Page 233

5
Reporting on the Transition

If a transition toward sustainability does emerge over the next two generations, it will likely be guided by the mosaic of information outlined in previous chapters. Its accomplishment will be determined by societies' ability to shape the trends toward the transitions described in Chapter 2, foresight of the future using tools presented in Chapter 3, and skill in navigating successfully the threats and challenges identified in Chapter 4, in order to meet the normative goals laid out in Chapter 1. In this chapter we explore the contributions that appropriate monitoring and indicator systems might make to our navigational abilities toward the goals of sustainability in a turbulent world of surprise and inevitable policy failure. These indicators assess the trends that signal a transition. More important, these indicators can stimulate social learning—going beyond research, and beyond science and policy debate—to attain the actual policy and behavioral changes needed for a successful course. Learning of this kind, though difficult to achieve, can be influenced by a set of indicators that shape the awareness and actions of individuals, organizations, and societies in much the way that weather forecasts and economic indicators already influence short-term behavior.

Indicators

Indicators are repeated observations of natural and social phenomena that represent systematic feedback. They generally provide quantitative measures of the economy, human well-being, and impacts of human ac-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 233
Page 233 5 Reporting on the Transition If a transition toward sustainability does emerge over the next two generations, it will likely be guided by the mosaic of information outlined in previous chapters. Its accomplishment will be determined by societies' ability to shape the trends toward the transitions described in Chapter 2, foresight of the future using tools presented in Chapter 3, and skill in navigating successfully the threats and challenges identified in Chapter 4, in order to meet the normative goals laid out in Chapter 1. In this chapter we explore the contributions that appropriate monitoring and indicator systems might make to our navigational abilities toward the goals of sustainability in a turbulent world of surprise and inevitable policy failure. These indicators assess the trends that signal a transition. More important, these indicators can stimulate social learning—going beyond research, and beyond science and policy debate—to attain the actual policy and behavioral changes needed for a successful course. Learning of this kind, though difficult to achieve, can be influenced by a set of indicators that shape the awareness and actions of individuals, organizations, and societies in much the way that weather forecasts and economic indicators already influence short-term behavior. Indicators Indicators are repeated observations of natural and social phenomena that represent systematic feedback. They generally provide quantitative measures of the economy, human well-being, and impacts of human ac-

OCR for page 233
Page 234 tivities on the natural world. The signals they produce sound alarms, define challenges, and measure progress. For example, measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere warn of possible climate change, population statistics show trends in the rate of growth of the human species, and Gross Domestic Product statistics attest to a nation's prosperity. Generally, indicators are most useful when obtained over many intervals of observation so that they illustrate trends and changes. Their calculation requires concerted efforts and financial investments by governments, firms, nongovernmental organizations, and the scientific community. Indicators are essential to inform society over the coming decades how, and to what extent, progress is being made in navigating a transition toward sustainability. Numerous efforts are under way to collect, analyze, and aggregate the information needed to form sets of indicators of environmental, societal, and technological change. These efforts range on an ecological scale from watersheds to the whole planet, and on a political scale from municipal to international institutions and activities. For reporting on a sustainability transition, however, it is clear that multiple indicators are needed to chart progress toward the goals for meeting human needs and preserving life support systems, and to evaluate the efficacy of actions taken to attain these goals. Indicators will be needed to monitor and report on human welfare and planetary life support at global, regional, and local scales to catch the appropriate signals. These signals will tell us if societies are on track or if they are headed toward unsustainability. If such indicators focus on different levels of human-environment interactions, it should be possible to measure the directions in which humanity is headed. Another set of indicators will be needed to aid navigation, and thus, help humanity steer a course toward sustainability. We begin with an overview of the current use of indicators, and then outline an approach formulated on the basis of the Board's normative objectives; finally, we address the role of indicators in navigating the uncharted waters of a transition toward sustainability. The Use of Indicators Humans have made repeated, precise measurements of some phenomena since ancient times. As archeologists have deciphered the use of astronomical observations in agrarian societies, it has become clear that environmental indicators have long been used to guide human behavior. The use of indicators has expanded with efforts of industrial societies to measure and manage a widening variety of environmental and societal parameters.

OCR for page 233
Page 235 In an information age, the abundance of quantitative data along with digital imagery (from satellites and ground-based observation systems) and broadband communications helps us to perceive multiple parameters in our complex and dynamic world. Yet much of the data available was understandably shaped by the conventions and precedents of scientific research, and was not specifically collected to assess progress toward selected goals for humanity and to manage future developments. Indicators are evolving to fill this gap by condensing complex trends into convenient index numbers, giving researchers, policy makers and the public concise assessments of trends and guidance for how to shape future policies and actions. Whether indicators signal the ability to understand, predict, or control important environmental or social parameters depends on the relevance and accuracy of the selected goals and measurements. How the understanding that such indicators provide is used to guide human behavior is a matter for society and its governance. Efforts to Formulate Indicators In day-to-day life societies use prices, news and weather reports, and other routine methods of monitoring to guide behavior and expectations. Indicators perform parallel functions for long-term changes and large-scale actions. As the members of the European Community prepared to institute a common currency, they agreed to meet numerical guidelines for their budget deficits as a fraction of gross domestic product, and this indicator was closely watched. This is a striking instance of the influence of indicators that are widely accepted in defining valued social conditions. For complex conditions such as sustainable development (or a transition toward sustainability), no single indicator can adequately track their state or changes; sets of indicators are commonly used to gauge various parameters that together indicate multi-dimensional trends in social and environmental change. The development of sets of indicators for sustainability has aimed at combining assessments of three aspects of nature and society: economy, environmental quality, and human well-being. One major effort to achieve such a combination is the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework presented, for generic environmental variables, in Figure 5.1.1 This framework is a guideline to formulate sets of indicators that assess aspects of environmental and societal trends influencing sustainability. Illuminating the interactive nature of sustainability, the Pressure-State-Response framework posits links between human actions and environmental consequences. Human activities exert pressures, such as burning gasoline in cars, that alter the state of environmental variables, such as the quality of city air. Those impaired states, in turn, elicit responses, such

