cityplanner.ca
Discussing big picture urban/city planning and design issues.
Jul 24, 2009
Maclean's Magazine has featured an interesting review in their "July 27, 2009" issue about "Canada's best and worst run cities".
Burnaby, B.C. came out on top, followed by Saskatoon; Surrey, B.C.; Vancouver, and Longueuil, QC to round out the top five...
In this particular study, Edmonton ranked 18th. Although the magazine's cover page highlights this survey as a "1st ever national ranking", Maclean's has a strong reputation and a 100-year history behind it.
Yet top City officials downplayed the ranking, applying criticisms to questionable per capita financial calculations and to the use of assumptions in calculations. As a result, no significant changes were in response to the report.
By contrast, a study released seven months prior by a lesser-known group called Corporate Knights, founded in 2002, ranked Edmonton 1st for environmental sustainability, and the same officials played this ranking up.
Edmonton had been ranked 6th overall in Corporate Knights' two previous studies (available here), so a jump of five rankings in one year is pretty significant. How was this possible?
After importing the data from the three Corporate Knights' studies into a spreadsheet, it became plainly obvious that there were large inconsistencies. For instance, the cities, and number of cities studied changed from year to year (from 23 to 18 to 17). The analysis is also biased to give larger cities higher rankings.
Yellowknife, which received a ranking of 10 for Social Well-Being in 2008 dropped mysteriously to 6.45 in 2009. For some reason, over the same period, the Social Well-Being numbers for Saint John and Charlottetown jumped from 1.88 and 1.15, to 5.9 and 5.92 respectively.
Additionally, the categories and type of data being analyzed changed from year to year. The 2007 study assessed cities on the basis of six indices: Environment, Labour, Household, Green Mobility, Community, and Water and Waste. However, the 2008 and 2009 studies only included five indices, and these are not consistent - the 2008 survey examined "Empowerment" and "Green Mobility", while the 2009 survey examined "Governance and Empowerment" and "Infrastructure and Built Environment".
Anyone familiar with surveys and data analysis knows you do substantial planning up front so you can set up a baseline that you do not change. No matter what, you do not vary from that baseline, so that you have something consistent to compare your future data against. You would be able to show improved its rankings in a particular area, or lost points because of problems in another area. But without a baseline, it is like throwing darts to determine rankings and compare from year to year.
The point relating to data is that you have to decide what information you are going to put your stock in. Much like in investment, good information tends to get you gains, whereas bad information can pose a risk to your bottom line.
Another point is that every city has room for improvement. Nothing is gained by only focusing on the good and downplaying criticisms as a mere exercise in political posturing. These studies are conducted, and articles are written, and conferences are held, to red flag problem areas, highlight some best practices, and encourage cities to improve, to in turn make citizens' lives better, as we would want others to do for us in our own locales.
When English poet Thomas Gray wrote "...ignorance is bliss; 'tis folly to be wise," I'm pretty sure he wasn't applying that to municipalities. (You can read the full poem here)
Burnaby, B.C. came out on top, followed by Saskatoon; Surrey, B.C.; Vancouver, and Longueuil, QC to round out the top five...
In this particular study, Edmonton ranked 18th. Although the magazine's cover page highlights this survey as a "1st ever national ranking", Maclean's has a strong reputation and a 100-year history behind it.
Yet top City officials downplayed the ranking, applying criticisms to questionable per capita financial calculations and to the use of assumptions in calculations. As a result, no significant changes were in response to the report.
By contrast, a study released seven months prior by a lesser-known group called Corporate Knights, founded in 2002, ranked Edmonton 1st for environmental sustainability, and the same officials played this ranking up.
Edmonton had been ranked 6th overall in Corporate Knights' two previous studies (available here), so a jump of five rankings in one year is pretty significant. How was this possible?
After importing the data from the three Corporate Knights' studies into a spreadsheet, it became plainly obvious that there were large inconsistencies. For instance, the cities, and number of cities studied changed from year to year (from 23 to 18 to 17). The analysis is also biased to give larger cities higher rankings.
Yellowknife, which received a ranking of 10 for Social Well-Being in 2008 dropped mysteriously to 6.45 in 2009. For some reason, over the same period, the Social Well-Being numbers for Saint John and Charlottetown jumped from 1.88 and 1.15, to 5.9 and 5.92 respectively.
Additionally, the categories and type of data being analyzed changed from year to year. The 2007 study assessed cities on the basis of six indices: Environment, Labour, Household, Green Mobility, Community, and Water and Waste. However, the 2008 and 2009 studies only included five indices, and these are not consistent - the 2008 survey examined "Empowerment" and "Green Mobility", while the 2009 survey examined "Governance and Empowerment" and "Infrastructure and Built Environment".
Anyone familiar with surveys and data analysis knows you do substantial planning up front so you can set up a baseline that you do not change. No matter what, you do not vary from that baseline, so that you have something consistent to compare your future data against. You would be able to show improved its rankings in a particular area, or lost points because of problems in another area. But without a baseline, it is like throwing darts to determine rankings and compare from year to year.
The point relating to data is that you have to decide what information you are going to put your stock in. Much like in investment, good information tends to get you gains, whereas bad information can pose a risk to your bottom line.
Another point is that every city has room for improvement. Nothing is gained by only focusing on the good and downplaying criticisms as a mere exercise in political posturing. These studies are conducted, and articles are written, and conferences are held, to red flag problem areas, highlight some best practices, and encourage cities to improve, to in turn make citizens' lives better, as we would want others to do for us in our own locales.
When English poet Thomas Gray wrote "...ignorance is bliss; 'tis folly to be wise," I'm pretty sure he wasn't applying that to municipalities. (You can read the full poem here)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.