PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of ...

Int.J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2 (1995)104-123

PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of indicators of sustainable development G. Mitchell’, A. May2 and A. McDonald3

Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011

’The Environment Centre, *Department of Civil Engineering and 3School of Geography, The University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK Key words: sustainable development, indicator, quality of life, ecological integrity, A g a d a 21, PICABUE

SUMMARY Significant interest in the concept of sustainable development exists amongst scientists, planners, policy makers and the public, and considerable effort and expenditure is made or envisaged at local, national and international levels to promote a more sustainable society. Until ‘green accounting’ and similar systems are made available and are implemented, the sustainabilityindicator will be the most effective tool available for monitoring progress towards a more sustainable society. Sustainability indicators are already available but are characterized by a poor or absent theoretical underpinning. This paper addresses this problem by proposing a methodological framework that can be applied to the construction of indicators of sustainable development. In order to be consistent with widely accepted definitions of sustainable development, considerations relating to the measurement of quality of life and ecological integrity are central to the methodology.The methodologicalframework has relevance to a variety of spatial scales and to geographically diverse areas (urban or rural, developed or developing countries) so that a suite of sustainability indicators can be produced that is tailored to the needs and resources of the indicator user, but which remains rooted firmly in the fundamental principles of sustainable development.

INTRODUCTION

throughout the world to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development for the next century. Individual countries were required to produce strategies and action plans indicating how they would implement their parts of these agreements (e.g. HM Government, 1994). If development is to become more sustainable, there must be an effective method of monitoring trends in sustainability so that the performance of development policies can be assessed. Agenda 21 proposed the development of a system of accounting that would integrate national economic and environmental accounts so that

Since the publication of Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) there has been considerable international interest in the concept of sustainable development. This interest culminated in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio deJaneiro (the Earth Summit). The Earth Summit produced conventions on climate change, biodiversity and forestry, as well as Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), a comprehensive programme of action needed

Correspondence: Dr Gordon Mitchell, The Environment Centre, The University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT,UK

104


PICABUE: a m.ethodologicalfiamework

progress towards sustainability could be measured. However, methods of environmental accounting are poorly developed, and their integration with systems of national economic accounts is probably many years away (Arntzen and Gilbert, 1991). Until such integrated accounting systems are developed, tested and implemented, progress towards sustainable development can best be monitored using sustainability indicators. Indicatorsare used to interpret the world about us. Indicators convey information on complex systems in a way that makes those systems more easily understood. Indicators encountered in everyday life include the bank interest rate, unemployment figures, and the IT100 share index, which all suggest how the economy is performing. Other examples are figures on rainfall and temperature that are a guide to weather conditions. Indicators are alternative measures that are used to identify the status of a concern when for technical or financial reasons the concern cannot be measured directly. We need indicators because they enable us to gain an understanding of the complex systems around us. They do this by:

(1) Synthesizing masses of data;

(2) Showing the current position, in relation to desirable states;

Mitchell, May and McDonald

The demand for indicators that measure sustainable development is high (Department of the Environment (DOE), 1993; Moffatt, 1994), presenting the challenge to develop effective indicators that will allow monitoring of progress towards a sustainable society, and assist in the identification of the best sustainable practices and policies. Attempts have already been made to identify sustainability indicators (e.g. Sheehy, 1989; Sustainable Seattle, 1993) and others are still in progress (e.g. Local Government Management Board (LGMB), 1994; Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), 1994). However, many of the currently used sustainabilityindicators are simply social or economic performance indicators and indicators derived for state-of-theenvironment reporting that have been selected from pre-existing lists, with little o r n o modification, and are presented as ‘sustainability indicators’. Some of these indicators may well prove to be excellent indicators, but without a coherent methodologyunderlying their selection, their utility remains questionable. The methodology underlying an indicator is valuable because it gives greater credibility to indicator choices, allows for more effective participation in indicator development, simplifies identification of indicators appropriate to different geographical localities, and can produce indicators with longterm robustness.

(3) Demonstrating progress towards goals and objectives; and (4) Communicating current status to users (scientists, policy makers or the public) so that effective management decisions can be taken that lead us towards objectives. There are two types of ‘indicator’: simple indicators expressed in units (e.g. rainfall, in mm) , and indices which combine single indicators in an index that is expressed as a dimensionless number (e.g. the ETlOO share-price index). Ott (1978) describes the ideal indicator as follows: Ideally, an index or an indicator is a means devised to reduce a large quantity of data down to its simplest form, retaining essential meaning for the questions that are being asked of the data. In short, an index is designed to simplify. In the process of simplification, of course, some information is lost. Hopefully, if the index is designed properly, the lost information will not seriously distort the answer to the question.

THE PICABUE METHOD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT This paper presents ‘PICABUE’,a methodological framework for the development of sustainability indicators. The methodology is illustrated in Figure 1, and is discussed in detail below. The PICABUE method derives its name from the seven principal steps used in the development of sustainability indicators:

(1) Stakeholders to reach a consensus on the Principles and definitions of sustainable development that are used and the objectives of the sustainability indicators programme;

(2) Identify and select Issues of concern; (3) Construct/select indicators of issues of concern;

InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

105


PICABW: a methodobgicalfiamnuwk

0

a

Sbkcholdcrs to reach conscnsus on : Pnnciplcs of sustainable development, -Objectives of indicator use

t

c

Futurity (inter-generational

Identify and select issues of concern


Social equity (intra-generational

Q

Constructjselect base indicators of quality-of-life issues of concern

T

e a

Augment quality-of-life indicators with reference to sustainability principles to produce sustainability indicators

1

Conservation of

Identify complementary ecological indicators that recognize the intrinsic value of ecological stocks

Modify sustainability indicators to account for boundary difficulties

Q

e

Evaluate final sustainability indicators with respect to : Desired indicator characteristics, Objectives of i n d i c a x i .

*

~

Use indicators

Figure 1 The PICABUE method for the construction of indicators of sustainable development

106

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology


PICABLE: a niethodologicalfiamewark

Augment indicators developed in step (3) by sustainable development principles identified in step (1); Modify step (4) indicators to address

Boundary issues; Develop Uncertainty indicators from step (4)augmented indicators;

Evaluate


and review final sustainability indicators.

PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES

Principles and definitions Sustainable development is a rather vague concept characterized by numerous definitions and many possible interpretations of its meaning. Therefore, the first step in the methodology is to state which definition(s) of sustainable development is/are used, and which underlying principles are to be adopted. It is likely that most indicators will be derived from the two most popular and widely-quoted definitions of sustainable development which are given in Our Common Future (WCED, 1987) and in Caringfor the E a r t h ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union f o r t h e Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources et al. (IUCN), 1991). These are, respectively: ‘development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations’; and ‘development that improves the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems’. These definitions are concerned with quality-oflife issues and maintenance of the ecological integrity of natural systems. Both definitions are supported by four fundamental principles of sustainable development (e.g., see Elkin et aL, 1991; United Nations Conference o n Environment a n d Development (UNCED), 1992).The first three relate to people. ‘Futurity’ (also known as inter-generational equity) is the first. To ensure that the needs and aspirations of future generations are not compromised by current activities, a minimum environmental capital (resources a n d ecological support systems) must be maintained. ‘Equity’ (also known as intra-generational equity), the second

principle, states that current generations should have greater equality in access to environmental capital and should share the costs associated with human activity (e.g. pollution) in a more equitable manner. The third principle, ‘public participation’, states that individuals should have an opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them and the process of sustainable development. T h e f o u r t h ‘environment’ principle relates exclusively to the integrity of the natural environment, recognizing the value of the wider ecosystem as a resource worthy of conservation because people benefit from its use, and also because it has intrinsic value beyond human resource use. Human activities are conducted through the socioeconomic system to increase quality of life, and in doing so often lead to adverse impacts on ecological integrity. These impacts are often a consequence rather than an intention of human activity, but their presence does highlight a contradiction in sustainable development. Redclift (1989) writes: ‘sustainable development is a concept which draws on two frequently-opposed intellectual traditions: one concerned with the limits which nature presents to human beings, the other with the potential for human material development which is locked up in nature’. These contradictory views are explored in the sustainabilityspectrum (Pearce et al., 1993)’which demonstrates how differing personal value systems (e.g. ‘ecocentric’ versus ‘technocentric’) are associated with fundamentally different treatments of ecological resources (e.g. biodiversity preservation, conservation, exploitation). Such differences in the interpretation of the term ‘sustainable development’ exemplify the need for indicator designers to specify clearly their terms of reference.

Statement of objectives Indicators are designed to perform one o r more tasks. Cairns et al. (1993) concluded from their review that indicators are designed to meet at least one of the following objectives:

(1) Assessment of current conditions;

(2) Monitoring trends in conditions over time; (3) Anticipating hazardous conditions before they arise;


107


PICABLE: a mthodologicalji-amework

Table 1 The relative merits of the three different indicator approaches shown in Figure 4 (p.114)


Indicatm approach

Disadvantages

Advantages

Primly indicator uses

I

Comprehensive coverage of all the issues Few data gaps or omissions Selection difficulties are minimized Indicators are simple and reflect the data closely Results are noncontroversial

Burden of interpretation placed on user Communicates little sense of condition of the whole

Modelling

I1

Communicates a sense of condition of the whole (or major parts of the whole)

Difficult to maintain consistently because as old issues disappear, new issues arise Controversial; an index averages data and much important information may be lost Value judgements are required when weighting the components

Communicating data to discipline experts Communicating data to policy makers

Explicit Data gaps are clearly seen Unacceptable omissions are corrected by selecting additional key indicator, rather than altering complex composites Long-term robustness

I11

Subjective decision required in selecting key indicator Danger of oversimplification

(4) Identifying causative agents to specify appropriate management action; and

( 5 ) Demonstrating interdependence between indicators to make assessment processes more cost-effective,or to reinforce the will to make sound management decisions. Indicators have certain requirements that need to be catered for, depending on the objective of the indicator. For example, an indicator with the objective of anticipating hazardous conditions before they arise would need to be supported by data acquisition and analysis that was sufficiently rapid to allow appropriate remedial action to take place. This would not be an important indicator requirement if the purpose of the indicator was simply to document trends, when data consistency would be more significant. Similarly,an index may be useful in documenting general trends but a specific indicator would be much more effective in identifying cause and effect. Compare for example, the objectives of the National Water Council river classification index with that of an indicator of a specific water pollutant.

108

Modelling Communicating data to nonexperts and the public

Indicator objectives are not mutually exclusive and indicator characteristics that are selected to meet one objective may also be effective in meeting another. However, differences in indicator requirements do exist, depending on indicator use (Table 1). For this reason it is important that the purpose of the sustainability indicator is clearly understood and stated.

IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF ISSUES OF CONCERN When studying complex systems, it is common to subdivide them into components and gain an understanding of the state of the whole system by looking at indicators for each component. In the physical environment, indicatorsare used to assess the state of air, water, land, biota and so on. Although there is a high degree of connectivity between these components, the degree of complexity involved means that it is not appropriate to combine indicators into a single composite index. ‘There is no single measure or index which can show in a meaningful way what


PICABlE: a methodologicalfi-amework


I mmar);

componenls

Standard of living

/

I

Qualityoflife

Public health

1 Environmental quality

\

etc. ... / \ \

v Water quality

Secondq cornponenls

Food quality

Air quality

I


1

etc.... \

\

Teruq cornponenls Selection process (ree text) Reference Indicators

Not selected

Not selected

PM I0 (ng/m3) I

Sulphur dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (PPW (PPW I I

Ground-level ozone Carbon monoxide (PPW (PPm) I

Select many specific indicators, composite indicators, simple composite indicators or key indicators (see text and Table 1)

Figure 2 Selection of issues relevant to sustainability indicator construction; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million

the state of the environment is and whether or not it is improving’ (Elkin, 1987). If this is true for the physical environment, then it must also hold true for sustainability monitoring, which additionally needs to incorporate information on the social and economic environments. Therefore, to monitor progress towards sustainability, no single indicator is appropriate. A suite of indicators is required that attempts to cover comprehensively the most important concerns relevant to sustainability. The second step in the indicator methodology is to identify which concerns are relevant to sustainability and therefore merit indicator construction. The PICABUE methodology proposes a disaggregation process whereby the fundamental issues of concern are divided into significant issues or components. These components are subject to continued subdivision until tangible concerns that are amenable to indicator construction are identified and made available for selection (see the examples in Figure 2).

Identification of issues Sustainable development, as defined in Our CommonFuture (WCED, 1987) and in Caringforthe Earth (IUCN, 1991),is very much about quality of life and ecological integrity. Ecological integrity can already be measured using a wide variety of indicators, including those relating to biodiversity, species abundance, land with protected area status and consumption of primary productivity. The PICABUE methodology makes use of these existing indicator types (complementary ecological indicators) and supplements them with indicators of human activity impact on the ecological environment (see step 4, Figure 1). However, in developing sustainability indicators, it is also necessary to develop indicators of quality of life. Our Common Future discusses sustainable development with reference to ‘needs and aspirations’, while Caring for the Earth refers specificallyto quality of life. An individual’s quality of life is influenced by an extensive range of factors, including health and wealth, home, work


109


PICABUE: a mthodologicalfiamework


and neighbourhood environments, exposure to pollution and crime, access to resources, goods and services, the quality of their social interactions, and so on. The issues that are commonly important to people’s quality-of-life, and which may be suitable candidates for sustainability indicator development, may be identified from the qualityaf-life literature. Quality of life has been defined as ‘an individual’shappiness or satisfactionwith life and environment including needs and desires and other tangible and intangible factors which determine overall well-being’ (Cutter, 1985). Rogerson et al. (1987) note that numerous earlier studies treat this definition synonymously with the term ‘well-being’. A narrower definition related to quality-of-life is ‘level of living’ which Knox (1974) defines as ‘the level of satisfaction of the needs of the population assessed by the flow of goods and services enjoyed in a unit time’. This definition is broader than that used to construct social indicators and is more precise than the quality-of-lifeconcept. Level-of-livingresearch and social-indicators research are both commonly recognized as subsets of quality-of-life research, but are narrower] and consider only limited dimensions of quality-of-life. Level-of-living research usually focuses on the economic dimension, while social-indicatorsresearch places greater emphasis on indicators describing the social and physical environment. Qualityaf-life research attempts a broad interpretation of these multiple dimensions. It is usually conducted for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Curiosity over how different regions compare in terms of quality-of-life. (2) Identification of social inequity to assist in policy-making decisions and resource targeting.

