PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REPORTING IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT
László Pintér
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Prepared for the
Seminar on Environmental and Economic Policies Towards Sustainable Cities in APEC
Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 18-20 September, 1997
INTRODUCTION
What are the essential things and qualities in a city that need to be sustained and what
are areas where improvements are necessary? How can we tell the difference? Over the
last few years an increasing number of communities set out to tackle these questions in
the context of sustainable development, Local Agenda 21, quality of life and other
comparable initiatives1. A common element among many of these projects has been the
identification and reporting of economic, environmental and social indicator sets. This
paper will deal with the process of establishing measurement systems and their
integration with the framework and content of indicator sets, as they apply to the urban
environment. I argue that the process of performance measurement and reporting and the
content of indicator sets are more than technical matters. They are directly linked to the
meaning and ethics of sustainable development for a community, the articulation of
specific sustainability objectives for a variety of stakeholders, the design and
implementation of policies and accounting for the successes and failures of policy
implementation. Measurement systems and the embedded indicators are, or at least
should be, an essential component of sustainable development strategies for communities.
Without specific measures that make sustainable development concrete - although not
static - the term may remain an empty phrase that eager wordsmiths will soon find
necessary to replace.
Urban managers and decision-makers are certainly not new to the importance of
performance measurement. However, the need for regularly publishing policy relevant,
concise and accurate indicators on critical environmental, social and economic trends has
emerged in importance only in the recent past. In addition to the trends occurring within
cities, trends taking place on the interface of cities and their surrounding environment are
also important. From the perspective of sustainable development, human settlements
need to be recognized as recursive, nested systems. On larger scales, cities are embedded
in and depend on larger scale systems, like regions or countries, but they are also
1
composed of and depend on subsystems, like districts or neighbourhoods. Recursive
character implies that cities, their constituent subsystems and their macro environment
exhibit comparable structural characteristics: the pattern of environmental, social and
economic issues repeats itself - although in different ways - across all spatial and
organizational scales. This pattern needs to be reflected in the structure of indicator sets
and integrated sustainable development reports across these scales. From the perspective
of cities this means that their sustainable development indicator sets need to cover
environmental, social and economic issues and some of these indicators need to be linked
to indicators relevant for larger (e.g. regional) and/or smaller (e.g. neighbourhood) scales.
The scope of the indicators depends on the scale of the issue covered by the indicator.
The scale of ozone depletion extends from the scale of cities to countries and the global
environment, so its relevance is throughout all spatial and organizational scales. Water
quality may extend to the regional scale, depending on the geography of drainage areas.
On the other hand, noise pollution is usually a local issue and its indicators do not get
reported beyond the scale of the city.
Establishing a measurement system requires the understanding of scale dependent
linkages as discussed above, and, in addition, it requires a process to develop
Community Scale
Country Scale
Neighbourhood
& individual scale
Global Scale
Issues and
indicators
Report
development
Integrated
SD report
Issues and
indicators
Report
development
Integrated
SD report
Issues and
indicators
Report
development
Integrated
SD report
Indicator
set
Indicator
sets
Indicator
sets
Data
Monitoring
Figure 1: Integrated sustainable development reporting on different spatial and organizational scales2.
measurement systems on various scales. A national scale process to establish a
measurement systems does not substitute for a city scale process and many city scale
sustainable development indicator sets will not automatically result in a national report.
In fact, the relationship between the two is complementary. Figure 1 illustrates the need
2
for parallel processes to establish measurement systems on different scales, leading to
partially overlapping indicator sets (Figure 1).
In terms of jurisdiction, cities are embedded in a hierarchy that includes the state<
country<continent <global system. At this end cities adapt to and to a limited extent
shape the objective functions of higher level organizations. Urban populations are
increasingly responsible for the consumption of natural resources and the impacts of this
consumption on the regional and global environment. Cities are tightly woven to the rest
of the world through the exchange of goods, materials, capital, information and people.
