Content uploaded by Didem Dizdaroglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Didem Dizdaroglu on Jun 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Review
The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability
Assessment in Policy and the Decision-Making
Process: A Review and Outlook
Didem Dizdaroglu
School of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, Bilkent University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey;
dizdaroglu@bilkent.edu.tr; Tel.: +90-312-290-2602
Academic Editor: Tan Yigitcanlar
Received: 8 May 2017; Accepted: 9 June 2017; Published: 16 June 2017
Abstract:
In order to regulate natural processes and control the scale of human activities, sustainability
assessment needs to be integrated into urban planning. In this context, indicator-based sustainability
assessment tools are fundamental instruments that provide information to support policy and
decision-making. Indicators are necessary to monitor the implementation of the policies and provide
feedback needed to accomplish the desirable state of sustainable urban development. This paper aims
to explore the role of indicator-based sustainability assessment in policy and the decision-making
process. Therefore, it reviews the identified sustainable development indicator initiatives and
addresses the research gaps in the literature for future improvement of sustainability assessment
frameworks. It concludes with a discussion that the major problem in sustainability assessment lies
in the gathering of reliable and accessible data.
Keywords: sustainable city; sustainability assessment; indicators; policy-making; decision-making
1. Introduction
Expanding urbanisation is one of the leading problems of rapid population growth today.
According to the United Nations’ world urbanisation prospects report, 54% of the world’s population
resided in urban areas in 2014 and this number is expected to reach 66% by 2050 [
1
]. As a result of this
scale and speed of the growth, providing adequate infrastructure and flexibility to support the needs of
this growing population has led to the development of new approaches to the concept of ‘sustainability’.
As one of them, sustainability assessment (SA) is a methodology that aims to: (1) contribute to a better
understanding of the sustainability and its contextual interpretation; (2) integrate sustainability issues
into decision-making by identifying and assessing sustainability impacts, and; (3) foster sustainable
development policies [
2
]. Since it was established, the use of SA tools has spread rapidly with different
interpretations and implementations. Over the past decades, various methodologies were developed
to perform SA focusing on different scopes (i.e., four pillars of sustainability) and scales (i.e., local,
national, and international) [3].
Today, measurement of sustainability problems via indicators has been widely used by the
scientific communities, governments and policy-makers. Indicators serve as a powerful tool
in evaluating the impacts of environmental issues and making political decisions for achieving
sustainability. Indicator selection is often subjective and the choice of an indicator depends on
factors such as whether it is cost-effective, easy to understand, scientifically reliable and internationally
comparable [
4
]. Measurability is one of the basic criteria that needs to be taken into account in the
development of an effective indicator framework. In recent years, numerous organisations have
developed sustainable development indicator (SDI) frameworks at a wide range of geographical units.
However, most of them raise important challenges caused by poor quality data. Moreover, many
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018; doi:10.3390/su9061018 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 2 of 28
studies in the literature point out the potential of this approach as well as emphasise a need for further
research to gather reliable and accessible data at different geographical scales [5–14].
Due to the importance of SA for taking actions in an attempt to make cities more sustainable, this
paper focuses on the role of indicator-based sustainability assessment in policy and decision-making to
provide insights for researchers and practitioners. Firstly, it provides insights for the ‘sustainable city’
by outlining its main characteristics. Secondly, it describes indicator-based sustainability assessment
followed by a review of current progress for SDI initiatives across the world. These initiatives
are from many countries including Australia, the USA, Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Switzerland,
Italy, Germany, France, Ireland, South Africa, Japan, China, Malaysia and Hong Kong and from
intergovernmental organisations (Table 1, for more detailed information, please refer to Appendix A).
An extensive review of the literature on sustainability indicator frameworks conducted based upon
an international literature review and analysis of “grey” literature such as documents published by
international organizations, governmental agencies and research institutions available on the internet.
Published, peer-reviewed literature was searched using Scopus and the Web of Science databases,
while Google was used to search the grey literature. The following keywords were used for searching
the literature: “sustainable development indicators”, “urban sustainability indicators”, “sustainable
development indicator initiatives”, “sustainability indicator frameworks”, “sustainable community
indicators”, “sustainability indices/index” and “sustainability rating tools”. Furthermore, this paper
describes the integration of SDIs into policy and the decision-making process. Finally, it concludes
with a summary of findings.
Table 1. Identified SDI initiatives.
Initiative/Developer(s)
Scale
International
National
State
City/County
Neighbourhood
Building
Housing
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) set
of indicators √
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Better
Life Index √
OECD Green Growth Indicators √
EEA core set of indicators By European Environment Agency √
World Health Organization (WHO) Environmental Health indicators √
EUROSTAT (The statistical office of the European Union)—Indicators for
sustainable development √
Human Development Index (HDI) By the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) √
Millennium Development Goals Indicators (MDGs) By the United Nations √
World Development Indicators (WDI) By the World Bank √
Europe 2020 Indicators By the European Union √
FEEM Sustainability Index By ENI Enrico Mattei Foundation √
The City Prosperity Index By UN-Habitat √
ISO 37120:2014 Standards—Indicators for city services and quality of life By
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—Sustainable
development of communities
√
The Global Power City Index By Mori Memorial Foundation, Japan √
The Networked Society City Index By Ericsson √
National Footprint Accounts 2014 By the Global Footprint Network √ √
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 3 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s)
Scale
International
National
State
City/County
Neighbourhood
Building
Housing
Environmental Sustainability Index By Yale Centre for Environmental Law
and Policy and Centre for International Earth Science Information Network
of Columbia University
√ √
Environmental Performance Index By Yale Centre for Environmental Law
and Policy and Centre for International Earth Science Information Network
of Columbia University
√ √
The ARCADIS Sustainable Cities Index By London Economic Research
Institute Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) √ √
The Netherlands: Sustainability Monitor √
Well-being in the Netherlands: Statistics Netherland’s Measuring
Sustainable Development and Societal Progress By Statistics Netherlands √
Switzerland: sustainable development indicator system MONET By the
Swiss Statistics √
Measures of Australia’s Progress By Australian Bureau of Statistics √
UK government sustainable development indicators By the Office for
National Statistics (ONS) √
BES (Benessere Equoe Sostenible)—Measuring and Assessing Progress of
Italian Society By the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat) and the
Italian National Council for Economics and Labour (CNEL)
√
Measuring Ireland’s Progress By Central Statistics Office, Ireland √
Quality of Life Reporting System By the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities √
China Urban Sustainability Index By Urban China Initiative √
SustainLane U.S. City Rankings √
Virginia Performs, USA √
Community Indicator Projects in the USA (Baltimore Neighbourhood
Indicators Alliance, Boston Indicators Project, Puget Sound Dashboard of
Ecosystem Indicators, Sustainable Seattle etc.)
√
Community Indicator Projects in Australia (City of Sydney indicator
framework, Community Indicators Victoria, Community Indicators
Queensland, Indicators of Regional Development in Western Australia)
√ √
Community Indicator Projects in Canada (Sustainable Calgary State of the
City report, Alberta’s Genuine Progress Indicators) √ √
The Glasgow Indicators Project By Glasgow Centre for Population Health √
London’s Quality of Life Indicators By Greater London Authority √
STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessment and Rating) Community Index
By ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability, in collaboration with the
U.S. Green Building Council, the Centre for American Progress and the
National League of Cities
√
CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency) By the Sustainable Building Consortium, Japan √ √ √ √
SITES (Sustainable Sites Initiative) By the Green Business Certification Inc. √
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method) The Code for Sustainable Homes By the Building Research
Establishment, UK
√ √ √
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) By the U.S. Green
Building Council √ √ √
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 4 of 28
Table 1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s)
Scale
International
National
State
City/County
Neighbourhood
Building
Housing
The Living Building/Community Challenge By International Living Future
Institute U.S. √ √
Green Star By Australian Green Building Council √ √
DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen) By the German
Sustainable Building Council √ √
GBI (Green Building Index) By Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) and
Association of Consulting Engineers (ACEM), Malaysia √ √
BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) By NSW Government, Australia √
NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) By the
National Department of Environment and Heritage √
CEPAS (Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme)
By Buildings Department HKSAR Government, Hong Kong √
HKBEAM Plus (Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method)
By the Hong Kong Green Building Council √
Green Globes By ECD Energy and Environment, Canada and USA √
HQE (High Environmental Quality) By the Haute Qualité
Environnementale Association, France √
Green Star SA By the South African Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research √
BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) By U.S.
