 |
Linking Sustainable
Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability
Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21
Lucio Muñoz
Independent
Researcher / Consultant
Abstract
The Agenda 21 Framework of Indicators of Sustainable Development
has many advantages related to its simple and standard structure.
However, it has many limitations such as: it is not clear how the
different categories/ systems in the framework(social, economic,
environmental, and institutional) are linked; it is not clear how
the different sets of indicators within each system(driving forces,
state indicators, and response indicators) are connected; it is
not clear how a holistic assessment of systems or indicator sets
can be carried out; the formulation and use of specific indices is
not encouraged making the assessment of progress a little more
difficult; and the framework is practically a listing of
sustainable development concerns. INCA(1997) highlights the
following disadvantages with respect to the Agenda 21 framework:
it does not provide a measure of progress because there is no
attempt to aggregation and there are too many indicators in the
list; it does not provide a measure of linkages among issues; it
lacks a holistic perspective; and it has a disproportionate focus
of environmental/biophysical indicators. All the above limitations
seem to be based on the fact that the Agenda 21 Framework is not
based on sustainability theory. The goals of this paper are two:
to present the theoretical basis of a sustainability framework
that can be used to place the Agenda 21 Framework within the
domain of sustainability theory and indices; and to show how the
full set of sustainable development indicators in the Agenda 21
framework could be handled within this sustainability framework.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The isolated role of indicators
Indicators can be defined as the guiding lights toward
understanding static and non-static conditions with respect to an
aspect of interest. For example, they can provide an insight into
the actual state of a selected variable or into the pattern of
change of this particular variable through time, place, or scale.
Maclaren(1996) points out two important aspects of indicators:
they can be used as complexity simplifiers; and they can
communicate a condition or problem. These characteristics of
indicators are important for policy planning and making as
simplified or summarised actual and historical information is
easier to convey to information users. UN(1996) states that
indicators can provide useful means to trace progress made toward
sustainable development. Indicators can be of social, economic, or
environmental nature, and their quality if usually associated with
their ability to connect practical conditions to policy options.
For example, in the case of environmental indicators, WB(1997)
points out that good indicators are those that link environmental
measurements to practical policy options. Hence, the acceptability
of indicators as efficient means of signalling leading roles,
conditions, and required actions is well recognised regardless of
any theoretical/methodological gap that may exist in their
formulation or structure. We need indicators to measure
sustainable development and its progress(WB 1997).
Traditionally, indicators have been conceived, used, or formulated
within a compartmentalised framework in which they describe the
actual and changing state of particular systems under the
assumption of minimal or no interaction with other indicators or
systems. For example, the traditional economic development model
uses indicators totally uncoupled in theory and in practice from
social and environmental indicators: GNP measures do not reflect
social and environmental links and concerns. Jaffee(1998) points
out concerns related to the adequacy of GNP as a measure of
development as it does not includes all values. Elliottt(1998)
indicates that GNP does not measure external costs such as
degradation and depletion of resources. Social paradigms, on the
other hand, are based on state of mind apparently unattached to
economic and environmental concerns: social well-being is the main
objective or social goals are dominant. Finally, ecology paradigms
are formulated within a well articulated framework in which it is
assumed that the environment can be preserved without disrupting
economic and social systems: environmental concerns are paramount.
Meyer(1998) mentions that this view sees nature as a garden to be
restored.
1.2 The need to integrate indicators
The recognition of the binding nature of environmental and social
interdependence in traditional sustainable development theory has
led to the need to find way to integrate indicators and paradigms.
Roome(1998) points out that sustainable development provides a way
that can be used to integrate the environmental, social, and
economic aspects of human’s actions at all levels from local to
global. The need to integrate indicators is directly related to a
process of interdependence. For example, GOFC(1998) stresses that
the importance given to environmental interdependence
internationally is on the increase. However, most efforts have
been directed at integrating economic and environmental
indicators(today's dominant model), which in this paper is
labelled the eco-economic development model. One of the
implications of this trend it that within this eco-economic
development model, social indicators are considered complementary
indicators while economic and environmental indicators are taken
as primary indicators. Hence, when measuring progress or looking
for win-win situations, social concerns are most likely to be
assumed away or to be underestimated.
The need to integrate indicators is closely linked to the need to
connect in measurable ways local, regional, and global development
conditions. This need suggest another need, the need to have a
both ways top-down state of mind as the basis of effective
indicator formulation and planning. For example, one of the most
accepted principles within the green-economic development model is
that of thinking globally and acting locally. However, for this
state of mind to be effective, it must work the other way around
too: local thinking must be consistent with global actions. This
way, global-local interdependence is effectively recognised and
put into a context in which global-local challenges can be
addressed in a holistic and integrated fashion. INCA(1997)
highlights the need to construct indicators that can provide solid
bases to decision-making processes consistent with sustainable
development principles at all levels, and which can contribute to
self-regulating sustainability.
