University of Latvia
Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences
Kristīne Āboliņa
URBAN SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Summary of doctoral dissertation
in Environmental Science,
branch Environmental Management
Riga 2005
INTRODUCTION
Importance of the work
The desire on the part of human societies to improve their standard of
living together with the growth in the global population has resulted in a rapid
increase in resource consumption and adverse anthropogenic impacts on the
global environment. As a result, there is a need for a new understanding and
solutions to optimize the dynamics and character of development.
The «raison d'etre» of traditional development planning principles was to
achieve progress in specific priority sectors, however, firstly, such an approach
has proven to be ineffective and, secondly, it has retarded the pace of
development and even created a crisis situation for society and the
environment.
The concept of sustainable development as an alternative to the existing
development models has as its goal to ensure progress in society, but at the
same time reducing development inequities and resultant negative
consequences. International conferences such as those held in Rio de Janeiro
and Johannesburg and attended by world leaders, the EU Lisbon Strategy and
the UN Millenium Goals are just a few examples of this type of movement.
The application of the concept of sustainable development for the purpose of
managing development has been studied throughout the world. Even in Latvia,
politically, there is a readiness to use the principles of sustainable development
for the planning and management of national development.
At the same time it is worth noting that in Latvia there have been relatively
few research studies undertaken, which are needed to underpin responsible and
rational national level planning and management. To ensure implementation of
sustainable development it is important that approaches and criteria are
developed for the evaluation of the nature/character of development.
Therefore, an important goal of research is the formulation of sustainable
development indicators, that reflect the effectiveness and positive aspects and
negative impacts of development and that permit an evaluation to be
undertaken of required changes in the way of doing things.
Sustainable development research can be especially relevant, if sizeable
resources are to be invested in a development initiative and the possibility
exists for significant adverse impacts, for example, to the urban environment.
Since it is necessary to understand the linkages that guide and impact urban
development, and to be able to optimize development, research into urban
sustainable development, including sustainable development indicators is
relevant for development planning not only in Latvia, but also elsewhere.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of the research was to analyse the opportunities to assess
the sustainability of urban development in Latvia and to formulate
criteria for the development of urban sustainability indicators.
Objectives of the Research
1. To characterize the process of sustainable development in Latvia.
2. To assess the relevant aspects of sustainable development in the cities
of Latvia.
3. To characterise different approaches to the development of sustainable
development indicators.
4. To analyse the opportunities to use development indicators in the
largest
cities of Latvia for the purpose of assessing and planning sustainable
development.
5. To undertake an assessment of sustainable development in Riga using
previously compiled European Common Indicator data.
6. To formulate criteria for the development of sustainability indicators
for urban areas in Latvia.
7. To test the urban sustainability indicator development criteria against
existing urban sustainability indicator sets.
Sources of Information and Research Methods
The research was undertaken on the basis of data and information derived
from published and unpublished documents and normative acts, and through
interviews. The authors own observations of events and societal development
processes, while working as a specialist in development planning projects
throughout Latvia and actively participating in the work of a non-governmental
organization, are the basis for some of the conclusions drawn regarding the
nature of sustainable development in Latvia.
The Development Plans of the cities of Jelgava, Jurmala, Rezekne and Riga
were used to analyse the opportunities that exist in the cities of Latvia to assess
the sustainability of development. The coherence of the development planning
policies of the four cities was analysed by comparing the development goals,
priorities and actions defined in the Development Plans against selected
sustainability issues in the transportation and green space sectors. Planning
specialists were interviewed in the four cities to identify how the municipalities
evaluate the implementation of their Development Plans.
Published statistical compilations were used to identify information on
indicators in the transportation and green space sectors. Municipal specialists
in Riga, Rezekne, Jelgava and Jurmala were interviewed to identify the types
of urban development indicators that are used and their sources.
In the process of analysing opportunities and constraints to sustainable
development in Mezaparks, the development goals of the residents of
Mezaparks and the administration of the municipality of Riga, as compiled in
the Mezaparks Neighbourhood Sustainability Plan and the Riga Development
Programme, were compared. The possible impact of the two planning
documents on sustainable development in Riga and Mezaparks was assessed.
Recognizing the important role municipal governance plays in the
implementation of sustainable development, during the research attention was
also directed to organizational aspects of decision-making. However, due to the
large scope of this issue, a detailed analysis was not undertaken of the political
dimension of municipal governance and decision-making.
The urban sustainability indicator development criteria were formulated
using the principles of sustainable development as defined by SchleiserTappeser et al, the Bellagio Principles, the results of research undertaken by the
author, as well as the practical experience gained by the author in the process
of formulating the Mezaparks Indicators of Sustainability. The urban
sustainability indicator development criteria were tested on the Mezaparks
Indicators of Sustainability and European Common Indicators.
The principles of sustainable development and the Bellagio Principles that
proved to be ineffective urban sustainability indicator development criteria
during testing of the draft criteria on the Mezaparks Sustainability Indicators,
were developed into Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines.
Novelty of the Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sustainable development in Latvia and its urban areas is characterised.
The problems associated with monitoring urban sustainable
development have been denned.
An assessment has been undertaken of sustainable development of Riga
using EU Common Indicator data.
Recommendations regarding improvements to the utilization of
European Common Indicators in Riga are formulated.
A new tool, urban sustainability indicator development criteria have
been formulated and tested on existing urban sustainability indicator
sets.
Shortcomings associated with the urban sustainability indicator
development criteria have been addressed by developing a new instrument - Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines.
SUMMARY
1. Sustainable Development - its Necessity, Meaning, and
Character
By changing and developing the natural and man-made environment people
have created many local, regional, as well as global scale problems - increased
environmental contamination, depletion of the ozone layer, global climate
change, reduction in biodiversity. At the same time, social equity is
increasingly recognized as being important in ensuring human development,
which includes improvement of quality of life for everyone. Sustainable
development provides a possible way of balancing social and economic
development, while providing environmental protection that can avert an
impending ecological catastrophe and ensure the survival of humans.
Most definitions of sustainable development are based on that put forth in
the Bruntland Report: «sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present generation, without limiting the ability of next generations
to satisfy their needs». At the international level agreement regarding the need
for sustainable development was reached for the first time in Rio de Janeiro in
1992, when 150 countries, including Latvia, signed the Action Plan for the 21st
century - Agenda 21 - which defines the actions that are necessary to address
global environmental and social development problems.
The three spheres without which the survival of mankind is not possible are
a functioning economy, harmonious social relations and a healthy
environment, all of which are the desired external preconditions for individual
development (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Environmental, economic and social spheres of
sustainable development.
Different types of sustainable development have been denned. In weak
sustainability natural and/or human capital (nature and humans) are considered
to be interchangeable with man-made capital - produced goods, and the total
amount of capital must remain constant. Strong sustainability requires that
each type of capital is maintained without any substitution.
A number of sustainable development principles have been formulated that
reflect different aspects of sustainability. Holmberg et al. (1995) has developed
socio-ecological principles1, that are based on an analysis of the
interrelationship of social and natural processes:
Principle 1:
Substances extracted from the lithosphere must not
systematically accumulate in the ecosphere.
Principle 2: Anthropogenic substances must not systematically accumulate
in the ecosphere.
Principle 3: The physical conditions for production and diversity within the
ecosphere must not systematically be deteriorated.
Principle 4: The use of resources must be efficient and just with respect to
meeting human needs.
The socio-ecological principles clearly show the interrelationships between
development processes and, therefore, allow development goals to be clearly
formulated. A number of transitions to more sustainable development exist and
it is possible to make mistakes, however, precise goal formulation is a
precondition for sustainable development. The advantage of the socioecological principles is that sustainable development is assessed from a
systems perspective and proposed actions are identified closer to the
underlying causes of the problems. The sustainable development principles
developed by Daly (1991), define somewhat more narrowly the role of
governance and equity in ensuring sustainable development, but emphasize the
need to alter anthropogenic impacts on nature.
