Ecoindicators by Stephanie Tencer and Steven Peck Peck & Associates

Indicators are a valuable tool that can be used to measure the progress made in achieving sustainability. Indicator development can be based on various frameworks, each of which has advantages for a specific target audience. This paper reviews some of the theory and practical application of indicators using the Don River Watershed and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth as examples. Indicators monitored by community monitoring groups can also provide value to citizens on various different levels. Community monitoring is profiled as an emerging approach to obtain data for indicators through the work of Citizens Environment Watch.

Community organizations are increasingly developing indicators to measure progress towards achieving urban sustainability. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines an indicator as "a statistic or measure which facilitates interpretation and judgments about the condition or an element of the world or society in relation to a standard or goal" (U.S. EPA 1972). State of the Environment (SOE), quality of life, healthy city and watershed regeneration reporting are just a few examples of how many different types of indicators are now being used. Virginia Maclaren's Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainability: A Focus on the Canadian Experience (1996) provides a thorough review of the different types of indicators, frameworks and applications of indicators in the Canadian domain.

Indicators have various users and uses. Indicators can be used to monitor compliance with policy and regulations. They can be a management tool to help improve the efficiency with which municipal services are provided. They can act as a source for public information, and therefore result in improved citizenship. Indicators can also help identify areas under stress, identify opportunities for improvement, set priorities, allocate resources and provide a means of measuring accountability. The usefulness of indicators is highlighted by the diverse array of potential users, varying from municipal planners and elected officials to citizens groups and teachers. Given the wide range of potential applications of indicators, their development can be guided through the use of one or more conceptual frameworks.

Since communities are composed of unique groups of individuals and unique sets of physical, social and economic characteristics, they will likely have differing perspectives and goals related to sustainability, and therefore different needs for indicators. A number of frameworks have been developed to guide the development of indicators. The Bellagio Principles, for example, guide the assessment of progress towards sustainable development. Imbedded in these principles is the notion of developing indicators to track progress. The condition-stress-response framework, first conceived by Statistics Canada, and subsequently modified and adapted by numerous organizations and countries around the world, is particularly adapted to SOE reporting. And, there is a goal-based orientation for developing indicators used, for example in the Great Lakes Basin.

• Bellagio Principles were developed in 1996 by a group of experts who met in Bellagio, Italy, to guide the practical assessment of progress toward sustainable development. These principles address four components of using/developing indicators: the starting point, the content, the process and the continuing capacity of the assessment process. (See box below)

• The Condition-Stress-Response framework for indicator development is a tool that can help to highlight some of the discernible links between human activities and environmental conditions. For example, the condition may be poor air quality, the stress could be extensive automobile use, and the response might be traffic demand management.

• The Goal-based framework identifies a goal related to the community's vision (i.e. to meet basic social needs), and then develops an indicator that will reflect the community's progress towards achieving that goal (i.e. monitoring the percentage of the population that fall below the poverty line).

It is also possible to combine these frameworks to develop a framework that is best suited to meet community needs.

Bellagio Principles - Guidelines for Practical Assessment of Progress toward Sustainable Development: GUIDING VISION AND GOALS ¨ Be guided by a clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision. HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE Include review of the whole system as well as its parts. Consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state, as well as the direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the interaction between parts. Consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and non-monetary terms. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Consider equity and disparity within the current population and between present and future generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption and poverty, human rights, and access to services, as appropriate. Consider the ecological conditions on which life depends. Consider the economic development and other, no-market activities that contribute to human/social well-being. ADEQUATE SCOPE Adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time scales thus responding to needs of future generations as well as those current to short term decision-making. Define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts on people and ecosystems. Build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions - where we want to go, where we could go. PRACTICAL FOCUS An explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision and goals to indicators and assessment criteria A limited number of key issues for analysis A limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of progress Standardizing measurement wherever possible to permit comparison Comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction of trends, as appropriate. OPENNESS Make the methods and data that are used accessible to all. Make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION Be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users Draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decision-makers. Aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain language. BROAD PARTICIPATION Obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical and social groups, including youth, women, and indigenous people - to ensure recognition of diverse and changing values. Ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and resulting action. ONGOING ASSESSMENT Develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends. Be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are complex and change frequently. Adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained. Promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision-making. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development should be assured by: Clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making process. Providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation. Supporting development of local assessment capacity. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (www.IISD.ca/measure/1.htm) has developed case studies that illustrate the practicality of each of these principles.