(3) To use qualityaf-lifemeasures as a yardstick by which perceptions of quality-of-life, measured using standard social and economic indicators, can be compared. Quality-of-life research has been, and to a large extent still is, hampered by methodological problems. There is currently no agreement on definitions of quality-of-life, on terminology, on construction methods for social indicators, or even on the criteria that compose quality-of-life.

110

Rogerson et aL (1987) state that ‘geographers have not always succeeded in giving a lead in providing theoretical structures within which to organize quality-of-life studies, and have been content to restrict their expertise to discussing the spatial containers within which qualityaf-life data can be collected . . . and analysed using spatial information systems’.A particular problem is that qualityaf-life perception changes over time, so that measures of qualityaf-lifeconstantly evolve to account for changes in the social, economic and physical environment, Furthermore, it is the individuals’perception of well-being that produces and defines qualityaf-life so it is necessary to include subjective measures in quality-of-life research] but these are often intangible and unquantifiable. Attempts to produce theoretical quality-of-life models have been hampered by this lack of an acceptable integrating theory and framework that allows the creation of an overall, aggregate quality-of-life index. Such problems have led to difficulties in meeting the original objectives of quality-of-life research, such as predicting social need and reducing social inequalities. Quality-of-life studies tend to fall into three groups. First, there are those studies conducted to develop practical standardized indicators of quality-of-life to assist strategic planning and development. These studies have been commissioned at international level: e.g. UN, 1961, 1976; Organization for Economic COoperation and Development (OECD), 1973,1978, 1979; International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) (Olsen and Merwin, 1977); U N Educational,Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1978; European Economic Community (EEC), 1980, and at national level: e.g. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969; UK Government (Nissel, 1970); US Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1971;US Environmental Protection Agency, 1972; US Bureau of the Census, 1980; Australian Department of Home Affairs and Environment, 1983. The second group of quality-of-life studies places greater emphasis on attributes of the individual, addressing less tangible medicosociological and psycho-social elements (e.g. emotions,psychologicalwell-being,social network development) of quality-of-life (e.g. Dalkey et aL,

InternationalJournal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology


PICABLE: a methodologcalfiamework

-

Administration of justice crime and safety Housing

(

Security

Physical well-being

Physical health Mental health

Health

L

Nuisance

Visual perception and scenic quality

1

Personal economic security and standard of living


[

Quality of life

I

lndividual development through learning

Individual development :hroughrecreation and leisure

Psychological well-being

Natural resources

f

Community

development

\

Social infrastructure and services

J

Community Political participation structure Social infrastructure and services

Figure 3 A classification of quality-of-life components

1972;Fallowfield, 1990; Bowling, 1991; Doyal and Gough, 1991).These elements are considered by Dalkey et al. (1972) to be the most important for qualityaf-life indicators, but also the most difficult from which to construct practical indicators. Perhaps because of the methodological problems, much qualityaf-life research has turned away from academic theoretical research towards applied and commercial studies, which often attract considerable media attention. This final group of qualityaf-life studies includes those by Boyer and Savageau (1981, 1985) who produce the Places Rated Almanac, a quality-of-life ranking of the 327 largest cities in the USA; Rogerson et al. (1987,1989) who produced a similar ranking of UK cities; and Cheshire et aL (1986), who produced a European city ranking on the basis of only four quality-of-life components: income, employment, migration and travel. Given the considerable lack of consensus amongst quality-of-life researchers regarding definitions, terminology and methodology, it is not surprising that there is no consensus about which criteria are relevant to quality-of-life, and

so should be selected to act as the basis of qualityof-life indicators. The major components common to the qualityaf-life studies reviewed by the authors are illustrated in Figure 3. The components are divided into six categories, under the headings of health, security, personal development, community development, physical environment and natural resources, goods and services. There is no definitive (or even most popular) means of classification found in the literature, and some might argue that particular components belong in different categories - e.g. housing could be considered under either ‘security’ or ‘physical environment’. However, the particular classification system used is of little importance as long as, collectively, it is sufficiently comprehensive to incorporate all the issues that are thought to be relevant to quality-of-life measurement. The quality-of-life classification forms the framework for the identification of specific qualityof-life concerns. Possible indicator candidates may be identified from the qualityaf-life literature cited above, and by reference to reports and literature that has its origins not in qualityaf-life


111



PICABUE: a methodological framework

research, but in one of the component areas identified in Figure 3. These references might include reports on social and economic conditions produced by local and central government bodies, state-of-theenvironment reports, and reports by resource agencies a n d non-governmental organizations. The source of each potential indicator should be recorded. This approach thus makes use of existing indicators where possible, and places them in a quality-of-life framework. This is a pragmatic approach, as existing indicators are more likely to be supported by data, will be more easily understood and communicated, and will have a higher degree of political support than newly formulated quality-of-life indicators.

Selection of issues The component identification process produces an extensive list of potential indicators, and it is neither practical n o r desirable to collect information on all of them. Therefore, indicators need to be selected using a stated rationale. One method would be to select components that correspond to each of the various levels in a human-need hierarchy (e.g. Maslow, 1954). However, problems occur with this method as some needs are more essential than others but are, in addition, needs which are most often met (e.g. food a n d water security), creating a redundant indicator, whilst other needs (e.g. selfesteem) are highly relevant to quality of life but are particularly difficult to measure. People also demonstrate diminishing marginal utility in their attitude towards quality-of-life components (Dalkey et al., 1972), making prioritization and selection difficult. For example, in the literature, public questionnaire respondents cite the qualityof-life components ‘freedom from crime’ and ‘violent crime’ as many more times important than access to food and clean water, although the latter is a more fundamental human requirement. Subjectivity in component selection is also a problem when designing indicators, and this has been addressed by many quality-of-liferesearchers through the use of public-opinion surveys (e.g. Rogerson et al., 1989). There are four main problems with these surveys. First, the content of the original component list highly influences the individual respondent’s choice of selected components and so it would be easy to lead him/

112

her. Second, components are easily discarded from the list, but it would be unusual to find a public opinion survey where respondents can add components to the list, a n d then have all respondents comment on this revised list. Third, the extrapolation of survey findings outside the original survey group could be problematical if applying survey results to populations with significantly different cultural mixes o r a socioeconomic make-up different from the original survey group. The final problem with public-opinion surveys relates to discounting by the respondents of long-term and distant effects. People tend to discount that which is not in their own direct, immediate interest, and so ignore some of the most pressing global problems related to sustainable development. For example, Alexander (1992) cites a study where people expressed a greater willingness to pay higher prices to reduce household waste than they expressed to pay to produce cleaner energy, despite several studies showing that, in most areas, household waste is not a major environmental issue (Rathje and Murphy, 1992) and that energy use and production create e n o r m o u s problem externalities at the regional and global level. Costbenefit analysis recognizes the discounting problem, but is perhaps not a suitable tool for determining the most significant quality-of-life components because it is n o t yet able to satisfactorilyplace a value on ecological resources and externalities, and is also not able to account for quality-of-life components in less tangible areas, such as personal a n d community development. Quality-of-life components could also be selected by employing a technique such as Delphi decision making (Dalkey, 1969) which is described as ‘a method for the systematic solicitation and collation of judgements on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier responses’ (Delbecq et aL, 1975). T h e technique is a n improvement over straightfonvard public-opinion surveys, as it does not prejudge issues, gives greater feedback, and can incorporate the opinions of the general public and experts who are likely to identify more subtle quality-of-life components and make more informed judgements relating to long-term and transboundary issues. However, it cannot




