       |
Possible
Indicators
The following is from Sustainable Development: A Working Definition and
a Framework for Indicators, Chapter 2 of Sustainable Development in the United States, An Experimental
Set of Indicators, December, 1998.
Definition of Sustainable
Development: One of the SDI Group's activities has been to develop a working
definition of sustainable development and a conceptual framework for indicators of progress. The
Group's discussions began with the definition of sustainable development proposed by the
Brundtland Commission in 1987: which is, "development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs." This definition can be interpreted in various ways.
For purposes of this report, the SDI Group considers sustainable development to be an
evolving process that improves the economy, the environment, and society for the benefit of
current and future generations. If we achieve sustained progress in all three areas, then it is
likely that we will leave the world in as good a state as the one we inherited, if not better.
Sustainable development is a journey, and measuring progress on that journey can never be an
absolute process because the journey involves a complex mix of biophysical realities and human
values. Ideally, we would like to have balanced and continuous social, economic and
environmental progress down the path of sustainable development. Ideally, we would also like to
monitor accurately and frequently our rate of progress on the journey. But in reality, achieving
such balanced and continuous progress will be difficult because of the complexities involved.
Variations in climate, cycles in the economy, shifts in social values, and advances in science and
technology are among the many unpredictable forces currently limiting our ability to predict and
monitor accurately our rate of progress on the sustainable development journey.
Finding opportunities to minimize these limitations continues to
be central to the work of the SDI Group. The Group is still far from achieveing an ideal indicator
set for monitoring the rate of social, economic and environmental progress toward sustainable
development. But at this time, there is sufficient understanding of the nature of sustainable
development to prepare an experimental set of indicators that can be used for a comparative
qualitative assessment to determine if the Nation is at least proceeding in the right direction on
the path of sustainable development. In such an assessment, the number of indicators showing a
positive trend can be compared to the number showing a negative trend. If the net difference is
positive, this would be a general indication that the Nation is moving in the right direction.
If we think of sustainable development as a three-legged stool, then one leg can be thought of as
representing the economy, another as representing the environment, and the third as representing
society or equity. The legs of the stool are grounded in traditional academic disciplines, such as
the social, economic, political, biological, and physical sciences. Over the years, each academic
discipline has developed its own concepts, statistical programs, and classification systems and is
often treated separately by government agencies and the private sector.
Concerns about job creation, economic growth, or investment have often been considered apart
from concerns about environmental quality or education, with less than optimal results. For
example, efforts to further economic growth in a particular geographical region without adequate
consideration of the region's environment, natural resources, and social character may lead to
urban sprawl, the disintegration of inner city neighborhoods, pollution, and/or the destruction of
habitat. On the other hand, efforts to avoid any changes in natural habitat or the environment may
hamper a region's ability to meet the economic and social needs of its residents.
Each economic, environmental, and social issue requires attention, but from the standpoint of
sustainable development, we must examine the issues together, rather than in isolation. There
will always be trade-offs among different interests, but this does not preclude us from making
decisions that advance all interests over the long term. For example, as a Nation, we have agreed
that we want clean air and water, protection from hazardous wastes, and a healthy environment;
and we have instituted a number of environmental regulations to further the achievement of those
goals. At the same time, we have not decided to eliminate all anthropogenic pollution, since that
would require us to halt many activities--from manufacturing, to transportation, to information
services--which improve our economic well-being. The income provided by these activities
makes it possible for us to invest in research and development, to invest in improved
technologies and infrastructure, to improve education, and to purchase food and shelter.
Trade-offs among the environment, the economy, and society will always occur, and there may
be more progress in one area than another at any particular point in time. Nevertheless, by
adopting multidisciplinary decision-making processes, we can develop approaches that do a
better job of advancing progress in all three areas over the long term.
We frequently pay more attention to our wants and needs than we do to the potential long-term
consequences of our actions. While we know that future development depends on having
adequate assets and resources, concerns about the future often pale in comparison to immediate
and pressing needs (e.g., for public safety or jobs). Consideration of the future becomes even
more difficult when there are uncertainties about environmental trends, ecosystem carrying
capacities, economic interactions, and future technological advances.
A set of indicators that reflects today's conditions as well as the assets and liabilities we pass on
to future generations can be an important tool in fostering integrated decision-making processes.
The indicators selected by the SDI Group are based on data that are currently available, primarily
from the Federal agencies. The SDI Framework organizes the indicators into three major
categories representing (1) long-term endowments and liabilities, (2) processes, and (3) current
results. These categories are then divided into subcategories for the economy, the environment,
and society.