Therefore it is also in their rational self-interest to be aware of the implications of urban
growth and consumption on scales that go beyond their immediate boundaries.
Urban systems are also composed of subsystems that may include e.g. districts >streets
>households>individuals. Down-scale, they need to integrate and represent the individual
objective functions of their sub-systems (or some average of them). The physical
integrity of the urban transportation system, availability of green space, public safety and
security are examples of issues that are mostly in the internal domain of cities, both in the
sense of jurisdiction (control), but to an extent also in the sense of impact and functional
linkages.
Urban environments are highly diverse, with the Genevas close to one end of the
spectrum and the Calcuttas to the other. Is there a common sustainable state or end-point
for cities as diverse as these? Clearly, there is not, because of very different constants in
their environment, like climate, soil or to an extent even culture and social structure. It is
also likely, however, that there is no one single sustainable end-point for any one
community. Furthermore, because of the inherent dynamics of natural and human
systems, including cities, possible sustainable equilibria are not only large in number but
temporary, that is tend to change over time3. These rules have fundamental implications
for the definition and indicators of sustainable urban development. There is no universal
recipe for designing ‘the sustainable city’. There are, however, common principles and
strategies that help define alternative trajectories for the self-organizing co-evolution of
socio-economic and environmental systems4. In the case of measurement and reporting,
these principles emerge on one hand from common characteristics of the urban
environment, regardless of its contextual variables, and from the internal logic of the task
of measurement.
DESIGNING INTEGRATED MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
Municipalities need to evaluate their performance on a regular basis. Evaluation
traditionally concerns major areas of responsibility of the local government from public
transit to water supply, public security, education, heritage and so on, depending on the
legal definition of responsibilities in any given country. Over the last few decades urban
performance reporting went through a gradual evolution from sectoral reporting through
integrated, cross-sectoral reports or as often referred to sustainable development reports
3
A: Sectoral reporting:
no integration
B: State of the Environment Reporting:
integration from environmental perspective
(Figure 2). Integrated reports increasingly take
a full cost accounting approach, however,
instead of expressing externalities in money
terms they try to measure them with indicators
based on physical units of measurement. The
disadvantage of this is that, unlike monetary
costs, indicators expressed in different units of
measure are hard to aggregate. On the other
hand, they are less likely to be distorted by
inaccuracies of valuation, a common problem
with monetary measures, and they
communicate very well to people. It is
interesting to note that a similar and parallel
evolution is slowly occurring in private
enterprises, moving from narrow, economic
annual reports to broader environmental, and in
a few cases corporate sustainable development
reports6.
There are two additional trends worth
mentioning that accompanied this evolution.
The emphasis on quantitative indicators has
increased, particularly in sectors like the
environment or social factors that in the past
were discussed on a more qualitative basis. At
C: Integrated SD Reporting: all
the same time internal performance reports sectors and their systemic linkages
that is, reports prepared for decision-makers in
Figure 2: Evolution of reporting approaches5. municipal organizations - were becoming
increasingly accessible to the broader public,
including households, NGOs and private enterprises. As a matter of fact, in many cases it
was not municipal governments, but other non-governmental (e.g. Sustainable Seattle7) or
corporate entities (e.g. Sierra Business Council8, Jacksonville Community Council, Inc.9)
that started the reporting process.
Addressing these issues is assisted by sets of general principles related to measurement.
Perhaps the most general is the ‘Bellagio Principles’ or guidelines for practical
assessment of progress towards sustainable development. The Bellagio Principles have
been identified by an international group of measurement researchers and practitioners to
provide general guidance on setting up measurement systems. While the Principles do
not directly determine the adequacy of indicators or indicator sets, they provide guidance
for ten broad aspects of measurement, ranging from the guiding vision and goals of
measurement through critical issues related to the design, participants and content of
measurement (Attachment 1). The Principles are a good starting point to scope out the
main questions one has to deal with when setting up a measurement system.