PICABlE: a methodologicalframcwark

overcome the problem of applying choices that are made by a small group to a larger population, and is often costly in terms of time and money. The Delphi technique was applied to the study of quality-of-life by Dalkey et a2. (1972) and produced a list of components that fall almost exclusively into the area classed as psycho-social, including components of freedom, security, novelty, status, sociality, affluence and aggression. These components are quite different from those identified by the national and international bodies who were largely concerned with producing social indicators of quality-of-life, and whose choice of components was tempered by the practicalities of quantification. The Dalkey et al. (1972) exercise did identify physical components as relevant to quality-of-lifebut made a distinction between weak and strong quality-of-life components. Weak components were those managed by authorities, such as pollution, crime and housing, while the strong psychesocial components, seen as the most important quality-of-life components, could not be managed by authorities. Given that qualityef-life researchers have been unable to agree on a terminology, or even on the objectivesof quality-of-life study, it is not surprising that there is no consensus on what components should be selected, o r even which component selection methodology should be used. This lack of consensus is despite the awareness that component selection can radically alter the resulting quality-of-life measures. The ideal selection process should minimize the imposition of the selectors’ values on other people, and recognize that the relative importance of qualityof-life components will change over time. This recognition would suggest that either public opinion survey or the Delphi technique should be adopted as the selection methodology. Ultimately, the choice of component-selection methodology may be constrained by the time and resources available to devote to the decisionmaking. Therefore, a less ideal, but more pragmatic, approach might be for a small group to select components from the issues list on the basis of their relevance and the ability to measure the component. The selected components, and their associated indicators, could then be subject to a fuller evaluation by the indicator-user group (as in step 7, Figure 1) prior to their use as sustainabilityindicators. Valuejudgements would be made in selecting issues of concern, and

attempts to minimize bias and maximize cross cultural relevance should be made. The relevance of the component would be assessed with reference to the objectives of the indicator users (determined in step 1) and the following criteria: The geographical extent of component influence. This is the proportion of the population likely to consider the component a significant influence on the quality of their lives. The severity of component influence. This criterion includes the nature of impacts associated with the component (reversible or irreversible) and the cost of remedial action. The long-term trend associated with the component. Evidence of long-term trends can be used to assess the likely future relevance of the component (e.g. the steady decline in urban atmospheric lead following the introduction of lead-free petrol). T h e ease of quantification. Some components, though important, present major difficultiesin quantification and may not be suited to indicator development. These components include the psychosocial elements of such considerations as psychological well-being and emotions. If a component having a deleterious influence on quality-of-life has a minor overall impact, affects very few people, is highly localized or experiences a long-term downward trend, then it would not be selected as a suitable component for indicator construction. Also, components would not be selected if no measurement technique exists, which would be the case for many of the psyche social qualityef-life elements. Irrespective ofwhich selection methodology is adopted, records should be made that detail the selection procedure used, together with any relevant consultations, so that the origins of the indicators may be known publicly.

CONSTRUCTION OF INDICATORS OF ISSUES OF CONCERN Once the relevant issues have been identified, they need to be measured, and this measurement


113


PICABlE: a mthodobgicalfianwwmk

Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data 1

U 4 U 4 4 . c

Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind.

Composite indicator

Composite indicator

P+ c r ’

Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data


f

Key indicator

Simple composite indicator

selection of a particular or key indicator, or a simple composite indicator, as being representative of the full suite of indicators. The relative merits of these approaches are shown in Table 1. The choice of indicator type is dependent upon the needs and objectives of the indicator user. For example, if indicators a r e used to communicate progress towards sustainability to t h e public, t h e n they should be readily understood, a n d key or simple composite indicators would suffice. If, however, indicators were required for sustainability modelling, where data requirements would be much greater, then it would be more appropriate to use a larger suite of specific, noncomposite indicators.

Figure 4 Pictorial representation of three different indicator approaches: I. Many specific indicators; 11. A few composite indicators; 111. Key and simple composite indicators

AUGMENTATION OF REFERENCE INDICATORS BY SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

is achieved using indicators. Very often, suitable indicators already exist, having been constructed for purposes other than sustainability monitoring. For some issues, it may be necessary to construct new indicators, and this construction should be done in consultation with those having relevant subject-knowledge.Additionally, it is essential that potential sustainability indicators are selected and constructed with reference to the stated objectives of the indicators programme, as all indicators are able to perform different functions, depending on how they have been constructed. All indicators need to be understandable, and should be able to communicate information effectively to the indicator user. However, this requirement is complicated by the fact that indicators are asked to meet two conflicting requirements: first, to provide comprehensive coverage of the issues; and, second, to communicate information in a concise, easily understandable way. N o set of indicators has yet been devised that resolves this conflict successfully, with the result that three approaches to indicators are commonly used (Figure 4). The first approach (I) takes a mass of data o n the environment a n d communicates it using a series of highly specific indicators. The second approach (11) takes the same issues and data but constructs a few composite indicators from them, each crammed with many variables. The third approach (111) is based on the

The indicators produced in step 3 (see Figure 1) are sustainability indicators, as they have been derived from qualityaf-life issueswhich are central to sustainable development. However, they do not address distributional issues or environmental rate limits and, for this reason, are considered weak sustainability indicators. To produce strong sustainability indicators, our existing step-3 indicators must be related to the sustainability principles specified in step 1. This is a process which Ruitenbeek (1991) termed ‘reference indicator augmentation’. The augmentation process takes our existing indicators, which are largely descriptive of the sustainability concerns, and modifies them with reference to sustainability principles of equity, futurity and environment, so that information can be communicated on progress towards sustainability. T h e step-3 reference indicators do not need to be augmented by all sustainable development principles. Table 2 is a guide to the appropriate application of sustainable development principles to reference indicators. Each principle is described in full below; reference indicators are grouped according to the qualityaf-life classification used in Figure 3, and the augmentations shown are meant only as a guide to the correct application of sustainability principles. There are three types of augmented indicator - futurity, equity and environment - relating to three of the four significant sustainable

114


PICABUE: a methalologicalji-amework


Table 2 Identification of appropriate augmentation of quality-of-life indicator groups (see Figure 3) by sustainability principles

Natural Sustainabilitypn’ncipk?