One category of indicators chosen by the SDI Group--the current results indicators--reveals the
United States' progress or shortcomings in improving current conditions and experiences (e.g.,
GDP, air quality, or educational achievement). These indicators focus on human experiences
today and often receive the most attention in the day-to-day media. A second category of
indicators--long-term endowments/liabilities--provides insights into possible future challenges by
measuring the status of resources, capacities, and liabilities that we pass on to future generations
(e.g., capital assets, endangered ecosystems, or population). These indicators are a key to
understanding the evolving and intergenerational nature of sustainable development. A third
category of indicators--process indicators--includes the processes and driving forces that affect
either long-term endowments and liabilities or current results (e.g., investment in research and
development, emissions of greenhouse gases, or births to single mothers). In many cases it is
these processes that we may need to change if we are to design a path toward greater
sustainability.
The SDI framework emphasizes the links between the resources we inherit and utilize to meet
today's needs and those that we pass on to future generations. It also encourages us to think about
the economy, the environment, and society together, rather than in isolation. By examining a
diverse set of indicators together, we can begin to understand the conditions and approaches that
will support sustainable development. If we can do a better job of meeting today's needs, while
also enhancing the assets and resources we ourselves inherited, then we will be a step closer to
designing a path of sustainable development.
In developing the SDI Framework, the SDI Group drew upon the indicator work that has been
done by Federal agencies, by colleagues in The Netherlands and Canada, and by groups such as
the PCSD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UNCSD,
the World Bank, and the World Resources Institute.
P-S-R Model: A commonly-used framework for organizing
environmental indicators is the Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) model.
The P-S-R model is based on environmental pressures (e.g., emissions or the use of natural resources), environmental conditions or states, and human responses to those conditions. From the standpoint of sustainable development, one drawback of the P-S-R model is that it does not readily accommodate the full range of economic and social variables and time scales that are relevant to sustainability. In addition, it is not well-suited to accommodating the uniquely human skills of anticipation, prevention, and design. A useful framework for sustainable development indicators should be able to incorporate our ability to imagine and design alternative futures, including sustainable ones. If we focus only on damage control, then we are likely to miss opportunities for innovation and new ways of thinking.
The Framework: The SDI Framework builds on the P-S-R model, but it accommodates a range of processes--both positive and negative--related to the economy, the environment, and society. It divides the "state" category in the P-S-R model into two separate categories: "long-term endowments and liabilities" and "current results". This division emphasizes the multi-generational nature of sustainability.
The SDI Framework also builds on the familiar economic concept of stocks and flows. One can sometimes think of processes as the activities that utilize initial stocks to yield current goods and services, as well as the resulting stocks that are passed on to future generations. The endowments that are available in the future may be smaller or larger than today's stocks depending on how much we use and whether we are able to restore or enhance those stocks (e.g., through new technologies or environmental restoration).
As illustrated in Figure 2.2, sustainable development is not an end in itself, but rather an evolving process. All components of the Earth system--including human knowledge and technological development--are constantly changing, and in our effort to realize sustainable development, we must recognize and respond to these changes. In evaluating our progress, we can examine some of the parameters that appear to be most important today, even though these parameters are likely to change over time.
Major Categories of the Framework:
- Long-term Endowments and Liabilities
- Processes
- Current Results
- Table of Major Categories with Example Indicators
- Using the Framework to Organize Indicators
- Future Work on the Framework
It may be useful to take a closer look at the major categories of the framework.
Long-term Endowments and LiabilitiesWe inherit various assets, resources, and capacities from our predecessors, utilize some of them to meet our own needs and wants, and then pass them on to future generations. We also inherit a variety of challenges such as hazardous wastes, income disparity, and racial tensions that can carry over from generation to generation. Children can also be seen as another kind of endowment--one with very special characteristics--that is provided by each generation to the future. Indicstors that reflect these long-term assets and challenges are labeled as "long-term endowments and liabilities" in the SDI Framework. These indicators are especially important in assessing sustainability since they emphasize the need to consider the impacts of current actions on the well-being of future generations.
As an analogy, one can think about the endowment of a university as the long-term capital base that the university needs to ensure adequate funding for current operations. This endowment must be maintained to provide the income the university needs for the future. Indicators of long-term endowments and liabilities reflect the legacy we pass on to the next generation.
Processes
In the SDI Framework, general processes
include (1) the human activities that utilize endowments to yield current goods and services; (2)
natural Earth system processes (e.g., hydrological, atmospheric, terrestrial, biological, or
chemical); and (3) social, cultural, or political processes. Processes can include things as diverse
as manufacturing, atmosphere/ocean interactions, and democratic governing processes.
These processes give rise to a number of driving forces--both desirable and
undesirable--that directly affect the status of long-term endowments. For example, the industrial
production of paper is a process that provides paper for consumers and jobs for some workers
(current results), while also giving rise to the harvesting of timber and the release of chemicals
(driving forces) that could affect the long-term status of forested and aquatic ecosystems
(endowments).