National Institute of Standards and Technology √
2. Characteristics of a Sustainable City
A ‘sustainable city’ can be defined by integrating four pillars: social development, economic
development, environmental management and urban governance [
15
]. Social development refers
to the improvement of the well-being of citizens by achieving social equity which provides full
access to public services such as education, health, transport, housing and recreation [
16
]. Economic
development refers to the effective distribution of resources, goods and services to satisfy the needs of
all people living in existing and future communities. Environmental management refers to securing
the living and physical environment through the sustainable use of resources. Urban governance
is an overarching pillar which is required to sustain the integrity of the overall system. Cities
that are considered to be sustainable are those which: (1) are socially inclusive in their growth;
(2) are environmentally responsible (i.e., have positive or at least minimal adverse impacts on the
environment); (3) have a sustainable economy; and; (4) are based on good governance principles
(i.e., accountable, responsive, transparent, efficient and effective to the citizens, follow the rules of law,
consensus oriented on policies and create opportunities for participation in decision making) [
17
]. The
inter-linkages among the four pillars of sustainable development are evident in cities, which function
as integrated systems [
18
]. In recent years, a large number of communities have started to adopt
sustainable development as a goal as evidenced in both constructed projects and planning principles
such as: Adelaide Christie Walk Eco-Village Project, Australia; BedZED (Beddington Zero Energy
Development) Eco-Village, UK; Malmo Bo01 Ecological District, Sweden; Kawasaki Eco Town Program,
Japan; Freiburg Green City, Germany; City of Copenhagen Sustainable City Initiatives, Denmark;
City of Portland Sustainable City Principles, Oregon; Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities by
the United Nations Environment Program, and; Hannover Principles of Design for Sustainability by
William McDonough and Michael Braungart. As seen from the examples given above, many different
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 5 of 28
sets of principles have been developed in order to guide sustainable development of a city. These
principles can be summarised under the main headings as follows.
2.1. Sustainable Urban Form and Design
Good urban design contributes to sustainability by: (1) using resources more efficiently;
(2) creating a sense of place identity; (3) enhancing diversity of housing forms; (4) creating
appropriate residential densities; (5) developing a diverse range of public and semi-private spaces, and;
(6) providing spaces for a diverse range of green, locally oriented business. In these ways, urban design
and land use strategies work together to create a sustainable city [
19
–
23
]. According to Wheeler [
24
],
sustainability can be achieved through five urban form typologies as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Urban form typologies.
Typology Benefits
Compact urban form Limits suburban sprawl by providing more efficient use of land than in
conventional suburbia.
Contiguous urban form
Implies that new urban development occurs adjacent to existing urban area.
Connected urban form Features good street, path and visual connections and is also legible and
easy for people to find their way.
Diverse urban form Contains mixed land use, different typologies and prices/rents.
Ecological urban form Integrates features of the natural landscape into the form of the city that
protects local ecosystems.
2.2. Sustainable Transportation
The goals of sustainable transportation can be summarised as shown in Table 3[
25
–
29
].
Additionally, sustainable logistics improve the environmental performance of urban freight transport
systems for creating more liveable cities [
30
]. As stated by Nathanail et al. [
31
], some of sustainable
logistics include: (1) Restriction/Low emission/Light or low traffic zones; (2) Promotion of green
freight transport modes, such as electric vans, bicycles and tricycles for the last mile delivery of goods;
(3) Promotion of alternative modes of goods transport such as rail and inland waterways where
applicable; (4) Congestion mitigation, incorporating concepts such as the multi-user lanes, and; (5) Use
of information systems for enforcement.
Table 3. The goals of sustainable transportation.
Goal Benefits
Safety Provide a safe transportation system for users and the general public.
Basic accessibility Provide a transportation system that offers accessibility that allows people to fulfill at least
their basic needs.
Equity/equal mobility Provide options that allow affordable and equitable transportation opportunities for all
sections of society.
System efficiency
Ensure the transportation system’s functionality and efficiency are maintained and enhanced.
Security Ensure the transportation system is secure from, ready for, and resilient to threats from
all hazards.
Prosperity Ensure the transportation system’s development and operation support economic
development and prosperity.
Economic viability Ensure the economic feasibility of transportation investments over time.
Ecosystems Protect and enhance environmental and ecological systems while developing and operating
transportation systems.
Waste generation Reduce waste generated by transportation-related activities.
Resource consumption Reduce the use of non-renewable resources and promote the use of renewable replacements.
Emissions and air quality Reduce transportation-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 6 of 28
2.3. Environmental Protection and Restoration
One of the principles of sustainable development is to protect and restore the existing species,
habitats and ecosystems by creating ecologically valuable green spaces, designing green buildings and
architecture. Green infrastructure is a valuable planning tool for protecting biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and services, promoting societal well-being and supporting green economy, sustainable
land and water management. The objectives of green infrastructure are outlined in Table 4[32–37].
Table 4. The objectives of green infrastructure.
Objectives
To enhance, conserve and restore biodiversity by inter alia increasing spatial and functional connectivity between
natural and semi-natural areas and improving landscape permeability and mitigating fragmentation.
To maintain, strengthen, and, where adequate, to restore the good functioning of ecosystems in order to ensure the
delivery of multiple ecosystem and cultural services.
To acknowledge the economic value of ecosystem services and to increase the value itself, by strengthening
their functionality.
To enhance the societal and cultural link with nature and biodiversity, to acknowledge and increase the economic
value of ecosystem services and to create incentives for local stakeholders and communities to deliver them.
To minimise urban sprawl and its negative effects on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human living conditions.
To mitigate and adapt to climate change, to increase resilience and reduce the vulnerability to natural disaster
risks—floods, water scarcity and droughts, coastal erosion, forest fires, mudslides and avalanches—as well as urban
heat islands.
To make best use of the limited land resources.
To contribute to a healthy living, better places to live, providing services to open spaces and recreation
opportunities, increasing urban-rural connections, contributing to sustainable transport systems and strengthening
the sense of community.
2.4. Renewable Energy and Waste Management
A sustainable city should be able to power itself by managing and using land efficiently through
renewable resources of energy. Table 5presents an overview of the renewable technologies and
their applications. Additionally, waste management practices such as landfill, incineration, biological
treatment, zero waste, recycling-orientated eco-industrial parks, environmental taxes, law and policies
are necessary for the achievement of sustainability [38–43].
Table 5. The renewable technologies and their applications.
Technology Application
Wind (grid-connected, stand-alone
turbines, wind pumps)
Supplementing mains supply. Power for low to medium electric power needs.
Occasionally mechanical power for agriculture purposes.
PV (solar electric, grid-connected,
stand-alone, pumps)
Supplementing mains supply. Power for low electric power needs. Pumping
water (for agriculture and drinking).
Solar thermal (grid-connected, water
heater, cookers, dryers, cooling) Supplementing mains supply. Heating water. Cooking. Drying crops.
Bioenergy
Supplementing mains supply. Cooking and lighting, motive power for small
industry and electric needs. Transport fuel and mechanical power.
Hydropower Low-to-medium electric power needs. Process motive power for
small industry.
Geothermal Grid electricity and large-scale heating.
Village-scale
Mini-grids usually hybrid systems (solar-wind, solar-diesel, wind-diesel, etc.).
Small-scale residential and commercial electric power needs.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 7 of 28
2.5. Social Equity and Environmental Justice
The strategies for creating well-balanced and sustainable communities can be summarised as
shown in Table 6[44–47].
Table 6. Social equity and environmental justice related policy objectives.
Policy Objectives
Transportation Provide equitable and accessible transportation services for all residents,
regardless of income, age, or ability.
Housing
Provide a variety of affordable and quality smart growth housing choices for
people of all income levels and abilities.
Healthy environment Ensure that all our residents, regardless of income or ethnicity, share the
benefits of a healthy environment.
Economic prosperity
Provide education and workforce training opportunities that are targeted to
residents from a variety of backgrounds and education levels, with an
emphasis on outreach to low income communities.
Public facilities
Locate energy facilities (such as power plants and/or transmission lines), site
waste disposal and management facilities in a manner that protects public
health and safety so that lower income and minority communities are not
disproportionately negatively affected.
Public involvement
Provide the involvement of a wide range of residents, including lower income
and minority residents, seniors, tribal government representatives and
persons with disabilities into decision-making process.
2.6. Economic Development
Sustainable economy initiatives are defined by Nixon [48] in Table 7.
Table 7. Sustainable economy initiatives.
Initiative Aim
Cleantech Business
Cluster
Encouragement of a cluster of businesses offering green products and services,
such as energy, water, and/or resource efficiency; renewable energy; alternative
transportation; and pollution/waste prevention and recycling.
Green Business
Improvement of the environmental and financial performance of existing firms.
Sustainable Real Estate
Development
Promotion of walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented real estate
development.
Green Investment Initiation of green investment vehicles to invest in green and clean tech
businesses and sustainable real estate developments.
Green Jobs
Launch or strengthening of a system for green job development with green
skills training training, career pathways, and green entrepreneurship to provide
the workforce needed by green and clean tech businesses.
Green and Cleantech
Business Attraction and
Retention
Promotion of the city/region as an optimal place for green and clean tech
businesses to start-up, locate, expand, and grow over the long term.
Green Underserved
Communities
Connection of green and clean tech businesses and sustainable real estate
developments led by underserved communities with the appropriate business
acceleration services and engagement of low- and moderate-income employees
and residents in saving money through ecological efficiency.
Sustainability
Community Engagement
Engagement of city/regional residents in understanding sustainability,
participating in the process of building a sustainable economy, and making
green purchasing decisions.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 8 of 28
2.7. Healthy Urban Planning
The guiding principles for planning healthy cities can be summarised as shown in Table 8[
49
–
52
].