After a framework is established, it is important to identify criteria to select the indicators you want to use. These criteria provide the basis for evaluating the suitability and applicability of a particular indicator. The weighting placed on specific criterion will vary according to the needs of the individual communities. The following is a generic list of selection criteria for sustainable development and environmental indicators that is in use world-wide. (Refer to : Dilks, 1996, and Maclaren, 1996 for a discussion of selection criteria for urban sustainability indicators).

Selection Criteria:

1. scientific validity
2. responsiveness
3. relevance to stated goals
4. cost effective to collect and use
5. unambiguous
6. integrative of environmental, social and economic factors
7. representativeness
8. accuracy
9. accessibility and availability of data
10. understandability by users
11. comparable to thresholds and targets
12. comparable with other jurisdictions
13. provide early warnings
14. attractive to media

Many of these criteria were used to develop a report card on the status of the Don River watershed. Some of the main lessons learned from this two year exercise are discussed below.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DON RIVER REGENERATION COUNCIL'S WATERSHED REPORT CARD:

The Don Watershed Regeneration Council was formed by the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority in 1995 to implement a comprehensive strategy for the regeneration of the Don River Watershed in Toronto, Canada. The Don River is one of the most highly developed and polluted urban watercourses in Canada. The watershed is over 36,000 hectares in size and home to over 800,000 people. The Don Council, a 27 member body consisting of municipal politicians, citizens and interest group representatives has been working for three years to implement "Forty Steps To A New Don", a blueprint for a regenerated watershed developed by its predecessor, the Don Watershed Task Force. One of the 'forty steps' in this report involves developing a report card to chart progress in regenerating the Don and the remaining challenges. The report-card is to be developed every three years.

After two years of work, the first report card "Turning the Corner" was recently completed by a Sub-Committee of the Don Council. The report card contains 18 indicators which cover topics such as: The River, Habitats & Wildlife, People, Protected Natural Areas and Regeneration Projects & Stewardship. Many of the indicators are integrative. For example, increasing the areas of wetlands (indicator 6) will also improve water quality (indicator 3), increase frog and fish populations (indicators 9 & 10), ameliorate the Don's unnaturally high flooding tendency (indicator 1) and enrich people's responsibility, use and enjoyment of the Don (indicator 13).

A number of key lessons emerged from this exercise that may be of use to others who are contemplating the development of indicators and targets.

• Identify your audiences and your objectives. Indicators and targets are useful ways to identify progress and priorities for action, lobby for needed resources (both to conduct the monitoring and to improve the situation) and to inform and educate. By identifying your key audiences at the start, and what role(s) the indicators will play, you will be able to develop a more useful and meaningful end product.

• The process is more important than the outcome. Reach out to your target audiences when you develop the indicators. The reason that indicators have meaning is because people understand them and their significance. To ensure the development of effective indicators, people must be able to comprehend and 'buy-in' to their significance, particularly if the indicators may be used to evaluate their performance in some way. The Don Council held numerous community workshops as well as special workshops with other targeted groups in order to ensure that "Turning the Corner" was relevant to varied concerns.

• Some biophysical indicators change very, very slowly. They are also subject to multiple stressors that can make it hard to establish a direct cause and effect as in the condition-stress-response framework. Progress you make in one area can be eliminated by other developments (i.e. planting forested habitat but losing existing forest to new development). Therefore, identifying faster changing socioeconomic indicators is very important (i.e. number of regeneration projects underway, best management practices among golf courses, amount of money spent on eliminating combined sewer overflows, number of schools using the Don as a teaching resource). These should be included with biophysical measures (i.e., baseflow, turbidity, percentage area in wetlands). Socioeconomic indicators largely measure the degree of 'effort' and this is where early progress is most likely to appear.

• Indicators are not enough. Many indicators are self explanatory but others require targets or at least directional targets to heighten precision. In "Turning The Corner" we set 3 year, 10 year and 30 year targets for most of the indicators. For example, two available 3 year targets include: doubling the number of regeneration projects to 200, and adding 12 new hectares of wetlands. One 30 year target is to have a major wetland at the mouth of the Don River and at least .5% of the total area of the watershed as wetland habitat. Target setting requires a mixture of science, vision and sound judgment. These targets will help the Don Council and its supporters to focus their resources more effectively in the future.

