A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management

An indicator framework was designed as an operational science-based tool for the evaluation of the environmental aspects of sustainable forest management at stand level in Flanders (Belgium). The framework aims to assess the effects of forest management on forest composition, structure and functioning. It consists of seven principles and 19 criteria, to which 157 potential indicators, selected from literature, were assigned; 40 of these were considered as suitable by an expert panel, based on 10 operational selection criteria. All indicators were quantitative variables measurable in the field.After elaboration of a measurement protocol, the indicator framework was validated in 115 forest stands, distributed over the three main forest types of Flanders. The new indicator framework exhibited greater sensitivity to forest management practices and demonstrated better discriminating power than the method that is currently used by the Flemish forest administration to estimate the naturalness and environmental quality of a forest stand. Following a detailed cost calculation of each indicator and based on the sensitivity of each indicator to forest management practices, the indicator framework was further reduced to a final set of 29 indicators. This framework can also be applied in other regions, provided that local threshold values are defined to convert indicator values to indicator scores.The selection procedure and the possible contribution of this set to the forest management in Flanders are discussed.     

Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework

Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability.     

Using a network framework to quantitatively select ecological indicators

Ecological indicators are often constructed as an integrated set to represent key information and characteristics of the ecosystem which are tightly linked to management objectives. As an effective tool, ecological indicators play an increasingly important role in ecosystem monitoring, assessment and management. Reasonable selection of an indicator is a prerequisite for effectively using it. A defined protocol with scientific rigor to select ecological indicators is imperative to solve the challenges in ecological indicator selection. This paper compares the Causal Network (CN) with the Ecological Hierarchy Network (EHN) as a framework to select ecological indicators. These frameworks are not exclusive but interdependent in constructing a network framework. Based on the network framework, a quantitative ecological indicator selection method is demonstrated through a theoretical example. In the selection process, the criteria and requirements considering the balance of science and utility are proposed and translated into quantitative constraints of a selection model. By resolving the model under a mathematical operation, the human arbitrary disturbance will be reduced and random selection minimized.     

Development of agri-environmental indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec,Eastern Canada

Agri-environmental indicators are commonly used to assess agricultural sustainability. In North America, few are designed to be easily used by dairy farmers. As farmers assume more responsibility for managing natural resources, they play an increasingly important role in assessing sustainable agriculture. This paper describes the development of an indicator-based self-assessment tool for use at the farm level to evaluate dairy farm sustainability from an environmental standpoint. The agri-environmental indicator set was selected by using two participatory processes: the Delphi method and a focus group. The framework for developing the assessment tool consisted of six steps: (1) Defining the concept of environmental sustainability at the farm level; (2) setting up goals and principles for the assessment; (3) identifying potential indicators and selecting candidate indicators; (4) defining reference values, aggregating indicators into components, and establishing relative weights for indicators; (5) testing the candidate indicators on dairy farms, and (6) selecting the final indicator set. Six criteria were used to evaluate either the practicality or usefulness of indicators. Thirteen indicators were chosen, one of which was divided into four sub-indicators. These indicators were aggregated into four components: soil quality, cropping practices, fertilization management, and farmland management. Expert participation was the first validation of the indicator set. A compromise between feasibility, practicality, and relevance of measurement was found among indicators. When applied to 40 farms over two contrasting regions, the indicator set identified scores that differed according to production context. The tool is user-friendly and well-adapted to dairy farming systems.     

Using the natural capital index framework as a scalable aggregation methodology for regional biodiversity indicators

There is an increasing need for aggregated biodiversity indicators to inform policy decisions at all levels from local to global. Despite their similar policy goals, low-level (e.g. local, regional) and high-level (e.g. continental, global) indicator development is generally performed independently, and the resulting indicators are often incompatible both in their structure and data requirements. In this paper we focus on a particularly flexible aggregation framework originally developed for global assessments, the Natural Capital Index. We show that with the use of appropriate fine-scale data, the NCI framework can be applied in low-level policy contexts as well. To support this statement, we show that several established low-level indicators are essentially conforming to the NCI framework, and can be seen as existing low-level NCI implementations. The concept is illustrated with an implementation for Hungary, and the potential advantages and shortcomings of low level NCI implementations are discussed. NCI-based low level indicators can be implemented in any region, where a local indicator of ecological quality is systematically surveyed. Given the recent surge in monitoring activities worldwide, fuelled by global change and reporting obligations, fine-scale NCI implementations can become important additions to existing ecological state indicators useful in a wide range of local and regional policy contexts.     