1.3 Sustainable development indicators in Agenda 21
WB(1997) describes three types of indicator sets: individual
indicators sets, based on a system of driving, state and response
indicators in list form such as the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development(OECD) indicator program, and the
Commission of Sustainable Development(CSD) indicator program;
thematic indicators in which indicators are selected by theme or
topic; and systemic indicators, where system structured indicators
are used.
One of the most supported framework today is the CSD indicator
program or Agenda 21 Framework because it is one of the best
examples where the selection and integration of sustainable
development indicators has been done with local country flavour
and support. It is based on the notion that local action is
paramount if we want to achieve traditional sustainable
development(sustained development). Hence, local sustainable
development goals are the concerns behind the set of sustainable
development indicators chosen in order to search for a more
environmentally friendly economic future. Therefore, the need to
assess local progress toward sustainable development is an
essential and accepted goal.
The Agenda 21 framework is based on a set of over 130 social,
economic, environmental, and institutional indicators organised
into three categories: driving force indicators, state indicators,
and response indicators. Some of the advantages of this framework
are: it groups and uses the most important indicators in each
local system facilitating the gathering of relevant information in
an organised manner; it provides information about driving forces,
state indicators, and responses in a very simple framework; it
allows for the modelling of traditional sustainable development
concerns; and it is based on a consensus approached to select and
define accepted sets of indicators.
1.4 Problems with the Agenda 21 Framework
Some of the disadvantages of the Agenda 21 framework are the
following: it is not clear how the different categories/ systems
in the framework(social, economic, environmental, and
institutional) are linked; it is not clear how the different sets
of indicators within each system(driving forces, state indicators,
and response indicators) are linked; it is not clear how a
holistic assessment of systems or indicators sets can be carried
out; no attempt is made at aggregating indicators into specific
indices; and the framework is practically a listing of sustainable
development concerns.
The most likely source of the above limitations in the Agenda 21
framework is the fact that the framework is not based on
sustainability theory. Hence, it can not provide an indication of
over-all system sustainability or system specific sustainability
or sub-system specific sustainability. All these issues are
imposing strong limitations on the Agenda 21 framework to assess
and monitor index/indicator trends in an integrated way so that
their relative contribution to sustainability through time can be
assessed.
INCA(1997) highlights the following disadvantages with respect to
the Agenda 21 framework: it does not provide a measure of progress
as no attempt to aggregation is made; it contains too many
indicators; it does not provide measures of linkages among issues;
it is not based on a holistic perspective; and it is focused
disproportionately on environmental/biophysical indicators.
1.5 The Goals of this Paper
The above discussion suggest that the Agenda 21 set of sustainable
development indicators reflect traditional sustainable development
concerns(sustained development), not sustainability concerns(self-sustained
development). This is part of the reason behind the lack of
holistic approach and the lack of theory to base the linking of
different sets of indicators and/or different levels of analysis.
The goals of this paper are two: to present the theoretical basis
of a sustainability framework that can be used to place
sustainable development indicators within the domain of
sustainability theory and indices; and to show how the sustainable
development indicators in Agenda 21 framework could be handled
within this sustainability framework.
2.0 Presenting the Sustainability Methodology
2.1 Terminology and operational concepts
2.1.1 Terminology
Table 1 : Terminology used
|
S = Sustainability
A = Social System
B = Economic System
C = Environmental System
D = Development
* = Ideal Condition
A1 = Social characteristic 1 is present
a1 = Social characteristic 1 is absent
B1 = economic characteristic 1 present
b1 = economic characteristic 1 absent
C1 = environmental characteristic 1 present
c1 = environmental characteristic 1 absent
|
2.1.2 Operational concepts
-
Ideal Development: it refers to optimal development, development
that takes place when all its ideal characteristics are present;
-
Ideal System: it refers to optimal system, a system where all the
desired characteristics for the ideal functioning of that system
are present;
-
Desired Characteristics: it refers to the social, economic, and
environmental aspects that are required for optimal development to
take place.
2.2 The Sustainability Model
A sustainability(S) model can be stated as follows:
* * * *
S = D = ABC
The
above expression indicates that sustainability(S) exist when ideal
development(D) takes place. It also indicates that a necessary and
sufficient conditions for Sustainability(S) or optimal
development(D) to take place is the presence of the social
system(A), the economic system(B), and the Environmental System(C)
in their ideal form at the same time through time. In other words,
Sustainability(S) is a function of the ongoing interaction of
three ideal systems, the social(A), the economic(B), and the
environmental (C) systems.
