FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 2000

 

 

 

A REVIEW OF INDICATORS
OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
A REPORT FOR SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE TAYSIDE

3.1 Scope of Chapter

This part of our report provides brief reviews of the application of various types of indicators of sustainable development at different spatial and sectoral levels: international, national, regional and local, community and corporate. In conjunction with the previous part, which considered the theoretical underpinnings of sustainable development and the use of indicators, the evidence from this part will provide the foundation for our proposals on the application of indicators for local and regional development agencies in general, and SET in particular, which are set out in the final part of our report.

3.2 International Applications

Much of the effort at international level to develop indicators of sustainable development has been focused on the provision of supplementary measures of development, that can be applied in conjunction with the United Nations System of National Accounts (UNSNA). A number of important theoretical and practical advances have been made in this field during the past decade (eg Freeman 1993, Gray et al 1993, Hamilton 1994, Hartwick 1990, Maeler 1991, Moldan et al 1997, Pearce & Atkinson 1993).

United Nations Initiatives

Agenda 21 explicitly urges the creation of a set of parallel accounts to complement the UNSNA. Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, dealing with information needs, endorses the call for suitable indicators of sustainable development in this respect, and calls upon non-governmental organisations to co-operate with UN bodies in developing suitable sets of indicators. The first meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which was set up following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, identified a clear need for a set of standard measures for monitoring progress towards sustainability:

One of the tangible outcomes of these efforts has been the establishment of a System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA). The prime objective of SEEA is provide a framework to mould basic physical statistics and indicators into a physical accounting framework compatible with the financial framework of national accounting (United Nations 1993).

Figure 3.1 offers a schematic summary of the data bases required for this programme (Bartelmus 1994). The middle row of concepts and measures represents the national accounting framework. The top and bottom rows indicate the additional concepts and measures required to transform the traditional metric of economic growth into a metric of sustainable development.

Figure 3.1: Sustainability of supply, use and users; concepts and measures (Bartelmus, 1994)

Explanations:		flows of goods, services and amenities
Acronyms:	CC	Carrying Capacity
	EDP	Environmentally-adjusted net Domestic Product
	EF	Ecological Footprints
	ENI	Environmentally-adjusted National Income
	EI	Environmental Indicators
	ES	Environmental Statistics
	GPI	Genuine Progress Indicator
	HDI	Human Development Index
	ISEW	Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
	NDP	Net Domestic Product
	NEW	Net Economic Welfare
	NI	National Income
	NRA	Natural Resource Accounts (aggregates)
	QOL	Quality of Life (indicators)
	SDP	Sustainable net Domestic Product
	SI	Social Indicators

The additional concepts and measures include both environmental indicators and indicators of the quality of life. Bartelmus, one of the UN representatives on the scientific committee addressing these questions, distinguishes three stages at which sustainable development can be assessed: output (supply), consumption (use), and welfare (users). His schematic diagram is helpful in integrating a wide range of related but distinctive concepts such as ‘ecological footprints’, ‘indices of sustainable economic welfare’, and ‘human development indices’, all of which are attracting considerable research effort. Although these elements are recognised as integral to the evaluation of sustainable development, in practice progress towards a comprehensive set of indicators is in many cases highly constrained by the availability of information and financial resources.

Figure 3.2 is derived from the concepts and measures used in the previous figure, and illustrates how environmental (but not social) indicators are currently being incorporated into the UNSNA. The right-hand column uses the UN Framework for the Development of Environmental Statistics (FDES) that is based on a variant of the conventional pressure-state-response (P-S-R) model. The FDES column provides a measure of environmental variables. In the middle column is a set of physical accounts based on research on Material/Energy Balances (MEB) and National Resource Accounts (NRA). These convert the variables provided by FDES into changes in physical states and flows of resources. These physical changes provide the basis for calculating the changes in monetary accounts measured in the left-hand column, applying environmental accounting (SEEA) to the UNSNA.

Figure 3.2: Incorporating environmental indicators in national accounts (Moldan et al, 1997)

Full integration is only possible by using an appropriate measuring rod to convert physical quantities to monetary values (ie a ‘numeraire’). To this end, the SEEA uses various monetary valuations of environmental accounts and the changes within them, recording changes in values as ‘costs’ to be set against financial measures of income and output. The ultimate outcome is illustrated at the extreme left of the figure, which shows the creation of ‘Environmentally-Adjusted Value-Added’ (EVA). This allows ‘Environmentally-Adjusted Domestic Product’ (EDP) and ‘Environmentally-Adjusted Capital Accumulation’ (dCAP) to be calculated.

Bartelmus observes that:

Figure 3.3 summarises the current progress with respect to the UNCSD working list of indicators of sustainable development. This list is also based on the P-S-R model. As commonly applied, this type of model subsumes a notion of causality: a pressure modifies the state of the environment, and this triggers a response from the community. However, the originator of this approach, the OECD, warns against taking this framework to imply a linear relationship between the various levels of interaction that make up sustainable development (OECD 1994). One way of emphasising this point, as Figure 3.3 demonstrates, is to take the list of factors previously termed ‘pressures’ when applied to environmental indicators and rename it ‘driving forces’ when referring to sustainable development.

Figure 3.3 CSD working list of indicators of sustainable development (Moldan et al, 1997)

CHAPTERS OF AGENDA 21	DRIVING FORCE INDICATORS	STATE INDICATORS	RESPONSE INDICATORS
CATEGORY: ECONOMIC
Chapter 2: International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in countries and related domestic policies	- GPD per capita - Net investment share in GDP - Sum of exports and imports as per cent of GDP	- Environmentally adjusted Net Domestic Product - Share of manufactured goods in total merchandise exports
Chapter 4: Changing consumption patterns	- Annual energy consumption - Share of natural resource - intensive industries in manufacturing value-added	- Proven mineral reserves - Proven fossil fuel energy reserves - Lifetime of proven energy reserves - Intensity of material use - Share of manufacturing valued-added in GDP - Share of consumption of renewable energy resources
Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms	- Net resources transfer/GNP - Total ODA given or received as a percentage of GNP	- Debt/GNP - Debt service/export	- Environmental protection expenditures as a per cent of GDP - Amount of new or additional funding for sustainable development
Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building	- Capital goods import - Foreign direct investments	- State of environmentally sound capital goods imports	- Technical cooperation grants

 

CHAPTERS OF AGENDA 21	DRIVING FORCE INDICATORS	STATE INDICATORS	RESPONSE INDICATORS
CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL
Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources	- Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water - Domestic consumption of water per capita	- Groundwater reserves - Concentration of faecal coliform in freshwater - Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies	- Waste-water treatment coverage - Density of hydrological networks
Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas and coastal areas	- Population growth in coastal areas - Discharges of oil into coastal waters - Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters	Maximum sustained yield for fisheries - Algae index
Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources	- Land use change	- Changes in land condition	- Decentralised local-level natural resource management
Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought	- Population living below poverty line in dryland areas	- National monthly rainfall index - Satellite derived vegetation index - Land affected by desertification
Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development	- Population change in mountain areas	- Sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas - Welfare of mountain populations
Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development	- Use of agricultural pesticides - Use of fertilizers - Irrigation per cent of arable land - Energy use in agriculture	- Arable land per capita - Area affected by salinization and waterlogging	- Agricultural education

 

CHAPTERS OF AGENDA 21	DRIVING FORCE INDICATORS	STATE INDICATORS	RESPONSE INDICATORS
CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL
Chapter 11: Combating deforestation	- Wood harvesting intensity	- Forest area change	- Managed forest area ratio - Protected forest area as a percent of total forest area
Chaper 15: Conservation of biological diversity		- Threatened species as a per cent of total native species	- Protected area as a percent of total area
Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology			- R & D expenditure for biotechnology - Existence of national biosafety regulations or guidelines
Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere	- Emissions of greenhouse gases - Emissions of sulphure oxides - Emissions of nitrogen oxides - Consumption of ozone depleting substances	- Ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas	- Expenditure on air pollution abatement
Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of solid waste and sewage-related issues	- Generation of industrial and municipal solid waste - Household waste disposal per capita		- Expenditure on waste management - Waste recycling and reuse - Municipal waste disposal
Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals		- Chemically induced acute poisonings	- Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted
Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes	- Generation of hazardous wastes - Imports and exports of hazardous wasets	- Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes	- Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment
Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes	- Generation of radioactive wastes

 

CHAPTERS OF AGENDA 21	DRIVING FORCE INDICATORS	STATE INDICATORS	RESPONSE INDICATORS
CATEGORY: INSTITUTIONAL
Chapter 8: Integrating environment and development in decision making			- Sustainable development strategies - Programme of integrated environmental and economic accounting - Mandated Environmental Impact Assessment - National councils for sustainable development
Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development		- Potential scientists and engineers per million population	- Scientists and engineers engaged in R & D per million population - Expenditure on R & D as a per cent of GDP
Chapter 37: National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries
Chapter 38: International institutional arrangements
Chapter 39: International legal instruments and mechanisms			- Ratification of global agreements - Implementation of ratified global agreements
Chapter 40: Information for decision-making		- Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants - Access to information	- Programmes for national environmental statistics
Chapter 23-32: Strengthening the role of major groups			- Representatives of major groups in national councils for sustainable development - Representatives of ethnic minorities and indigenous people in national councils for sustainable development - Contribution of NGOs to sustainable development

‘Driving force’ indicators represent human activities that have an impact on sustainable development. They are used to provide some indication of the cause of a positive or negative change in a state of development. The UNCSD indicators are primarily national in scope, although encouragement is given for the development of lower tier indicators. The essential distinction between the original P-S-R model and this derivation is that by replacing pressures with driving forces the adapted model attempts to accommodate activities which can work in either a beneficial or a harmful direction with respect to sustainability. Nevertheless, in terms of their effectiveness as performance indicators, the lack of direct causality, although perfectly valid, creates problems in interpreting the results:

OECD Initiatives

The OECD initiated a specific programme on environmental indicators in 1990, following a request at the 1989 Group of Seven summit. The following criteria were agreed (Lister 1997):

• agreement on terminology and a conceptual framework common to OECD countries (eg PSR models, core issues of concern);

• identification and definition of indicators on the basis of three major criteria: policy relevance, analytical soundness, and measurability;

• measurement of these indicators for a number of countries;

• regular use of these indicators in the OECD's analytical work and environmental performance reviews.

The OECD's work aims at developing environmental indicators for three major purposes:

1. tracking environmental progress (monitoring the environment and changes over time);

2. better integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies;

3. better integration of environmental concerns into economic policies.

The OECD indicators therefore provide a tool for measuring environmental performance rather than for implementing sustainable development, although they provide an essential baseline for monitoring the environmental aspects of sustainability. Figure 3.4 provides a schematic illustration of the way in which the OECD environmental indicators operate. A core set of environmental indicators monitoring environmental progress, based on a P-S-R model, is linked with indicators for assessing the integration of environmental concerns with economic policies (represented by environmental accounting) and into sectoral policies (represented by sectoral indicators).

Figure 3.4: OECD environmental indicators (Linster, 1997)

The outcomes are published in OECD reviews of the relative environmental performance of member states. An example of the way in which the OECD approach can be used to map out the integration of environmental concerns into specific sectoral policies is illustrated in Table 3.1. This uses the example of transport policies. Three levels of integration are identified:

• actions concerning traffic management;

• actions concerning transport infrastructures;

• actions concerning vehicles and motor vehicle fuels.

The appropriate sectoral indicators are identified in the left-hand column and associated with the environmental indicators in the central column and the economic indicators in the right-hand column. Taken together, the overall set of indicators offers a useful way of monitoring progress towards two of the strands of sustainable development within the transport sector, although it neglects social impacts (which in this sector can be of major significance).

Table 3.1: OECD indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into transport policies (Linster 1997)

European Union Initiatives

Much of the work undertaken at EU level parallels UN and OECD initiatives. Currently there is no EU Standard working definition either of sustainable development or indicators to this end. Most work noted below adopts OECD/UN approaches. The most commonly accepted definition is that embodied in Local Agenda 21 initiatives, which employs the UNEP definition: improving the quality of life within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. Section 3.3 below examines the indicators associated with LA21 initiatives.

