The question pertains to the selection of appropriate indicators from ISO 37120:2018 for assessing the effectiveness of a city’s waste management strategy, specifically focusing on the reduction of landfill waste and the promotion of circular economy principles. The core of the task is to identify indicators that directly measure the diversion of waste from landfills and the extent of material recovery and reuse.

ISO 37120:2018 provides a framework for city services and quality of life indicators. Within the waste management domain, several indicators are relevant. Indicator 5.1.1, “Total solid waste generated per capita,” provides a baseline for overall waste production. However, it doesn’t directly address diversion or circularity. Indicator 5.1.2, “Percentage of solid waste diverted from landfill,” is a direct measure of waste diversion, a key aspect of reducing landfill reliance and promoting circularity. Indicator 5.1.3, “Percentage of solid waste recycled,” quantifies a specific method of diversion and material recovery. Indicator 5.1.4, “Percentage of solid waste composted,” measures another form of diversion and organic material recovery. Indicator 5.1.5, “Percentage of solid waste incinerated with energy recovery,” measures a process that can reduce landfill volume and generate energy, but its alignment with circular economy principles depends on the efficiency and the nature of the materials incinerated.

To effectively assess a strategy focused on reducing landfill waste and promoting circular economy principles, the most pertinent indicators would be those that directly quantify the amount of waste *not* going to landfill and the extent to which materials are being recovered and reintegrated into the economy. Therefore, the percentage of solid waste diverted from landfill (5.1.2) is the most encompassing indicator for the primary objective. The percentage of solid waste recycled (5.1.3) and the percentage of solid waste composted (5.1.4) are crucial sub-components that contribute to this diversion and represent key circular economy actions. While incineration with energy recovery (5.1.5) can play a role, it is often considered a less preferred option in a pure circular economy model compared to recycling and composting, as it can involve material degradation.

Considering the dual focus on landfill reduction and circular economy principles, a combination of indicators that capture diversion and material recovery is essential. The percentage of solid waste diverted from landfill (5.1.2) directly addresses the first part of the objective. The percentage of solid waste recycled (5.1.3) and the percentage of solid waste composted (5.1.4) directly address the circular economy aspect by measuring the recovery of materials for reuse. Therefore, the selection of these three indicators provides a comprehensive assessment of the city’s performance against the stated strategy.

The calculation for determining the “best” set of indicators involves evaluating their direct relevance to the stated goals.
Goal 1: Reduction of landfill waste.
Goal 2: Promotion of circular economy principles.

Indicator 5.1.2 (Percentage of solid waste diverted from landfill) directly measures Goal 1 and indirectly supports Goal 2 by quantifying the outcome of diversion efforts.
Indicator 5.1.3 (Percentage of solid waste recycled) directly measures a key component of Goal 2 and contributes to Goal 1.
Indicator 5.1.4 (Percentage of solid waste composted) directly measures another key component of Goal 2 and contributes to Goal 1.
Indicator 5.1.5 (Percentage of solid waste incinerated with energy recovery) can contribute to Goal 1 by reducing landfill volume, but its contribution to Goal 2 is debatable as it may not always represent true material circularity.

Therefore, the most appropriate set of indicators that comprehensively addresses both objectives are 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4.

Final Answer: The set of indicators comprising the percentage of solid waste diverted from landfill, the percentage of solid waste recycled, and the percentage of solid waste composted.

The calculation for determining the indicator for “Percentage of citizens with access to public green spaces” (as per ISO 37120:2018, Indicator 11.1.1) involves identifying the total population within the city’s administrative boundaries and the proportion of that population residing within a specified walking distance (typically 400 meters or a 5-minute walk) of a public green space. For the purpose of this question, let’s assume a hypothetical city where 85% of the total population lives within this defined radius of a public green space. The calculation is straightforward: \( \text{Percentage of access} = \text{Proportion of population with access} \times 100\% \). Therefore, \( 0.85 \times 100\% = 85\% \).

This indicator is crucial for assessing the equitable distribution and accessibility of natural environments within an urban setting, directly contributing to quality of life and public health. ISO 37120:2018 emphasizes that such indicators should be based on clear methodologies to ensure comparability across cities. The definition of “public green space” itself is important, encompassing parks, gardens, and other vegetated areas accessible to the public. Furthermore, the standard encourages cities to consider not only the proximity but also the quality and size of these spaces. The 400-meter radius is a common benchmark used in urban planning to define walkable access. Understanding this indicator requires grasping the principles of urban accessibility and the role of green infrastructure in sustainable city development, as outlined in the broader framework of sustainable urban development goals. It’s not just about the existence of green spaces, but their practical usability and reach to the city’s inhabitants, reflecting a commitment to environmental justice and citizen well-being.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to a reliable public transportation network, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves dividing the number of residents who can reach a key destination (e.g., central business district, major employment center) within a specified travel time (e.g., 45 minutes) using public transport by the total resident population, and then multiplying by 100. For instance, if a city has a total population of 500,000 residents, and 350,000 of them can access the central business district via public transport within 45 minutes, the calculation is: \(\frac{350,000}{500,000} \times 100 = 70\%\). This indicator, often referred to as “Public transport accessibility,” is crucial for assessing a city’s commitment to sustainable mobility, social equity, and economic vitality. It directly relates to the quality of life by influencing commute times, access to employment and services, and the reduction of private vehicle dependency, thereby contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality. The standard emphasizes that the definition of “reliable” and the specific destination and travel time parameters must be clearly defined and consistently applied for accurate benchmarking and comparison. This metric is foundational for urban planners and policymakers aiming to enhance the efficiency and inclusivity of their transportation systems, aligning with broader sustainable development goals.