  In addition to the report card, the Don Council has established a community monitoring program that focuses on the presence of frog species, a good indicator of overall ecosystem health. The value of and drawbacks related to integrating community monitoring into indicator development and use are discussed at greater length below. "Turning the Corner" is available on the TRCA's web site under the heading Don Watershed Council: (www.trca.on.ca). The educational and awareness-raising impact of indicators is extremely valuable. Widespread knowledge about the state and quality of the environment is what will form the foundation of a community, a province, a planet that is headed towards a sustainable future. Indicators are in essence, a tool that communities can use to achieve a more sustainable community. One significant user and possible facilitator of this type of information is the community-based monitoring group. Community monitoring groups are non-government organizations that monitor various indicators of ecosystem health. They rely on volunteers to do the monitoring, and aim to initiate change either through education, or through the creation of formal or informal networks of communication. Community-based monitoring groups are an organizational facility through which citizens can exercise their influential power in order to help maintain the integrity of their local environments. Citizens can use indicators to emphasize which components of the community they live in are most valuable to them. Hence, community based monitoring groups empower citizens to act upon their values and help ensure that they are respected.

  
  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENT WATCH:

  Citizens Environment Watch (www.utoronto.ca/envstudy/cew/cew.htm) (CEW) is an example of a Toronto-based community monitoring group that utilizes indicators as a tool to perpetuate province-wide knowledge of the state and quality of the environment. CEW, a year and half old, has established a monitoring network of 1000 participants across the province. On Earth day 1997, members went out to monitor the pH level of various local water bodies. After the data was submitted to the CEW office, it was analyzed and used in conjunction with other indicator trends to establish the health of the provinces' water body. The results are accessible on the Internet. CEW is also working with leading edge technology to transfer the data to Geographic Information Systems. By Earth day 1998, CEW hopes to have members doing frequent monitoring of pH, temperature, ammonia and turbidity levels.

  In addition to empowering citizens to get involved by providing them with simple, yet hands-on and accurate methods for monitoring, CEW also has an educational mandate. They provide each member with a binder that has background information about the parameter they will be monitoring. This binder addresses issues like why it is important to monitor the particular indicator, what causes, enhances and/or aggravates the parameter, and the effects of the parameter on all components of the ecosystem. Ideas for how the community can help reduce the stress of a particular parameter, as well as both individual and group activities are also provided in the binder. The underlying theme of CEW's educational approach is an emphasis on the individual's personal connection to, and dependency upon, the natural environment. Through a unique, inter-disciplinary approach, CEW uses creative medium to demonstrate the practicality of environmental issues without resorting to the 'doom & gloom' scenario that is so often present in environmental education.

  Susan Matheson, CEW's Project Coordinator, indicated that although CEW's target audiences are high schools and community groups, as long as the member demonstrates a commitment, anyone with an active interest in environmental issues can become involved. CEW tries to ensure equal opportunity to all members of the community by providing all the necessary supplies for monitoring, free of charge.

  When asked about the role community monitoring groups play in maintaining the health of the environment, Matheson responded, "community monitoring groups bring science back to the people. They make science less intimidating by getting the citizens actively involved. This in turn harnesses a greater understanding of the environment, which often gives the citizens the confidence they need in order to speak out and/or act in defense of their environment".

  Matheson is adamant about the fact that community monitoring groups should not be viewed as a replacement for government monitoring. As valuable as community monitoring groups are, there are inevitable limitations that a community monitoring group is faced with. For example, Matheson identified the reliance on volunteers versus trained professionals, and the inability for most community groups to afford the best quality equipment as two significant drawbacks to community monitoring groups. CEW has worked to try to overcome these obstacles. For example, they use methods which are simple and consequently inexpensive. Methodological simplicity makes the quality of the data more reliable. Regardless of the improvements made, Matheson sees monitoring as a government responsibility. She points out the irony in the fact that, "although the government seems to be putting the onus on citizens to continue environmental monitoring, the government is often hesitant to act on the recommendations of community monitoring groups with the complaint that their data accuracy and quality control isn't up to par." Community monitoring groups are also faced with the obstacle of not having core funding. Therefore, the continuity of the monitoring projects is never certain.