The European Commission programme consists of three distinct areas:

• the Environmental Pressure Indices (EPI) programme;

• a pilot publication of EU indicators based on the UNCSD list (see Figure 3.3 above);

• a number of projects within the EU general research programme.

The programme is being co-ordinated by Eurostat (Eurostat 1997). It is tailored to the monitoring of ten policy areas (or ‘policy fields’) of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme (CEC 1993):

• climate change

• ozone layer depletion

• loss of biodiversity

• resource depletion

• waste

• air pollution

• dispersion of toxins

• water pollution and water resources

• marine environment and coastal zones

• urban problems, noise and odours.

The EU Scientific Advisers Group is responsible for identifying appropriate indicators in these fields. Parallel with these policy fields are sectoral infrastructure projects (SIPs) that are aimed at identifying the indicators within a sectoral context. These are focused on the six target sectors of the Fifth EAP:

• energy

• agriculture

• transport

• industry

• tourism

• waste management.

Each of the six SIPs has two elements: an indicators element which aims to identify pressure indicators by sector and to develop the methodologies needed to calculate these; and a basic data element which aims to evaluate the steps needed to provide the statistical inputs required to calculate these indicators.

The third element of the programme is a set of eight ‘Environmental Pressure Information System’ projects. These are aimed at supplying indicators through a database designed to integrate physical and economic data along the lines illustrated by the OECD work demonstrated in Table 3.1.

The 1997 publication of Eurostat indicators of sustainable development (Eurostat 1997) includes a substantial section on what it terms ‘social indicators’. This covers indicators of population growth and density, migration, fertility, infant mortality, life expectancy, health expenditure, unemployment and participation rates, male/female wage ratios, urbanisation, floor area per person and per capita consumption of fossil fuel for motor vehicle transport.

These indicators do not offer any guidance on social cohesiveness and participation in decision-making processes, which as discussed in the previous chapter are central to LA21. The explanation for this omission is to be found in the type of model used by Eurostat (and by the UK), which is driven by the OECD P-S-R approach. This focuses on the use of indicators of pressure, such as population growth, on the state of the environment.

3.3 National Applications

Indicators of sustainable development

The UK initiatives on indicators of sustainable development have grown out of the country's commitment made at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Following the publication in 1994 of the UK strategy for Sustainable Development, an inter-departmental Indicators Working Group was created which in 1996 published its initial report (DoE 1996). The chosen indicators were designed to enable the aspirations for sustainable development to be translated into four quantifiable aims (Morrey 1997):

• a healthy economy should be maintained to promote quality of life, while at the same time protecting human health and the environment;

• non-renewable resources should be used optimally;

• renewable resources should be used sustainably;

• damage to the carrying capacity of the environment and risk to human health and biodiversity should be minimised.

Given the need to determine the long term direction along which the UK economy was moving, efforts were focused on establishing trends rather than determining absolute levels. The trends indicators have been tied into targets or guidelines where these exist. Over three hundred indicators were initially developed. To reduce these to manageable proportions, a systematic approach was applied. Key issues and objectives within the UK strategy were used to focus the indicators down into twenty-one ‘families’, which cover the following aspects of sustainable development:

The 1996 report sets out the chosen indicators under the above headings. For each family of issues, objectives have been identified to make the development process more sustainable. Indicators were selected to monitor the achievement in attaining these objectives, applying a variant of the standard P-S-R model. This involved extending coverage into states of the economy (ie levels of unemployment and rates of inflation) as well as the environment. In addition, efforts were made to relate pressures on the environment and the economy to the benefit or welfare generated by the activity. This allowed the pressure indicators to be used to determine the relationship between the environment and socio-economic development, a relationship which is central to the attainment of sustainability.

For waste, for example, the UK report identifies a total of seven indicators:

• four ‘pressure’indicators

  • household waste

  • industrial and commercial waste

  • special waste

  • waste going to landfill

  and

• three ‘response’ indicators

  • household waste recycling and composting

  • materials recycling

  • energy from waste.

Given the topic, there are no ‘state’ indicators. Links are identified with industry, health, energy and households. The indicators chosen can be readily monitored and have relevance in developing the National Waste Strategy as part of the overall UK strategy for sustainable development.

More recently, the DETR has followed up this basic work by publishing a consultation paper (DETR 1998a) offering a set of ‘headline’ indicators, as part of its preparations for a revision of the overall UK strategy. The headline indicators increase the emphasis on social indicators such as measures of social inclusion. Table 3.2 sets out the indicators suggested to provide a broad brush picture of progress towards sustainability. This initiative has attracted criticism from a number of sources on the grounds that it unduly simplifies the relationships within which relevant policies have to be framed, undermining the link that should exist between the choice of indicators and their use as a measure of operational performance (eg Ghazi 1998, Levett 1999).

Table 3.2: Proposed UK headline indicators of sustainable development (DETR 1998a)

During 1999, the DETR followed up this initiative by producing a new strategy for sustainable development (DETR,1999a) and a set of indicator factors (DETR, 199b). The latter publication offers a baseline assessment of the indicators to enable progress to be monitored. Greater emphasis has been placed on measures of social inclusion, but many of the remaining indicators are retained from the 1996 work (DOE, 1996). The Scottish Executive is commissioning complementary studies in this area.

Although a number of other member nations of the OECD are planning to emulate the UK and publish headline indicators, examples can also be found of developments in the opposite direction, towards creation of detailed social accounting matrices (SAMs). These use Leontieff input-output frameworks and are usually based on standard input-output tables. They are capable of plotting the environmental and social consequences of economic action, and the economic and social consequences of environmental action.

A promising example of SAMs has been pioneered by the Scottish Office (Alexander & McNicoll 1995). A more comprehensive version has been developed for the Californian economy. Golan et al (1999) illustrate how this can be applied to plot the impact of the cultivation of cotton on the Californian economy and environment. The attraction of these models is that they enable the impact of policy initiatives to be tested and traced fully through the system. Table 3.3 reproduces the SAM calculation of the damage offsite created by soil erosion arising from cotton cultivation in California. By manipulating the SAM it is possible to identify the most cost-effective policy responses both in aggregate and in terms of the distribution of social impacts.

Table 3.3: Off-site damage from California cotton soil erosion by type of damage - 1982 (Golan et al, 1999)

The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare

A number of attempts have been made by economists to adapt current national accounts to provide a more accurate measure of changes in welfare over time. Almost three decades ago, two leading US economists demonstrated that when proper account is taken of factors which are not adequately measured by GDP, living standards could be shown to have grown by far less in the postwar period (Nordhaus & Tobin 1972). Based on the same principles, researchers in the USA and UK have adapted national accounts to provide an Index of Sustainable Development (ISEW).

The index is designed to include both benefits and costs of resource use which are not incorporated into the standard system of national accounts.

The US ISEW now forms the basis for what is termed "the Genuine Progress Indicator" (Cobb & Cobb 1994). A pilot UK ISEW for the period 1950-1990 has been published (Jackson & Marks 1994), which has been updated and extended to 1996 (Jackson et al 1997, Mayo et al 1997). Work undertaken at the University of Stirling on behalf of the Scottish Office has adapted Scottish estimates of GDP on the same basis (Moffat et al 1994, Moffat and Wilson 1994).

The following major adjustments to standard national accounts are made to calculate an ISEW:

• spending to offset social and environmental costs (defensive expenditure) is netted out;

• longer term environmental damage and depletion of natural capital are taken into account;

• only net reproducible capital formation (net investment) is included;

• adjustments are made to take account of changes in the distribution of income;

• an estimate of the value of household labour is included.

In adapting current national accounts to incorporate better allowances for social and environmental factors, the ISEW represents an advance over the more rough and ready calculation of "real" savings ratios considered in Section 2 above. Nevertheless, the findings are similar. Apparent rises in living standards measured by conventional means are transformed into much smaller and less positive trends. For the UK, for example, real GDP per head increases by 2.5 times between 1950 and 1996, giving an average annual increase of 2%. Applying ISEW adjustments, the trend is far more modest and includes periods of negative movement. Overall, the level of ISEW in 1996 was only 31% higher than in 1950, which represents an annual average rate of growth of just 0.6%.

One of the major factors in the increasing divergence between GDP and ISEW measures in the UK in recent decades can be found in their divergent treatment of the depletion of non-renewable hydrocarbon reserves (essentially North Sea oil and gas). A further factor is the inclusion by the ISEW of an allowance for the accumulating costs of global warming. Such adjustments are at the heart of any index of sustainability. The UK ISEW, for example, makes an estimate of cumulative environmental damage and calculates and deducts the present value of future welfare losses associated with this. Other important considerations are the welfare costs associated with growing income inequality. Deductions in this respect are based on an estimate of social aversion to such inequality. Because of these factors, the index for Scotland for the period 1980-91 shows a downward trend for ISEW in contrast to a clear upward trend for GDP. Calculations for Scotland are particularly sensitive to:

Neumayer (1999) presents a powerful critique of the ISEW approach, arguing that it lacks a sound theoretical foundation, and that its results depend on a few arbitrary assumptions (eg certain applications of this approach discount technical progress and suggest that educational expenditures should not count as investment in human capital and that they may even be regarded as defensive expenditure which should not be included when calculating consumption levels). Sensitivity analysis applied by Neumayer to key variables throws into question the central finding of these studies, that ISEW has been declining in the most recent periods in many high-income industrialised market economies.

While there are a large number of other national initiatives (the example of the NEPP in the Netherlands was discussed in the previous chapter), examples of the use of indicators to evaluate performance in the delivery of programmes are more likely to be found at sub-national levels. These are considered in the remaining parts of this chapter.

3.4 Regional and Local Government Initiatives

LA21

Many sub-national bodies have developed their own indicators of sustainable development, in response to Local Agenda 21, and in recognition of the need to create community involvement in the promotion of sustainability. As Morrey (1997) observes, whatever the merits of such initiatives in selling the concept, one of the problems with regional and local indicators, whether originating from governmental, non-governmental or community bodies, is that they tend to promote a proliferation of approaches which make aggregation and policy assessment at a higher level difficult:

Nevertheless, the Local Government Management Board (LGMB) in the UK has taken a number of initiatives to promote best practice in this respect (eg Touche Ross 1994 & 1995, CAG Consultants 1998). The LGMB has identified six essential elements for implementing LA 21:

• managing and improving the local authority's own environmental performance;

• integrating sustainable development aims in the local authority's policies and activities;

• raising awareness of and promoting education about sustainable development;

• consulting and involving the public;

• creating partnerships;

• measuring, monitoring and reporting on progress towards sustainability.

The management aspects of this agenda are catered for by the development of the Local Authority Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (LAEMAS), which has been derived from the site-specific EU EMAS Directive, and extended to cover policy and service effects as well as direct impacts. Monitoring the effectiveness of a local authority's policies, programmes and projects in promoting a more sustainable development pathway requires the use of indicators. Table 3.4 lists the themes agreed in the LGMB pilot study on indicators. These link the economy, quality of life and the environment through the UNEP definition of sustainable development: improving the quality of life within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. Thus the first three themes deal with carrying capacity, while quality of life is taken to mean meeting local needs for basic necessities, health, access to facilities, work, freedom from crime and persecution, involvement in the community, etc.

Table 3.4: Requirements for a sustainable community: themes for Sustainability Indicators Research Project (Touche Ross, 1994)

The piloting authorities, including one in Scotland (Fife) were given the task of developing and testing indicators derived from these themes, and of looking for meaningful measures which were both practicable and acceptable locally. In some cases, there was a clear trade-off between public acceptance and scientific rigour. Of the 101 possible indicators suggested by the consultants, 95 were chosen by the piloting authorities, but only seven were chosen by seven or more of the ten authorities involved. Many were adapted, and 45 additional ones were developed. Table 3.5 lists the trend indicators selected by Fife.