Table 8. Healthy urban development checklist.
Aim Objectives
Healthy Food
Promote access to fresh, nutritious and affordable food
Preserve agriculture lands
Provide support for local food production
Physical Activity
Encourage incidental physical activity
Promote opportunities for walking, cycling and other forms of active transport
Promote access to usable and quality public open spaces and recreational facilities
Housing
Encourage housing that supports human and environmental health
Encourage dwelling diversity
Promote affordable housing
Ensure that housing is adaptable and accessible
Transport and physical
connectivity
Improve public transport services
Reduce car dependency and encourage active transport
Encourage infill development and/or integration of new development with
existing development
Quality Employment
Improve location of jobs to housing and commuting options
Increase access to a range of quality employment opportunities
Increase access to appropriate job training
Community Safety Consider crime prevention and sense of security
Public Open Space
Provide access to green space and natural areas
Ensure that public open spaces are safe, healthy, accessible, attractive and easy
to maintain
Promote quality streetscapes that encourage activity
Engender a sense of cultural identity, sense of place and incorporate public art
Address the preservation and enhancement of places of natural, historic and
cultural significance
Social Infrastructure
Provide access to a range of facilities to attract and support a diverse population
Respond to existing (as well as projected) community needs and current gaps in
facilities and/or services
Provide for early delivery of social infrastructure
Promote an integrated approach to social infrastructure planning
Maximise efficiencies in social infrastructure planning and provision
Social Cohesion and
Connectivity
Provide environments that will encourage social interaction and connection
amongst people
Promote a sense of community and attachment to place
Encourage local involvement in planning and community life
Minimise social disadvantage and promote equitable access to resources
Avoid community severance, division or dislocation
Environment and Health
Contribute to enhancing air quality
Contribute to enhancing water quality, safety and supply
Minimise disturbance and health effects associated with noise, odour and
light pollution
Consider the potential for hazards and address their mitigation
3. Assessing Urban Sustainability Using Indicators
The general categorisation of SA framework is arranged on a time continuum based on if they
are retrospective (indicators/indices), prospective (integrated assessment) or both (product-related
assessment) [
53
]. The first category consists of indicators/indices that are used to monitor the long-term
sustainability trends from a retrospective point of view. They provide information in making short-term
projections and relevant decisions for the future. The second category consists of integrated assessment
tools which investigate policy change or project implementation through developing scenarios. They
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 9 of 28
are divided into three sub-categories: (1) Multi-Criteria Analysis is used in the comparison of policy
options, by identifying the effects of these options, their relative performance and the trade-offs to
be made; (2) Cost Benefit Analysis is used for evaluating public or private investment proposals by
weighing the costs of the project against the expected benefits, and; (3) Impact assessment is a group
of forecasting tools used for improving the basis for policy-making and project approval process.
The third category consists of product-related assessment tools focusing on the material and energy flows
of a product or service from a life cycle perspective. They allow both retrospective and prospective
assessments that support decision-making. The most established example is the Life Cycle Assessment,
which evaluates resource use, and resulting environmental impacts of a product/service throughout its
lifecycle across different scales of the built environment as well as the outputs influence environmental
policies and regulations [54–56].
Indicator-based SA is increasingly recognized as an important tool which contributes to the
planning process. Indicators are statistics or measures that relate to a condition, change of quality, or
change in state of something valued. They are selected to provide information about the functioning
of a specific system or a specific purpose to support decision-making and management [
57
]. They
have a potential to be used as a tool in terms of providing a basis for informing planning action
and in determining the sustainability of planning outcomes [
58
]. Selecting relevant indicators is
necessary to monitor the implementation of the policies and provide feedbacks needed to accomplish
the desirable state of sustainable development. As shown in Table 9, a set of criteria needs to be taken
into consideration for the selection of the indicators. Another important criterion is that data needs to
be both available, and easily accessible [59–63].
Table 9. Selection criteria of key indicators.
Criterion Reason
Be valid and meaningful It should reflect the phenomenon it is intended to measure and is
appropriate to the needs of the user.
Be sensitive and specific to
the underlying phenomenon It should respond relatively quickly and noticeably to changes.
Be statistically sound Indicator measurement needs to be methodologically sound and fit for
the purpose, to which it is being applied.
Be intelligible It should be sufficiently simple to be interpreted in practice.
Allow international
comparison
It needs to reflect local policy goals/objectives, but also needs to be
consistent with other international indicator programs to allow
comparisons across countries.
Be consistent over time The usefulness of indicators is related directly to the ability to track
trends over time.
Be timely Data needs to be collected and reported regularly and frequently,
relative to the phenomena being monitored.
Be linked with policy or
emerging issues
It should be selected to reflect the important and emerging issues as
closely as possible.
Developing an indicator framework is important in terms of suggesting certain ways to think,
organise, measure and act. It provides the users focus, purpose, direction, clarity and attention as well
as limitations to what indicators can say and do. There are three basic questions involved in building an
indicator framework [
28
]: (1) Why is the information needed?—referring to the intention and application;
(2) What information is needed?—referring to the specific issues or impacts measured, and: (3) How is the
information to be delivered?—referring to the framework operation. Each framework provides a different
set of indicators to answer these questions. Indicators are designed for different purposes to measure
progress towards sustainability. They have their own goals, stakeholders and target groups for use and
their own characteristics. The main purposes of indicators are summarised as Pastille Consortium [
64
]:
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 10 of 28
(1) Understanding sustainability—for the identification of relevant issues, analysis of current states and
future trends as well as for education and informing the public; (2) Supporting decisions—to provide
information for the definition of objectives, goals and the identification of action requirements as well
as for benchmarking; (3) Directing—decision-making in terms of monitoring and evaluation, assessing
performance and guiding/controlling; (4) Involving stakeholders—for communication, participation,
for the initiation of discussions, awareness rising and community empowerment, and; (5) Solving
conflicts and building consensus—to clarify a discussion and identify differing and common grounds by
establishing a common language.
Sustainable development is a multidimensional concept that requires an amalgamation of
indicators that can emphasise the connections between the economy, environment and society.
To develop an effective indicator set, there is a four-step process which is proposed by the Australian
Bureau of Rural Sciences [
65
]: (1) Developing a conceptual framework which clearly defines what is being
evaluated and state the question being addressed. The vision for sustainable development needs to
be expressed in the form of an overall objective; (2) Subdividing the overall objective into successively
more specific objectives until getting down to objectives that can be measured. This step requires
consultation involving all stakeholders; (3) Identifying indicators that address the operational objectives,
and: (4) Aggregating indicators at lower levels to form a core set for reporting convenience. The
information should remain accessible at any level of detail is required. Indicators provide information
by aggregating different and multiple data which can be combined so as to communicate complex
phenomena in a simple way [
66
]. In this context, international institutions, many countries and groups
are elaborating sets of indicators for sustainable development assessment and monitoring. These
indicator sets aim to support policy-making by informing various stages including: (1) monitoring
and assessment of conditions; (2) strategic ex-ante impact assessment of policies; (3) assessment of
performance in the relevant policy area, and (4) policy analysis and evaluation [
67
]. Following section
presents a review of indicators of sustainable development.
4. Review of the Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives
Instead of having a ‘one-problem, one-indicator’ approach, SDIs bring the economic, social and
environmental aspects of society together by emphasising the links between them [
68
]. As stated by
Yigitcanlar et al. [
14
], with a growing sustainability knowledge base, SDIs are commonly employed
in SA models. A large number of indicator-based SA tools are developed to measure sustainability
performances of urban localities in order to develop necessary remedies for environmental, social,
economic and governance issues. Developing sustainability indicators is a very challenging task.
Quantitative measurement of sustainability requires various tiers of information including objectives,
assessment criteria, indices, indicators and performance variables/parameters. The objectives
define the main goals set by the developers of the tools. Major measurement objectives fall under
the headings of four dimensions of sustainable development. Assessment criteria which include
indices and indicators, provide principles to establish these objectives to be met. They also provide
thresholds, benchmarks or reference levels against which sustainability objectives are measured [
69
].
Various assessment criteria can be identified by determining on the context and scale of the project.
Indicator-based SA is conducted at geographical scales varying from building to parcel, street to
neighbourhood, city to region, region to national and national to supra-national scales. Each of these
tools provides information at a specific geographical scale; building (super-micro), parcel (micro),
neighbourhood/suburb (meso), city/region (macro), supra-national (super-macro) [14].
