Results
The Urban Environment and Social Inclusion Index (UESI) shows a range of insights regarding regional patterns and temporal trends on urban performance and the equitable distribution on environmental outcomes.
Overall performance
The UESI demonstrates a range of variation with respect to overall environmental results. We present several ways of diving into the results within cities and across indicators, although the data and findings are best explored online through our interactive portal. To compare how cities perform on average in all of the environmental indicators, we transform the raw data to a normalized scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst performer and 100 the best (See Methods: Box 2: Measuring Environmental Performance - Proximity to Target). This normalization allows for comparison across both cities and indicators.
As illustrated in Figure 1, cities generally perform well in both public transit indicators - Public Transit Coverage and Proximity to Public Transit - and the Tree Cover per Capita indicator, which all have a median value over 80 points. In contrast, for many other indicators like PM2.5 levels, urban heat, and climate change, the range of performance is much wider. Some cities excel in these areas, while others show significant room for improvement. However, the overall median score across these indicators is above 50 points, suggesting a moderate performance level. The GHG Emissions Index has the lowest median value, around 54 points, with a more centered distribution. This makes it the weakest performing indicator overall, with an equal number of cities excelling and falling short in this area.
Many aspects of the natural and built environment are inextricably linked, and correlation between some of the UESI’s environmental indicators is expected (Figure 2). There is a predictable correlation between the PM2.5 indicators and the Public Transportation Indicators, which is expected given that both sets of scores are based on the same original dataset. The remaining top-15 statistically significant correlations are below 0.35, indicating a weaker association. For example, there is a negative relation between the NO2 score and Climate Policy scores, which might stem from the fact that many cities with strong performance in NO2 lack a climate policy document, particularly relatively small cities such as Murcia (ESP) or Fargo (USA).
Some other relevant correlations include the positive association between the two sustainable public transit indicators - Public Transit Coverage and Proximity to Public Transit - with PM2.5, GHG Emission Index and Climate Policy, indicating that cities who are performing well in providing public transit options have lower levels of air pollution and higher performance on their territorial GHG emissions. This pattern makes sense, as public transit reduces reliance on personal automobiles and reduces congestion that would intensify local urban air pollution, and increase road transportation related emissions.
Figure 1: Summary of proximity-to-target scores for the UESI’s environmental metrics.
Figure 2. Top 15 correlation coefficients between UESI indicators are displayed, with positively correlated indicators (where a high value on one indicator typically corresponds to a high value on the other) shaded in blue, and negatively correlated indicators (where a high value on one indicator generally corresponds to a low value on the other) shaded in red.
A Regional outlook on performance
Figure 3 highlights regional performance patterns, revealing no single region that consistently outperforms the others in the UESI Composite Score, as there is significant overlap in their ranges. However, the Europe and Central Asia region stands out with the highest median score, around 75 points, and includes some of the top performers, indicating a slightly better overall performance compared to other regions. On the contrary, East Asia and the Pacific has the lowest median score of around 60 , but also demonstrates a very large range and includes some of the worst performing cities, highlighting the significant variability in the region that includes cities in countries like China, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, each with distinct development patterns.
A Regional outlook on performance Figure 3 highlights regional performance patterns, revealing no single region that consistently outperforms the others in the UESI Composite Score, as there is significant overlap in their ranges. However, the Europe and Central Asia region stands out with the highest median score, around 75 points, and includes some of the top performers, indicating a slightly better overall performance compared to other regions. On the contrary, East Asia and the Pacific has the lowest median score of around 60 , but also demonstrates a very large range and includes some of the worst performing cities, highlighting the significant variability in the region that includes cities in countries like China, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, each with distinct development patterns.
Exploring the UESI scores for each component and region provides additional insights on regional performance trends and does shed light on leading and laggard regions for certain themes. Cities in North America excel in Air Quality and Urban Ecosystems, outperforming the other regions with a median score of 90 points and 88 points, respectively, and the lowest variability of all regions for both components. In the Urban Heat component, we can see that Middle East and North African cities outperform other regions with a median score of 98 and the lowest variability, while the rest of the regions have lower median scores and wider ranges, particularly in the Latin American region, which includes both the lowest performing city and top performing cities such as Rosario (ARG). Europe leads in the Transportation Component, with a median score of 98, closely followed by the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia. The region also exhibits a relatively narrow range of scores, in contrast to the significant variability seen in North America. Lastly, the Climate Change Component does not reveal a clear top-performing region. However, North America stands out as the lowest performer, with an average score of around 27 and a range that includes some of the weakest results in this category.
Overall, this regional perspective allows us to identify the environmental strengths and weaknesses of some regions, highlighting that cities from multiple regions can serve as sources of good practices to address different environmental pressures. This potential for lessons and policy learning should take into account the unique context of each city. While regional comparisons are a valuable starting point, developing city typologies based on factors like development, socioeconomic conditions, politics, and governance can more effectively identify peer cities for meaningful comparisons. Finally, as discussed in the Issues profiles, strong environmental performance does not equate to inclusiveness and equitable distribution of an environmental benefit. For example, some cities in North America excelled in the Tree Cover category but were less equitable in providing access to greenspaces, disproportionately affecting less affluent citizens.
Trends in Environmental Performance
Leveraging both the UESI 2019 and 2024 results, we provide a first view of the evolution of environmental performance for the UESI cities, as shown in Figure 4. Examining the UESI Composite Score reveals a modest change, with a median value just above 0 and a range of -20 to +15 points when comparing overall environmental performance from 2019 to 2023. This indicates that the number of cities improving their scores is nearly equal to those whose scores have declined, suggesting a slight stagnation in environmental performance. A component-level analysis shows a similar pattern for both Urban Ecosystems and Urban Heat, with median values close to 0, though Urban Ecosystems exhibits a narrower range and Urban Heat a wider range compared to the UESI Composite Score.