Table 3.5: Summary of Trends in chosen Fife Sustainability Indicators (Economic Planning and Development Department, 1995)

A number of UK local authorities selected to shadow the piloting authorities produced their own sets of indicators, including two regions in Scotland: Central and Strathclyde (Development and Planning Services 1996, Strathclyde Regional Council 1995). More recently, local authorities which have adopted a clear strategic stance towards sustainable development have sought to bind indicators into their corporate management structure, and to identify effective linkages between these and council programmes, using datasets available at local level (eg Bell et al 1997, Fife Council 1997, Lancashire County Planning Department 1997).

The Use of Indicators in an Urban Context

Leicester's approach (Bell et al 1997) offers an insight into current best practice in this respect. In 1996, the authority's Environment and Development Department undertook a sustainability appraisal of its own development plan, applying DoE environmental appraisal guidance. Linked with this, a local consultancy was employed to illustrate how the authority could develop suitable local indicators of sustainable development to help quantify the appraisal process, rather than simply flag up areas of concern.

The key features in the City of Leicester appraisal process are:

• an explicit and systematic environmental review of the development plan, its policies and programmes, undertaken to evaluate both the individual and the combined impact of these proposals on local sustainability;

• incorporation of the appraisal as an integral part of the process of drafting the development plan, and of considering actual alternatives during the preparation process, so that the appraisal is not simply a one-off exercise stuck on at the end when the desired outcomes have already been determined on other grounds;

• basing the appraisal on a quantifiable baseline of environmental quality using indicators wherever possible.

Despite these intentions, even the ‘European Sustainable City of 1996’ did not have in place at the time of the initial exercise sufficient data and capacity to incorporate sustainability indicators as such within the environmental appraisal of the development plan. Instead, for the time being, Leicester decided to apply the simple DoE flagging matrix. Nevertheless, there have been important gains. Once the overall policy aspect has been subject to this treatment, then any part of it which has attracted flagging that suggests it might be working against sustainable development is given a more detailed application of the same matrix, applied this time to the individual parts of the programme identified as needing further investigation. This allows the identification of components which contribute to the adverse impact, at which stage these can be re-examined. The exercise is said to be relatively simple and straightforward, while allowing rapid identification of areas of council policy that require attention. The eventual use of indicators will allow quantification of these areas of concern.

Indicators of Rural Disadvantage

Attention has rightly been focused on identifying concentrations of urban deprivation, using indicators which have identified Glasgow and urban Clydeside as containing some of the largest concentrations of multiple deprivation in the European Union. However, a significant proportion of Scotland's population lives in rural or semi-rural districts (between 11% and 15% according to definition). A number of studies have attempted to develop indicators capable of measuring rural deprivation or disadvantage, beginning with work funded by the Scottish Office some two decades ago (Burbridge & Robertson 1978). The concept of rural disadvantage is more nebulous than its urban counterpart (Midwinter & Monaghan 1990), and several recent studies have sought to complement the area-based approach, which relies upon small area data from the decennial Population Census to provide the foundations of urban poverty analysis, with client-based rural surveys (eg Shucksmith et al 1994, Shucksmith et al 1996).

The area-based information available on rural disadvantage is limited. Studies indicate that around a quarter of rural households are living in or on the margins of poverty in Scotland (ie with incomes up to 139% of their supplementary benefit entitlement). This increases to a third of rural households containing single elderly people (Shucksmith et al 1996, p.9). There is in addition a much greater polarisation of incomes in rural areas:

Rural disadvantage is also correlated with variables which differ from those in urban areas. Far fewer of the rural poor live in overcrowded conditions or in public sector housing, far more are identified with low socio-economic status and pensionable age. The standard Scottish Office approach to identify multiple deprivation has tended to favour urban problems. Miller (1980) used the following indicators, based on small area Population Census data:

• overcrowding

• head of household unemployed

• low SEG of household

• lack of basic amenities

• single-parent families

• pensioner households

• large families

• households with no car

• head of household with no educational qualifications

• households with three rooms or fewer.

The first and last of these indicators are peculiar to urban conditions. The use of car-less households as an indicator gives a peculiar bias against rural deprivation. Scottish Office studies confirm that car ownership in rural areas is more closely correlated with inaccessibility than with income. The need for a vehicle to live in remote rural areas suggests that disadvantaged households may enjoy even less disposable income in a rural context:

Table 3.6 summarises one aspect of the results of an extensive survey of town centre users in Angus burghs undertaken in the summer of 1998, which indicates the degree to which cars provide the predominant means of access to town centres even in non-remote rural areas. For those who are resident outside the burghs, car transport predominates and public transport is very much an ancillary mode. Even for residents of what are small burghs, car transport remains very important as a mode of access.

Table 3.6 CCTV survey of Town Centre users in Angus Burghs, Summer 1998 (722 respondents)

Recent work on indicators of rural disadvantage has come to see social isolation as an important measure of poverty. Work undertaken for Rural Forum and the Scottish Consumer Council (Shucksmith el al, 1996) has combined client-based survey work with area-based small area data, applying the following indicators:

• old age (especially for low SEGs)

• low wages

• unemployment

• low economic activity rates among married women

• poor housing conditions

• social isolation.

Since one of the areas chosen for survey work is a rural part of Angus, this has particular relevance for Tayside. The most interesting finding of this study is that the subjective assessments of rural poverty or disadvantage made by rural residents are at odds with "objective" economic indicators:

"Poverty by objective criteria is widespread in rural Scotland, with 65% of heads of households receiving incomes below the Low Pay Unit Poverty threshold.... Moreover, 49% of the sample had incomes below half the median Scottish wage... Yet many households experiencing poverty by these definitions would reject such an assessment of their position... people generally feel there is little poverty or disadvantage in their rural communities. Partly this divergence between objective and subjective perceptions arises from the stigmatic associations of terms such as poverty and disadvantage; partly it arises from contradictions with the dominant representation of the countryside; and partly it arises from many residents feeling that the non-monetary benefits of rural life outweighed the material disadvantages... The other major explanation is that relative poverty was conceived of as a comparison with lifestyles of the past, when conditions were much harsher, rather than with the current lifestyles of the majority" (Shucksmith et al 1996, p.509).

Another significant finding is that:

One conclusion to be drawn from the findings of such research is that an approach to the problem of rural disadvantage which is based on the creation of sustainable rural communities is preferable to attempts to use traditional policies to encourage eligible individuals to take-up benefits, when many do not regard themselves as disadvantaged. Repair grants to improve rural housing stock, along with community-based rural initiatives to improve rural accessibility and rural job opportunities, especially for females, offer what may be a more effective strategy to one which relies on promoting individual claimant benefit take-up. Suitable indicators for rural sustainability would include factors such as the extent to which local jobs are being created/lost, local housing stock is occupied/unoccupied and in good repair/disrepair, local schools remain open/are closed, local shops, post offices and recreational/leisure facilities are available/not available, and community-based transport (such as postbuses and shared school transport) is provided/not provided.

3.5 Community Initiatives

Agenda 21 emphasises the need for community involvement in promoting sustainable development (Selman 1996). Despite Morrey's reservations when the wider picture is considered, there have been a large number of community-based initiatives on top of regional and local government work, which have sought to identify indicators of sustainable development suitable for a range of communities, ranging from metropolitan to rural in scale (eg Atkinson 1995, Association of London Government 1997, Dundee Sustainability Forum 1997, Hamilton-Wentworth 1993, Walter & Wilkieston 1998). Within the UK these initiatives share a certain degree of commonality in their interpretation of sustainable development, which finds its origins in the national strategy. Overall, however, the most characteristic element of these approaches is their lack of uniformity.

Sustainable Seattle

Undoubtedly the best known of the community-based initiatives (which also entailed a high degree of municipal involvement) is that undertaken by Seattle. However, as a perceptive commentator has observed (Brugmann 1997), the value of indicators of sustainable development such as those developed by Seattle may be attenuated through their use to meet several multiple and sometimes vague or contradictory community objectives. In Brugmann's opinion, Seattle illustrates:

Alternative examples of community-based municipal initiatives in North American are used by Brugmann to illustrate how better design can achieve more effective results. Brugmann concludes that:

The basis of Brugmann's critique, which has important implications for the use of indicators by local and regional development agencies, is the complexity revealed by other research into the scope and purpose of indicators of sustainable development (Maclaren 1996). Maclaren's work identifies five different sets of indicators (with one divided into alternatives). Each of these sets could be useful in evaluating different aspects of sustainability within a community, but for each there would be separate methodological complexities, data requirements and standards of application:

• integrating indicators or indexes to portray linkages between economic, social and environmental phenomena;

• trend indicators, linked to targets or thresholds;

either

• predictive indicators, relying upon mathematical forecasting models;

or

• conditional indicators, using ‘if/then’ scenarios to estimate future conditions;

• distributional indicators, measuring intra- and inter-generational equity and specifying local, upstream and dowstream effects;

• condition-stress response indicators (depending on the framework applied) that provide simple causal models for local conditions.

Figure 3.5 illustrates the standard management loop applied to the selection of indicators based on this analysis (by Maclaren), who observes:

Figure 3.5: Steps in the urban sustainability reporting process (Maclaren, 1996)

Community Sustainability Auditing

Brugmann's concern at such findings is that Maclaren's research emphasises not just the differences in need, but the differences in approach, purpose and methodology when attempting to use indicators in all these ways. This complexity is also apparent in research on social matrices applied at community levels: community sustainability auditing. Walter & Wilkerson (1998) identify four benefits which communities can derive from the creation of local sustainability indicators:

• identification of what a community values and prioritising these values;

• accountability of individuals and larger groups for achieving the results wanted by the community;

• enabling people to measure what is important and to make decisions based on these results;

• building democracy through collaboration among people engaged in a community indicator process.

• Interestingly, these objectives are focused more on measures of management performance rather than the determination of environmental status, a point which finds an ally in Brugmann. Self-assessment at community level is seen by Walter & Wilkerson as a corrective to the institutionalisation of decision-making by local government. To this end, a community sustainability audit is:

This approach uses a conceptual framework through which to generate a set of questions for the community to answer. These are then used to reveal and assess the community's concern for its sustainability prospects, to identify a set of indicators capable of addressing and measuring these concerns, and to conduct an audit based on this framework. The procedure is not dissimilar in effect to the approach taken by the pilot authorities for the LGMB indicators study, part of which involved consultations with sub-authority local communities (Rowan 1995).

City Performance Indicators

It is difficult not to agree with Brugmann that too much is being expected of these indicators at community and local government level: an educational purpose, a technical instrument to gauge the state of the environment, and a performance management function to evaluate the effectiveness of policy making, delivery and implementation. Confusion between these aims frustrates their effective use for any of these purposes. Santa Monica, Brugmann argues, illustrates how a more focused use of indicators can be put to good effect. A Task Force was set up to establish community priorities on sustainability, following which a programme was developed in which the key elements were:

Table 3.7 offers a selection of the Santa Monica indicators, many of which, as Brugmann observes, were defined simply by the choice of targets. Brugmann concludes that although indicators can serve an educative function in communities yet to be convinced of the need to take sustainability seriously, the use of indicators in helping to deliver effective programmes should take priority:

Moreover, one can add, the use of indicators to measure performance is often simpler and more precise, because it involves more straightforward considerations, which can often be resolved by examining the nature of the target on which it is to be applied.

Table 3.7: The Santa Monica Sustainable City Program: selected goals, targets and indicators (Brugmann, 1997)

The Santa Monica performance indicators make little use of social criteria. Although social considerations are incorporated in the LGMB Pilot Study, as already indicated, a more extensive example of their use in this context is provided by the Association of London Government (1997) report on "Agenda 21 for London". This includes a specific element on civic engagement, in response to LA21 requirements to measure the extent of community and social involvement in decision-making at local level. Following an ALG Conference in November 1996, seven task groups were established to develop indicators, targets and action plans in the following key areas of local decision making in London:

• civic engagement

• economic vitality

• mobility and access

• health

• neighbourhood regeneration

• energy

• the natural environment.

The ALG approach is more broadly based than the P-S-R models considered above. In respect of civic engagement, the task force considered that three criteria were central:

• access to information which is meaningful to the lives of Londoners;

• some idea of what Londoners can do with such information;

• feedback from the consultation process, allowing Londoners to understand why decisions are taken in the way they are.

