When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators

ContextSustainability indices (SIs) have become increasingly important to sustainability research and practice. However, while the validity of SIs is heavily dependent on how their components are weighted and aggregated, the typology and applicability of the existing weighting and aggregation methods remain poorly understood.ObjectivesTo close the knowledge gap regarding when to use which weighting and aggregation methods for constructing SIs, we review the most commonly used methods for weighting and aggregating SIs, discuss their benefits and drawbacks, and suggest a process-oriented approach for choosing appropriate weighting and aggregation methods depending on research objectives.MethodsOur review synthesis was based on peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and reports by international organizations, governmental agencies, and research institutions. After carefully examining their principles, characteristics, and applications, we selected and classified the frequently used methods for indicator weighting and aggregation.ResultsWe systematically discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nine weighting methods and three aggregation methods. We propose a four-step process for choosing the most suitable weighting and aggregation methods based on: research purposes, spatial and temporal scales, and sustainability perspectives.ConclusionsIn this research, we chose the most commonly used methods for weighting and aggregating SIs and analyzed the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each method. We found that choosing appropriate weighting and aggregation methods for a specific sustainability assessment project is an extremely important and challenging task. To meet this challenge, we propose a process-oriented approach for properly selecting methods according to the purpose, scale and sustainability concept. This approach can facilitate the proper selection of these methods in sustainability research and practice.     

Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems

Cities and urbanized regions are complex, dynamic, and highly integrated systems linking social, ecological, and technical infrastructure domains in ways that create deep challenges for good governance, policymaking, and planning. The combination of impacts from climate change in cities, air pollution, rapid population growth, multiple sources of development pressure and overall urban system complexity make it difficult for decision-makers to develop and guide development trajectories along more livable, equitable, and at the same time, more resilient pathways. Advancing urban sustainability and resilience agendas requires expanding the scope of inter- and trans-disciplinarity approaches, moving beyond the historically separate social–ecological and socio-technical approaches to jointly study social–ecological–technical infrastructure systems in cities. We take urban complexity as a given and suggest that in both research and practice we need to better capture and understand feedbacks, interdependencies, and non-linearities which create uncertainties and challenge the efficacy of governance practices to achieve normative goals for society. Here, we explore new methods, tools, and approaches to advance our understanding of urban system complexity through a series of journal special issue articles that examine urban structure–function relationships, urban sustainability transitions, green space availability, social–ecological memory, functional traits, and urban land use scenarios.     

The double edge of cutting edge: Explaining adoption and nonadoption of the STAR rating system and insights for sustainability indicators

STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating system), is a ‘cutting edge’ program that accounts for historical critiques of sustainability indicators, by responding to stakeholder demands for legitimacy, salience and credibility. Data from 37 interviews with urban planners and sustainability directors, illustrate that this sophistication largely accounts for why over 80 US communities and cities have opted to become members of STAR. The research, however, also uncovered a double edge: it is this sophistication that has also made STAR resource intensive and demanding of political support within municipal governments. High labor and resource demands make engagement difficult for some cities. Without substantial political support, STAR can be a tough sell to municipal administrations. Thus, feasibility needs to also be considered a factor in indicator relevance, usability, and in influence. There are, however, likely trade-offs between feasibility on the one hand, and legitimacy, salience and credibility on the other.     

The testing of three indicator systems for trophic state in grasslands

Three vegetation-based indicator systems for the assessment of the trophic state of soil were tested on grasslands. External parameters were gross production and nitrogen supply. A high correlation was found between indication figures of the relevés and external parameters. There was some evidence that, under certain conditions, indicator systems could provide ordinal as well as cardinal information. The reliability of the indicator systems was not entirely dependent on the completeness of the vegetational information. The lack of abundance data and the ignoring of rarely occurring species did not seriously affect the strength of correlation. It was concluded that indicator systems can be useful tools in ecological research as well as in nature conservation policy.     