Exploring the UESI scores for each component and region provides additional insights on regional performance trends and does shed light on leading and laggard regions for certain themes. Cities in North America excel in Air Quality and Urban Ecosystems, outperforming the other regions with a median score of 90 points and 88 points, respectively, and the lowest variability of all regions for both components. In the Urban Heat component, we can see that Middle East and North African cities outperform other regions with a median score of 98 and the lowest variability, while the rest of the regions have lower median scores and wider ranges, particularly in the Latin American region, which includes both the lowest performing city and top performing cities such as Rosario (ARG). Europe leads in the Transportation Component, with a median score of 98, closely followed by the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia. The region also exhibits a relatively narrow range of scores, in contrast to the significant variability seen in North America. Lastly, the Climate Change Component does not reveal a clear top-performing region. However, North America stands out as the lowest performer, with an average score of around 27 and a range that includes some of the weakest results in this category. Overall, this regional perspective allows us to identify the environmental strengths and weaknesses of some regions, highlighting that cities from multiple regions can serve as sources of good practices to address different environmental pressures. This potential for lessons and policy learning should take into account the unique context of each city. While regional comparisons are a valuable starting point, developing city typologies based on factors like development, socioeconomic conditions, politics, and governance can more effectively identify peer cities for meaningful comparisons. Finally, as discussed in the Issues profiles, strong environmental performance does not equate to inclusiveness and equitable distribution of an environmental benefit. For example, some cities in North America excelled in the Tree Cover category but were less equitable in providing access to greenspaces, disproportionately affecting less affluent citizens. Trends in Environmental Performance Leveraging both the UESI 2019 and 2024 results, we provide a first view of the evolution of environmental performance for the UESI cities, as shown in Figure 4. Examining the UESI Composite Score reveals a modest change, with a median value just above 0 and a range of -20 to +15 points when comparing overall environmental performance from 2019 to 2023. This indicates that the number of cities improving their scores is nearly equal to those whose scores have declined, suggesting a slight stagnation in environmental performance. A component-level analysis shows a similar pattern for both Urban Ecosystems and Urban Heat, with median values close to 0, though Urban Ecosystems exhibits a narrower range and Urban Heat a wider range compared to the UESI Composite Score.
In contrast, the Air Quality component shows the widest range among all components, highlighting significant variability in performance changes across UESI cities. However, unlike other cases, its median value is the highest, indicating a slight overall improvement, with more cities improving their scores than those declining. Lastly, the Transportation component primarily displays a positive range, suggesting that while the median increase has been modest, around 2 points, most cities have seen improvements in this area between the 2019 and 2024 indexes.
From a regional perspective, several key insights emerge. In terms of the UESI Composite Score, South Asia and North America have the highest proportion of cities showing improvement. In contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America see more cities experiencing declines in overall environmental performance than those improving.
Analyzing the UESI component scores reveals interesting trends. For Air Quality, regions such as South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, and Europe & Central Asia have a higher proportion of cities improving their performance, reflecting a slight reduction in PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations. The Urban Heat component shows similar changes across regions, with high variability in areas like North America and East Asia, suggesting some cities have experienced significant shifts, though overall regional results remain stable. In contrast, the Urban Ecosystem results show that most regions have seen more cities reducing their performance than improving it, indicating a general decline, particularly notable in East Asia & the Pacific, which has the highest median reduction. Lastly, the Transportation component shows an overall improvement across all regions, suggesting a broad enhancement in this area.
Figure 5: Distribution of the change in UESI Scores between 2019 and 2024 by region for each UESI Component and the UESI Composite Score.
Trends in Environmental Inequality
Examining environmental inequality alongside each environmental outcome offers a complementary perspective on a city's performance, highlighting whether improvements in environmental conditions have been accompanied by greater equity Figure 5 shows the results of the Aggregated Concentration Score and the UESI’s Component Concentration Score for both 2019 and 2024 providing a view of the median and distribution of scores for each year. Analyzing the Aggregated Concentration Score reveals a modest improvement in the median concentration index, shifting from -0.06 in 2019 to -0.03 in 2024, indicating a slight move closer to the line of perfect equity (0 value). This reduction in negative concentration scores suggests that while some cities have made progress in reducing the unequal distribution of negative environmental outcomes, the change is not significant enough to indicate a clear positive trend.
A similar pattern is observed in some UESI components, such as the Urban Ecosystem and Transportation categories, where modest equity improvements are indicated by median Concentration Scores moving closer to the line of perfect equity and a decrease in the number of cities with negative concentration scores. The Air Quality component shows virtually no change between 2019 and 2024, indicating no improvements or regression in the equitable distribution of air pollution throughout cities. Finally, the 2024 and 2019 results for the Urban Heat Component show a slight decline in the equitable distribution of urban heat across UESI cities. This is evident from the increased number of cities at the extremes of the distribution and the wider range of scores in 2024, indicating that more cities are disproportionately exposing either the lowest or highest income earners to urban heat compared to 2019.
Figure 6: Distribution of UESI Concentration Index in 2019 and 2024 for each UESI Component and the UESI Composite Score.
Overall, the UESI results offer valuable insights into urban environmental performance and equity, emphasizing that both aspects must be addressed to create truly sustainable urban centers. Between 2019 and 2024, environmental performance and equity have generally stagnated across UESI cities, underscoring the need for greater efforts to address urban environmental pressures and ensure that benefits are equitably distributed. This goal is especially important in areas where performance or equity are declining, such as the Urban Heat Component.