Health

Security

Futurity (intergenerational equity)


Social eguity (intragenerational equity)

Physical environment Applicable to visual perception and scenicquality resources such as green space and built heritage

Augment health indicators with respect to most appropriate social disaggregation (e.g. socie economic group and ethnic origin)

Security concerns (housing, crime and economic security) have numerous appropriate social augmentations

Environment2

Physical environment concerns (pollution, nuisance, scenic quality) should all be related to one or more of the demographic d i s aggregationsas appropriate

resources, goods

andservices

Personal development

Community developmat

Relate renewable natural resource use to regeneration rate Relate nonrenewable natural resource use to substitution rate Relate goods and service provision to access by appropriate social groupings

Relate provision of education and leisure services to access by appropriate social grouping

Potential relevance in relating politicalparticipation indicators to social disaggregations such as ethnic origin or socioeconomic group

Relate pollution Relate consumption indicators to of resources to relevant ecosystem ecological limits threshold limiu (e.g. relate land degradation or development to minimum habitat requirements)

Public participation

Public participation is essential in developing a sustainable society. The PICABUE methodology does not augment qualityaf-life concerns by public participation directly, but addresses participation through the method of selecting quality-of-lifeconcerns. Strong preference should be given to the selection of participation indicators in the community development area (e.g. percentage participation in local, national and European elections,membership of community groups, etc.). Levels of public participation will also be influenced by the degree of control exercised by the agency commissioning the indicators

Uncertainty

Apply uncertainty augmentation to social equity indicators to deal with data confidence in reference indicators and demographic data

Express pollution indicators relative to estimated nnge in threshold limits

Express consump tion relative to estimated range in resource stock limits

Apply uncertainty augmentation to social equity indicators to deal with data confidence in reference indicators and demographic data

’See text for explanation of each principle; *Augmented environment indicators a r e thought to b e the most appropriate ecological indicator as they directlyrelate ecological stress to the causal h u m a n activity. However, other types of ecological indicator are available a n d may b e useful. These complementary ecological indicators include ‘traditional’ biodiversity indicators, indicators of protected area status a n d indicators of primary productivity consumption by h u m a n activity (see text); ’Although n o t explicitly a sustainable principle, uncmfainfy can b e addressed by developing indicators that consider, firstly, critical limits i n natural systems (resource-stock limits a n d pollution carrying capacities; secondly, behaviour in ecosystems; and, thirdly, data confidence (see text))

development principles. It is not appropriate to augment reference indicators with respect to the fourth principle, public participation. Public participation is addressed by the P I W U E method primarily through the process of selecting concerns for indicators,and in the manner in which indicators are finally used. It is also likely that qualityaf-life reference indicators would be selected in the communitydevelopmentareathat specificallyrelates

to public participation in the political process at national, local and community levels.

Principle 1: Futurity (intergenerational equity) This principle is concerned with the effect of current human activity on the ability of future


115



PICABLE: a m.ethodobgicalfiamewmk

generations to meet their needs and aspirations, and requires that adequate environmental capital is passed on to future generations. Futurity indicators must attempt to identify resource consumption rates and relate them to resource limits. This identification can be done using the rate limits specified by Daly (1991), po that the following two conditions apply. First, for a renewable resource, the rate of resource consumption must not exceed the rate at which the resource is able to regenerate. Examples of this type of indicator would be annual water abstraction as a percentage of available water stocks in a 5Byear return period drought, and timber consumption related to tree replanting. Second, for a non-renewable resource, the rate of consumption must be related to current stock limits, and must at least be equalled by the rate at which the resource is substituted for an alternative renewable source. Examples of this type of indicator would be the consumption of fossil fuels related to investment in renewable energy, and consumption of aggregates related to consumption of suitable alternatives, such as demolition waste or pulverized fuel ash.

Principle 2: Social equity (intragenerational equity) This principle demands a greater equity in the distribution of quality-of-life parameters amongst current generations. Sustainable development seeks to avoid significant inequities, because they can be morally undesirable (e.g. inequities in health provision or exposure to pollution) ; can promote further decline in sustainability (e.g. social impoverishment has associations with crime and poor health); and can promote economic development that cannot be sustained within ecological system limits. In order to produce equity indicators, it is necessary to disaggregate people into social groups, and relate the reference indicator to the appropriate social grouping. Determining which augmentations are appropriate requires an understanding of the issues that are important to the particular social groups, and demonstrates the need for effective public participation. A common method of social typing is to use census information on age, sex, socioeconomic status and ethnic origin. If the data were available, it

116

might also be possible to divide socioeconomic grouping into educational achievement and income. More specific social typing is possible, using, for example, indicators of social impoverishment (reviewed by Townsend et aL, 1992), but such indices would need careful selection, in order not to distort sustainability measurement. For example, several popular indices use lack of car-ownership as a guide to social impoverishment, which could distort the measurement of sustainable transport policies based on car reduction. Example equity indicators using the basic social disaggregations include: Age: e.g. an indicator that relates the concentration of an urban air pollutant to the population density of the age-group most severely affected by that pollutant (e.g. ‘PmlOs’ and 9-1 l-year-olds). Sex: e.g. an indicator that demonstrates differences in average income between men and women. Socioeconomic group: e.g. an indicator that demonstrates differences in access to health care provision for different socioeconomic groups. Ethnic group: e.g. an indicator that demonstrates differences in educational provision for different ethnic groups.

Principle 3: The environment This principle recognizes the value of the wider ecosystem as a resource worthy of conservation because people benefit from it. Therefore, reference indicators need to be augmented to show how close ecosystems are taken to their threshold limits (critical load, assimilative or carrying capacity) by human activity - limits beyond which they cease to function as effectively, or at all. In this sense, environment indicators are the ecological dimension of the futurity principle, because the environment is treated as a human activity-related capital stock o r resource. Environment-resource indicators might include, for example, effluent discharge into a river, in relation to the pollutant carrying capacity of the river, or the ground level concentration of ozone relative to that required to damage trees (the latter being regarded as useful as a recreational


PICABUE: a methodologicalfiamewark


Table 3 An example of reference indicator augmentation: per capita potable water consumption (1000s litres per year) Refmenu?indicator augmentation

Sustainability indicator ~

Principle: futurity an indicator that relates potable water consumption to the stock limit of renewable water resources Principle: social equity

~~

~

Total annual water consumption as a percentage of the total existing developed water resource stock in a drought year with a 50-year return period (ca. 2 generations)

Water consumption in the lowest socioeconomic group as a percentage of water consumption in the highest socioeconomic group

an indicator that relates demand


for potable water to ability to pay

Principle: environment an indicator that relates water abstraction for public supply to potential impacts on hydrobiological resources

Number of households per year spending more than 10% of household income on meeting water and sewerage needs Number of days per annum that the flow in the abstraction river drops below the minimum flow recommended for maintenance of the hydrobiological community

resource, in regulating urban climates and as a carbon sink). An example indicator augmentation is given in Table 3.

