 285. Sean Bevers and David Carslaw, The Impact of Congestion Charging on Vehicle Emissions in London (Atmospheric Environment, 2005), 1-5. 286. Tang and Lo, On the Financial Viability of Mass Transit Development: the Case of Hong Kong. 287. Rohit Sharma and Peter Newman, Urban Rail and Sustainable Development: Key Lessons from Hong Kong, New York, London and India for Emerging Cities (Transport Research Procedia, 2017), 92-105. 288. Robert Cervero and Jin Murakami, Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions (Urban Studies, 2009), 2019-2043. 289. Tang and Lo, On the Financial Viability of Mass Transit Development: the Case of Hong Kong. 290. David Vetter, Hong Kong Urged to Control Rising Car Numbers and Traffic Congestion with Cohesive Transport Policies (South China Morning Post, 2018). 291. Comprendre le réseau (Transilien, 2019). 292. Le Grand Paris Expres (Le Grand Paris, 2019). 293. Patrick J. O’Sullivan and Toral Patel, Fragmentation in Transport Operations and the Case for System Integrity, (Transport Policy, 2004), 215-225. 294. Save Our Subways: A Plan to Transform New York City’s Rapid Transit System, (Regional Plan Association, 2018). 295. Financial Outlook for the Metropolitan Transport Authority (Office of the New York State Comptroller, 2018). 296. New York City Mobility Report (NYC Department of Transportation, 2018). 297. New York City Mobility Report (NYC Department of Transportation, 2018). 298. Winnie Hu, Over $10 to Drive into Manhattan? What We Know About the Congestion Pricing Plan (New York Times, 2018).




https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/planet/sustainable-energy/sustainable-cities-and-transport.html

https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/planet/sustainable-energy/sustainable-cities-and-transport.html

299. Lincoln Leong, The “Rail plus Property” Model: Hong Kong’s Successful Self-financing Formula (Global Infrastructure Initiative: Voices, 2017), 2-3. 300. Becky P.Y. Loo et al., Risking multi-billion decisions on underground railways: Land value capture, differential rent and financialization in London and Hong Kong (Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 2018), 403-412. 301. Cervero and Murakami, Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions. 302. Siman Tang and Hong Lo, On the Financial Viability of Mass Transit Development: the Case of Hong Kong. 303. Cervero and Murakami, Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong, 2025. 304. TfL Finances: The End of the Line? (London Assembly, Budget and Performance Committee, 2018). 305. Loo et al., Risking multi-billion decisions on underground railways: Land value capture, differential rent and financialization in London and Hong Kong. 306. Interview with Graeme Craig, Commercial Development Director, Transport for London. May 10, 2019. 307. Le financement des transports publics (Île-de-France Mobilités, 2019). 308. Feuille de Route 2017-2020 (Île-de-France Mobilitiés, 2017). 309. Sharma and Newman, Urban Rail and Sustainable Development. 310. Financial Outlook for the Metropolitan Transport Authority (Office of the New York State Comptroller, 2018). 311. Becky P.Y. Loo et al., Risking multi-billion decisions on underground railways: Land value capture, differential rent and financialization in London and Hong Kong (Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 2018), 403-412. 312. Winnie Hu, Over $10 to Drive into Manhattan? What We Know About the Congestion Pricing Plan (New York Times, 2018). 313. Cervero and Murakami, Rail and Property Development in Hong Kong: Experiences and Extensions.


Documents

SUSTAINABILITY IN PRACTICE - Sciences Po · 2019-07-18 · contributing to the most recent Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index (SCI). The SCI explores the People, Profit and Planet dimensions