Survey Rates the Quality of Big City Life : When it comes to cleaning the air, water and streets, research group finds Honolulu has best record and, surprise, Santa Ana worst.

Global environmental problems from climate change to deforestation are getting increased attention from citizens and policy-makers alike. But when it comes to the environment, what’s happening in the cities where 63% of Americans live and work is likely to be of more immediate concern to the man or woman on the street.

How clean is the air? How pure is the drinking water? Which cities do a better job in keeping streets clean or controlling toxic waste? Which cities have more parks? What is the per capita energy use? How many use public transportation?

The World Resources Institute, a nonprofit public policy research organization based in Washington, has just published a survey of the nation’s 64 biggest cities. The survey is included in the 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac.

The results may be surprising. Santa Ana was found to have the worst environmental record in the nation--worse than St. Louis, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, N.J., and Detroit. Honolulu ranked best.

Within California, Oakland got a better score than San Diego in the “Green Cities Index.” Los Angeles was a notch better than Long Beach. San Francisco beat everyone.

Few may quibble with San Francisco’s elevated status. But San Diegans, seeing the beauty of the town, might question their city’s standing behind Oakland. Long Beach residents who enjoy ocean views and breezes would probably look askance when told San Jose and Fresno got better ratings.

But researchers went beyond aesthetics in examining environmental indicators.

“We tried to look at those areas that are really relevant from an environmental point of view,” editor Allen Hammond said in a phone interview from his Maryland home.

Eight areas were measured: Waste disposal, water use and water source, energy use and cost, air quality, transportation measures, toxic chemical accident risk, environmental amenities (the percentage of city budgets spent on parks and recreation) and environmental stress--which takes into account population change, air and water quality, water availability, sewage treatment and chronic toxic releases.

Within each of those eight broad categories were 24 environmental indicators--clues that pointed to how well a city did in a particular category.

In the water use and source category, for example, the World Resources Institute looked at the number of gallons of water used per person per day, and the percentage of the public system dependent on ground water sources. If water use was high, that would indicate poor conservation and perhaps a strain on ground water supplies.

In some areas, cities might do well in spite of themselves. For example, Southern California cities got high marks when it came to low per capita use of energy. That’s not surprising given the region’s moderate climate. Still, low per capita energy use is good for the environment, no matter what the cause.

Air pollution was another matter. To no one’s surprise, Southern California cities did poorly, even though air pollution controls here are the toughest in the nation. Much of the blame goes to the region’s topography. Mountains enfold an air basin where pollutants gather and then a temperature inversion in the atmosphere keeps a lid on it.

“California cities do tend to come up near the bottom (in air quality),” Hammond said. “Part of that admittedly is an accident of geography. Honolulu, which comes near the top, has the benefit of trade winds. But if you’re really looking at the quality of life for people in those cities, those are real facts.”

Perhaps the most intriguing category was “environmental stress,” a concept developed by Zero Population Growth and factored into the almanac’s overall findings.

By this measure, Oakland, Omaha and Tulsa were the least environmentally stressed. The most environmentally stressed were El Paso, Phoenix and Mesa, Ariz.

“We had no idea how it was going to turn out,” Hammond said. “The intent here is to hold up a mirror to ourselves and see how we look. . . . Many people might decide that California weather is compensation for long commutes, congested highways and other things. I’ve certainly spent enough time in California to know it’s not obvious which way you come down on that.”

Rating the Cities

Here is how the World Resources Institute ranks the nation’s 64 largest cities in its “Green Cities Index,” from the best (Honolulu, above) to the worst: 1. Honolulu 2. Austin, Tex. 3. Jacksonville, Fla. 4. Oklahoma City 5. Ft. Worth 6. Tampa, Fla. 7. Miami 8. San Francisco 9. Virginia Beach, Va. 10. Norfolk, Va. 11. San Antonio 12. Portland, Ore. 13. Oakland 14. Arlington, Tex. 15. Tucson 16. Toledo, Ohio 17. Albuquerque 18. Charlotte, N.C. 19. Corpus Christi, Tex. 20. Colorado Springs 21. New Orleans 22. Buffalo, N.Y. 23. St. Paul, Minn. 24. Seattle 25. Dallas 26. Tulsa, Okla. 27. San Diego 28. Omaha 29. Atlanta 30. Milwaukee 31. Birmingham, Ala. 32. Minneapolis 33. Boston 34. Louisville, Ky. 35. Wichita, Kan. 36. Kansas City 37. Pittsburgh, Pa. 38. Nashville 39. Denver 40. Sacramento 41. Memphis, Tenn. 42. Mesa, Ariz. 43. Columbus, Ohio 44. Indianapolis 45. Houston 46. Cincinnati 47. Phoenix 48. El Paso 49. Washington 50. Fresno 51. Detroit 52. Baltimore 53. San Jose 54. Anaheim 55. Philadelphia 56. Cleveland 57. New York 58. Newark, N.J. 59. Las Vegas 60. Chicago 61. Los Angeles 62. Long Beach 63. St. Louis 64. Santa Ana