Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 143
Appendix E
Sustainability Indicators
This appendix provides additional information about the extensive work
nationally and internationally to develop sustainability indicators.
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
Reviewing recent international work on sustainability indicators, it is evident
that measuring sustainable development has been a subject of many studies ever
since the publication of the World Commission on Environment and Develop -
ment’s Our Common Future (WCED 1987). A comprehensive assessment of
sustainability indicators was recently undertaken by the Scientific Committee on
Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) (Hak et al. 2007). This assessment was
followed by a collaborative effort on the part of statisticians in the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Eurostat, and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published as Measuring
Sustainable Development (UNECE 2009). The approach taken in this report is
a so-called capital-based one that examines ways to measure stocks and flows
of economic (market-based), natural, human, and social capital. This approach
is thoroughly discussed, drawing heavily on the Handbook for compiling the
United Nations System for Environmental and Economic Accounts (UN/EC/IMF/
OECD/World Bank 2003), commonly referred to as the SEEA where sustainable
development is defined as “development that ensures non-declining per capita
national wealth by replacing or conserving the sources of that wealth” (p.4); that
is, stocks of produced, human, social, and natural capital.
Although this approach implies substitutability among the different types
of capital, the authors drew on the literature of strong and weak sustainability
143
OCR for page 144
144 APPENDIX E
to argue that some categories of natural capital should be defined as critical
and thus not be allowed to fall below a minimum level: (1) a reasonably stable
and predictable climate; (2) air that is safe to breath; (3) high-quality water in
sufficient quantities; and (4) intact natural landscapes suitable for supporting a
diversity of plant and animal life (UN/EC/IMF/OECD/World Bank 2003). Taking
into account the difficulty of developing monetary measures for all the concepts
needed, the authors argue for the use of physical measures and other proxies in
developing a practical indicator set.
The authors noted that in actual practice, most sustainable-development
indicator sets were policy-based—that is, capable of changing over a sufficiently
short period of time to attribute the changes at least in part to specific policy
measures. Examples of these types of indicators are emissions of greenhouse
gases on an annual basis, energy use per unit of gross domestic product (GDP),
mortality due to selected key illnesses. They identify 27 indicators used in indi -
cator sets by at least 10 countries (see Table E-1). The authors do not question
the usefulness of the policy-based approach, but strongly advocate that it be
complemented by outcome-based indicators using the capital stocks- and flow-
approach (UN/EC/IMF/OECD/World Bank 2003). Examples of these types of
indicators are (1) (stock) average annual concentrations of ground level ozone,
(flow) smog-forming pollutant emissions per month; (2) (stock) health-adjusted
life expectancy, (flow) annual changes in age-specific mortality and morbidity,
(3) (stock) real per capita natural capital, (flow) real per capita net depletion of
natural capital. For more examples, see Table E-2.
The authors also reported a comparison of national and international sustain-
able-development strategies where they found that 11 indicator themes were com-
mon to a large number of the strategies: management of natural resources, climate
change and energy, sustainable consumption and production, public health, social
inclusion, education, socioeconomic development, transportation, good gover-
nance, global dimension of sustainable development, research and development,
and innovation (UN/EC/IMF/OECD/World Bank 2003). The authors of the re-
port suggested that most of the strategies can be captured by the outcome-based
indicators they propose but that indicators related to efficiency and equity might
well be added to the set to capture other dimensions of policy.
While the work mentioned above was under way, the United Nations Com-
mission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) revised its set of indicators in
Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (UNCSD
2007). Because many of the same statisticians contributed to both exercises,
there is considerable overlap, at least among the policy-based indicators. The
UNCSD set now contains 50 core indicators among a larger set of 96 sustainable-
development indicators. Among the 27 indicators mentioned above, all but one
(unemployment rate) are included in the broader UNCSD set, and 20 of them are
included among the core set.