4
When designing measurement systems that function according to the requirements of
sustainable development, urban decision-makers need to address a sequence of practical
questions, including: 1./ the overall purpose of the measurement system; 2./ the
participants of the measurement process and the audience of the measurement activity;
3./ the framework and general attributes of indicators; 4./ a process for establishing and
applying integrated measurement and reporting systems.
1. The purpose(s) of measurement systems in the context of sustainable development
The pace of urbanization in most parts of the world, especially in the APEC region and
Latin America, the high and increasing concentration of people, consumption and
production in cities, is unparalleled in human history10. There is an overall need to better
understand the urban environment, on its own and in relation to global processes, in order
to anticipate and respond to emerging challenges. Decision-makers need feedbacks to
assess and re-assess policies in light of unwanted or unplanned environmental and social
side-effects, externalities of economic activities.
The overall purpose of a sustainable development measurement systems is to inform,
influence and improve the decision-making process of individuals and institutions in
cities. There is more to the purpose of measurement systems, however, than improving
the decision-making process. Implicit in the notion of measurement is the comparison of
actual measured values against a norm, standard or objective. In a broader sense, this
implies a vision as a starting point for working towards a sustainable community.
Preferably, the vision is translated into numerical, measurable targets that are consistent
with and make the vision concrete. Given this, another way to phrase the purpose of
measurement systems is to help move the community in the direction of a preferred
vision as specified by numerical indicator targets.
Of course we all have our preferred visions of what a sustainable city should look like,
what its indicators are, where and how to set targets. These visions, indicators and targets
would not be the same, although preferably they are not mutually exclusive. The city, as
a public entity, needs to find a way to integrate the views of its main stakeholders when it
is defining its vision for a sustainable future, and when it is setting up a measurement
system. Ultimately, these views are value-based, rooted in the value-hierarchies,
consciousness and ethic of individual citizens. In principle, people and institutions want
to sustain what they value. In turn, we need to measure and keep account of what we
value.
2. The audience and participants of the measurement system
Because of the overall jurisdiction of municipal governments, they are a logical point to
start and maintain measurement systems. In most cases they already perform some form
of statistical data collection and analysis. They also interface with higher levels of
government on one hand and provide a linkage to citizens and citizen group on the other.
However, to date a number of well known integrated measurement systems have been
5
initiated by non-governmental agencies. On the one hand it demonstrates that sustainable
development is of concern to a variety of social stakeholders, on the other hand it may
also signal that in some cases municipal governments do not adequately recognize or do
not respond to the information needs of their constituency (Figure 3). Local municipal
governments and groups of social stakeholders are partners in not only using information
on trends in the urban environment, they also have different, but partially overlapping
priorities and objective functions.
Therefore, multistakeholder
Municipal government
participation is an essential
component of selecting indicators,
setting targets and performing their
periodic revisions. The task is not
CITY
simple, especially if bureaucratic
organizations are not set up to
function on the basis of ongoing
Business
Research community
consultation with a wide range of
NGOs
Labour
stakeholder groups. A good and
relatively easier start may be the
establishment of community
Figure 3: Municipal governments operate in a
roundtables with a specific role of
multistakeholder environment.
advising the indicator selection
process. Roundtables have been in Canada and elsewhere and included national, regional
(provincial) or community roundtables with the purpose of channeling public input to
decision-makers11.
3. The framework and general attributes of indicators
Frameworks provide a good opportunity to lead a general discussion on measurement
towards a more specific discussion on what is to be measured. There are a number of
frameworks in use today, and a number of publications review their strengths and
weaknesses12. Frameworks are general, and because of the systemic similarities of cities,
countries or the global environment, they can be used on many different scales. They can,
in fact, contribute to the harmonization of indicator sets across these different scales. The
important point for urban measurement systems here is that they should make the
selection of a conceptual framework explicit - even if the framework is not a ‘copy’ of
other, existing frameworks. They should also make sure that the framework is based on a
whole system view of the urban environment, that is, it is not limited to a specific sector.