A group of European researchers propose ten sustainable development
dimensions2, the last four of which answer the question concerning how to
facilitate sustainable development:
1. Environmental component.
2. Economic component.
3. Socio-cultural component.
4. Inter-personal equity.
1
Holmberg J. (1995). Socio-Ecological Principles and Indicators for Sustainability,
Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Goteborg.
2
Schleiser-Tappeser R. and Stratti F. (1999). Sustainability- a new paradigm for research?
In: Cattizone, M. (ed.). From Ecosystem Research to Sustainable Development: Towards a
New Paradigm for Ecosystem Research. Ecosystem Research Report No 26; European
Commission, Directorate-General Science, Research and Development, Brussels, pp. 4558.
5. Spatial equity.
6. Inter-generational equity.
7. Diversity.
8. Subsidiarity.
9. Networking and Partnership.
10. Participation.
The problem with planning development in the long-term is that there is not
a simple way to predict the results of the interaction of people, human societies
and natural systems, because it is not possible to anticipate/predict human
behaviour and, furthermore, people are part of the system being analysed.
Therefore, it is not possible to base strategies that promote sustainable
development on a specific model (the model cannot represent human
behaviour). The approach to the formulation of sustainable development policy
must be flexible in two directions - in space and time, therefore, accurate
predictions or forecasting are basically impossible.
The consequences of this basic need for flexibility are:
1. Sustainability is a general idea that must be interpreted concretely in
specific contexts.
2. Sustainability cannot be achieved by a command and control approach
since we have no adequate causal models.
3. Sustainability can only be approached through a practical management
process that includes permanent learning.
These conclusions illustrate the diverse approaches that are used for the
implementation of sustainable development in various parts of the world and in
different cities. Sustainable development is particularly relevant for the
developed industrial countries in light of their high consumption level, that
together with free market economics and globalization processes, is one of the
main causes of global environmental and development problems. The concept
of dematerialization - decoupling of economic development and material
consumption is an important strategic direction for sustainable development. Its
necessity derives from the desire of many countries in Africa, Asia and South
America, as well as many European citizens to quickly attain a standard of
living equivalent to that of the industrialized nations. In the poorest countries in
the world, the issues surrounding sustainable development are closely tied to
free market economics and addressing the adverse impacts resulting from
globalization, issues that in fact cannot be addressed at the local scale.
From the Rio de Janeiro Conference in 1992 until the Rio+10 Summit in
Johannesburg in 2002, discussions regarding the need for sustainable
development have been replaced by attempts to identify the most effective
ways of implementing sustainable development and on undertaking studies of
specific aspects of sustainability. Sustainable development research has
developed as an independent research field dealing with various aspects of the
sustainability
concept and the implementation of sustainable development in development
planning. Even though some countries such as The Netherlands and Germany
have formulated specific goals to implement Agenda 21 issues, in the ten years
subsequentto Rio, the Rio Action Programme has not been implemented. The
reasons are many, including inadequate financial resources, lack of political
will, insufficient coordination of action and continuing unsustainable activities.
Nevertheless, sustainable development is still a powerful long-term vision
for which new and effective tools and instruments are now available. The
Summit in Johannesburg resulted in the adoption of a Sustainable
Development Declaration, the definition of actions for the upcoming period,
with particular attention being devoted to the following themes: water and
sanitation, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. The recommendations
of the Johannesburg Summit should be considered as guidelines for policy
development at all administrative levels.
Since 1992, the European Union has systematically introduced sustainable
development into common policies, as well as in individual sectors in a
coordinated way. In addition to the integration of sustainable development on a
sector basis, sustainable development is also a priority of EU research
programmes.
Progress Towards Sustainable Development in
Latvia
In Latvia, implementation of sustainable development policy at the national
level in a coordinated and systematic way began upon regaining independence
in 1991. In 2001, the Sustainable Development Council was created by the
Cabinet of Ministers, but in 2003 it was liquidated. Later in 2003, a new
Sustainable Development Council was formed under the auspices of the
Ministry of Environment with the goal of integrating the principles of
sustainable development into the environmental, social and economic sectors
and to coordinate the sustainable development process, to promote public
participation, as well as to support initiatives related to sustainable
development.
Presently, the Sustainable Development Council meets approximately three
times a year, but it only has authority to make recommendations that are not
binding. To ensure the proper coordination of sustainable development
initiatives in Latvia would require a permanent institution. Such a body does
not exist and the work of the existing Council is not adequately financed. The
many functions delegated to the Council and the limited financial support
partially explains the slow development of the sustainability process in Latvia.
The Strategy for Sustainable Development in Latvia (2002) defines the
main goals and problems related to the implementation of sustainable
development in Latvia. If the Strategy was used in developing and
implementing policy at different administrative levels in Latvia, it could be a
strong framework for development decision-making. Unfortunately, the
Strategy does not define an implementation procedure. Similarly, the goals and
actions defined in the
Strategy are without an implementation time-frame and targets, therefore
practically rendering the document non-binding. A positive aspect of the
Strategy is the definition of indicators to monitor the implementation of goals.
In contrast to the «Rio+10: Latvia's Report for the UN Sustainable
Conference in Johannesburg" (2002), which emphasizes how sustainable
development principles have been incorporated into sector and national legal
acts, the NGO Report on Sustainable Development in Latvia (2002), prepared
for the Johannesburg Summit, examines how sustainable development
principles are being enlivened in practice in six sectors, and discusses the
existing problems associated with cooperation between governmental and nongovernmental sectors.
Implementation of sustainable development in sector activities has to date
proceeded in a uncoordinated fashion and positive achievements can be
attributed to robust and systematically implemented national environmental
protection policies. In the previously mentioned documents dealing with
sustainable development the accent is decidedly on environmental rather than
social issues, and the dominant role of environmental NGOs in promoting
sustainable development is evident. The ineffectiveness of the implementation
of sustainable development is demonstrated by the fact that as the national
economy has developed and per capita incomes have risen, household
consumption has increased and the gap between the wealthy and poor in Latvia
has increased.
The Millenium Development Goals defined specifically for Latvia provide
a more precise framework for fostering sustainable development. The defined
goals are supported by 18 specific objectives and 40 indicators to monitor
progress towards the achievement of the objectives. A very positive aspect of
this work is the attempt to address environmental sustainability in a systematic
fashion.
A more quantitative characterization of sustainable development is
presented in Indicators of Sustainable Development in Latvia. However, the
selected indicators do not always coincide with the indicators defined in
Strategy for Sustainable Development in Latvia (2002). Since the sustainable
development goals that have been defined in Latvia do not have
implementation time-frames nor set targets, the indicators presented in the
Indicators of Sustainable Development in Latvia report cannot be used to
assess whether defined sustainability goals are being achieved. The types of
issues that have been selected in this report, reflect the leading role played by
environmental specialists. This highlights the fact that a coordinated effort to
balance the environmental, economic and social spheres of development is
lacking.
The National Development Plan of Latvia is distinctly dominated by a
sectoral approach that creates the impression that development should be
focused in narrow fields or economic sectors and that progress in these will
guarantee successful national development. However, this type of approach is
an attempt to «guess» the sectors that are likely to be successful, without first
undertaking a comprehensive analysis to identify the most effective investment
strategy and the root causes of certain problematic issues. Analysts of the
economy of Latvia
also highlight the lack of a systematic approach to the implementation defined
development objectives.