COMPLEMENTARY ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS Heinen (1994) argues that rare species are currently conserved only by technical means, such as habitat conservation and species-recovery programmes, whereas the most effective means of conservation is to tackle the root cause of decline by using local socioeconomic incentives to promote ecological conservation. Therefore, the environment-resource indicator is likely to be the most effective means of assessing the impact of quality-of-life gaining activities on ecological integrity. However, because the environment principle also recognizes the intrinsic value of nature, indicators are required that can measure the status of environmental capital that has less obvious utility as a resource. To do this, indicators that do not have their roots in the quality-of-life classification are sought. The followingthree types of complementary ecological indicator, which are more widely understood, but which may be less useful indicators of ecological sustainability than the environment-resource indicator, may be appropriate. First, the ‘traditional’ biodiversity

indicators (e.g. key, umbrella, flagship and vulnerable species status; see Simon a n d Wildavsjky, 1984; Noss et al., 1992). Second, there are indicators of protected-area status (e.g. the area of nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest, the proportion of land protected from development o r subject to pro-active nature conservation). A third type of appropriate indicator is that measuring primary productivity consumed o r pre-empted by human activity (Vitousek et al., 1986). This is a less welldeveloped indicator, because of the practicalities of quantification, but has excellent potential as a sustainability indicator, since it expresses proximity to ecological limits in a very simple, easily understood way.

SPECIAL BOUNDARY CONSIDERATIONS In designing indicators of sustainability, consideration needs to be given to the spatial units to which the indicators relate. Usually, indicators will relate to the administrative area of the authority using them but, in some cases, indicators will need to be designed to deal with flows across administrative boundaries. Such boundary considerations a r e particularly important for city sustainability indicators, as


117



PICABUE: a methodobgicalfiamewwk

urban patterns of resource consumption and waste and pollution production are responsible for a disproportionately high level of total human activity impact. The best way of addressing these transboundary issues is by environmental impact and lifecycle analyses that reflect accurately the full and true value (i.e. including externalities) of human activity on people and ecological integrity, wherever that impact happens to fall. So, for example, it would be desirable to look at the costs and benefits of tropical timber consumption in relation to: the people concerned (timber consumers, commercial loggers, indigenous people) ; timber regeneration rates; the broader ecological impacts on local flora and fauna; and also the contribution to large-scale problems such as global warming. However, the methodology and data are not yet available to make a full evaluation of such a range of costs and benefits, so indicators are used as the next best alternative. These indicators can be developed to address transboundary issues in two ways. First, where spatial boundaries are well-defined, and the required datacollection infrastructure is in place, indicators that measure moss-boundatyJhws may be appropriate. These flows would then be related to sustainabilitylimits. Examples of such indicators are: the percentage of waste disposed of outside the area where the waste was generated, or the percentage of local water demand met by resources originating outside the demand areas (inter-basin transfer). The second type of transboundary indicator recognizes that it is not always possible to estimate the impact of cross-boundary flows in the area where the impact occurs. This difficulty is often present with diffuse and non-point pollution sources. In these cases, sub-optimal indicators of cross-boundary flows are used. These indicators are one of three types: receptor, condition or source. For example, air pollution is a concern that has local impacts (e.g. child asthma, damage to vegetation and buildings) as well as the longrange impacts of acidification and global warming. Receptor indicators are used to quantify the impact where it falls. Thus, such indications would be used to quantify air pollutant-related impacts that occurred locally; they would not, however, be suitable for quantifying the nonlocal impacts. The latter may be addressed using a surrogate measure of the impact that can be measured locally - the condition and source

118

indicators. In the case of air pollution, a condition indicator would be used to measure a m b i e n t air-pollution levels o r , if this measurement proved technically difficult, a source indicator could be used to quantify pollutant emissions. As the indicator switches from quantifying the impact to the cause of the impact, a high level of confidence in the cause and effect mechanism is needed (e.g. it must be certain that the air emissions monitored relate to the impact that is the cause for concern). These indicators are sub-optimal. It is essential, therefore, to note their deficiencies and record the information required to improve t h e indicator.

UNCERTAINTY CONSIDERATIONS A requirement of both reference and augmented sustainability indicators is that they consider issues of uncertainty. Uncertainty in indicators arises from three causes: little or no knowledge of critical limits in systems (i.e. resource stock limits, carrying capacities) ;incomplete or poor data-sets with low levels of confidence; and unpredictable behaviour in systems. Indicators cannot remove such uncertainty, but should be able to convey the degree of uncertainty that exists, so that more informed decisions can be made. The uncertainty indicator would b e particularly useful to environmental managers who wish to apply the precautionary principle. T h e first type of uncertainty indicator expresses the value of the reference indicator in relation to the potential range in critical level or data confidence. For example, an environment indicator might be: Effluent discharge per day Assimilation capacity of receiving river

However, the river’s carrying capacity may only be known within certain broad limits. Therefore, the associated uncertainty indicator would be expressed as a range: Emuent discharge per day

Effluent discharge per day to

Highest estimate of assimilation capacity of river

Lowest estimate of assimilation capacity of river




PICABUE: a mthodologicalj+awork

Knowing whether the receiving river is using 1050% or 50-200% of its assimilative capacity is a valuable guide to the use of the precautionary principle, assisting protection of the ecological integrity of the river whilst making best use of the river’s pollutant disposal properties. Uncertainty indicators can be constructed in a similar way to accommodate incomplete o r poor referenceindicator data sets, t h e second cause of uncertainty. In the above example, the uncertainty indicator can be modified to include the estimated range in effluent discharge, if these data are not precisely known. The third type of uncertainty indicator addresses unpredictable behaviour in natural systems. Some issues are characterized by causal mechanisms that are only partly understood, and which are associated with a diverse range of potentially severe impacts that cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty. In these cases, it is appropriate to include indicators that are associated with the causal mechanism as it is currently understood. These uncertainty indicators may be appropriate for issues such as global warming (e.g. carbon dioxide emission related to primary energy consumption) and biotechnology risks (e.g. number of releases of genetically modified organisms).

EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS Once sustainabilityindicators have been designed, they should be reviewed by the group that intends to use the indicators. This review can be achieved with reference to the criteria given below, which have been derived from indicator studies of the physical environment (US Council o n Environmental Quality, 1984; SOE Canada, 1991; Cairns et al., 1993), the urban environment (OECD, 1978), national sustainability (Gelinas and Slaats, 1989; VHB, 1989) a n d global sustainability (Liverman et al.,1988). Liverman et al. (1988) concluded that, with the exception of threshold limit values, the characteristics of indicators for sustainability monitoring were no different than those required in monitoring the physical environment. The criteria for acceptability of sustainability indicators are considered separately in the following sections.

Relevance and scientific validity To maximize their usefulness, indicators should be constructed so that they have a high degree of relevance to the issues of concern, and the goals and objectives of the stakeholders who will use the indicators. The indicator must also be a technically valid measure, be scientifically defensible and accepted, and be rooted in an understanding of the relationship between the indicator and the issue of concern. Valuejudgements are made in selecting issues of concern and in constructing indicators, so attempts should be made to minimize bias and maximize crosscultural relevance where possible.

Sensitivity to change across space and/or groups Indicators should be sensitive to change across space or social grouping. They must be capable of taking distributions into account, in order to permit the identification of localized hot spots of improvement o r degradation of a concern, especially in ecological areas or social groups that are considered most at risk. Indicators should be supported by data collected in a consistent manner that allows aggregation of data to give a regional or national overview.