The ALG working group recognised that indicators on civic engagement would be hard to obtain. Efforts were therefore concentrated on establishing a baseline in respect of the above criteria and in using survey instruments to monitor changes from this. The key objective was to establish:

A "bottom-up" approach was adopted, in the belief that indicators for civic engagement should emerge from work with local communities, supplemented by survey work to establish attitudes towards sustainability and social inclusiveness amongst Londoners. Also considered were possible ways of enhancing civic engagement, such as the use of citizenship juries, surveys, the use of referenda, the establishment of community plans and forums (already initiated by Fife Council), and the extension of advice and information into ethnic languages and braille. Table 3.8 reflects the viewpoint of members of local government on the ALG to this end. Although an important initiative, the suggested areas in which social indicators can operate represent a narrower view of the purposes of social inclusiveness and civic engagement than has been proposed elsewhere in the literature (see above, Part 2).

Table 3.8: Indicators for sustainable development for London (Association for London Government 1997)

3.6 Corporate Initiatives

Brugmann's emphasis on the use of indicators for performance measurement leads logically to the final level for which indicators have been developed: the measurement of the performance of organisations. Corporate monitoring and performance indicators pre-date the concept of sustainable development by a long way, and have also been introduced in the public sector (eg Jackson 1998, CAG Consultants 1998). Environmental Performance Management (EPM) is a relative newcomer amongst such tools (James & Wehrmeyer 1996). It does nevertheless fit comfortably with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of quality performance standards, such as TQM and BS 5750, and has as a result spawned a set of related standards (BS 7750, ISO 1400, EMAS).

EPM is still in its early stages at corporate level. Nevertheless, corporate interest is increasing rapidly because of ever-rising statutory obligations, due diligence requirement pressures from shareholders and financial and legal stakeholders, and growing corporate acknowledgement of community responsibilities (as well as a recognition that, as the concept of ecological modernisation emphasises, there are many ‘win-win’ situations). Few organisations are yet able to measure all their environmentally-related parameters, and even fewer are able to determine the ultimate environmental impacts of their actions. Progress with respect to social impacts is probably even more limited. Nevertheless, as the monitoring and evaluation requirements of the EU Structural Funds programmes begin to bite, and the obligations under the Fifth EAP are felt (Jackson & Roberts 1999), the need for corporate social and environmental performance measurement will continue to increase, as will the need for appropriate indicators to this end.

James & Wehrmeyer (1996) identify five themes underpinning EPM:

• whether EPM activities should focus on indicators that have business as well as environmental significance, or whether they should be driven primarily by environmental considerations;

• whether EPM should be built on a holistic, quasi-scientific, ‘cradle-to-grave’, consideration of an organisation's environmental impacts, or whether it should be driven by management considerations such as useability and simplicity of concept. The German literature terms these alternatives ‘eco-balancing’ and ‘eco-controlling’, and has generally focused on the former, whereas Anglo-Saxon preference has been for the latter;

• whether EPM should be concerned with driving organisations to a pre-determined situation, such as sustainability, or whether limitations of data and methodology favour a more incremental and diverse approach in which EPM is used in organisationally-specific ways to meet organisationally-specific targets. Welford (1993, 1995, 1997) illustrates the switch from advocacy of linking environmental management to quality systems which favour incrementalism towards radical changes in corporate culture to make corporate activities compatible with sustainable development;

• the extent to which EPM is an internally or externally focused activity. EPM to date has been driven by validation and reporting to independently determined standards, and has largely been viewed as akin to financial accounting (Gray et al 1993). More recently, attention has begun to focus more heavily on the management accounting dimensions of EPM, ie the development of indicators to support internal decision-making processes;

• the difference between EPM and green accounting. The application of indicators of sustainable development to the corporate sector has stimulated extensive discussions of the general differences between performance management and accounting (a discussion which needs to be extended to the same topics at national and international levels).

Advocates of EPM argue that measurement activities need to be driven much more by overall strategic objectives as distinct from considerations of financial performance, which tend to characterise green accounting. The standard Anglo-Saxon approach has sought to link EPM with general quality management standards, emphasising the TQM approach. By contrast, corporate approaches towards indicators in Germany have been driven primarily by exacting and extremely difficult regulatory requirements, which have tended to develop the eco-balance and technical aspects of indicators as well as the management performance side. As James & Wehrmeyer (1996) observe:

Some of the more promising initiatives in this respect are being taken by partnerships charged with directing the use of development funds. Birley (1998) has undertaken research into ways of introducing sustainability into the management systems of the Eastern Scotland European Partnership. The Sustainable Development Project, funded by the EU as a pilot scheme (ESEP,1999), has employed consultants to examine the Partnership's programme. This initially applied a framework based on sixteen areas of action for testing sustainability. On this basis, the programme was found to be on an equal footing with other Objective 2 programmes, all of which suffered similar shortcomings in implementing the EU Fifth EAP.

As a result of further work, twelve core criteria have been identified for project selection which incorporate aspects of sustainability. These are summarised in Table 3.8, which illustrates how they relate both to the ECOTEC action areas and to the current SPD core criteria. The next logical step is to develop sustainability performance measures which can be applied to the relevant criteria and which will allow the effectiveness of the programme in fulfilling them to be assessed.

The DETR (1999) is also establishing an evaluation and monitoring framework applicable to the English RDK Development Agencies, for which a core set of indicators is being created. Five categories of indicators have been identified:

• contextual indicators providing a broad picture of the region as a backdrop to RDA strategies;

• influenceable indicators offering broad measures over which the RDA has direct influence;

• strategic indicators measuring the impact of the RDAs' strategic activities;

• programme indicators measuring progress on programmes delegated to RDAs;

• efficiency indicators relating directly to the RDA as an organisation.

At the same time, Scottish Enterprise is in the process of revising its own performance measuring system, the OMF, to reflect the broadening of its mission statement to encompass sustainability and quality of life considerations. In the following part of the report we consider in the light of our findings in this and the previous part how sustainability indicators which fulfil the task of performance measures may be identified for local and regional development agencies.

Table 3.9: Evolution of SPD Core Criteria for Project Selection (Birley, 1998)

Contents

PART 4: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OPERATIONAL INDICATORS FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

4.1 The Current Scottish Enterprise Context

The Scottish Enterprise Network Revised Strategy

The Secretary of State's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development in its recent report listing ten action points (Advisory Group on Sustainable Development 1999) identified the need for a specific commitment on the use of indicators by those charged with delivering sustainable development:

"Action Point 6: Set sustainability aims, objectives, targets and timescales

Sustainable development indicators should become as regular a part of public monitoring information as the unemployment figures" (p.2).

Hitherto, Scottish development agencies have focused their monitoring and measurement systems on the delivery of standard economic targets, such as the value-added criteria embodied in the Scottish Enterprise Output Monitoring Framework (Jackson 1998). The OMF is an example of the adoption of a systematic planning and reporting framework which also offered the capacity to provide performance review, quality assurance and strategic planning roles. This has now been superseded by a new Scottish Enterprise strategic framework (Scottish Enterprise 1998), for which a new set of indicators of performance is being developed. The new strategy entails a broader commitment to development, which emphasises the need for more long term strategic planning, to attain the following four goals:

• the presence of innovative, far-sighted organisations, capable of adapting to the many changes they see around them;

• positive attitudes towards learning and enterprise, investing in enterprises and people willing to take appropriate risks and accept opportunities;

• an inclusive economy, with policies which offer everyone the chance to participate in economic development;

• a competitive place, with the right conditions for economic and personal wellbeing, offering those in Scotland many opportunities and a good quality of life, including a healthy and attractive environment. This is seen as central to attracting workers and businesses with the right knowledge and skills (pp.16-17).

Although these goals are basically not incompatible with the pursuit of sustainable development, current development of frameworks for assessing performance in these respects remain heavily influenced by traditional appraisal and evaluative approaches which stress the primacy of short term economic objectives. The reasons for this are understandable and include:

• the existence of commonly accepted methodologies for economic appraisal and evaluation;

• the ease with which such economic tools permit quantitative measurement of targets and outcomes, which support standard ‘management by results’ practices;

• uncertainty about the processes by which longer-term, less quantifiable, broader objectives central to sustainable development can be integrated into an appraisal and evaluative system still targeted towards short term economic results;

• recognition that such integration will require the questioning of some fundamental development tenets, such as the extent to which the delivery of short term economic objectives can pre-empt the achievement of longer term sustainability (such issues are particularly acute in the Scottish context in respect of energy, waste management and transportation policies). New policy parameters need to be established by the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, before it is realistic to expect a development agency to incorporate them into its performance measurement processes.

Developing Performance Measures for the New Scottish Enterprise Strategy

Steps are being taken in this direction. Work is ongoing to integrate a broader monitoring and performance system for Scotland into a new measurement framework for Scottish Enterprise. The summary of such work included in this section presents an overview of the current state of play, which is by no means finalised. The observations made about the suitability of these processes for the delivery of sustainable development should be considered in this context.

Figure 4.1 provides a schematic summary of the tracking process being proposed for Scotland. This consists of establishing a set of national performance baselines, which are designed to operate alongside comparative benchmarking and the use of staging posts (‘milestones’) monitoring progress towards the four strategic goals within the new Scottish Enterprise strategy (considered also to represent general development objectives for the Scottish economy).

The bottom half of Figure 1 illustrates how the tracking system for the performance baselines is constructed around three core categories: people, economy, and quality of life and environment. These are then broken down into other sub-categories. Table 4.1 lists the main and subsidiary indicators (‘baseline measures’) being proposed for tracking the Scottish economy on this basis. Many of the caveats raised in earlier sections of this report apply to this exercise: for example, the extent to which trade-offs are likely between different measures and how these will be resolved in any attempt to provide an overall assessment of performance; the absence of a time horizon, essential for considering sustainability; the lack of a bottom-up community planning perspective, etc. These caveats mainly relate to the use of this tracking device as an appraisal and evaluation tool.

Table 4.2 lists the other important element in "Tracking the Bigger Picture": the proposed ‘Milestones’. These are the tracking indicators to be used by Scottish Enterprise and partner organisations in monitoring and evaluating progress at a Scottish level in the delivery of the four strategic goals identified for Scottish development. This table demonstrates that the goals are still being interpreted primarily in terms of traditional measures of economic progress, rather than the linked dimensions of sustainable development. The need for additional relevant environmental indicators is particularly evident.