Sustainable development in Latvia can be assessed using methods that
allow a comparison to be undertaken of the success of sustainability processes
in different countries. According to environmental sustainability index
indicators (Figure 2), out of 144 countries Latvia is in 10th place.
This is an excellent result in terms of national development which has been
achieved without conscious effort. In the context of Latvia this can be viewed
as an indicator of weakness in national development (according to the indicator
«decrease in population» Latvia is in first place in the world).
Figure 2. Environmental Sustainable Development Indicators in Latvia, Finland, Iran,
Ethiopia (CP - Protection of Human Potential; SIK - Social and Institutional Development
Capacity; VS - Environmental Stress; GP - Participation in Global Processes; ES - Stress on
Natural Ecosystems)
The sustainability of development in Latvia can also be characterized by
the ecological footprint. Based on a study undertaken by the World Wildlife
Fund, in order not to exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, the average
ecological footprint of every inhabitant on this planet should no exceed 1.7
hectares. According to this study, in 1999, Latvia was in 34th place amongst
the 115 countries analysed with an average ecological footprint of 3.43
hectares per inhabitant (in 1st place, with the largest ecological footprint was
the United Arab Emirates with 10.1 hectares/inhabitant). The inhabitants of
Latvia «overspend» their globally available resources and, consequently,
concerted action is required to foster sustainable development.
National sustainable development planning requires research to be
undertaken for various aspects of development. The contribution of research
towards the formulation of a national development strategy and the
implementation of sustainable development can be meaningful not only for
Latvia, but for the development of the concept of sustainable development in
general. Sustainable development research in Latvia is very relevant, as the
situation in Latvia differs from those societal development models that have
been studied previously.
2. Sustainable Urban Development
The present consumption-based lifestyle of cities necessitates that they
assume particular responsibility for resulting environmental impacts,
particularly for global environmental problems. Sustainable urban
development means doing things with a greater degree of self-sufficiency,
decreasing resource consumption and the amount of waste generated, as well
minimizing negative environmental, economic and social impacts.
In the context of regional and global environmental problems urban areas
need to be assessed from two aspects - the urban area as a place where
contamination is concentrated and as a cause of pollution. Usually urban areas
place a greater emphasis on improving local environmental quality. However,
development of the global economy and trade allows the cities of industrialized
countries to not contaminate its immediate surroundings and to improve local
environmental quality, but nevertheless significantly adversely impact the
global environmental problems. Most often consumers of products in third
countries do not pay for negative impacts inflicted on the environment of the
first country, where the raw materials of production are obtained, or to the
second country, where the product is manufactured. Presently, an economic
mechanism does not exist to allow these hidden costs to be compensated.
The Role of Urban Management in Promoting
Sustainable Development
According to Gardner et al. there are four methods by which it is possible
to change public opinion and behaviour to promote the sustainable
development: a religious and moral approach - creation of a new worldview
and values; education - by changing attitudes and ensuring learning, and
providing information; economic incentives, laws and regulations; community
management of common resources. The first approach pertains more to the
national education system.
However, raising the awareness level in society is a slow way of addressing
environmental problems. The following are the typical instruments that can be
used in urban management: provision of information; economic incentives;
normative acts; and the creation of an appropriate management structure.
Urban management - the organization of the development planning process and
the implementation of infrastructure projects impacts the behaviour of
thousands of individuals, therefore urban management that is supportive of
sustainable
development can be a good instrument for addressing urban issues. This
instrument could be effective, under existing circumstances, when the majority
of urban residents have not adopted sustainable development as a way of life,
but a rapid change in human behaviour is required to implement solutions.
The inclusion of sustainable development in urban development plans and
urban management needs to be undertaken in a coordinated manner. This is a
complicated process if the traditional sectoral approach is used in planning,
which usually does not yield the best results, because improvements in specific
sectors frequently result in unforeseen consequences in other sectors - negative
impacts on the environment, economy, human health and well-being.
Lack of coordination between different sectors of the urban management
and planning process can be linked to one or several of the following factors:
• the differences and degree of technical complexity of the various urban
fields - urban environment, economics, human health, social well-being
etc.;
• lack of consensus between experts regarding various problems (e.g.
regarding climatic change predictions) and the most appropriate instruments;
• lack of strategic vision and common societal goals, lack of agreed upon
priorities amongst decision-makers, experts and urban residents. The
referred to visions and goals are not only dependent on best knowledge
or practice, they must also reflect the views and goals of residents.
Usually at the municipal level decision-makers rarely discuss preconditions
for sustainable development and there is a shortage of municipal specialists or
a person with an overall understanding regarding resource flows in the
municipality. Decisions in municipalities are usually made only on the basis of
economic analysis. Another reason why unsustainable solutions are offered for
various urban related problems is the low ethical standards of municipal
planners and administrators, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Municipal specialists who are aware of best planning and management
practices, related to sustainable urban development, should use their
professional knowledge and skills so that the majority of urban dwellers, on a
daily basis, minimize their impact on the quality of the urban and natural
environment. Unfortunately, in practice, unsustainable solutions are frequently
offered that reflect the personal values of the urban planner or manager and not
the best practice in the sector.
Activities Undertaken by European Cities to Foster
Sustainable Development
One of the first major meetings of municipal leaders regarding the issue of
sustainable urban development was held in Aalborg, Denmark, in 1994, at
which time 80 municipalities signed the Aalborg Charter. The Aalborg Charter
defines the recommended process and content of a local action programme for
sustainable development, as well as municipal investment priorities.
In 2004 a new initiative was established - the Aalborg Committments. This
initiative reflects a progression from the formulation of sustainable
development action plans to the implementation of specific actions to enact
urban sustainable development. The city of Riga signed the Aaborg
Committments in June 2004.
The countries of the Baltic Sea Region use the framework provided by the
Union of Baltic Cities for the promotion of sustainable development. This
organization presently has more than 100 member cities from 10 Baltic Sea
Region countries, including 8 municipalities from Latvia. The Sustainable
Development Action Programme of the Union of Baltic Cities emphasizes
good governance and sustainable municipal management, sustainable resource
and energy use, quality living environment, nature protection, sustainable
economy and transportation, social integration and health.
The value of international organizations such as Local Governments for
Sustainability (ICLEI), Union of Baltic Cities, Eurocities, Healthy Cities etc. is
that joint activities in projects and common internet-based web sites are a
valuable forum for the exchange of experience and mutual learning, which, as
mentioned previously is considered an important factor for the promotion and
implementation of sustainable development. One of the most significant
achievements is the development and the publication of the results of the
European Common Indicators that provide an assessment of the progress of
municipalities in relation to important aspects of sustainable development.
Additionally, European Common Indicators provide the opportunity for
comparisons to be undertaken between municipalities.
Implementation of Sustainable Urban Development in
Latvia
Even though Latvia has signed and ratified the Rio Declaration, Local
Agenda 21 (local sustainability action programme) has not been prepared by
any of the largest cities in Latvia. One of the characteristic features of Latvia is
that in lieu of Local Agenda 21, environmental policy plans have been
developed. Environmental policy plans differ from Agenda 21 in that
environmental quality and development problems are the focus, but economic
and social issues are addressed in other city plans and strategies. Consequently,
a number of planning documents are created that have equivalent status, but a
common programme is lacking.
It is not uncommon for development planning decisions taken by decisionmakers in Riga to be contrary to adopted plans and strategies. In this regard
municipal specialists practically do not have the opportunity to implement
known best practice in place of these political decisions. Because of the
relatively good environmental quality in the urban areas of Latvia, up until
now, the adverse impacts of unsustainable actions on global and local level
have not been readily apparent, consequently, implementation of best practice
in urban planning and development has not been a priority for planners,
politicians and residents. One of the reasons why the implementation of
sustainable development in the urban areas
of Latvia has lacked consequence is the lack of leadership and initiative shown
by national level politicians and administrations, as well as the slow
development of democratic traditions and political responsibility in Latvia in
general.