The first SA framework to guide environmental data and indicator development was the
STRESS (STress Response Environmental Statistical System) developed by Statistics Canada in the
late 1970s. The STRESS framework was based on ecosystem behaviour distinguishing between
pressures on the ecosystem, the state of the ecosystem and the ecosystem response. The PSR
(Pressure-State-Response) model implemented by the OECD in the 1980s was derived from this
example. This framework was further extended by the European Environment Agency (EEA) as
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 11 of 28
DPSIR (Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response), which can be widely adapted from regional
to global levels to provide a more comprehensive approach in analysing problems. Since then,
an increasing number of methodologies and tools were launched around the world to perform
SA focusing on different scopes, scales and objectives. The identified SDI initiatives (including
developer name, scale, themes and headline indicators) are presented in Appendix A. As seen in the
Appendix A, local initiatives (i.e., building/neighbourhood/community) serve to local authorities
and planners in capturing urban environmental stress under themes such as: (1) site selection and
design; (2) materials and construction; (3) operations and maintenance, and; (4) innovation. Their list of
indicators reflects their priorities in relation to specific urban policies and strategies. National initiatives
serve national policy-makers in comparing across a variety of city sizes, geographic conditions and
economic structures. Their list of indicators includes more general classification such as: (1) education;
(2) resource use; (3) environment, and; (4) transportation. They also monitor urban sustainability
in both private and public sectors. International initiatives concern with the problems that are
critical to global sustainability. They include worldwide set of indicators such as: (1) climate change;
(2) biodiversity; (3) health; (4) society; (5) economy, and; (6) governance.
In parallel with the increasing popularity of SDIs, some drawbacks have been reported in
the literature in terms of the selection and development of indicator sets. As stated by Mayer [
6
],
data unavailability for the majority of aggregated indicators area common weakness of all indices;
hence, many of the sustainability indicator indices are not capable of measuring all dimensions of
sustainability. Some SA indices demonstrate multiple barriers in terms of data availability during the
indicator development process, which raises the issue of missing data treatments. For instance, the
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) covers 163 countries over 192 United Nations recognized
countries due to a lack of adequate data to measure some indicators [
70
]. After more than 15 years
of work, in the last iteration of 2014 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), global data are still
lacking on a number of indicators including: toxic chemical exposures; heavy metals (lead, cadmium
and mercury); municipal and toxic waste management; nuclear safety; pesticide safety; wetland
loss; species loss; freshwater ecosystems health; water quality (sedimentation, organic and industrial
pollutants); recycling; agricultural soil quality and erosion; desertification; comprehensive greenhouse
gas emissions, and; climate adaptation. Although the data for many of these indicators exist on the
regional, sub-national and local scales, insufficient coverage for every country at a global scale excludes
their consideration in the EPI [
71
]. As another example, due to lack of comparable data, countries
including Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Korea, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan and Tuvalu
have been omitted in the calculation of Human Development Index (HDI) [
72
]. For a number of other
studies such as the China Urban Sustainability Index, the European Green City Index and the EEA
Urban Metabolism Framework, there is little or no consideration of which data is readily available
when the indicator set is proposed. The indicators are chosen based on publically available data to
make its implementation easier. Two major indices, Ecosystem Well-being Index (EWI) and Human
Well-being Index (HWI), are limited by available data as not all indicators (i.e., components including
culture, materials and the state of the oceans) are available for all countries [12].
Additionally, several authors have raised a debate on their effectiveness and success in measuring
sustainability [
73
–
78
]. According to Hák et al. [
79
], many indicator initiatives are driven by the
availability of relevant and reliable data. The limited quantity and quality of data underlying
indicators of sustainability leave them open to criticism. As data collection is expensive, many
countries struggle providing data to international organisations which results in producing biased
and incomplete indicators sets for measuring sustainability. Scientific research and statistical data
collection are well-developed in industrialised countries; hence, their concerns and priorities dominate
existing indicators. Pires et al. [
80
] highlights that some countries have a weak record of participatory
approaches in the development of SDIs at the local level and very few governmental initiatives
to develop their own local indicator system. Mayer [
6
] confirms that even they seem different;
many of them incorporate the same underlying data because of the small number of available
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 12 of 28
global sustainability datasets. Mori and Christodoulou [
81
] argues that this relative evaluation and
comparison brings along biased assessments, as data only exists for some entities, which also means
excluding many nations from evaluation and comparison. Furthermore, there are temporal biases
coming from the lack of long term data sets as well as most researches are concentrated on a narrow
time frame linked to the present. Developing new data requires 5–10 years and old data sets exclude
relevant indicators that monitor newly emergent issues. The impacts of environmental problems have
different temporal and spatial characteristics. Many problems that emerged at the local level (e.g.,
rapid urbanisation, development of industrialisation and modern transportation systems) many years
ago have become national and global problems today. For instance, climate change and biodiversity
loss are global issues; however their policy responses and strategies are developed at the national level
and applied at the local level. In a similar way, it is difficult to analyse the state of environment only at
the local level, because the causes of the implemented policies also affect the environment globally. As a
result of this multi-scale characteristic of environmental problems, detailed and up-to-date micro-level
data is crucial to assess environmental change at larger scales. Dahl [
9
] reports that there is a need
for developing micro-level indicators appropriate to individuals, families or communities which can
give positive feedback for their small sustainability efforts and encourage their further actions. Global
environmental problems like climate change are in a larger scale that individuals do not see clearly how
they contribute to this problem. Even though, they try to make changes in their lifestyle, consumption
patterns or resource use, there is little positive feedback to encourage such behaviours. There is a lack
of indicators that are capable of evaluating the level of individual actions or commitments. With the
development of these indicators, people will easily manage their own behaviour with reference to their
individual goals and they will be motivated continue improvements through new policy intervention
and incentives. Turcu [
11
] states that what seems obvious and important to experts at the ‘top’ of
indicator development might seem less important to citizens at its ‘bottom’. By including citizens’
values and priorities to indicator development, the focus of indicators could shift from ‘input’ and
‘process’ to ‘outcome’ oriented understanding of local sustainability which provides policy-makers
with relevant information to assess sustainability.
5. Integrating Sustainable Development Indicators into Policy and the Decision-Making Process
As pointed out by Dahl [
9
], a well-designed set of indicators, which are linked to sustainability
policies adopted by the local government, updated and reported regularly, can provide clear signals
on the success or failure of national policy initiatives and actions. They play an instrumental role in
decision-making by supporting the aim of getting more efficient policy outcomes if robust, data-driven
and value-free evidence is made available for policy-makers, in a simplified and synthesised format.
By clarifying issues and reducing scientific uncertainties, they are applied for monitoring and
evaluation of progress at different interrelated levels [
82
]. Michael et al. [
83
] (p. 492) explains this
relationship as: “at the local level, the indicators are used mainly in the decision-making processes of urban
development by local authorities. Through the involvement of various institutions and service agencies at the
regional level, they are used to compare information for the project management and regional development
programs. At the international level, the indicators are used to finance regional development projects with
international resources and for the development of the cities and communities of the third world”.
According to Clark [
84
], SDIs contribute policy and the decision-making process in five stages:
(1) clarifying goals in reference to the problem of concern; (2) describing trends that have had an impact
on the problem of concern; (3) identifying particular impacts and their relation to the achievement
of goals; (4) analysing conditions and projecting developments, and: (5) evaluating, and selecting
alternatives to resolve the problem. From another point of view, Devuyst et al. [
85
] (p. 257) express
that SDIs play an important role in the following action areas as presented in Table 10. Furthermore,
Hezri [
86
] defines a taxonomy of indicator uses in policy and the decision-making process as shown in
Table 11.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 13 of 28
Table 10. The role of sustainability indicators.
The Role of Sustainability Indicators
Providing a legal, regulatory, and institutional framework.
Making an inventory of the state of environment, development, existing policies and plans.
Adopting flexible and integrative planning approaches that allow the consideration of multiple goals and
enable adjustments of changing needs and means.
Monitoring the development process by comparing what has been reviewed to what has been planned.
Cooperating internationally by taking into account both universal principles and differentiated needs and
concerns of all countries.
Participating and strengthening the partnership in support of common efforts toward
sustainable development.
Reducing the information gap between existing information and availability of data needed to make informed
decisions related to environment and development.
Table 11. Taxonomy of indicator use.
Indicator Use Explanation
Instrumental use
It occurs when there is a direct link or linear relationships between indicators
and decision outcomes (use for action). Fluctuations of indicator values provide
empirical evidence that will induce corresponding policy and
management responses.
Conceptual use
It occurs when indicators sensitise or change a user’s understanding of a
problem or situation. Over time, conceptual use may subsequently induce
decision outcomes.
Tactical use (of
information)
It occurs when indicators, or the process of collecting information, are used
either as a delaying tactic, as a substitute for action or to deflect criticisms.
Symbolic use It is the process of gathering indicators to give ritualistic assurances that those
who make the decisions hold appropriate attitudes towards decision-making.
Political use
It occurs where the content of indicators becomes ammunition to support a
predetermined position of a user. It is about persuading others to a particular
view of the problem and ways to solve it for varying reasons of ideology,
interest or intellect.
