Int.J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2 (1995)104-123
PICABUE: a methodological framework
for the development of indicators of
sustainable development
G. Mitchell’, A. May2 and A. McDonald3
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
’The Environment Centre, *Department of Civil Engineering and 3School of Geography,
The University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Key words: sustainable development, indicator, quality of life, ecological integrity, A g a d a 21, PICABUE
SUMMARY
Significant interest in the concept of sustainable development exists amongst scientists,
planners, policy makers and the public, and considerable effort and expenditure is
made or envisaged at local, national and international levels to promote a more
sustainable society. Until ‘green accounting’ and similar systems are made available and
are implemented, the sustainabilityindicator will be the most effective tool available for
monitoring progress towards a more sustainable society. Sustainability indicators are
already available but are characterized by a poor or absent theoretical underpinning.
This paper addresses this problem by proposing a methodological framework that can
be applied to the construction of indicators of sustainable development. In order to be
consistent with widely accepted definitions of sustainable development, considerations
relating to the measurement of quality of life and ecological integrity are central to the
methodology.The methodologicalframework has relevance to a variety of spatial scales
and to geographically diverse areas (urban or rural, developed or developing countries)
so that a suite of sustainability indicators can be produced that is tailored to the needs
and resources of the indicator user, but which remains rooted firmly in the fundamental
principles of sustainable development.
INTRODUCTION
throughout the world to achieve a more
sustainable pattern of development for the next
century. Individual countries were required to
produce strategies and action plans indicating
how they would implement their parts of these
agreements (e.g. HM Government, 1994). If
development is to become more sustainable, there
must be an effective method of monitoring trends
in sustainability so that the performance of
development policies can be assessed. Agenda 21
proposed the development of a system of
accounting that would integrate national
economic and environmental accounts so that
Since the publication of Our Common Future, the
report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED, 1987) there has been
considerable international interest in the concept
of sustainable development. This interest
culminated in the 1992 UN Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio deJaneiro
(the Earth Summit). The Earth Summit produced
conventions on climate change, biodiversity and
forestry, as well as Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), a
comprehensive programme of action needed
Correspondence: Dr Gordon Mitchell, The Environment Centre, The University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT,UK
104
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABUE: a m.ethodologicalfiamework
progress towards sustainability could be measured.
However, methods of environmental accounting
are poorly developed, and their integration with
systems of national economic accounts is probably
many years away (Arntzen and Gilbert, 1991).
Until such integrated accounting systems are
developed, tested and implemented, progress
towards sustainable development can best be
monitored using sustainability indicators.
Indicatorsare used to interpret the world about
us. Indicators convey information on complex
systems in a way that makes those systems more
easily understood. Indicators encountered in
everyday life include the bank interest rate,
unemployment figures, and the IT100 share
index, which all suggest how the economy is
performing. Other examples are figures on
rainfall and temperature that are a guide to
weather conditions. Indicators are alternative
measures that are used to identify the status of a
concern when for technical or financial reasons
the concern cannot be measured directly. We
need indicators because they enable us to gain an
understanding of the complex systems around
us. They do this by:
(1) Synthesizing masses of data;
(2) Showing the current position, in relation
to desirable states;
Mitchell, May and McDonald
The demand for indicators that measure
sustainable development is high (Department of
the Environment (DOE), 1993; Moffatt, 1994),
presenting the challenge to develop effective
indicators that will allow monitoring of progress
towards a sustainable society, and assist in the
identification of the best sustainable practices
and policies. Attempts have already been made to
identify sustainability indicators (e.g. Sheehy,
1989; Sustainable Seattle, 1993) and others are
still in progress (e.g. Local Government
Management Board (LGMB), 1994; Stockholm
Environment Institute (SEI), 1994). However,
many of the currently used sustainabilityindicators
are simply social or economic performance
indicators and indicators derived for state-of-theenvironment reporting that have been selected
from pre-existing lists, with little o r n o
modification, and are presented as ‘sustainability
indicators’. Some of these indicators may well
prove to be excellent indicators, but without a
coherent methodologyunderlying their selection,
their utility remains questionable. The
methodology underlying an indicator is valuable
because it gives greater credibility to indicator
choices, allows for more effective participation in
indicator development, simplifies identification
of indicators appropriate to different geographical
localities, and can produce indicators with longterm robustness.
(3) Demonstrating progress towards goals and
objectives; and
(4) Communicating current status to users
(scientists, policy makers or the public) so
that effective management decisions can
be taken that lead us towards objectives.
There are two types of ‘indicator’: simple
indicators expressed in units (e.g. rainfall, in mm) ,
and indices which combine single indicators in
an index that is expressed as a dimensionless
number (e.g. the ETlOO share-price index). Ott
(1978) describes the ideal indicator as follows:
Ideally, an index or an indicator is a means devised
to reduce a large quantity of data down to its
simplest form, retaining essential meaning for the
questions that are being asked of the data. In
short, an index is designed to simplify. In the
process of simplification, of course, some
information is lost. Hopefully, if the index is
designed properly, the lost information will not
seriously distort the answer to the question.
THE PICABUE METHOD FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
This paper presents ‘PICABUE’,a methodological
framework for the development of sustainability
indicators. The methodology is illustrated in
Figure 1, and is discussed in detail below. The
PICABUE method derives its name from the seven
principal steps used in the development of
sustainability indicators:
(1) Stakeholders to reach a consensus on the
Principles and definitions of sustainable
development that are used and the
objectives of the sustainability indicators
programme;
(2) Identify and select Issues of concern;
(3) Construct/select indicators of issues of
concern;
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
105
Mitchell, May and McDonald
PICABW: a methodobgicalfiamnuwk
0
a
Sbkcholdcrs to reach conscnsus on :
Pnnciplcs of sustainable development,
-Objectives of indicator use
t
c
Futurity
(inter-generational
Identify and select issues of
concern
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
Social equity
(intra-generational
Q
Constructjselect base indicators of
quality-of-life issues of concern
T
e
a
Augment quality-of-life indicators with
reference to sustainability principles to
produce sustainability indicators
1
Conservation of
Identify complementary
ecological indicators that
recognize the intrinsic
value of ecological stocks
Modify sustainability indicators
to account for boundary difficulties
Q
e
Evaluate final sustainability indicators
with respect to :
Desired indicator characteristics,
Objectives of i n d i c a x i .
*
~
Use indicators
Figure 1 The PICABUE method for the construction of indicators of sustainable development
106
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
Mitchell, May and McDonald
PICABLE: a niethodologicalfiamewark
Augment indicators developed in step (3)
by sustainable development principles
identified in step (1);
Modify step (4) indicators to address
Boundary issues;
Develop Uncertainty indicators from step
(4)augmented indicators;
Evaluate
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
and review final sustainability
indicators.
PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS AND
OBJECTIVES
Principles and definitions
Sustainable development is a rather vague
concept characterized by numerous definitions
and many possible interpretations of its meaning.
Therefore, the first step in the methodology is
to state which definition(s) of sustainable
development is/are used, and which underlying
principles are to be adopted. It is likely that
most indicators will be derived from the two
most popular and widely-quoted definitions of
sustainable development which are given in Our
Common Future (WCED, 1987) and in Caringfor
the E a r t h ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union f o r t h e
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
et al. (IUCN), 1991). These are, respectively:
‘development that meets the needs of current
generations without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their needs and
aspirations’; and ‘development that improves
the quality of human life while living within the
carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems’.