OCR for page 145
145
APPENDIX E
TABLE E-1 Policy-Based Sustainable Development Indicators.a
Rank Broad Indicator Number of Indicator Sets Where Used
1 Greenhouse gas emissions 22
2 Education attainment 19
3 GDP per capita 18
4 Collection and disposal of waste 18
5 Biodiversity 18
6 Official Development Assistance 17
7 Unemployment rate 16
8 Life expectancy (or healthy life years) 15
9 Share of energy from renewable sources 15
10 Risk of poverty 14
11 Air pollution 14
12 Energy use and intensity 14
13 Water quality 14
14 General government net debt 13
15 Research and Development expenditure 13
16 Organic farming 13
17 Area of protected land 13
18 Mortality due to selected key illnesses 12
19 Energy consumption 12
20 Employment rate 12
21 Emission of ozone precursors 11
22 Fishing stock within safe biologic limits 11
23 Use of fertilizers and pesticides 10
24 Freight transport by mode 10
25 Passenger transport by mode 10
26 Intensity of water use 10
27 Forest area and its utilization 10
aBased on indicators where 10 or more countries or institutions have adopted them.
SOURCE: Measuring Sustainable Development, by UNECE, copyright (2009) United Nations. Re -
printed with permission of the United Nations.
A large number of the capital stock, capital flow, and policy indicators dis -
cussed in these two recent reports can be found in OECD collections of data and
indicators. In the various reviews and monitoring mechanisms for which such
indicators are relevant, the policy-oriented and output-oriented capital-flow types
of indicators are well represented. However, the capital-stock indicators are not
widely used in OECD work; nor are they often used in the national sustainable-
development indicators of the OECD member countries.
A large number of sustainability indicators have been identified, a large
fraction of which being most directly related to the environmental pillar. The
large number of environmental indicators may be indicative of the complexities
OCR for page 146
146 APPENDIX E
TABLE E-2 Outcome-Oriented Sustainable-Development Indicators
Indicator Domain Stock Indicators Flow Indicators
Foundational Health-adjusted life expectancy Changes in age-specific mortality
well-being and morbidity
Percentage of population with post- Enrollment in post-secondary
secondary education education
Temperature deviations from norms Greenhouse gas emissions
Ground-level ozone and fine-particulate Smog-forming pollutant
concentrations emissions
Quality-adjusted water availability Nutrient loadings to water bodies
Fragmentation of natural habitats Conversion of natural habitats to
other uses
Economic Real per capita net foreign financial Real per capita investment in
well-being asset holdings foreign financial assets
Real per capita produced capital Real per capita net investment in
produced capital
Real per capita human capital Real per capita net investment in
human capital
Real per capita natural capital Real per capita net depletion of
natural capital
Reserves of energy resources Depletion of energy resources
Reserves of mineral resources Depletion of mineral resources
Timber resource stocks Depletion of timber resources
Marine resource stocks Depletion of marine resources
SOURCE: Measuring Sustainable Development, by UNECE, copyright (2009) United Nations.
Reprinted with permission of the United Nations.
involved in characterizing the environment, or social and economic indicators
have had more time to mature. Therefore, such that a more refined set has been
identified and is viewed as providing sufficient information. The large number of
available indicators has resulted in a trend to reduce the large number by group -
ing indicators in indicator sets or to develop integrated or aggregated indicators,
potentially all the way down to a single index of overall sustainability. An ap-
propriately constructed indicator set should adequately characterize the state and
potential trend of the environment at the scale applied. For example, OECD has
reported on a set of aggregated indicators in Aggregated Environmental Indices:
Review of Aggregation Methodologies in Use (OECD 2002).
Another effort to assess international sustainability indicators includes the
Yale Environmental Performance Index. This index was developed to quantita-
tively assess a country’s national performance on a core set of 25 performance
indicators tracked across ten policy categories, including environmental, public
health, and ecosystem vitality. The index is used to gauge how closely countries
meet environmental policy goals (Yale 2011).
OCR for page 147
147
APPENDIX E
DEVELOPING AND SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
Although a large number of indicators may make communication more
difficult and have less impact, information is potentially lost as the number of
indicators is reduced, and the process likely to involve some level of arbitrari -
ness, which can in turn lead to argument. For example, the Columbia/Yale Envi-
ronmental Sustainability Index (ESI) began with 76 data sets grouped in five
components to derive 21 indicators, which were then equally weighted to develop
the ESI. The authors readily acknowledge the limitations of the ESI and under-
stand that achieving full consensus on the appropriate weighting will be difficult.