Frameworks are of strong symbolic value, and their selection can favourably catalyze or if poorly chosen - significantly hinder the measurement process.
Although reviewing frameworks is not the purpose of this paper, two of the leading
approaches worth mentioning. One of them is based on capital theory and breaks down
sustainable development issues in three or four categories. Along these lines, in addition
6
to the traditional category or human made
capital, the World Bank refers to Natural
Capital, Human Resources and Social Capital14.
Using slightly different terminology, IISD was
essentially using the same framework with
Natural Resources, Human Made Capital,
Community Assets and Human Life as main
categories for indicators in a project recently
completed in Manitoba. IISD’s framework
intends to express the embeddedness of the
human subsystem in the natural environment, the
Figure 4: The framework developed by IISD reliance of the social superstructure on the
for the indicators of Manitoba’s Prairie
productive capacity of an economy, and the
Ecozone13.
unlimited development potential (the openness
of the diagram), particularly from the perspective of non-material human needs (Figure
4). Another of the better known frameworks is the Pressure-State-(Impact)-Response
(PSR or PSIR) framework developed originally for Statistics Canada by Friend and
Rapport in 197915. The PSR/PSIR framework is based on categories that include human
pressure on the natural environment, the condition of the environment, and the response
of human institutions as a feedback mechanism to adverse environmental conditions.
These frameworks have different strengths and weaknesses, but both are a useful starting
point for urban measurement systems.
A more rigorous test for the adequacy of the indicator set has been developed by Hartmut
Bossel on the basis of orientors. Orientors for sustainable development indicators are
based on the theory of dynamic systems, and as such their applicability is general,
whether the system in question is a city, an ecosystem or a single human being. Bossel
identifies seven basic orientors that define a dynamic system with sentient and conscious
beings (Attachment 2). As discussed before, the sustainability of cities depends on the
viability of both their subsystems and the macro environment they are embedded in.
Assuming that indicators in all seven orientor categories are necessary, the total number
of indicators to describe the viability of the whole system would equal: (essential internal
subsystems) x (essential external subsystems) x (essential orientor categories). Following
Bossel’s terminology, a city with three subsystems (natural subsystem, human subsystem
and support subsystem) would require minimum 3 x 7 = 21 indicators to characterize the
three subsystems, plus 3 x 7 = 21 indicators to describe external sustainability, a total of
42 indicators. In principle, the resulting indicator set would provide sufficient
information on the potential for sustainability from both the external and internal
perspective. Orientors are currently being tested in an indicator project of the
Government of Upper Austria.
Many indicator projects on various scales use criteria or ‘desirable properties’ of
indicators to help assess their adequacy. Criteria can be used as a checklist when a
preliminary collection of indicators is prioritized. The OECD identifies a number of
indicator criteria in three clusters, (a) policy relevance and utility for users; (b) analytical
7
soundness; and (c) measurability16. A non-exhaustive list of criteria from the World
Bank is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: A sample non-exhaustive list of desirable properties of indicators from the World Bank17.








Be developed within an agreed on conceptual and operational framework.
Be clearly defined and easy to understand.
Be subject to aggregation (from household to community, from community to nation).
Be objective (be independent of the data collector).
Have reasonable data requirements - either available data or data that can be collected at limited cost
and within the capacity of the country’s statistical apparatus.
Have ‘ownership’ by users.
Be limited in number.
Reflect input, process or outcomes (or, as used in the environment literature, pressure, state, response).