SA is a very complex and broad concept which requires a method to assist planners in gathering,
compiling and analysing the extensive data to clarify and support sustainable design and planning
strategies. Although many approaches exist, the research on employing assessment methodologies is
still in progress. An example of the methodology for indicator-based SA is developed by Walter and
Stützel [
87
]. In the first stage, the indicator set is determined by identifying the specific problems that
need to be assessed and then justifying indicators that adequately describe these problems. Second
stage involves two steps: (1) a standardisation procedure to make different indicators comparable,
and; (2) sustainability valuation procedure through combining indicators into an index. Finally,
the last stage includes strategy development through analysis of weaknesses and strengths, testing
alternative options, setting targets and revision. A more comprehensive methodology is developed
by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, involves seven stages
presented in Table 12 [88].
By looking at these practices, it is necessary to regulate the natural processes and control the
scale of human activities; therefore, SA needs to be integrated into urban planning. This integration is
important in terms of understanding the physical characteristics of urban settlements by recognising
their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the planning process. In this context, SA tools
are fundamental instruments that can provide information to support policy and decision-making
for all four pillars of sustainability. As defined by Newton et al. [
89
] (p. 8), “indicators are physical,
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 14 of 28
chemical, biological or socio-economic measures that best represent the key elements of a complex ecosystem or
environmental issue”. They are used to monitor the long-term sustainability trends from a retrospective
point of view. The information they provide helps in making short-term projections and relevant
decisions for the future [
53
]. The studies in the literature show that there is a lack of consistent data
sources within and between countries and communities. Therefore, the development of SDIs requires
further investigation and more micro-level indicators are needed to be developed to work with more
detailed data in SA.
Table 12. Stages of indicator-based sustainability assessment (SA).
Stages Narratives Measurement Mapping
1. Determine the
purpose of SA
Define the purpose, uses and users of
results for the assessment
Determine who will participate in
the assessment
Determine how the assessment will
be undertaken
No activity No activity
2. Define the system
and goals
Define the area (the system) to be assessed
Formulate a vision of well-being and
sustainable development for the people and
ecosystem of the area
Define goals that encapsulate the vision
No activity
Prepare base maps of
the system
3. Identify elements
and objectives
Describe elements and an objective for each
element, which will be used for measuring
sustainability performance
Compile a metadatabase
Identify sources of
mapped data for
each element
4. Choose indicators and
performance criteria
Explain and justify indicators and
performance criteria
Define indicators and their
performance criteria No activity
5. Measure and map
indicators Draw attention to main findings
Measure the indicators and
calculate their scores Map the indicators
6. Combine indicators
and map an index Draw attention to main findings Combine the indicators
into an index Map the index
7. Review results and
assess implications
Analyse performance, discuss causes and
implications, and propose policies
and actions
No activity
No activity, other
than using maps
for analysis
6. Conclusions
Cities are densely populated, highly modified systems resulting from destruction, alteration and
fragmentation of natural systems by human activities. These activities lead to serious environmental
problems such as climate change, deforestation, loss of biological diversity and natural disasters [
90
].
The effect of human activities on natural resources and their services force us to think about how to
face these challenges in a sustainable way. As summarised by Capra [
91
] (p. 99): “To build a sustainable
society for our children and future generations, we need to fundamentally redesign many of our technologies
and social institutions so as to bridge the wide gap between human design and the ecologically sustainable
systems of nature”. In this regard, a sustainable framework for urban development is seen as crucial to
provide social, economic and ecological resilience of urban systems. SA is increasingly being viewed
as an important tool to aid in the shift towards sustainable urban development. SA provides many
benefits, including: (1) highlight the economic, social, environmental opportunities and constraints;
(2) organize the policy and the decision-making process by reducing the complexity of each stage, and;
(3) help governments to reach proposed sustainability targets [
92
,
93
]. There is a wide variety of SA
tools, among them; sustainability indicators serve as a tool that helps policy and decision-makers in
improving their actions towards sustainable urban development.
Since the turn of the millennium, the use of SDIs has evolved significantly as a result of need
for better knowledge to address environmental issues on various geographical scales and track
progress towards sustainable development goals. For example, the Reference Framework for European
Sustainable Cities (RFSC) is developed to serve as an indicator ‘toolkit’ for all European cities and
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 15 of 28
offers practical support in integrating sustainability principles into local policies and actions. The
Sustainable Community Indicator Catalog is developed by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to help communities in measuring progress toward their sustainability objectives. As a
smart city innovation, City Dashboards (e.g., Dublin, London, Amsterdam, Chicago) consist of a
number of performance indicators which display data about city services, transportation, education,
culture, environmental conditions (e.g., weather, water levels, pollution, noise) and public safety. There
are various other examples around the world at different scales which is examined in the Appendix A.
As a limitation it has to be mentioned that there are several more which is not included in this review.
This paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art overview of current progress for SDI initiatives across
the world. The presented examples measure all aspects of sustainability at all scales, from the largest
(international) to the smallest (building). However, measuring sustainability is difficult due to the fact
that many of the sustainability problems are interlinked and affect each another. There will always
be a debate over which is the most appropriate set of indicators to use and in which framework to
apply. Moreover, spatial scale is important in the use of indicators as their function is dependent on the
context in which they are used. SA frameworks need to include a range of indicators which provide
information to function under the national and regional planning systems while being effective for
local authorities and communities. The conclusion drawn from the analysis of the literature is that
the major problem in SA lies in the gathering of reliable and accessible data. This implies availability
of micro-level data as a key criterion for providing useful information in the comparison. Further
research is required to develop more effective approaches and solutions supporting the measurable and
accessible data for the indicator development. At the same time, more detailed data is needed which is
capable of performing a comparative assessment via indicators at micro-level so as to aggregate these
assessment findings to national and international levels.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK) 2219—International Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship Program (Grant Number: 1059B191500492).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. List of Identified SDI Initiatives.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
The United Nations
Commission on Sustainable
Development
(UNCSD) set of indicators
By the United Nations
Poverty
Governance
Health
Education
Natural hazards
Atmosphere
Land
Oceans, seas and coasts
Freshwater
Biodiversity
Economic development
Global economic partnership
Consumption and production patterns
https://
sustainabledevelopment.
un.org
The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Better
Life Index
Housing
Income
Jobs
Community
Education
Environment
Civic engagement
Health
Life Satisfaction
Safety
Work-Life Balance
http://www.
oecdbetterlifeindex.
org
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 16 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
OECD Green Growth
Indicators
The socio-economic context and characteristics of growth
The environmental and resource productivity of the economy
The natural asset base
Environmental quality of life
Economic opportunities and policy responses
http://www.oecd.org/
greengrowth
EEA core set of indicators
By European Environment
Agency
Air pollution
Biodiversity
Climate change
Energy
Transport
Water
Other thematic indicators: Fisheries, land, soil, waste, household
consumption and green economy
http:
//www.eea.europa.eu
WHO Environmental Health
indicators
Socio-demographic context
Air pollution
Sanitation
Shelter
Access to safe drinking water
Vector-borne disease
Solid waste management
Hazardous/ toxic substances
Food safety
Radiation
Non-occupational health risks
Occupational health risks
http://www.who.int/
ceh/en
EUROSTAT (The statistical
office of the European Union)
Indicators for sustainable
development
Socio-economic development
Sustainable consumption and production
Social inclusion
Demographic changes
Public health
Climate change and energy
Sustainable transport
Natural resources
Global partnership
Good governance
http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat
Human Development Index
(HDI)
By the United Nations
Development Programme
(UNDP)
Health
Education
Income/Composition of Resources
Inequality
Gender
Poverty
Work, employment and vulnerability
Human Security
Trade and Financial Flows
Mobility and Communication
Environmental sustainability
Demography
http://hdr.undp.org
Millennium Development
Goals Indicators (MDGs)
By the United Nations
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a global partnership for development
http://mdgs.un.org
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 17 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
World Development Indicators
(WDI)
By the World Bank
Agriculture and Rural Development
Aid Effectiveness
Climate Change
Economy and Growth
Education
Energy and Mining
Environment
External Debt
Financial Sector
Gender
Health
Infrastructure
Poverty
Private Sector
Public Sector
Science and Technology
Social Development
Social Protection and Labor
Trade
Urban Development
http:
//data.worldbank.org
Europe 2020 Indicators
By the European Union
Employment rate
Research and development (R&D)
Climate change and energy
Education
Poverty and social exclusion
Resource efficiency
http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat
FEEM Sustainability Index
By ENI Enrico Mattei
Foundation
Economy
Society
Environment
http:
//www.feemsi.org
The City Prosperity Index
By UN-Habitat
Productivity
Infrastructure
Quality of life
Equity and social inclusion
Environmental sustainability
http://unhabitat.org
ISO 37120:2014 Standards -
Indicators for city services and
quality of life
By the International
Organization for
Standardization
(ISO)—Sustainable
development of communities
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Fire and Emergency Response
Governance
Health
Recreation
Safety
Shelter
Solid Waste
Telecommunication and Innovation
Transportation
Urban Planning
Wastewater
Water and Sanitation
http://www.iso.org
The Global Power City Index
By Mori Memorial
Foundation, Japan
Economy
Research and development
Cultural interaction
Livability
Environment
Accessibility
http://www.mori-m-
foundation.or.jp
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 18 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
The Networked Society City
Index
By Ericsson
ICT Maturity:
- Infrastructure
- Affordability
- Usage
Triple Bottom Line
- Social
- Economy
- Environment
http:
//www.ericsson.com
National Footprint Accounts
2014 By the Global Footprint
Network
Includes two measures:
- Ecological Footprint: a measure of the demand populations and
activities place on the biosphere in a given year, given the
prevailing technology and resource management of that year.