Selecting indicator portfolios for marine species and food webs: a Puget sound case study

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has emerged as a promising approach for maintaining the benefits humans want and need from the ocean, yet concrete approaches for implementing EBM remain scarce. A key challenge lies in the development of indicators that can provide useful information on ecosystem status and trends, and assess progress towards management goals. In this paper, we describe a generalized framework for the methodical and transparent selection of ecosystem indicators. We apply the framework to the second largest estuary in the United States - Puget Sound, Washington - where one of the most advanced EBM processes is currently underway. Rather than introduce a new method, this paper integrates a variety of familiar approaches into one step-by-step approach that will lead to more consistent and reliable reporting on ecosystem condition. Importantly, we demonstrate how a framework linking indicators to policy goals, as well as a clearly defined indicator evaluation and scoring process, can result in a portfolio of useful and complementary indicators based on the needs of different users (e.g., policy makers and scientists). Although the set of indicators described in this paper is specific to marine species and food webs, we provide a general approach that could be applied to any set of management objectives or ecological system.     

Mapping indicator models: From intuitive problem structuring to quantified decision-making in sustainable forest management

Most commonly, sustainability indicator sets presented as lists do not take into account interactions among indicators in a systematic manner. Vice versa, existing environmental indicator systems do not provide a formalized approach for problem structuring and quantitative decision support. In this paper, techniques for considering indicator relationships are highlighted and a coupled approach between a qualitative and a quantitative method is analysed. Cognitive mapping (CM) is used for structuring indicators and three different causal maps are derived based on established sustainability concepts: (a) criteria and indicators (C&I hierarchy), (b) indicator network, and (c) Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) system. These maps are transferred to the Analytic Network Process (ANP) to allow their application in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).In an application example, Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM) are utilized in an ANP-based assessment. The effects of the model structure on the overall evaluation result are demonstrated by means of three reporting periods on Austrian forestry.In a comparative analysis of CM and ANP it is tested whether their measures of indicator significance do correspond. Both centrality in CM and single limited priorities in ANP have been reported to identify key indicators that play an important role in networks. We found out that the correspondence between CM and ANP is the stronger the more rigidly cause-effect relationships are interpreted, which is the case for the DPSIR system of SFM indicators.It is demonstrated that using indicator sets without consideration of the indicator interactions will cause shortcomings for evaluation and assessment procedures in SFM. Given strict and consistent definition of causal indicator relationships, a coupled use of CM and ANP is recommendable for both enhancing the process of problem structuring as well as supporting preference-based evaluation of decision alternatives.     

A Framework for Accurately Informing Facilitated Regional Industrial Symbioses on Environmental Consequences

Facilitated regional industrial symbiosis (FRIS) initiatives mainly aim at increasing regional resource‐use efficiency, but should also assess and anticipate other environmental consequences of the intended structural system changes. To successfully embed environmental criteria in an FRIS process, the environmental impacts resulting from induced system changes should comprehensively address all environmental aspects relevant to stakeholders. Normative environmental assessment frameworks used in FRIS, such as life cycle assessment, fail to address the ambiguity surrounding the concept of environment itself and its social foundations. The “environment” is a polysemous (i.e., has multiple meanings), relative and subjective construction and environmental consequences of FRIS initiative should be selected by means of environmental assessment frameworks that enable subjective identification of environmental phenomena of interest. We propose such an environmental assessment framework providing both (1) a logical basis accommodating all FRIS stakeholders’ perceptions of the environment and environmental consequences and (2) a method, embedding that logical basis, for the consideration of environmental consequences in FRIS. The logical basis is built by conceptually structuring independent key elements of the perception of “environment,” that is, the relation between environmental consequences and FRIS stakeholders (object‐subject relation). This generic environmental assessment framework contrasts with the direct use of normative frameworks under which both the phenomena of interest and their indicators are conflated and predefined. The proposed framework is partially illustrated by describing its application to a specific case: the identification of phenomena of interest within an FRIS process aiming to recycle organic residues in Réunion.     

Regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management: Satoumi,ecosystem services approach,and inclusive wealth

This study proposes a novel regional sustainability assessment framework for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Various ICZM indicators have been developed, but their management insights are not always clear. Our framework integrates three separately developed approaches with an explicit reflection of stakeholders’ values: Satoumi (a Japanese concept of socio-ecological production landscapes, SEPLs), ecosystem services approach (ESA), and inclusive wealth (IW). We suggest that the integration of Satoumi, a uniquely Japanese concept, with the ESA and IW complements each other and increases the effectiveness of all three approaches when applied to ICZM and decision making. Satoumi describes the desired state of a coastal zone. The ESA translates Satoumi into IW and helps explain which changes to ecosystems contribute to the asset quality (i.e., shadow prices). As a sustainability indicator, IW differs from other ecological indicators because it comprises human, natural, and manufactured capital assets and incorporates shadow prices to weigh the contribution of each asset to the present value of social welfare. Shadow prices may capture the quality of capital assets in terms of how much people value them, and can therefore be a direct management target for realizing a desired coastal zone. We propose adding two sustainability criteria, desired state and strong sustainability, to the original IW to make it operational. The framework was tested in Japan’s Seto Inland Sea, and the results were analyzed in depth. Based on the outcomes, we discuss the insights for ICZM and future research. While Satoumi is a Japanese concept, the framework could be applied to other countries where similar SEPLs exist.     

生态社区评价指标体系研究进展

生态社区建设融合了建筑学、生态学、社会学等多学科原理,充分体现了人与自然和谐的理念,是符合可持续发展理念的社区发展模式。生态社区评价指标体系在一定的一级指标框架下,采用定性或定量的评价指标,评判社区的可持续发展水平。对生态社区的概念和内涵、形成与发展历程、国内外生态社区相关评价指标体系进行总结和归纳,在此基础上综述了生态社区评价指标体系的研究进展,包括评价主体、一级指标框架的构建、二三级指标使用的频度分析及指标权重的确定方法。最后总结分析了生态社区指标体系研究中对外环境关联、动态发展、参与性与适应性等方面的不足,提出将复杂性理论、生命周期分析方法和生态足迹分析引入生态社区评价指标体系的研究,以提高指标体系的系统性、科学性和参与性。     

Sustainable forest management reporting in Australia

Criteria and indicators are used in a number of sectors to assess progress towards specified goals or targets. The adoption by the Australian Government of a modified set of Montreal Process criteria and indicators to report Australia's progress towards sustainable forest management, at national and sub-national levels, has improved the ability to report comprehensively and consistently, on economic, environmental and social values. The establishment of Australia's Montreal Process Implementation Group, with members from all States and Territories representing forest conservation, production, public and private forest management, provides a strong regional ownership and guidance of the framework. The adoption of the framework by State government agencies, involved in both production and conservation forests, for reporting sustainable forest management demonstrates the framework's relevance at national and sub-national levels. A major development was the implementation, for the first time, of Australia's sustainable forest management reporting framework in Australia's State of the Forest Report 2003. The implementation process revealed issues of relevance to indicators at national and regional levels, data availability, duplication, ambiguity and gaps between some indicators. A national review of the framework is underway to improve the reporting of progress towards sustainable forest management reporting in Australia.     

What criteria should be used to select biodiversity indicators?

The conservation of biodiversity is a major goal in nature conservation, but measuring the total biodiversity of a site or a region is not possible; thus there is a great demand for indicators to represent biodiversity. To be able to make use of indicators, criteria must first be established for their selection, and the degree to which the indicators meet the criteria must be tested. However, the purposes for which indicators are applied—and thus sometimes the criteria themselves—differ between ecological science and environmental policy. As transparency in choosing and testing suitable biodiversity indicators will optimize the results of an indicator, this article first aims to determine if there are common approaches in selecting biodiversity indicators in ecology and environmental policy. Second, we asked which criteria biodiversity indicators were scientifically tested against to determine their suitability. To answer these questions, we analyzed papers on biodiversity indicators referenced in the Web of Science. Our results demonstrate different patterns for selecting biodiversity indicators in the different fields of application. In ecology, the quality of indicators is mainly determined by a close relationship between indicator and indicandum (i.e., indicated phenomenon), while the relevance of an indicator for a given issue, e.g., reserve selection or an assessment of a certain impact, is of paramount importance for conservation policy. Surprisingly, few biodiversity indicators are empirically tested to determine if they meet the criteria by which they were purportedly chosen. We argue that this is due to the different conceptualizations of biodiversity indicators in science and environmental policy. Since the suitability of biodiversity indicators remains untested in many cases, our findings suggest room to make better use of indicators in ecology and environmental policy. As the results of ecological research are put to use to solve environmental problems, the selection of indicators for ecological research should correspond to a large extent with those used in environmental policy. Further, to assess the suitability of a biodiversity indicator, it should be tested against all of the criteria relevant for its selection.     

