g, g r: 2

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/06 p:/ClRC/Date0ue.indd-p.7

°ET"' '"Q MATEPIA'

TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY:
A NEW PLANNING F RANIEWORK FOR CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

By

Young-Tae Kim

A PLAN B PAPER

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING-URBAN STUDIES

Urban and Regional Planning -Urban Studies Program
College of Social Science

2000

Dr. June Manning Thomas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION

H. SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITIES
1. The Concept of Sustainability
2. Sustainable Communities

III. SUSTAINABLE INDICATOR INITIATIVES
1. Jacksonville’s Quality Indicator for progress
2. Sustainable Seattle Indicator
3. Oregon Benchmarks
4. Comparison of Three Cases

IV. A NEW PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. Principles of Indicator development
2. A New Planning Framework for a Sustainable Community

V. CONCLUSION
Bibliography

Appendices
1. Jacksonville’s Indicators for Progress
2. Sustainable Seattle Indicators
3. Key Benchmarks in Oregon Shines II
4. The Bellagio Principles for Assessment

iv

10

14
14
24
33
42

47
47
55

66

69

71

73

74
75

99F?!"

LIST OF TABLES

The Top-priority Indicators and Targets for the Year 2000

The Quality of Life Model: Nine Areas and Their Scope

Indicators for the Key Dimensions, and Their Descriptions and Linkages
Principles of Indicator development

Examples of Oregon Benchmarks

Comparison of Three Cases

18
20
29
29
39
43

ii

+93!»

LIST OF FIGURES

Organizational Structure for Jacksonville’s Indicator Development in 1985
Organizational Structure for Sustainable Seattle Indicator development
The Development Process of Oregon benchmarks

Oregon Shines Vision, Goals, and Benchmark Topic Areas

A New Planning Framework for Community Development

17
26
35
37
56

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMNIARY

There have been numerous attempts to define the concept of a sustainable community since
the term sustainability gained its popularity around two decades ago. A lot of communities have
been devoting to achieve sustainable communities in a variety of ways since they acknowledged
there is a limit to grow on the planet. These efforts include a set of movements to achieve self-
reliant cities, green cities, eco-cities, compact cities, bioregionalism, and so on. However, these
examples do not show that the term sustainability can be easily achieved in our society. Instead
the numerous examples present that we have to continuously review the process of community’s
activities to achieve the goal of sustainability.

One of the important things that makes the community more sustainable is to recognize
whether the community is sustainable over time. To determine whether communities are
sustainable over time, a number of communities have tried to develop a set of sustainability
indicators. A sustainability indicator is a sign that shows whether the community makes sustainable
progress over time. Indicators are used not only to monitor existing conditions or trends of the
community, but also to set specific targets for the community.

Sustainable community indicators are different from traditional economic, environmental,
and social indicators because the concept of sustainability requires a more integrated view of the
community. Sustainability indicators can help people identify and quantify current conditions of

the community and to point the way towards more sustainable conditions.

iv

This study identifies several principles of sustainability indicators from experiences in
Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon. This study also attempts to apply sustainability indicator
exercises to the community development planning process. The study outlines a planning
framework for sustainable community development from the experiences of three cases. The
framework incorporates the processes and principles of indicator development identified in

formulation of policies and strategies for sustainable communities.

The sustainable community is not a fixed reality but requires ongoing efforts to achieve
sustainability. Sustainability indicators can help the community measure its progress and set
specific targets and activities for the future. The study concludes that sustainability indicators can
provide a useful framework for the community development process. This study hopes to
facilitate communities to think more about their future and to act more progressively toward

sustainability.

I. INTRODUCTION

There have been numerous attempts to define the concept of a sustainable community
since the term sustainability gained its popularity around two decades ago. Different viewpoints
on the concept have brought a variety of its definitions in the planning field. Despite these
efforts, there is no commonly accepted single definition of the sustainable community because of
the complicated and even incompatible relationships among its dimensions, such as the
environment, the economy, social justice, and so on.

The most well known definition of sustainable development is that of the World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987):

“Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs (43).”

Despite its simplicity, the definition, as Hoff points out, contains two controversial concepts: the
equitable use of resources and preservation of resources due to limitations on the environment’s
ability (1998: 6). The controversial concepts of sustainability have been key theme in the
ongoing debate on defining sustainable development.

The difficulty and complexity in defining the concept does not necessarily mean that
sustainability is a useless concept. At the practical level, we can find a variety of meaningful

examples of sustainable community initiatives. Also, a number of scholars, practitioners, and

individuals that are deeply concerned about our future have been trying to find a pathway toward
sustainability. There is no doubt that the term sustainability is used increasingly to describe the
goal of our future.