- Biocapacity: a measure of the amount of biologically productive
land and sea area available to provide the ecosystem services
that humanity consumes.
http://www.
footprintnetwork.org
Environmental
Sustainability Index
By Yale Centre for
Environmental Law and
Policy and Centre for
International Earth Science
Information Network of
Columbia University
Environmental Systems
Reducing Environmental Stresses
Reducing Human Vulnerability
Social and Institutional Capacity
Global Stewardship
http:
//www.yale.edu/esi
Environmental
Performance Index
By Yale Centre for
Environmental Law and
Policy and Centre for
International Earth Science
Information Network of
Columbia University
Health Impacts
Air Quality
Water and Sanitation
Water Resources
Agriculture
Forests
Fisheries
Biodiversity and Habitat
Climate and Energy
http://epi.yale.edu
The ARCADIS Sustainable
Cities Index
By London Economic Research
Institute Centre for Economics
and Business Research (CEBR)
People
Planet
Profit
http://www.
sustainablecitiesindex.
com
The Netherlands:
Sustainability Monitor
Quality of life
Resources
Netherlands in the world
http://www.cbs.nl
Well-being in the Netherlands:
Statistics Netherland’s
Measuring Sustainable
Development and Societal
Progress
By Statistics Netherlands
Wellbeing
Consumption and income
Health
Housing
Education
Leisure
Inequality
Physical safety
Trust
Shared norms and values
Institutions
Energy reserves
Non-energy reserves
Land and ecosystems
Water
Air quality
Climate
Labour
Physical capital
Knowledge capital
Financial capital
http://www.cbs.nl
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 19 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
Switzerland: sustainable
development indicator system
MONET
By the Swiss Statistics
Meeting needs—How well do we live?
Fairness—How well are resources distributed?
Preservation of resources—What are we leaving behind for our
children?
Decoupling—How efficiently are we using our natural
resources?
http:
//www.bfs.admin.ch
Measures of Australia’s
Progress
By Australian Bureau of
Statistics
Society
Economy
Environment
Governance
http:
//www.abs.gov.au
UK government sustainable
development indicators
By the Office for National
Statistics (ONS)
Economy
Society
Environment
https://www.gov.uk
BES (Benessere Equoe
Sostenible)—Measuring and
Assessing Progress of Italian
Society
By the Italian National
Institute of Statistics (Istat)
and the Italian National
Council for Economics and
Labour (CNEL)
Health
Education and training
Work and life balance
Economic well-being
Social relationships
Politics and Institutions
Security
Subjective well-being
Landscape and cultural heritage
Environment
Research and innovation
Quality of services
http://www.
misuredelbenessere.it
Measuring Ireland’s Progress
By Central Statistics Office,
Ireland
Society
- Population
- Social cohesion
- Crime
Economy
- Finance
- Employment and unemployment
- Housing
Environment
Education
Health
http://www.cso.ie
Quality of Life Reporting
System
By the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities
Demographic Background Information (DBI)
Affordable, Appropriate Housing (AAH)
Civic Engagement (CE)
Community and Social Infrastructure (CSI)
Education (ED)
Employment and Local Economy (ELE)
Natural Environment (NE)
Personal and Community Health (PCH)
Personal Financial Security (PFS)
Personal Safety (PS)
http://www.fcm.ca
China Urban Sustainability
Index
By Urban China Initiative
Social welfare
Cleanliness
Built environment
Economic development
Resource utilization
http://www.
urbanchinainitiative.
org
SustainLane U.S. City
Rankings
Air and Water Quality
Transportation
Built Environment
City Programs
Green Biz and Economy
Natural Disaster Risk
Waste Management
Water Supply
http://www.vtpi.org
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 20 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
Virginia Performs, USA
Economy
Education
Health and Family
Public Safety
Natural Resources
Transportation
Government and Citizens
http://vaperforms.
virginia.gov
Community Indicator Projects
in the USA
Adams County Community Indicators, Adams County, Illinois
Arizona Indicators, Arizona
Baltimore Neighbourhood Indicators Alliance, Baltimore,
Maryland
Boston Indicators Project, Greater Boston Region, Massachusetts
Central Texas Sustainability Indicators Project, Austin, Texas
City of Minneapolis Sustainability Indicators, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
City of Vancouver, WA Strategic Indicators, Vancouver,
Washington
Community Indicators of Vitality, Oregon, Portland
Dakota County Community Indicators, Dakota County,
Minnesota
Florida Scorecard, Florida
Georgia Community Indicators, State of Georgia
Greater New Orleans Index, Greater New Orleans, Louisiana
Greenville Indicators, Greenville County, South Carolina
Gulf Coast Community Indicators, Sarasota, Bradenton,
Charlotte, DeSoto Counties, Florida
Houston Sustainability Indicators, Houston, Texas
Jacksonville Quality of Life Indicators, Jacksonville/Duval
County, Florida
Kewaunee County, Wisconsin Quality of Life Report, 2012,
Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Kootenai County Indicators, Kootenai County, Idaho
Orange County Community Indicators Project, Orange County,
California
Puget Sound Dashboard of Ecosystem Indicators, Puget Sound,
Seattle, Washington
Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan, Santa Monica, California
Spartanburg Community Indicators Project, Spartanburg, South
Carolina
Spokane County Community Indicators Initiative, Spokane
County, Washington
Sustainable Seattle, Greater Seattle/King County, Washington
Sustainable Cleveland 2019, Cleveland, Ohio
Sustainable Chattanooga, Tennessee
http://www.
communityindicators.
net
Community Indicator Projects
in Australia
City of Sydney indicator framework
Community Indicators Victoria
Community Indicators Queensland
Indicators of Regional Development
in Western Australia
Healthy Safe and
Inclusive Communities
Dynamic Resilient Local
Economies
Sustainable Built and
Natural Environments
Culturally Rich and
Vibrant Communities
Democratic and Engaged
Communities
http:
//www.cityofsydney.
nsw.gov.au
http://www.
communityindicators.
net.au
http://www.
communityindicatorsqld.
org.au
http://myweb.
westnet.com.au
Economic
goal—Growing a
diversified economy
Social goal—Educated,
healthy, safe and
supportive communities
Environmental
goal—Valuing and
protecting the
environment
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 21 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
Community Indicator Projects
in Canada
Sustainable Calgary
State of the City report
Community indicators
Economic indicators
Education indicators
Natural environment
indicators
Resource use indicators
Wellness indicators
https:
//www.pembina.org
Alberta’s Genuine Progress
Indicators
Economic
Social
Environmental
The Glasgow Indicators
Project
By Glasgow Centre for
Population Health
Population
Economic participation
Poverty
Health
Social capital
Environment
Transport
Education
Community Safety
Lifestyle
Cultural Vitality
Mindset
http://www.
understandingglasgow.
com
London’s Quality of Life
Indicators
By Greater London Authority
Environmental Indicators
Social Indicators
Economic Indicators
http:
//data.london.gov.uk
STAR (Sustainability Tools for
Assessment and Rating)
Community Index
By ICLEI—Local Governments
for Sustainability, in
collaboration with the U.S.
Green Building Council, the
Centre for American Progress
and the National League of
Cities
Natural Systems
Built Environment
Climate and Energy
Economy and Jobs
Education, Arts and Community
Equity and Empowerment
Health and Safety
Innovation and Process Credits
http://www.
starcommunities.org
CASBEE (Comprehensive
Assessment System for
Building Environmental
Efficiency)
By the Sustainable
Building Consortium, Japan
Building (New Construction)
- Environmental quality of building
- Environmental load reduction of building
Home (Detached House)
- Comfortable, Healthy and Safe Indoor Environment
- Ensuring a Long Service Life
- Creating a Richer Townscape and Ecosystem
- Conserving Energy and Water
- Using Resources Sparingly and Reducing Waste
- Consideration of the Global, Local, and Surrounding
Environment
Neighbourhood development
- Environmental quality of urban development
- Environmental load of urban development
Cities (Pilot version)
- Environment
- Society
- Economy
http://www.ibec.or.
jp/CASBEE
SITES (Sustainable Sites
Initiative)
By the Green Business
Certification Inc.
