Fuzzy math at the D&C
Fresh off of our EPA post about Monroe County being #1 in toxic industry releases in NY, the D&C posted a story today proclaiming Rochester as 27th environmentally friendly city out of 50 based on the findings from PopSci.com website. I went to the source and read the online Popular Science article. What I came away with is that both the D&C and Popular Science are practicing fuzzy math.
The parameters of this report are not comprehensive. The data seem to have been culled haphazardly with certain larger cities receiving higher marks for having park acreage whereas smaller cities with greater park acreage receive lower marks. Cities smaller than 100,000 (often with better green practices) are not even included. Basically the list reflects a movement toward becoming green rather than actually being green. For example, the PopSci.com article starts out with this statement (bold mine):
Austin has pledged to meet 30 percent of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2020, aided by planned wind-power installations that will surpass their predecessors in efficiency. Seattle has retrofitted its municipal heavy-duty diesel vehicles with devices that will reduce particulate pollution by 50 percent.
Notice the absence of words such as “has met” or “did reduce.” This indicates that these cities are planning on becoming green and are working toward it but they have not achieved it. This is the case with Rochester. We have begun the work to improve our environment but we’re not there yet if the EPA lists us as #1 in NY State for toxic industry releases. Air quality cannot be minimized in defining “environmentally friendly.”
The study’s categories for being green are Electricity, Transportation, Green Living and Recycling, yet Rochester only scores well on one, a 4.1 out of 5 for Recycling. We don’t even make the 50% threshhold for Electricity and Transportation, scoring 4.5 and 4.4 out of 10, respectively. Green Living was determined by the number of buildings deemed green and Recycling was determined by the recycling programs in use, but Electricity and Transportation, which are directly tied to the number of persons living on the planet via their energy use and car ownership (hence emissions), have a greater impact on the environment than buildings and recycling.
Which is more bothersome, the fact that we’re less than 3 points higher on this so-called “environmentally friendly” list than Pasadena, CA, or that it was reported without reference to the EPA’s findings released just yesterday, 2/28/08? Any city in Southern California (notorious for its smog) listed on an “environmentally friendly” list should give anyone pause. This study lists at least four cities in Southern California. Do we want to be a member of this club?
The real problem here is reporting one side of a story because it reflects more positively on our city. Wouldn’t the truth actually spur more corrective environmental action?
While you have valid points regarding the weakness of this rating scale, there is no “truthâ€ÂÂ, there is not “true†value for environmental friendliness, despite your desire for it. There are only other rating scales, none of which is perfect and none of which is “truthâ€ÂÂ.
I also don’t understand your criticism of Electricity and Transportation in this scale. The definitions provided by PopSci seem reasonable to me.
Fair enough on the “truth” part. But what’s your take on the overall quality of this particular rating scale?
My overall take? We don’t know enough. They didn’t give us the formula used (or at least, I didn’t click enough links). But Grievous Angel (or GA, as I call him/her) points out a number of flaws, and I agree with much of what GA writes. Giving points for incentives doesn’t really sound like it is measuring today’s environmental friendliness, as the air quality, water quality and recyclables could be horrible today, but possibly great in 20 years. Is that environmentally friendly? I suppose it depends on what you are looking for.
Ratings like this are just one person’s opinion or one group’s opinion. And my opinion is different than your opinion, which is different than GA’s opinion. As you know, you can develop a rating scale that does what you want  it can make your city look good, or your city look bad. I think the rating system (and most rating systems) is most useful in generating discussion, which it has done, but the actual ratings are close to useless.
My criticism of the Electricity and Transportation is threefold:
1) Electricity and Transportation scores for Rochester are low (not even 50%) because they are both on a scale of 1-10 and we got 4.5 and 4.4, hardly above average.
2) Because electricity consumption and transportation have more of an impact (harmful one) on the environment, those scores are where our target should be here in Rochester, and…
3) Human population numbers directly affect the usage of electricity and transportation in ways Green buildings do not. There is not one building for every human on the planet but there very well may be for cars.
The “truth” I was speaking of was in reference to reporting both sides of a story. Ignoring the EPA’s just-released report seems like skewed reporting to me. It’s almost as if someone at Kodak or the D&C read this blog yesterday and decided to counter it with a sunny report that is faulty and seemingly ignores lots of relevant data.
You’re right about there being no “truth” in environmental friendliness.
I don’t think it is fair to blame Kodak for this report. Sometimes, a coincidence really is a coincidence.
Based upon what data would you think Rochester should score above average on Electricity and Transportation?
I don’t think they should, I’m saying that if we are to be touted as #27 on a list of 50 most environmentally cities, then it seems we should at least be over the 50% threshhold in those two most important categories since they have the most impact on the environment. But we’re not at that 50% mark on those two.