3. Functions and Characteristics of
Sustainability Indicators
Sustainability indicators are, firstly, important for assessing progress,
secondly, for assessing sustainable development practice and experience in
different places and, thirdly, for assessing the opportunities presented by the
new paradigm of sustainable development. Sustainability indicators have been
denned as follows:
• they are information units that specify the status of major systems;
• they are the means for viewing the larger picture while viewing only a
small part thereof;
• they show the direction in which a system is developing - better or
worse
or remaining the same.
In order for indicators to serve their intended function they must be clearly
denned according to their content and values, they must provide adequate
information about the given situation, they must be appropriate for the scale of
the system, as well as be adaptable to change. They should activate societal
processes and must be politically meaningful, such that action can follow. It is
important that sustainability indicators can be used to track changes over time.
At the same time indicators must be instruments that facilitate data collection
and the process of analysis, but also assist with the identification of problems,
and the formulation and implementation of policies to address them.
It has been noted that there has been a trend in the world to overrate the
abilities of indicators - e.g., in terms of their applicability in the evaluation of
the consequences of specific policy initiatives. Indicators usually point to the
development of a process over time, but they cannot always be used to
determine why a specific result has been achieved. When it comes to problem
solving, it is very important to ensure that indicators are «close» to the source
of the problem.
The second problem pertaining to the selection of indicators is the way in
which their content is interpreted and available to decision-makers. If decisionmakers are to engage in practical action, it is important that the number of
indicators and data not exceed the number beyond which the understanding of
relationships in the process become difficult.
When using indicators, the purpose of the assessment process is important.
Indicators can serve the following tasks: to characterize the state of the
environment (or the state of the economy); to assess the achievement of goals;
to achieve broader support for policies; that of informing society about what is
being done; lobbying decision-makers.
The beginnings of sustainability indicators can be considered
environmental indicators. In the evolution of environmental indicators the
following model was developed: «pressure - state - responses Progressively the
model has developed into five phases: «driving force - pressure - state - impact
- responses.
The development of sustainability indicators is complicated because they
must reflect the interrelationships between environmental, economic, and
social aspects and the environmental and social spheres include values that are
difficult, or impossible to assess quantitatively (in monetary terms) (Table 1).
Consequently, in addition to quantitative indicators, sustainability indicators
also contain qualitative characterizations, that include subjective assessments
that can differ significantly between different cultures, between different
groups and individuals in one society and also during different time periods.
Since the development of indicators differs from place to place, a variety of
sustainability indicator sets have been developed. These sets have been created
on the basis of differing frameworks and, consequently, they differ in terms of
content and form. There are sets that are useable only in specific cities, and
there are indicator sets that, depending on the availability of data, can be used
at any scale - national, regional, municipal, or in individual enterprises.
In addition to sustainability indicator sets, there are many integrated
environmental, social and economic development indicator sets that can be
used as sustainability indicators. In this category are included aggregate
indices. One of the most significant indices is the index of sustainable
economic welfare, that economists recommend be used in place of the usual
economic indicator - gross national product. There are also sustainability
indicators that are developed for separate disciplines and sectors.
An example of an aggregate indicator is the ecological footprint. The
ecological footprint can be used to clearly show the area of productive
ecosystem a country, city or an individual requires to ensure all essential needs
- provision of resources and the disposal of generated waste.
International organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the
United Nations Organization, the European Environmental Agency and others
have their own sustainability indicator sets.
Work on sustainability indicator sets continues. There are a number of
typical problems associated with indicator use:
• indicators are too complex: frequently indicators include too much
information and, consequently, part of the problem can be ignored or
masked;
• frequently indicators inform about what is measured in a concrete
situation, but do not assess what is actually meaningful for the process;
• often the selection of indicators is dependent on the existing societal or
environmental development model, that in itself can be flawed;
• there is sometimes a wish to develop an indicator set that can be used
in all possible situations.
Table 1. Differences between Environmental Indicators and Sustainability Indicators3.
More than ten years have passed since one of the first sustainability
indicator sets was created, however, for the time being, specialists and users
alike have not come up with a common understanding concerning what is the
most effective and best indicator set. New sustainability indicator sets are still
being developed and there are a variety reasons why this is happening:
• sustainable development processes differ from one part of the world to
another, and indicators can be used to highlight the unique character of
a place, so as to help preserve these aspects, or to alleviate weaknesses
in development;
• there are only more or less comprehensive principles of sustainable
development, which are implemented through a subjective, creative
process;
• indicator sets can differ significantly depending on the nature of the
intended target audience.
3
Āboliņa K. un Kļaviņš M. (2000). Kā vērtēt sabiedrības, valstu un pilsētu attistību?
Ilgtspējīgas attīstības rādītāji. LZA Vēstis. A. 54. sēj., Nr. 5/6., 86.-92. lpp.
The diversity of sustainability indicator sets is a benefit and a challenge there are a wealth of examples for those developing new sets and those
updating old ones, however, a question worth serious research is whether all
the sets accurately reflect the most important aspects of sustainable
development.
4. An Evaluation of the Opportunities for the Cities
of Jelgava, Jurmala, Rezekne and Riga in Latvia
to Assess Sustainable Development
A study was undertaken to identify how the development plan policies in
four cities in Latvia - Jelgava, Jurmala, Rezekne un Riga incorporate aspects of
sustainable development and what opportunities exist to assess the progress of
city development in relation to goals defined until 2001. Transport and green
space issues were the focus of the study.
In order to create a more sustainable urban form one of the first
requirements is to reduce the need for mobility using automobiles. The most
effective solution is the creation of more compact cities using land use zoning
regulations, reduction of the urban space allocated to automobiles,
improvement of public transportation infrastructure and reduction of parking
spaces in the central part of cities.
Studies show that from the perspective of sustainability, the most effective
method of addressing urban transport problems (congestion, air pollution etc.)
from a technical and an economic standpoint, is to improve public
transportation and not to build new roads or bridges.
Development Plan policies in Latvia were analysed against the following
transportation issues:
• improvement of conditions for pedestrians;
• promotion of bicycle use;
• development of public transportation;
• construction of by-passes to reduce transit traffic volumes in the city;
• avoidance of new road and bridge construction;
• avoidance of new parking facility construction in the city centre
The Development Plans were analysed against the following green space
policy issues:
' preservation of green space;
• preservation of family gardens;
• enhancement of biological diversity;
• integration of green space into a united system.
Even though the Development Plans of Jurmala, Jelgava, Rezekne, and
Riga directly or indirectly mention sustainable development as a goal or
development principle, taken together, the proposed policies in the
transportation sector are
contradictory in relation to sustainability. The plans contain goals that foster
sustainable development and goals that run contrary to sustainability (Table 2).
Furthermore, whereas the policies that are supportive of urban
sustainability are formulated in general terms or state that further planning
studies are required to define specific policy measures, the policies that do not
promote urban sustainability are formulated as clearly defined measures. It can
be expected during implementation of the plans that these unsustainable
policies» that are more precisely formulated are more likely to be
implemented, resulting in urban development that is less sustainable.
Table 2. Evaluation of the Development Plans ofJelgava, Jurmala, Rezekne, and Riga in
Relation to Transportation and Green Space Issues
Policy - general policy statement in support of issue;
Measures - specific action(s) proposed at a specific location;
Planning studies - further planning studies are proposed to better define issue.