These definitions are concerned with quality-oflife issues and maintenance of the ecological
integrity of natural systems. Both definitions are
supported by four fundamental principles of
sustainable development (e.g., see Elkin et aL,
1991; United Nations Conference o n
Environment a n d Development (UNCED),
1992).The first three relate to people. ‘Futurity’
(also known as inter-generational equity) is the
first. To ensure that the needs and aspirations of
future generations are not compromised by
current activities, a minimum environmental
capital (resources a n d ecological support
systems) must be maintained. ‘Equity’ (also
known as intra-generational equity), the second
principle, states that current generations should
have greater equality in access to environmental
capital and should share the costs associated
with human activity (e.g. pollution) in a more
equitable manner. The third principle, ‘public
participation’, states that individuals should have
an opportunity to participate in decisions that
affect them and the process of sustainable
development. T h e f o u r t h ‘environment’
principle relates exclusively to the integrity of
the natural environment, recognizing the value
of the wider ecosystem as a resource worthy of
conservation because people benefit from its
use, and also because it has intrinsic value beyond
human resource use.
Human activities are conducted through the
socioeconomic system to increase quality of life,
and in doing so often lead to adverse impacts on
ecological integrity. These impacts are often a
consequence rather than an intention of human
activity, but their presence does highlight a
contradiction in sustainable development. Redclift
(1989) writes: ‘sustainable development is a
concept which draws on two frequently-opposed
intellectual traditions: one concerned with the
limits which nature presents to human beings,
the other with the potential for human material
development which is locked up in nature’. These
contradictory views are explored in the
sustainabilityspectrum (Pearce et al., 1993)’which
demonstrates how differing personal value systems
(e.g. ‘ecocentric’ versus ‘technocentric’) are
associated with fundamentally different
treatments of ecological resources (e.g.
biodiversity preservation, conservation, exploitation). Such differences in the interpretation of
the term ‘sustainable development’ exemplify the
need for indicator designers to specify clearly
their terms of reference.
Statement of objectives
Indicators are designed to perform one o r more
tasks. Cairns et al. (1993) concluded from their
review that indicators are designed to meet at
least one of the following objectives:
(1) Assessment of current conditions;
(2) Monitoring trends in conditions over time;
(3) Anticipating hazardous conditions before
they arise;
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
107
Mitchell, May and McDonald
PICABLE: a mthodologicalji-amework
Table 1 The relative merits of the three different indicator approaches shown in Figure 4 (p.114)
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
Indicatm
approach
Disadvantages
Advantages
Primly indicator uses
I
Comprehensive coverage of all the
issues
Few data gaps or omissions
Selection difficulties are minimized
Indicators are simple and reflect the
data closely
Results are noncontroversial
Burden of interpretation placed on
user
Communicates little sense of
condition of the whole
Modelling
I1
Communicates a sense of condition
of the whole (or major parts of
the whole)
Difficult to maintain consistently
because as old issues disappear,
new issues arise
Controversial; an index averages
data and much important
information may be lost
Value judgements are required
when weighting the components
Communicating data
to discipline
experts
Communicating data
to policy makers
Explicit
Data gaps are clearly seen
Unacceptable omissions are
corrected by selecting additional
key indicator, rather than altering
complex composites
Long-term robustness
I11
Subjective decision required in
selecting key indicator
Danger of oversimplification
(4) Identifying causative agents to specify
appropriate management action; and
( 5 ) Demonstrating interdependence between
indicators to make assessment processes
more cost-effective,or to reinforce the will
to make sound management decisions.
Indicators have certain requirements that need
to be catered for, depending on the objective of
the indicator. For example, an indicator with the
objective of anticipating hazardous conditions
before they arise would need to be supported by
data acquisition and analysis that was sufficiently
rapid to allow appropriate remedial action to
take place. This would not be an important
indicator requirement if the purpose of the
indicator was simply to document trends, when
data consistency would be more significant.
Similarly,an index may be useful in documenting
general trends but a specific indicator would be
much more effective in identifying cause and
effect. Compare for example, the objectives of
the National Water Council river classification
index with that of an indicator of a specific water
pollutant.
108
Modelling
Communicating data
to nonexperts and
the public
Indicator objectives are not mutually exclusive
and indicator characteristics that are selected to
meet one objective may also be effective in
meeting another. However, differences in
indicator requirements do exist, depending on
indicator use (Table 1). For this reason it is
important that the purpose of the sustainability
indicator is clearly understood and stated.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
OF ISSUES OF CONCERN
When studying complex systems, it is common to
subdivide them into components and gain an
understanding of the state of the whole system by
looking at indicators for each component. In the
physical environment, indicatorsare used to assess
the state of air, water, land, biota and so on.
Although there is a high degree of connectivity
between these components, the degree of
complexity involved means that it is not
appropriate to combine indicators into a single
composite index. ‘There is no single measure or
index which can show in a meaningful way what
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
PICABlE: a methodologicalfi-amework
Mitchell, May and McDonald
I
mmar);
componenls
Standard of living
/
I
Qualityoflife
Public health
1
Environmental quality
\
etc. ...
/ \ \
v
Water
quality
Secondq
cornponenls
Food quality
Air quality
I
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
1
etc....
\
\
Teruq
cornponenls
Selection process
(ree text)
Reference
Indicators
Not selected
Not selected
PM I0
(ng/m3)
I
Sulphur dioxide Nitrogen dioxide
(PPW
(PPW
I
I
Ground-level ozone Carbon monoxide
(PPW
(PPm)
I
Select many specific indicators, composite indicators, simple composite indicators or key indicators (see text and Table 1)
Figure 2 Selection of issues relevant to sustainability indicator construction; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per
million
the state of the environment is and whether or
not it is improving’ (Elkin, 1987). If this is true
for the physical environment, then it must also
hold true for sustainability monitoring, which
additionally needs to incorporate information on
the social and economic environments. Therefore,
to monitor progress towards sustainability, no
single indicator is appropriate. A suite of indicators
is required that attempts to cover comprehensively
the most important concerns relevant to
sustainability.
The second step in the indicator methodology
is to identify which concerns are relevant to
sustainability and therefore merit indicator
construction. The PICABUE methodology
proposes a disaggregation process whereby the
fundamental issues of concern are divided into
significant issues or components. These
components are subject to continued subdivision
until tangible concerns that are amenable to
indicator construction are identified and made
available for selection (see the examples in
Figure 2).
Identification of issues
Sustainable development, as defined in Our
CommonFuture (WCED, 1987) and in Caringforthe
Earth (IUCN, 1991),is very much about quality of
life and ecological integrity. Ecological integrity
can already be measured using a wide variety of
indicators, including those relating to biodiversity,
species abundance, land with protected area status
and consumption of primary productivity. The
PICABUE methodology makes use of these
existing indicator types (complementary
ecological indicators) and supplements them with
indicators of human activity impact on the
ecological environment (see step 4, Figure 1).
However, in developing sustainability indicators,
it is also necessary to develop indicators of quality
of life. Our Common Future discusses sustainable
development with reference to ‘needs and
aspirations’, while Caring for the Earth refers
specificallyto quality of life. An individual’s quality
of life is influenced by an extensive range of
factors, including health and wealth, home, work
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
109
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABUE: a mthodologicalfiamework
Mitchell, May and McDonald
and neighbourhood environments, exposure to
pollution and crime, access to resources, goods
and services, the quality of their social interactions,
and so on. The issues that are commonly
important to people’s quality-of-life, and which
may be suitable candidates for sustainability
indicator development, may be identified from
the qualityaf-life literature.
Quality of life has been defined as ‘an
individual’shappiness or satisfactionwith life and
environment including needs and desires and
other tangible and intangible factors which
determine overall well-being’ (Cutter, 1985).