You’re right, I shouldn’t blame Kodak for the report. The timing is strange though.
I can’t follow your math here at all. If we are #27 on the list, we could be below average on Electricity and Transportation and above average on other categories. But again, I ask the question that you did not answer … “Based upon what data would you think Rochester should score above average on Electricity and Transportation?â€ÂÂ
It’s not about “should” and which data. I understand that they took the score of the 4 categories and assigned points overall and Rochester came out ahead of such “sparkling” clean cities like…Pasadena, CA, by less than 3 points. Ya, so impressive.
My point is that Electricity and Transportation should be weighted as more important indicators of environmental friendliness. It kind of reminds me of companies who are polluters and instead of stopping the pollution they buy clean companies’ pollution credits. It doesn’t change the pollution they are putting out. In Rochester’s case, the Recycling and Green Living categories bring us up out of the bottom of the heap but those two categories don’t have as much of an impact on the environment as Electricity and Transportation.
I think any city on an “environmentally friendly” list should be above average on the two most important categories, Electricity and Transportation.
Several of the cities who scored lower than us by their fuzzy math “logic” actually have higher ratings in the Electricity and Transportation categories.
Is this making sense?
You are arguing for your own scale (which is fine). Your critique of the math makes no sense to me.
No, the math used doesn’t call for this. There are other items in the scale, even if they are less important, which can cause a city to move up and above cities that score well on Electricity and Transportation. This part of the math is not fuzzy, once you set up the rating scale, this can happen. It is simple addition and multiplication.
On this point I suppose I’m criticizing the importance (weight) of the categories (and their incomplete descriptions) more than the math. Ok, I concede that. However, it is nonsensical to me to call a place with poor scores on air quality “environmentally friendly.”
Your point seems to be the straightforward math is ok. My point on this instance is the math is meaningless, a hollow digit, because the number itself does not reveal how healthy the environment is.
It’s a bit like saying a person’s body is healthy even though they have a fatal stab wound on their jugular. All other parts of the body look fine, so let’s average out the total well-being of the body, overlooking the fatal blow. The fatal stab wound will kill you but with this type of averaging it doesn’t get the same weight.
I am not a statistician, I just play one on Saturdays.
I went back and re-read my original post and I think maybe this is what you were referring to Paige:
“but Electricity and Transportation, which are directly tied to the number of persons living on the planet via their energy use and car ownership (hence emissions), have a greater impact on the environment than buildings and recycling.”
The study’s criteria for Electricity and Transportation Green scores are not tied directly to the number of persons living on the planet. That was my explanation of the importance/gravity of the impact of real world (human) use of Electricity and Transportation.
The study’s criteria for Electricity and Transportation are not fully spelled out:
# Electricity (E; 10 points): Cities score points for drawing their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and hydroelectric power, as well as for offering incentives for residents to invest in their own power sources, like roof-mounted solar panels.
# Transportation (T; 10 points): High scores go to cities whose commuters take public transportation or carpool. Air quality also plays a role.
To further expound, there is no listing of what % of residents draw their energy from their own power sources, just a mention that the cities get points for offering incentives. It also does not state what % these cities have actually attained in using renewable sources of electricity. And for the Transportation explanation, it just says “Air quality also plays a role.” Yes, but how much of a role? Obviously not very much if Rochester and cities in Southern California are on this list.
I noticed too that it doesn’t say % of residents using alternative energy sources, or % of energy used generated by alternative energy sources. Seems like we agree that more explanation is needed, although if it was either of these two, I don’t have a problem.
Again, on the air quality, more information would be useful, but in general I think the idea behind the transportation category is fine.
But what about those public transportation buses that spew that black smoke? Great that many folks are taking the bus but the pollution of those buses can be choking if you’re out walking the streets or driving behind them, not to mention how harmful they are to the environment. The report didn’t state what kind of public transportation was used, the fuel types, etc.
I agree that the idea of more people using public transportation is a good part of the Transportation category.
It seems as if the person writing the D&C story didn’t even read the report, at least not with a critical eye.
There are no environmentally clean modes of public transportation. The environment benefits as a whole when lots of people give up their cars and use buses. That doesn’t mean buses don’t pollute; it means they pollute less than the equivalent number of cars.
Right. Often I see public buses virtually empty, so the idea of helping the environment is diminished, and a few passengers ride on what amounts to be a very large gas guzzler spewing black smoke.
although if it was either of these two, I don’t have a problem.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
I meant that if the rating for Electricity was based on % of residents using alternative energy sources, or % of energy used generated by alternative energy sources, then I would feel comfortable with the definition of the category Electricity. But they don’t say exactly what they mean…