Measuring Progress towards a Circular Economy: A Monitoring Framework for Economy‐wide Material Loop Closing in the EU28

The concept of a circular economy (CE) is gaining increasing attention from policy makers, industry, and academia. There is a rapidly evolving debate on definitions, limitations, the contribution to a wider sustainability agenda, and a need for indicators to assess the effectiveness of circular economy measures at larger scales. Herein, we present a framework for a comprehensive and economy‐wide biophysical assessment of a CE, utilizing and systematically linking official statistics on resource extraction and use and waste flows in a mass‐balanced approach. This framework builds on the widely applied framework of economy‐wide material flow accounting and expands it by integrating waste flows, recycling, and downcycled materials. We propose a comprehensive set of indicators that measure the scale and circularity of total material and waste flows and their socioeconomic and ecological loop closing. We applied this framework in the context of monitoring efforts for a CE in the European Union (EU28) for the year 2014. We found that 7.4 gigatons (Gt) of materials were processed in the EU and only 0.71 Gt of them were secondary materials. The derived input socioeconomic cycling rate of materials was therefore 9.6%. Further, of the 4.8 Gt of interim output flows, 14.8% were recycled or downcycled. Based on these findings and our first efforts in assessing sensitivity of the framework, a number of improvements are deemed necessary: improved reporting of wastes, explicit modeling of societal in‐use stocks, introduction of criteria for ecological cycling, and disaggregated mass‐based indicators to evaluate environmental impacts of different materials and circularity initiatives. This article met the requirements for a gold – gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges .     

Development of environmental performance indicators supported by an environmental information system: Application to the Norwegian defence sector

Environmental performance indicators (EPIs) can be an important tool for evaluating and reporting the integration of environmental practices and tools in the defence sector, ensuring that environmental issues are being consistently and clearly followed into sector activities on a local and national scale. However, proper use of indicators is dependent on a suitable conceptual framework to manage and assess the environmental performance. Furthermore, monitoring is fundamental to environmental efficiency evaluations both to assess adherence to standards and to support management options. The use of EPI assures that a monitoring system for a public sector addresses only the key variables associated with significant environmental impacts and also improves communication with stakeholders. The main objective of this paper is to develop EPIs supported by an environmental information system (EIS), as a tool for environmental efficiency evaluations in the defence sector. To put the proposed approach into practice, the Norwegian defence EIS is used as a data source – a system developed to increase environmental awareness and to promote environmental efficiency, in the reporting of environmental aspects like use of ammunition, generation of waste, energy consumption, fuel consumption, use of chemicals, and water consumption. Use of real data acquired from the EIS is used to test and evaluate the robustness of the public sector's environmental performance indicator conceptual framework (SEPIIS), used to support the developed indicators. The main findings show how an indicator framework can be effectively combined with the use of an EIS designed to process data from a sector's activities, stressing how environmental issues could be integrated into overall public services performance management. The EPI developed for the Norwegian defence allowed to trace the sector's environmental performance, by comparisons with commissions from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence and national goals for GHG emissions, identifying areas for priority response measures. This joined approach of indicators and information systems could be useful to increase and improve environmental ex post and ex ante assessments, reporting and communication of defence activities.     

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.     

Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives based on ecological footprint and multi-criteria analysis

The selection of a municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment alternative is a complex task in which a widespread set of criteria must be taken into account. Additionally to economic or social aspects, the decision process should consider the environmental perspective. With the purpose of quantifying the environmental burdens, a wide variety of environmental and sustainability indicators have been developed in the last years. Furthermore, integrative frameworks have been highlighted as the best option to achieve more comprehensive assessments.In this work, four different options of MSW treatment were ranked from an environmental point of view applying two methods: (1) the ecological footprint (EF) as single composite indicator and (2) multi-criteria analysis (MCA) integrating the EF together with other material flow indicators related to water consumption, emissions to air and water and occupied landfill volume. The MCA methods selected were a combination of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) aided by Geometrical Analysis for Interactive Aid (GAIA). The objective was twofold: on the one side, the identification of the most beneficial waste treatment alternative (including thermal plasma gasification which as yet has not been assessed systematically) from an environmental perspective and, on the other side, the comparison of the results yielded by the two ranking methods proposed.The ranking obtained in both cases was (from best to worst): thermal plasma gasification, biological treatment of organic fraction with energy recovery from refuse derived fuel, incineration with energy recovery and landfilling. Hence, the EF proved to be a good screening indicator although it did not provide a comprehensive measure of environmental impacts associated to the waste treatment options considered. Besides, the combined application of AHP and PROMETHEE/GAIA as MCA methodology was found to be a suitable way, not very complex at user level, to integrate the information provided by a set of environmental criteria and to aid decision making.     

