Global City Science Communication Capability Evaluation

Research Report on

Global Science Communication Cities Index (GSCCI)

Content

I. Introduction 1

II. Construction of the Evaluation Indicator System 1

2.1 Three-Dimensional Assessment Framework Design 1

2.1.1 Scientist-level Science Communication Capacity 2

2.1.2 Institutional-level Science Communication Capacity 3

2.1.3 Societal-level Science Participation 3

2.1.4 Digital Connectivity Infrastructure 4

2.2 Selection Criteria of 40 Cities for analysis 4

2.3 Indicator Weighting Methodology 4

III. Analysis of Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity 5

3.1 Overall Assessment of Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity 5

3.2 Evaluation of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities by Sub-indicators 9

3.2.1 Scientific and Technological Community Dissemination 9

3.2.2 Organized Technological Dissemination 9

3.2.3 Public Participation in Technological Dissemination 10

3.3 Obstacles to the Development of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities 11

IV. Conclusion 14

I. Introduction

In the midst of a rapidly advancing global technological landscape, scientific and technological innovation has emerged as a crucial factor in national competitiveness. However, innovation is insufficient on its own without effective communication. Traditional evaluation frameworks, like the Global Innovation Index (GII), focus primarily on measurable inputs and outputs, such as R&D spending and patent grants, while neglecting aspects like public engagement, understanding, and participation. Such technocentrism can hinder the relationship between technology and society, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive indicator framework that combine direct innovation metrics with communication capacities to fully evaluate global cities’ science and technology ecosystems.

The construction of a comprehensive Science and Technology Communication Indicator Framework has thus become a pressing necessity in contemporary urban development. Although technological advancement drives economic growth, the ultimate success of urban innovation ecosystems hinges on effective knowledge dissemination and public scientific literacy. Current evaluation frameworks remain inadequate, focusing predominantly on unidirectional information flow while neglecting the critical dimensions of public dialogue and participatory engagement. Therefore, a more robust framework must transcend traditional institutional metrics to encompass civic interface mechanisms and the distribution of epistemic authority.

Science and Technology Studies have progressed beyond the traditional "deficit model," where experts simply transmit knowledge to a passive public, toward a "co-production model" that recognizes the interactive nature of scientific understanding. This evolved framework acknowledges how science and society mutually influence each other through dynamic interactions between government institutions, scientific experts, and citizen participants. Although increased public participation strengthens democratic legitimacy, it introduces challenges in balancing diverse knowledge levels and maintaining efficient decision-making processes. The solution lies in developing an integrated framework that harmonizes official policy mechanisms, expert knowledge translation, and community input, thereby achieving a balance between scientific rigor and meaningful public engagement.

To this end, the current report presents a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising three key dimensions of science communication: institutional capacity, knowledge dissemination effectiveness, and public participation levels. The proposed framework translates theoretical principles into measurable indicators, providing policymakers with actionable metrics for assessment and improvement. Through establishing standardized international benchmarks, this framework aims to strengthen urban innovation ecosystems while promoting social inclusion and enhancing global scientific dialogue. The ultimate objective is to catalyze urban transformation where technological progress and public scientific literacy evolve symbiotically, advancing the vision of “Technology for Good” in service of sustainable and equitable urban development.

II. Construction of the Evaluation Framework

2.1 Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework

Current evaluations of science communication capacity in global cities lacks standardized measurement tools, creating a methodological gap in comparative urban research. This report proposes a tripartite framework analyzing science communication ecosystems through three actor constellations: scientific communities, institutional actors (government/media outlets), and civic participants. In addition, digital connectivity infrastructure functions as an enabling dimension supporting these core actors. Moving beyond technological determinism, the framework prioritizes epistemic influence (“soft power”) over technological innovation’s “hard power” metrics. Table 1 presents the comprehensive evaluation framework for the global cities’ science communication ecosystems discussed herein.