Figure 1 below summarises the sustainability model stated above:
Figure 1: The Sustainability Framework: It
indicates than sustainability (S) is at the hearth of ideal social
development (A), ideal economic development (B) , and ideal
environmental development (C)
The
figure indicates that sustainability(S) is at the centre of ideal
social(A), economic(B), and environmental(C) development Hence,
sustainability(S) captures social, economic, and environmental
ideal direct interactions and trade offs. Figure 1 allows us to
see the presence of stability within the sustainability triangle
resulting from the active interaction of factors within ideal
systems and between ideal systems.
The definition of sustainability presented above differs from
other existing definitions of sustainability in terms of
completeness and detail. For example, Hodge(1996, P. 268) defines
sustainability as the persistence over apparently indefinite
future of certain necessary and desired characteristics of both
the ecosystem and the human subsystem within. Comparing this
definition with the model above, we can see the following in
Hodge's definition of sustainability: it does not include all
desirable characteristics; it does not include the concept of "sufficient
conditions"; it does not requires conjunctural desired
characteristics; and it apparently lumps both the society and the
economy within the human subsystem making their relevance less
transparent. Hence, Hodge's definition of sustainability appears
to be incomplete or refers to a very narrow notion of
sustainability.
2.3 Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability
Measuring progress toward Sustainability requires a Sustainability
vision, and a consistent set of sustainability tools, indicators
and indices, to be able to look at progress in a holistic and
systematic fashion. The sustainability vision as indicated above
is an ideal vision, and must be guided by ideal goals.
Based on this ideal vision and goals, it is possible to determine
ideal/desired social, environmental, and economic indicators. Once
this is done, then it is possible to link the different indicators
to ideal subsystem and system specific indices and to general
system indices. With help of these different types of ideal
indicators and indices, it is possible to set up an institutional
framework to determine and monitor actual subsystem specific,
system specific, and general system sustainability conditions in a
very simple manner continuously, period after period, to determine
appropriate policy action/reaction. Below there is a general
description of how the above can be accomplished.
2.3.1 Selection and Definition of the Desired Characteristics
First, a participative process involving social, economic, and
environmental agents should be used to determine the ideal
characteristics of the social system, the economic system, and the
environmental system required for optimal development to take
place. Then, each characteristics should be clearly defined to
facilitate the selection of suitable indicators. While it is
possible to incorporate all ideal characteristics in the modelling
process in theory, budgetary, institutional, and other limitations
usually call for the determination of priorities. Therefore, the
set of social, economic, and environmental characteristics
considered critical for the survival of the subsystem or system,
and which can be made operational must be selected through this
participatory process;
Let's assume for demonstration purposes that the participatory
process led to the determination of three essential
characteristics for the optimal working of each system, social
(A), economic(B), and environmental(C) system as indicated below:
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
A = A1A2A3 B = B1B2B3
C = C1C2C3
Where;
* *
*
A1,A2,A3 = characteristics
that need to be present in the optimal social system
* * *
B1,B2,B3 = characteristics that need to be present in the optimal
economic system
* * *
C1,C2,C3 = characteristics that need to be present in the optimal
environmental system
The three expressions above indicate that for optimal social
development(A), optimal economic development(B), and optimal
environmental development(C) to take place, their three ideal
characteristics must be present at the same time. A desired social
characteristic could be social well-being; a desired economic
characteristics could be economic well-being, and a desired
environmental characteristics could be environmental health.
Please, notice that under incomplete information, it is possible
that the selection of critical characteristics may not be complete
or accurate, but may reflect general conditions.
2.3.2 Selection and Definition of the Appropriate Set of
Indicators
The participatory process should also select and define the
indicators that best reflect the ideal characteristics considered
essential to the working of the sustainability system. Stakeholder
dynamics must also decide which of the traditional indicators are
going to continue in use unchanged, which traditional indicators
should be abandoned or modified, and which other indicators are
needed and should be developed. They also must decide which
criteria must be used to considered an indicator present or absent.
Finally, The indicators chosen can be qualitatively based or
quantitatively based.
For presentation purposes, let assume that one indicator was found
to be appropriate for each of the desired characteristics
mentioned above. Then, the following holds:
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
A = IA1IA2IA3 B = IB1IB2IB3
C = IC1IC2IC3
Where;
*
*
*
IA1,IA2,IA3 =
indicators that need to be present in the optimal social system
*
*
*
IB1,IB2,IB3
= indicators that need to be present in the optimal economic
system
*
*
*
IC1,IC2,IC3 =
indicators that need to be present in the optimal environmental
system
The above
optimal social(A) model, optimal economic(B) model, and optimal
environmental model(C) are based on the assumption that the
selected ideal indicators when present reflect optimal conditions/characteristics.
