Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21

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.

Full text

Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent
Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21, GDS, IIG, Spain.
-----------------------------
Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability
Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21
By
Lucio Munoz*
* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
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 below summarises the terminology used to present the ideas contained in
this paper:
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:

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:

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 = -0.33
*
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 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).

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.
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
---------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003. Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent
Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21, GDS, IIG, Spain.