OCR for page 233
Page 236 Figure 5.1 Pressure-State-Response framework for indicators of sustainable development. Source: U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (1999). as regulations governing pollution control technology in new vehicles. These three classes of variables identified by PSR can be measured using data that often are already collected for administrative purposes. Combining these data with a simple but flexible scenario captures a fundamental idea of sustainable development: that humans can impair the life support systems of the natural world, calling forth responses intended to protect environmental quality. Feedbacks are also possible. As the arrows in Figure 5.1 indicate, some responses can directly change the state of environmental variables, which in turn can affect the pressures exerted on people in some instances. For instance, the creation of a national park alters expectations of future uses of that land, affecting a spectrum of pressures of human origin. Some indicators, such as the value of adjacent private property, may rise, while others, such as mining permits, may decline. Also, it is straightforward to expand PSR to include the impact of economic development on equity, hunger, and other aspects of human welfare; the scenarios analyzed in Chapter 3 provide examples. Using the PSR framework, governments and nongovernmental organizations have compiled numerous sets of indicators for sustainable development using various measurement regimes. Table 5.1 shows one set of indicators advanced recently by a working group in the U.S. government.2 Figure 5.2 elaborates one of these indicators, high poverty census tracts, and describes how it is measured. The simplicity of this indicator set highlights the need for each of these major indicators to be backed by sound scientific understanding to evaluate their limitations for detailed interpretations.

OCR for page 233
Page 237 Table 5.1 An Illustrative Set of Indicators for Sustainable Development in the U.S. Issue Selected Indicators Economic Prosperity Capital assets Labor productivity Domestic product Fiscal Responsibility Inflation Federal debt-to-GDP ratio Scientific and Technological Advancement Investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP Employment Unemployment Equity Income distribution People in census tracts with 40% or greater poverty Housing Homeownership rates Percentage of households in problem housing Consumption Energy consumption per capita and per dollar of GDP Materials consumption per capita and per dollar of GDP Consumption expenditures per capita Status of Natural Resources Conversion of cropland to other uses Soil erosion rates Ratio of renewable water supply to withdrawals Fisheries utilization Timber growth to removals balance Air and Water Quality Surface water quality Metropolitan air quality nonattainment Contamination and Hazardous Materials Contaminants in biota Identification and management of Superfund sites Quantity of spent nuclear fuel Ecosystem Integrity Acres of major terrestrial ecosystems Invasive alien species Global Climate Change Greenhouse gas emissions Greenhouse climate response index Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Status of stratospheric ozone Population U.S. population Family Structure Children living in families with one parent present Births to single mothers Arts and Recreation Outdoor recreation activities Participation in the arts and recreation Community Involvement Education Contributing time and money to charities Teacher training level and application of qualifications Educational attainment by level Educational achievement rates Public Safety Crime rate Human Health Life expectancy at birth Source: Based on U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (1998).

OCR for page 233
Page 238 Figure 5.2 An illustrative indicator: high poverty census tracts. Census tracts have been defined for metropolitan areas, covering 75 percent of the total population. The poverty line is defined as the income level at which the estimated cost of a low-cost food plan for a family of three or more would consume 33 percent of the family's total income. A high poverty census tract is defined as one in which 40 percent or more of the population is below the poverty line. The percentage of poor people living in high poverty census tracts is a measure of the concentration of poverty in cities. It is widely believed that poor people are worse off living in areas of concentrated poverty than they would be in other areas, and that society as a whole suffers when these areas of concentrated poverty exist. The graph shows three measures of the concentration of poverty in urban areas: (1) the percentage of the population below the poverty line living in high poverty census tracts (from 16.5 percent in 1970 to 28.2 percent in 1990); (2) the percentage of census tracts defined as high poverty tracts, with 40 percent or more of the population below the poverty line (from 6 percent in 1970 to 13.7 percent in 1990); and (3) the percentage of total population living in high poverty census tracts (from 5.2 percent in 1970 to 10.7 percent in 1990). Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as published in U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (1999).