Rogerson et al. (1987) note that numerous earlier
studies treat this definition synonymously with
the term ‘well-being’. A narrower definition
related to quality-of-life is ‘level of living’ which
Knox (1974) defines as ‘the level of satisfaction of
the needs of the population assessed by the flow
of goods and services enjoyed in a unit time’. This
definition is broader than that used to construct
social indicators and is more precise than the
quality-of-lifeconcept. Level-of-livingresearch and
social-indicators research are both commonly
recognized as subsets of quality-of-life research,
but are narrower] and consider only limited
dimensions of quality-of-life. Level-of-living
research usually focuses on the economic
dimension, while social-indicatorsresearch places
greater emphasis on indicators describing the
social and physical environment. Qualityaf-life
research attempts a broad interpretation of these
multiple dimensions. It is usually conducted for
one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Curiosity over how different regions
compare in terms of quality-of-life.
(2) Identification of social inequity to assist in
policy-making decisions and resource
targeting.
(3) To use qualityaf-lifemeasures as a yardstick
by which perceptions of quality-of-life,
measured using standard social and
economic indicators, can be compared.
Quality-of-life research has been, and to a large
extent still is, hampered by methodological
problems. There is currently no agreement on
definitions of quality-of-life, on terminology, on
construction methods for social indicators, or
even on the criteria that compose quality-of-life.
110
Rogerson et aL (1987) state that ‘geographers
have not always succeeded in giving a lead in
providing theoretical structures within which to
organize quality-of-life studies, and have been
content to restrict their expertise to discussing
the spatial containers within which qualityaf-life
data can be collected . . . and analysed using
spatial information systems’.A particular problem
is that qualityaf-life perception changes over time,
so that measures of qualityaf-lifeconstantly evolve
to account for changes in the social, economic
and physical environment, Furthermore, it is the
individuals’perception of well-being that produces
and defines qualityaf-life so it is necessary to
include subjective measures in quality-of-life
research] but these are often intangible and
unquantifiable. Attempts to produce theoretical
quality-of-life models have been hampered by this
lack of an acceptable integrating theory and
framework that allows the creation of an overall,
aggregate quality-of-life index. Such problems
have led to difficulties in meeting the original
objectives of quality-of-life research, such as
predicting social need and reducing social
inequalities.
Quality-of-life studies tend to fall into three
groups. First, there are those studies conducted
to develop practical standardized indicators of
quality-of-life to assist strategic planning and
development. These studies have been
commissioned at international level: e.g. UN,
1961, 1976; Organization for Economic COoperation and Development (OECD), 1973,1978,
1979; International Council of Scientific Unions
(ICSU) (Olsen and Merwin, 1977); U N
Educational,Scientificand Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), 1978; European Economic
Community (EEC), 1980, and at national level:
e.g. US Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1969; UK Government (Nissel, 1970);
US Department of Planning and Economic
Development, 1971;US Environmental Protection
Agency, 1972; US Bureau of the Census, 1980;
Australian Department of Home Affairs and
Environment, 1983.
The second group of quality-of-life studies
places greater emphasis on attributes of the
individual, addressing less tangible medicosociological and psycho-social elements (e.g.
emotions,psychologicalwell-being,social network
development) of quality-of-life (e.g. Dalkey et aL,
InternationalJournal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology
Mitchell, May and McDonald
PICABLE: a methodologcalfiamework
-
Administration of justice
crime and safety
Housing
(
Security
Physical
well-being
Physical health Mental health
Health
L
Nuisance
Visual perception
and scenic quality
1
Personal economic security
and standard of living
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
[
Quality of life
I
lndividual development
through learning
Individual development
:hroughrecreation and leisure
Psychological
well-being
Natural resources
f
Community
development
\
Social infrastructure
and services
J
Community
Political participation
structure Social infrastructure
and services
Figure 3 A classification of quality-of-life components
1972;Fallowfield, 1990; Bowling, 1991; Doyal and
Gough, 1991).These elements are considered by
Dalkey et al. (1972) to be the most important for
qualityaf-life indicators, but also the most difficult
from which to construct practical indicators.
Perhaps because of the methodological
problems, much qualityaf-life research has turned
away from academic theoretical research towards
applied and commercial studies, which often
attract considerable media attention. This final
group of qualityaf-life studies includes those by
Boyer and Savageau (1981, 1985) who produce
the Places Rated Almanac, a quality-of-life ranking
of the 327 largest cities in the USA; Rogerson et
al. (1987,1989) who produced a similar ranking
of UK cities; and Cheshire et aL (1986), who
produced a European city ranking on the basis of
only four quality-of-life components: income,
employment, migration and travel.
Given the considerable lack of consensus
amongst quality-of-life researchers regarding
definitions, terminology and methodology, it is
not surprising that there is no consensus about
which criteria are relevant to quality-of-life, and
so should be selected to act as the basis of qualityof-life indicators. The major components common
to the qualityaf-life studies reviewed by the authors
are illustrated in Figure 3. The components are
divided into six categories, under the headings of
health, security, personal development,
community development, physical environment
and natural resources, goods and services. There
is no definitive (or even most popular) means of
classification found in the literature, and some
might argue that particular components belong
in different categories - e.g. housing could be
considered under either ‘security’ or ‘physical
environment’. However, the particular classification system used is of little importance as long
as, collectively, it is sufficiently comprehensive to
incorporate all the issues that are thought to be
relevant to quality-of-life measurement.
The quality-of-life classification forms the
framework for the identification of specific qualityof-life concerns. Possible indicator candidates may
be identified from the qualityaf-life literature
cited above, and by reference to reports and
literature that has its origins not in qualityaf-life
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
111
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABUE: a methodological framework
research, but in one of the component areas
identified in Figure 3. These references might
include reports on social and economic conditions
produced by local and central government bodies,
state-of-theenvironment reports, and reports by
resource agencies a n d non-governmental
organizations. The source of each potential
indicator should be recorded. This approach thus
makes use of existing indicators where possible,
and places them in a quality-of-life framework.
This is a pragmatic approach, as existing indicators
are more likely to be supported by data, will be
more easily understood and communicated, and
will have a higher degree of political support
than newly formulated quality-of-life indicators.
Selection of issues
The component identification process produces
an extensive list of potential indicators, and it is
neither practical n o r desirable to collect
information on all of them. Therefore, indicators
need to be selected using a stated rationale. One
method would be to select components that
correspond to each of the various levels in a
human-need hierarchy (e.g. Maslow, 1954).
However, problems occur with this method as
some needs are more essential than others but
are, in addition, needs which are most often met
(e.g. food a n d water security), creating a
redundant indicator, whilst other needs (e.g. selfesteem) are highly relevant to quality of life but
are particularly difficult to measure. People also
demonstrate diminishing marginal utility in their
attitude towards quality-of-life components
(Dalkey et al., 1972), making prioritization and
selection difficult. For example, in the literature,
public questionnaire respondents cite the qualityof-life components ‘freedom from crime’ and
‘violent crime’ as many more times important
than access to food and clean water, although the
latter is a more fundamental human requirement.
Subjectivity in component selection is also a
problem when designing indicators, and this has
been addressed by many quality-of-liferesearchers
through the use of public-opinion surveys (e.g.
Rogerson et al., 1989). There are four main
problems with these surveys. First, the content of
the original component list highly influences the
individual respondent’s choice of selected
components and so it would be easy to lead him/
112
her. Second, components are easily discarded
from the list, but it would be unusual to find a
public opinion survey where respondents can add
components to the list, a n d then have all
respondents comment on this revised list. Third,
the extrapolation of survey findings outside the
original survey group could be problematical if
applying survey results to populations with
significantly different cultural mixes o r a
socioeconomic make-up different from the
original survey group. The final problem with
public-opinion surveys relates to discounting by
the respondents of long-term and distant effects.
