42 Measu,-ing Sustainability Sustainability Indicato,-s: A B,-ief Review 43

existence Although in such AMOEBA-type diagrams the visual 'whole' provides some basis for
integration, the individual indicators are still presented separately. This can be an
advantage, as it allows the reader to disaggregate the whole. The appeal of such a
compromise was one reason behind our selection of the AMOEBA as a presentation
device in the systemic sustainability analysis (SSA) described in Bell and Morse
coexistence (1999). There are alternatives, and the 'sustainability dashboard' (Hardi, 2001) is
effectiveness
gaining in popularity. Here the approach is to draw an analogy between a vehicle
dashboard, and all its dials and lights, and SD. Separate dials and warning lights are
included for various dimensions of SD, so there is some disaggregation. By way of
contrast, a diagrammatic approach that doesn't allow any disaggregation is the
'sustainability barometer' (Prescott-Allen, 1997; Figure 2.5). This involves mapping
the particular state of a system on to a two-dimensional structure of human and
ecosystem wellbeing. Sustainability equates to a defined area of the structure ( top right
of Figure 2.5). The reader, from the diagram itself: cannot discern why a system
happens to occupy. the location it does in the barometer.
. .. . •- .. rreedom of
.. . �.. action
adaptability
... ... ..
.. Human wellbeing

security

The circle in the centre of the diagram (the unit circle) represents the zon.e of non-viability Good
(unsustainability). If any of the six 'orientor satisfactions' (ratio of the rate of response to the
rate of threat) is less than one (eg freedom of action in the above diagram) it .will fall inside
the circle and indicate unsustainability.
OK
The six orienter satisfactions are:

Orientor Numerator Denominator Inter­

mediate
Existence Speed of escape from a danger Speed of approad� of danger
2 Effectiveness Rate of increase in resource Rate of erosion of
efficiency resource availability Poor
3 Freedom of. Rate of increase in spectrum Rate of appearance of new
action of possible responses challenges I . (
Bad Unsustainable
4 Security Rate of installation of Rate of increase of threats ,,.:. I
protective measures
Bad r Poor 1 Inter­ OK Good
5 Adaptability Rate of structural change Rate of irreversible changes mediate
6 Coexistence Rate of change of interacf1on Rate of appearance of new Ecosystem wellbeing
and communication actors
Source: Bosser, 1999 Source: adapted from Prescott-Allen, 1997

Fi gure 2.4 The orientor star ofsustainable development Figure 2.5 The JUCN barometel" ofsustainability
44 Measuring Sustainability Sustainability Indicators: A BriefReview 45

Numerous writers and practitioners have discussed the desirability of integrating a However, while this fear does resonate with many/ a workshop held at the OECD in
suite of indicators into a single index for SD. 6 Experts are divided into those who see 1998 made the point that:
this is a good thing , and those.who stress the dangers. The followi ng qu.otadon sets
out the basic difficulty: Many participants hadfound that it was easier to gain attention for an
issue with a simple 'gra.phical presentation or a limited numerical index
[l]t would be counterproductive ifnew indicators were to become we�5hted than with a more complex concept, This comes back to the essential
and averaged together - leading to more Jetishing of one single index, problem ofwhether thepriority is to guidepolicy in the 'right direction as
which tries to add up all the dpples and oranges into a single number opposed to getting the indicators strictly comprehensive and correct.
coefficient. This can turn out to lead to ·the same kind ofnonsense as the (OECD, 1 998 )
GNP indicators. It is better on 'scientific grounds, as well as those ofpublic
education and efficient, democratic government to have a gro up of Sustainability diagrams, and indeed indices , have received a high level of prominence
indicators covering dijfirent dimensions. [0Jnly transparent and tangible in the literature. The basis upon which these devices are founded - clarity for users
indicators thatpeople can readily understand-and visualize and relate to -is bound up with the uses to which they will be put. As Wefering ec al (2000) suggest,
their own lives willprovide the desiredp�litica_l constituency for needed there are very different views aboll.t clarity with regard to SD. Scientists and tech­
governmental policy. This �as �een an endemic problem with economics, nicians are interested primarily in data presented as tables, graphs, etc, and possibly
and its arcane formulae __which have left people mystified, alienated and even raw uncondensed data, while decision-makers and managers typically require
demotivated. (Henders6n , 1 99 1 , p 176) some condensation of the data, particularly in terms of how it relates to goals and
targets. With this group , visual devices such as those described above may be useful,
The lack of transparency afforded by highly aggregated indicators is a seri;ms problem bur should also be capable of being unwrapped to reveal underlying data. On the
(Moffatt, 1 994 ; Allenby et al, 1 998_; Jesinghaus , 2000 ) . Yet: other hand, individual users (the public) prefer highly aggregated data (perhaps as an
index) and visual devices.
The challengefar the scientific community is that highly aggregated indices A pragmatic approach, given the contested views of the SD indicator technicians
ofsustainftble development are being pushed by political demand, despite and those wanting to use them, points cowards a hybdd approach with layers of
the hesitancy ofexperts andscholars to tackle questions that involve human aggregation for different groups. OECD ( 1 998 ) referred to a 'pyramid of indicators
values andpoliticalprocesses as much as, or more than, scientific method­ sers' (Figure 2.6) . Ac the top level would be a few (or even one) highly aggregated
,\
ologies. ( Dahl, 1 997) I indicators for the public and decision-makers, and as one moves . towards the bottom
of the pyramid the indicators would become increasingly disaggregated ( Braat, 1 99 1 ) .
This lack of transparency is at the 'communication' level (ie in the form it is generally