However, they also note its utility to gauge current environmental conditions and
the likely future trajectory. Excessive narrowing of the range of indicators has the
potential for negative unintended consequences, including masking potential
trade-offs important to a decision.
Potential attractions to having a limited number of indices (potentially one)
include communication and spurring change. The formulation of the index or
indicator set, while open to debate, can also be used to promote beneficial change
and to engage the public in the process. Public participation may include discus -
sion of what indicator sets should be used. The index and indicator set would
be integrative (synthetic), retaining the links between the facets of sustainability
rather than being simply aggregate and would reflect all three pillars.
More detailed suites of indicators can be used for high-level analyses and
discussions, such as identifying important trade-offs. For example the air-quality
index (AQI) is a simple number that reflects multiple pollutant concentrations
that is being effectively used to communicate something about the state of air
locally. How to improve air effectively (and thus improve the local AQI) requires
the consideration of a much larger set of indicators and the application of various
tools to identify how the system will respond to policies and how indicators are
linked. Thus, one set of indicators is linked to what is most directly actionable
(emissions), another set is used to assess characteristics of the state of the system
(pollutant concentrations) germane to the desired end point (healthy air), and the
AQI is used to assist communication.
Data availability will be key to the development and use of sustainability
indicators. Data availability could be accomplished by EPA collecting indicator
data but not providing the score card. Local agencies should compile their own
report cards based on guidance put forth by EPA. Data is the foundation of both
indicators and the application and evaluation of tools. The type of data that should
be collected will be determined as a product of goal setting and the resultant
choice of indicators and tools. The potential availability of data will also inform
the choice of goals, indicators, and tools.
Data that are likely to be used will probably be characterized by heterogene -
ity and range across multiple environmental measures. Collecting environmen -
tally oriented data and maintaining them in a readily usable system, such as EPA’s
OCR for page 148
148 APPENDIX E
Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Program,1 would introduce a system-
atic way to address the heterogeneity. Data that would be used for economic and
social analyses would probably be obtained from the associated agencies.
Potential areas where environmental sustainability indicators may need to be
introduced outside of typical environmental indicators are those characterizing
health risks associated with environmental exposure and environmental justice.
Further, fully capturing the benefits of adopting a sustainability approach will
require adding indicators addressing economic and social considerations. Sustain-
ability indicators currently do include health end points that may be impacted
by environmental stressors. However, these indicators (e.g., hospital admissions,
cancer incidence) usually describe endpoints that reflect many causes of which
traditional environmental problems are a small fraction. These indicators may, in
part, be drawn from World Health Organization (WHO) analyses (e.g., the Burden
of Disease); prior EPA risk assessments; and work done by the U.S. Center for
Disease Control (CDC). The advantages of such indicators are that they can be
directly integrated within risk assessment and tools and expertise that already
exist within and beyond the agency.
In the field of human health, there has been many advances in the modeling
of infectious diseases using geographical information and similar advanced track-
ing tools, which can include the many indicators that are part of sustainability.
The indicators are now being applied to environmental health by the integration
of health, exposure, and hazard information (CDC 2010). Other social and eco -
nomic parameters, such as housing stock and income, can be added, as is being
done in the U.S. National Children’s Health Study of 100,000 children to be
followed from early pregnancy to adulthood (Scheidt et al. 2009). However, the
challenges to develop integrated indicators for environmental health are greater
than for those infectious disease because the infectious disease cause and out -
come are much more clearly linked (e.g., cholera is caused by Vibrio. Cholera,
tuberculosis is cause by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis, and avian flu can be identi-
fied and tracked in birds and humans). For example, it is not known which cases
of asthma are caused by ozone inhalation and which cases of bladder cancer are
caused by arsenic in drinking water, thereby complicating the development of
information needed to clearly link human health effects and the environmental
risks managed by EPA.
