For our current scoring and criteria, please see “How We Scored Cities” and “Data Sources and Point System” at http://smartercities.nrdc.org/rankings/scoring-criteria. We appreciate all the suggestions for criteria that we have received and are finding measurements of per capita power consumption, CO2 output, waste output and other measurements. The Smarter Cities wiki will serve to gather comments and suggestions on ways to improve the criteria and study methodology for the next research round. All responses are welcome.

Although much of our data was derived from the EPA, the Census, the DOE and other comprehensive sources, survey responses did have a significant result on scores in several criteria, as noted in the Data Sources section. While our survey response rate was a fairly high 24.3%, we want to push for much higher response rates in the years to come.

Last year was the first year we considered cities with populations below 100,000, which added over 400 cities to our list but presented a problem in locating comprehensive data sources that included them. For energy production and conservation, we used the survey to provide us more precise data than the state-level energy consumption provided by the Department of Energy. We asked about the top three fuels used for power generation, energy conservation incentives, and if the utility provided a renewable power option. Seattle’s reliance for 90 percent of its energy on hydroelectric power helped its score and it also indicates reduced per capita carbon output for residential and commercial electricity usage. In 2002, the Energy Information Administration reported that Washington residents released .25 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt hour, while New York State residents released over three times as much at .86 lbs/kWh. Granted, that isn’t per capita data for Seattle or New York City residents, but indicates that even if Seattlites consume three times the electricity per capita of New Yorkers, they would still produce less CO2.

For transportation emissions per capita, thanks to the Center for Neighborhood Technology we now have CO2 emissions from transportation per household for Seattle and New York. Here, we can see that for much of Seattle itself that CO2 emissions are in a range from 0 to 6.5 metric tons per household. For much of New York City, the household emissions are in the 0 to 3.3 metric tons range, about half the amount of Seattle households.

One additional point I would like to make is that the ranking was never intended to be an end in itself but a means to identify the full array of leader cities and to cast a spotlight on the innovative programs they are implementing to make their towns more efficient, cleaner, more just and more livable. As a new media resource, it is our aim for Smarter Cities to be a destination site for all who have a stake in their city's future—from students to policy makers and city planners, from business leaders to community groups and urban dwellers—to learn about best practices and initiatives, share ideas and innovative solutions, ask questions and get answers and find out what's smart near them, from farmers markets to certified solar panel installers.

We invite your participation and would like to hear your thoughts, criticisms and suggestions when the Smarter Cities Wiki is launched live in early August or at smartercities@nrdc.org.
Paul McRandle
Consulting Senior Editor
Smarter Cities

the demand for places that provide NYC's particular combination of characteristics far exceeds the supply

Oh, absolutely. Every city in America used to provide the same "urbanity" that NYC still provides. Now only a handful do. Smaller cities should be attracting young people by capitalizing on what's left of their urbane qualities instead of imitating the suburbs like the small city I left (Buffalo).

Steffens writes: "Though sustainability itself is a somewhat slippery concept, there are absolutely standards by which we can judge progress, as they mean the same things everywhere, and are pretty good measurements of overall impact." Standards don't mean the same things everywhere. The ones he describes are perhaps more dependent on economic activity than on sustainability.

He divided well being into one's own personal standard of living, the goods and services one could get, and the quality of life, the well being one receives simply by being in a community.

The latter is squishy, but the former can be measured. He proposed that places that continued to attract in-migrants despite a low standard of living -- low wages relative to housing prices -- must have a high quality of life. And those that require a high standard of living to keep people from fleeing (or have people fleeing despite a high standard of living) must have a low quality of life.

At the time, resort town MSAs were shown to have the highest quality of life. People, even people with other options, particularly young people, will take a minimum wage job and live four to a room to live in Boulder or Colorado Springs, just because that is where they want to live.

Worst on the list was the Detroit MSA, with its (then) high wage auto jobs, low housing prices, and fleeing people.

New York was average.

Today? Look at housing prices (though falling) relative to income (aside from those on Wall Street), throw in taxes (aside from senior citizens who don't pay them), and the fact that people aren't fleeing here shows a high quality of life -- despite unconstitutionally bad schools. (Data I produced back in the day showed a particular out-migration of married couples with children from NYC -- single parents stayed, presumably because they couldn't afford to leave).

In fact, my observation is that during the past decade young people have been willing to put up with an abysmal personal standard of living to live in NYC, packed four to a room in increasingly poor neighborhoods while working for less and less wages (often as independent contractors without benefits) or (worse) as unpaid interns. And my reason is that the demand for places that provide NYC's particular combination of characteristics far exceeds the supply.

to me it doesn't matter who is #2 vs #7...but in general knowing that a city is in the top 10/20 in a particular category is a good indicator