  CEW and many other community monitoring groups, despite the financial and theoretical constraints, have managed to stay afloat and generate useful and usable data. They can provide a complementary source of government information in a manner that yields many additional community benefits.

  An emerging approach to indicator development is the use of comprehensive sustainability indicators. Earlier indicator work focused on SOE reporting or healthy cities. Sustainability indicators attempt to be more integrative. They can be defined as "indicators that link the social, environmental and economic elements of the ecosystem, have an overlying equity component, and are directly related to society's goals for future sustainability" (Hercz: 1).

  The following is a list of 8 characteristics of sustainability indicators identified in the draft Workbook for the Development of Sustainability Indicators (Hercz, unpublished): Urban sustainability indicators: cover a broad range of conditions, stressors and responses are linked to urban sustainability objectives are integrative in nature are forward looking make reference to targets and thresholds especially at the local level combine the use of input and output data measure inter-generational and intra-generational equity reflect local and non-local sources of environmental degradation

  Efforts have been made by the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada to develop urban sustainability indicators.

  HAMILTON-WENTWORTH SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR REPORT CARD:

  
  The regional council of Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada adopted Vision 2020 as its strategic plan for future development. Vision 2020 is a description of Hamilton-Wentworth in the year 2020. It embodies the principles of sustainability by assigning equal weight to the social, economic and environmental factors pertaining to all regional decision making. After developing Vision 2020, the region recognized the need to monitor their progress in achieving the goals outlined in the Vision, and therefore established a multi-disciplinary Project Team to develop indicators. Hamilton-Wentworth's indicators are intended to inform the community about Vision 2020 and the need for sustainability.

  The underlying values that informed Hamilton-Wentworth's approach towards achieving sustainability include:
  

  • The development of a specific vision for the future of the area (Vision 2020).
  • Equal consideration to the economic, social and environmental domains of sustainability.
  • The development of indicators that are integrative and forward-looking.
  • The establishment of relative targets for each indicator.
  • A strong emphasis on community involvement and education about sustainability issues.

  Because the region identified community members as their primary target audience, the region incorporated public opinion into the selection process for the indicators. The public had two opportunities to participate:
  

  • At the Annual Sustainable Community Day in 1994, 118 people were surveyed and indicated what they felt were the most important topics for indicators.
  • A workbook was created that explained the goals of Vision 2020 and the nature of the indicators project. The public was then asked to critique the proposed indicators and make any suggestions for other indicators.

  As a result of community input, the proposed indicators increased from 29 to over 400. They were then evaluated according to:
  

  • Measurability;
  • Ease of Collection;
  • Credibility and Validity;
  • Balance; and,
  • Potential for Affecting Change

  The project team had to put the most weight on the availability of data, since the Vision 2020 Indicators Project had no research resources and could only rely on existing data. Regardless, the Team came up with a list of 28 integrative indicators that cover a range of 11 different aspects of community life. Air quality, health and well being, community empowerment, waste & livelihood are just some examples of the diverse range of issues the Hamilton-Wentworth's sustainability indicators address. Examples of indicators include: Annual Users of Hazardous Waste Depot, Annual Transit Ridership Per Capita, Annual Applications for Affordable Housing & Voter Turnout for Municipal Elections.

  In order to effectively communicate the region's progress to the community, the Project Team produces an annual sustainability report-card and Background Report. The report card is a very valuable tool for informing the community about Vision 2020, as it is simple to understand but still comprehensive enough to provide the public with valuable information. The Background Report describes each indicator in the report card, along with a target, information about trends indicating how well the region is doing, limitations of the indicator, and what the community can do to improve the indicator. In addition, each indicator is marked with either a happy face indicating progress is being made, a straight face indicating uncertainty about whether progress is being made, or an unhappy face indicating the need for improvement.