A lot of communities have been devoting to achieve sustainable communities in a
variety of ways since they acknowledged there is a limit to growth on the planet. These efforts
include a set of movements to achieve self-reliant cities, green cities, eco-cities, compact cities,
bioregionalism, and so on. However, these examples do not show that the term sustainability can
be easily achieved in our society. Instead the numerous examples present that we have to
continuously review the process of community’s activities to achieve the goal of sustainability.

One of the important things that makes the community more sustainable is to recognize
whether the community is sustainable over time. To determine whether communities are
sustainable over time, a number of communities have tried to develop a set of sustainability
indicators. A sustainability indicator is a sign that shows whether the community makes
sustainable progress over time. Indicators are used not only to monitor existing conditions or
trends of the community, but also to set specific targets for the community. It is not new for
communities to develop a set of sustainability indicators. According to Beatley and Manning,
more than forty communities in the US. have developed some forms of sustainability indicators
(1997: 203). Most examples are locally initiated either by community-base organizations or by
local authorities in partnerships with local communities (Pinfield, 1997: 62). These initiatives

include “Sustainable Seattle Indicators” and “Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators for Progress” at

the local level and “Oregon’s Benchmarks” at the state level.

This study is an attempt to identify common principles from various sustainability
indicator initiatives and apply them to the planning process. As mentioned above, sustainability
indicators are not only for measuring existing conditions of communities. Many initiatives show
that indicator exercises are ongoing processes in which communities can evaluate their existing
conditions and identify development strategies to achieve sustainable development. Most cases
employ a variety of community activities in the process of indicators development; for example,
establishing community networks and visions, setting measurable standards, gathering data,
evaluating existing conditions, educating community members, planning further activities, and
so on. Also, as Maclaren points out, the sustainability indicator exercise is not a linear process,
but is portrayed as circular containing several feedback loops (1996: 188). These characteristics
of sustainability indicator exercises provide an opportunity to develop a new planning framework
for community development.

The main goal of this study is to develop a new planning framework for sustainable
communities based on sustainability indicator initiatives. To accomplish the goal, this study will
explore the concept and characteristics of sustainable communities and sustainability indicators.
Also, this study will identify important principles for developing sustainability indicators based
on experiences in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon. This study hopes to facilitate communities

to think more about their future and to act more progressively toward sustainability.

 

II. SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMUNITIES i

The concept of sustainable development, which concerns about the use and allocation of
available resources, has been evolving as a new paradigm for development since the 19803. The
seriousness of global environmental problems made people acknowledge that development alone
cannot guarantee the sustainable future of the human society. Also, the growing disparity of
resource allocation within a population and across regions shows that the current pattern of
growth cannot provide prosperity for all people. These concerns brought about the new
paradigm, sustainability, in the development field. This section will explore origins of the new

paradigm and introduce the concepts of sustainability and sustainable communities.

1. THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY

1) The Global Environmental Crisis and A New Paradigm

The development pattern based on the modern materialism has provided the quantitative
expansion of the wealth to the human society, but, at the same time, caused a lot of problems
such as destruction of the global environment, exhaustion of available resources, and disparity of
the wealth within a population and across the regions. Because of the limitation on the
quantitative growth, the human society has to reexamine the traditional pattern of development

and find a new way to harmonize development with the environment.

The traditional development pattern has made serious negative impacts on the earth

environment in a variety of ways. The decrease in the amount of wetlands and the number of

 

species resulting from development activities is threatening the entire global ecology. In the US,
more than half of wetlands that existed in Pre-Columbus times have been filled or destroyed and,
without changing the development patterns, this trend will be continued. The traditional
development pattern has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of biological species on
the planet, too. According to a study, by the year 2020, the earth will have lost as many as one-
quarter of the species that existed in 1980 (Wilson, 1992). Air pollution is also a big issue in the
earth environment. The ozone layer continues to diminish in size despite the effort to regulate
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) uses. Increases in the emission of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases have lead to changes in global temperature, the sea level, and precipitation
patterns. Besides, the loss of topsoil, extraction of groundwater, and deforestation have had
negative impacts on the global ecosysteml.

The continuous population growth is another factor that threatens the earth environment
and the human society. According to a study, the earth population will grow up to some 8 billion
in 2025 and to 9 to 10 billion by the year 2050 (W RI, 1994). The prediction raises a real
question about the ecological carrying capacity of the earth to support the growing population.