The core principle of ISO 37120:2018 is to provide a standardized framework for measuring and improving city services and quality of life. When considering the indicator for “Water Consumption per Capita” (Indicator 5.1.1), the standard emphasizes the need for consistent data collection methodologies to ensure comparability across different cities. The calculation for this indicator involves dividing the total volume of potable water supplied to the city by its total population over a specific period, typically a year.

Calculation:
Total Potable Water Supplied (in kilolitres) = \(V_{total}\)
Total Population = \(P_{total}\)
Water Consumption per Capita (in litres per person per day) = \(\frac{V_{total} \times 1000}{P_{total} \times 365}\)

For example, if a city supplied \(100,000,000\) kilolitres of potable water to a population of \(500,000\) people in a year, the calculation would be:
Water Consumption per Capita = \(\frac{100,000,000 \times 1000}{500,000 \times 365} = \frac{100,000,000,000}{182,500,000} \approx 547.95\) litres per person per day.

The explanation of this indicator’s significance lies in its direct link to resource management, sustainability, and public health. High per capita consumption can indicate inefficiencies in the water distribution system (leakage), excessive use by residents, or a lack of water conservation initiatives. Conversely, a low per capita consumption might suggest effective water management, but could also signal potential issues with access or affordability if it falls below a healthy minimum. ISO 37120:2018 promotes the use of this indicator to benchmark performance, identify areas for improvement, and inform policy decisions related to water resource planning and conservation efforts. It encourages cities to report this data consistently, allowing for meaningful comparisons and the sharing of best practices in water management. The standard’s focus is on the *methodology* of data collection and reporting to ensure the indicator is a reliable tool for driving positive change in urban water governance.

The calculation for determining the indicator for “Percentage of citizens with access to public green space” (ISO 37120:2018, Indicator 7.1.1) involves a straightforward ratio. The total area of public green space accessible to citizens is divided by the total population of the city, and then multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage. However, the question tests the understanding of *how* this indicator is conceptually applied and the factors influencing its reporting, rather than a direct calculation. The core principle is that the indicator measures the *availability* of green space per capita. Therefore, to accurately report this indicator, a city must have a robust system for mapping and quantifying all designated public green spaces, including parks, gardens, and other recreational areas, and a reliable method for estimating its population. The challenge lies in defining what constitutes “access” and ensuring that the green space data is current and comprehensive. For instance, if a city has 500 hectares of public green space and a population of 100,000 people, the raw calculation would be \(\frac{500 \text{ hectares}}{100,000 \text{ people}} \times 100\). However, the question focuses on the *methodology* and *considerations* for reporting. The correct approach involves ensuring that the numerator represents the *total area of public green space* and the denominator represents the *total population*. Any misinterpretation of “public green space” (e.g., including private gardens or undeveloped land) or an inaccurate population count would lead to a flawed indicator value. The indicator’s purpose is to provide a quantifiable measure of environmental quality and recreational opportunities for urban dwellers, directly contributing to the assessment of quality of life within the framework of sustainable urban development. It is crucial to distinguish between total green space and *accessible* green space, as well as to consider the distribution and quality of these spaces, although the standard indicator itself focuses on the aggregate measure.

The core principle of ISO 37120:2018 is to provide a standardized framework for measuring and reporting on city services and quality of life. When a city is reporting on the indicator for “Water Consumption per Capita” (Indicator 7.1.1), it must adhere to specific definitions and methodologies to ensure comparability across different urban areas. The standard defines water consumption as the total volume of potable water supplied to the city, including water lost in the distribution system, but excluding water supplied for industrial purposes where the industry manages its own water supply. The calculation for “Water Consumption per Capita” is the total potable water supplied to the city divided by the total population of the city.

Let’s assume a city reports a total potable water supply of 150,000,000 cubic meters in a year and has a population of 500,000 residents.

Calculation:
Water Consumption per Capita = Total Potable Water Supplied / Total Population
Water Consumption per Capita = \(150,000,000 \, \text{m}^3\) / \(500,000 \, \text{people}\)
Water Consumption per Capita = \(300 \, \text{m}^3/\text{person}\)

This result, \(300 \, \text{m}^3/\text{person}\), represents the average annual potable water consumption per person in that city, as per the standard’s requirements. The explanation focuses on the precise definition of “potable water supplied” and the exclusion of industrially sourced water to ensure the indicator’s integrity and comparability. It highlights that the denominator is the total population, not just residential population, to capture the overall per capita usage within the city’s administrative boundaries. This detailed understanding is crucial for accurate reporting and for enabling meaningful comparisons with other cities that are also adhering to ISO 37120:2018. The standard emphasizes transparency in data collection, ensuring that any deviations or specific inclusions/exclusions are clearly documented to maintain the validity of the reported data.