Sensitivity to change over time Indicators should reflect meaningful variation in the issue of concern so that significant temporal trends can be established that show whether or n o t conditions a r e stable, improving o r deteriorating. The indicator should be sensitive to change in the issue of concern, but should not have an ‘all-or-none’ response to stress or exhibit extreme natural variability.

Consistency of data The indicator should be supported by sufficient data to show trends over time. Ideally, this support should include historical data that show past trends. Comparisons over time (and over space and between groups) have greater validity if the data are collected in a consistent manner. Indicators should be constructed so that they can


119


PICABm: a methodologicalfiameruork


be supported by existing data where possible, and by data-monitoring programmes that have a reasonable degree of future security. Ideally, indicators should be able to provide information quickly enough to enable managers to initiate effective relevant action before unacceptable conditions occur.

information per unit of effort. The cost of collection should be within budget constraints (i.e. not prohibitive) and should correspond to the importance of the results. Indicators should attempt to make use of existing monitoring networks and should be non-redundant, to avoid replicating other measured indicators.

Comprehensible

Possible target or threshold values

Indicators should be easily understood by the target user-group, and should be capable of distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable conditions in a scientificallyand legally defensible way. The complexity of information required for different purposes does vary, but all indicators should be capable of aggregation so that the information presented can be understood by the layman and interpreted to allow an assessment of its significance.

Ideally, indicators should have target values that identify desirable conditions, and threshold values that identify problem, critical and irreversible or uncontrollable levels. These values should be identified and their relative importance explained and communicated alongside the indicator. Threshold values are particularly important to indicators of sustainability as they set limits, so that the indicators relate to development, and not simply growth. If limits cannot be determined, the desirable trend direction should be stated. ‘Sustainable growth’ is a term commonly misused o r confused with sustainable development. Growth o r expansion cannot be sustained indefinitely, there are limits. However, sustainable development is change not in quantity, but in quality; it is change within set limits. In order for a society to be socially sustainable, the combination of population, behaviour patterns, technology and capital in the society would have to be configured so that health and the material living standard is adequate and secure for everyone. In order to be physically sustainable, the society’s material and energy throughputs need to meet Daly’s (1991) sustainability limits. It is recognized that indicators are unlikely to meet all eight of these criteria and that this list can only act as a guide to indicator evaluation. Therefore, deficiencies in meeting indicator criteria should be recorded and noted alongside the final sustainability indicator, and should be subject to periodic review.

Appropriate data transformation Indicators must be truly representative of the concern under study. Indicator data must be presented in a format that transforms and communicates information in a way that enhances understanding. Data transformation can result in more appropriate indicators by expressing data in terms of throughput rates, ratios, percentages, etc., rather than absolute values. Composite indicators (indexes) may be useful but require care in construction and weighting, and may present communication difficulties. Key indicators may be preferable.

Measurable data Indicators should be measurable technically, financially a n d in the available time. T h e measurement methodology must be relevant, valid and accurate and use the most appropriate instrumentation. Indicators should be capable of being operationally defined and measured using standard operating procedures with documented performance and low measurementerror. They should not be so complex that regular monitoring and measurement is discouraged. Data collection for indicators should be costeffective, providing the maximum amount of

120

CONCLUSION Indicators a r e tools used frequently for communicating information on the state of the world about us. Wherever they are used (or misused), and regardless of how well or poorly they are designed, indicators are powerful and



PZCABW: a methodologicalfiamork

influential aids to decision making. For this reason, they are contentious and often disagreements may centre on the nature of the indicator rather than on the information that it is meant to convey. An indicatorconstruction methodology, widely accepted by decision makers and indicator users, can therefore greatly assist in keeping debate focused on issues and policy, rather than on the mechanics of measurement and communication. This paper presents a methodology for the construction of indicators of sustainable development. The PICABUE method is rooted in the fundamentals of quality-of-life enhancement and ecological system conservation and attempts to incorporate the key sustainability principles of futurity, social equity, public participation and conservation of the ecological environment. The methodology has a strong theoretical basis and attempts to deal with boundaxy and uncertainty issues, but has the added advantage of producing indicators from a low resource investment that are tailored to the end user. The issues that are considered important to sustainable development differ over time and space. PICABUE has t h e flexibility to accommodate change as current issues become less important and new issues arise, and it may also be applied to a variety of spatial scales and geographical areas. Following the statement of the objectives of sustainability measurement, indicators can b e constructed to address sustainable development issues at the local and community scale, as well as at national or global level. Whilst originally developed to address sustainability issues in developed world cities, the methodology could also be applied to developing world countries and to the rural environment.


The PICABUE methodology is designed to permit t h e construction of indicators of sustainable development that have a firm foundation in the ethics and principles of sustainability. The indicators methodology gives greater credibility to indicator choices, allows for more explicit participation in indicator selection, simplifies identification of indicators appropriate to different localities and permits indicator modification to address new or unanticipated concerns. If indicators are to be useful tools in assisting the sustainable development process, then an indicator construction methodology is an essential prerequisite for sustainability indicator use. If the indicators resulting from this methodology are still contentious, then it is because the underlying principles and ethics of sustainable development are in dispute, rather than the indicators themselves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work forms part of the Leeds University Quantifiable City project, an urban sustainability modelling programme supported by the United Kingdom Engineering and Physical Science Research Council. The authors would like to thank David Kay and Dorota Kupiszewska for their valuable comments on the draft text. The authors would also like to acknowledge the wider contribution to the Quantifiable City project made by Mike Pilling, Ed Stentiford and Stan Openshaw of the University of Leeds and by members of local collaboratingbodies, including Leeds City Council, the National Rivers Authority, Yorkshire Water plc, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, West Yorkshire Waste Management and the University of Huddersfield.

REFERENCES Alexander, J.H. (1992). In Dqmse of Garbage. (West

Port, VT:Praeger) Arntzen,J. and Gilbert, A. (1991). Natural resource accounting:state of the art and perspectivesforthe assessment of trends in sustainable development. In: Kuik, 0.and Verebruggen, H. (eds.) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Deuelopment, pp. 45-56. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers)

Australian Department of Home Affairs and Environment (1983). Australian Urban Environmental Indicators. (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service) Bowling,A. (1991).MeasuringHealth:AReuimof@alityof@ Measurement Scales. (Milton Keynes: Open University Press) Boyer, R. and Savageau, D. (1981, 1985). Places Rated Almanac - Your Guide to Finding the Best