4. A process of establishing and applying integrated measurement and reporting
systems
A key objective of integrated measurement and reporting systems is to periodically
provide feedback to decision-makers on priority socio-economic or environmental
problems and their interactions. Measurement helps close the feedback loop of the policy
cycle, involving (a) policy setting and formulation; (b) policy implementation and
empowerment; (c) policy evolution, and (d) problem identification (Figure 5). Indicators
New and
Emerging Problems
Policy Setting;
Formulation
Policy
Implementation;
Enforcement
Problem
Identification
Policy
Evaluation
n
Figure 5: The policy-making cycle18.
8
fulfill different but complementing roles in different stages of the policy process. They
provide the key variables for policy setting and formulation and facilitate implementation
and enforcement by the comparison of actual performance to targets. At the end of policy
cycles they provide hard data for policy evaluation and help substantiate claims about
emerging problems that require policy response as adjustment.
Figure 6 outlines a 14-step cyclical process to set up and operate an integrated
measurement system. This view of the reporting cycle goes beyond most current
practices, particularly by including target setting, policy and scenario analyses, steps that
are usually still missing from many regularly published SOE or integrated reports. I
argue, that it is in these steps where the full potential of sustainable development
indicators can be and should be used.
1: Objective setting/process design
2: Stakeholder group establishment
3: Vision development
4: Issue definition/re-definition
5: Indicator selection
6: Data collection
7: Indicator construction
8: Target setting
9: Policy analysis
10: Alternative policy development
11: Scenario development and analysis
12: Report release, distribution and marketing
13: Indicator application
14: Start of new reporting cycle
Figure 6: General process diagram for measurement system establishment and operation.
The first phase in the cycle is objective setting and process design, essentially consisting
of a customized floor diagram with a time frame, budget and key tasks for a core team,
much as personnel in an urban planning department. For reasons discussed earlier,
stakeholder involvement is a necessary component of measurement systems. In the
9
second phase the case team should identify key shareholder groups from the urban area
and also from the city/hinterland interface to represent huge area interests - stakeholder
groups can be convened for the sole purpose of supporting the measurement process or as
a multi-purpose advisory groups, like round-tables that have other roles as well. The
early establishment and involvement of stakeholders is important for ensuring the
acceptance and ownership of the measurement system and its content in the community.
Development of a sustainable community vision in the third phase already requires
stakeholders involvement. At this point the vision can be stated qualitatively, and
expressed in more concrete terms later in the process. This is the basic declaration of
what sustainability means for the community, probably not as an end point but more as a
desirable condition when the community is full of adoptive and balanced evolutionary
potential, it can anticipate its challenges and has sufficient capacity and diversity to
respond to them.
Phase 4 involves the construction or adoption of a framework for indicators and the
identification of practical indicator selection criteria.
In phase 5 an intermediate step towards indicator selection, key sustainable development
issues are selected, based on the categories identified in the framework. Issue
identification takes place in a participatory setting with the stakeholder group. The
process may have to be iterative when in the first step a large number of issues are
identified in a brainstorming-like exercise, followed by the clarification and prioritization
of issues. Methods like a nominal group technique can be useful to organize this process.
Based on prioritized issues indicators are selected in phase 6 that well describe a
particular issue. Selection criterion are helpful to filter out irrelevant or otherwise
unfeasible indicators. There is a feedback loop from indicator selection to issues, and
stakeholders would need to be given the opportunity to review and comment on the
indicators selected.
Phase 7 is data collection, usually from a wide range of sources given that SD indicators
cover areas that are usually under the jurisdiction of different organizations within a city.
Unavailability of data may influence the selection of indicators.
In phase 8 indicators are constructed on the basis of collected data. The objective at this
phase is to express collected data in a form most useful for decision makers. It may
involve aggregation of a number of indicators. Aggregation is likely to be easier if
indicators clustered around a similar issue are aggregated, like water quality, but it is a lot
more challenging if indicators for a wide range of issues are put together.
Phase 9 involves target setting for some or all of the selected indicator. This would
involve the identification of a range or an end-point and an associated time-line, and it
may involve the identification of responsibilities for meeting the target(s). Targets are a
direct and concrete expression of the vision, although, they may represent only an
intermediate step in that discussion.