The continuous population growth and the global environmental crisis have called for the new

 

l The Unites States loses some 3 billion tons of topsoil yearly and extracts groundwater faster than it is
recharged.

development paradigm. The effort to develop the new paradigm has been brought up by the field
of the environmental movement. Despite the effort, the traditional environmental movement did
not have significant impacts on the development field until the 19603 because it considered
development and the environment as incompatible concepts. In an effort to overcome the
limitation of the traditional environmental movement, the concept of sustainability, which
harmonizes development with the environment, has been evolved as the new development
paradigm. The new paradigm concerns not only about the environment, but also about human

interactions with the environment, and, thus, requires a more integrated view of human society.

2) Sustainable Development

The history of thinking about sustainability is closely related to the history of
environmental concerns and natural resource management. The origin of current notions of
sustainability lies in the “sustained yield” concept of forest management developed by German
foresters in the late 18th centuries. The sustained yield concept refers to techniques of
selectively cutting certain mature trees while leaving others to grow for future harvest. The
principle of this concept is the management of a resource for maximum containing production,
consistent with the maintenance of a constantly renewable stock. The concept of the sustained
yield has been transferred to the United State and applied to management of natural resources.

Even though there had been conscious efforts to protect the earth environment, it was

the global environmentalism that evolved in the 19603 that integrated the environmentalism and

6

developmental thinking for the first time. The UN Conference on the Human Environment
(UNCHE) held in 1972 was the landmark event in the emergence of global environmental
concerns. Attended by 113 nations, the Conference discussed a wide range of issues such as
human rights, environmental problems of industrialization, whaling, nuclear weapon testing, the
Vietnam War, the conflicts between developed countries and developing countries, and so on.
After bitter debating, the Conference reached in agreement on 26 principles and 109
recommendations for action. Despite its effort to solve the environmental and developmental
problems, those principles and recommendations did not fully address the issue of integration of
environmental protection and development. Different views between the First and the Third
Worlds on the problems associated with the environment and development remained as another
issue to be solved. These issues were mainly discussed later on in the effort of the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which was created by the Conference.

The concept of sustainability, which began appearing in the literature in the 1970s,
emerged as a significant theme in the 19803 and became a widespread term. The most
significant origin of the concept was the World Conservation Strategies (W CS) adopted by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in 1980. The
WCS, which aimed at resource conservation for sustainable development, is considered as a
watershed in challenging the idea that conservation and development were intrinsically opposed
and in shifting conservation to center stage as a fundamental prerequisite to economic

development (Sehnan, 1996: 5). However, according to Selman, the WCS was essentially a

scientific rather than a sociological analysis and did not fully address the inequalities associated
with international trade, wealth and gender (6). This limitation was overcome by the Brundtland
Report (World Commission on Environment and Development: WCED, 1987) and the Second
World Conservation Strategy document, Caring for the Earth (ICUN, 1991).

The most important publication to define the concept of sustainability was the
Brundtland Report (W CED, 1987). This report popularized the idea of sustainable development
as a three-legged stool relying equally on the economy, the environment, and social equity. More

recently, the National Commission on the Environment defined sustainable development as
“a strategy for improving the quality of life while preserving the environmental
potential for the future, of living off interest rather than consuming natural
capita. Sustainable development mandates that the present generation must not
narrow the choices of future generations but must strive to expand them by
passing on an environment and an accumulation of resources that will allow its
children to live at least as well as, and preferably better than, people today.

Sustainable development is premised on living within the Earth’s means
(National Commission on the Environment, 1993: 2).”

From these definitions, we can draw some important principles of sustainable
development. Haughton and Hunter identified three basic principles of sustainable development.
These include inter- generational equity, intra-generational equity, and transfrontier responsibility
(Haughton and Hunter, 1994: 16). The principle of inter-generational equity is referred to as the
principle of futurity, and means that one generation should hand on the earth to the next
generation in at least as good a condition as it inherited it. The second principle is referred as the

principle of social justice. In this principle, sustainability requires that control over distribution

 

of resources be more evenly exercised, taking account of basic needs and common aspirations.
The principle of transfrontier responsibility states that sustainability in one locality, region, or
country cannot be achieved at the expense of environmental conditions elsewhere. Even though
there have been more attempts to identify the principles of sustainable development, these are
considered as the basic principles that should underpin the process of sustainable development.