OCR for page 233
Page 239 Indicators of Sustainable Development Despite widespread agreement on the relevance of the Pressure-State-Response framework in formulating sets of indicators for sustainable development, diverse interests in the progress and definition of sustainable development have led to controversy over an acceptable set of indicators for its measurement.3 Quantitative indicators are often scrutinized more for their moral, economic, and political implications than for their scientific substance. This is in part because there is no widely accepted operational definition of the term "sustainable development"4 from which to guide the selection of the indicators (see Chapter 1). A result is that no single set of available indicators satisfies criteria for evaluation acceptable to all sides of the debate. This controversy often hinders the further collection of data, even when new studies are needed to appraise the reliability and accuracy of the measurements being taken. Despite these difficulties, there are numerous efforts underway to assemble indicators of sustainable development. These efforts range on a political scale from municipal to international and on an ecological scale from watersheds to the planet as a whole.5 Hundreds of indicators and numerous schemes to collect, analyze, and aggregate the information needed to form indicator sets have been proposed and various attempts have been made to rationalize them. For example, a recent effort vigorously attempts a "whole system" framework from existing schemes to provide a base for both information systems and dynamic modeling.6 Five separate projects are discussed here with the intent of outlining what is being done rather than providing an exhaustive survey. These include two global (United Nations, World Bank), two national (Netherlands, United States), and one local (Seattle, Washington) projects.7 A schematic overview of these studies is contained in Table 5.2, where they are sorted by the concepts of sustaining and developing set out in Chapter 1. As Table 5.2 illustrates, sets of indicators for sustainability tend to focus on maintaining the life support systems important to humans and on monitoring development and economic activity. Many indicators, particularly in the environmental sector, do not have long time series, so their ability to discern environmental trends is weak compared to the determinations possible with economic and social data series. In addition, coverage is uneven; although environmental indicators outnumber the rest, there is greater depth of coverage in economic and some social indicators (e.g., education and health), especially in the large UN indicator set. Numerous indicators are available at the level of the nation-state, but apart from information collected on urban settlements and land cover, few indicators are available at smaller spatial scales. The two American efforts included in Table 5.2, one by a federal interagency task force (see Table 5.1) and the other by an ad hoc citizen

OCR for page 233
Page 240 Table 5.2 Indicators of Sustainable Development Proposed in Various Projects   Sustain   Nature Life Support Community Indicator group UN Commission on Sustainable Development (1997) environmental 7 50 2 social 1 7   economic   13   institutional     6 totals 8* 70* 8*     World Bank, Expanding the Measure of Wealth (1997)     1     Indicator group Netherlands Environmental Policy Performance Indicators Adriaanse (1993) environmental themes   7   economic       totals 0 7 0   Indicator group U.S. Interagency Working Group (1998) environmental 8 12 1 social     7 economic   2 6 totals 8* 14* 14*   Indicator group Sustainable Seattle (1995) environment, population 2 8 3 economy     2 health, community, education     8 totals 2 8 13 * Column totals are greater than total number of indicators because some are counted in more than one category. ** Numbers marked with a dagger indicate the number of indicators that are potentially available in spatial (geo-referenced) form, at a level of resolution finer than national boundaries. Source: Based on US Interagency Working Group for Sustainable Development Indicators (1998). (table continued on next page)

OCR for page 233
Page 241 (table continued from previous page)   Develop Availability of Indicators     People Economy Society yes no unknown number of indicators Indicator group   environmental   5 5 8 27 20 55 social 17 7 13 37 3 1 41 economic   16 1 12 2 9 23 institutional   4 9 6 3 6 15 totals 17 32* 28* 63 35 36 134       1 1   1 2   3   Indicator group   environmental themes       7     7 economic   6 1 7     7 totals 0 6 1 14     14   Indicator group   environmental   4   16/13**     16 social 7 4 5 11/11**     11 economic 3 14 4 13/8**     13 totals 10* 22* 9* 40     40   Indicator group   environment, population   2   15     15 economy 4 2 1 9     9 health, community, education 4   4 16     16 totals 8 4 5 40     40

OCR for page 233
Page 242 panel in the city of Seattle, each chose about 40 variables, sifting from a larger number but converging on sets of indicators considerably more numerous than those typically used, for example, to assess sports leagues, financial markets, or local weather. Both the national and Seattle indica-tor sets include variables probing the sustaining of community, the aspect of sustainable development that has been least studied. The national set includes participation in arts and recreation, while the Seattle set includes a measure of gardening activity. The federal task force made a deliberate attempt to emphasize large-scale, long-range phenomena, similar to the Board's interest in a long-term transition toward sustainability. The efforts by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and the World Bank complement one another. The CSD indicators were assembled using a Driving Force-State-Response framework similar to that seen in Figure 5.1. Selected through a consensus process without an agreed-upon operational definition of sustainable development, the CSD indicators are numerous, diverse in the methods used to measure development or sustainability, and include a large number of indicators for which reliable measurements do not exist. The World Bank, in contrast, has estimated three capital accounts. Each attempts to capture the value to national economies of a vital aspect of the world. The most familiar account, of ''produced" capital, is what is normally called national wealth—physical capital and financial claims—and is marked in the "economy" column in Table 5.2. A second account measures natural capital—the resources and capitalized value of services provided by the natural world—and is marked in the "life support" column in Table 5.2. In principle, this would include standing timber, soil fertility, fish stocks, potable water, and the value of flood control by wetlands. Natural capital estimates are as yet primitive in comparison to those for produced capital. The most recent World Bank study takes into account only the use values of natural resources,8 an approach that ignores unpriced damage to ecosystems, as well as ecosystem services like the flood control capabilities of wetlands and aesthetic or moral dimensions of resource value. The third component of wealth, quantitatively the largest, is human resources—the economic value of labor, knowledge, and social institutions—and is marked in the "people" column in Table 5.2. The Bank estimates this dimension of wealth as a residual, by inferring the value of human resources needed to explain the generation of the actual flows observed in national income accounts. All three accounts, including the one measuring "produced" capital, are subject to errors of estimation. Already, the World Bank study has launched debates, but has succeeded in broadening the key issue about how to capture different measures of value in a transition toward sustainability. Although the Bank's indicators are highly aggregated and estimated

