THE University Impact Rankings 2019 by SDG: sustainable cities and communities methodology

The focus of this ranking goes beyond the traditional view of sustainability as being about stewardship of resources to look at the role of a university in sustaining and preserving the heritage of communities. It explores institutions’ research on sustainability, their role as custodians of arts and heritage and their internal approaches to sustainability.

View the methodology for the University Impact Rankings 2019 to find out how these data are used in the overall ranking.

Metrics

Research on sustainable cities and communities (27%)

• Proportion of papers in the top 10 per cent of journals as defined by Citescore (10%)
• Field-weighted citation index of papers produced by the university (10%)
• Number of publications (7%) 

This focuses on research that is relevant to sustainable cities and communities. The field-weighted citation index is a subject-normalised score of the citation performance of publications.

The data are provided by Elsevier’s Scopus dataset, based on a query of keywords associated with SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). It includes all indexed publications between 2013 and 2017. The data are normalised across the range using z-scoring.

Support of arts and heritage (22.8%)

• Public access to significant buildings at the university (3.8%)
• Public access to university libraries (3.8%)
• Public access to university museums and collections (3.8%)
• Public access to significant spaces and monuments within the university (3.8%)
• Providing artistic events for members of the public, such as concerts (3.8%)
• Recording and preserving local heritage (3.8%)

We asked for evidence of support for arts and heritage, and the ability of the public to access this, ideally for free.

This data and evidence were provided directly by universities. The evidence was evaluated and scored by Times Higher Education and is not normalised.

Expenditure on arts and heritage (19.2%)

This measures the proportion of total university expenditure spent directly on arts and heritage, excluding spending on sports facilities.

This data and evidence were provided directly by universities. The data are normalised across its range using z-scoring.

Sustainable practices (31%)

• Targets around sustainable commuting (3.45%)
• Promoting sustainable commuting (3.45%)
• Encouraging telecommuting, remote working or condensed working weeks (3.45%)
• Providing affordable housing for students (3.45%)
• Providing affordable housing for staff (3.45%)
• Providing priority to pedestrians on campus (3.45%)
• Working with local authorities around planning issues, including the provision of affordable housing for local residents (3.45%)
• Building to sustainable standards (3.45%)
• Reusing brownfield sites (3.4%)

This data and evidence were provided directly by universities. The evidence was evaluated and scored by Times Higher Education and is not normalised. 

Evidence

When we ask about policies and initiatives, our metrics require universities to provide the evidence to support their claims. Evidence is evaluated against a set of criteria and decisions are cross-validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence is not required to be exhaustive – we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.

Timeframe

Unless otherwise stated, the data used refer to the closest academic year to January to December 2017.

Exclusions

Universities must teach undergraduates and be validated by a recognised accreditation body to be included in the ranking.

Data collection

Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings. On the rare occasions when a particular data point is not provided, we enter a value of zero.

The methodology was developed in conjunction with our partners Vertigo Ventures and Elsevier, and after consultation and input from individual universities, academics, and sector groups.