People tend to discount that which is not in their
own direct, immediate interest, and so ignore
some of the most pressing global problems related
to sustainable development. For example,
Alexander (1992) cites a study where people
expressed a greater willingness to pay higher prices
to reduce household waste than they expressed
to pay to produce cleaner energy, despite several
studies showing that, in most areas, household
waste is not a major environmental issue (Rathje
and Murphy, 1992) and that energy use and
production create e n o r m o u s problem
externalities at the regional and global level. Costbenefit analysis recognizes the discounting
problem, but is perhaps not a suitable tool for
determining the most significant quality-of-life
components because it is n o t yet able to
satisfactorilyplace a value on ecological resources
and externalities, and is also not able to account
for quality-of-life components in less tangible
areas, such as personal a n d community
development.
Quality-of-life components could also be
selected by employing a technique such as Delphi
decision making (Dalkey, 1969) which is described
as ‘a method for the systematic solicitation and
collation of judgements on a particular topic
through a set of carefully designed sequential
questionnaires interspersed with summarized
information and feedback of opinions derived
from earlier responses’ (Delbecq et aL, 1975).
T h e technique is a n improvement over
straightfonvard public-opinion surveys, as it does
not prejudge issues, gives greater feedback, and
can incorporate the opinions of the general public
and experts who are likely to identify more subtle
quality-of-life components and make more
informed judgements relating to long-term and
transboundary issues. However, it cannot
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABlE: a methodologicalframcwark
overcome the problem of applying choices that
are made by a small group to a larger population,
and is often costly in terms of time and money.
The Delphi technique was applied to the study
of quality-of-life by Dalkey et a2. (1972) and
produced a list of components that fall almost
exclusively into the area classed as psycho-social,
including components of freedom, security,
novelty, status, sociality, affluence and aggression.
These components are quite different from those
identified by the national and international bodies
who were largely concerned with producing social
indicators of quality-of-life, and whose choice of
components was tempered by the practicalities of
quantification. The Dalkey et al. (1972) exercise
did identify physical components as relevant to
quality-of-lifebut made a distinction between weak
and strong quality-of-life components. Weak
components were those managed by authorities,
such as pollution, crime and housing, while the
strong psychesocial components, seen as the most
important quality-of-life components, could not
be managed by authorities.
Given that qualityef-life researchers have been
unable to agree on a terminology, or even on the
objectivesof quality-of-life study, it is not surprising
that there is no consensus on what components
should be selected, o r even which component
selection methodology should be used. This lack
of consensus is despite the awareness that
component selection can radically alter the
resulting quality-of-life measures. The ideal
selection process should minimize the imposition
of the selectors’ values on other people, and
recognize that the relative importance of qualityof-life components will change over time. This
recognition would suggest that either public
opinion survey or the Delphi technique should
be adopted as the selection methodology.
Ultimately, the choice of component-selection
methodology may be constrained by the time and
resources available to devote to the decisionmaking. Therefore, a less ideal, but more
pragmatic, approach might be for a small group
to select components from the issues list on the
basis of their relevance and the ability to measure
the component. The selected components, and
their associated indicators, could then be subject
to a fuller evaluation by the indicator-user group
(as in step 7, Figure 1) prior to their use as
sustainabilityindicators. Valuejudgements would
be made in selecting issues of concern, and
attempts to minimize bias and maximize cross
cultural relevance should be made. The relevance
of the component would be assessed with
reference to the objectives of the indicator users
(determined in step 1) and the following criteria:
The geographical extent of component
influence. This is the proportion of the
population likely to consider the
component a significant influence on the
quality of their lives.
The severity of component influence. This
criterion includes the nature of impacts
associated with the component (reversible
or irreversible) and the cost of remedial
action.
The long-term trend associated with the
component. Evidence of long-term trends
can be used to assess the likely future
relevance of the component (e.g. the
steady decline in urban atmospheric lead
following the introduction of lead-free
petrol).
T h e ease of quantification. Some
components, though important, present
major difficultiesin quantification and may
not be suited to indicator development.
These components include the psychosocial elements of such considerations as
psychological well-being and emotions.
If a component having a deleterious influence on
quality-of-life has a minor overall impact, affects
very few people, is highly localized or experiences
a long-term downward trend, then it would not
be selected as a suitable component for indicator
construction. Also, components would not be
selected if no measurement technique exists,
which would be the case for many of the psyche
social qualityef-life elements. Irrespective ofwhich
selection methodology is adopted, records should
be made that detail the selection procedure used,
together with any relevant consultations, so that
the origins of the indicators may be known
publicly.
CONSTRUCTION OF INDICATORS
OF ISSUES OF CONCERN
Once the relevant issues have been identified,
they need to be measured, and this measurement
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
113
Mitchell, May and McDonald
PICABlE: a mthodobgicalfianwwmk
Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data
1
U 4 U 4 4 . c
Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind. Ind.
Composite indicator
Composite indicator
P+ c r ’
Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
f
Key indicator
Simple composite
indicator
selection of a particular or key indicator, or a
simple composite indicator, as being representative
of the full suite of indicators. The relative merits of
these approaches are shown in Table 1.
The choice of indicator type is dependent upon
the needs and objectives of the indicator user.
For example, if indicators a r e used to
communicate progress towards sustainability to
t h e public, t h e n they should be readily
understood, a n d key or simple composite
indicators would suffice. If, however, indicators
were required for sustainability modelling, where
data requirements would be much greater, then
it would be more appropriate to use a larger suite
of specific, noncomposite indicators.
Figure 4 Pictorial representation of three different
indicator approaches: I. Many specific indicators; 11. A
few composite indicators; 111. Key and simple composite
indicators
AUGMENTATION OF REFERENCE
INDICATORS BY SUSTAINABILITY
PRINCIPLES
is achieved using indicators. Very often, suitable
indicators already exist, having been constructed
for purposes other than sustainability monitoring.
For some issues, it may be necessary to construct
new indicators, and this construction should be
done in consultation with those having relevant
subject-knowledge.Additionally, it is essential that
potential sustainability indicators are selected and
constructed with reference to the stated objectives
of the indicators programme, as all indicators are
able to perform different functions, depending
on how they have been constructed. All indicators
need to be understandable, and should be able to
communicate information effectively to the
indicator user. However, this requirement is
complicated by the fact that indicators are asked
to meet two conflicting requirements: first, to
provide comprehensive coverage of the issues;
and, second, to communicate information in a
concise, easily understandable way.
N o set of indicators has yet been devised that
resolves this conflict successfully, with the result
that three approaches to indicators are commonly
used (Figure 4). The first approach (I) takes a
mass of data o n the environment a n d
communicates it using a series of highly specific
indicators. The second approach (11) takes the
same issues and data but constructs a few composite
indicators from them, each crammed with many
variables. The third approach (111) is based on the
The indicators produced in step 3 (see Figure 1)
are sustainability indicators, as they have been
derived from qualityaf-life issueswhich are central
to sustainable development. However, they do
not address distributional issues or environmental
rate limits and, for this reason, are considered
weak sustainability indicators. To produce strong
sustainability indicators, our existing step-3
indicators must be related to the sustainability
principles specified in step 1. This is a process
which Ruitenbeek (1991) termed ‘reference
indicator augmentation’. The augmentation
process takes our existing indicators, which are
largely descriptive of the sustainability concerns,
and modifies them with reference to sustainability
principles of equity, futurity and environment, so
that information can be communicated on
progress towards sustainability. T h e step-3
reference indicators do not need to be augmented
by all sustainable development principles. Table 2
is a guide to the appropriate application of
sustainable development principles to reference
indicators. Each principle is described in full
below; reference indicators are grouped according
to the qualityaf-life classification used in Figure 3,
and the augmentations shown are meant only as
a guide to the correct application of sustainability
principles.