OCR for page 233
Page 243 using drastic assumptions, they are conceptually clear. The wealth of nations should be considered in three parts. At least at the margins wealth can be transferred from one account to another in ways advantageous to people. By contrast, the United Nations CSD indicators do not warn unambiguously of imminent hazards in any ecosystem or society, nor do they provide guidance on how to pursue sustainable development. Only the United Nations CSD indicator set includes variables that are not now being measured. This is a notable strength of the CSD process, the realization that much of what needs to be assessed about sustainable development remains unclear. Another strength of the CSD process is its recognition of the need to transfer reliable measurement methods to developing countries. The UN also has sponsored a wide-ranging, if still diffuse, research effort under the aegis of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council for Science.9 In evaluating measurements being taken in various categories, the SCOPE effort outlines a broad research agenda for indicators (based on filling methodological gaps, resolving inadequate existing efforts, making better use of existing designs), but does not provide a framework for monitoring indictors. In sum, the Board finds that there is no consensus on the appropriateness of the current sets of indicators or the scientific basis for choosing among them. Their effectiveness is limited by the lack of agreement on what to develop, what to sustain, and for how long—that is, there is a lack of agreement on the meaning of sustainable development (see Chapter 1), on the specificity or aggregation of indicators, or on the use of existing as opposed to desired data sets. The projects carried out over the decade since the Brundltand Commission popularized the idea of sustainable development have drawn on the large bodies of work done in past decades on the measurement of human welfare and the condition of the environment. These efforts bring together many sources of illumination, but have yet to produce a set of goals for social and natural conditions that can plausibly lead to prosperity for all while conserving the life support systems on which human economies rest. Consequently, they have not provided indicators set on goals for sustainability. The fact that societies do not have a clear path to a sustainable future is hardly surprising in light of the long time scales, large spatial reach, and unexpected turns of the future described in Chapters 1, 2, and 3. Yet controversy over the definition of sustainable development and the set of indicators to monitor its evolution has hindered scientific and political progress. In an effort to overcome these barriers, the Board now turns to the task of defining a framework for indicators to measure essential environmental and human parameters, and whose monitoring might guide societies toward our normatively defined transition toward sustainability.

OCR for page 233
Page 264 researchers concluded that events like the deadly industrial accident at Bhopal, India, or the discovery of the effect of chlorofluorocarbons on the stratospheric ozone layer shared several characteristics.57 First, the events were surprises, confounding social expectations. Second, however, they were not incomprehensible in retrospect, but arose from causes that were known in principle, often driven, in part, by variables that were being monitored, even though the surprise itself was not anticipated. Third, these surprises have the potential to harm large numbers of people and have actually done so in instances like Bhopal. Fourth, after the surprises occurred, the understanding of their causes provided opportunities to increase the social capacity to manage problems in the future. This is a promising finding: it says that societies can learn from surprises, so that they can better anticipate, avoid, or mitigate their consequences. But knowing how to improve management is also a temptation to operate closer to the edge.58 Surprises could therefore become more frequent as humans gain better knowledge of the world. This possibility qualifies the conventional notion that science is valuable because it improves our ability to control or at least predict danger. Even when we do gain knowledge, the fact that social systems may use that understanding to venture further into the unknown may lead to more frequent surprises. From this perspective, surprises are valuable indicators in themselves, both identifying particularly fragile or brittle endeavors and pointing to phenomena and processes that humans need to take into account. It is well accepted that surprises should produce humility. Surprises should also produce curiosity. On the time scale of the transition toward sustainability, curiosity and the learning it prompts are likely to be important, whether or not control can be extended in the short term. Indicators and Social Learning The lack of an operational definition of sustainable development leads to disagreement about which indicators societies should use to measure progress toward or away from sustainability. Without that agreement, one should expect spirited debates over the value, biases, and meanings of indicators. In the related sphere of economic policy, one can observe over the past half-century sharp disputes in the United States over economic growth, the incidence of poverty, unemployment, and inflation. All these characteristics have been indicators that American politicians think will influence voter behavior.59 Remarkably, the independence of the data gathering and analytical organizations has survived, despite their location within government agencies.60 This is one lesson for science: the independence of science is central to