  The following is an example of how an indicator appears in the Hamilton-Wentworth's Sustainability Indicators 1995 Background Report: Amount of Road Salt Used on Regional Roads Description: The use of road salt creates significant environmental and economic impacts arising from surface and groundwater pollution and damage to vegetation, soil quality, vehicles and structures, particularly parking garages. Vision 2020 supports the elimination of road salt use even though this goal will be difficult to achieve due to concerns about public safety. In time it is hoped that the full costs of road salt use will be better understood and we will find less damaging and lower cost ways to live with winter. Target: Additional 10% reduction until better alternatives are available. How Are We Doing? Use of road salt on rural regional roads declined initially, however since 1993 use has climbed again, which is a negative trend. Limitations of Indicator: While the unit of measurement allows for fluctuations in snowfall, other weather considerations such as temperature, freeze thaw cycle, etc. may also influence salt use. The indicator reflects data for regional roads in Glanbrook, Ancaster and Flamborough only. At present there is no feasible substitute for road salt which limits the potential for significant improvement in the near future. What Can the Community Do To Improve This Indicator? Ensure vehicles are properly winterized. If possible, use transit or stay at home during bad weather. Use shovels, not salt to clear sidewalks. (Neighbourhood dogs will appreciate it!) This indicator received an unhappy face in the 1995 background report.

  Despite these success stories, indicator development is often faced with serious technical and financial constraints. Lack of data, funding and trained professionals are common obstacles that can impede upon the efforts of those developing indicators. There is therefore, a need for continuous research and innovation in the area of identifying practical and efficient solutions to overcoming these barriers. One example of a recent initiative aimed at overcoming some of the constraints associated with indicator development is the development of an on-line SOE info-base (www.1.ec.gc.ca/~soer). Environment Canada and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are collaborating on a community sustainability indicators' software project, (as follow-up to a national workshop on urban sustainability indicators which the two federal departments co-hosted in 1995.) This multi-phased project aims to develop a sustainability indicators' software tool that will help communities to assess and monitor their own progress towards sustainable development goals. Talks are currently underway to include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in this initiative. The software plan, the goal-issue framework and a list of core indicators to be included in the Sustainable Community Indicators Software have been completed. The current phase involves development of a prototype to demonstrate feasibility and testing of the concept with potential users. This phase is expected to be completed by June 1998.

  In an age where sustainability issues are of pressing concern, the value of developing and utilizing new types of indicators should not be underestimated. They are useful in identifying, monitoring and improving the social, environmental and economic dimensions of a community. Whether it be a highly integrative approach like that of Hamilton-Wentworth's, or a more narrowly focused approach like those of the Don Watershed Council and Citizens' Environment Watch, the development of a more holistic approach is critical in making progress toward a sustainable future.

  
  

  ---

  References

  Dilks, D., Lura Group. 1996. Measuring Urban Sustainability: Canadian Indicators Workshop June 19-21, 1995 Workshop Proceedings. Prepared for State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Canada and Centre for Future Studies in Housing and Living Environments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

  Hercz, A. Unpublished. Workbook for the Development of Sustainability Indicators.

  Sponsored and published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. 1996. Bellagio Principles: Guidelines for Practical Assessment of Progress Toward Sustainable Development: Winnipeg.

  Maclaren, V. W. 1996. Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainability: A Focus on the Canadian Experience. Prepared for State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. ICURR Press, Toronto.

  Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Environment Department. 1995. Hamilton-Wentworth's Sustainability Indicators 1995 Background Report. Hamilton-Wentworth.

  U.S. EPA. 1972. Quality of Life Indicators as cited in Dilks, D., Lura Group. 1996. Measuring Urban Sustainability: Canadian Indicators Workshop June 19-21, 1995 Workshop Proceedings. Prepared for State of the Environment Directorate, Environment Canada and Centre for Future Studies in Housing and Living Environments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

  
  

  Steven Peck is the principal of Peck & Associates, a firm dedicated to identifying and implementing win-win policies and programs in support of sustainable development. In his capacity as a member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, he has worked for the past two years in the development of "Turning the Corner", a report card for the Don River Watershed. Peck & Associates offers workshops on indicator development and application. For more information call (416) 422 1977.

  Stephanie Tencer is a Research Associate with Peck & Associates. She is currently completing her degree in Environment and Resource Management at the University of Toronto. Ms. Tencer is also employed by Citizens Environment Watch (CEW) where she is responsible for overseeing the educational component of their program.

  Return to the Changing Inappropriate Information Systems topic page or go back to the NewUrban Agenda home page.