There are three types of augmented indicator
- futurity, equity and environment - relating to
three of the four significant sustainable
114
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
PICABUE: a methalologicalji-amework
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Table 2 Identification of appropriate augmentation of quality-of-life indicator groups (see Figure 3) by sustainability
principles
Natural
Sustainabilitypn’ncipk?
Health
Security
Futurity (intergenerational equity)
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
Social eguity (intragenerational equity)
Physical
environment
Applicable to
visual perception
and scenicquality
resources such as
green space and
built heritage
Augment health
indicators with
respect to most
appropriate social
disaggregation
(e.g. socie
economic group
and ethnic origin)
Security concerns
(housing, crime
and economic
security) have
numerous
appropriate social
augmentations
Environment2
Physical environment concerns
(pollution,
nuisance, scenic
quality) should all
be related to one
or more of the
demographic d i s
aggregationsas
appropriate
resources, goods
andservices
Personal
development
Community
developmat
Relate renewable
natural resource
use to
regeneration rate
Relate nonrenewable natural
resource use to
substitution rate
Relate goods and
service provision
to access by
appropriate social
groupings
Relate provision
of education and
leisure services to
access by
appropriate social
grouping
Potential
relevance in
relating politicalparticipation
indicators to social
disaggregations
such as ethnic
origin or socioeconomic group
Relate pollution Relate consumption
indicators to
of resources to
relevant ecosystem ecological limits
threshold limiu
(e.g. relate land
degradation or
development to
minimum habitat
requirements)
Public participation
Public participation is essential in developing a sustainable society. The PICABUE methodology does not augment
qualityaf-life concerns by public participation directly, but addresses participation through the method of selecting
quality-of-lifeconcerns. Strong preference should be given to the selection of participation indicators in the community
development area (e.g. percentage participation in local, national and European elections,membership of community
groups, etc.). Levels of public participation will also be influenced by the degree of control exercised by the agency
commissioning the indicators
Uncertainty
Apply uncertainty augmentation to
social equity indicators to deal with
data confidence in reference
indicators and demographic data
Express pollution
indicators relative
to estimated nnge
in threshold limits
Express consump
tion relative to
estimated range
in resource stock
limits
Apply uncertainty augmentation to
social equity indicators to deal with
data confidence in reference
indicators and demographic data
’See text for explanation of each principle;
*Augmented environment indicators a r e thought to b e the most appropriate ecological indicator as they directlyrelate ecological stress
to the causal h u m a n activity. However, other types of ecological indicator are available a n d may b e useful. These complementary
ecological indicators include ‘traditional’ biodiversity indicators, indicators of protected area status a n d indicators of primary
productivity consumption by h u m a n activity (see text);
’Although n o t explicitly a sustainable principle, uncmfainfy can b e addressed by developing indicators that consider, firstly, critical
limits i n natural systems (resource-stock limits a n d pollution carrying capacities; secondly, behaviour in ecosystems; and, thirdly, data
confidence (see text))
development principles. It is not appropriate to
augment reference indicators with respect to the
fourth principle, public participation. Public
participation is addressed by the P I W U E method
primarily through the process of selecting concerns
for indicators,and in the manner in which indicators
are finally used. It is also likely that qualityaf-life
reference indicators would be selected in the
communitydevelopmentareathat specificallyrelates
to public participation in the political process at
national, local and community levels.
Principle 1: Futurity (intergenerational
equity)
This principle is concerned with the effect of
current human activity on the ability of future
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
115
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABLE: a m.ethodobgicalfiamewmk
generations to meet their needs and aspirations,
and requires that adequate environmental capital
is passed on to future generations. Futurity
indicators must attempt to identify resource
consumption rates and relate them to resource
limits. This identification can be done using the
rate limits specified by Daly (1991), po that the
following two conditions apply. First, for a
renewable resource, the rate of resource
consumption must not exceed the rate at which
the resource is able to regenerate. Examples of
this type of indicator would be annual water
abstraction as a percentage of available water
stocks in a 5Byear return period drought, and
timber consumption related to tree replanting.
Second, for a non-renewable resource, the rate of
consumption must be related to current stock
limits, and must at least be equalled by the rate at
which the resource is substituted for an alternative
renewable source. Examples of this type of
indicator would be the consumption of fossil fuels
related to investment in renewable energy, and
consumption of aggregates related to
consumption of suitable alternatives, such as
demolition waste or pulverized fuel ash.
Principle 2: Social equity (intragenerational equity)
This principle demands a greater equity in the
distribution of quality-of-life parameters amongst
current generations. Sustainable development
seeks to avoid significant inequities, because they
can be morally undesirable (e.g. inequities in
health provision or exposure to pollution) ; can
promote further decline in sustainability (e.g.
social impoverishment has associations with crime
and poor health); and can promote economic
development that cannot be sustained within
ecological system limits.
In order to produce equity indicators, it is
necessary to disaggregate people into social
groups, and relate the reference indicator to the
appropriate social grouping. Determining which
augmentations are appropriate requires an
understanding of the issues that are important to
the particular social groups, and demonstrates
the need for effective public participation. A
common method of social typing is to use census
information on age, sex, socioeconomic status
and ethnic origin. If the data were available, it
116
might also be possible to divide socioeconomic
grouping into educational achievement and
income. More specific social typing is possible,
using, for example, indicators of social
impoverishment (reviewed by Townsend et aL,
1992), but such indices would need careful
selection, in order not to distort sustainability
measurement. For example, several popular
indices use lack of car-ownership as a guide to
social impoverishment, which could distort the
measurement of sustainable transport policies
based on car reduction. Example equity indicators
using the basic social disaggregations include:
Age: e.g. an indicator that relates the
concentration of an urban air pollutant to
the population density of the age-group
most severely affected by that pollutant
(e.g. ‘PmlOs’ and 9-1 l-year-olds).
Sex: e.g. an indicator that demonstrates
differences in average income between
men and women.
Socioeconomic group: e.g. an indicator
that demonstrates differences in access to
health care provision for different
socioeconomic groups.
Ethnic group: e.g. an indicator that
demonstrates differences in educational
provision for different ethnic groups.
Principle 3: The environment
This principle recognizes the value of the wider
ecosystem as a resource worthy of conservation
because people benefit from it. Therefore,
reference indicators need to be augmented to
show how close ecosystems are taken to their
threshold limits (critical load, assimilative or
carrying capacity) by human activity - limits
beyond which they cease to function as effectively,
or at all. In this sense, environment indicators are
the ecological dimension of the futurity principle,
because the environment is treated as a human
activity-related capital stock o r resource.
Environment-resource indicators might include,
for example, effluent discharge into a river, in
relation to the pollutant carrying capacity of the
river, or the ground level concentration of ozone
relative to that required to damage trees (the
latter being regarded as useful as a recreational
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
PICABUE: a methodologicalfiamewark
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Table 3 An example of reference indicator augmentation: per capita potable water consumption (1000s litres
per year)
Refmenu?indicator augmentation
Sustainability indicator
~
Principle: futurity
an indicator that relates potable
water consumption to the stock
limit of renewable water resources
Principle: social equity
~~
~
Total annual water consumption as a percentage of the total existing
developed water resource stock in a drought year with a 50-year return
period (ca. 2 generations)
Water consumption in the lowest socioeconomic group as a
percentage of water consumption in the highest socioeconomic group
an indicator that relates demand
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
for potable water to ability to pay
Principle: environment
an indicator that relates water
abstraction for public supply to
potential impacts on
hydrobiological resources
Number of households per year spending more than 10% of
household income on meeting water and sewerage needs
Number of days per annum that the flow in the abstraction river drops
below the minimum flow recommended for maintenance of the
hydrobiological community
resource, in regulating urban climates and as a
carbon sink). An example indicator augmentation
is given in Table 3.