121



PICABLE: a methodologicalfiamewmk

Places to Live in Amen’ca. (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.) Cairns,J., McCorrnick, P. and Niederlehner, N. (1993). A proposed framework for developing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologica, 2 6 3 , 1 4 4 Cheshire, P., Carbonaro, G. and Hay, D. (1986). Problems of urban decline and growth in EEC countries: or measuring degrees of elephantness. Urban Studies, 23, 1 3 1 4 9 Cutter, S.L. (1985).RatingPlaces:A Geographer’sViewon Quality of Life. (Association of American Geographical Research publishers) Dalkey, N.C. (1969). TheDelphi Method: anExpm’menta1 Study of Group Opinion. (Rand corporation) Dalkey, N.C., Rourke, D.L., Lewis,R. and Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the Quality of Life. Delphi and Decision Making. (US Rand corporation: Lexington Books) Daly, H.E. (1991). Shady StateEconomics. (Washington DC: Island Press) Delbecq,A.L., Van deVen,A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning. A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Management Application Sm’es. (Glenview: Scott Foresman) Department of the Environment (DOE) (1993). The UK Environment Seminar (Proceedings). (London: DOE) Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991). A T h e q of Human Need. (London: Macmillan) Elkin, TJ. (1987). State-ofthe-Environment Report Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Working paper series No. 23, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Elkin,T.J., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991). h i v i n g the City: Towards Sustainable Development. (London: FOEand the Policy Studies Institute) European Economic Community (EEC) (1980). Social Indicators. (Brussels: EEC) Fallowfield, L. (1990). Quality of Lqe. The Missing Measurement in Health Care. (London: Souvenir Press) Gelinas, R. and Slaats,J. (1989). Selecting Indicatorsfor State-ofthe-EnvironmentRepmting. Report 8 for SOE reporting branch. (Ottawa: Environment Canada) Heinen, J.T. (1994). Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 1,22-33 HM Government (1994). SustainabbDevelopment - The UKstrategy. (London: HMSO) International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World

122

WideFundforNature (WWF) (1991). Caringfarthe Earth Second Report on World Consmation and Development. (London: Earthscan) Knox, P.L. (1974). Level of living, a conceptual framework for monitoring regional variation in wellbeing. Regional Studies, 8, 11-19 Liverman, D., Hanson, M., Brown, B. and Meredith, R. (1988). Global sustainability:toward measurement. Environmental Management, 12, 143-83 Local Management Government Board (LGMB) (1994). SustainabilityIndicatorsRescarchProject.Report of Phase One.Report prepared for the UK Local Government Management Board local Agenda 21 steering group by Touche Ross Management Consultants, the New Economics Foundation and the United Nations AssociationJune 1994. (Luton: LGMB) Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. (New York: Harper) Moffatt, I. (1994). O n measuring sustainable development indicators. International Journal of SustainableDeuelopment and World Ecology, 1,97-109 Nissel, M. (ed.) (1970). Social Trends, 1970. (London: HMSO) Noss, R.F., Cline, S.P., Csuti,B. and Scott,J.M. (1992). Monitoring and assessing biodiversity. In Lykke, E. (ed.) AchievingEnuironmental Goals:The Concept and Practice of Environmental Performance Review, pp. 67-85. (London: Belhaven) Olsen, M.E. and Merwin, D.J. (1977). Toward a methodology for conducting social impact assessments using quality of social life indicators. In Finsterbrusch, K. and Wolf, C.P. (eds.) Methodology ofSocialImpact,pp. 43-63. (Stroudberg, Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1973). List ofsocial C o n m Common toMost OECD Countries: O E W Sociallndicator Development Programme 1. (Paris: OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1978). UrbanEnuironmental Indicators. (Paris: OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1979). BasicDisagregations of Main Social Indicators. Social IndicatorDevel~ment Programme Special Studies 4. (Paris: OECD) Ott, W.R. (1978). Environmental Indices: Themy and Practice. (Ann Arbor, Michigan:AnnArborScience Publishers Inc.) Pearce, D. etal. (1993).Bluepn.nt3. MeasuringSustainable Development. (London: Earthscan) Rathje, W. and Murphy, C. (1992). Rubbish: the Archaeology of Garbage. (New York: Harper Collins) Redclift, M. ( 1989). SustainabL Development,Exploring the Contradictions. (New York: Routledge)



PICABLE: a mthodologicalframmk

Rogerson,R., Findlay, A. and Morris A. (1987). The Geography of Quality of L i f . Occasional paper 22. (Glasgow: Glasgow University) Rogerson, R., Moms A., Findlay, A. and Paddison, R. (1989). The Quality of Lqe in Britain’s Intermediate Cities. (Glasgow: Glasgow University) Ruitenbeek, H.J. (1991). Towards New Fundamentals. (Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, Environment Council) Sheehy, G. (1989). The Use of Indicators to Show the State and Recent Trends in Sustainable Development in Canada Draft report No. 10, SOE Canada Simon,J.L. and Wildavsjky, A. (1984). On species loss, the absence of data and risks to humanity. In Simon, J.L. and Kahn, H. (eds.) The Resourcefil Earth: A Response to Global 2000, pp. 171-83. (New York: Basil Blackwell) SOE Canada (1991). A Report on Canada’s Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators. SOE Report 91-1. (Ottawa: Environment Canada) Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (1994). Polartar:A Processfor SustainableHuman Development. Publicity material. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Sustainable Seattle (1993). 1993 Indicators of a Sustainable Community.SustainableSeattle Network and Civic Forum, Washington, USA Townsend,P., Davidson,N. and Whitehead, M. (1992). Inequalities in Health: The Black Report and the Health Divide. (London: Penguin) United Nations (UN) (1961). Intaational Definition and Measurement of Living. UN 61.N.7. (Geneva: UN) United Nations (UN) (1976).Draji Guidelineson Social Indicators. UN: E/CN.3/488. (Geneva: U N Statistical Commission) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992). Agenda 21 - A n


Action Plan for the Next Centuly. Endorsed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1978). Indicators of environmental quality and quality of life. Reports and Papers in the Social Sciences, 38. (Paris: UNESCO) US Bureau of the Census (1980). Social Indicators IZL (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office) US Council on Environmental Quality (1984). 5th A n n u a l Report on Environmental Quality. (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office) US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969). Toward a Social Report. (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office) US Department of Planning a n d Economic Development (1971).ProceedingsoftheConfuenceon Socio-environmental Indicators. Department of Planning and Economic Development, Honolulu, Hawaii US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1972). QualityofLifeZndicatm. WashingtonEnvironmental Research Center, Washington: Environmental Protection Agency) VHB Research and Consulting Inc. (1989). Indicators and Indices of the State of theEnvironment. Technical Report No. 15. (Ottawa: Environment Canada, Statistics Canada) Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Matson, P.A. (1986). Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience, 36, 369-73 World Commissionon Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)


123

PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of ...

PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of ...

Suggest Documents

Development of a methodological framework for the assessment of ...

A Methodological Framework for Aligning

Development of a risk assessment methodological framework for ...

A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMBINING ...

a methodological framework for the initial ...

A methodological framework for assessment of ...

Methodological framework for assessment of the ...

A Methodological Framework For Combining Quantitative. And

A Methodological Framework for Understanding IS ... - CiteSeerX

A Methodological Framework for Crowdsourcing in

A Methodological Framework for Crowdsourcing in Research

A Methodological Framework for Crowdsourcing in Research

A Methodological Framework for Evaluating Software Testing ...

A methodological framework for project-based ... - CiteSeerX

A methodological framework for capturing relative ...

A Framework for Methodological Advances - Digital Conservancy

A conceptual and methodological framework for psychometric ...

Toward a Methodological Framework for Brownfield ...

A stochastic methodological framework for uncertainty ... - ITIA

A Multi-Methodological Framework for Analysing

a methodological framework - Semantic Scholar

A proposed methodological framework for the evaluation of corporate ...

METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT FOR FOREST

A Methodological Framework for the Reconstruction of ... - CECM