Figure 2 below placed this directly into context:
Figure 2: The
Sustainability Indicator Framework
Notice that figure 2 indicates that for sustainability to take
place and be measured we need to determine and select the ideal
social, economic, and environmental indicators that need to be
present for sustainability to take place.
Please, notice that under incomplete information, knowledge and
technological gaps, the indicators selected may not be totally
accurate, but could be a good aid to identifying the direction of
dominant patterns and conditions.
2.3.3 Preparation of System and Subsystem Specific Indices
Once, the number and nature of the indicators to be used is fixed,
then system specific indices can be developed to link the set of
indicators within the social system, within the economic system,
and within the environmental system. This will provide information
relevant to understanding the internal dynamics of each system;
and to comparing system-system dynamics.
The system specific sustainability index can be found based on the
following formula:
SSIT1 = PT1 / NT1
Where;
PT1
= No. of desired characteristics present in system T1.
NT1
= Total No. of desired characteristics in system T1.
SSIT1
= Sustainability index for system T1.
Implications from the system specific sustainability index(SSIT1)
are the following:
-
if PT1 = NT1 , then SSIT1 = 1.
Therefore, full sustainability exist;
-
if PT1 = 0 , then SSIT1 = 0.
Therefore, full unsustainability exist;
- the range of the system specific sustainability index
(SSIT1)
is from zero to one since
0 \< SSIT1 /< 1
Notice that the system specific sustainability index(SSIT1) can
also be broken into sub-system specific sustainability indices.
For example if we have the following:
SSIT1 = PT1 / NT1
SSIT1L = PT1L / NT1L ; SSIT1Q
= PT1Q / NT1Q
Then, the system specific sustainability index
(SSIT1)
can be expressed in two more different forms as follows:
-
as the result of dividing the total number of desired
characteristics present in the two subsystems by the total number
of desired characteristics within both subsystems:
SSIT1 = PT1L +
PT1Q / NT1L + NT1Q
- as the result of averaging the two sub-system specific
sustainability indices:
SSIT1 = SSIT1L
+ SSIT1Q / 2
Notice also that the system specific sustainability index(SSI) for
the ideal social, economic, and environmental system equals one
since all the three desired characteristics must be present for
the ideal systems to exist. For example, the sustainability index
for the ideal social system(SSIA) can be expressed as follows:
*
SSIA = PA / NA ; since PA
= NA = 3
Therefore;
*
SSIA = 3 / 3 = 1
2.3.4 Preparation of A General System Sustainability Index
Once the set of subsystem and system sustainability indices has
been developed, then they can be linked directly by the means of a
general system sustainability index(GSSI), which can be found by
at least four different means:
- direct calculation
GSSIT1T2T3 = PT1T2T3 / NT1T2T3
- by means of dividing the total number of desired characteristics
present in the three systems by the total number of desired
characteristics attached to all these systems:
GSSIT1T2T3 = PT1 + PT2 + PT3
/ NT1 + NT2 + NT3
- by means of averaging the three system specific sustainability
indices:
GSSIT1T2T3 = SSIT1 + SSIT2 + SSIT3
/ 3
- by means of averaging all the all the subsystem specific
sustainability indices(assuming that each of the three systems has
two subsystems):
GSSIT1T2T3 = SSIT1L + SSIT2L +
SSIT3L + SSIT1Q + SSIT2Q + SSIT3Q
/ 6
For example, the general system sustainability index for the ideal
model can be found as follows:
*
GSSIABC = PA + PB + PC
/ NA + NB + NC
= 3 + 3 + 3 / 3 + 3 + 3 = 1
2.3.5 Determination of Sustainability Conditions on the Ground
Once the set of indicators, and the subsystem, system, and general
system sustainability indices are in place, then we can proceed to
test whether or not the indicators are present in practice. This
testing is done based on the criteria developed during the
participatory process. Let's assume that the following situation
was found on the ground:
_
* * * _
* * *
_ * * *
A1 = a1A2A3 B1
= B1b2B3 C1 = c1c2c3
Where;
_ _
_
A1, B1, C1
indicate the actual social, economic, and environmental conditions
on the ground. Given these findings, then the following
information can be generated:
_
SSIA1 = 2/3 = 0.67
_
SSIB1 = 2/3 = 0.67
_
SSIC1 = 0/3 = 0
___
GSSIABC1 = 2 + 2 + 0 / 3 + 3 + 3 = 4 / 9 = 0.44
The above information indicates the level of sustainability of
each system and the over all system.