COMPLEMENTARY ECOLOGICAL
INDICATORS
Heinen (1994) argues that rare species are
currently conserved only by technical means, such
as habitat conservation and species-recovery
programmes, whereas the most effective means
of conservation is to tackle the root cause of
decline by using local socioeconomic incentives
to promote ecological conservation. Therefore,
the environment-resource indicator is likely to be
the most effective means of assessing the impact
of quality-of-life gaining activities on ecological
integrity. However, because the environment
principle also recognizes the intrinsic value of
nature, indicators are required that can measure
the status of environmental capital that has less
obvious utility as a resource. To do this, indicators
that do not have their roots in the quality-of-life
classification are sought. The followingthree types
of complementary ecological indicator, which are
more widely understood, but which may be less
useful indicators of ecological sustainability than
the environment-resource indicator, may be
appropriate. First, the ‘traditional’ biodiversity
indicators (e.g. key, umbrella, flagship and
vulnerable species status; see Simon a n d
Wildavsjky, 1984; Noss et al., 1992). Second, there
are indicators of protected-area status (e.g. the
area of nature reserves or sites of special scientific
interest, the proportion of land protected from
development o r subject to pro-active nature
conservation). A third type of appropriate
indicator is that measuring primary productivity
consumed o r pre-empted by human activity
(Vitousek et al., 1986). This is a less welldeveloped
indicator, because of the practicalities of
quantification, but has excellent potential as a
sustainability indicator, since it expresses
proximity to ecological limits in a very simple,
easily understood way.
SPECIAL BOUNDARY
CONSIDERATIONS
In designing indicators of sustainability,
consideration needs to be given to the spatial
units to which the indicators relate. Usually,
indicators will relate to the administrative area of
the authority using them but, in some cases,
indicators will need to be designed to deal with
flows across administrative boundaries. Such
boundary considerations a r e particularly
important for city sustainability indicators, as
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
117
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABUE: a methodobgicalfiamewwk
urban patterns of resource consumption and waste
and pollution production are responsible for a
disproportionately high level of total human
activity impact. The best way of addressing these
transboundary issues is by environmental impact
and lifecycle analyses that reflect accurately the
full and true value (i.e. including externalities) of
human activity on people and ecological integrity,
wherever that impact happens to fall. So, for
example, it would be desirable to look at the costs
and benefits of tropical timber consumption in
relation to: the people concerned (timber
consumers, commercial loggers, indigenous
people) ; timber regeneration rates; the broader
ecological impacts on local flora and fauna; and
also the contribution to large-scale problems such
as global warming. However, the methodology
and data are not yet available to make a full
evaluation of such a range of costs and benefits,
so indicators are used as the next best alternative.
These indicators can be developed to address
transboundary issues in two ways. First, where
spatial boundaries are well-defined, and the
required datacollection infrastructure is in place,
indicators that measure moss-boundatyJhws may
be appropriate. These flows would then be related
to sustainabilitylimits. Examples of such indicators
are: the percentage of waste disposed of outside
the area where the waste was generated, or the
percentage of local water demand met by
resources originating outside the demand areas
(inter-basin transfer).
The second type of transboundary indicator
recognizes that it is not always possible to estimate
the impact of cross-boundary flows in the area
where the impact occurs. This difficulty is often
present with diffuse and non-point pollution
sources. In these cases, sub-optimal indicators of
cross-boundary flows are used. These indicators
are one of three types: receptor, condition or
source. For example, air pollution is a concern
that has local impacts (e.g. child asthma, damage
to vegetation and buildings) as well as the longrange impacts of acidification and global warming.
Receptor indicators are used to quantify the
impact where it falls. Thus, such indications
would be used to quantify air pollutant-related
impacts that occurred locally; they would not,
however, be suitable for quantifying the nonlocal impacts. The latter may be addressed using
a surrogate measure of the impact that can be
measured locally - the condition and source
118
indicators. In the case of air pollution, a
condition indicator would be used to measure
a m b i e n t air-pollution levels o r , if this
measurement proved technically difficult, a
source indicator could be used to quantify
pollutant emissions. As the indicator switches
from quantifying the impact to the cause of the
impact, a high level of confidence in the cause
and effect mechanism is needed (e.g. it must be
certain that the air emissions monitored relate
to the impact that is the cause for concern).
These indicators are sub-optimal. It is essential,
therefore, to note their deficiencies and record
the information required to improve t h e
indicator.
UNCERTAINTY CONSIDERATIONS
A requirement of both reference and augmented
sustainability indicators is that they consider issues
of uncertainty. Uncertainty in indicators arises
from three causes: little or no knowledge of critical
limits in systems (i.e. resource stock limits, carrying
capacities) ;incomplete or poor data-sets with low
levels of confidence; and unpredictable behaviour
in systems. Indicators cannot remove such
uncertainty, but should be able to convey the
degree of uncertainty that exists, so that more
informed decisions can be made. The uncertainty
indicator would b e particularly useful to
environmental managers who wish to apply the
precautionary principle. T h e first type of
uncertainty indicator expresses the value of the
reference indicator in relation to the potential
range in critical level or data confidence. For
example, an environment indicator might be:
Effluent discharge per day
Assimilation capacity of receiving river
However, the river’s carrying capacity may only
be known within certain broad limits. Therefore,
the associated uncertainty indicator would be
expressed as a range:
Emuent discharge
per day
Effluent discharge
per day
to
Highest estimate of
assimilation capacity
of river
Lowest estimate of
assimilation capacity
of river
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABUE: a mthodologicalj+awork
Knowing whether the receiving river is using 1050% or 50-200% of its assimilative capacity is a
valuable guide to the use of the precautionary
principle, assisting protection of the ecological
integrity of the river whilst making best use of the
river’s pollutant disposal properties. Uncertainty
indicators can be constructed in a similar way to
accommodate incomplete o r poor referenceindicator data sets, t h e second cause of
uncertainty. In the above example, the uncertainty
indicator can be modified to include the estimated
range in effluent discharge, if these data are not
precisely known.
The third type of uncertainty indicator
addresses unpredictable behaviour in natural
systems. Some issues are characterized by causal
mechanisms that are only partly understood, and
which are associated with a diverse range of
potentially severe impacts that cannot be
predicted with a high degree of certainty. In these
cases, it is appropriate to include indicators that
are associated with the causal mechanism as it is
currently understood. These uncertainty
indicators may be appropriate for issues such as
global warming (e.g. carbon dioxide emission
related to primary energy consumption) and
biotechnology risks (e.g. number of releases of
genetically modified organisms).
EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABILITY
INDICATORS
Once sustainabilityindicators have been designed,
they should be reviewed by the group that intends
to use the indicators. This review can be achieved
with reference to the criteria given below, which
have been derived from indicator studies of the
physical environment (US Council o n
Environmental Quality, 1984; SOE Canada, 1991;
Cairns et al., 1993), the urban environment
(OECD, 1978), national sustainability (Gelinas
and Slaats, 1989; VHB, 1989) a n d global
sustainability (Liverman et al.,1988). Liverman et
al. (1988) concluded that, with the exception of
threshold limit values, the characteristics of
indicators for sustainability monitoring were no
different than those required in monitoring the
physical environment. The criteria for acceptability of sustainability indicators are considered
separately in the following sections.