Figure 4.1 - Tracking the Bigger Picture (Scottish Enterprise 1999a)

Table 4.1 - Tracking the Bigger Picture (Scottish Enterprise, 1999a)

Main Measures (35)	Sub-Measures (52)
Measures relating to Economy-Performance
Change in GDP	Per Capita Change relative to UK Incl/excl oil & gas Manufacturing (gross output) Services (gross output)
Labour Productivity	GVA per employee
Change in Value of Exports	Incl/excl whisky Incl/excl electronics
Business Optimism	Insolvencies New Business Starts Performance of Reuters/Scotsman 50 Index Construction Orders
Measures relating to Economy-Structure
Number of Enterprises	Per 1,000 persons Proportion of enterprises by size (small, medium and large) Proportion of employment in enterprises by size
Proportion or Workforce self-employed
Number of European HQs/100,000 population	% manufacturing workforce in foreign-owned plants Number of Scottish listed companies
Exports as % of GDP	Exports outwith Scotland
Employment by sector	GDP by sector Employment relative to GDP by sector
Measures relating to Economy – Drivers of Change
Investment (net capital expenditure)	Value of new FD
R&D expenditure as % of GDP	Employees in high-tech sectors R&D expenditure by business, government and education
% GDP invested in infrastructure
Gross number of new businesses	Per 10,000 population Net number VAT registration/deregistration Business survival rate (36 months)
Measures relating to People – Demography
Change in Population	Migration Natural Change Urban/rural split
Economically active population	Population by age band
Measures relating to People – Labour & Skills Markets
Number in Employment	Employment Rate Full-time/part-time split Gender split
Unemployment Rate	Unemployment /vacancy ratio
HE students/1000 population	Quals at 19 and 21 (SVQs/academic equivalents)
IIP employers	% of workforce covered employees receiving vocational training
Education and Training Outputs (ASCETT)	No. of persons on government training schemes/with employed status
Measures relating to People – Inclusion
LTU unemployment rate (12 months +)	Differential in unemployment rates across Scotland LTU unemployment (24 months +)
% of households without wage earner	Income support for 2 years + Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit Recipients
% of workers <half median male earning	% of households below 50% average income
Measures relating to Quality of Life – Prosperity
Average weekly household income	sources of income
Consumer Confidence
House Prices
Measures relating to Quality of Life – Social Well Being/Society
Life Expectancy (male/female/all)	Mortality ratio (UK=100) Invalidity claimants
Average weekly working hours	% Adults taking a holiday
Measures relating to Quality of Life – Environment
% of houses below tolerable standards
Vacant and derelict land	Brownfield land brought into use (% of total)
% of goods lifted by mode
% of waste recycled	Industrial Domestic
Air and water quality

 

Table 4.2 NATIONAL PROGRESS TOWARDS GOALS – Measures for Milestones (*indicates potential primary measures) [Scottish Enterprise, 1999b]

Strategic Goal	Sub-Division	Measure for Milestone	Source
Scotland with many innovative, far-sighted organisations	Business base	No. of high growth companies*	SE+HIE+Research
		No. of Scottish global companies	SE (JS)
		Investment levels	Scottish Abstract of STATS (SAOS)
		Exports (value/no. of new exporters)	SO/SCDI
	Research and application of knowledge	Total expenditure on R&D as %GDP	Regional Trends (ONS)
		Gross value added per employee*	SO/DTI
		Employment in high tech sectors	Reg Comp Inds (DTI)
		No. of spin-outs from universities	Current SEO Research (ST)
		Patents registered or research grants to universities	Current SEO Research (ST)
	Networks and change	Start-up rates in key sectors	Comm of Scottish Clearing Banks (CSCB)
		Venture capital activity*	British Venture Capital Assoc
		Levels of JVs, takeovers and foreign acquisitions	Research (Business Insider or Acquisitions Monthly)
		Membership of key bodies and networks eg CBI, SCDI, Export Partnerships, Entrepreneurial Exchange	Research
Scotland with positive attitudes to learning and enterprise	Attitudes	Private sector attitudes of Scottish skills level	Research
		Attitudes to Lifelong Learning*	Research
		No. of overseas students studying in Scotland	SAOS
		Attitudes towards entrepreneurship	MORI
		Interest in starting up a business	MORI
	Participation and attainment	No. of companies participating in EBP-type activities	SE + HIE
		No. of companies participating and attaining IIP	IIP Scotland
		No. of students entering tertiary education	SAOS
		% of employees receiving vocational training*	Labour Force Survey
		SVQ attainment	Scottish Quals Authority
	Enterprise creation	Gross no. of new businesses*	CSCB
		Business survival rates (36 months)	Regional Trends (ONS)

 

 

Strategic Goal	Sub-Division	Measure for Milestone	Source
Scotland where economic development is an inclusive process	Income	% of workers below half median male earnings	Scottish Low Pay Unit
		% of households below 50% average income*	Scottish Household Survey
		% increase in median earnings	Labour Force Survey
	Activity	Unemployment rate	ILO and SO
		Long-term unemployment rate	ILO and SO
		% of households without a wage earner	Scottish Household Survey
		Employment Rate/Economic activity rates*	SO
	Opportunity and integration	Increase in total employment*	Labour Force Survey
		Unemployment vacancy ratio	SO
		Positive outcomes from training schemes	SO+SE+HIE
		Companies involved in New Deal type activities	SO
Scotland as a competitive place in the world economy	Linkage	Investment in telecoms as % of GDP*	Industry Sources
		Total journey times to key markets by mode	Research
		No. of European HQ bases	TERU (Glasgow Unit)
		No. of banks conducting international business	TERU (Glasgow Unit)
	Infrastructure	% of GDP reinvested in transport infrastructure*	SO estimates
		Construction orders	SO
		Direct international scheduled flights (weighted)	Research
		% of goods directly exported from Scotland and by mode	SAOA
	Image and environment	Value and type of FDI	ONS/LiS
		Migration*	GROS
		Volume of tourism (British/overseas)	Scottish Tourist Board
		Brownfield sites brought into use (% of total)	SO

Appraisal, Monitoring and Evaluation Under the Revised Network Strategy

In parallel with the development of the framework for "Tracking the Bigger Picture", Scottish Enterprise has been working on a new measurement framework for its own activities which is compatible with the new Strategy. One model which was under active investigation during the drafting of this Report is summarised in abbreviated form in Table 4.3 below. This approach represents an attempt to link the Network’s general activities across all four goals, as summarised in the column on the right ("How will this happen"), through the changes that these are intended to produce within each specific goal ("Indicators of Change"), to the delivery of appropriate "Indicators of Success" in relation to each of these goals.

The table is adapted from the original, focusing only on those aspects under these headings which appear to be most relevant to the development of indicators of sustainable development. One advantage of applying this approach would be the flexibility to introduce new activities and indicators of change, provided they are contributing towards attaining the indicators of success. Some confusion about the concept of sustainable development is evident in some of the entries. This is most evident in the use of the word "sustainable" to indicate a wish that such provision/conditions continue (which is very different from the question of whether such a goal is sustainable). Apart from those identified here as being pertinent to the delivery of sustainable development, the original version includes many other indicators of economic achievement, and educational and training provision.

Since the initial drafting of this Report, further work has been carried out to develop a framework for gathering and reporting Management Information for the SE Network, which could be implemented for the 2000/2001 planning year. The present approach has moved away from the framework set out in Table 4.3, and focuses instead on information about activity and outcomes that can be measured during the planning year, or the subsequent year, with estimated outputs after three years. The emphasis is on outcomes that contribute towards economic impacts, principally jobs and GDP. Estimated outputs should be supported by evaluation work on a range of projects.

The basic framework, which appears to be a simplified version of the original Output Monitoring Framework, is split into:

• GOAL

- FOR EACH KEY RESULT AREA WITHIN EACH GOAL:

• Category of activity (e.g. "Grow global companies")

• Activity (e.g. "Number of assists")

• Outcomes (e.g. "Number of companies achieving global status; Number of new exporters")

• Outputs (e.g. "Increase in export sales; Jobs")

In this approach the only specific coverage of environmental activity is under the Key Result Area "Promoting Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Activity", within the "Innovative and Far Sighted Organisations" goal. The Activity is the number of assists, and the Outcomes are restricted to the Numbers achieving EMAS / ISO 14001 standards, and Numbers achieving energy savings / waste reductions. No outputs are listed for this KRA, presumably because such changes are not believed to produce conventional business benefits. The resulting environmental benefits are not regarded as meriting coverage as "Outputs".

Despite the emphasis within the new SE Strategy on developing integrated projects which contribute towards more than one goal (a fundamental aspect of sustainable approaches), these multiple benefits cannot be recorded in a systematic way within the new framework. The intention is that they should be identified through project appraisal, and picked up through evaluation. In this respect the new guidance for project appraisal from the Scottish Enterprise Projects Advisory Group shows the most significant progress in recognising the need to achieve a better balance between economic development, environmental quality and social equity. This was approved in November 1999, and is intended to apply to all major projects. It includes a "sustainable development appraisal" checklist set out in Table 4.4. These guidelines are intended to be indicative, rather than exclusive, and should go some way to building a practical understanding of the dimensions of sustainable development amongst project managers. Economic benefits and other considerations are covered by other sections of the guidance. This can be seen to tie in closely with the approach we develop later in this chapter for indicators of sustainable development.

The overall conclusion to be drawn from the review in this section of the work within Scottish Enterprise to develop a framework for strategic measurement, appraisal and evaluation of network activities must be qualified by a recognition much of this is still incomplete. Nevertheless, in respect of sustainable development there is at present a mismatch between the Strategy and the guidance on project appraisal, on the one hand, and the new measurement framework on the other. The measurement framework is still in a process of evolution, however. The basic structure is likely to remain as summarised above, but there should be scope to modify the details, for example by including environmental outputs, and modifying social/inclusion outputs. As sustainable development is not considered as a Goal in its own right, its significance as a cross-cutting integrating theme needs to be recognised and reinforced through the measurement framework.

Table 4.3: Summary of translation of Scottish Enterprise performance measurements into indicators: italics indicates those related to sustainable development (Scottish Enterprise 1999c)

Indicators of success (selected)	Indicators of change (selected)	How will this happen? (all goals)
An inclusive economy: Equality of participation in economic activity; All Scottish communities thrive and regenerate according to changing economic/social/environmental circumstances; Range, quality, diversity of communities preserved; Equitable wealth/prosperity distribution achieved; Good relatively to others in terms of socio-economic deprivation/lack of inclusiveness	An inclusive economy More from disadvantaged backgrounds in work/training; Better participation by key groups; Better social participation; Improved infrastructure support to disadvantaged groups, plus greater economic participation by these; More awareness among businesses of needs/interests of communities/individuals and greater willingness to respond in terms of jobs/training; Greater self-sustaining communities through increased skills, knowledge and resources; Increased community capacity to plan and manage own development; Improved economic and social connectors to support community development and sustainability.	Direct provision and influence on other players to maximise private sector input/involvement; increase range and quality of partners' contributions; provide value for money; maximise integration at strategic and operational levels; maximise contribution to other strategic goals; achieve properly balanced intervention recognising economic, social and environment factors; maximise effectiveness of network interventions through quality assurance systems.

 

 

Indicators of success (selected)	Indicators of change (selected)	How will this happen? (all goals)
Innovative and far-sighted organisations Scottish economy regarded as sustainable economic development and social partnership model	Innovative and far-sighted organisations Greater understanding by Scottish businesses of impact of economic change on communities and disadvantaged groups; More shared vision and effective strategic partnerships between Scottish organisations to deliver sustainable, inclusive economy; More Scottish businesses recognise and act on sustainable environmental responsibilities	As above
Positive attitudes towards learning and enterprise Benefits of learning and enterprise shared across areas and groups.	Positive attitudes towards learning and enterprise More Scots, Scottish businesses, other organisations and people coming to Scotland recognise benefits of learning and demonstrate capacity for enterprise and personal development	As above
Competitive place Scotland's communities survive and thrive; Scotland's prosperity widely distributed; Characteristics: High quality of life attained; High standards and effective use of economic and social connectors, eg: transport, housing, communications; utilities; leisure and recreation; industrial property; Sustainable and responsible land use pattern; High standards of cultural activity; High quality of natural environment.	Competitive place Increasing/sustained, relevant investment in infrastructure   Increasing quality and sustainability of key natural and built environmental attributes	As above

Table 4.4: Checklist for sustainable development appraisal (Scottish Enterprise 1999d)

Use of resources: consider the extent to which the project will positively advance business efficiency and growth through efficient use and management of resources, for example: - development and use of cleaner and/or innovative technologies - efficient procurement and use of heat and power, water, raw materials, etc - recycling and re-use of materials - waste minimisation policies - use of local suppliers - minimising long-term maintenance and management costs - implementation of environmental management plans

Efficient utilisation of infrastructure: Consider the extent to which the project will positively impact on infrastructure provision, ie maximising use of existing capacity and considering ways to reduce infrastructure pressure, for example: - being close to existing settlements, labour markets, suppliers and public transport - encouraging sustainable transport policies - utilising brownfield or already serviced sites - suing or refurbishing existing buildings - using existing utility capacity

Impact on social inclusion and local participation: Consider the extent to which the project will positively contribute to social inclusion, for example: - removal of constraints to employment - promotion of links between training and business - active participation of local communities in the project - consideration of the long-term viability of projects (eg avoiding future blight) - targeting specific labour groups/markets - enhancing understanding of social responsibility

Impact on the environment: Consider the extent to which the project enhances or protects the environment or minimises negative impact, for example: - protection of species at risk and enhancement of bio-diversity - raising awareness of sustainable development and enhancing learning - promoting visual amenity - positive changes in attitudes to sustainable development policies - contributing to understanding of environmental responsibility

The Bellagio Principles

The efforts currently being made by the Scottish Enterprise Network to produce effective performance indicators for its activities, which tie specific actions into the strategic goals, lack a clear appreciation of the significance of sustainable development and its implications for the normal activities of development agencies. The only indisputable evidence that this has been adequately absorbed is to be found in the project appraisal guidelines listed in Table 4.4.