Integrated municipal waste management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability

Tools based on Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) are routinely used to assess the environmental and economic performance of integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify the environmental impacts, whereas Life Cycle Costing (LCC) allows financial and economic assessments. These tools require specific experience and knowledge, and a large amount of data.The aim of this project is the definition of an indicator for the assessment of the environmental and economic sustainability of integrated MSW management systems. The challenge is to define a simple but comprehensive indicator that may be calculated also by local administrators and managers of the waste system and not only by scientists or LCT experts.The proposed indicator is a composite one, constituted by three individual indicators: two of them assess the environmental sustainability of the system by quantifying the achieved material and energy recovery levels, while the third one quantifies the costs. The composite indicator allows to compare different integrated MSW management systems in an objective way, and to monitor the performance of a system over time.The calculation of the three individual indicators has been tested on the integrated MSW management systems of the Lombardia Region (Italy) as well as on four of its provinces (Milano, Bergamo, Pavia, and Mantova).     

Indicating ecosystem and landscape organisation

This paper presents a brief outline of the theoretical and conceptual fundamentals for the derivation of an ecosystem oriented indicator system to demonstrate the state of ecological entities on a holistic basis. There are two branches of argumentation: on a normative level, the sustainability principle is interpreted from an anthropocentric point-of-view; sustainability in this context means to provide ecosystem services on a broad scale and a long-term basis, including the attempt to avoid unspecific ecological risks. A second line-of-argumentation bases on the principles of ecosystem analysis and the theory of ecological orientation. Consequently, the aspired indicandum is the self-organising capacity of ecosystems, and the indicator sets represents an aggregate of structural and functional ecosystem features in a developing environment. The indicator set is demonstrated by one case study from the Bornhoeved Lakes ecosystem research project.     

Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the State of Selangor, Malaysia

The perception that better information on environment and development is the determinant of effective rational decision- and policy-making processes provide the impetus for global interest in the use of sustainable development indicators (SDIs). Accordingly, proposals for SDIs are framed either on organisational goals or on disciplinary and multidisciplinary theories—aiming to reduce uncertainties in choosing the best alternative among a set of options concerning sustainability. Despite the fact that many SDI initiatives are explicitly aimed at improving policy-making, it is not apparent that political settings and organisational realities are taken into consideration in designing the framework for sustainability assessment. Ignoring the realities of policy-making dynamics can result in poor institutionalisation of the SDI development process, and therefore reduced impact of indicators. Linkage of SDIs to policy processes must also take into account the complex role of information in policy processes. The importance of societal values, cultural contexts and behaviour of bureaucracies must be understood and used to assist the assessment of progress towards sustainability using SDIs. Essentially, objective knowledge must be tampered with pragmatism in governance. This paper highlights the case of SDI development in the state of Selangor where the notion of instrumental rationality is balanced with the ‘incrementalism’ of the policy process that provided the foundation for institutionalising the reporting and use of SDIs. The ideals and paradoxes of participatory decision-making, the principles of the rational model and decision-making processes within a state government are critically examined.     

From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level

Indicators describing sustainability and, more recently, well-being have raised considerable interest throughout the world. Much conceptual and empirical research exists focusing on the criteria for sustainability and development of indicators, while relatively few studies examine the actual use and influence of indicators. Employing document analysis and interviews of key actors, we explore the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level and draw forth lessons relevant for topical discussion of the measurement of human well-being. We apply a conceptual model of three main types of indicator use: instrumental, conceptual, and political. The results indicate that the use of sustainability indicators is mainly confined to the ‘indicator circuit’ formed by indicator-developers themselves and actors obliged to use the indicators. The results suggest that direct instrumental use of indicators shows limited potential, whereas conceptual use is the key for enhanced indicator influence in the long term. Political use of indicators cannot be controlled by the indicator-developers.     