OCR for page 233
Page 265 the social value of scientific information in a transition to sustainability. Preserving that independence requires prudent judgments about the use of science as a political resource.61 Another lesson emerges from the incomplete understanding of the nature of a transition to sustainability. Indicators are useful in the scientific quest for that understanding, but the collection and appraisal of those indicators must be part of a research enterprise that goes beyond what is conventionally called monitoring. Looking over the 50 year horizon for a transition toward sustainability, such an enterprise involves creative inclusion of both knowledge and know-how; it will have to go beyond the typically exclusionary lines drawn between science and technology. In Chapter 6, we call this sustainability science; indicators are an important element of study in that science. A third lesson is that surprise is itself a valuable indicator. Governments and societies should anticipate unexpected things to happen. In a policy context, the inevitability of surprise calls for a kind of precautionary principle: because surprise is likely, action should be undertaken with thought, humility, and caution. These qualities are not quantifiable, but that does not diminish their significance. Indicators used to report on a transition toward sustainability are likely to be biased, incorrect, inadequate, and indispensable. Getting the indicators right is likely to be impossible in the short term. But not trying to get the indicators right will surely compound the difficulty of enabling people to navigate through a transition to sustainability. References and Bibliography Aber, J.D. 1992. Nitrogen cycling and nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 220–223. Aber, J.D., A. Magill, S.G. McNulty, R.D. Boone, K.J. Nadelhoffer, M. Downs, and R. Hallett. 1995. Forest biogeochemistry and primary production altered by nitrogen saturation. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85: 1665–1670. Adriaanse, Albert. 1993. Environmental policy performance indicators: A study on the development of indicators for environmental policy in the Netherlands. Netherlands: Sdu Uitgeverij Konintginnegracht. ISBN 90 12 08099 1. Baltimore Ecosystem Study. 1998. Baltimore ecosystem study. Available, http://www.baltimore.umbc.edu/lter/. Visited 5/13/99 Barinaga, Marcia. 1996. A recipe for river recovery? Science 273: 1648–50. Benedick, Richard Elliot. 1991. Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 1999. Current greenhouse gas concentrations. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For this and related data series, including temperature, see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm. Visited 4/27/ 99. Center for Air Pollution Impacts and Trends Analysis (CAPITA). 1999. Washington University, St. Louis. Available, http://capita.wustl.edu/, visited 4/29/1999.

OCR for page 233
Page 266 Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project. 1998. Available, http:// www.asu.edu/ces/CAPLTER.htm. Visited 5/13/99. Chadwick, D. 1998. Rebirth on the great plains. National Wildlife 36: 20–28. Daily, Gretchen C., ed. 1997. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. di Castri, F., and T. Younes, eds. 1996. Biodiversity, science and development: Towards a new partnership. London: CAB International. Duncan, Joseph W., and William C. Shelton. 1978. Revolution in United States Government statistics, 1926–1976. A report of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards. Washington: US Government Printing Office. EMEP. 1984. See Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-West. Eaton, J. 1998. An absence of condors. Terrain 29: 24–31. Egan, Timothy. 1996. Urban sprawl strains western states. New York Times, December 29, 1, 20. ———. 1996. Drawing the hard line on urban sprawl. New York Times, December 30, Al, A12. Eisner, T. 1994. Bioprospecting. Issues in Science and Technology 10, no. 3: 18. Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63, no. 1: 107–126. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 1998. The state of food and agriculture 1998. Rome: FAO. FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistical Database). 1999. Rome: FAO. Available http://faostat.fao.org/. Farrell, A., and M. Hart. 1998. What does sustainability really mean?: The search for useful indicators. Environment 40, no. 9: 4. See also http://www.subjectmatters.com/indicators/. Fiedler, P.L. and P.M. Kareiva. 1997. Preface and Prologue. In Conservation biology. 2nd edition, eds. P.L. Fiedler and P.M. Kareiva, xvi-xx. New York: Chapman and Hall. Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3: 202–205. Gamez, R. 1996. Inventories: Preparing biodiversity for non-damaging use. In Biodiversity, science and development: Towards a new partnership, eds. F. di Castri and T. Younes, London: CAB International. Garrett, Laurie. 1994. The coming plague: newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association 63, no. 1: 95–106. Goulder, L.H., and D. Kennedy. 1997. Valuing ecosystem services. In Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, ed. G.C. Daily, 2348. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Green, Michael J.B., and James Paine. 1997. State of the world's protected areas at the end of the twentieth century. Paper presented at IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium on "Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks," Albany, Australia, 24-29 November 1997. Cambridge, UK: World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Available, http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected areas/albany.htm. Groom, M.J., and M.A. Pascual. 1997. The analysis of population persistence: an outlook on the practice of viability analysis. In Conservation biology 2nd ed., eds. P.L. Fiedler and P.M. Kareiva, 4-27. New York: Chapman and Hall. Gunderson, Lance H., C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light, eds. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

