The climate is breaching the wall of urban metrics, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• Existing urban indices like the UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index and Global Liveability Index inadequately assess climate resilience.
• Recent floods in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines exposed the shortcomings of current urban assessment methods.
• Liveability indices focus on factors like healthcare and infrastructure but neglect crucial aspects like drainage and slope stability.
• The prioritization of visible projects like airports over essential but less visible tasks such as canal desilting exacerbates climate risk.

Detailed Insights:

• Current urban assessment paradigms influence investment decisions, often favoring cities with high connectivity and business climate scores, even if they are vulnerable to climate risks.
• City-wide averages in most indices misprice risk, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations in peri-urban areas who lack resources and insurance.
• International funds often prioritize cities that can meet specific reporting requirements, potentially overlooking the most acute local hazards.
• The focus on "top-10 most liveable" and "smart" cities in media and planning curricula perpetuates biases in urban development and engineering standards.
• The grey infrastructure in affected areas was designed for weaker storms and quickly overwhelmed, highlighting the need for updated infrastructure standards.
• Inequities are deepened as rising land values and infrastructure development in flood-prone areas increase prosperity scores while increasing risks for the poor.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Urban Indices: Metrics used to evaluate and rank cities based on various factors like economy, environment, and quality of life.
• Climate Resilience: The capacity of cities to withstand and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
• Grey Infrastructure: Engineered infrastructure such as drainage systems, roads, and buildings.