2.3.6 Determining System Specific and General System
Sustainability Gaps
Once the above information is generated, then actual-ideal system
specific and general sustainability index gaps can be found as
follows:
_
*
SGA1 = SSIA1 - SSIA = 0.67 - 1 = -0.33
_ *
SGB1 = SSIB1 - SSIB = 0.67 - 1 = -0.33
_
*
SGC1 = SSIC1 - SSIC = 0.00 - 1 = -1.00
___
* * *
GSGABC1 = GSSIABC1 - GSSIABC = 0.44 - 1 = -
0.56
The above sustainability gaps indicate how far are actual social,
economic, environmental, and general system conditions are from
ideal ones. In this example, the environmental system is fully
unsustainable.
Please, notice that the sustainability gap between actual and
ideal indices worsen as it tends to -1 and improves as it tends to
zero. Also notice, that the general system sustainability gap(GSG)
is affected the most by the environmental system sustainability
gap(ESG).
2.3.7 Monitoring progress toward full sustainability
Once the framework described above is in place, monitoring tasks
become very simple. In the following year or period, we just need
to determine again whether or not the desired characteristics of
the systems involved are present or absent.
Then, this information can be compared to previous information to
determine the degree of change, which in this framework can be
positive or negative depending on whether we are gaining or losing
ideal characteristics through time.
For example, if the new conditions are the following:
_
_
_
A2 = a1A2A3
B2 = B1b2B3 C2
= C1C2c3
Based on this new information, the following information can be
generated:
_
SSIA2 = 2/3 = 0.67
_
SSIB2 = 2/3 = 0.67
_
SSIC2 = 2/3 = 0.67
___
GSSIABC = 6 / 9 = 0.67
By comparing the above information with information from the
previous period, we can see the following:
_ _
SSIA2 - SSIA1 = 0.67 - 0.67 = 0.00
_ _
SSIB2 - SSIB1 = 0.67 - 0.67 = 0.00
_ _
SSIC2 - SSIC1 = 0.67 - 0.00 = +0.67
GSSIABC2 - GSSIABC1 = 0.67 - 0.56 = +0.11
Therefore, the situation on the ground for the social system(A)
and the economic system(B) did not change as they have an index
change of zero. The environmental sustainability shows a positive
index change signalling an improvement, which led to an
improvement in the general system sustainability index too.
More information can be generated by looking at the sustainability
gaps in this new situation:
*
SGA2 = SSIA2 - SSIA = 0.67 - 1 = -0.33
*
SGB2 = SSIB2 - SSIB = 0.67 - 1 = -0.33Ç
*
SGC2 = SSIC2 - SSIC = 0.67 - 1 = -0.33
* * *
GSGABC2 = GSSIABC2 - GSSIABC = 0.67 - 1 =
-0.33
The above implies that the actual-ideal sustainability index gap
for the social and economic systems did not change, but both the
environmental system gap and the general system sustainability gap
became smaller.
In conclusion, the sustainability model presented above allow us
to do the following: it allows us to directly link the over all
sustainability objective with the system and subsystem specific
objectives; it indicates the relative contribution of the
different elements of the system to over all sustainability; it is
able to handle both qualitative and quantitative data; it allows
us to see indicator and indices trends which can help to determine
remedial or preventive action; it can be used to assess the
distance between actual and ideal sustainability conditions
through time; and f) it can be used to monitor changes over time
in relevance in comparison to the whole system, other systems or
in comparison with other elements of the same system.
3.0 Testing the Methodology
3.1 The Agenda 21 framework of sustainable development indicators
In general terms, the Agenda 21 sustainable indicator framework is
consistent with the theory described above: indicators have been
selected through a participatory process; all sustainable
development indicators are classified in four categories: social,
economic, environmental, and institutional. All indicators within
each category are subdivided into three groups: driving force
indicators, state indicators, and response indicators; the policy
relevance and significance of each indicator is provided;
methodological issues around each indicator in terms of definition
and measurement are covered; and the data availability of each
indicators is addressed.
Hence, the general structure of Agenda 21 framework facilitate the
reorganisation of indicators in order to make them consistent with
the sustainability theory and sustainability indices. The
reorganisation process includes the restatement of the
sustainability model in a way consistent with the Agenda 21
framework and the reclassification of data collected on each
indicator in qualitative form as it is explained later. This
reorganization will make it possible to get insight into the over
all system sustainability structure(general sustainability),
specific category sustainability structure(system specific
sustainability), and specific group sustainability
structure(subsystem specific sustainability).