10
Phase 10, 11 and 12 involve building a linkage between actual trends identified by
indicators and the decision-making process. In phase 10 trends are evaluated in light of
actual policies. The focus is on linkages between particular policies and particular
indicators. Phase 11 involves a description of alternative policy options in response to
the measured trends and their linkages to current policies. Under phase 12 the effect of
alternative policies are identified in the context of future scenarios. Scenarios are not
forecasts, but they provide an opportunity to raise initial questions about linkages
between future outcomes and various policy pathways. There are a number of possible
methods available to develop scenarios in a participatory setting, and there are several
tools developed for the express purpose of scenarios analysis on various scales.
To date, most SD reports do not include alternative policy analyses and scenarios. A
notable exception is may be the Global Environmental Outlook - 1 (GEO-1) of UNEP
that includes both, an SOE-type status report, leading towards policy analysis, alternative
policies and scenarios. The scale of analysis is global, but a similar template would be
useful and perhaps necessary on other, including urban scales as well.
Phase 13 report preparation is focused on the compilation of indicators and subsequent
analyses into a cohesive report that is an easy read for a wide range of stakeholders and
the general public. This, and an effective report distribution and marketing strategy in
phase 14 would need to ensure that the information published would reach and actually
influence the decision-making process of government officials, corporations, or
individual households. Indicators and the accompanying analyses would possibly impact
a number of decision sub-cycles nested within the whole urban system.
Phase 16 is the start of a new reporting cycle. There are no general rules in terms of the
frequency of the decision-cycles, but 2-3 years seems to be an emerging pattern. Cities
may decide to report indicators and other parts of the report with a different frequency.
CONCLUSIONS
Information provided by integrated measurement systems helps cities to understand the
main challenges and opportunities of sustainable development. Establishing integrated
measurement and reporting systems in cities requires a carefully planned and coordinated
process. Both the structure of indicator sets and integrated reports and the design process
need to based on an understanding of cities as complex, dynamic systems whose
sustainability depends on external and internal factors.
The measurement and reporting system does not end with indicators, but extends to
linking indicators to policies in the context of policy analyses and scenarios. The possible
structure of integrated measurement system presented in this paper is not unique to cities,
though it can be customized to meet the specific requirements of a given urban
environment. It many of its elements it is also a generic process and structure in that it
can be applied on various spatial and organizational scales, as illustrated by the reference
to UNEP’s GEO process.
11
The novelty of integrated measurement systems as discussed is in taking a whole system,
holistic perspective of cities, but translating that holistic view into concrete indicators,
and linking these indicators to policy actions in the present and policy alternatives in the
future. Setting up such a system is not a simple task, but most, if not all, local
governments are already keeping records, collecting statistical information, and
communicating it in some way to their stakeholders, thus they have a starting point.
There are significant, but not unsurmountable challenges to making the transition:
 Monitoring
Are monitoring systems adequate? Do we measure - with adequate frequency and
reliability - the parameters that really matter to decision-makers?
 Aggregation
How can indicators with expressed in different units of measure aggregated? What
indicators to include in aggregates? What weight to assign to specific indicators in the
aggregation process? Who should decide it and how? How do we ensure we understand
just exactly what aggregate measures communicate?
 Vertical integration
How can we ensure some minimum level of compatibility between measurement systems
on different - global, national, community - scales? How can we link corporate
performance measurement to the measurement systems, indicators and targets of cities or
regions they are embedded in?
 Assigning causality
How can we establish linkages between indicated trends and current policies? How can
we deal with obviously very real, but difficult to understand cumulative impacts? How
can we anticipate or at least scope out the impact of alternative policies to the ones
currently in effect?
 Institutionalization
How can we ensure that integrated measurement and sustainable development indicators
become part of the culture of an organization and do not disappear with budget cycles?