The review of development policies in the four cities in Latvia against
specific urban sustainability issues in the themes of transportation and green
space in 2001 reveals a great deal of ambiguity and contradiction. Although
most of the sustainability issues considered are recognized as being important
aspects of development in all of the cities studied, rarely do the Development
Plans define specific policies and measures in support of the defined priorities.
Even when particular aspects of development are recognized by the Plans as
being important for urban sustainability (e.g. preservation of green space), not
infrequently implementation of the Development Plan, nevertheless, is
expected to diminish this aspect, consequently, impacting negatively on overall
urban sustainability.
The study reviewed the availability of indicators (in 2001) in published
statistical bulletins and in municipal departments, that can be used to monitor
sustainable development and the implementation of goals and objectives
defined in Development Plans in the themes of transportation and green space.
However, the specific development trends in these two themes were not
examined.
On the basis of the research undertaken it can be concluded that decisionmakers, planners and the broad public have few and inadequate indicators with
which to gauge the sustainability of urban development. The available
indicators in the themes of transportation and green space are not adequate to
monitor the sustainability of urban development, as they do not illustrate
changes over time of vital aspects of the urban system. Only in Riga and
Jelgava do the Traffic Departments monitor the implementation of sector plans.
As a consequence, urban planners and the broad public are unable to
quantitatively assess for themselves the degree of adherence to the sustainable
development priorities defined in Development Plans4.
Consequently, the importance of Development Plans and other planning
processes is diminished, which does not encourage decision-makers to be
consequent (responsible) in their decision-making pertaining to Development
Plan policies and the implementation of sustainable development. The shortage
of indicators that are relevant to the existing planning context detracts from
meaningful discussion on urban development issues.
In the long-term, opportunities to create a more sustainable urban
environment are hindered. Urban sustainability indicators can be an effective
management instrument to promote sustainable development and
accountability in decision-making in Latvia.
4
Āboliņa K. and Zīlāns A. (2002). Evaluation of Urban Sustainability in Specific
Sectors in Latvia. In: Environment, Development and Sustainability 4,299-314,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
5. Assessment of Sustainable Development
in Riga Using European Common Indicators
Since 2004, when Riga began to use European Common Indicators (ECI)5,
the availability of sustainable development indicators in Riga has improved. Of
the 11 ECI indicators, data was available for only one. For the remaining 10
indicators data compilations, studies or surveys were required. The data
compilation for the ECI was undertaken by the Riga Environment Centre
«Agenda 21». As part of the work for this dissertation the data collected for the
ECI were assessed in order to draw conclusions regarding the sustainability of
development in Riga and to evaluate the impact of the proposed Riga
Development Plan on sustainable development trends.
ECI provide a broad perspective regarding sustainable development in
Riga. Although, presently, with respect to global climatic change the relevant
ECI indicator reflects only present contributions/impacts without any historic
data, nevertheless this baseline data will be meaningful when the ECI are
compiled for the second time. Although since 2000, carbon dioxide and
methane emissions have increased only slightly, per capita emissions have
risen sharply. The ECI indicate that municipal administration of Riga needs to
improve the level of service offered to residents, as well as better access to
open-air sports fields and public schools.
Riga must implement measures to reduce air pollution in the particulate
fraction. The municipality has done very little with respect to promoting
sustainable management of municipal administration and organizations and
implementing sustainable purchasing. The situation is unsatisfactory with
respect to noise mapping and the promotion of sustainable land use, as even
baseline data is not available.
The ECI can be used to draw meaningful conclusions regarding trends in
municipal management and planning. An analysis of the 1st draft of the
proposed Riga Development Plan against the ECI indicates that the Plan
requires significant revision, especially with respect to the transportation sector
and land use planning, so as not to promote non-sustainable trends. This can be
achieved through a comprehensive approach to city development.
In this regards, the Aalborg Commitments6 offer a more precise guide to
implementing sustainability in Riga than the 1st draft of the proposed Riga
Development Plan. Only in a few cases are ECI data or other sustainability
indicators used by the municipal administration, which raises questions
regarding the commitment of Riga to sustainability.
5
European Common Indicators. Towards a Local Sustainability Profile (2003).
Ambiente Italia Research Institute, Italy,
6
ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2004). Aalborg
Commitments. ICLEI, http://www.aalborgplusl0.dk/ [18.02.05].
6. Assessment of the Subsidiarity and Cooperation
Dimensions of Sustainable Development:
a Comparison of the Views of Neighbourhood Residents
and the City Administration Regarding
Sustainable Development in Mezaparks
One of the principles of sustainable development is subsidiarity. The scale
at which problem resolution takes place, including the spatial scale - national,
regional, municipal, the level of an organization, individual level - determines
the systems level of autonomy and effectiveness. It is important that more
attention should be directed to the study of the most effective level of
governance for different issues in municipalities - with respect to the division
of responsibility for governance between the municipal government, city
districts, non-governmental organizations and residents.
Furthermore, participation (public), diversity and cooperation, also
fundamental dimensions of sustainability, are all required in order to work
towards common goals in a coordinated manner. To create a quality urban
environment it is essential to harmonize the views of experts and the interests
of residents through formalized methods of cooperation.
In the context of the thesis, subsidiarity and cooperation were analysed in
the development planning process. In this regard, the views of the residents of
the suburban neighbourhood of Mezaparks, Riga, as compiled in the
Mezaparks Sustainability Plan (MSP), were compared with the goals of the
municipal administration, as defined in the Riga Development Programme
(2002-2005) (RDP), with respect to implementing sustainable development in
Riga and Mezaparks.
Comparison of the Views of the Residents
of Mezaparks and the Riga Municipal Administration
Regarding Development in Mezaparks
The analysis and comparison of MSP with the RDP is compiled in Table 3.
Only 5 of the 188 MSP actions proposed by residents are fully included in the
RDP. Furthermore, only one of these actions is included in the approved or
initiated project category, whereas the remaining 4 actions are in the
prospective project category.
57% of the MSP actions do not appear in the RDP. This implies that the
City of Riga does not intend to allocate finances to implement such actions. 67
or one third of the actions proposed by the MSP are already legislated by
national and municipal normative acts. The residents of Mezaparks see that
these legislative acts are not enforced or only in part. The non-observance of
existing regulations is more likely due to either insufficient financial resources
being allocated to the enforcement of regulations or simply that deviations
from existing regulations are readily approved during the decision-making
process. 35 of the 67 MSP actions that are legislated by national and municipal
normative
acts are not part of the RDP, which indicates that the municipal government
does not think that greater effort is required to ensure that existing regulations
are properly enforced.
Implementation of sustainable development in Mezaparks can be hampered
by a lack of action prioritization and implementation criteria in the Riga
Development Programme which makes it possible that development in Riga
and Mezaparks can occur in differing directions, in a highly politicized
decision-making environment.
The specific actions and recommendations proposed by Mezaparks
residents in the Mezaparks Neighbourhood Sustainability Plan attests to the
fact that community groups can be experts in identifying viable solutions with
regards to social, transportation, green space, and waste management issues. It
is also possible that the planning and implementation of development
solutions is not always best undertaken at the municipal level.
Table 3. Comparison of the Development Goals of Mezaparks Neighbourhood Residents
and the City of Riga Municipal Administration7
7
Āboliņa K. and Zīlāns A. (2004). Implementing Sustainable Development in
Mezaparks, Riga, Latvia: A Comparison of Development Goals of Neighbourhood
Residents and the City of Riga Municipal Administration. In: Filho, W.L., Ubelis, A.
(eds.) Integrative Approaches Towards Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region.
Environmental Education, Communication and Sustainability. Vol.15. Peter Lang,
Germany. Pp. 395-403.