OCR for page 233
Page 267 Heal, Geoffrey. 1998. Valuing the future: Economic theory and sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press. Holmes, Steven A. 1998. Political interests arouse raging debate on census. New York Times, April 12, sec. 1, 1, 20. Hopkins, J.W. 1995. Policymaking for conservation in Latin America. Westport, CT: Praeger. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell. 1996. Climate change 1995: The science of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis). 1999. RAINS-ASIA web site. Available, http://www.iiasa.ac.at/~heyes/docs/rains.asia.html. Visited 4/27/99. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 1998. Compendium of sustainable development indicator initiatives and publications. Available: iisd1.iisd.ca/measure/compinfo.htm. Visited 4/6/98. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 1998. Annual report of the executive directors for the fiscal year. Washington: International Monetary Fund. ———. Monthly periodical. International Financial Statistics. Washington: IMF. Kaiser, J. 1997. When a habitat is not a home. Science 276: 1636–1638. Kasperson, Jeanne X., Roger E. Kasperson, and B.L. Turner II, eds. 1995. Regions at risk: Comparisons of threatened environments. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Kates, Robert W., and William C. Clark. 1996. Expecting the unexpected. Environment 38, no. 2: 6–11, 28–34. Korten, David C. 1995. When corporations rule the world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Lee, Kai N. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Lowe, P.D., and J.M. Goyer. 1993. Environmental Groups in Politics. London: Allen and Unwin. Lubchenco, J., A. Olson, L.B. Brubaker, S.R. Carpenter, M.M. Holland, S.P. Hubbell, S.A. Levin, J.A. MacMahon, P.A. Matson, J.M. Melillo, H.A. Mooney, C.H. Peterson, H.R. Pulliam, L.A. Real, P.J. Regal, and P.G. Risser. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda. A report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology 72, no. 2: 371–412. Ludwig, Donald, Ray Hilborn, and Carl Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 260: 17, 36. Magnuson, John J. 1990. Long-term ecological research and the invisible present. BioScience 40: 495–501. Matson, P.A., W. McDowell, A. Townsend, and P. Vitousek. Forthcoming. The globalization of N deposition: Ecosystem consequences. Biogeochemistry, in review. Meadows, Donella. 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. A report to the Balaton Group. Hartland Four Corners, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-West (EMEP 1984). Tables of anthropogenic emissions in the ECE region. Oslo: Norwegian Meteorological Institute. Available, http://www.unece.org/env/emep tbl/tab1.htm. Visited 4/27/99. The synthesizing center implements provisions of the Protocol to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution on the Financing of the Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe. Mickelwright, S. 1993. The voluntary movement. In Conservation in progress, eds. F.B. Goldsmith and A. Warren, 321-334. New York and Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

OCR for page 233
Page 268 Moldan, Bedrich, and Suzanne Billharz. 1997. Introduction, in Sustainability indicators. A report on the project on indicators of sustainable development, eds. Bedrich Moldan, Suzanne Billharz, and Robyn Matravers. Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons. Published on behalf of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment. Moldan, Bedrich, Suzanne Billharz, and Robyn Matravers, eds. 1997. Sustainability indicators. A report on the project on indicators of sustainable development. Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons. Published on behalf of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment. NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 1999. Measures of environmental performance and ecosystem conditions. Ed. Peter Schulze. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Measuring and understanding coastal processes. Committee on Coastal Engineering Measurement Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1990. Managing troubled waters: The role of marine environmental monitoring. Committee on a Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental Monitoring. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1991. Four-dimensional model assimilation of data: A strategy for the earth system sciences. Panel on Model-Assimilated Data Sets for Atmospheric and Oceanic Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1992a. Emerging infections: Microbial threats to health in the United States. Committee on Emerging Microbial Threats to Health, Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1992b. The national energy modeling system. Committee on the National Energy Monitoring System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1993a. A biological survey for the nation. Committee on the Formation of the National Biological Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1993b. Setting priorities for land conservation. Committee on Scientific and Technical Criteria for Federal Acquisition of Lands for Conservation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1993c. Toward a coordinated spatial data infrastructure for the nation. Mapping Science Committee. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1994a. GOALS (Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System) for predicting seasonal-to-interannual climate: A program of observation, modeling, and analysis. Climate Research Committee. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1994b. Promoting the national spatial data infrastructure through partnerships. Mapping Science Committee. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995a. Earth observations from space: History, promise, and reality. Committee on Earth Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995b. Finding the forest in the trees: The challenge of combining diverse environmental data. Committee for a Pilot Study on Database Interfaces. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995c. Infectious diseases in an age of change: The impact of human ecology and behavior on disease transmission. Ed. Bernard Roizman. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995d. Measuring poverty: A new approach. Eds. Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael. Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance: Concepts, Information Needs, and Measurement Methods. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995e. A Review of the biomonitoring of environmental status and trends program: The draft detailed plan. Committee to Review the Department of the Interior's Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 233
Page 269 ———. 1995f. Review, of EPA's environmental monitoring and assessment program: Overall evaluation. Committee to Review the EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995g. Science and the endangered species act. Committe on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1995h. Understanding marine biodiversity. Committee on Biological Diversity in Marine Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1996a. Linking science and technology to society's environmental goals. Committee on the National Forum on Science and Technology Goals: Environment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1996b. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Committee on the Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1998. Sustaining marine fisheries. Committee on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1999a. Indicators for monitoring aquatic and terrestrial environments. Water Science and Technology Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1999b. Integrated environmental and economic accounting. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. In progress. Review of environmental monitoring and research in the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Committee. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NSF (National Science Foundation). 1997. NSF funds first long-term studies of urban ecology. Press Release, 10/20/97. Available http://www.lternet.edu. Nakicenovic, Nebojsa.1997. Freeing energy from carbon. In Technological trajectories and the human environment, NAE 1997, eds. Jesse H. Ausubel and H. Dale Langford. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. The Nature Conservancy. 1982. Private, academic and local government activities. Vol. 3 of Preserving our natural heritage. Washington, D.C.: US National Park Service, Office of the Chief Scientist. ———. 1996. Conservation by design: A framework for mission success. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. ———. 1997. Designing a geography of hope: Guidelines for ecoregion-based conservation. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. O'Connor, John C. 1995. Toward environmentally sustainable development: Measuring progress. In A Sustainable World: Defining and measuring sustainable development, ed. Thaddeus C. Trzyna. Sacramento, CA: International Center for the Environment and Public Policy, for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Olney, P., G.M. Mace, and A.C.T. Feistner, eds. 1994. Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive animals. London: Chapman and Hall. Olson, David M., and Eric Dinerstein. 1998. The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the earth's distinctive ecoregions. Draft paper. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund US, March. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pearce, David W., and Giles D. Atkinson. 1993. Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of 'weak' sustainability. Ecological Economics 8: 103–08. Pearce, David W., and J.J. Warford. 1993. World without end: Economics, environment and sustainable development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