Measuring countries’ environmental sustainability performance—The development of a nation-specific indicator set

The complicated task of measuring environmental sustainability has often led to comparative evaluations of national performance using ranking lists and generic policy targets. In this paper, a set of national environmental indicators is determined through the deployment of a five-stage methodology, which includes the use of focus group research and formation of an expert team to guide the process, selection of an initial pool of pre-existing indicators, establishment of criteria to guide the selection process, and setting of appropriate policy or trend-based targets given the nation-specific context. The nations of Iceland and Norway are used as case studies to demonstrate an effective means of communicating indicator outcomes over time. National performance is first evaluated on an indicator-by-indicator basis and then summarised overall through a system of traffic lights and radar charts for trend and target-based indicators respectively. Via this analytical process, it also becomes clear that data shortages partially constrain the extent to which a nation’s environmental sustainability performance can be deciphered. Improved data collection is necessary connected to the measurement of several environmental issues on a national scale, particularly the sustainability of fisheries, soil erosion and biodiversity.     

Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures

Indicators are needed to assess both socioeconomic and environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Effective indicators can help to identify and quantify the sustainability attributes of bioenergy options. We identify 16 socioeconomic indicators that fall into the categories of social well-being, energy security, trade, profitability, resource conservation, and social acceptability. The suite of indicators is predicated on the existence of basic institutional frameworks to provide governance, legal, regulatory and enforcement services. Indicators were selected to be practical, sensitive to stresses, unambiguous, anticipatory, predictive, estimable with known variability, and sufficient when considered collectively. The utility of each indicator, methods for its measurement, and applications appropriate for the context of particular bioenergy systems are described along with future research needs. Together, this suite of indicators is hypothesized to reflect major socioeconomic effects of the full supply chain for bioenergy, including feedstock production and logistics, conversion to biofuels, biofuel logistics and biofuel end uses. Ten indicators are highlighted as a minimum set of practical measures of socioeconomic aspects of bioenergy sustainability. Coupled with locally prioritized environmental indicators, we propose that these socioeconomic indicators can provide a basis to quantify and evaluate sustainability of bioenergy systems across many regions in which they will be deployed.     

Restoration dialogues: improving the governance of ecological restoration

Ecological restoration activities should be conceptualized as a form of governance, as this lens best captures the multiactor, collaborative processes by which societies through governments and nonstate entities seek to achieve environmental outcomes. Successful restoration governance depends on addressing a cluster of challenges concerning optimal spatiotemporal scales, biological feasibility, sociocultural acceptability, financial viability, and institutional tractability. Changes to private law, company law, and taxation are some of the governance reforms available to tackle these challenges.     

Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation?

The efforts to develop sustainability indicators have strongly increased since the beginning of the 1990s, often led by intergovernmental processes. More recently, a number of sustainability indicator development processes have been initiated within large research projects that aim to design tools for sustainability assessments, funded by the European Union. The development of sustainability indicators provides a particular challenge to scientists, given the essentially normative dimension of the concept of “sustainability”. Thus, we argue, the development of sustainability indicators is a process of both scientific “knowledge production” and of political “norm creation”, and both components need to be properly acknowledged. Based on a respective theoretical framework and comparing five cases of sustainability indicator development processes (three science-led and two led by intergovernmental processes), we find that the political norm creation dimension is not fully and explicitly recognized in science-led processes. The paper concludes by discussing a number of implications for the design of sustainability indicator development processes, in particular with regard to participation and representation as well as adjustment of indicators over time.     

Do green neighbourhood ratings cover sustainability?

Neighbourhoods are the building blocks of cities, which have their own architectural, cultural and economic systems. To improve neighbourhood sustainability, a consideration of their buildings, public spaces, infrastructure, and cooperation between their parts is necessary. Neighbourhoods are an integral part of urban planning activity, yet the development of neighbourhood assessment tools has just begun to spread.In the scope of this study, five assessment systems, CASBEE-UD, the 2009 and 2012 versions of the BREEAM Communities, LEED-ND, and DGNB-UD were compared. This paper presents the methodology and results of their comparative investigation. These systems categorise, measure, and rate their indexes and indicators differently, therefore it was necessary to integrate their processes to make them comparable. By means of a 3-level comparison and the indicator evaluation, the different neighbourhood sustainability assessment systems were compared in general as well as in detail.An evaluation based on the method provides information about the similarities, differences, and working methods of the systems, and this study can provide guidance in choosing a proper assessment system for a specific development, based on its detailedness, adaptability, and efficiency. It was also important to determine ways to improve the assessment systems.The study states that the DGNB neighbourhood sustainability system provided the best results in a comparison of their sustainability integration issues, the detailedness of their indicators, and their coverage of the pillars of sustainability. The newest systems synthesise the best qualities of each sustainability assessment tool. Meanwhile, the CASBEE tool differs from the others in the most aspects due to its different background. Finally, the LEED and BREEAM systems showed average results in main aspects.     