[Table 1. Global Science Communication Cities Index (GSCCI)]

2.1.1 Scientist-level Science Communication Capacity

Core indicators include scientific communities’ activity, scientists’ communication impact, and the reputation of urban scientific innovation vitality. These metrics aim to evaluate the engagement of scientific communities, the impact of top scientists, and the perceived dynamism of cities’ scientific ecosystems.

a) Activity of Scientific Communities

This indicator operationalizes the collective agency of STEM communities in knowledge dissemination through bibliometrically validated engagement metrics. The measurement protocol employs Boolean search algorithms within the Web of Science Core Collection (2014-2024), capturing publication outputs through the query: (TI=(“science educat” OR “science communica” OR “science aware”) OR AK=(“science literacy” OR “public understanding of science” OR “science knowledge”))*

b) Scientists’ Communication Impact

This metric operationalizes the translational impact of eminent researchers through bibliometric authority metrics. We employ Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) registry, identifying scholars within the top 1% of cross-disciplinary citation percentiles in 2024. Urban HCR density serves as the primary indicator, leveraging this globally validated proxy for epistemic influence.

c) Urban Technoscientific Vitality

This composite metric evaluates the perceived epistemic vitality of urban innovation ecosystems through two validated sub-indices:

1) Innovation Prestige Index: Aggregates normalized Google Trends data for Fortune 500 enterprises and CB Insights unicorns headquartered within municipal jurisdictions. These indices constitute globally recognized benchmarks for corporate innovation trajectories and economic scalability.

2) Science City Benchmark: Integrates weighted scores from Nature Index 2023 Global Science Cities (top 200) and WIPO’s Global Innovation Index (GII) clusters (top 100), representing authoritative measures of research output density (articles/1M population) and patent-to-GDP ratios respectively.

2.1.2 Institutional-level Science Communication Capacity

Three constitutive dimensions assess formalized science governance mechanisms:

a) Academic Knowledge Translation Infrastructure

Evaluates tertiary institutions’ science mediation capacity through their hosting of STEM communication forums, filtered via four main universities rankings: QS World University Rankings, the U.S. News, and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU 2024), and Times High Education world-ranking. This quadruple-filter methodology ensures disciplinary representativeness and institutional prestige calibration.

b) Public Science Infrastructure Index

Quantifies municipal commitments to science democratization through:

Fiscal Commitment Ratio: Calculated as the ratio of fiscal allocations (government budgets, philanthropic contributions, etc.) to municipal GDP for flagship science institutions (e.g., Shanghai Science & Technology Museum).

Science Space Density: Mapped via Tripadvisor’s geolocation API, enumerating STEM-dedicated facilities (science museums, planetariums, botanical gardens) while excluding non-STEM cultural institutions.

c) Media Science Agenda-Setting Capacity

The evaluation of mainstream media’s science communication capacity focuses on gauging engagement intensity with scientific discourse and dissemination efficacy across municipal jurisdictions. This metric quantifies science popularization volume through systematic analysis of twenty high-impact STEM keywords curated from authoritative technology forecasting reports published between 2023-2024, including the World Economic Forum’s Top 10 Emerging Technologies 2023, the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Global Innovation Index (GII) 2024, and MIT Technology Review’s 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2024. The protocol aggregates search frequencies for these STEM keywords across primary municipal media digital platforms during a six-month observation window, ensuring temporal alignment with contemporary technological trajectories while preserving institutional validity via multi-source verification.