Site Selection
Pre-Design Assessment and Planning
Site Design—Water
Site Design—Soil and Vegetation
Site Design—Materials Selection
Site Design—Human Health and Well-Being
Construction
Operations and Maintenance
Monitoring and Innovation
http://www.coconino.
az.gov
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 22 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
BREEAM (Building
Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment
Method)
The Code for Sustainable
Homes
By the Building Research
Establishment, UK
New Construction
- Management
- Health and Wellbeing
- Energy
- Transport
- Water
- Materials
- Waste
- Land Use and Ecology
- Pollution
- Innovation
Community
- Establishing the principle of development
- Determining the layout of the development
- Designing the details
The Code for Sustainable Homes
- Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
- Water
- Materials
- Surface Water Run-off
- Waste
- Pollution
- Health and Well-being
- Management
- Ecology
http:
//www.breeam.com
http://www.
planningportal.gov.uk
LEED (Leadership in Energy
and Environmental
Design)
By the U.S. Green Building
Council
Homes
- Location and Transportation
- Sustainable Sites
- Water Efficiency
- Energy and Atmosphere
- Materials and Resources
- Indoor Environmental Quality
- Innovation
Neighbourhood Development
- Smart Location and Linkage
- Neighbourhood Pattern and Design
- Green Infrastructure and Buildings
- Innovation and Design Process
http://www.usgbc.
org/leed
The Living
Building/Community
Challenge
By International Living Future
Institute U.S.
Site
Water
Energy
Health
Materials
Equity
Beauty
http:
//living-future.org
Green Star
By Australian Green Building
Council
Design and As Built
- Management
- Indoor Environment Quality
- Energy
- Transport
- Water
- Materials
- Land Use and Ecology
- Emissions
- Innovation
Community
- Governance
- Liveability
- Economic Prosperity
- Environment
- Innovation
https://www.gbca.
org.au/green-star
DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Nachhaltiges Bauen)
By the German Sustainable
Building Council
Environmental Quality
Economic Quality
Sociocultural and Functional Quality
Process Quality
Technical Quality
Site Quality
http:
//www.dgnb.de/en
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 23 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
GBI (Green Building Index)
By Pertubuhan Arkitek
Malaysia (PAM) and
Association of Consulting
Engineers (ACEM), Malaysia
Residential New Construction
- Energy Efficiency
- Indoor Environment Quality
- Sustainable Site Planning and Management
- Materials and Resources
- Water Efficiency
- Innovation
Township Rating Tool
- Climate, Energy and Water
- Environmental and Ecology
- Community Planning and Design
- Transportation and Connectivity
- Building and Resources
- Business and Innovation
http://new.
greenbuildingindex.
org
BASIX (Building
Sustainability Index)
By NSW Government,
Australia
- Energy
- Water
- Thermal comfort
https://www.basix.
nsw.gov.au
NABERS (National Australian
Built Environment Rating
System)
By the National Department of
Environment and Heritage
Energy
Water
Waste
Indoor Environment
http:
//www.nabers.gov.au
CEPAS (Comprehensive
Environmental Performance
Assessment Scheme)
By Buildings
DepartmentHKSAR
Government, Hong Kong
Indoor Environmental Quality
Building Amenities
Resources Use
Loadings
Site Amenities
Neighbourhood Amenities
Site Impacts
Neighbourhood Impacts
http://www.bd.gov.
hk/english
HKBEAM Plus (Hong Kong
Building Environmental
Assessment Method)
By the Hong Kong Green
Building Council
Existing Buildings - Selective Scheme
- Management
- Site Aspects
- Materials and Waste Aspects
- Energy Use
- Water Use
- Indoor Environmental Quality
https://www.hkgbc.
org.hk/eng
Green Globes
By ECD Energy and
Environment, Canada
and USA
Project management
Site
Energy
Water
Materials and resources
Emissions and other impacts
Indoor environment
http://www.
greenglobes.com
HQE (High Environmental
Quality)
By the Haute Qualité
Environnementale
Association, France
Eco-construction
Eco-management
Create a healthy and comfortable internal environment
Health
http:
//www.behqe.com
Green Star SA
By the South African Council
for Scientific and
Industrial Research
Existing Building Performance
- Management
- Indoor environmental quality
- Energy
- Transport
- Water
- Materials
- Land use and ecology
- Emissions
- Innovation
https:
//www.gbcsa.org.za
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 24 of 28
Table A1. Cont.
Initiative/Developer(s) Themes/Headline Indicators References
BEES (Building for
Environmental and
Economic Sustainability)
By U.S. National Institute of
Standards and Technology
Environmental Performance Score
- Global Warming
- Acidification
- Eutrophication
- Fossil Fuel Depletion
- Indoor Air Quality
- Habitat Alteration
- Water Intake
- Criteria Air Pollutants
- Human Health
- Smog
- Ozone Depletion
- Ecological Toxicity
Economic Performance
http://nepis.epa.gov
References
1.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). World Urbanization Prospects: The
2014 Revision. Available online: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.
Pdf (accessed on 4 January 2016).
2.
Waas, T.; Hugé, J.; Block, T.; Wright, T.; Benitez-Capistros, F.; Verbruggen, A. Sustainability assessment and
indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability
2014
,6, 5512–5534.
[CrossRef]
3.
Cinelli, M.; Coles, S.R.; Kirwan, K. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to
conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014,46, 138–148. [CrossRef]
4.
Agol, D.; Latawiec, A.E.; Strassburg, B.B. Evaluating impacts of development and conservation projects
using sustainability indicators: Opportunities and challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
2014
,48, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
5.
Adinyira, E.; Oteng-Seifah, S.; Adjei-Kumi, T. A review of urban sustainability assessment methodologies.
In International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and Its Assessment; Horner, M., Hardcastle, C.,
Price, A., Bebbington, J., Eds.; Glasgow Caledonian University: Glasgow, UK, 2007.
6.
Mayer, A.L. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems.
Environ. Int. 2008,34, 277–291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Tanguay, G.A.; Rajaonson, J.; Lefebvre, J.F.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of
the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010,10, 407–418. [CrossRef]
8.
Shen, L.Y.; Ochoa, J.J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators—A
comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011,35, 17–29. [CrossRef]
9. Dahl, A.L. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2012,17, 14–19. [CrossRef]
10.
Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators
and targets. Ecol. Indic. 2012,17, 4–13. [CrossRef]
11.
Turcu, C. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 2013,56, 695–719. [CrossRef]
12.
Fredericks, S.E. Measuring and Evaluating Sustainability: Ethics in Sustainability Indexes; Routledge: New York,
NY, USA, 2014.
13.
Dizdaroglu, D. Developing Micro-Level Urban Ecosystem Indicators for Sustainability Assessment.
Environ. Impact Assess Rev. 2015,54, 119–124. [CrossRef]
14.
Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F.; Dizdaroglu, D. Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban
sustainability assessment approach. Habitat Int. 2015,45, 36–46. [CrossRef]
15.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Policy Brief No. 40. An Integrated
Strategy for Sustainable Cities. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/
publications/policy_briefs/policybrief40.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2016).
16.
Dujon, V.; Dillard, J.; Brennan, E.M. Social Sustainability: A Multilevel Approach to Social Inclusion; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2013.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 25 of 28
17.
Graham, J.; Amos, B.; Plumptre, T. Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century, Policy Brief No. 15;
Institute on Governance as Based on United Nations Development Program: Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available
online: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/UNPAN011842.pdf (accessed
on 3 June 2017).
18.
European Investment Bank. Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas. Available
online: http://www.eib.org/attachments/documents/jessica_horizontal_study_smart_and_sustainable_
cities_en.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2016).
19. Williams, K.; Jenks, M.; Burton, E. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; Taylor Francis: London, UK, 2000.
20.
Burton, E.; Jenks, M.; Williams, K. (Eds.) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form; Routledge: New York,
NY, USA, 2003.
21. Frey, H. Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form; Taylor Francis: London, UK, 2003.
22. Dempsey, N. Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
23.
Milder, J. Sustainable urban form. In Sustainable Urban Environments: An Ecosystem Approach;
van Bueren, E.M., van Bohemen, H., Itard, L., Visscher, H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012;
pp. 263–284.
24.
Wheeler, S.M. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2004.
25.
Tolley, R. (Ed.) Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Urban Environments; Woodhead
Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
26. Williams, K. Spatial Planning, Urban Form and Sustainable Transport; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2005.
27. Black, W.R. Sustainable Transportation: Problems and Solutions; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
28.
Gudmundsson, H.; Hall, R.P.; Marsden, G.; Zietsman, J. Sustainable Transportation: Indicators, Frameworks, and
Performance Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
29.
Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A. Sustainable transportation: An overview, framework and further research
directions. Int. J. Shipping Transp. Logist. 2015,7, 695–718. [CrossRef]
30. Taniguchi, E. Concepts of city logistics for sustainable and liveable cities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,151,
310–317. [CrossRef]
31.
Nathanail, E.; Adamos, G.; Gogas, M. A novel framework for assessing sustainable urban logistics.
Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 983–992. [CrossRef]
32.
Ahern, J. Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In Cities of the Future: Towards Integrated
Sustainable Water and Landscape Management; Novotny, V., Brown, P., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK,
2007; pp. 267–283.
33.
EU Working Group on Green Infrastructure. Task 1: Scope and Objectives of Green Infrastructure in
the EU: Recommendations. Available online: https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/
bd0f71b6-e38f-4580-8d50-3dcb16eecc1b/GI%20TASK%201%20RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf (accessed on
10 January 2016).
34.
European Commission. The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Science for Environment
Policy. European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment. Available online: http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2016).
35.