1 The ReVA Program conducts research on various innovative approaches to evaluate and
interpret large datasets and uses models to assess the current conditions and probable outcomes of
environmental decisions. Working with various decision makers, such as regions or national program
the data are used to understand the current conditions of an area of interest. ReVA is used to conduct
research on stressors that may be influencing those conditions and to develop scenarios to project how
stressors may look in the future (EPA 2009).
OCR for page 149
149
APPENDIX E
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR EFFORTS AT EPA
EPA, because of its mission, has focused more on the state of the environ-
ment than on economic and social considerations. In this respect, it has made con-
siderable progress in recent years. In its 2008 Report on the Environment (ROE),
the agency provided historical trends and analysis on 85 indicators related to the
environment and human health (EPA 2008). The indicators chosen were based
on a set of six well-defined criteria (see Box I-1 in the ROE) and were used in
the five thematic chapters of the report: Air, Water, Land, Human Exposure and
Health, and Ecological Conditions. Among the 85 indicators, both stock-and-flow
indicators are represented, and many of them, particularly the flow indicators,
are highly policy relevant. As might have been expected, they have been well
chosen from an environmental and human health perspective. Some indicators
were meant to be updated roughly every 2 years, and a number of them to were be
updated each quarter. By the end of 2010, all 85 indicators had been updated. The
report stated that administrative, socioeconomic, and efficiency indicators were
not included. By and large, sustainable use of natural resources is not addressed
either, with the exception of an indicator on freshwater utilization. Thus, the ROE
cannot be used to understand the relationship between social or economic drivers
and environmental pressures.
A sustainability approach would require EPA to use indicators that would
include those additional considerations. Although identification of indicators in -
volves other stakeholders, identifying economic and social indicators in particular
can be done collaboratively with other agencies whose missions focus on those
issues. Environmental justice is a growing concern, but review of the typical
indicators used to characterize either social or environmental states suggest that
there is a need to develop indicators specific to this concern.
Environmental sustainability indicators will be derived directly from obser-
vations or analysis of observations (e.g., as a result of modeling). Both types of
indicators have uncertainties, and information about the level of uncertainty may
be useful in Sustainability Assessment and Management approach and resulting
decisions.
REFERENCES
CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010. National Environmental Public Health
Tracking Network. Center for Disease Control and Prevention [online]. Available: http://
ephtracking.cdc.gov/showHome.action [accessed May 5, 2011].
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Report on the Environment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/roe/ [accessed
May 5, 2011].
EPA. 2009. What is ReVA. Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVa) Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/reva/about.html [accessed May 5,
2011].
OCR for page 150
150 APPENDIX E
Hak, T., B. Moldan, and A.L. Dahl, eds. 2007. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2002. Aggregated Environ -
mental Indices: Review of Aggregation Methodologies in Use. ENV/EPOC/SE(2001)2/FINAL,
Apr. 26, 2002. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [online]. Avail-
able: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/epoc/se(2001)2/
final&doclanguage=en [accessed May 5, 2011].
Scheidt, P., M. Dellarco, and A. Dearry. 2009. A major milestone for the National Children’s Study.
Environ. Health Perspect. 117(1):A13.
UNCSD (United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development). 2007. Indicators of Sustain -
able Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, 3rd Ed. New York: United Nations [online].
Available: http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/sdd/events/Rio20/WorkshopSDIndicator/
SustainableDevelopmentIndicators.pdf [accessed May 5, 2011].
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2009. Measuring Sustainable Develop-
ment. ECE/CES/77. New York: United Nations [online]. Available: http://www.unece.org/stats/
publications/Measuring_sustainable_development.pdf [accessed May 5, 2011].
UN/EC/IMF/OECD/World Bank (United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary
Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank). 2003.
Handbook of National Accounting – Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003.
Final Draft. ST/ESA/STAT/SERF/61/Rev.1. United Nations, European Commission, Interna -
tional Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World
Bank [online]. Available: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envAccounting/seea2003.pdf [accessed
May 5, 2011].
WCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yale. 2011. Environmental Performance Index. Yale University [online.] Available: http://www.yale.
edu/epi/files/2008EPI_Text.pdf. [accessed Apr. 25, 2011].