The question probes the understanding of how to correctly apply the principles of ISO 37120:2018 for reporting on a specific indicator, particularly concerning the calculation of the “Percentage of the population with access to public transport.” The standard emphasizes clarity and consistency in data collection and reporting. For this indicator, the core principle is to determine the proportion of residents who can reach a public transport stop within a defined maximum walking distance. ISO 37120:2018, in its Annex B, specifies that access is typically defined as being within 400 meters (or a similar, clearly stated distance) of a public transport stop. Therefore, the correct calculation involves identifying the total population and the sub-population that meets this accessibility criterion. The formula is:

\[ \text{Percentage of population with access to public transport} = \left( \frac{\text{Population within defined walking distance of a public transport stop}}{\text{Total Population}} \right) \times 100 \]

In the given scenario, the city of Veridia has a total population of 500,000. The data indicates that 450,000 residents live within 400 meters of a public transport stop. Applying the formula:

\[ \text{Percentage} = \left( \frac{450,000}{500,000} \right) \times 100 = 0.9 \times 100 = 90\% \]

This calculation directly reflects the indicator’s definition within the standard, focusing on the spatial accessibility of public transport services to the urban populace. It is crucial to ensure that the definition of “public transport stop” and the “walking distance” are consistently applied and documented as per the standard’s guidelines for comparability and reliability of data across different cities. The focus is on the *proportion* of the population that *can* access the service, not necessarily those who *use* it, highlighting a key distinction in service provision metrics.

The calculation for determining the indicator value for “Percentage of population with access to public transportation” (Indicator 4.1.1 in ISO 37120:2018) involves identifying the total population served by public transportation and dividing it by the total urban population, then multiplying by 100.

Let \( P_{access} \) be the population with access to public transportation, and \( P_{total} \) be the total urban population.
The formula is: \( \text{Indicator Value} = \frac{P_{access}}{P_{total}} \times 100 \)

Consider a city where the public transportation network serves 850,000 residents, and the total urban population is 1,200,000.
\( P_{access} = 850,000 \)
\( P_{total} = 1,200,000 \)

\( \text{Indicator Value} = \frac{850,000}{1,200,000} \times 100 \)
\( \text{Indicator Value} = 0.708333… \times 100 \)
\( \text{Indicator Value} \approx 70.83\% \)

This calculation demonstrates the core principle of quantifying access to public transportation. The explanation delves into the nuances of defining “access” within the context of ISO 37120:2018. It’s crucial to understand that “access” is not merely proximity to a stop but also considers the frequency, reliability, and affordability of the service, as well as the physical accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The standard emphasizes a holistic view, ensuring that the indicator reflects genuine usability and not just theoretical availability. Furthermore, the methodology for data collection must be robust, often involving geographic information systems (GIS) to map service areas and population density, alongside surveys to gauge actual usage and perceived accessibility. The interpretation of this indicator is vital for urban planners and policymakers aiming to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and enhance the quality of life for all citizens, aligning with the broader sustainability goals outlined in the standard. The chosen value represents a direct application of the indicator’s definition, highlighting the importance of precise measurement and a clear understanding of the underlying criteria for effective urban service assessment.

The core principle behind selecting indicators for urban resilience in ISO 37120:2018, particularly concerning the provision of essential services during disruptive events, is to measure the capacity of a city to maintain critical functions. The standard emphasizes a multi-faceted approach, encompassing not just the immediate availability of services but also their continuity and the underlying infrastructure’s robustness. When evaluating the effectiveness of a city’s response to a prolonged power outage impacting water supply, the most pertinent indicator from the ISO 37120:2018 framework would be one that directly assesses the resilience of the water distribution system and its ability to maintain service levels under stress. This involves examining factors such as the redundancy of power sources for pumping stations, the availability of backup water storage, and the operational capacity of alternative water treatment methods. The chosen indicator must reflect the city’s preparedness and its ability to mitigate the cascading effects of infrastructure failure on public health and quality of life. Therefore, an indicator focusing on the percentage of the population with continuous access to safe drinking water, even during extended disruptions, directly addresses the standard’s intent to measure service continuity and resilience. This metric encapsulates the effectiveness of backup systems, emergency protocols, and the overall robustness of the water infrastructure against shocks.

The core of this question lies in understanding the specific reporting requirements for the “Percentage of non-renewable energy consumption by source” indicator (Indicator 7.1.1 in ISO 37120:2018). The standard mandates that for this indicator, the reporting entity must disaggregate the non-renewable energy consumption by its primary source. This means identifying and quantifying the contribution of each distinct non-renewable energy type to the total. Therefore, a comprehensive report for this indicator would necessitate detailing the proportion of energy derived from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum products, as well as any other identified non-renewable sources. The calculation for each component would involve determining the total energy consumed from that specific source and dividing it by the total energy consumed from all non-renewable sources, then multiplying by 100 to express it as a percentage. For instance, if a city consumes 1000 GJ of non-renewable energy in total, and 400 GJ comes from natural gas, 300 GJ from petroleum, and 300 GJ from coal, the breakdown would be 40% natural gas, 30% petroleum, and 30% coal. The correct approach is to provide this granular breakdown.

The core of this question lies in understanding the nuances of indicator selection and data collection within ISO 37120:2018, specifically concerning the “Water and Wastewater” domain. The standard emphasizes the importance of context and comparability. When a city is developing its sustainability reporting framework, it must consider not only the availability of data but also its relevance to the specific urban context and its alignment with the overarching goals of the standard. Indicator W1, “Potable water consumption per capita,” is a fundamental metric for assessing water resource management. However, to truly understand the *efficiency* and *equity* of water distribution, a city must also consider factors that influence consumption patterns and access.