Revisiting the food component of the ecological footprint indicator for autonomous rural settlement models in Central Italy

The aim of this work is to design a model of sustainable rural settlement to ensure food self-sufficiency. The strategic objective of this study is to verify how the development of rural settlements based on this model contributes to overall sustainability. The sustainability assessment is based on an ecological footprint indicator introduced by Rees (1992) and developed by Rees and Wackernagel (1994).The operational objective of this work is to develop an ecological footprint of autonomous food systems model that is able to determine the land area needed to ensure the food self-sufficiency of an Italian settlement while varying the number of components and the diet followed. The model is also intended to determine the food component of the ecological footprint indicator.Model development started with the identification of the average diet for a community, which was determined from organic farming criteria, crop layouts and livestock farming characteristics necessary to meet demand. The research demonstrated that by promoting food self-sufficient rural settlements, the food component of the ecological footprint indicator is lowered by 47.32% compared to the national average and by 8.11% compared to the world average.The development of this model has also highlighted how the ecological footprint indicator is not valid for assessing the autonomous sustainability of a community, leading to a systematic underestimation of humanity's true impact.     

Scaling indicator and planning plane: An indicator and a visual tool for exploring the relationship between urban form,energy efficiency and carbon emissions

Ecosystems and other naturally resilient systems exhibit allometric scaling in the distribution of sizes of their elements. In this paper we define an allometry inspired scaling indicator for cities that is a first step toward quantifying the stability borne of a complex systems’ hierarchical structural composition. The scaling indicator is calculated using large census datasets and is analogous to fractal dimension in spatial analysis. Lack of numerical rigor and the resulting variation in scaling indicators – inherent in the use of box counting mechanism for fractal dimension calculation for cities – has been one of the hindrances in the adoption of fractal dimension as an urban indicator of note. The intra-urban indicator of scaling in population density distribution developed here is calculated for 58 US cities using a methodology that produces replicable results, employing large census-block wise population datasets from the 2010 US Census and the 2007 US Economic Census. We show that rising disparity – as measured by the proposed indicator of population density distribution in census blocks in Metropolitan Statistical Areas adversely affects energy consumption efficiency and carbon emissions in cities and leads to a higher urban carbon footprint. We then define a planning plane as a visual and analytic tool for incorporation of scaling indicator analysis into policy and decision-making.     

Content disputes in Wikipedia reflect geopolitical instability

Indicators that rank countries according socioeconomic measurements are important tools for regional development and political reform. Those currently in widespread use are sometimes criticized for a lack of reproducibility or the inability to compare values over time, necessitating simple, fast and systematic measures. Here, we applied the 'guilt by association' principle often used in biological networks to the information network within the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to create an indicator quantifying the degree to which pages linked to a country are disputed by contributors. The indicator correlates with metrics of governance, political or economic stability about as well as they correlate with each other, and though faster and simpler, it is remarkably stable over time despite constant changes in the underlying disputes. For some countries, changes over a four year period appear to correlate with world events related to conflicts or economic problems.     