I
presented to an audience) rather than necessarily ;,1-t the 'technical' level. For example,
the documentation associated with an index may include the fuII data set so that increasin g condensation INDICES
anyone can disaggregate the index and monitor the calculations involved. While such of data
transparen cy may be applauded, it is unlikely that the groups (politicians, decision­
makers, etc) intended to use the index will have the tirne and i_ndination w go to the ') public
lengths ofdisaggregating its components. After aU , that is precisely why the index was
cre"ated in the first place!
Clearly, there is a demand for highly aggregated indices (Hodge et al, 1 999 ; INDICATORS
Persson, 200 1 ) , even if 'their purpose may indeed be more to provoke by shocking policy-makers/
Slim totals than to provide statistical support to decision-making' (Bartelmus, 1999) . managers
A compromise may be in order. Some integration to appease politicians and decision­
makers may be desirable, but at the same time it may be necessary to p rovide enough
detail to allow transparency at the level of communication. There have been various
attempts to do this, many of them revolving around the use of compromise diagrams scientists and technicians
such as the AMOEBA, although these have also had their critics , and some see them
as biased more towards addressing a need for aggregation .
Total quantity of information DATA
From a methodologicalpoint ofview, it [theAMOhJ3A] can be criticized Source: Braat, 1 99 1
for the aggregation process, simple addition ofindicators and the reference
to histo rical situations; it is a very crude, preliminary solution for Figure 2.6 Relationships between indicators, data and information: the OECD
measuri ng sustainability. (Rennings and Wiggering, 1 997) 'pyramid ofindicator sets'
48 Measuring Sustai�ability Sustainability Indicators: A BriefReview 49