The concept of sustainability emphasizes not only the importance of the environment,
but also the integration of the environment and development. As discussed above, the concept of
sustainability addresses the importance of resource conservation and environmental protection
for the future, and social and geographic equity. This concept suggests that sustainable

development requires the systems approach, which takes into account the whole system of the

planet as well as the sub-systems, such as the economy, the environment, and society.

2. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

1) The Concept of Sustainable Communities

Current development patterns of our society are not sustainable in the long term. In the
planning field current land use patterns, which are simply characterized by the sprawling growth
of urban and suburban areas with high auto dependency, do not acknowledge the limits to growth.
Also, several case studies illustrated that there are tremendous costs associated with current
growth patterns. As Beatley and Manning addresses, “many of these costs are economic,
including the escalating expense of car ownership and the ongoing investment in highways and
infrastructure. Other costs, while ultimately manifesting themselves in economic terms, are
more difficult to measure: the expense of mitigating pollution, time lost through commuting, or a
community’s inability to attract tourism or business due to diminished natural and social
amenities. (1997: 10)”

Sustainability is a useful concept to resolve problems associated with current
development patterns, but achieving it will not be a simple task. The challenge of sustainable
communities is to modify socio-economic systems as well as people’s living patterns and
behavior. As Beatley and Manning points out, the new agenda for sustainable communities takes
“a more holistic and comprehensive view of planning and of communities; it is not simply
concerned with the way a parcel of land is used, or whether certain infrastructure exists to

accommodate growth” (Beatley and Manning, 1997: 19).

10

According to them, “the paradigm of sustainability views the community in its entirety:
its environmental impact and how they can be minimized; how well its citizens are living and
how programs and policies can be coordinated and implemented to enhance quality of life; its
resource needed and how they are being met; and the environmental and social impacts of
meeting those needs (Beatley and Manning, 1997: 19).” In this apprOach, a community must be
seen as a system in which its parts, economic, natural, and social structures are directly or

indirectly interrelated.

2) Assessment of Community’s Sustainability

Some may still doubt what a sustainable community exactly looks like and whether it
can be achievable. It may be necessary to acknowledge that the true sustainable community may
never be achievable. The reason may come from the complexity of the concept of sustainability.
The difficulty in achieving community’s sustainability, however, does not necessarily mean that
sustainability is a useless concept. It should be acknowledged that the sustainable community
does not mean a fixed reality but refers to the process of human activities, or the progress toward
the sustainable future. In this viewpoint, understanding whether the community is sustainable
over time is the first step of sustainable community development. The remaining problem then is
how we can measure sustainability at the various levels. Many local initiatives present that a set
of sustainability indicators is a useful tool to measure local progress towards sustainability.

Development has been traditionally defined in terms of economic growth. The most

11

widely used indicator of social well-being was the gross national product (GNP), which is used
to measure the total output of goods and services in the economy. However, GNP has many
limitations as a measure of development. First, as Redclift points out, GNP measures productive
activities in a very narrow way excluding the informal sector of the economy (1987: 16). It does
not capture the benefit from informal economic activities such as household activities, voluntary
activities, and other activities for people’s own consumption because it is a measure of only
formal sector activity. Another problem is that it includes expenditures that damage the
environment and cannot capture social and economic costs resulting from environmental
degradation and reduction of nonrenewable resources.

Sustainable community indicators are different from traditional economic,
environmental, and social indicators because the concept of sustainability requires a more
integrated view of the community. Maclaren described well the difference between sustainability
and traditional indicators. According to Maclaren, sustainable community indicators have four
basic characteristics, which can distinguish them from traditional indicators. First,
“sustainability indicators are integrating in the sense that they attempt to portray linkages among
economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability”. Second, “they must be
forward-looking if they are to be used in measuring progress towards achieving intergenerational
equity”. Third, “they should be able to take into account the distribution of conditions (social,
economic, environmental) within a population or across geographic regions”. Finally, they

should be “developed with input from multiple stakeholders in the community (Maclaren, 1996:

12

1 86—1 88).”

The main purpose of sustainability community indicators is to help people identify and
quantify current conditions of the community and to point the way towards more sustainable
conditions. Monitoring local sustainability indicator initiatives, the Community Environmental
Council, Inc. further identified four main functions of sustainable community indicators:
enabling a community to identify what it values and to prioritize those values; holding
individuals and a larger group accountable for achieving the results they want; democracy

building; and allowing people to measure what is important and make decisions based on those

results (Zachary, 1995 : 7).

l3

III. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR INITIATIVES

This section discusses several sustainability indicator initiatives. As Pinfield addressed,
recent examples to develop sustainability indicators are locally initiated either by community-
based organizations or by local authorities in partnership with local communities (Pinfreld, 1997:
62). According to Beatley and Manning, more than forty communities in the US. have
developed some forms of sustainability indicators (Beatley and Manning, 1997: 203). More
recently, a number of communities have begun to measure their progress towards sustainability.
These examples include the cases of Sustainable Seattle and Jacksonville at the local level and

the Oregon Benchmarks Program at the state level.