2.1.3 Societal-level Science Participation

The civic science participation dimension incorporates four constitutive metrics assessing public engagement in technoscientific discourse: digital interaction intensity, physical activity involvement, scientific literacy proxies, and digital infrastructure capacity. These indicators collectively evaluate (1) the vibrancy of online science communication ecosystems across municipal contexts, (2) participatory dynamics in government-led science popularization initiatives, and (3) citizens’ functional understanding of scientific epistemologies.

a) Digital Science Engagement

Digital science engagement is operationalized through multilingual Google search volume analyses, combining municipal toponyms with 20 high-frequency STEM keywords derived from global innovation discourse. This normalized search intensity metric enables cross-jurisdictional comparison of public attention patterns toward emerging technologies, utilizing identical lexicographic parameters to ensure measurement parity.

b) Physical Science Participation

Physical participation metrics adopt a tripartite evaluation protocol:

science-themed programming ratios at municipal flagship libraries (calculated as STEM events/total events over six months),

hybrid participation metrics (physical + virtual attendance) for primary science expositions,

institutional commitment evidenced through dedicated municipal science festivals.

c) Civic Science Literacy

Scientific literacy is evaluated through UNESCO-standardized mean schooling years (Our World in Data), serving as a temporally stable and cross-nationally comparable indicator of baseline science comprehension capacities. While acknowledging the limitation of using correlation between formal education duration and functional scientific literacy, this proxy provides operational utility in the absence of direct measurement instruments.

2.1.4 Digital Connectivity Infrastructure

The digital connectivity infrastructure dimension evaluates cities’ physical hardware and software-based technological capacities that enable digital services. We utilize Speedtest by Ookla global ranking index metrics, analyzing mobile and broadband network performance across four operational parameters: download/upload speeds for both fixed and mobile connectivity modes. These technical specifications collectively map the material infrastructure enabling real-time science communication flows, constituting essential prerequisites for contemporary knowledge dissemination ecosystems.

2.2 Selection Criteria of 40 Cities for analysis

This project established a global evaluation framework for science communication capacity. Forty cities were selected using three primary criteria: economic development level (GDP), population scale, and internationalization metrics, with complementary attention to geographical distribution. GDP functions as the foundational economic threshold, ensuring candidate cities possess adequate fiscal capacity and infrastructure foundations. Population scale prioritizes major urban centers to capitalize on their inherent potential as information dissemination nuclei. Internationalization is measured through global influence across finance, research, and cultural dimensions, incorporating indicatora such as concentration of QS World Top 500 universities and Global Innovation Index (GII) performance to measure global resource integration capabilities. Geographical representation was secured through proportional inclusion across Asia, North America, Europe, South America, Africa, and Oceania. The final cohort comprises 40 international metropolises—including Beijing, Shanghai, New York, London, Paris, etc.—forming a globally representative evaluation network.

2.3 Indicator Weighting Methodology

This report employs an equal weighting methodology across all tertiary-level indicators within the global science communication capacity framework. This approach assigns identical weight coefficients to ensure metric parity while optimizing methodological integrity. First, equal weighting streamlines computational procedures and reduces processing complexity, particularly suitable for integrating multi-source heterogeneous indicators. Second, it mitigates potential cognitive biases inherent in subjective weight allocation by presuming balanced explanatory power across dimensions. Third, the transparency of equal weighting further enhances framework stability and result reproducibility. Where prior knowledge is limited or inter-indicator variability insignificant, equal weighting establishes a baseline of minimal subjectivity for cross-domain comparative studies, thereby ensuring methodological consistency in interdisciplinary assessments.

III. Analysis of Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity

3.1 Overall Assessment of Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity

In the context of globalization, science communication capacity has emerged as a critical metric for evaluating urban competitiveness. Using an equal-weighted composite ranking of 40 global cities, New York, London, Boston, San Francisco, and Tokyo occupy the top five positions, demonstrating robust multidimensional capabilities in science communication. These cities exhibit excellence across three core dimensions—scientific community-driven communication, organized (government/media) communication, and public participation—forming synergistic ecosystems of technological knowledge dissemination.