What are the legal implications of this question?
 Demonstration of success
How can the benefit of integrated measurement systems demonstrated, when that benefit
can occur in many sectors over long periods of time?
Finally, performance measurement in sustainable development should not be considered
the privilege of wealthy communities in wealthy countries. In fact, it is precisely the
megacities of developing countries where our understanding of local options is maybe the
most lacking. Overcoming technical, political, financial barriers will require capacity
building and a commitment by both the international community and urban decisionmakers themselves.
12
ATTACHMENT 1
The Bellagio Principles19.
Principle
Explanation
1. Guiding vision
and goals
2. Holistic
perspective
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a clear vision of
sustainable development and goals that define that vision
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• include review of the whole system as well as its parts
• consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as well as
the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the interaction
between parts
• consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the
costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and non-monetary terms
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• consider equity and disparity within the current population and between present and future
generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption and poverty, human
rights, and access to services, as appropriate
• consider the ecological conditions on which life depends
• consider economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to
human/social well-being
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time scales thus
responding to needs of future generations as well as those current to short term decision-making
• define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts
on people and ecosystems
• build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions - where we want to go,
where we could go
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on:
• an explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision and goals to
indicators and assessment criteria
• a limited number of key issues for analysis
• a limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of progress
• standardizing measurement wherever possible to permit comparison •comparing indicator
values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction of trends, as appropriate
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• make the methods and data that are used accessible to all
• make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users
• draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decision-makers
• aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain language
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical and social groups ,
including youth, women, and indigenous people - to ensure recognition of diverse and changing
values
• ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and
resulting action
Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:
• develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends
• be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are complex
and change frequently
• adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained
• promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision-making
Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should be assured by:
• clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making process
• providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation
• supporting development of local assessment capacity
3. Essential
elements
4. Adequate scope
5. Practical focus
6. Openness
7. Effective
communication
8. Broad
participation
9. Ongoing
assessment
10. Institutional
capacity
13
ATTACHMENT 2
The definition of basic orientors and guiding questions to identify subsystem
indicators20.
ORIENTOR
SUBSYSTEM
CONTRIBUTION TO
PERFORMANCE
TOTAL SYSTEM
Existence
Ensure the immediate survival and
subsistence of the system in the normal
environmental state
Is the system viable?
Can it exist?
Effectiveness
The system should on balance (over the
long term) be effective (not necessarily
efficient) in its efforts to secure scarce
resources from and to exert influence on its
environment.
Freedom of action
Ability to cope in various ways with the
challenges posed by environmental variety.
Is it effective and
efficient?
Does subsystem
contribute its specific
share to existence and
viability of total
system?
Does it contribute to
the effective and
efficient operation of
the total system?
Security
Ability to protect from detrimental effects
of environmental variability, i.e. variable,
fluctuating, and unpredictable conditions
outside of the normal environmental state.
Adaptability
Ability to change parameters and/ or
structure in order to generate more
appropriate responses to challenges posed
by environmental change.
Coexistence
Ability to modify behaviour to account for
behaviour and orientors of other systems in
the environment.
Psychological needs
Additional orientor for sentient beings.
Does it have the
necessary freedom to
react and respond as
needed?
Is it secure, safe,
stable?
Does it contribute to
the freedom of action
of the total system?
Can it adapt to new
challenges?
Does it contribute to
the flexibility and
adaptability of the total
system?
Is it compatible with
interacting subsystems?
Does it contribute to
the compatibility of the
total system with its
partner systems?
Does it contribute to
the psychological wellbeing of people?
Is it compatible with
psychological needs
and culture?
Does it contribute to
the security, safety and
stability of the total
environment?
14
LITERATURE CITED
1
Summary and contact information on a representative sample of current indicator initiatives can be found
in the Compendium of Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives at
<http://iisd.ca/measures/compendium.htm>.