Analyses of the Opportunities to Implement the Riga
Development Programme and the Mezaparks
Neighbourhood Sustainability Plan
Development in Mezaparks is dependent on the how systematically the
Riga Development Programme (RDP) and the Mezaparks Neighbourhood
Sustainability Plan are implemented. The RDP is an important political
document as it represents the municipality's views on municipal development.
The financial commitment required to implement the RDP many times exceeds
the funds available from the municipal budget. Not all projects can be
implemented within the lifetime of the RDP. More significantly practice shows
that projects that are approved for funding from the municipal budget are
sometimes not part of the RDP. Similarly, the likelihood that projects included
in the RDP will be implemented is drawn into question by the fact that the
RDP is reviewed annually by the municipality and can be supplemented by
new projects.
However, no criteria exist for making decisions regarding which projects to
include in the RDP. It is evident that the RDP does not provide residents with a
clear indication regarding the projects that will be implemented during the next
2-3 years. The implementation of 43% of the RDP projects that are to some
degree associated with the proposals recommended by the residents of
Mezaparks is dependent on the decision-making process - decision-making
criteria that are not defined anywhere.
The MSP is not a document approved by the municipal administration and
thus municipal funding is not allocated to implement this plan. Consequently,
implementation of MSP actions is dependent on the will of the municipal
authorities to heed the recommendations of Mezaparks residents, as well as the
voluntary actions of the Mezaparks Neighbourhood Association, the business
sector, other NGOs and community stakeholders. Neighbourhood residents
should actively seek methods and means to implement the MSP actions to
promote sustainable development in Mezaparks. Firstly, an on-going dialogue
with the Riga municipal administration is essential to ensure implementation of
more actions.
The second avenue is to secure other sources of financing for the
implementation of MSP actions. A third opportunity is implementation through
voluntary activities. It is evident the meaningful role NGOs, the business
sector, and resident activities have in urban development that is tied to the
needs and visions of community.
The quality life in Mezaparks is also impacted by unplanned projects which
frequently run contrary to the goals and actions stipulated in planning
documents. In such cases the limited resources of the Mezaparks
Neighbourhood Association are devoted to establishing a dialogue with the
City of Riga administration to ensure the preservation of conditions that
contribute to a quality urban environment in Mezaparks and Riga. These
«unforeseen» activities are in reality a major obstacle to the implementation of
the MSP.
7. Urban Sustainability Indicator Development Criteria
in Latvia
The Need for Urban Sustainability Indicator
Development Criteria in Latvia
Presently, in Latvia, except in Riga, sustainability indicators are not used to
assess the sustainability of urban development, but standard statistical
compilations and indicators used by municipalities are not capable of reflecting
development trends in relation to sustainability goals.
The cities and towns in Latvia that have defined sustainable development
as a goal are in need of urban sustainability indicators that fulfill the following
functions:
1). they should reflect sustainable development trends;
2) they should serve as an effective decision-making instrument;
3) they should reflect the development trends with respect to the achievement of defined development goals and priorities, as a result ensuring
that local values/features/aspects are preserved and that a sense of
responsibility is fostered in municipal administrations for the implementation of development planning decisions.
In order for a municipality to make a decision to develop urban
sustainability indicators, urban sustainability indicator development criteria
can be a useful tool to test whether the proposed indicators can fulfill their
intended functions. Sustainability indicator development criteria can assist
municipal institutions to select appropriate indicators, and in the long-term
process of development monitoring permit the indicator set to be assessed as to
its relevance and functionality.
A number of very different considerations have been used as criteria in the
formulation of sustainability indicators. The Bellagio Principles8 is one of the
best known and most comprehensive sets of guidelines for the development of
sustainability indicators. However, practice shows that individual Bellagio
Principles are too general to be used as criteria during the sustainability
indicator development process. In order for municipal specialists to be able to
use the Bellagio Principles as criteria for the development of sustainability
indicators, it is necessary to structure them, to make them more user friendly,
and to more precisely define individual principles, because the manner in
which the Bellagio Principles are formulated requires in-depth knowledge
about sustainable development.
8
Bellagio Principles (1997). International Institute for Sustainable Development,
http://iisd.ca/measure/bellagiol.htm, [26.11.02.].
Results of Testing of Criteria for the Development of Urban
Sustainability Indicators in Latvia
Four groups of criteria for the development of urban sustainability
indicators in Latvia were formulated using the Bellagio Principles, the
principles of sustainable development9and based on the need to reflect progress
in the implementation of municipal development planning goals.
Initially the criteria, which included all of the Bellagio Principles and the
principles of sustainable development, were used to analyse the Mezaparks
Sustainability Indicators. The results of testing indicated that the Bellagio
Principles can be divided into two categories: 1) Principles that are easily used
as criteria during the urban sustainability indicator development process; 2)
Principles against which it is not useful/possible to test urban sustainability
indicators.
This second category of Bellagio Principles is characterized by the need for
prior in-depth knowledge, consequently these principles are not directly
relevant to municipalities and their specialists, but can be further developed by
researchers. The indicators related to these principles are already being studied
by researchers at the World Resource Institute, Wuppertaal Institute, Factor
Ten Institute and elsewhere, who are developing theme specific indicators10.
Criteria for the Organization of the Indicator
Development Process
Organization of the indicator development process is the first phase of the
indicator set development process. This includes the time from when a
municipality decides to develop sustainable development indicators until the
selection of specific indicators begins, and includes the process of deciding on
expert and stakeholder participation in expert/stakeholder groups and the
selection of the main target group for the indicators.
Criterion 1. Selection of the most effective/appropriate target group for the
indicators.
Criterion 2. Inclusion of decision-makers in the target group to secure a firm
link to resulting action.
Criterion 3. Organization of the indicator selection process by including
different social groups to ensure that the indicators reflect diverse
and changing values.
9
Schleiser-Tappeser R. and Stratti F. (1999). Sustainability-a new paradigm for
research? In: Cattizone, M. (ed.). From Ecosystem Research to Sustainable
Development: Towards a New Paradigm for Ecosystem Research. Ecosystem
Research Report No 26; European Commission, Directorate-General Science,
Research and Development, Brussels, pp.45-58.
10
Filho W.L. and Ubelis A. (eds.) (2004). Integrative Approaches Towards
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region. Environmental Education, Communication
and Sustainability. Vol. 15. Peter Lang, Germany.
Criterion 4. Inclusion of decision-makers and specialists in the indicator
development process.
Criteria to Test Each Indicator in the Set
The following criteria are used to analyse each indicator in terms of its
ability to fulfill its intended function and serve as a mechanism to improve
each indicator.
Criterion 5. The time-frame of the indicator must be compatible with the
functions of ecosystems and the needs of the next human
generations (sufficiently long), but also the time constraints of the
decision-making process (sufficiently short).
Criterion 6. The indicator should be able to gauge progress towards a specific
development goal of the municipality.
Criterion 7. A standardized measurement should be used wherever possible to
permit comparison.
Criterion 8. The indicator should be able to gauge progress towards a specific
target, reference value, range, threshold, or direction of trends, as
appropiate.
Criterion 9. Judgments, assumptions and uncertainties in data and interpretations must be made explicit.
Criterion 10. The indicator should address the needs of the intended target
group.
Criterion 11. The indicator should meet the needs of decision-makers.
Criterion 12. The structure of the indicator should be simple.
Criterion 13. The language used should be clear to avoid misunderstanding.
Criterion 14. The data collection methodology should be repeatable and
verifiable.
Criterion 15. The units of measurement used should be compatible with the
amplitude of the expected the measurements.
Criterion 16. The data for the indicator should be available at the municipal
level and on a sub-municipal level (district, neighbourhood), if
possible.
