Rating the sustainable city: 'Measurementality', transparency, and unexpected outcomes at the knowledge-policy interface

Ratings are an increasingly popular part of urban sustainability governance and are widely understood as tools to guide policy and ensure transparency. This understanding is part of a more general shift in governance towards “New Public Management” that emphasizes public accountability and the accuracy of quantitative metrics and technical knowledge in policy evaluation. But critics have assessed ratings as broader mechanisms of governmentality, through which authorities shape, instrumentalize, and control conduct, and promote particular urban trajectories, in politicized ways. This paper examines STAR Communities, a recently developed urban sustainability rating system in the USA, to understand how such ratings behave at the interface of knowledge and policy, and how seeking transparency through ratings can produce unexpected outcomes that evade sustainability. This paper is not a critique of a specific rating system or set of indicators, but does yield a critique of the kinds of unexpected outcomes that are possible when we privilege quantitative measures of achievement. The study finds: 1) ratings are often used as labels rather than as policy inputs; 2) ratings can exacerbate existing inequalities and create new inequalities within and between municipalities because, while ratings can bring financial benefits, certification demands significant financial and political resources; and, 3) ratings can incentivize the realignment of governance priorities, as cities 'grab' points by pursuing quickly implemented, uncontroversial, and politically 'safe' policies and programs. The study also finds that sustainability managers continue to pursue quantitative sustainability measurement because of dominant assumptions that 'counting is what counts'.