have to be mad� aS to Which indicators':to include and how they are to b� measured. Ofcourse, this quotation could equally apply to all those who are meant to 'do' some­
As already discu�·sed, this is a ·highly subjective and value-ridden process, but it will thing with the indicators, and not just the public! Although this may sound blindingly
influence the magnitude ofany deviation from the reference condition. A danger here, obvious, the danger with indicators is that people sometimes lose sight of the ultimate
of course, is what Crabtree and Bayfield ( 1 998) refer to as 'institutional capture'. goal ('what we want to be') and instead become wrapped up with 'what we want to
Powerful individuals or groups may set the agenda in terms of what indicators of SD measure and how'.
to include and, in essence, what gaps to address. The form in which this communication occurs has significant consequences in
It is possible to do away with a reference condition per se, and instead present the terms ofhow the indicators are to be applied (Corvalcln et al, 1 997). Communication
value of indicators (eg across countries) in the form of league tables. In this case, the to end-users may take a number of forms: internet (Garcia et al, 2000), printed mass
aim is to present status in relative terms rather than· use an absolute standard. Hence media, televisiorlradio, leaflets, technical reports (for example, see Global Reporting
the motivation for change is not to do better relative to a standard, but to do better Initiative, 2000), and conferences and workshops. Just who should be told will h ave ·
relative to other countries. Great care needs to be taken with such an approach, given a n influence on both the form of indicator presentation and the means of commun­
that developed countries tend to take the lead in developing such tables, and ication (Crilly et al, 1 999). It may be that indicators have to be translated into other
'institutional capture' can occur. The debate surrounding the calculation ofthe Envir­ forms (such as financial cost-benefjt analysis), or aggregated, before they are com­
onmental Sustainability Index (ES!) is but one example of what can happen.10 The m unicated. Given the centrality of communication in all of this, it is perhaps
importance of including Southern voices in the process has been reiterat�d by many surprisin g that this has received remarkably little attention {Acton, 2000), a point that
(eg de Kruijf and van Vuuren, 1 998). will be returned to in Chapter 4 when we discuss the Malta project.
There are other examples that are much less overtly reference condition or league Two key questions at this stage are who will use the indicators; and how (Mitchell,
table orientated, and inste�d look to present indicator trends over time. A good 1 996)? It certainly appears as if some SD indicator projects have been, to say the least,
example here is the list of indicators provided by Vital Signs, a p ublid.tion of the a little 'fuzzy' over the answers to these (Acton, 2000). However, one answer h as been
WorldWatch Institute. First published in 1992, the series attempts, in the words of summarized by Moldan et al (1 997):
Worldwatch, to 'broaden the base ,ofinformation available to decision-makers around
the world by assembling a unique and eclectic set of global indicators'. ln the mode Thepotential uses ofISDs (indicators ofsustainable development) include
of all indicator sets, the Worldwatch publication attempts to address a cominon alerting decision-makers_ to priority issues, guiding policy formulation,
problem: 'there is a widening sea ofdata but, in comparison, a desert of information' simplijj,ing and improving communication andfostering a common
(Mitchell, 1 996). As_ an example, the 2000-200 1 offering (Brown et al, 2000) lists understanding ofkey trends with a view to initiating necessary national
32 key indicators, ranging from the usual environmental suspects (carbon emissions, action.
. global temperature, use offertilizer) through to the not so usual (bicycle production,
This i� a commonly stated p osition, if perhaps rather unmet in practice, and
internet use) to the unexpected (cigarette death toll, peacekeeping exp enditure).
unsurprisingly is no different to the use ofindicators in a wide variety of fields (Tyteca,
Although some indicators do have graphs that break trends down into r�gions andl
1996) . De Kruijf and van Vuuren (1 998) suggest that SD indicators have two related
or countries, for the most part this is avoided. The commentaries de; bring out
purposes, as:
regional and/or country comparisons, but one does not detect a strong 'name and
shame' style. The result is perhaps more of a feeling that we are all in this together. 1 tools in the policy planning process; and
Bassel ( 1 999) uses examples of the Worldwatch. indicators to illustrate his basic 2 communication tools.
orientors of system sustainability (Table 2.2).
But the second use should not be a passive process of technocrats telling others, such
as the public and decision-makers, what they have found, ie seeing the public as
nothing more than passive consumers of someone else's indicators (MacGiliivray and
USING INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Zadek, 1 995). Indicator exercises should be founded on a participatory process that
helps provide new goals for politicians and decision-makers (Pinfield, 1 996; Meter,
Once a set ofindicators has been established, measured and compared with a reference
1 999) . However, there have been mixed experiences with all of this. For example, in
system, the results have to be communicated to those intended to use them. After all,
the more specific context of SLM, the land quality indicators (LQis) summarized by
indicators of SD are means to an end, and are not ends in themselves (Stirling, 1999).
Dumanski and Pieri (2000) are intended to act as foci for research policy. These have
There seems littlepoint in developing an approach to monitoring the things generally been developed by experts with the aim ofproviding indicators upon which
decision-makers can act. Yet Herrick (2000) fears that adoption ofLQis, particularly
that are meaningfU! to localpeople ifthey neverfind out about it. (Acton,
those centred on soil q uality, has not been good. Rigby et al (2000), also working in
2000)
the broad sphere of natural resource management (NRM) and livelihood, make the
candid claim that:
56 Measuring Sustainability