            Regionally, North American cities (New York, Boston, San Francisco) and European cities (London, Paris) dominate the upper rankings, reflecting developed economies’ long-standing advantages in science communication infrastructure, research investment, and cultivation of public scientific literacy. Among Asian cities, Tokyo ranks fifth, closely followed by Shanghai (6th) and Beijing (7th), signaling the region’s rapid advancement in science communication. Notably, financial hubs such as Singapore (10th) and Hong Kong (12th) excel in public engagement metrics, leveraging their international connectivity and information flow efficiency.

[Figure 2. Dimension-Specific Rankings of Top 20 Cities in Science Communication Capacity]

[Figure 3. Dimension-Specific Rankings of Cities 21–40 in Science Communication Capacity]

New York secures its top position through exceptional performance in scientific community efficacy (e.g., 2nd in scientists’ communication influence) and international reputation for innovation (2nd in urban scientific innovation vitality). London ranks second overall, driven by its leadership in scientific community activity (1st) and science communication by the scientific community (1st). Boston claims third place, benefiting from the synergistic effects of higher education science communication capacity (1st), supported by world-renowned universities such as Harvard and MIT, and public scientific literacy (4th), exemplifying a unique academia-public collaborative model.

[Table 2. Scores of Top 20 Cities in Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity]

[Table 3. Scores of 21-40 Cities in Global Cities’ Science Communication Capacity]

In the overall ranking, Asian cities exhibit a certain level of stratification, with Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, and Singapore entering the top 10. However, cities such as Shenzhen and Guangzhou lag behind due to insufficient media dissemination capabilities and public facility provision, resulting in a noticeable stratification compared to the top four cities. Meanwhile, African and South American cities are comprehensively behind in the rankings due to their lack of advantage in various indicators. Overall, major cities in the world's leading countries hold significant advantages, while cities in third-world countries, such as those in Africa and South America, show a significant gap.

The overall assessment reveals that the technological dissemination capabilities of global cities exhibit the characteristics of head aggregation, regional differentiation, and gradient development. There is a significant gap between the top 20 and the bottom 20 cities in key indicators such as the activity of the scientific community and the mainstream media's science communication capabilities, reflecting the uneven distribution of global technological dissemination resources. This imbalance is not only evident between developed and developing countries, but also exists within different cities in the same region, as seen in the 25-rank difference in the provision of science communication public facilities between Boston and San Jose in the United States.

3.2 Evaluation of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities by Sub-indicators

3.2.1 Scientific and Technological Community Dissemination

In the realm of scientific and technological community dissemination, cities such as London (1st), New York (6th), Boston (4th), and San Francisco (10th) stand out. London has a significant advantage in the activity of the scientific community (1st) and the reputation of urban technological innovation vitality (3rd), benefiting from its long-standing research tradition and clusters of world-class universities. Boston leads in the dissemination capabilities of higher education in science and technology (1st), supported by two world-renowned universities—Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—and its dense network of research institutions and innovative enterprises forms a powerful knowledge dissemination network. Notably, Tokyo (3rd) ranks 1st in the reputation of urban technological innovation vitality, reflecting its strong capabilities in technological achievement transformation and industrial applications. In contrast, cities such as Dubai (36th) and São Paulo (27th) rank lower in this dimension, primarily due to insufficient activity in the scientific community and a low level of internationalization of research resources. The indicators in this dimension also highlight the important role of university development in urban technological dissemination capabilities.

[Table 4. Comprehensive Ranking of Global Cities’ Scientific and Technological Community Dissemination Capabilities]

3.2.2 Organized Technological Dissemination

In the dimension of organized dissemination, cities such as San Francisco (2nd), Boston (4th), and London (7th) perform well. San Francisco excels in the mainstream media's science communication capabilities (1st), and its technology media industry cluster effectively promotes the social transformation of technological achievements. Notably, although San Francisco has a certain gap with Boston (1st) in the dissemination capabilities of higher education in science and technology (8th), it performs well in the provision of science communication public facilities (2nd) and mainstream media dissemination capabilities (1st), thus ranking high in the organized dissemination dimension, surpassing Boston. This also reflects its continuous investment in the construction of science communication infrastructure and provides insights: cities can achieve the diffusion effect of science and technology dissemination capabilities through public facility construction and media participation. However, cities such as Taipei (16th) and Guangzhou (35th) rank lower in this dimension, mainly due to insufficient provision of science communication public facilities and weak mainstream media science communication capabilities. Particularly in the provision of science communication public facilities, the average ranking of the bottom 20 cities is 33rd, reflecting the global shortfall in science communication infrastructure construction that is easily overlooked.