It may therefore be helpful to consider at this point a statement designed to provide practitioners with a clear set of guidelines on how to incorporate sustainable development in the overall process of policy, programme and project assessment. This has come to be known as the Bellagio Principles, after the meeting place in Italy, where under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation in late 1996, an international group of measurement practitioners and researchers endorsed unanimously a set of guidelines to this end.

The full list is set out in Table 4.5. The ten principles can be grouped into four management stages:

• Principle 1 is the "mission statement" from which subsequent assessment of progress can be made. Without a clear mission statement acknowledging and accepting the objectives of sustainable development, subsequent progress by the decision-making unit responsible becomes difficult.

• Principles 2-5 provide the content of any assessment system for sustainable development. They focus on the need to combine an appreciation of the overall system needed for sustainability with the practicalities of focusing on priority issues.

• Principles 6-8 identify the key issues in any system of assessment.

• Principles 9-10 acknowledge the need for a capacity to evaluate and report on progress to this end.

There are perceptible echoes in these principles of the standard EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit) and other quality assurance schemes developed for environmental standards. Indeed, it is not difficult to envisage the construction of a specific management standard dealing with sustainable development along these lines, which could be adapted by relevant bodies to their own needs. In the absence of such a standard at present, and given the abundance of economic indicators already deployed to assess the new Scottish Enterprise strategy, the remainder of this chapter will focus on ways in which to develop and introduce social and environmental indicators of sustainable development more fully into the Scottish Enterprise management assessment process.

Table 4.5: The Bellagio Principles (International Institute for Sustainable Development 1997)

1. Guiding vision and goal Assessment of progress towards sustainable development should be guided by a clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision.

2. Holistic perspective Assessment of progress towards sustainable development should: - include a review of the whole system as well as its parts - consider the wellbeing 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

3. Essential elements 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 wellbeing

4. Adequate scope 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

5. Practical focus Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on: - an explicit set of categories or an organising 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 - standardising measurement wherever possible to permit comparison - comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction of trends, as appropriate

6. Openness Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should: - make the methods and data that are used accessible to all - make explicit all judgements, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations

7. Effective communications Assessment of progress towards 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

8. Broad participation 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

9. Ongoing assessment 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

10. Institutional capacity 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

 

Contents

4.2 The Suggested Approach

As can be seen from the discussions in Parts Two and Three, a wide choice of approaches and procedures exists in relation to the selection and application of indicators of sustainable development. Our recommendations attempt to distil the lessons of the analysis undertaken in these chapters and of the current state of play with respect to developing a measurement framework for the network outlined in the first section of this Part of our report, and to apply these to the selection of indicators that can be developed and applied by SET.

Although we would recommend that SET seeks to operationalise a shorter rather than longer list of indicators - for the sake of clarity and economy in the use of resources - we offer a wider range of potential indicators from which the final selection can be made.

Contents

4.3 Criteria for the Selection of Indicators

Table 4.5 above sets out the agreed Bellagio principles designed to provide practitioners with a clear set of guidelines for incorporating sustainable development into policy, programme and project appraisal and evolution. In terms of performance indicators, these principles stress the need for:

• an explicit set of categories linking vision and goals to indicators and assessment criteria

• a limited number of key issues for analysis

• a limited number of indicators of progress

• standardised measurement

• relating indicator values to geographic targets (principle 5)

For such a management tool to provide an effective means of delivering sustainable development, the Bellagio principles also emphasise the need for:

• ongoing assessment (principle 9)

and

• development of an ongoing capacity to incorporate the results of such assessment into the decision-making process (principle 10).

Our proposals seek to provide a framework capable of meeting these principles, tying into the broader goals and objectives for Scottish Enterprise outlined in Section 4.1. As our review of Scottish Enterprise goals and objectives has indicated, two levels of management are involved:

• strategic goals for the Scotland, the achievement of which involves successful co-operation with a wide range of partners engaged in the promotion of Scottish development;

• specific programme goals set by Scottish Enterprise for its own activities, which enable its own performance to be monitored and evaluated.

This suggests that in considering indicators of sustainable development, we should be concerned to distinguish between:

• contextual indicators, which enable the attainment of broadly agreed strategic objectives to be monitored for their impact upon sustainable development objectives - such indicators will be developed by Scottish Enterprise/SET in consultation with other regional and national partners such as local authorities, SHH and other public, private and voluntary sector bodies;

• influenceable indicators, which can be applied to measure the performance of Scottish Enterprise programmes - and in this case, specifically SET programmes - in delivering the sustainable development objectives under its influence and, as a consequence, the achievement of individual ‘client’ organisations.

• The ‘long list’ of indicators proposed in the following section uses this operational distinction. The contextual indicators provide a gauge of overall progress within Scotland towards the goals of sustainable development. The influenceable indicators offer tools which can be incorporated within the management performance framework of Scottish Enterprise itself. We apply the criteria broadly identified at the start of this report for selecting suitable indicators for both purposes:

• clear

• targeted

• effective

• relevant

• balanced

• long-term

Given the abundance of economic indicators already deployed within the Scottish Enterprise strategy, our focus is on identifying suitable environmental and social indicators which can be used alongside the traditional economic criteria. Once agreed sets of indicators for sustainable development are applied to the Scottish Enterprise Network, it follows that a modified system of appraisal and evaluation will need to be adopted to take these fully into account in selecting, monitoring and assessing progress in this respect.

Ideally, the indicators should fit into the Scottish Enterprise strategy framework, but not be constrained by it, so that if there are important indicators that do not completely fit, they should be included where most appropriate. This should allow a flow from strategy to project as follows:

• 4 goals

• contextual indicators

• influenceable indicators

• specific SET performance measures

• project-specific measures

The tables provided at the end of this chapter reflect this process. Two additional points must be considered:

• Which, if any, indicators can be identified that reflect a policy action or activity that can be influenced by or attributed to SET?

• How can SET ensure that the indicators which it selects will be accepted by other organisations both within the Tayside area and elsewhere?

The first of these considerations can best be addressed by SET staff, whilst the second point may be an issue for discussion with other parties. Irrespective of the final list of indicators selected, it will be essential to ensure that both of these points are satisfied.

Contents

4.4 A ‘Long List’ of Indicators

In proposing the following ‘long list’ of contextual and influenceable indicators, the authors are aware that not all of the indicators are applicable to all economic activities and to all members of the resident or employed population. However, most of the suggested indicators are applicable to most activities.

Some indicators may share the characteristics of both the contextual and influenceable categories.

Contextual Indicators

Some examples for the ‘long-list’ of contextual indicators to which SET will wish to contribute, together with an indication of the links to other key indicator sets, are provided below. The examples of links are of considerable importance, because such links illustrate the ‘nesting’ of policy objectives and indicators. It is important that the indicators selected by SET relate to those used at other spatial levels. Some examples of indicators include:

• journey-to-work - a reduction in the use of private cars for journey-to-work and an increase in the use of walking, cycling and public transport (this indicator is linked to many indicator sets, including DETR, 1998a and OECD, 1998);

• water use and quality - an improvement in river quality (over 96% of the river network in Scotland is assessed as of good and fair quality) and a reduction in the number of reported water pollution incidents (this is linked to various indicator sets, including DETR, 1998a and Bell et al 1997);

• waste generation and disposal - to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill (some 80% of waste in the UK comes from industry, construction and demolition and over 60% of the total amount of waste is disposed of in landfill sites). This indicator will have to be discussed and calibrated through negotiation with a range of other stakeholders (linked to OECD, 1998; DETR, 1998a; Bell et al 1997);

• the re-use, in general terms, of brownfield land and buildings - this is an indicator that reflects both the direct use of a resource (open greenfield land) and the indirect use of energy (much brownfield land is in existing urban areas), but it also reflects the beneficial re-use of premises that might be either unused or under used (linked to DETR in a variety of statements; Moldan, 1997);

• air pollution and air quality - reduction in the number of days of recorded pollution (linked to DETR, 1998a; OECD, 1998, Bell et al 1997);

• overall energy consumption - although difficult to attribute and measure, this can be used as a general indicator of growing awareness and action related to the conservation of fossil fuels and other energy sources (linked to most lists including OECD, 1998; DETR, 1998a: Bell et al 1997);

• enhancement of educational attainment levels, especially in disadvantaged communities (linked to DETR, 1998a);

• general improvement in public safety and reduction in crime (linked to Bell et al 1997);

• reduction in the number of persons in receipt of benefits (linked to Bell et al 1997);

These and other indicators are incorporated within the second column of Table 4.6. This table relates the contextual indicators, on the one hand, to the Network goals to which SET operates and, on the other hand, to the influenceable indicators and performance measures that may be selected.

Influenceable Indicators

Some examples of influenceable indicators are given below:

• transport mode used for the movement of activity-based materials and products - this should be developed at the level of the individual firm and should seek to identify all transport movements by mode and distance;

• water use and discharge quality improvements - the total amount of water used, the percentage recycled and the amount sent to drain;

• energy savings at the level of the individual firm - this would include all forms of energy used;

• incorporation of energy efficiency measures in the design/adaptation/renewal of buildings;

• waste reused and recycled - this would examine and measure the waste stream in an individual firm and the amount reused, recycled and sent for disposal;

• collaboration in the purchase, supply and safe disposal of all materials;

• use of existing premises for new activities and the use of brownfield land for the building of new premises, and the conservation and reuse of heritage;

• assessing and tracing the characteristics and sources of materials used in buildings and in the production of goods and services;

• introduction of environmental auditing and assessment as part of the routine management of a firm;

• introduction of new or redesigned products and devices that are targeted in relation to the market for environmental goods and services;

• provision of environmental awareness education and training for employees and the wider public;

• contribution made to biodiversity;

• employment of local labour, especially those from the immediate vicinity and/or from areas experiencing high unemployment and/or social exclusion;

• provision of training to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in the workforce;

• provision of support for improvement of community facilities;

• enhancing the active participation of local communities in projects;

• contributions to the reduction of both workplace and town centre area crime;

The relationship between these indicators, the contextual indicators and the specific SET performance measures is again shown in Table 4.6. It is important to note that although some of these indicators are linked to the indicators used in other research and policy documents, the real purpose in listing these suggestions is to allow SET to define measures that it considers suitable and to negotiate the application of those measures which satisfy the requirements of SET and its partners.

Following discussion and agreement on the selected short-list of indicators, advice can be provided on possible units and methods of measurement. It is important to be aware of the difficulties that are likely to be encountered in relation to the use of the suggested indicators, on the influenceable list.

Contents

4.5 Developing the Influenceable Indicators

Although it is not suggested that the full list of influenceable indicators proposed in Section 4.4 should be put into effect, it is helpful to consider how such indicators can be developed from an aspiration to a practical means of measuring progress towards the achievement of the objectives of sustainable development. Once a final list has been selected from the long list of influenceable indicators, each of the chosen indicators will be elaborated. Examples of such elaborations are included in Table 4.6. It is proposed that SET should set a context for each indicator that will enable a client organisation or individual to develop and agree specific performance targets and how such targets should be measured. These targets would, of course, be subject to review and calibration against established norms or standards of performance. To do otherwise would run the risk of either making a task almost impossible (if an unrealistic or difficult-to-achieve target is specified) or too easy (if the target is at or near an existing level of performance). The ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the application of influenceable indicators is not recommended in this report. Two examples of how an indicator can be agreed, calibrated and put into practice – what can be done as a ‘tailored-to-fit’ approach - are provided below:

• first, an example of energy savings strategy and its measurement (example A);

• second, the use of environmental auditing and assessment (example B).

Both of these examples are now discussed.