Relevance and scientific validity
To maximize their usefulness, indicators should
be constructed so that they have a high degree of
relevance to the issues of concern, and the goals
and objectives of the stakeholders who will use
the indicators. The indicator must also be a
technically valid measure, be scientifically
defensible and accepted, and be rooted in an
understanding of the relationship between the
indicator and the issue of concern. Valuejudgements are made in selecting issues of
concern and in constructing indicators, so
attempts should be made to minimize bias and
maximize crosscultural relevance where possible.
Sensitivity to change across space and/or
groups
Indicators should be sensitive to change across
space or social grouping. They must be capable
of taking distributions into account, in order to
permit the identification of localized hot spots of
improvement o r degradation of a concern,
especially in ecological areas or social groups that
are considered most at risk. Indicators should be
supported by data collected in a consistent manner
that allows aggregation of data to give a regional
or national overview.
Sensitivity to change over time
Indicators should reflect meaningful variation in
the issue of concern so that significant temporal
trends can be established that show whether or
n o t conditions a r e stable, improving o r
deteriorating. The indicator should be sensitive
to change in the issue of concern, but should not
have an ‘all-or-none’ response to stress or exhibit
extreme natural variability.
Consistency of data
The indicator should be supported by sufficient
data to show trends over time. Ideally, this support
should include historical data that show past
trends. Comparisons over time (and over space
and between groups) have greater validity if the
data are collected in a consistent manner.
Indicators should be constructed so that they can
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
119
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABm: a methodologicalfiameruork
Mitchell, May and McDonald
be supported by existing data where possible,
and by data-monitoring programmes that have a
reasonable degree of future security. Ideally,
indicators should be able to provide information
quickly enough to enable managers to initiate
effective relevant action before unacceptable
conditions occur.
information per unit of effort. The cost of
collection should be within budget constraints
(i.e. not prohibitive) and should correspond to
the importance of the results. Indicators should
attempt to make use of existing monitoring
networks and should be non-redundant, to avoid
replicating other measured indicators.
Comprehensible
Possible target or threshold values
Indicators should be easily understood by the
target user-group, and should be capable of
distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable
conditions in a scientificallyand legally defensible
way. The complexity of information required for
different purposes does vary, but all indicators
should be capable of aggregation so that the
information presented can be understood by the
layman and interpreted to allow an assessment of
its significance.
Ideally, indicators should have target values that
identify desirable conditions, and threshold values
that identify problem, critical and irreversible or
uncontrollable levels. These values should be
identified and their relative importance explained
and communicated alongside the indicator.
Threshold values are particularly important to
indicators of sustainability as they set limits, so
that the indicators relate to development, and
not simply growth. If limits cannot be determined,
the desirable trend direction should be stated.
‘Sustainable growth’ is a term commonly misused
o r confused with sustainable development.
Growth o r expansion cannot be sustained
indefinitely, there are limits. However, sustainable
development is change not in quantity, but in
quality; it is change within set limits. In order for
a society to be socially sustainable, the
combination of population, behaviour patterns,
technology and capital in the society would have
to be configured so that health and the material
living standard is adequate and secure for
everyone. In order to be physically sustainable,
the society’s material and energy throughputs
need to meet Daly’s (1991) sustainability limits.
It is recognized that indicators are unlikely to
meet all eight of these criteria and that this list
can only act as a guide to indicator evaluation.
Therefore, deficiencies in meeting indicator
criteria should be recorded and noted alongside
the final sustainability indicator, and should be
subject to periodic review.
Appropriate data transformation
Indicators must be truly representative of the
concern under study. Indicator data must be
presented in a format that transforms and
communicates information in a way that enhances
understanding. Data transformation can result in
more appropriate indicators by expressing data
in terms of throughput rates, ratios, percentages,
etc., rather than absolute values. Composite
indicators (indexes) may be useful but require
care in construction and weighting, and may
present communication difficulties. Key indicators
may be preferable.
Measurable data
Indicators should be measurable technically,
financially a n d in the available time. T h e
measurement methodology must be relevant, valid
and accurate and use the most appropriate
instrumentation. Indicators should be capable of
being operationally defined and measured using
standard operating procedures with documented
performance and low measurementerror. They
should not be so complex that regular monitoring
and measurement is discouraged.
Data collection for indicators should be costeffective, providing the maximum amount of
120
CONCLUSION
Indicators a r e tools used frequently for
communicating information on the state of the
world about us. Wherever they are used (or
misused), and regardless of how well or poorly
they are designed, indicators are powerful and
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PZCABW: a methodologicalfiamork
influential aids to decision making. For this reason,
they are contentious and often disagreements
may centre on the nature of the indicator rather
than on the information that it is meant to convey.
An indicatorconstruction methodology, widely
accepted by decision makers and indicator users,
can therefore greatly assist in keeping debate
focused on issues and policy, rather than on the
mechanics of measurement and communication.
This paper presents a methodology for the
construction of indicators of sustainable
development.
The PICABUE method is rooted in the
fundamentals of quality-of-life enhancement and
ecological system conservation and attempts to
incorporate the key sustainability principles of
futurity, social equity, public participation and
conservation of the ecological environment. The
methodology has a strong theoretical basis and
attempts to deal with boundaxy and uncertainty
issues, but has the added advantage of producing
indicators from a low resource investment that
are tailored to the end user.
The issues that are considered important to
sustainable development differ over time and
space. PICABUE has t h e flexibility to
accommodate change as current issues become
less important and new issues arise, and it may
also be applied to a variety of spatial scales and
geographical areas. Following the statement of
the objectives of sustainability measurement,
indicators can b e constructed to address
sustainable development issues at the local and
community scale, as well as at national or global
level. Whilst originally developed to address
sustainability issues in developed world cities, the
methodology could also be applied to developing
world countries and to the rural environment.
Mitchell, May and McDonald
The PICABUE methodology is designed to
permit t h e construction of indicators of
sustainable development that have a firm
foundation in the ethics and principles of
sustainability. The indicators methodology gives
greater credibility to indicator choices, allows for
more explicit participation in indicator selection,
simplifies identification of indicators appropriate
to different localities and permits indicator
modification to address new or unanticipated
concerns. If indicators are to be useful tools in
assisting the sustainable development process,
then an indicator construction methodology is
an essential prerequisite for sustainability
indicator use. If the indicators resulting from this
methodology are still contentious, then it is
because the underlying principles and ethics of
sustainable development are in dispute, rather
than the indicators themselves.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work forms part of the Leeds University
Quantifiable City project, an urban sustainability
modelling programme supported by the United
Kingdom Engineering and Physical Science
Research Council. The authors would like to thank
David Kay and Dorota Kupiszewska for their valuable
comments on the draft text. The authors would also
like to acknowledge the wider contribution to the
Quantifiable City project made by Mike Pilling, Ed
Stentiford and Stan Openshaw of the University of
Leeds and by members of local collaboratingbodies,
including Leeds City Council, the National Rivers
Authority, Yorkshire Water plc, Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Pollution, West Yorkshire Waste
Management and the University of Huddersfield.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J.H. (1992). In Dqmse of Garbage. (West
Port, VT:Praeger)
Arntzen,J. and Gilbert, A. (1991). Natural resource
accounting:state of the art and perspectivesforthe
assessment of trends in sustainable development.
In: Kuik, 0.and Verebruggen, H. (eds.) In Search
of Indicators of Sustainable Deuelopment, pp. 45-56.
(Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers)
Australian Department of Home Affairs and
Environment (1983). Australian Urban
Environmental Indicators. (Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service)
Bowling,A. (1991).MeasuringHealth:AReuimof@alityof@
Measurement Scales. (Milton Keynes: Open
University Press)
Boyer, R. and Savageau, D. (1981, 1985). Places
Rated Almanac - Your Guide to Finding the Best
InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
121
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABLE: a methodologicalfiamewmk
Places to Live in Amen’ca. (Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co.)