[Table 5 Comprehensive Ranking of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities in the Organizational Dimension]

3.2.3 Public Participation in Technological Dissemination

The public participation dissemination dimension presents a different pattern of urban advantages. From a regional distribution perspective, American cities have a clear advantage in the online participation level of public participation dissemination. Cities such as New York (5th), Boston (6th), and San Francisco (2nd) perform outstandingly in the level of public online discussion participation, benefiting from their developed internet infrastructure, rich technology media resources, and active technology social platforms, attracting a large number of public participants in online technology discussions. These cities have numerous technology companies and innovation institutions, providing the public with rich online technology information and interactive channels, stimulating public participation enthusiasm. Asian cities such as Shanghai (4th) show unique advantages in the level of public offline activity participation (1st). Shanghai, with its strong social mobilization capabilities and rich science communication activity resources, successfully attracts a large number of public participants in offline technology activities. The government and related institutions have invested significant resources in organizing science communication exhibitions, technology lectures, and scientific experiment demonstrations, increasing public interest and participation in technology.

However, the level of public scientific literacy education remains a shortcoming for most cities. Cities such as Shanghai (26th) and Beijing (28th), despite their high rankings, perform poorly in this indicator, with an average ranking of 25th. This indicates that although these cities have achieved certain successes in technology, communication, and public participation, there is still a lack of depth and breadth in the improvement of the scientific education system and the cultivation of scientific literacy. To enhance public scientific literacy, it is necessary to strengthen the systematic design of scientific education, from basic education to higher education, from school education to social education, comprehensively improving public scientific literacy. At the same time, long-term investment in resources, including funds, human resources, and policy support, is needed to ensure the sustainable development of scientific literacy education. Additionally, attention should be paid to the accuracy and depth of science communication content, avoiding the pursuit of communication effects while neglecting the essence of science, thereby truly improving public scientific literacy and scientific thinking abilities.

[Table 6. Comprehensive Ranking of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities in the Public Participation Dimension]

3.3 Obstacles to the Development of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities

Through the analysis of the dispersion of sub-indicator rankings of various cities, we identify the main obstacles to the development of technological dissemination capabilities. First, the gap between the scientific community and public dissemination is prominent. Most cities show a significant disparity between the activity of the scientific community and public participation dissemination capabilities. Taking globally representative comprehensive metropolises as examples, London ranks 1st in the activity of the scientific community but only 36th in the level of public offline activity participation; New York ranks 12th in the activity of the scientific community but 26th in the level of public offline activity participation. These two cities show obvious imbalances in different dimensions of science communication.

This gap phenomenon is also evident in cities such as Tokyo (3rd in the activity of the scientific community, 9th in the level of public offline activity participation) and San Francisco (13th in the activity of the scientific community, 5th in the level of public offline activity participation). As one of the global centers of technology and innovation, Tokyo ranks 3rd in the activity of the scientific community, but its level of public offline activity participation is only 9th, showing that there is still room for improvement in the conversion efficiency of scientific research achievements into public participation activities. Similarly, although San Francisco ranks 13th in the activity of the scientific community, its level of public offline activity participation is 5th, indicating certain lags in some aspects of science communication, which requires reflection and improvement in urban development strategies to enhance science communication efficiency, thereby strengthening the connection between research and the public.