Example A

Energy Savings Strategy and Measurement

SET utilises the present EU and UK indicators of energy consumption in order to specify key target areas		Negotiate a set of targets with an individual or organisation eg x% reduction in use of gas.		Measure and report the reduction in consumption at fixed intervals
Targets and Achievements
SET identifies that ‘y’ energy savings agreements will be negotiated		SET meets first set of targets by negotiating initial agreements		Clients meet individual targets and SET meets completion targets

Example B

Introduction of Environmental Auditing and Assessment

SET identifies key sectors of activity that offer potential to benefit		SET negotiates with individuals and organisations that they will commence auditing/assessment		Monitor and report progress on the implementation of agreement
Targets and Achievements
SET specifies that it will initiate ‘x’ new audits/assessments in year 1		SET negotiates agreements thereby meeting first target		Clients meet individual targets and SET meets completions targets

 

Contents

4.6 Using the Indicators

As was noted earlier in this report, there is always the potential for conflict between objectives in the design and operation of sustainable development. policies. A similar tension exists in relation to the specification of indicators. However, whilst such tensions may exist, they do not undermine or diminish the need to provide full coverage of the range of factors that are encapsulated in the term sustainable development. Sustainable development itself is a difficult concept and contains many internal contradictions; equally, the indicators used to measure progress towards the achievement of sustainable development objectives will reflect many of these contradictions.

There are a number of ways in which SET can use the indicators. The contextual indicators can be used to guide SET’s contributions to:

• a range of partnership initiatives from local to national level;

• general programmes at regional, local and neighbourhood levels;

• overall national performance;

• reporting SET’s contributions and performance.

A ‘core’ set of indicators may be selected if so desired.

The influenceable indicators can be used to measure SET’s contributions and activities, including:

• influencing partner organisations;

• influencing the behaviour of individual firms and other institutional clients;

• influencing and training individual persons;

• conducting appraisals of applications for financial and other forms of assistance and in relation to other project proposals;

• contributing to general social and environmental welfare;

• assessing and reporting on SET’s performance at all levels - national, regional and local.

Once again a ‘core’ set of indicators may be selected.

In addition to these specific measures that are related to SET’s use of the indicators, the overall effect of using the indicators can be assessed. This will require SET to collaborate with other partner organisations in the design and operation of an agreed assessment framework

Furthermore, the growing importance of Community Planning as a form of corporate territorial planning and management should be acknowledged, and the requirements of the other partners in the regional ‘community’ with regard to the selection of sustainable development indicators should be identified. Given the importance attached to the measurement of progress through partnership in order to demonstrate the benefits of collaboration, it would be unwise for SET to pre-empt the preferences of other regional ‘community’ partners through a premature selection of a set of contextual indicators, to which SET and other partners will contribute. However, the influenceable indicators can be selected chiefly by SET, although reference may be made to partners in order to incorporate their views in the final selection process.

Finally, it would appear sensible for SET staff to set the pattern of behaviour for others to follow, by identifying and implementing a package of influenceable indicators and specific targets/measures that can be applied to its own operations. A responsible organisation should welcome the opportunity to set the pace for the implementation of a sustainable development approach in all of its activities; SET will strengthen its hand in many ways through the adoption of such an approach

TABLE 4.6 PROPOSED INDICATORS – THE FLOW FROM STRATEGY TO PROJECTS

Network Goals	Contextual indicators (* core indicators)	Influenceable indicators (* core indicators)	SET performance measure	Project-specific measure (indicative examples)
IFSO	Journey to work	*Transport mode for movements of people, materials and products	Several of these indicators could be covered by the number of organisations with which we agree targets + the overall shift/improvement in resource use etc that should result	Shift in volumes and distances by transport mode for each organisation + efficiencies resulting
	*Water use and quality	Water discharge quality improvements
	*Waste generated and split by modes of disposal	*Waste re-used and recycled/disposed of by individual firms	i.e. we would work towards: number of organisations introducing EMAS as a result of our intervention (and the number of account managed cos. with EMAS) number of organisations with which we agree specific resource management, local purchasing, or transport targets actual quantifiable targets for improvements in energy consumption, waste management, shifts of people & materials by mode, etc) Number of companies assisted to introduce products/services for the environmental market.	Shifts in waste handling from disposal to reuse or recycling for each organisation
		Collaboration in purchase, supply and disposal of materials
	*Energy consumption	*Energy savings by firm		Reductions in energy consumption ratio to output for each organisation
		Assessing/tracing the characteristics and sources of materials used in [buildings] and production of goods and services		Programme of specific changes to materials sourcing to reduce environmental impacts through the life cycle.
		*Introduction of environmental auditing ad assessment as part of routine management of a firm		Milestone dates for initial commitment, assessment, and review.
	*Employment in environmental industries and services	*Introduction of products targeted at markets for environmental goods and services inc. recycling/repair		Development and launch dates for new products and services, market penetration targets and performance.

 

 

Network Goals	Contextual indicators (* core indicators)	Influenceable indicators (* core indicators)	SET performance measure	Project-specific measure (indicative examples)
Learning & Enterprise	*Education and training attainment levels Levels of environmental awareness	*Provision of environmental awareness training for employees and the wider public *Percentage of those in employment receiving formal training	Incorporation of environmental modules into training programmes and company-specific training Percentage of employees in account-managed companies receiving formal training	Numbers of employees receiving training in environmental and community awareness, and appropriate technical expertise where required.
Inclusive Economy	*Reduced nos. receiving benefits               *Levels of dereliction of community and residential facilities Strengths and "capacity" of community groups and organisations	Employment of local labour, esp those from immediate vicinity and/or areas of high unemployment etc *Number of organisations with active "inclusion" policies *Provision of training to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups Support for improvement of community facilities   *Enhancing active participation of local communities in projects *Employment in the social economy Health of the "social economy"	Numbers from target groups employed in key projects Number of key account companies with active "inclusion" policies Penetration of training programmes within target groups, and measures of success (inc. pre-vocational milestones. Projects involving improvements to community facilities (inc.training programme projects) Number of social economy organisations assisted Number of community based financial services schemes assisted Initiatives supporting home working	Numbers from target groups employed in key projects Number of companies participating in specific business groups / initiatives Numbers / percentages achieving pre-vocational milestones   Facilities refurbished / brought back into use Community involvement in project implementation and ongoing management Numbers given management training, organisational development plan in place, being implemented. New community service established / performance targets

 

 

Network Goals	Contextual indicators (* core indicators)	Influenceable indicators (* core indicators)	SET performance measure	Project-specific measure (indicative examples)
Competitive Place	*Take of land by greenfield/brownfield split Housing quality and affordability Educational infrastructure and standards Healthcare infrastructure and standards *Public transport usage *Habitat and biodiversity changes *Public safety and reduction in crime   *Strong and distinctive local culture   *Pride in the local community, and resulting social/environmental responsibility	*Use of existing premises for new activities and use of brownfield land for building new premises *Energy efficiency in design/adaptation/renewal of buildings (both commercial and domestic) Assessing/tracing the characteristics and sources of materials used in buildings (and production of goods and services) Contribution made to biodiversity   Contributions to reduction of workplace and town centre crime   Conservation and re-use of heritage Support for distinctive local culture *Quality of public open space/civic space *Improved and managed public access to the countryside	Proportion of projects, and of land area developed, utilising brownfield land and buildings and greenfield Standards achieved in projects for which directly or indirectly responsible   Proportion of materials sourced locally (within x miles radius of site)       Number of projects which enhance biodiversity (inc company projects) Number of public safety initiatives in which LEC is directly involved Number of projects conserving recognised heritage (eg listed buildings and sites) Number of projects supporting local cultural activities Hectares improved for public amenity Km of footpaths/cycleways provided	Proportion of land area in the project to come from brownfield, remediation steps to be achieved Energy efficiency targets incorporated in design spec. Increased awareness of design consultants and contractors. Proportion of materials sourced locally (within x miles radius of site) Links to public transport provision, service frequency, eventual usage targets Targets for species populations in project area   Improvements in crime statistics; improved public perception   Future use of conserved buildings Attendance at cultural events Improved public perception of local amenity Completion dates, community involvement in projects, usage levels.

 

 

Network Goals	Contextual indicators (* core indicators)	Influenceable indicators (* core indicators)	SET performance measure	Project-specific measure (indicative examples)
General	Empowerment and self-belief of communities     Overall environmental and social impact of public expenditure   Best value for money	Active participation of local communities     *Public agencies following environmental good practice     Number of projects which have multiple benefits against the three dimensions of SD	Sustainable development targets incorporated into Community Planning (inc rural strategy, city partnerships) with genuine local involvement   Commitment by SET to achieving EMAS (leading in due course to accreditation)     Cross-goal targets for the organisation and for individual teams	Number / means of consultation and involvement, numbers involved, levels of satisfaction with the process   Target dates for staff awareness & assessment, targets for specific improvements, e.g. energy usage, materials sourcing. Multiple targets for each project

Contents

4.7 Conclusions

Although this study has demonstrated that there are many difficulties to be faced in the construction and implementation of indicators of sustainable development, it is also clear that this is a worthwhile exercise and that the benefit of developing a set of operational sustainable development indicators exceed the costs involved. In particular, the study demonstrates the validity of the established principle: if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it (Roberts 1995). This principle has been used to justify the introduction of sustainable development measurements in business, government and voluntary sector activities throughout the world.

As has been indicated in Parts 2 and 3 of this report, considerable advances have been made in recent years in terms of the relevance and ease-of-use of sustainable development indicators. These advances have demonstrated the benefits provided to all parties from the preparation and use of more sophisticated and better targeted indicators. A particular point of emphasis in much of this recent work has been the need to relate the overall achievement of sustainable development to the operational conditions associated with an individual business, agency or community activity. It is for these and other reasons that we propose the adoption of a two-tier approach to the development and implementation of sustainable development indicators.

At a level which reflects the role performed by Scottish Enterprise/SET in relation to the wide range of other regional partners involved in the delivery of sustainable development, we suggest the need to develop a set of contextual indicators. These indicators will enable the attainment of broadly agreed strategic objectives to be monitored for their impact on sustainable development. Such indicators will be developed in consultation with other regional and national partners.

A second set of indicators should be developed in order to reflect the direct influence exerted by Scottish Enterprise/SET over ‘client’ organisations. Furthermore, these indicators should be constructed in a manner which allows them to be calibrated to the requirements of an individual organisation. Rather than imposing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, which in many cases will be inappropriate and unhelpful, a ‘tailored-to-fit’ approach is suggested which makes use of a standard list of influenceable indicators.

Finally, it is considered important that Scottish Enterprise/SET should set the pace and standard of behaviour by adopting and using both contextual and influenceable indicators to chart the future pathway of performance and to monitor progress.

 

 

Contents

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Adriaanse A (1993) Essential environmental information: the Netherlands The Hague, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment

Agyeman J & Evans B eds (1994) Local environmental policies and strategies London, Longman

Alexander J M & McNicoll I H (1995) "Social accounting matrices - an extension of the Scottish 1989 Input-Output Analysis", Scottish Economic Bulletin 51, 29-46

Anderson V (1991) Alternative economic indicators London, Routledge

Association of London Government (1997) London Agenda 21: sustainability indicators, targets and action plans 1997 London, ALG

Atkinson A (1995) Sustainable Seattle: indicators of sustainable community 1995 Seattle, Sustainable Seattle

Atkinson G, Dubourg R, Hamilton K, Munasinghe M, Pearce D, Young C (1997) Measuring sustainable development: macroeconomics and the environment Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Azzone G & Manzini R (1994) "Measuring strategic environmental performance" Business Strategy and the Environment 3(1), 1-14

Bartelmus P (1994) Environment, growth and development - the concepts and strategies of sustainability London, Routledge

Barton H & Bruder N (1995) A guide to local environmental auditing London, Earthscan

Bell D, Gibson S, Newby L, Jeffcote M (1997) Getting better all the time: practical ideas for local sustainability indicators Leicester, Environ

Birley T (1998) The sustainable development project: consultation report Dunfermline, East of Scotland European Partnership

Bowers J (1997) Sustainability and environmental economics: an alternative text Harlow, Longman

Brugmann J (1997) "Is there a method in our measurement? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning" Local Environment 2(1), 59-72

Burbridge V & Robertson S (1978) Rural indicators study: indicators relevant to the assessment of socio-economic problems and priorities in rural Scotland Edinburgh, Scottish Development Department

CAG Consultants (1998) Integrating sustainable development into Best Value: preliminary guidance - main report London, Local Government Management Board

Carr M (1998) "Public participation in creating sustainability indicators" LARIA News 58, 6-8

Commission of the European Communities (1992) Towards sustainability: a European Commission Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment Luxembourg, CEC

Cobb C & Cobb J (1994) The green national product Langham Md, University of Americas Press

Colleran A & Atkinson A (1998) "Taking the right measures" Scotland's 21 Today Jan/Feb, 8-9

Common M (1995) Sustainability and policy: limits to economics Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Council for the Protection of Rural England (1998) What you measure matters: a green approach to competitiveness London, CPRE

Daly H E (1977) Steady state economics San Francisco, Freeman

Dasgupta P (1995) "Optimal development and the idea of net national product" in Goldin I & Winters L A eds The economics of sustainable development Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Department of the Environment (1996) Indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom London, HMSO

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998a) Sustainability counts: consultation paper on a set of 'headline' indicators of sustainable development Wetherby, DETR

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998b) Prescott launches first ever quality of life barometer Press Release 991, London, DETR

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999a) A better quality of life: a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom, Cmnd.4345, London, Stationary Office.