The calculation for the correct answer involves identifying the indicator that best complements W1 by providing a broader perspective on water service delivery and its impact on the population. Indicator W4, “Percentage of the population with access to a potable water supply within their dwelling or property boundary,” directly addresses the accessibility and equity of water services, which is a critical dimension of quality of life and sustainable development. While W2 (Potable water production per capita) and W3 (Potable water consumption per capita for non-residential use) are related to water management, they do not directly capture the *human right to water* aspect as effectively as W4. W5 (Water losses in the distribution network) is crucial for operational efficiency but less directly tied to the population’s direct access and consumption experience. Therefore, the most appropriate complementary indicator to W1 for a comprehensive assessment of water services and quality of life, considering both efficiency and equity, is W4. The value of 98.5% represents a high level of access, indicating a well-functioning system in this regard.

The calculation to determine the percentage of the population with access to safely managed drinking water is as follows:

Number of people with access to safely managed drinking water = 750,000
Total population = 1,000,000

Percentage = (Number of people with access / Total population) * 100
Percentage = (750,000 / 1,000,000) * 100
Percentage = 0.75 * 100
Percentage = 75%

The correct approach involves understanding the definition of “safely managed drinking water” as outlined in ISO 37120:2018. This indicator (DRK-1) specifically measures the proportion of the city’s population that has access to an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed, and free from fecal and priority chemical contamination. The calculation requires identifying the total population of the city and the subset of that population that meets the criteria for safely managed drinking water access. The standard emphasizes the quality and reliability of the water supply, not just its availability. Therefore, simply having a water connection does not suffice if the water is not safe or consistently available. This metric is crucial for assessing a city’s progress towards sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). A high percentage indicates effective urban planning and infrastructure investment in water services, contributing to public health and overall quality of life. Conversely, a low percentage signals significant challenges in water provision and potential public health risks, necessitating targeted interventions and policy adjustments. The standard provides detailed guidance on data collection and verification to ensure the accuracy and comparability of this indicator across different cities.

The question probes the understanding of how to correctly apply ISO 37120:2018 indicators for reporting on municipal waste management, specifically focusing on the distinction between total waste generated and waste collected for disposal or treatment. The core of the correct answer lies in understanding that indicator IC 12-1 (Total waste generated) is the primary metric for capturing the overall waste output of a city, irrespective of its subsequent management. Indicator IC 12-2 (Waste collected for disposal or treatment) represents a subset of this total, reflecting only what is successfully captured by municipal services. Therefore, to accurately report on the total waste burden, the former is the appropriate choice. The explanation emphasizes that ISO 37120:2018 aims for comprehensive data collection to facilitate comparability and informed decision-making regarding urban sustainability. Accurately identifying the correct indicator for total waste generation is crucial for understanding resource consumption patterns and the overall environmental footprint of a city. Misinterpreting this can lead to underestimation of waste management challenges and misallocation of resources. The standard provides clear definitions for each indicator to prevent such discrepancies.

The calculation for determining the indicator value for “Percentage of population with access to public transport” (Indicator 3.1.1 in ISO 37120:2018) involves understanding the definition and scope of the indicator. The indicator is defined as the percentage of the city’s population residing within a specified walking distance (typically 400 meters or a 5-minute walk) of a public transport stop. To calculate this, one would sum the population living within this radius of any public transport stop and divide by the total city population, then multiply by 100.

Let \(P_{total}\) be the total population of the city.
Let \(P_{access}\) be the population living within 400 meters of a public transport stop.

The formula is:
\[ \text{Percentage of population with access} = \frac{P_{access}}{P_{total}} \times 100 \]

For a hypothetical city with a total population of 500,000 and a calculated population residing within the specified walking distance of public transport stops as 425,000, the calculation is:
\[ \text{Percentage of population with access} = \frac{425,000}{500,000} \times 100 = 0.85 \times 100 = 85\% \]

The correct approach involves accurately mapping all public transport stops, defining the service area around each stop based on the standard walking distance, and then aggregating the population data within these service areas. This requires robust Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities and reliable population distribution data. The interpretation of “access” is crucial and is standardized by the walking distance criterion in the ISO 37120:2018 framework. This indicator is fundamental for assessing the equity and sustainability of urban mobility, directly impacting quality of life by reducing reliance on private vehicles, mitigating traffic congestion, and improving air quality. It also aligns with broader urban planning goals related to accessibility and social inclusion, as mandated by various national and international sustainability frameworks. Ensuring the accuracy of the input data, particularly the precise location of stops and the granularity of population data, is paramount for a meaningful and comparable result.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to piped water supply within their dwelling or on their property (Indicator SC 1.1.1) involves dividing the number of people with such access by the total population and multiplying by 100.

Calculation:
Number of people with access to piped water within dwelling or on property = 850,000
Total population = 1,000,000
Percentage access = \(\frac{850,000}{1,000,000} \times 100\)
Percentage access = \(0.85 \times 100\)
Percentage access = \(85\%\)

This indicator, as defined in ISO 37120:2018, focuses on the direct availability of safe and reliable water supply at the household level. Achieving a high percentage for this indicator signifies robust urban infrastructure and contributes significantly to public health and quality of life. The standard emphasizes that the definition of “piped water supply” should be consistent across reporting periods and that the data should be collected through reliable methods, such as municipal records or household surveys. The context of this indicator is crucial; it’s not just about the presence of water infrastructure but its accessibility directly within or immediately adjacent to the dwelling. This contrasts with broader definitions of water access that might include communal standpipes further away. The interpretation of this metric is vital for urban planners and policymakers aiming to improve service delivery and meet sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). Ensuring equitable access across different socio-economic groups is also a key consideration when analyzing this data, even if the indicator itself is a simple percentage.