Criteria for Testing the Indicator Set
The sustainability indicator set will be able to serve its intended functions if
the indicators together adhere to the following criteria.
Criterion 17. The indicator set should reflect development trends in relation to
municipal development goals, if those goals are not contradictory
to Aalborg commitments.
Criterion 18. The indicator set should reflect the specific characteristics of the
city in the social, economic and nature-environment spheres.
Criterion 19. The number of indicators in the indicator set should be kept to a
relevant minimum.
Criterion 20. The indicator set should be compatible with the needs of the
target group and users.
Criterion 21. The indicator set should be compatible with other indicators and
instruments used by decision-makers.
Criteria to Facilitate the Effective Utilization of the
Indicator Set
To ensure that the indicators are used in an effective manner, during their
development, from an organizational standpoint, it is necessary to observe the
following criteria, otherwise the work of developing the indicators can become
ineffective and irrelevant.
Criterion 22. The indicator set should be compatible with other indicators and
instruments used by decision-makers.
Criterion 23. The way in which the indicators are published and disseminated
should encourage decision-makers to use the indicators.
Criterion 24. Mechanisms should be established to allow the indicator report
to be regularly updated and published.
Criterion 25. Utilization of the indicator set should promote collective learning
and feedback to decision-making.
Criterion 26. There should be an institution that is responsible for the
collection, analysis, and publication of data pertaining to the
indicators that does not have a conflict of interest.
Criterion27. Continuity of assessing should be assured bysuporting
development of local assessment capacity.
Criterion 28. The indicator set should be reviewed on a regular basis in light of
changing municipal development goals and new issues relevant to
sustainability (against criteria 1-27).
Criterion 29. In the development planning process the sustainability indicators
should be supplemented by the Sustainability Evaluation
Guidelines.
Recommended Improvements to the European
Common Indicators to Facilitate Their Use In Riga
The European Common Indicators (ECI) were tested using the indicator
development criteria formulated by the author to determine whether they are
sufficiently comprehensive to reflect the most relevant aspects of sustainability
in
Riga. In order to test the ECI against Criterion 17, it was necessary to
undertake an assessment of the compatibility of ECI and the Aalborg
Commitments". Testing of the ECI revealed the usefulness of the indicator
development criteria for assessing indicator sets.
The fact that ECI can be used to inform about 48 of the 50 Aalborg
Commitment points attests to their usefulness in assessing urban sustainability.
At the same time there are Aalborg Commitment points for which ECI provide
only limited information. ECI provide comprehensive information for 10 of the
50 Aalborg points.
In order to comprehensively assess the most important aspects of urban
sustainability which presently are most completely represented by the Aalborg
Commitments an expanded indicator set is required. It is suggested that ECI
should be supplemented by specific local indicators.
The most important conclusion drawn from the testing of the ECI is that
they are not sufficiently comprehensive and that they need to be supplemented
by local sustainability indicators. At the same time the testing revealed that the
ECI are not adequately integrated into the sustainable development planning
process in Riga, particularly as it pertains to informing residents and decisionmakers. In relation to the preparation of a 2nd edition of the ECI for Riga, it is
recommended that a permanent administrative unit be established to deal
exclusively with the collection, compilation and analysis of data regarding
various sustainable development issues.
In the interim, while Riga does not have its own local sustainable
development indicators, the indicator development criteria formulated in this
dissertation can be used to analyse existing international indicator sets, such as,
CEROI, Union of Baltic Cities, Eurostat etc., the preparation of which Riga
has occasionally participated in. In this way it would be possible to define the
most appropriate indicators for Riga, while more effectively using the limited
financial resources, and at the same time progressively integrating these new
indicators into the local sustainable development indicator set.
8. Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines
Many sustainability indicator sets are incomplete as instruments to guide
development planning, because in-depth problem analysis is required to use
them. Sustainability indicator sets over time illustrate trends, but there are,
however, a number of barriers that limit their effective use in the decisionmaking process. For these reasons there is a need to use indicators that are
closer to the «cause», in the development planning and decision-making
process, where it is possible to direct the development process towards
sustainability.
11
ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2004). Aalborg
Commitments. ICLEI, http://www.aalborgplusl0.dk/ [18.02.051.
To make sustainability indicators a more complete decision-making instrument
for the promotion of sustainable development, they can be complemented by
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines.
Urban sustainability indicator development criteria are complemented by
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines (SEG) (Table 4), which can be used
during the development planning process to evaluate possible development
alternatives. In the development planning process there are always at least two
possible alternatives - to do nothing, that is, to leave things as they presently
are (e.g. the territory, project or some other issue), or to accept the proposed
development initiative (s). The Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines are
derived from Bellagio Principles and the principles of sustainable
development, which during the testing of the urban sustainability indicator
development criteria proved to be ineffective criteria.
... The main advantage of Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines is that they
can be used before a development planning decision has been implemented.
Presently, in Latvia, clear criteria have not been defined against which urban
development planning proposals can be evaluated.
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines 1-3: Economic, environmental and
social impact assessments should be undertaken during the decision-making
process. Currently, in Latvia development initiatives for which environmental
and social impact assessments are not undertaken (these types of instruments
offer a more comprehensive assessment of this aspect of sustainable
development) are evaluated solely on the basis of economic benefits accrued,
however, there are cases when even an adequate economic analysis is not
undertaken. This one-sided, mainly economic view of development is the main
reason why urban development in Latvia is not sustainable. If a more rigorous
examination of the impacts of development were undertaken, this would make
the task of sustainable urban development decision-making easier and more
transparent, since application of the three guidelines can serve to help justify
«unpopular» decisions for the general public.
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines 4-7: Interpersonal, inter-regional,
and inter-generational equity (table 4). During testing of the urban
sustainability indicator development criteria, it was found that practically
every indicator in some way characterizes some form of equity. However, on
the other hand, if we wish to identify indicators, that characterize the three
different forms of equity, we would have to conclude that each of these equity
aspects must also be looked at in different spheres, therefore we would end up
creating a complicated and difficult to use system of urban sustainability
indicator development criteria. Thus, for the equity principle it is more
effective to use SEG.
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines 8-14: Systems principles - diversity,
subsidiarity, participation and cooperation. These principles answer the
question -How should we act to promote sustainability? Therefore, these
principles are best used in the development planning process as guidelines for
the evaluation of development initiatives and the selection of the best
alternatives
Table 4. Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines
Sustainability Evaluation Guideline 15: Development is compatible with
the existing city development plan - development goals and identified
preservation values. This guideline is the practical outcome of the Mezaparks
sustainability planning process.
Because of their nature, Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines, compared to
sustainability indicators require less analysis and background knowledge.
However, based on the present situation in Latvia, for example, in the context
of development planning decision-making in Riga, where decisions are rarely
based on an analysis of development indicators, but are highly politicized, SEG
could prolong the decision-making process.
At the same time SEG is not an instrument that can entirely replace human
dimension of decision-making with rational arguments. Nevertheless, in light
of the urban development planning and implementation situation in Latvia
described in this thesis, SEG could be a useful tool for facilitating development
in the direction of sustainability and fostering transparency and responsibility
in the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS
I
In Latvia, at the national level, implementation of sustainable development
in a coordinated and systematic manner is only in the early stages. The
slow pace of the sustainable development process can in part be explained
by the lack of a systemetic approach, the large number of tasks to be
undertaken, the limited amount of resources available for these tasks, and
the lack of cooperation between administrative units reponsible for
development planning at the state level.
II
Progress that has been made in the implementation of sustainable development in Latvia is largely the result of the consequent development and
implementation of environmental policies. Even documents dealing with
the assessment of sustainable development are dominated by
environmental issues compared to social and economic issues. Similarly,
environmental NGOs play a prominent role in promoting sustainable
development.