Second, the regional imbalance in science communication infrastructure is severe. The top 20 cities in the provision of science communication public facilities are mainly concentrated in North America and Western Europe, while 14 of the bottom 20 cities are located in developing countries. For example, São Paulo (34th) and Mumbai (36th) rank 34th and 36th, respectively, in the provision of science communication public facilities, reflecting the lag in infrastructure construction in developing country cities. Additionally, cities such as Buenos Aires (37th) and Johannesburg (33rd) rank 18th and 33rd, respectively, in the provision of science communication public facilities, further highlighting the deficiencies in science communication infrastructure construction in developing countries. This imbalance in infrastructure construction directly limits the physical foundation for public participation dissemination, further exacerbating global inequalities in technology communication. In contrast, North American and Western European cities such as Washington, D.C. (1st), Chicago (5th), Amsterdam (3rd), and San Francisco (2nd) all rank high in the provision of science communication public facilities, demonstrating the advantages of developed countries in science communication infrastructure construction.

Third, the digital divide and communication efficiency differences are significant. Among the top 20 cities in the level of network physical connectivity, 16 also rank in the top 20 in the level of public online discussion participation, indicating a strong correlation between digital infrastructure and public communication participation. For example, cities such as San Francisco, Boston, and New York have high levels of network physical connectivity and public online discussion participation. However, some cities such as Dubai (1st in network connectivity, 16th in online participation) show a disconnect between digital infrastructure and communication efficiency conversion. Although Dubai performs excellently in network connectivity, its level of public online discussion participation is only 16th, reflecting that digital infrastructure construction has not effectively translated into public communication participation. Additionally, cities such as Rio de Janeiro (3rd in network connectivity, 17th in online participation) and São Paulo (4th in network connectivity, 18th in online participation) also face similar issues, indicating that even with good network connectivity, public participation may be influenced by other factors such as cultural background and education level.

[Table 7 Analysis of Obstacles to the Development of Global Cities’ Technological Dissemination Capabilities]

Finally, the lack of collaboration among dissemination entities is a common problem. In the three-dimensional comprehensive assessment, only a few cities, such as New York, London, and Boston, achieve relatively balanced development across the three dimensions. Most cities have obvious shortcomings, such as San Francisco’s poor performance in scientific communication in the scientific and technological community (10th) and Shanghai’s significant deficiency in the level of public scientific literacy education (26th), reflecting the need for improvement in the communication coordination mechanism between the government, the scientific community, and the public. Additionally, top-ranked cities such as Beijing (28th in the level of public scientific literacy education) and Tokyo (9th in the level of public offline activity participation) also have deficiencies in certain dimensions. This lack of collaboration not only affects the overall efficiency of technology communication but also limits cities' competitiveness in the global technology communication network. For example, Beijing ranks 2nd in scientific communication in the scientific and technological community but drops to 22nd in the public participation dimension of technology communication, showing a lack of collaboration among science communication entities.

IV. Conclusion

This report introduces a pioneering framework to evaluate urban S&T communication capabilities across 40 global cities, revealing a stark divide: North American and European hubs (New York, London, Boston) lead through strong scientific ecosystems and public engagement, while developing regions (Africa, South America) lag due to infrastructure and literacy gaps. Key challenges include disconnects between academic research and public participation (e.g., London ranks #1 in scientific activity but #36 in offline engagement), uneven distribution of science facilities, and fragmented governance. The proposed tripartite model—assessing scientific communities, institutional support, and civic participation—highlights actionable pathways: top performers like Tokyo align research excellence with public outreach; emerging hubs like Shanghai must address literacy deficits; and developing cities require digital infrastructure investment. To bridge these gaps, cities must foster participatory governance, leverage technology for inclusive access, and adopt holistic metrics balancing innovation output with societal impact. As S&T communication becomes central to urban competitiveness, this framework provides a roadmap for transforming cities into equitable knowledge economies where scientific progress and public understanding advance together.