Mell, I. Green infrastructure planning: policy and objectives. In Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning,
Design and Implementation; Sinnett, D., Smith, N., Burgess, S., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham,
UK, 2015; pp. 105–123.
36.
Haq, S.M.A. Urban green spaces and an integrative approach to sustainable environment. In Urban Ecology:
Strategies for Green Infrastructure and Land Use; Etingoff, K., Ed.; Apple Academic Press: Oakville, ON, Canada,
2015; pp. 147–166.
37.
Sinnett, D.; Smith, N.; Burgess, S. (Eds.) Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation;
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2015.
38.
Goswami, D.Y.; Kreith, F. (Eds.) Handbook of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2007.
39. Maczulak, A.E. Renewable Energy: Sources and Methods; Infobase Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
40.
Davidson, G. Waste Management Practices: Literature Review; Office of Sustainability, Dalhousie University:
Halifax, NS, Canada, 2011.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 26 of 28
41.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Sustainable Energy Regulation and
Policymaking Training Manual. Module 7: Renewable Energy Technologies. Available online: https:
//www.unido.org/fileadmin/media/documents/pdf/EEU_Training_Package/Module7.pdf (accessed on
12 January 2016).
42.
Ekström, K.M. Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: Reflections on Consumer Waste; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2014.
43. Twidell, J.; Weir, T. Renewable Energy Resources; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
44.
Haughton, G. Environmental justice and the sustainable city. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
1999
,18, 233–243. [CrossRef]
45.
Bullard, R.D. (Ed.) Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity;
MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
46.
Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge
of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
47.
Campbell, H.E.; Kim, Y.; Eckerd, A.M. Rethinking Environmental Justice in Sustainable Cities: Insights from
Agent-Based Modelling; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
48.
Nixon, J. Sustainable Economic Development: Initiatives, Programs, and Strategies for Cities and Regions.
Available online: www.globalurban.org (accessed on 12 January 2016).
49.
New South Wales Department of Health. Healthy Urban Development Checklist. Available online:
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/urbanhealth/Publications/healthy-urban-dev-check.pdf (accessed on
3 February 2016).
50. Barton, H.; Tsourou, C. Healthy Urban Planning; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
51.
Sarkar, C.; Webster, C.; Gallacher, J. Healthy Cities: Public Health through Urban Planning; Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2014.
52.
Barton, H.; Thompson, S.; Burgess, S.; Grant, M. (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and
Well-Being: Shaping a Sustainable and Healthy Future; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
53.
Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorising tools for assessing sustainability. Ecol. Econ.
2007,60, 498–508. [CrossRef]
54.
Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H. A multi-scale life-cycle energy and greenhouse-gas emissions analysis model
for residential buildings. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2014,57, 39–48. [CrossRef]
55.
Stephan, A.; Stephan, L. Life cycle energy and cost analysis of embodied, operational and user-transport
energy reduction measures for residential buildings. Appl. Energy 2016,161, 445–464. [CrossRef]
56.
Bastos, J.; Batterman, S.A.; Freire, F. Significance of mobility in the life-cycle assessment of buildings.
Build. Res. Inf. 2015,44, 376–393. [CrossRef]
57.
Science for Environment Policy. Indicators for Sustainable Cities. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/
science-environment-policy (accessed on 10 January 2016).
58.
Mascarenhas, A.; Nunes, L.M.; Ramos, T.B. Selection of sustainability indicators for planning: Combining
stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,92, 295–307. [CrossRef]
59. Pinfield, G. Beyond sustainability indicators. Local Environ. 1996,1, 151–163. [CrossRef]
60.
McCool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of
science and policy. Environ. Manag. 2004,33, 294–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Weiland, U. Sustainability indicators and sustainable development. In Global Change, Urbanization and Health;
Wuyi, W., Krafft, T., Kraas, F., Eds.; China Meteorological Press: Beijing, China, 2006; pp. 241–250.
62.
Cornescu, V.; Adam, R. Considerations regarding the role of indicators used in the analysis and assessment
of sustainable development in the EU. Econ. Financ. 2014,8, 10–16.
63.
New Zealand’s Official Statistics Agency (NZOSA). Criteria for Indicator Selection. Available online:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods/indicator-guidelines/criteria-for-indicator-selection.aspx (accessed
on 8 June 2014).
64.
Pastille Consortium. Indicators into Action. A Practitioners Guide for Improving Their Use at the Local
Level. Final Report. London: European Union FP5. Available online: http://www.ocs.polito.it/alpcityruo/
en/dwd/indicatori/6.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2014).
65.
Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS). Science for Decision Makers. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring Our
Progress. Available online: http://www.fao.org/forestry/4778-077c5741206899557978339c019698e70.pdf
(accessed on 10 January 2016).
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 27 of 28
66.
United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%
20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2017).
67.
Helming, K.; Tabbush, P.; Perez-Soba, M. (Eds.) Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
68.
Olsson, J.A.; Bradley, K.; Hilding-Rydevik, T.; Ruotsalainen, A.; Aalbu, H. Indicators for Sustainable
Development; European Regional Network on Sustainable Development: Västmanland, Sweeden,
21–23 June 2004.
69.
Waheed, B.; Khan, F.; Veitch, B. Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: making a case for
driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability
2009
,1, 441–463.
[CrossRef]
70.
Emerson, J.; Esty, D.C.; Levy, M.A.; Kim, C.H.; Mara, V.; de Sherbinin, A.; Srebotnjak, T. Environmental
Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven, CT, USA, 2010.
71.
Hsu, A.; Emerson, J.; Levy, M.; de Sherbinin, A.; Johnson, L.; Malik, O.; Schwartz, J.; Jaiteh, M. The 2014
Environmental Performance Index; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven, CT, USA, 2014.
72.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2005.
73. Alberti, M. Measuring urban sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996,16, 381–424. [CrossRef]
74.
Retzlaff, R.C. Green building assessment systems: A framework and comparison for planners. J. Am.
Plan. Assoc. 2008,74, 505–519. [CrossRef]
75.
Karol, E.; Brunner, J. Tools for measuring progress towards sustainable neighborhood environments.
Sustainability 2009,1, 612–627. [CrossRef]
76.
Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment of buildings, communities and cities. In Assessing and Measuring
Environmental Impact and Sustainability; Jiri, K., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 497–545.
77.
Wong, C. A framework for ‘City Prosperity Index’: Linking indicators, analysis and policy. Habitat Int.
2015
,
45, 3–9. [CrossRef]
78.
Somogyi, Z. A framework for quantifying environmental sustainability. Ecol. Indic.
2016
,61, 338–345.
[CrossRef]
79.
Hák, T.; Moldan, B.; Dahl, A.L. (Eds.) Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Volume 67.
80.
Pires, S.M.; Fidélis, T.; Ramos, T.B. Measuring and comparing local sustainable development through
common indicators: Constraints and achievements in practice. Cities 2014,39, 1–9. [CrossRef]
81.
Mori, K.; Christodoulou, A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City
Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012,32, 94–106. [CrossRef]
82.
Sébastien, L.; Bauler, T. Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the
EU-level. Ecol. Indic. 2013,35, 3–12. [CrossRef]
83.
Michael, F.L.; Noor, Z.Z.; Figueroa, M.J. Review of urban sustainability indicators assessment—Case study
between Asian countries. Habitat Int. 2014,44, 491–500. [CrossRef]
84.
Clark, T.W. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals; Yale University Press:
New Haven, CT, USA, 2002.
85.
Devuyst, D.; Hens, L.; De Lannoy, W. How Green is the City? Sustainability Assessment and the Management of
Urban Environments; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
86.
Hezri, A. Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: A framework for utilisation and
learning. J. Environ. Manag. 2004,73, 357–371. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87.
Walter, C.; Stützel, H. A new method for assessing the sustainability of land-use systems (II): Evaluating
impact indicators. Ecol. Econ. 2009,68, 1288–1300. [CrossRef]
88.
Guijt, I.; Moiseev, A. Resource Kit for Sustainability Assessment; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge,
UK, 2001.
89.
Newton, P.; Flood, J.; Berry, M.; Bhatia, K.; Brown, S.; Cabelli, A.; Gomboso, J.; Richardson, T. Environmental
Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting—Human Settlements; State of the Environment
(Environmental Indicator Reports); Department of the Environment: Canberra, Australia, 1998.
Sustainability 2017,9, 1018 28 of 28
90.
Szlavecz, K.; Warren, P.; Pickett, S. Biodiversity on the urban landscape. In Human Population: Its Influences
on Biological Diversity; Cincotta, R.P., Gorenflo, L.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011;
pp. 75–101.
91. Capra, F. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living; Anchor Books: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
92.
Dizdaroglu, D.; Yigitcanlar, T. Integrating urban ecosystem sustainability assessment into policy-making:
Insights from the Gold Coast City. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016,59, 1982–2006. [CrossRef]
93.
Kulig, A.; Kolfoort, H.; Hoekstra, R. The case for the hybrid capital approach for the measurement of the
welfare and sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2010,10, 118–128. [CrossRef]
©
2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