Instead, Brugmann ( 1997a) suggests chat it would better ifstakeholders would ideally
focus on preparing the goals and targets of a strategic plan that has legal standing'
r Sustainability Indicators: A BriefReview 51

and perspective can be liberating at the level of an individual's life, and may increase
the questioning as to how larger-scale change can be brought about.
rather than taking part in an exercise to get indkarors that 'measure sustainability ­ I -
which in the face of effecting real-change takes on a more addemic oi· pedagogical
I
f
appeal' . SUMMARY
O f course, one cou1? go o n to think ofindicators i n more organic t�rms than the
'end product' (a 'delivefable' in project parlance) of a public consultatic,1n exercise to
be applied by managers. We could see the whole process of participatio'p, consensus
building and debate as a desirable process in itself, resulting in 'reflectiv,� insight .ind
I This chapter has covered a number of key issues that arise out of the creation and use
of indicators as cools to help achieve SD. Criteria for their selection, the number to
be selected, the degree (if any) of aggregation, presentation and use are all irriportant
the genuine sharing ofideas', without necessarily arriving at an end point of 'positive and indeed central consideratioris. However, the last point, use, is perhaps the one
and normative definition' (Meppem and Gill, 1 99 8). The role of decision1�makers here that has received the least attention. Projects geared to generating SD indicators tend
is to 'facilitate learning and seek leverage points with which to direct prot'�ress towards to become myopically focused on technical issues (what indicators, .hqw many, how
integrated economic, ecological <1:nd socio-cultural approaches for all humanity' to aggregate, etc) rather than really consider usage to bring about change. The result
(Meppem and Gill, 1998) . is a substanti al literature that deals with methodological issues, but with little to say
Indicators of SD could certainly play a role here as useful tools to Play out such on how, or even if, the indicators were applied to help improve the quality of people's
debates and learning (Acton, 2000), although they cannot by themsd1es empower lives. The assumption is that they do, but where is the proof? Various negative com­
people (LGMB, 1 995) . ments to the contrary (eg Brugmann, 1 997a and b; Kasemir et al, 1 999; Jesinghaus,
2000; Rigby et al, 2000) must engender some cynicism about the whole process of
In the process of their development, indicators do serve to stim:uiate generating indicators in order to bring about SD . Their use in a community learning
community visioning and unite different interests, but th ey cannot s�ngle­ sense may have an appeal (Meppem and Gill , 1998), but could ultimately result in
handedly bring about change. (Besleme and Mullin, 1 997) frustration if these groups cannot actually bring about change at larger scales; nothing
prevents them making changes to their own lives. Having said that, making someone
Even ifwe never use a single indicator the process [oftheir development] aware of their problems may be a good first step to initiating change. It's not a.bad
has given us so much. (Meter, 1 999) pla�e to begin!
. In the following twn chapters, the development and use ofindicators of SD will
This is quite distinct from the use of indicators, such as newspaper readership, to be explored in the context of a project that both authors have worked on over a period
passively measure public participation, for example in the political proces,s or in social of two years. The project was based in Malta and drew, in pilrt, upon much of the
programmes (MacGillivray, 1 997; Kline, 2000) or indeed participatioi1 as a means fofegoing discussion. The reader will be able to see numerous points in the Malta
of getting the indicators. Instead the indicators are in part a product of a Yision of SD project where we took a particular direction when alternatives were available. We have
but at the same time help to define as well as implemen t it! This logk implies a explained our rationale behind such choices, but as we hope the reader would have
constant circularity with a starting vision of SD an4 indicators that in turn generate seen from Chapters I and 2, there is .no universally defined set of rules and methods
greater participation and interest in SD, which in turn reads to a new definition of in SD; much is left to personal opinion, and that is framed by a host o f factors
SD and a new set of indicators, etc ad infinitum. Indicators are no longer a neutral including culture, experience and livelihood.
end product to aid implementation of a pos itive and normative definitio:n of SD but
exist explicitly as a catalyst for further change. .As Kline (2000) puts it, [they can be
a critical element in helping people gain more control over their lives anci'." in ensuring
·a healthier future for the next generations'.
Seeing sustainability within a learning context rather than . a define� target has
much to commend it, and it is one emergent feature of our work in Malta that will
be expanded upon in Chapters 4 and 5 . Crilly et al (1999), for example, �escribe how
the Sustainable Northern Ireland Project (SNIP) acted as a catalyst to encDurage local
government offi cers to think beyond their statutory remit as well hs allowi ng
community and pressure groups to expand upon their understanding pf SD. The
problem is that such increased awareness can lead to frustration if the in�ividuals or
groups concerned are unable to do anything about it. It can bec0me /earning for
learning's sake rather than resulting in desired change. While this has a lojyc, we have
to be careful not to get carried away with despair. Heightening awareness bf problems