1 Introduction
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Cities
2.2 Questionnaire
2.3 The Process
2.4 The City Blueprint
2.5 Data Availability and Calculations
2.6 Blue City Index
3 Results
3.1 Comparison of UWCS of Cities
3.1.1 Drinking Water
3.1.2 Waste Water
3.1.3 City Blueprints
3.1.4 Blue City Index (BCI)
City/region | BCI | UWCS | VPI | GDP | GE | RQ | RL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algarve | 5.61 | 6 | 1 | 23363 | 78.7 | 73.9 | 81.7 |
Athens | 6.26 | 5 | 1.3 | 26258 | 66.8 | 69.7 | 66.7 |
Reggio Emilia | 6.60 | 6 | 1.7 | 30464 | 66.4 | 75.4 | 63.4 |
Amsterdam | 7.43 | 7 | 7.7 | 42023 | 96.7 | 98.1 | 97.7 |
Hamburg | 7.72 | 10 | 3.3 | 38077 | 91.9 | 92.9 | 91.5 |
Oslo | 7.41 | 7 | 10 | 53396 | 96.2 | 91 | 98.1 |
Scotland | 6.23 | 6 | 3.3 | 36522 | 92.4 | 94.3 | 92.5 |
Bucharest | 5.18 | 6 | 0.7 | 12493 | 47.4 | 74.9 | 56.3 |
Rotterdam | 7.03 | 8 | 7.7 | 42023 | 96.7 | 98.1 | 97.7 |
Kilamba Kiaxi | 3.31 | 2 | 0.15 | 5924 | 11.4 | 12.3 | 10.3 |
Dar es Salaam | 4.01 | 2 | 0.3 | 1610 | 36.5 | 35.5 | 34.3 |
BCI | VPI | UWCS | GDP | GE | RQ | VA | RL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCI | X | 0.727 | 0.904 | 0.927 | 0.927 | 0.921 | 0.860 | 0.917 |
VPI | 0.727 | X | 0.571 | 0.867 | 0.746 | 0.670 | 0.553 | 0.742 |
UWCS | 0.904 | 0.571 | X | 0.794 | 0.842 | 0.887 | 0.795 | 0.856 |
GDP | 0.927 | 0.867 | 0.794 | X | 0.918 | 0.858 | 0.821 | 0.905 |
GE | 0.927 | 0.746 | 0.842 | 0.918 | X | 0.951 | 0.917 | 0.994 |
RQ | 0.921 | 0.670 | 0.887 | 0.858 | 0.951 | X | 0.891 | 0.967 |
VA | 0.860 | 0.553 | 0.795 | 0.821 | 0.917 | 0.891 | X | 0.919 |
RL | 0.917 | 0.742 | 0.856 | 0.905 | 0.994 | 0.967 | 0.919 | X |
3.2 Implementation of Best Practices in Cities
Indicator | Lowest score | Best score | Best performing cities |
---|---|---|---|
1 Total water footprint | 3.4 | 8.4 | DAR, SCO, OSL |
2 Water scarcity | 1.3 | 9.8 | OSL, KIL, BUC |
3 Water self-sufficiency | 0.54 | 9.3 | DAR, KIL, BUC |
4 Surface water quality | 4 | 9.5 | OSL, DAR |
5 Groundwater quality | 3 | 9.8 | OSL, BUC |
6 Sufficient to drink | 6 | 10 | ATH, AMS, HAM, OSL, ROT |
7 Water system leakages | 5 | 9.6 | HAM, AMS, ROT |
8 Water efficiency | 2 | 10 | REG, AMS, ROT |
9 Drinking water consumption | 5.4 | 10 | ROT, KIL |
10 Drinking water quality | 4 | 10 | REG, AMS, BUC |
11 Safe sanitation | 0 | 10 | OSL, AMS |
12 Recycling of sewage sludge | 0 | 10 | ATH, REG, AMS, HAM, OSL, ROT |
13 Energy efficiency | 0 | 10 | AMS, HAM |
14 Energy recovery | 0 | 10 | ATH, AMS, HAM |
15 Nutrient recovery | 0 | 10 | REG, HAM |
16 Average age | 2 | 8.9 | ALG, ATH |
17 Separation of waste water and storm water | 0 | 9.7 | ATH, AMS |
18 Commitments to climate change | 2 | 10 | HAM, ROT |
19 Adaptation measures | 2 | 10 | AMS, HAM, ROT |
20 Climate-robust buildings | 2 | 10 | HAM |
21 Biodiversity | 1 | 7.8 | DAR |
22 Attractiveness | 5 | 10 | HAM, OSL, AMS |
23 Management and action plans | 2 | 10 | HAM |
24 Public participation | 0.15 | 10 | OSL |
4 Discussion
4.1 Methodological Aspects
4.2 The Strength and Limitations of the City Blueprint
4.3 Towards Implementation of Best Practices
-
Aid in the evaluation and compare outcomes with other cities.
-
Translate knowledge and educate.
-
Raise/improve awareness (particularly in communicating with the public).
-
Enable informed decision-making, i.e. to identify priorities and budgets (planning).
-
Refine parts of the assessment, with tailor-made in-depth studies and advanced models, if necessary.
-
Monitor progress.
4.4 Next Steps
5 Conclusions
-
With an active civil society expressed as VPI (r = 0.727)
-
With high UWCS commitments (r = 0.904)
-
In countries with a high GDP (r = 0.927)
-
In counties with a high governance effectiveness (r = 0.927)