The core principle guiding the selection of indicators within ISO 37120:2018 for assessing urban resilience and sustainability is the alignment with established international frameworks and the ability to demonstrate tangible improvements in quality of life and service delivery. Specifically, the standard emphasizes indicators that are measurable, comparable, and relevant to the multifaceted nature of urban development. When considering the integration of new data sources or the refinement of existing metrics, the primary consideration must be the indicator’s capacity to contribute to the overall goal of sustainable urban management as defined by the standard. This involves evaluating whether the proposed change enhances the city’s ability to monitor progress towards sustainability targets, improve service efficiency, and ultimately elevate the well-being of its inhabitants. The standard’s structure, which categorizes indicators across various domains such as environment, social, governance, and economy, necessitates that any modification or addition must fit logically within these established categories and contribute to a holistic understanding of the city’s performance. Therefore, the most critical factor is the indicator’s direct contribution to the overarching objective of enhancing urban sustainability and quality of life, as articulated and operationalized through the ISO 37120:2018 framework. This involves ensuring that the indicator provides actionable insights for policy-making and strategic planning, enabling cities to benchmark their performance against peers and identify areas for improvement in a systematic and data-driven manner.

The core principle of ISO 37120:2018 is to provide a standardized framework for measuring and reporting on city services and quality of life. When considering the indicator for “Solid Waste Generation per Capita” (SWGPC), the standard emphasizes consistency in calculation to enable meaningful comparisons between cities. The formula for SWGPC is the total mass of solid waste generated within a city over a specific period, divided by the city’s total population during that same period.

\[ \text{SWGPC} = \frac{\text{Total Solid Waste Generated (mass)}}{\text{Total Population}} \]

For instance, if a city generates 1,500,000 metric tons of solid waste in a year and its population is 500,000 people, the SWGPC would be:

\[ \text{SWGPC} = \frac{1,500,000 \text{ metric tons}}{500,000 \text{ people}} = 3 \text{ metric tons/person} \]

This calculation is fundamental to understanding a city’s waste management efficiency and its environmental impact. The standard requires that the definition of “solid waste” be consistent, typically including municipal solid waste (MSW) but excluding industrial waste, construction and demolition waste, and hazardous waste unless explicitly stated otherwise in the city’s reporting. The period for data collection (e.g., annual) and the population data source (e.g., official census) must also be clearly defined and consistently applied. This ensures that the resulting indicator is robust and comparable across different urban contexts, facilitating benchmarking and the identification of best practices in waste reduction and management strategies. The accuracy of the input data directly impacts the reliability of the indicator, underscoring the importance of robust data collection methodologies within the city’s administrative framework.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to safe drinking water, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves a straightforward ratio. The indicator, denoted as WS1, requires the number of people with access to safe drinking water divided by the total population, multiplied by 100.

Calculation:
\[ \text{Percentage Access} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of people with access to safe drinking water}}{\text{Total population}} \right) \times 100 \]
Given:
Number of people with access to safe drinking water = 850,000
Total population = 1,000,000

\[ \text{Percentage Access} = \left( \frac{850,000}{1,000,000} \right) \times 100 = 0.85 \times 100 = 85\% \]

The correct approach to calculating the percentage of the population with access to safe drinking water, as defined by ISO 37120:2018 indicator WS1, is to divide the count of individuals who have reliable access to a sufficient quantity of safe drinking water by the total population of the city. This ratio is then multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage. The standard emphasizes “safe” drinking water, which implies water that is free from harmful contaminants and meets established health standards, often referencing national or international guidelines. The “access” component implies that the water source is within a reasonable distance from the household, readily available, and of sufficient quantity for domestic use. This indicator is crucial for assessing a city’s progress towards providing basic services and improving public health outcomes, aligning with broader sustainable development goals. Understanding the nuances of “safe” and “access” is vital for accurate data collection and meaningful comparison between cities.

The core of this question lies in understanding the specific requirements for data collection and reporting within ISO 37120:2018, particularly concerning the indicator for potable water consumption per capita. The standard mandates that for this indicator (IC 101), the data should represent the total volume of potable water supplied to the city and then divided by the total population of the city. Crucially, the standard specifies that the population figure used for this calculation should be the *mid-year population estimate* for the reporting period. This ensures consistency and comparability across different cities and reporting years, as it accounts for population fluctuations throughout the year. Therefore, if a city reports its water consumption based on the end-of-year population, it deviates from the prescribed methodology, rendering the reported figure not fully compliant with the standard’s requirements for indicator IC 101. The calculation itself is straightforward: Total Potable Water Supplied / Mid-Year Population. However, the question tests the understanding of *which* population figure is mandated for this specific indicator.

The calculation for determining the indicator value for “Solid waste collected per capita” (ISO 37120:2018, Indicator 7.1.1) involves dividing the total mass of solid waste collected by the total population of the city.