OCR for page 233
Page 270 Postel, Sandra L., Gretchen C. Daily, and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1996. Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271: 785–88. Reid, W.V., S.A. Laird, R.G. Elmex, A. Sittenfeld, D.H. Janzen, M.A. Gollin, and C. Juma, eds. 1993. Biodiversity prospecting. Washington: World Resources Institute. Rogers, P.P., K.F. Jalal, B.N. Lohani, G.M. Owens, C-C. Yu, C.M. Dufournaud, J. Bi. 1997. Measuring environmental quality in Asia. The Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University and the Asian Development Bank. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rothman, Dale S., John B. Robinson, and Dave Biggs. In press. Signs of life: Linking indicators and models in the context of QUEST. Paper presented to second workshop of the SCOPE/UNEP project of Integrated, Adaptive Ecological Economic Modeling and Assessment, 31 July - 4 August, 1996. Boston: SCOPE/UNEP. Sasson, A. 1996. Biotechnologies and the use of plant genetic resources for industrial purposes: Benefits and constraints for developing countries. In Biodiversity, science and development: Towards a new partnership, eds. F. di Castri and T. Younes. London: CAB International. Schimel, D.S. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biology 1: 77–91. Slocombe, D.S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management: Development of theory, practice, and research for planning and managing a region. Bioscience 43(9): 612–622. Spirn, Anne Whiston. 1984. The granite garden: Urban nature and human design. New York: Basic Books. Stork, N.E., and M.J. Samways. 1995. Inventorying and monitoring of biodiversity. In Global biodiversity assessment, ed. V.H. Heywood, United Nations Environment Program. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stork, N.E., T.U.B. Boyle, V. Dale, H. Eeley, B. Finegan, M. Lawes, N. Manokaran, R. Prabhu, and J. Soberon. 1997. Criteria and indicators for assessing sustainability of forest management: Conservation of biodiversity. Working Paper No. 17. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Sustainable Seattle. 1995. 1995 Indicators Report. Sustainable Seattle, Metrocenter YMCA, Seattle, WA. Available at: http://www.scn.org/sustainable/indicators.html. Visited 3/16/98. Tangley, L. 1992. Mapping biodiversity: Lessons from the field I. Washington, D.C.: Conservation International. Tenner, Edward. 1996. Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Knopf. Tilman, David. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Chap. 6 of Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, ed. Gretchen C. Daily. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Tobin, Richard J. 1990. The expendable future: U.S. politics and the protection of biological diversity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Townsend, A.R., B.H. Brasswell, E.A. Holland, and J.E. Penner. 1996. Spatial and temporal patterns in terrestrial carbon storage due to deposition of fossil fuel nitrogen. Ecological Applications 6: 806–814. Tufte, Edward R. 1978. Political control of the economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. UN (United Nations). Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. 1989. World population at the turn of the century. Population Studies, no. 111. New York: United Nations. ———. 1998. System-wide web site on national implementation of the Rio Commitments. Available: www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo, visited 4/6/98.

OCR for page 233
Page 271 UNCHS (UN Centre for Human Settlements). 1996. An urbanizing world: Global report on human settlements, 1996. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. UNCSD (UN Commission for Sustainable Development). 1996. Indicators of sustainable development: Framework and methodologies. UN publication E.96.II.A.16, August. New York: United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development. UNFAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization). 1998. The state of food and agriculture 1998. New York: United Nations. ———. 1999. FAOSTAT statistical database 1997. CD-ROM, available in part on-line, http:// apps.fao.org/. Visited 4/27/99. UNICEF (UN Fund for Children). 1998. The state of the world's children 1999. New York: United Nations. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997. (EPA 454/R-98-016) Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, US EPA. December 1998. [http://www.epa.gov/oar/ aqtrnd97/] ———. 1998b. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Update: 1970-1997. (EPA 454/E-98-007). Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, US EPA. December, 1998. [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends97/emtmd.html] US Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators. 1998. Sustainable development in the United States: An experimental set of indicators. December. Washington: U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators. Available: http://www.sdi.gov/. Visited 8/25/99. United States-Canada Air Quality Committee. 1999. Ground level ozone: Occurrence and transport in Eastern North America. Washington, D.C.: US EPA. Available, http:// www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/publicat.html#uscanaq, visited 4/29/99. Uvin, Peter. 1994. The state of world hunger. In The hunger report, 1993, ed. Peter Ivin. Yverdon, Switzerland: Gordon and Breach. Vitousek, Peter M., Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Pamela A. Matson. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36: 368–73. Volkman, John M., and Willis E. McConnaha. 1993. Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environmental Law 23: 1249–72. WHO (World Health Organization). 1996. Water supply and sanitation sector monitoring report 1996 (Sector status as of 1994). New York: Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council and UNICEF. WRI (World Resources Institute). 1996. World resources 1996-97: The urban environment. A joint publication by the World Resources Institute, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press. Weiss, C., and T. Eisner. 1998. Partnerships for value-added through bioprospecting. Technology in Society 20, no. 4: 481–498. Wernick, Iddo K., Robert Herman, Shekhar Govind, and Jesse H. Ausubel. 1996. Materialization and dematerialization: Measures and trends. Daedalus 125, no. 3: 171–198. Wilson, E.O., and Frances M. Peter, eds. 1988. Biodiversity. National Forum on Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Wilson, E.O. 1993. The diversity of life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. World Bank. 1997. Expanding the measure of wealth: Indicators of environmentally sustainable development. Environmentally Sustainable Development studies and monographs series no. 17. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Conservation and Monitoring Centre. 1999. Protected Areas and Landscapes Programme (current). Available, http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/. Visited 4/27/99.