生态系统健康评价的研究进展

生态系统健康评价是环境管理和生态系统监控的基础,生态系统监控可促进生态系统健康评价。首先介绍了生态系统健康概念的产生,发展及其不同的内涵,并着重回顾和讨论了生态系统健康评价指标及其存在的问题,生态系统健康评价指标包括生态指标,物理化学指标,人类健康与社会经济指标3大类,生态指标是反映生态系统特征和状态的生物指标,它分为生态系统,群落和种群与个体等不同层次的指标或指标体系,物理化学指标是检测生态系统的非生物环境的指标。人类健康与社会经济指标着眼于生态系统对人类生存与社会发展的支持作用,采用经济参数和社会发展的环境压力指标等来衡量生态服务的质量与可持续性,根据其敏感程度和功能性,生态系统健康评价指标分为早期预警指标,适宜程度指标和诊断指标3类,一个完整的生态系统评价应包括上述3大类指标或指标体系,但在具体的评价实践中往往因评价目的和对象的不同而有所选择,生态系统健康评价目前有两个亟待解决的问题,如何有效确立评价标准与参照系以及如何正确区分人为压力和自然干扰。     

基于网络分析的生态建设评估指标体系定量选取——以福建省为例

科学有效的指标体系是开展区域生态建设评估以及规划、管理的重要技术手段。然而目前在生态指标体系构建中仍缺乏对指标内涵的系统研究,同时指标的选取过程不够透明,掺杂诸多主观臆断,损害了生态指标体系构建的科学性和有效性。针对福建省生态建设实践,将网络分析与量化指标选择过程相结合,(1)根据福建省生态建设规划和目标,建立主题导向的生态省建设评估网状指标体系;(2)从因果联系、生态过程和管理需求三方面分析各个备选指标之间的相互联系,形成基于主题导向的生态指标网络;(3)根据生态指标应用的科学性和实用性标准,基于网络分析原理,建立生态建设评估指标选择标准矩阵和备选指标矩阵;(4)构建面向经济社会成本和生态完整性的指标选取模型,定量化选取符合福建省实际发展特征的生态建设评估操作指标体系。将有助于深入理解生态建设评估指标体系的内涵,提高指标体系构建的科学性和系统性,提升生态指标体系在实际生态建设评估、规划和管理应用中的效用。     

State of environment indicators of 'river health': exploring the metaphor

1. Indicators are crucial to many socio-political schemes for portraying environmental influences of society. For example, the OECD model for State of the Environment Reporting uses three different sorts of indicators (pressure, condition, response) to differentiate the present condition of the environment from the anthropogenic pressures upon it and from any societal responses made to alleviate those pressures (thereby improving aspects of the overall condition). 2. These sorts of indicators have a fundamental technical basis in the science supporting their exposition and usage. However, the criteria used in interpreting the indicator values are likely to be set by considerations that go beyond scientific grounds. That is, indicators are socially determined in the end. However, many scientists find it difficult to involve the public in such reporting. 3. Scientists who are uncomfortable with this non-technical use of their indicator constructs should recognize that it is merely another manifestation of the overall broadening of environmental concern termed ‘ecosystem health’. The emerging field of ecosystem health seeks to take our technical understanding of how the environment functions and combine it with socio-economic goals, using a human health metaphor and an ethical underpinning. 4. River health might be better served by adopting a veterinary approach rather than the model of human health. This is because, like animals, riverine environments come in many different forms and cannot complain of ill health. Desirable interventions will vary with the uses to which we wish to put a river and our reasons for being concerned about a river’s health. A framework for this diagnostic approach is presented. 5. An enormous challenge lies ahead in integrating the various measurements of riverine attributes that might together constitute ‘river health’. We need ways to cater for the pluralism of modern societies, and we need more dynamic assessments of river condition, possibly founded on studies of key ecological processes.     

Assessing the sustainability of water companies: A synthetic indicator approach

Performance indicators (PIs) are essential in the benchmarking process used to rate and rank water companies. However, a set of individual PIs does not provide a holistic assessment of company performance from multiple perspectives. A multidimensional evaluation of the performance of water companies can be achieved by aggregating the PIs into a synthetic indicator. Although the concept of sustainability involves economic, environmental and social criteria, most of the previous studies have not considered these three dimensions simultaneously. This paper discusses a process of indicator aggregation using two approaches based on multi-criteria decision analysis to evaluate and compare the sustainability of water companies from a holistic perspective. A synthetic indicator embracing economic, environmental and social PIs was computed for a sample of 154 Portuguese water companies. Both methods yielded similar rankings of water company sustainability. The techniques and results presented in this paper may be utilized as a means of improving the benchmarking process in regulated water industries, as well as providing valuable contributions to decision-makers on the most efficient steps for improving the sustainability of urban water services.