2
An earlier version of this figure is found in Pinter L. De-mystifying sustainable development through
performance measurement. Paper presented at the 20. Tom Slick International Symposium on
“Sustainable Development: Implications for World Peace”. Lyndon B. Johnson School for Public
Management, 27-29 March, 1996, Austin, TX. The indicator triangle with the nested structure as shown on
this chart has been published in Bossel, H. 20/20 Vision - Explorations of Sustainable Futures. Draft V
2.0 for Balaton Group Internal Use. Kassel, Germany: Center for Environmental Systems Research,
University of Kassel, 1996, Chapter 4. The linkage to monitoring is my addition. Hartmut Bossel relates
the diagram to Herman Daly’s triangle of ultimate means and ultimate ends.
3
Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling, L. Pritchard and G.D. Peterson. Resilience in ecosystems, Institutions
and Societies. Beijer Discussion Paper Series No. 95. Stockholm: Beijer International Institute of
Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1997, 34 p.
4
Bossel, H. 20/20 Vision - Explorations of Sustainable Futures. Draft V 2.0 for Balaton Group Internal
Use. Kassel: Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 1996.
5
Campbell, M. and Maclaren, V. et al. Municipal State of the Environment Reporting in Canada:
Current Status and Future Needs. Occasional Paper No. 6. Ottawa, ON: State of the Environment
Reporting Directorate, Environment Canada, 1995.
6
IISD, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International, and SustainAbility. Coming Clean: Corporate
Environmental Reporting - Opening Up for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, MB: IISD, 1993.
7
AtKisson, A., ed. Sustainable Seattle : indicators of sustainable community. Seattle, WA: Sustainable
Seattle, 1995.
8
Sierra Business Council. Sierra Nevada wealth index : understanding and tracking our region's wealth.
Truckee, CA: SBC, 1996.
9
Jacksonville Community Council, Inc. Life in Jacksonville : quality indicators for progress.
Jacksonville, FL: The Council, 1993.
10
World Resources Institute et al. World Resources - A Guide to the Global Environment. The Urban
Environment. 1996-97. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
11
Dale, A. Multistakeholder Processes: Panacea or Window Dressing. Montreal, QU: Department of
Natural Resource Science, McGill University, unpublished.
12
See e.g. Murcott, S. Sustainable Development: A Meta Review of Definitions, Principles, Criteria,
Indicators, Conceptual Frameworks, Information Systems. Paper prepared for the “Sustainability
Indicators” symposium, sponsored by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis at the 1997
annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, WA, February 1318, 1997; also Rump, P.C. State of the Environment Reporting: Source Book of Methods and
Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: Division of Environment Information and Assessment, United Nations
Environment Programme, 1996.
13
Manitoba Environment. Reporting on Progress on Sustainable Development for Manitoba’s Prairie
Ecozone. Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development in partnership with Manitoba
Environment, 1997.
14
The World Bank. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable
Development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series No. 17.
Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, June
1997, 110 p.
15
Rapport, D. and A. Friend. Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A
Stress-Response Approach. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, Office of the Senior Adviser on Integration
and Minister of Supply and Services, 1979.
16
OECD. Better Understanding Our Cities - The Role of Urban Indicators. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1997, 94 p.
17
The World Bank. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable
Development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series No. 17.
15
Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, June
1997, 110 p.
18
Rump, P.C. State of the Environment Reporting: Source Book of Methods and Approaches. Nairobi,
Kenya: Division of Environment Information and Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme,
1996.
19
The principles have been also published on the Internet at <http://iisd.ca/measure/1.htm>.
20
Bossel, H. 20/20 Vision - Explorations of Sustainable Futures. Draft V 2.0 for Balaton Group Internal
Use. Kassel: Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, 1996, and Bossel, H.
Indicators of Sustainable Development - Draft report by the Sustainable Development Indicators Working
Group of the Balaton Group, August 1997.
16