III One of the characteristic features of the largest cities in Latvia is that in
lieu of Local Agenda 21 environmental policy plans have been developed
that attempt also to include the broader aspects of sustainable
development. In municipal administrations, sustainable development is
more the responsibility of the environmental sector, therefore not ensuring
he participation of all other relevant sectors in the sustainable development
process.
IV Even though the largest cities in Latvia define sustainable development as
a priority, the Development Plans of these cities do not include precisely
denned actions for its implementation.
V
Urban sustainable development indicator sets differ considerably throughout the world depending on the methods used to develop them, their
structure and the intended target group. It is important that the specific
conditions and needs of each place are reflected during the development
and use of the indicators.
VI Presently, in Latvia, local urban sustainability indicators are not used, but
data and indicators in standard statistical compilations are not capable of
monitoring urban sustainable development trends. This negatively impacts
on the process and results of development planning.
VII In order to gain full advantage from the use of European Common
Indicators for the assessment and promotion of sustainable development
in Riga, it is necessary to ensure a wider distribution of the European
Common Indicators Overview Report and a better integration of the
European Common Indicators and existing indicators and decision-making
instruments.
VIII The European Common Indicators that are used in Riga are not sufficient
to undertake a comprehensive characterization of sustainability, therefore
it is necessary to develop a local set of sustainable development indicators.
The European Common Indicators can be included as part of the local set
as they characterize relevant aspects of urban sustainability and allow
urban development in Latvia to be compared to that in other countries.
IX The formulated 29 sustainability indicator development criteria can be
used to develop urban sustainability indicator sets and to identify/test the
strengths and weaknesses of existing urban sustainability indicators.
X
Sustainable development indicator sets, when used together with
Sustainability Evaluation Guidelines, are a more complete instrument for
facilitating decision-making that is oriented to sustainable development,
because in combination they make explicit the principles of sustainable
development in urban development planning, and promote the implementation of sustainable development.
APPROBATION OF RESULTS
The results compiled in this dissertation were presented in 10 conferences,
among them 4 international conferences:
1. 56th Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 1997.
Abolina K. (1997). The Role of Decision-makers in Sustainable
Development of Riga City. «Man. Environment. Resources". Conference
theses. Section of Geography and Earth Sciences. University of Latvia,
Riga, pp. 7-8 (in Latvian).
2. 57th Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 1999.
Klavins M., Abolina K. (1999). Sustainable development in Latvia. «Earth.
Nature, Man». Conference theses. Section of Geography and Earth
Sciences. University of Latvia, Riga, pp. 70-79 (in Latvian).
3. Third European Conference on Sustainable Cities & Towns. - Hannover,
Germany, 2000.
Zilans A., Abolina K. (2000). Introducing the Principles of Sustainability
into Riga Municipal Decision Making. In: Third European Conference on
Sustainable Cities and Towns. Hannover, Germany, February, 9-12, 2000.
Abstracts. City of Hannover, Germany, P.C.I.
4. 59th Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 2001.
Abolina K. (2001). The opportunities to assess urban sustainability in
Latvia.Geography, Geology, Environmental Science». Conference theses.
Section of Geography and Earth Sciences. University of Latvia, Riga (in
Latvian)
5. VALDOR 2001 - The second VALDOR Symposium Addressing
Transparency in Risk Assessment and Decision Making. - Stockholm,
Sweden, 2001. Abolina K., Zilans A. (2001). Sustainability Indicators as a
Means to Enhance Transparency in Urban Development Decision-Making
in Latvia. In: Andersson, K. (ed.). VALDOR - Values in Decisions On Risk
- Proceedings. Congrex Sweden AB, pp. 230-231.
6. 60th Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 2002.
Abolina K, Zilans A. (2002). Opportunities and Threats for Sustainable
Development in Mezaparks, Riga. «Geography, Geology, Environmental
Sciences Conference theses. Section of Geography and Earth Sciences.
University of Latvia, Riga p.194 (in Latvian).
7. 61st Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 2003.
Abolina K. (2003). Implementing Sustainable Development in Mezaparks,
Riga, Latvia: A Comparison of Development Goals of Neighbourhood
Residents and the City of Riga Municipal Administration «Geography,
Geology, Environmental Science». Conference theses. Section of
Geography and Earth Sciences. University of Latvia, Riga pp.201-202 (in
Latvian).
8. EU International Conference (EU DG Research): Integrative Approaches
towards sustainability in the Baltic sea Region. - Jurmala, Latvia, 2003.
Abolina K., Zilans A. (2004). Implementing Sustainable Development
in Mezaparks, Riga, Latvia: A Comparison of Development Goals of
Neighbourhood Residents and the City of Riga Municipal Administration.
In: Filho, W.L., Ubelis, A. (eds.) Integrative Approaches Towards
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region. Environmental Education,
Communication and Sustainability. Vol. 15. Peter Lang, Germany, pp. 395403.
9. Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation Fourth Environmental Symposium:
Environmental Problems and policies in Growing Urban Areas: a
Multidisciplinary Approach. -Espoo, Finland, 2003.
Abolina K., Zilans A. (2003). Implementing Sustainable Development in
Mezaparks, Riga: an Analysis of the Views of Neighbourhood Residents
and Municipal Administration. In: Environmental Problems and policies in
Growing Urban Areas: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Fourth
Environmental Symposium 8-9 December 2003, Espoo, Finland. Maj and
Tor Nessling Foundation, University of Helsinki, Finland, P. 30.
10. 62nd Scientific Conference of the University of Latvia. - Riga, 2004.
Abolina K (2004). Urban sustainability indicator development Criteria.
«Geography, Geology, Environmental Science". Conference theses. Section
of Geography and Earth Sciences. University of Latvia, Riga, p.190 (in
Latvian).
AUTHOR'S PUBLICATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE
DISSERTATION
1. Klavins M. and Abolina K. (1999). Sustainable Development in Latvia.
Proceedings of Latvian Academy of Sciences. A., vol. 53, No. 4/5/6,
pp.129-133 (in Latvian).
2. Abolina K. and Klavins M. (2000a). How to assess societal, national and
urban development? Sustainability indicators. Proceedings of Latvian
Academy of Sciences. A., vol. 54, No. 5/6, pp. 86-92 (in Latvian).
3. Abolina K. and Klavins M. (2000b). Indicators of Sustainable Development
as Signals of the Development of Society. In: Krauklis A. (ed.) Folia
Geographica, Research papers of the Latvian Geographical Society. Vol.
VIII, Latvian Geographical Society, pp. 15-24.
4. Abolina K. and Zilans A. (2001). Indicators as a Tool to Assess the
Sustainability of Urban Development in Latvia. Krauklis A. (ed.) Folia
Geographica, Research papers of the Latvian Geographical Society. Vol.
IX, Latvian Geographical Society, pp. 91-103 (in Latvian).
5. Abolina K. and Zilans A. (2002). Evaluation of Urban Sustainability in
Specific Sectors in Latvia. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
Vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 299-314.
6. Abolina K. and Zilans A. (2004). Implementing Sustainable Development
in Mezaparks, Riga, Latvia: A Comparison of Development Goals of
Neighbourhood Residents and the City of Riga Municipal Administration.
In: Filho, W.L., Ubelis, A. (eds.) Integrative Approaches Towards
Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region. Environmental Education,
Communication and Sustainability. Vol.15. Peter Lang, Germany, pp. 395403.
7. Abolina K. (2004). Solutions for Sustainable Development of Mezaparks
in Riga: A Comparison of Development Goals of Neighbourhood Residents
and the City of Riga Municipal Administration. In edition of Proceedings
of Latvian Academy of Sciences (in Latvian).