Many of the general processes are affected by decision-making processes of
government, industry, communities, and individuals. Decision-making includes
things such as law-making, regulating, developing policies and management approaches, and
evaluating consumer choices. Decision-making is guided by information--such as that provided
by indicators--about current results, driving forces, and endowments. For example, consider the
production of wooden furniture (the general process): the decision-making processes that
determine the level and type of production would be guided by information about supply versus
demand for wooden furniture and associated economic costs (current results), by information
about the balance between forest growth and removals (a driving force), and by information
about the status of forested areas (the endowment).
Other examples of decision-making processes that regulate driving forces directly affecting
endowments are the government regulatory processes controlling the rate of wetland conversion;
and private sector decision-making processes resulting in shifts from high-sulfur to low-sulfur
coal for generating electricity.
The SDI Group did not identify a suitable decision-making indicator for inclusion in this report.
However such indicators will be considered in the future because many government agencies, in
implementing their missions, often directly affect economic, environmental, and social
sustainable development. A further opportunity for developing decision-making indicators that
will capture the linkages between sustainable development and government decision making is
the current effort by Federal Agencies to develop and monitor performance standards under the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA data collection and analysis strategies
that include both monitoring the acheivement of program standards and assessing the broader
impact of program implementation on natural, built, human and social capital could creata a
greater synergism between SDI and GPRA efforts.
The inclusion of an indicator in a particular category or subcategory of the SDI Framework
depends to some extent on the questions one asks. For example, an indicator on population could
be categorized as an endowment in the sense that it reflects workforce capabilities or as a current
result in the sense that it reflects current conditions. Another indicator such as income
distribution, which is categorized in this document as an economic indicator, could also be
categorized as a social indicator since it is so closely connected to a number of societal
issues.
Using the Framework to Organize Indicators Related to a Particular
Sustainability Issue
The SDI Group has found the framework useful in thinking about the many dimensions of
various sustainability issues. The example of the framework below includes some of the
indicators that relate to energy and climate change. It is not intended to be a complete model of
all of the relevant factors, but simply an illustration of how the framework can be used to
organize a number of related indicators. Just a few of the indicators in the diagram are actually
included in the set of 40 indicators selected by the SDI Group and described in this document
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, investment in research and development,
and the Greenhouse Climate Response Index). This diagram is based on some of the changes we
might expect if current greenhouse gas emission patterns continued into the future, that is, a
"business as usual" scenario.
Future Work: At this point, the SDI Framework should be
viewed as an experimental tool. In the coming months, the SDI Group will
begin to explore how the framework might be made more useful, and outside comments and
suggestions would be welcomed.
Return to Top of Framework Discussion
In the SDI Framework, current results include the goods, services, and conditions that are
enjoyed or experienced by present generations. Indicators of current results focus on
human well-being today and in the near-term. Many of the indicators with which we
are most familiar--such as the gross domestic product, unemployment rates, or crime rates--are
indicators of current results.
Category
Definition
Rationale
Examples
Long-Term Endowments & Liabilities
The assets, resources, capacities, and liabilities inherited
from our predecessors and from nature and passed on to future generations. We draw upon many
endowments to meet current and future needs and wants.
To track the condition of the assets, resources, capacities,
and liabilities that we pass on to future generations.
* Built capital such as public infrastructure, houses, and
telecommunications systems * Natural resources such as forests, fisheries, oil and mineral
reserves, air, water, and soil * Environmental conditions such as the quantity and/or quality of
air, water, or soil; or toxic contamination and hazardous wastes. * Capacity of natural systems to
provide aesthetic enjoyment and recreational activities * Social systems including families,
educational institutions, community organizations, and governments; and cultural and historical
resources * Human capital, particularly status of children.
Processes
(1) General processes such as human activities that utilize
assets and resources (endowments) to yield current goods and services; (2) general Earth system
processes; (3) general social, cultural, or political processes; (4) driving forces arising from
human or Earth system processes that directly affect the condition of long-term endowments; and
(5) decision-making processes that utilize information about current results, endowments, or
driving forces and affect human activities.
To track the human and natural processes that ultimately
determine the extent to which current and future needs and wants can be satisfied.
* General human-related processes, such as the production
of consumer goods and services * General Earth system processes, such as hydrological,
atmospheric, terrestrial, biological, and chemical processes * General societal processes such as
education or democratic processes * Driving forces such as the generation of pollutants or the
consumption or enhancement of natural resources * Driving forces such as investment in capital
and research and development * Socioeconomic driving forces such as poverty *
Decision-making processes such as law-making, regulating, developing policies and
management approaches, and marketing
Current Results
The goods, services, and conditions enjoyed or experienced
by current generations. The emphasis is on the present, rather than on the future.
To track our success in meeting the needs of current
generations.
* Food, clothing, and shelter * Income, financial security,
and employment * Personal and professional services * Safety and low pollution * Recreational
opportunities * Freedom from crime, and national security * Civil rights, personal freedom, and
personal fulfillment * Educational achievement
|
http://www.sdi.gov/indicators/full_fr.htm Last Modified: 4/22/02 |