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999b) Quality of life counts: Indicators for a strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom, London, DETR

Development and Planning Services (1996) The green report: sustainability indicators for Central Region 1996 Stirling, Central Regional Council

Dundee City Council (1998) Planning for sustainability: Dundee LA 21 programme review Dundee, DCC

Dundee Sustainability Forum (1997) A vision for sustainable development in Dundee Dundee, DSF

Economic Planning and Development Department (1995) Sustainability indicators project: summary and recommendations Glenrothes, Fife Regional Council

EKOS (1998) Eastern Scotland Objective 2 Programme 1997-99: programme baseline and performance indicators, Final report Glasgow, EKOS

ESEP (1999) The Sustainable Development Project: Final Report, Dunfermline, Eastern Scotland European Partnership.

Eurostat (1997) Indicators of sustainable development: a pilot study following the methodology of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Luxembourg, CEC

Faucheux S & O'Connor M eds (1998) Valuation for sustainable development: methods and policy indicators Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Fife Council (2nd ed 1997) Sustainability indicators for Fife: improving the quality of life and the quality of the environment in Fife Glenrothes, Fife Council

Freeman A M (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods Washington DC, Resources for the Future

Ghazi P (1998) "Vital statistics" New Scientist No.2128, 4 April, 18-19

Giannias D, Liargovas P, Manolas G (1999) "Quality of life indicators for analysing convergence in the European Union" Regional Studies, 33(1), 27-35

Golan E H, Adelman I, Vogel S (1999) "Environmental distortions and welfare consequences in a social accounting matrix framework" in Frisvold G & Kuhn B eds Global environmental change and agriculture: assessing the impacts Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Gray R, Bebbington J, Walters D (1993) Accounting for the environment London, Paul Chapman

Grossman G M (1995) "Pollution and growth: what do we know?" in Goldin I & Winters L A eds The economics of sustainable development Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Guinomet I, Sensi A, Jesinghaus J, Parker J (1997) "Approaches to indicators of sustainable development in the European Commission", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Hajer M A (1996) "Ecological modernisation as cultural politics" in Lash S Szerszinski B, Wynne B eds Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology London, Sage

Hamilton K (1994) "Green adjustments to GDP", Resource Policy, 20, 155-168

Hamilton-Wentworth (1993) Sustainable community decision-making guide Ontario, Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth

Hammond A, Adriaanse A, Rodenburg E, Bryant D, Woodward R (1995) Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development Washington D C, World Resources Institute

Hartwick J M (1990) "Natural resources, national accounting and economic depreciation", Journal of Public Economics 43, 291-304

Hewitt N (1995) European Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: how to engage in long term environmental action planning towards sustainability Freiburg, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

Hocking R & Shaked P (1993) "Environmental performance quality: measurement and improvement" Business Strategy and the Environment 2(4), 19-24

Holland L (1997) "The role of expert working parties in the successful design and implementation of sustainability indicators" European Environment 7(2), 39-45

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (1996) The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide Toronto, ICLEI

International Institute for Sustainable Development (1997) The Bellagio Principles, Winnipeg, Manitoba. IISD

Jackson AA & Roberts P (1997) "Greening the Fife economy: ecological modernisation as a pathway for local economic development" Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(5), 615-629

Jackson AA (1998) "Determining the impact of discretionary development assistance: the Scottish Enterprise Output Measurement Framework" Regional Studies 32(6), 559-577

Jackson AA & Roberts P (1999) "Ecological modernisation as a model for regional development: the changing nature and context of the Eastern Scotland Structural Fund Programme" Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1 (1), 61-75.

Jackson T & Marks N (1994) Measuring sustainable economic welfare: a pilot index for the UK 1950-1990 London, Stockholm Environment Institute/New Economics Foundation

Jackson T, Laing F, MacGillivray A, Marks N, Ralls J, Styme S (1997) An index of sustainable economic welfare for the UK, 1950-1996 Surrey, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey

James P & Wehrmeyer W (1996) "Environmental performance measurement" in Groenewegen P, Fischer K, Jenkins E G, Schot J eds The greening of industry resource guide and bibliography Washington D C, Island Press

Jeffcote M (1997) "Sustainable development indicators - who needs them?" Local Environment News 3(10), 9-11

Lancashire County Planning Department (1997) Lancashire's Green Audit 2: a sustainability report - Lancashire's key environmental, social and economic indicators, their inter-relationships and trends Preston, Lancashire County Council

Levett R (1996) "Linking the indicators" Town and Country Planning 65(12), 327-330

Levett R (1999) "Baker's dozen needs leavening of wisdom" Town and Country Planning 68(1), 2-3

Linster M (1997) "OECD environmental indicators", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

McCleery A, MacDonald CC, Peat JA, Walker CA (1987) Economic and social change in the Highlands and Islands Edinburgh, Scottish Office ESU Research Paper No.13

MacDonald M (1998) Agendas for sustainability: environment and development into the twenty-first century London, Routledge

MacGillivray A ed (1994) Environmental measures: indicators for the UK environment London, Environment Challenge Group

MacGillivray A & Zadek S (1995) Accounting for change: an essential guide to sustainable development indicators London, New Economics Foundation

MacGillivray A (1997) "Social development indicators", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Maclaren V W (1996) "Urban sustainability reporting" Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2), 184-202

McLaughlin B P "Rural policy in the 1980s - the revival of the rural idyll" Journal of Rural Studies, 2, 81-90

Macnaughten P, Grove-White R, Jacobs M, Wynne B (1995) Public perceptions and sustainability in Lancashire: indicators, institutions, participation Preston, Lancashire County Council

Macnaughten P, Grove-White R, Jacobs M, Wynne B (1997) "Sustainability and indicators" in McDonagh P & Prothero A eds, McDonagh P & Prothero A eds (1997) Green management: a reader London, The Dryden Press

McKinley T (1997) "Linking sustainability to human deprivation", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Maeler K-G (1991) "National accounts and environmental resources", Environmental and Resource Economics 1, 1-15

Mayo E, MacGillivray A, McLaren D (1997) "The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for the United Kingdom" in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Midwinter A & Monaghan C (1990) The measurement and analysis of rural disadvantage Edinburgh, COSLA

Moffat I, Hanley N, Gill J F (1994) "Measuring and assessing indicators of sustainable development for Scotland: a pilot survey" International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 1, 170-177

Moffat I & Wilson M D (1994) "An index of sustainable economic welfare for Scotland 1980-91" International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 1, 264-291

Moldan B, Billharz S, Matravers R eds (1997) Sustainability indicators: report on project on indicators of sustainable development Chichester, John Wiley

Moldan B (1997) "The UNDP Human development Index", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Morrey C (1997) "Indicators of sustainable development in the UK", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Morrey C & Hillier H (1996) "How on earth do we measure sustainable development?" Statistical News, 112, 3-12

Mortensen L F (1997) "The driving force-state-response framework used by CSD" in Moldan et al, op.cit.

Neumayer E (1999) Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Nordhaus W & Tobin J (1972) "Is growth obsolete?" in National Bureau of Economic Research, eds, Economic growth, fiftieth anniversary colloquium New York, Columbia University

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1993) Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into transport policies Paris, OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1994) Environmental indicators Paris, OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1998) Towards sustainable development: environmental indicators Paris, OECD

Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier E B (1989) Blueprint for a green economy London, Earthscan

Pearce D W & Atkinson G (1993) "Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of weak sustainability", Ecological Economics, 8, 103-108

Perman R, Ma Y, McGilvray J (1996) Natural resource and environmental economics Harlow, Longman

Pinfield G (1997) "Sustainability indicators: a new too for evaluation?" in Farthing S M ed Evaluation of local environmental policy Aldershot, Avebury

Regional Development Agency (1999) RDA evaluation and monitoring framework (mimeo)

Roberts P (1995) Environmentally sustainable business: a local and regional perspective London, Paul Chapman

Rowan L (1995) Sustainability indicators project study report Glenrothes, Fife Regional Council

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (1994) Environmental measures - indicators for the UK environment Sandy Berks, RSPB, WWF and New Economics Foundation

Scottish Enterprise (1998) The network strategy, Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise Network

Scottish Enterprise (1999a) Baselines, benchmarks and milestones for the Scottish economy, Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise Network

Scottish Enterprise (1999b) Guidelines for sustainable development appraisal, Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise Network

 

Scottish Enterprise (1999c) Measuring Scottish Enterprise’s contribution to the achievement of the new strategy, Glasgow, Scottish Enterprise Network

Scottish Environment Forum (1997) Poverty and sustainable development in Scotland: meeting the challenge of implementing Chapter 3 of Agenda 21 Edinburgh, SEF

Selman P (1996) Local sustainability: managing and planning ecologically sound places London, Paul Chapman

Shucksmith M, Chapman P, Clark GM, Black S, Conway E (1994) Disadvantage in rural Scotland: how is it experienced and how can it be tackled? Aberdeen, Rural Forum for Scotland/University of Aberdeen

Shucksmith M, Chapman P, Clark GM (1996) Rural Scotland today: the best of both worlds? Aldershot, Avebury

Strathclyde Regional Council (1995) Strathclyde sustainability indicators Glasgow, SRC

Sustainable Development Team (1999) Down to earth: a Scottish perspective on sustainable development Edinburgh, Scottish Office

Touche Ross (1994) Sustainability indicators research project: report of Phase 1 Luton. Local Government Management Board

Touche Ross (1995) Sustainability indicators research project: consultants; report of the Pilot Phase Luton, Local Government Management Board

United Nations Inter-Secretariat Working Group in National Accounts (1993) System of National Accounts New York, United Nations

United Nations (1993) Integrated environmental and economic accounting Series F, No.61, New York, United Nations

United Nations (1996) Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies New York, United Nations

Walter G R & Wilkerson O (1998) "Community sustainability auditing" Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(6), 673-691

Welford R (1993) "Breaking the link between quality and the environment: auditing for sustainability and life-cycle assessment" Business Strategy and the Environment 4(1), 25-33

Welford R (1995) Environmental strategy and sustainable development: the corporate challenge for the twenty-first century London, Routledge

Welford R (1997) Hijacking environmentalism: corporate responses to sustainable development London, Earthscan

World Bank (1992) Development and the environment: World Development Report 1992 Oxford, Oxford University Press

World Bank (1997) Expanding the measure of wealth: indicators of environmentallly sustainable development,Washington DC, World Bank (available at http://www-esd.worldbank.org/eei/wealth/genuinesav.html)

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future Oxford, Oxford University Press

World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme, Worldwide Fund for Nature (1991) Caring for the environment Gland, WCU

W S Atkins (1998) Development of an overall indicator of air pollution concentrations: final report Epsom, W S Atkins

Zimmerman W F (1997) "Towards evaluating social and institutional sustainability", in Moldan et al, op.cit.

 

Return to Top

---

home about us students courses research library links help new