3.2 Redefining the Sustainability Model
To facilitate the presentation and reorganisation of Agenda 21
indicators, the sustainability model can be restated as follows:
* *
* *
S = ABCI ;
Where;
*
A = ideal social system
*
B = ideal economic system
*
C = ideal environmental system
*
I = ideal institutional system
Therefore, sustainability(S) results from the active interaction
of the four ideal systems. Notice, that the only difference
between the above sustainability(S) model and the one presented in
section 2.2 is that all the ideal social, economic, and
environmental institutional indicators are factor out to make up
the ideal institutional system. In this case, we have a four
system sustainability model as shown in figure 3 below.
Figure 3. The Four System Sustainabilty Framework: This is the
framwork consistent with the four system structure of Agenda 21.
Here Sustainability (S), is achieved when all the ideal
characteristics of the social system (A), the economic system (B),
the environmental system (C), and the institutional system (I) are
present at the same time
Figure 3 indicates the interdependence or active interaction of
these four systems in the sustainability framework consistent with
Agenda 21.
Since each ideal system or category can be divided into three
groups, driving forces(DF), state indicators(ST), and response
indicators(RP), the sustainability(S) model can again be restated
as follows:
*
* *
*
* * *
* *
* * *
S = DFASTARPADFBSTBRPBDFCSTCRPCDFISTIRPI
Where;
* *
*
*
A = DFASTARPA
* *
* *
B = DFBSTBRPB
* *
* *
C = DFCSTCRPC
* * * *
I = DFISTIRPI
Hence, sustainability(S) comes from the active interaction of
ideal driving force indicators(DF), state indicators(ST), and
response indicators(RP) within each of the four ideal systems
mentioned above.
Please, notice that we can separate the set of indicators as
follows:
*
* *
* *
DF = DFADFBDFCDFI
* *
* *
*
ST = STASTBSTCSTI
* * *
* *
RP = RPARPBRPCRPI
Hence, the sustainability(S) model can be restated as function of
the conjunctural interaction of the three ideal types of
indicators as follows:
*
* *
S = DFSTRP
Figure 4 below describes how driving force indicators(DF), state
indicators(ST), and response indicators(RP) are related or linked
to sustainability(S).
Figure 4. The Indicator Based Sustainability Framework: It shows a
sustainability model (S) dominated by the interaccion of driving
force indicator (DF), state indicator (ST), and response
indicators (RP) in their ideal form.
The some aspects that can be highlighted from figure 4 are the
following: driving forces(DF) affect the level of sustainability;
state indicators(ST) affects the policy responses(RP); response
indicators(RP) affect the level of sustainability too; state
indicators(ST) have an impact on the driving forces(DF) too; and
it can be seen that this process is a several ways process in
which sustainability is being affected by the constant
interactions of these three different sets of indicators.
3.3 Practical application of the new framework for agenda 21
indicators
Appendix 1 to Appendix 4 contains the matrix through which the
above 4 system/12 subsystem sustainability model could be
implemented. It is intended to simulate the 132 indicators listed
in pages ix to xiii in UN(1996). Appendix 1 contains the
information relevant to the social system; Appendix 2 contains the
information important to the economic system; Appendix 3
summarises the information of the environmental system; and
finally, Appendix 4 presents the information relevant to the
institutional system. Each matrix has a similar structure: the
component column list the type of system/ category, and the
different indicators within each of the three groups/subsystems;
and the horizontal line indicates the relevant years/periods for
which information about those indicators is collected.
3.4 Collection and classification of information
All information collected is then classified in two types, type 1
or type 0. If the indicator is in a form that is expected to lead
to Increasing Sustainability, it is classified as type 1. If an
indicator is classified as type 1 it is considered to be present.
If the indicator is in a form that is expected to lead to Not
Increasing Sustainability, it is coded at type 0. If an indicator
is classified as type 0, it is considered to be absent. For
example, the information in Appendix 1 representing the
interception of year/period P1 and indicator type A1 shows that
this indicator for this period was present(type 1) in a form
leading to sustainability. However, for the same year/period P1,
but indicator A3, it reveals that the indicator A3 was absent (type
0) or not present in a form leading to increasing sustainability
during period P1. The sustainability indices that can be formed
from the information in those four Appendices is are provided in
Appendix 5.
4.0 Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability
There are two ways to measure and monitor progress toward
sustainability in this sustainability framework, one is by means
of determining sustainability index gaps and the other way is by
determining sustainability index changes. Each of these two ways
are described below.
4.1 Sustainability Index Gaps
As described in Section 2.3.6, sustainability index gaps indicate
how far actual sustainability conditions are from ideal
sustainability conditions. Appendix 6 contains the index gaps for
all sustainability indices in Appendix 5. The sustainability index
gap in each cell in Appendix 6 came out from subtracting each
value in each cell in Appendix 5 from 1, since 1 is the value of
the ideal index as shown above.