Cairns,J., McCorrnick, P. and Niederlehner, N. (1993).
A proposed framework for developing indicators
of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologica, 2 6 3 , 1 4 4
Cheshire, P., Carbonaro, G. and Hay, D. (1986).
Problems of urban decline and growth in EEC
countries: or measuring degrees of elephantness.
Urban Studies, 23, 1 3 1 4 9
Cutter, S.L. (1985).RatingPlaces:A Geographer’sViewon
Quality of Life. (Association of American
Geographical Research publishers)
Dalkey, N.C. (1969). TheDelphi Method: anExpm’menta1
Study of Group Opinion. (Rand corporation)
Dalkey, N.C., Rourke, D.L., Lewis,R. and Snyder, D.
(1972). Studies in the Quality of Life. Delphi and
Decision Making. (US Rand corporation: Lexington
Books)
Daly, H.E. (1991). Shady StateEconomics. (Washington
DC: Island Press)
Delbecq,A.L., Van deVen,A.H. and Gustafson, D.H.
(1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning. A
Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes.
Management Application Sm’es. (Glenview: Scott
Foresman)
Department of the Environment (DOE) (1993). The
UK Environment Seminar (Proceedings). (London:
DOE)
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991). A T h e q of Human
Need. (London: Macmillan)
Elkin, TJ. (1987). State-ofthe-Environment Report Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Working paper
series No. 23, School of Urban and Regional
Planning, Faculty of Environmental Studies,
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Elkin,T.J., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991).
h i v i n g the City: Towards Sustainable Development.
(London: FOEand the Policy Studies Institute)
European Economic Community (EEC) (1980). Social
Indicators. (Brussels: EEC)
Fallowfield, L. (1990). Quality of Lqe. The Missing
Measurement in Health Care. (London: Souvenir
Press)
Gelinas, R. and Slaats,J. (1989). Selecting Indicatorsfor
State-ofthe-EnvironmentRepmting. Report 8 for SOE
reporting branch. (Ottawa: Environment Canada)
Heinen, J.T. (1994). Emerging, diverging and
converging paradigms on sustainable development.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, 1,22-33
HM Government (1994). SustainabbDevelopment - The
UKstrategy. (London: HMSO)
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN), United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World
122
WideFundforNature (WWF) (1991). Caringfarthe
Earth Second Report on World Consmation and
Development. (London: Earthscan)
Knox, P.L. (1974). Level of living, a conceptual
framework for monitoring regional variation in
wellbeing. Regional Studies, 8, 11-19
Liverman, D., Hanson, M., Brown, B. and Meredith, R.
(1988). Global sustainability:toward measurement.
Environmental Management, 12, 143-83
Local Management Government Board (LGMB)
(1994). SustainabilityIndicatorsRescarchProject.Report
of Phase One.Report prepared for the UK Local
Government Management Board local Agenda 21
steering group by Touche Ross Management
Consultants, the New Economics Foundation and
the United Nations AssociationJune 1994. (Luton:
LGMB)
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. (New
York: Harper)
Moffatt, I. (1994). O n measuring sustainable
development indicators. International Journal of
SustainableDeuelopment and World Ecology, 1,97-109
Nissel, M. (ed.) (1970). Social Trends, 1970. (London:
HMSO)
Noss, R.F., Cline, S.P., Csuti,B. and Scott,J.M. (1992).
Monitoring and assessing biodiversity. In Lykke, E.
(ed.) AchievingEnuironmental Goals:The Concept and
Practice of Environmental Performance Review,
pp. 67-85. (London: Belhaven)
Olsen, M.E. and Merwin, D.J. (1977). Toward a
methodology for conducting social impact
assessments using quality of social life indicators.
In Finsterbrusch, K. and Wolf, C.P. (eds.)
Methodology ofSocialImpact,pp. 43-63. (Stroudberg,
Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (1973). List ofsocial C o n m
Common toMost OECD Countries: O E W Sociallndicator
Development Programme 1. (Paris: OECD)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (1978). UrbanEnuironmental
Indicators. (Paris: OECD)
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (1979). BasicDisagregations
of Main Social Indicators. Social IndicatorDevel~ment
Programme Special Studies 4. (Paris: OECD)
Ott, W.R. (1978). Environmental Indices: Themy and
Practice. (Ann Arbor, Michigan:AnnArborScience
Publishers Inc.)
Pearce, D. etal. (1993).Bluepn.nt3. MeasuringSustainable
Development. (London: Earthscan)
Rathje, W. and Murphy, C. (1992). Rubbish: the
Archaeology of Garbage. (New York: Harper Collins)
Redclift, M. ( 1989). SustainabL Development,Exploring
the Contradictions. (New York: Routledge)
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
Downloaded by [Arizona State University] at 15:57 25 August 2011
PICABLE: a mthodologicalframmk
Rogerson,R., Findlay, A. and Morris A. (1987). The
Geography of Quality of L i f . Occasional paper 22.
(Glasgow: Glasgow University)
Rogerson, R., Moms A., Findlay, A. and Paddison, R.
(1989). The Quality of Lqe in Britain’s Intermediate
Cities. (Glasgow: Glasgow University)
Ruitenbeek, H.J. (1991). Towards New Fundamentals.
(Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Environmental
Advisory Council, Environment Council)
Sheehy, G. (1989). The Use of Indicators to Show the State
and Recent Trends in Sustainable Development in
Canada Draft report No. 10, SOE Canada
Simon,J.L. and Wildavsjky, A. (1984). On species loss,
the absence of data and risks to humanity. In
Simon, J.L. and Kahn, H. (eds.) The Resourcefil
Earth: A Response to Global 2000, pp. 171-83. (New
York: Basil Blackwell)
SOE Canada (1991). A Report on Canada’s Progress
Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators.
SOE Report 91-1. (Ottawa: Environment Canada)
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (1994).
Polartar:A Processfor SustainableHuman Development.
Publicity material. Stockholm Environment
Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Sustainable Seattle (1993). 1993 Indicators of a
Sustainable Community.SustainableSeattle Network
and Civic Forum, Washington, USA
Townsend,P., Davidson,N. and Whitehead, M. (1992).
Inequalities in Health: The Black Report and the Health
Divide. (London: Penguin)
United Nations (UN) (1961). Intaational Definition
and Measurement of Living. UN 61.N.7. (Geneva:
UN)
United Nations (UN) (1976).Draji Guidelineson Social
Indicators. UN: E/CN.3/488. (Geneva: U N
Statistical Commission)
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) (1992). Agenda 21 - A n
Mitchell, May and McDonald
Action Plan for the Next Centuly. Endorsed at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) (1978). Indicators of
environmental quality and quality of life. Reports
and Papers in the Social Sciences, 38. (Paris:
UNESCO)
US Bureau of the Census (1980). Social Indicators IZL
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office)
US Council on Environmental Quality (1984). 5th
A n n u a l Report on Environmental Quality.
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office)
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(1969). Toward a Social Report. (Washington DC:
US Government Printing Office)
US Department of Planning a n d Economic
Development (1971).ProceedingsoftheConfuenceon
Socio-environmental Indicators. Department of
Planning and Economic Development, Honolulu,
Hawaii
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1972).
QualityofLifeZndicatm. WashingtonEnvironmental
Research Center, Washington: Environmental
Protection Agency)
VHB Research and Consulting Inc. (1989). Indicators
and Indices of the State of theEnvironment. Technical
Report No. 15. (Ottawa: Environment Canada,
Statistics Canada)
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and
Matson, P.A. (1986). Human appropriation of
the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience, 36,
369-73
World Commissionon Environment and Development
(WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press)
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
123