OCR for page 233
Page 272 Endnotes 1 See Adriaanse (1993). 2 Note that this set is relatively long, and yet still too simple for many purposes, such as sensing trends in health or work. 3 Farrell and Hart (1998); http://www.subjectmatters.com/indicators/. 4 Moldan and Billharz (1997), pp. 1–5. 5 For a compilation, see IISD (1998). 6 The Balaton Group, see Meadows (1998). 7 UN Commission on Sustainable Development (1997); World Bank (1997); Netherlands Environmental Policy Performance Indicators, see Adriaanse (1993); US Interagency Working Group (1998); Sustainable Seattle (1995). 8 World Bank (1997), p. 21. 9 Moldan et al. (1997). 10 UNICEF (1998). 11 Uvin (1994). 12 UNCHS (1996). 13 See Uvin (1994) for a discussion. 14 Uvin (1994). 15 UNICEF (1998). 16 E.g., Garrett (1994); NRC (1995c). 17 Magnuson (1990). 18 Benedick (1991). 19 Houghton et al. (1996). 20 E.g., Korten (1995). 21 E.g., IMF (1998). 22 E.g., FAOSTAT (1999). 23 Franklin (1993); Slocombe (1993); Stork et al. (1997). 24 Kasperson et al. (1995). 25 Ibid. 26 Kasperson et al. (1995), p. 14. 27 Kasperson et al. (1995). 28 Regions that appear to be at risk of critical damage have one or more important common-pool resources—natural assets that cannot be readily managed by individual owners. Common-pool resources themselves are not a defining characteristic, however, because there are numerous examples of communities that depend on such resources and that have managed them well over long periods. A useful perspective on the governance structures that have enabled management to succeed has been advanced by Ostrom (1990). Ostrom's findings underscore the importance of monitoring and enforcement, so that individuals who engage in irresponsible behavior can be detected and brought back in line with community norms. Practical application of that analysis, to strengthen the capacity of communities to manage common-pool resources, has been slow because the social dynamics of communities are both complex and resistant to intervention by outsiders. The logic of monitoring as a precursor to corrective action is implicit in the discussion of indicators generally in this report. 29 WRI (1996), Ch. 1. 30 UN (1998), WRI (1996). 31 For an example of work that seeks to build such a context, see Rothman et al. in press. 32 E.g., Egan (1996). 33 Metropolitan sprawl, Ewing (1997); economics of sprawl, e.g., Gordon and Richardson (1997).

OCR for page 233
Page 273 34 Daily (1997). 35 Goulder and Kennedy (1997). 36 NSF (1997); Baltimore Ecosystem Study (1998); Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Project (1998). 37 Wilson (1993). 38 Wilson and Peter (1988). 39 Bioprospecting, Weiss and Eisner (1998); Eisner (1994); Reid et al. (1993); debt for water swaps, Pearce and Warford (1993); Hopkins (1995). 40 Endangered Species Act and private property rights, NRC (1993a, 1995h); Tobin (1990); environmental activism and habitat preservation, Lowe and Goyer (1993); Nature Conservancy (1982); Mickelwright (1993); Hopkins (1995). 41 Lubchenco et al. (1991). 42 Olson and Dinerstein (1998); The Nature Conservancy (1996, 1997). 43 Rapid assessment, e.g., Tangley (1992); response and anthropogenic changes, Groom and Pascual (1997), Fiedler and Kareiva (1997), diversity and stability, Tilman (1997). 44 Olney et al. (1994). 45 Sasson (1996). 46 Fiedler and Kareiva (1997); NRC (1998). 47 Gamez (1996). 48 NRC (1996b). 49 See, e.g., Stork and Samways (1998) for a treatment of monitoring and assessment of biodiversity. 50 Vitousek et al. (1986); Postel et al. (1996). 51 World Bank (1997). 52 UN (1998). 53 Pearce and Atkinson (1993). 54 Lee (1993); Gunderson et al. (1995). 55 E.g., Volkman and McConnaha (1993). 56 Barinaga (1996). 57 Kates and Clark (1996). 58 Tenner (1996). 59 Tufte (1978). 60 See Duncan and Shelton (1978). 61 Lee (1993), Ch. 7; cf. Holmes (1998).

OCR for page 233