Total solid waste collected = 50,000,000 kg
Total population = 1,000,000 people

Calculation:
\[ \text{Solid waste collected per capita} = \frac{\text{Total solid waste collected}}{\text{Total population}} \]
\[ \text{Solid waste collected per capita} = \frac{50,000,000 \text{ kg}}{1,000,000 \text{ people}} \]
\[ \text{Solid waste collected per capita} = 50 \text{ kg/person} \]

The correct approach involves accurately identifying the relevant indicator within ISO 37120:2018 and applying the specified calculation methodology. Indicator 7.1.1, “Solid waste collected per capita,” is a key metric for assessing waste management efficiency and its environmental impact. The standard emphasizes the importance of consistent data collection and reporting across cities to enable meaningful comparisons and identify best practices. This indicator, when analyzed alongside other waste management metrics such as recycling rates or landfill diversion, provides a comprehensive view of a city’s sustainability efforts in this domain. Understanding the unit of measurement (kilograms per person) is crucial for interpreting the data correctly and for benchmarking against national or international averages. The calculation itself is straightforward division, but the accuracy of the input data—total solid waste collected and total population—is paramount for the validity of the resulting indicator value. This metric is vital for urban planners and policymakers to develop targeted strategies for waste reduction, improved collection systems, and enhanced resource recovery, thereby contributing to the overall quality of life and environmental sustainability of the urban area.

The core principle of ISO 37120:2018 is to provide a standardized framework for measuring and reporting on city services and quality of life. When a city aims to improve its performance in areas like waste management, it must first establish a baseline using the defined indicators. For instance, the indicator for municipal solid waste (MSW) generation per capita (Indicator 7.1.1) requires a clear definition of what constitutes MSW and how it is measured. If a city reports a value of 1.5 kg/person/day for MSW generation, and the standard requires reporting of non-recyclable waste as a separate component, then simply reporting the total MSW without this breakdown would not fully align with the standard’s intent for detailed analysis. The standard emphasizes comparability and transparency. Therefore, to accurately assess progress and benchmark against other cities, a city must ensure its data collection and reporting methodologies are consistent with the definitions provided in ISO 37120:2018. This includes understanding the scope of each indicator, the units of measurement, and any specific exclusions or inclusions. The goal is to enable meaningful comparisons and drive evidence-based decision-making for sustainable urban development. A city’s commitment to the standard means adopting its definitions and reporting requirements rigorously, even if it necessitates changes in local data collection practices.

The calculation for determining the indicator value for “Percentage of population with access to public transport” (Indicator 3.1.1 in ISO 37120:2018) involves dividing the number of people with access to public transport by the total population and multiplying by 100.

Calculation:
Number of people with access to public transport = 750,000
Total population = 1,000,000
Percentage = \(\frac{750,000}{1,000,000} \times 100\) = \(0.75 \times 100\) = 75%

The correct approach to calculating the indicator for population access to public transport under ISO 37120:2018 requires a clear definition of “access.” This typically involves considering proximity to a public transport stop or station within a defined walking distance, often specified by local policy or international best practices (e.g., 400-800 meters). The methodology must account for the entire urban population. The standard emphasizes the importance of consistent data collection and reporting to enable meaningful comparisons between cities. When a city’s public transport network is extensive but unevenly distributed, a simple average might not reflect the reality for all residents. Therefore, a granular approach, potentially involving geographic information systems (GIS) to map service coverage against population density, is crucial for accurate reporting. This ensures that the indicator truly reflects the accessibility experienced by the majority of the populace, aligning with the standard’s goal of promoting sustainable urban development and improved quality of life. The calculation itself is straightforward, but the underlying data collection and definition of “access” are critical for the indicator’s validity and comparability.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to safe and reliable public transportation, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves dividing the number of individuals residing within a specified proximity (e.g., 400 meters walking distance) of a public transport stop by the total urban population, and then multiplying by 100. For instance, if a city has a total population of 500,000 and 375,000 residents live within 400 meters of a public transport stop, the calculation would be:

\[ \text{Access Percentage} = \left( \frac{375,000}{500,000} \right) \times 100 \]
\[ \text{Access Percentage} = 0.75 \times 100 \]
\[ \text{Access Percentage} = 75\% \]

This indicator, specifically related to the “Transport” domain within ISO 37120:2018, is crucial for assessing urban mobility and its contribution to quality of life and sustainability. It directly reflects the accessibility of essential services and opportunities for citizens, influencing factors like reduced reliance on private vehicles, lower emissions, and enhanced social equity. The standard emphasizes that the definition of “public transport stop” and the “specified proximity” must be consistently applied and clearly documented for comparability across different cities and over time. This metric is often considered alongside other transport indicators, such as the modal split of passenger transport and the average commute time, to provide a comprehensive picture of a city’s transportation system’s effectiveness and its impact on residents’ daily lives. The underlying principle is to ensure that a significant majority of the population can easily and affordably access public transit, thereby promoting more sustainable urban development and improving overall livability.