The last column in Appendix 6 indicates that the index gaps can be
classified into three different trends: persistently decreasing
gaps(PDG), which indicates that sustainability conditions are
improving. Example, the environmental system sustainability index;
persistently increasing gaps(PIG), which indicates that
sustainability conditions are worsening. For example, the social
system response indicator sustainability index; and not persistent
gaps(NPG), those which shows no persistency either increasing or
decreasing. The last column in Appendix 6 shows the specific type
of gap trend per index across periods.
4.2 Sustainability Index Changes
As described in section 2.3.7, sustainability index changes can be
found by subtracting the sustainability index of the actual period
from the previous one, as indicated in Appendix 7. Sustainability
index changes between periods provide information on the magnitude
and direction of specific index changes. For example, from period
P1 to P2, sustainability conditions within the social system
worsen while they improved in the economic, environmental, and
institutional systems.
Sustainability index changes can also be classified into three
types of trends: persistently increasing index changes(PIC), which
indicates that sustainability conditions are improving. For
example, the economic system sustainability index; persistently
decreasing index changes(PDC), which indicates that sustainability
conditions are worsening. For example, the social system response
indicator index; and non-persistent index changes(NPC), which
indicates that the changes do not show persistency across period
changes. The last column in Appendix 7 indicates the specific type
of change trend per index across period changes.
5.0 Summary and Conclusions
Five general conclusions can be made based on the above discussion:
First, the Agenda 21 framework is not based on sustainability
theory, which is the main source of its limitations. Second, the
sustainability theory presented in this paper can be used to link
sustainable development indicators by means of sustainability
indices. Third, the practical application of the sustainability
theory to reorganise and classify the Agenda 21 indicator and data
structure shows how some of its limitations can be eliminated.
Fourth, the different sustainability indices generated provide
useful information about present/absence persistent dominance,
about persistently/non-persistently increasing indices, about
persistent/non-persistent index gaps; and about persistent/non-persistent
index changes. And fifth, the making of the Agenda 21 framework
consistent with sustainability theory may improve the over all
benefit of having a standard methodology that bridges the gap
between local and global levels of analysis as well as between
qualitative and quantitative data by providing a theoretical and
practical way to overcome these difficulties.
References
Elliott, Lorraine, 1998. The Global Politics of the Environment,
Macmillan Press Ltd/London.
Hodge, R. A., 1996. A Systemic Approach to Assessing Progress
Toward Sustainability. In: Achieving Sustainable Development. Ann
Dale and John B. Robinson(Eds), UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Government of Canada(GOFC), 1998. Report of the Commissioner of
the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of
Commons: Global Challenges, Ministry of Public Works and
Government Services.
Industry Canada(INCA), 1997. Measuring Sustainable Development:
Review of Current Practice, OPN # 17. November, Peter Hardi and
Stephan Barg(Eds), IISD.
Jaffee, David, 1998. Levels of Socio-Economic Development Theory,
Second Edition, PRAEGER/London.
Maclaren, Virginia W., 1996. Developing Indicators of Urban
Sustainability: A Focus on the Canadian Experience, Environment
Canada., ICURR Press, January.
Meyer, Judith L., 1998. The Changing State of the Global
Environment. In: Environmental Ethics and the Global Market Place,
Dorinda G. Dalmeyer and Albert F. Ike(Eds), University of Georgia
Press/London
Roome, Nigel J., 1998. Sustainability Strategies for Industry: The
Future of Corporate Practice. Island Press. Washington D.C.
United Nations(UN), 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development
Framework and Methodologies, Department of Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development. New York.
World Bank(WB), 1997. Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators
of Environmentally Sustainable Development, SMS No. 17, Washington
D.C.