Comparative analysis of passenger transport sustainability in European cities

Sustainable development in its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – has become a major concern on an international scale. The problem is global, but must be solved locally. Most of the world’s population lives in cities that act as centres of economic growth and productivity, but which – if they develop in the wrong direction – can cause social inequalities, or irreversibly harm the environment. Urban transport causes a number of negative impacts that can affect sustainability targets. The objective of this study is to propose an analysis of sustainability of urban passenger transport systems based on available indicators in most cities. This will serve to benchmark the practices of different cities and manage their transport systems. This work involves the creation of composite indicators (CI) to measure the sustainability of urban passenger transport systems. The methodology is applied to 23 European cities. The indicators are based on a benchmarking approach, and the evaluation of each aspect in each case therefore depends on the performance of the whole sample. The CI enabled us to identify which characteristics have the greatest influence on the sustainability of a city’s transport system, and to establish transport policies that could potentially improve its shortcomings. Finally, the cities are clustered according to the values obtained from the CIs, and thus according to the weaknesses and strengths of their transport systems.     

Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability

Corporate sustainability performance is a multidimensional concept based on the original idea of sustainable development, replacing the traditional understanding of corporate performance only as capital appreciation for owners. The objective of this paper is to present a model for the measurement of corporate sustainability – Complex Performance Indicator (CPI). CPI integrates the environmental, social, economic and corporate governance performance of the company. CPI contains seventeen key performance indicators which were gradually determined from the basic set of performance indicators using statistical methods. CPI sums up the complex corporate performance into a single value but, at the same time, the set of aggregated sub-indicators of individual performance areas enables a detailed analysis and determination of the impact of various performance areas and factors on the complex corporate performance. The introduction of benchmarking is a crucial element in the entire model, as it enables to interpret the aggregated information and to quantify the performance gap. The results including their visualisation are presented in the case study. The complex assessment of corporate performance helps to uncover the weaknesses of the company that could become a threat and to identify strengths which the company might pursue as an opportunity. The results of such an analysis serve as the point of reference for deciding about the future.     

法国大区公园经验对钱江源国家公园体制试点区跨界治理体系构建的启示

建立国家公园的目的之一是保护生态系统的原真性和完整性。然而, 生态系统完整性和原真性保护不仅面对交叉重叠、多头管理导致碎片化管理问题, 还要面对行政区划进一步造成的碎片化和管理分割的现实。钱江源国家公园体制试点区地跨浙江、安徽和江西三省, 存在国家公园跨界治理过程中的三大普遍问题: 跨界协同治理空间边界划定、生态保育政策及执行不统一、毗邻社区居民生计对自然资源依赖与生态保护目标的矛盾。文章借鉴法国大区公园治理经验, 依据《建立国家公园体制总体方案》精神, 提出钱江源国家公园跨界治理中必须形成一个政府主导(公园管理机构为代表), 企业、社区居民和第三方组织共同参与的多元主体协同治理组织框架, 并针对上述三个问题, 提出通过第三方组织参与方式实现跨越行政壁垒的统一保护、通过社区协议保护方式实现保护标准的统一、通过国家公园产品品牌增值体系实现保护与发展的可持续性。     

Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level

Considering the on-going strive towards new, alternative indicators to measure our societal development pathways, and the fact that policy indicators remain largely enigmatic with regard to their patterns of embeddedness in institutional decision-making processes, it appears necessary to work towards reducing our lack of understanding of their interactions with policy-making. In the present paper, we focus on exploring the significance of composite indicators for policy making in the particular policy environment of the EU-institutions. Our research is underpinned by the conviction that such indicators are not systematically used directly, but have an indirect influence on policy making that needs to be better understood. Our analytical framework – in order to analyse the ways in which composite indicators enter policy processes – is characterised by the distinction between the ‘use’ and the ‘influence’ of indicators on the one hand, and on the other hand between 3 types of factors: indicator factors, policy factors and user factors. Our empirical results show that while most of the academic attention and political debate around indicators has tended to focus on ‘indicator factors’, such quality attributes actually mattered relatively little in our setting as determinants of indicator influence. This rejects the idea that the robustness of evidence would lie exclusively in its technical quality and in the independence of its producer, and instead calls attention to the processes of evidence-construction. Simultaneously, ‘user factors’ (beliefs and representations of policy actors) and ‘policy factors’ (institutional context) were crucial as explanatory factors of the policy mechanics we identified.