The question pertains to the selection of appropriate indicators from ISO 37120:2018 for assessing a city’s progress in sustainable waste management, specifically focusing on the reduction of landfill waste. The standard categorizes indicators into various service areas. Within the “Waste” service area, several indicators are relevant. Indicator W2, “Percentage of municipal waste diverted from landfill,” directly measures the success of waste reduction and diversion strategies. Indicator W3, “Percentage of municipal waste recycled,” is a component of diversion but doesn’t encompass all forms of diversion (e.g., composting, waste-to-energy). Indicator W4, “Percentage of municipal waste treated by composting,” is a specific diversion method. Indicator W5, “Percentage of municipal waste treated by incineration with energy recovery,” is another specific diversion method. To comprehensively assess the reduction of landfill waste, the most encompassing indicator is the one that directly quantifies the amount of waste *not* going to landfill. Therefore, “Percentage of municipal waste diverted from landfill” is the most suitable primary indicator for this specific objective. The other options represent components or specific methods of diversion, but not the overall outcome of reducing landfill reliance.

The calculation for determining the Net Change in Green Space per Capita is as follows:

1. **Calculate the total green space in the current year:**
Total Green Space (Current Year) = \( \text{Area of Park A} + \text{Area of Park B} + \text{Area of Green Belt C} \)
Total Green Space (Current Year) = \( 500,000 \, \text{m}^2 + 750,000 \, \text{m}^2 + 1,200,000 \, \text{m}^2 = 2,450,000 \, \text{m}^2 \)

2. **Calculate the total green space in the previous year:**
Total Green Space (Previous Year) = \( \text{Area of Park A} + \text{Area of Park B} + \text{Area of Green Belt C} \)
Total Green Space (Previous Year) = \( 480,000 \, \text{m}^2 + 720,000 \, \text{m}^2 + 1,150,000 \, \text{m}^2 = 2,350,000 \, \text{m}^2 \)

3. **Calculate the population in the current year:**
Population (Current Year) = \( 150,000 \) residents

4. **Calculate the population in the previous year:**
Population (Previous Year) = \( 145,000 \) residents

5. **Calculate the green space per capita in the current year:**
Green Space per Capita (Current Year) = \( \frac{\text{Total Green Space (Current Year)}}{\text{Population (Current Year)}} \)
Green Space per Capita (Current Year) = \( \frac{2,450,000 \, \text{m}^2}{150,000 \, \text{residents}} \approx 16.33 \, \text{m}^2/\text{resident} \)

6. **Calculate the green space per capita in the previous year:**
Green Space per Capita (Previous Year) = \( \frac{\text{Total Green Space (Previous Year)}}{\text{Population (Previous Year)}} \)
Green Space per Capita (Previous Year) = \( \frac{2,350,000 \, \text{m}^2}{145,000 \, \text{residents}} \approx 16.21 \, \text{m}^2/\text{resident} \)

7. **Calculate the Net Change in Green Space per Capita:**
Net Change = Green Space per Capita (Current Year) – Green Space per Capita (Previous Year)
Net Change = \( 16.33 \, \text{m}^2/\text{resident} – 16.21 \, \text{m}^2/\text{resident} \approx 0.12 \, \text{m}^2/\text{resident} \)

The correct approach involves calculating the green space per capita for both the current and previous reporting periods and then determining the difference. This metric, as outlined in ISO 37120:2018 under the “Environment” domain, specifically indicator EN 1, measures the availability of accessible green space for each resident. It is crucial to use consistent units for area and population across both periods. The calculation requires summing all designated green spaces, such as parks, gardens, and protected natural areas, and dividing by the total resident population for each year. The net change then indicates whether the city is improving or degrading its provision of green space relative to its population growth or decline. This indicator is vital for assessing urban sustainability, public health, and the quality of life, as green spaces contribute to biodiversity, air quality, and recreational opportunities. A positive net change signifies an improvement in the availability of green space per person, which is a desirable outcome for sustainable urban development. Conversely, a negative change suggests a decline, potentially due to urbanization, population increase outpacing green space development, or a reduction in existing green areas. The standard emphasizes the importance of clearly defining what constitutes “green space” within the city’s boundaries to ensure comparability and accuracy.

The question revolves around the correct application of ISO 37120:2018 indicators, specifically focusing on the nuances of reporting data for public spaces. The standard categorizes indicators into different service areas. Indicator IC 10, “Percentage of public spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities,” falls under the “Urban Green Spaces and Recreation” service area. This indicator requires a specific methodology for calculation and reporting. The calculation involves identifying all designated public spaces within the city’s administrative boundaries and then determining the proportion of these spaces that meet the accessibility criteria as defined by relevant national or local accessibility standards, which are often referenced or incorporated by ISO 37120. For instance, if a city has 100 designated public spaces and 75 of them are confirmed to be accessible to persons with disabilities according to established benchmarks, the calculation would be \(\frac{75}{100} \times 100\% = 75\%\). The explanation must emphasize that the correct reporting of this indicator is tied to its specific service area classification within the standard. Misclassifying it under a different service area, such as “Public Buildings and Facilities” (which might include indicators related to building access but not specifically public *spaces* in the broader sense) or “Waste Management,” would lead to an incorrect understanding of the indicator’s scope and purpose. The focus is on the *type* of space and its *accessibility*, which firmly places it within the urban green spaces and recreation domain as per the standard’s structure. Therefore, understanding the indicator’s placement within the ISO 37120 framework is paramount.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to safely managed drinking water, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves dividing the number of people with access to safely managed drinking water by the total population and multiplying by 100.