Anexos
Social System
| COMPONENTS |
APPENDIX 1 |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| SOCIAL SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
A5 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A6 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A8 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A10 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A11 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A13 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A14 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A15 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A16 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A17 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A18 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A19 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A20 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A21 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A22 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A23 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
A24 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A25 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A26 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A27 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A28 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A29 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A30 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A31 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A32 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A33 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A34 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
A35 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A36 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A37 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A38 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
A39 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD = PRESENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD = NON PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD = ABSENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic System
| COMPONENTS |
APPENDIX 2 |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| ECONOMIC SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B40 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
B41 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B42 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B43 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B44 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B45 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B46 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B47 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B48 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B49 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
B50 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B51 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B52 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
B53 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
B54 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B55 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B56 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
B57 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B58 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B59 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B60 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
B61 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
B62 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD = PRESENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD = NON PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD = ABSENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental System
| COMPONENTS |
APPENDIX 3 |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C63 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C64 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C65 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C66 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C67 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C68 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C69 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C70 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C71 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C72 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C73 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C74 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
C75 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C76 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C77 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C78 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C79 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C80 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C81 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C82 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C83 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C84 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C85 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C86 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C87 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C88 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C89 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C90 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C91 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C92 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C93 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C94 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C96 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C97 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C98 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C99 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C100 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C101 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C102 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C103 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C104 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C105 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
C106 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C107 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C108 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C109 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C110 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C111 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
C112 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
C113 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C114 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C115 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C116 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
C117 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD = PRESENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD = NON PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD = ABSENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutional System
| COMPONENTS |
APPENDIX 4 |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D118 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
D119 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D120 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D121 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
D122 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
D123 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
D124 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D125 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D126 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D127 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D128 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D129 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
D130 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD |
|
D131 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD |
|
D132 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPD = PRESENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPD = NON PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APD = ABSENT PERSISTENT
DOMINANCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Indices
| SUSTAINABILITY |
|
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| INDICES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.64 |
0.58 |
0.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.55 |
0.64 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.86 |
0.57 |
0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDI |
| ECONOMIC SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.51 |
0.70 |
0.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.56 |
0.56 |
0.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.64 |
0.55 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.33 |
1.00 |
0.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.39 |
0.60 |
0.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.45 |
0.59 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.39 |
0.67 |
0.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.33 |
0.53 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
| INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.42 |
0.50 |
0.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.50 |
0.67 |
0.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.49 |
0.60 |
0.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
| GENERAL DRIVING FORCE
INDEX |
|
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
| GENERAL STATE INDEX |
|
0.47 |
0.52 |
0.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
| GENERAL RESPONSE INDEX |
|
0.51 |
0.69 |
0.63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.50 |
0.58 |
0.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PII = PERSISTENTLY
INCREASING INDEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPI = NOT PERSISTENTLY
INCREASING INDEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDI = PERSISTENTLY
DECREASING INDEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Index Gaps
| SUSTAINABILITY |
|
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
P6 |
P7 |
P8 |
P9 |
P10 |
TREND |
| INDEX GAPS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.36 |
-0.42 |
-0.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
-0.45 |
-0.36 |
-0.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
-0.48 |
-0.48 |
-0.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
-0.14 |
-0.43 |
-0.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIG |
| ECONOMIC SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.49 |
-0.30 |
-0.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
-0.44 |
-0.44 |
-0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
-0.36 |
-0.45 |
-0.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
-0.67 |
0.00 |
-0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.61 |
-0.40 |
-0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
-0.55 |
-0.41 |
-0.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
-0.61 |
-0.33 |
-0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
-0.67 |
-0.47 |
-0.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
| INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.58 |
-0.50 |
-0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE INDICATORS |
-0.67 |
-0.67 |
-0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
-0.50 |
-0.33 |
-0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.51 |
-0.41 |
-0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
| GENERAL DRIVING FORCE
INDEX |
|
-0.48 |
-0.48 |
-0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG |
| GENERAL STATE INDEX |
|
-0.53 |
-0.48 |
-0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
| GENERAL RESPONSE INDEX |
|
-0.49 |
-0.31 |
-0.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.50 |
-0.42 |
-0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDG = PERSISTENTLY
DECREASING GAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPG = NOT PERSISTENT GAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIG = PERSISTENTLY
INCREASING GAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Change
| SUSTAINABILITY
|
|
P2-P1 |
P3-P2 |
P4-P3 |
P5-P4 |
P6-P5 |
P7-P6 |
P8-P7 |
P9-P8 |
P10-P9 |
TREND |
| CHANGE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SOCIAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
-0.06 |
0.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.09 |
0.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.00 |
0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
-0.29 |
-0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDC |
| ECONOMIC SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.19 |
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.00 |
0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
-0.09 |
0.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.67 |
-0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
| ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.20 |
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
0.14 |
0.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.28 |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.20 |
0.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
| INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.08 |
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
DRIVING FORCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE INDICATORS |
0.00 |
0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
|
RESPONSE INDICATORS |
0.17 |
0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.10 |
0.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
| GENERAL DRIVING FORCE
INDEX |
|
0.00 |
0.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
| GENERAL STATE INDEX |
|
0.05 |
0.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
| GENERAL RESPONSE INDEX |
|
0.19 |
-0.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC |
| GENERAL SYSTEM INDEX |
|
0.08 |
0.13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIC = PERSISTENTLY
INCREASING CHANGE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPC = NOT PERSISTENT
CHANGE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDC = PERSISTENTLY
DECREASING CHANGE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