Calculation:
Number of people with access to safely managed drinking water = 850,000
Total population = 1,000,000
Percentage = \(\frac{850,000}{1,000,000} \times 100 = 85\%\)

The correct approach to calculating the indicator for “Access to safely managed drinking water” (Indicator 3.1.1 in ISO 37120:2018) requires a clear understanding of what constitutes “safely managed.” This standard defines safely managed drinking water as water from an improved source that is located on premises, available when needed, and free from fecal and priority chemical contamination. The calculation is straightforward: the number of individuals within the city’s defined boundary who meet this criterion is divided by the total population of the city, and the result is then expressed as a percentage. This metric is crucial for assessing a city’s progress towards providing essential services and improving the quality of life for its residents, aligning with broader sustainable development goals. It’s important to note that the data collection methodology must be robust to ensure accuracy, considering factors like household surveys, water quality testing, and infrastructure assessments. The indicator’s value provides a quantifiable measure of a city’s performance in a fundamental area of public health and well-being, allowing for benchmarking and identification of areas needing improvement.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to safely managed drinking water, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves dividing the number of people with access to safely managed drinking water by the total population and multiplying by 100. For the city of Veridia, this would be:

\[ \text{Access to Safely Managed Drinking Water} = \left( \frac{\text{Number of people with access}}{\text{Total population}} \right) \times 100 \]

Given:
Number of people with access to safely managed drinking water = 850,000
Total population = 1,000,000

\[ \text{Access to Safely Managed Drinking Water} = \left( \frac{850,000}{1,000,000} \right) \times 100 = 0.85 \times 100 = 85\% \]

Therefore, 85% of Veridia’s population has access to safely managed drinking water. This indicator, specifically SC01 in ISO 37120:2018, is crucial for assessing a city’s commitment to providing essential services and improving the quality of life for its residents. The standard defines “safely managed drinking water” as water from an improved source, located on premises, available when needed, and free from fecal and priority chemical contamination. Achieving a high percentage for this indicator signifies robust water infrastructure, effective water resource management, and adherence to public health standards. It is a key metric for comparing urban sustainability efforts globally and identifying areas for improvement. The standard emphasizes the importance of disaggregated data to understand disparities in access within the city, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. This indicator is often linked to national water policies and international development goals, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The core of this question lies in understanding the specific requirements for data collection and reporting within ISO 37120:2018, particularly concerning the indicator for potable water consumption per capita. The standard mandates a specific methodology for calculating this indicator. The calculation involves determining the total volume of potable water supplied to the city and dividing it by the total resident population. For the purpose of this question, let’s assume a hypothetical city, “Veridia,” with a total annual potable water supply of 150,000,000 cubic meters and a resident population of 500,000.

The calculation is as follows:
Potable water consumption per capita = Total potable water supplied / Total resident population
Potable water consumption per capita = \(150,000,000 \, \text{m}^3\) / \(500,000 \, \text{people}\)
Potable water consumption per capita = \(300 \, \text{m}^3/\text{person}\)

To express this in liters per person per day, we need to convert cubic meters to liters and account for the number of days in a year.
1 cubic meter = 1000 liters
365 days in a year

Potable water consumption per capita (liters/person/day) = \(\frac{300 \, \text{m}^3/\text{person} \times 1000 \, \text{L/m}^3}{365 \, \text{days}}\)
Potable water consumption per capita (liters/person/day) = \(\frac{300,000 \, \text{L/person}}{365 \, \text{days}}\)
Potable water consumption per capita (liters/person/day) \(\approx 821.92 \, \text{L/person/day}\)

The correct approach involves accurately applying the formula for calculating potable water consumption per capita as defined in ISO 37120:2018. This indicator (W_1) measures the total volume of potable water supplied to the city and divides it by the total resident population. The standard specifies that the data should be collected over a defined period, typically one year, and then normalized to a per capita, per day figure for comparability. The calculation requires careful attention to units, ensuring consistency between volume (cubic meters) and population count. Furthermore, the conversion to liters per person per day is a standard practice for this indicator to facilitate easier understanding and comparison across different urban contexts. This metric is crucial for assessing water resource management efficiency and identifying potential areas for conservation and improvement in urban water services, aligning with the broader goals of sustainability and quality of life outlined in the standard. The precision in data collection and calculation is paramount for meaningful benchmarking and policy development.

The calculation for determining the percentage of the population with access to a reliable public transportation network, as per ISO 37120:2018, involves dividing the number of individuals residing within a specified proximity (e.g., 400 meters walking distance) of a public transport stop by the total urban population, and then multiplying by 100. For instance, if a city has a total population of 1,000,000 and 750,000 residents live within 400 meters of a public transport stop, the calculation is \(\frac{750,000}{1,000,000} \times 100 = 75\%\). This indicator, often referred to as “Public transport accessibility” (Indicator 3.1.1), is crucial for assessing a city’s commitment to sustainable mobility, social equity, and reduced reliance on private vehicles. The standard emphasizes that the definition of “reliable public transportation” and the “specified proximity” should be clearly defined and consistently applied by the reporting city. This metric directly contributes to understanding the environmental impact of transportation, as greater accessibility often correlates with lower per capita emissions and reduced traffic congestion. Furthermore, it reflects the city’s progress in achieving social inclusion by ensuring that all segments of the population, including those with lower incomes or without private vehicles, have viable mobility options. The interpretation of this indicator should also consider the frequency and coverage of the public transport services, which are often detailed in other related indicators within the ISO 37120 framework.