1. JACKSONVILLE’S QUALITY INDICATORS FOR PROGRESS

1) Background

Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators have been known as one of leading efforts in
measuring community sustainability at the local level. The indicator project was begun by a
nonprofit citizen group, the Jacksonville Community Council Inc. (J CCI), with financial support
from the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce in 1985. The main purpose of the project was “to

make citizens of Jacksonville, Floridaz, more aware of important aspects of quality of life, so that

 

2 Jacksonville is situated in the northeastern part of the State of Florida, and its total population is about
800,000.

14

citizens can celebrate the positives as well as work on areas that need improvement (J CCI,
1999).” Since then, the J CCI has produced an annual report, Quality of Life in Jacksonville:
Indicators for Progress, which presents trends in Jacksonville’s quality of life.

The JCCI is a nonprofit citizen organization, which was established in 1975 as a result
of the Jacksonville Community Planning Conference, so called the Amelia Island Conference
(AIC). In 1974, 100 Jacksonville community leaders gathered on Amelia Island to discuss the
problems facing Jacksonville and their potential solutions. After the conference, the participants
created the JCCI, whose goal was to improve the quality of life in Jacksonville through informed
citizen participation in public affairs. Since its creation, the J CCI has provided a variety of
services, such as open dialogue, impartial research, and consensus building, to involve citizens in
community development issues. The J CCI has, also, tried to develop community leadership for
identifying and mediating community conflicts through providing workshops and training
programs. Furthermore, the JCCI has studied a variety of issues, such as local governance
finance, pollution, education, and teen pregnancy, and worked on these issues with other
organizations.

In 1985, the JCCI began the quality of life project, which aimed at measuring annual
improvement of the quality of life in Duval County3. The project developed quantitative

indicators to monitor community performance in following nine areas: education, the economy,

 

3 Duval County forms the Jacksonville metropolitan area with Baker County and Clay County. Its
population was 673,000 according to the 1990 US. Census and accounts for more than 84% of the total
population of the Jacksonville metropolitan area.

15

public safety, the natural environment, health, the social environment, government and politics,
culture and recreation, and mobility. More specific objectives of the project include: producing
an annual report card on community progress; highlighting community success stories and giving
credit for work well done; identifying areas of decline or concern where community action is
needed, educating residents about their community and the factors that citizens consider
important to their quality of life; and encouraging citizens to take an active part in addressing

community problems (Community Sustainability Resource Institute, 1998: 29).

2) The Process of Indicator Development

Jacksonville’s indicator project was initiated by the J CCI with financial support from
the local Chamber of Commerce. In 1985, the J CCI in consultation with the Chamber created a
10-member steering committee, which was responsible for the indicator project. Members of the
steering committee except a chair served as the chairs for nine subcommittees organized to
develop indicators in nine specific areas. Participation on the subcommittees was open to
members of the J CCI, the Chamber, and other interested citizens. More than 100 people
participated in the subcommittees to develop indicators through the summer of 1985. Figure III-
1 illustrates the organizational structure of the indicator project in 1985.

Each subcommittee met four times on a weekly or biweekly basis to develop specific
indicators in a given topic area. The subcommittees incorporated citizens’ opinion into the

process of indicator development by using background information provided by the JCCI staff.

16

The information includes “responses to a questionnaire published in the local newspaper and
suggestions sent in by community members in response to public interest announcements on the
local television stations (Community Sustainability Resource Institute, 1998).” Each committee
selected specific indicators within the specific topic area based on agreed upon criteria. Most
data for indicators came from publicly available data sources, but several came from a random,
telephone opinion survey. Data were collected for each indicator from the mid-1970 through
1984 or 1985. Beginning with the 1986 update, data for all indicators have been reported
starting with 1983. Data on personal perceptions and behaviors were collected through the
telephone survey. In 1985, the committee developed 75 indicators to assess community
sustainability in the nine areas. Since then, the J CCI has produced the annual report that shows

the result of indicator analysis.

Figure III-l Organizational Structure for Indicator Development in 1985

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steering Committee (10 members) ‘
JCCI
Chamber of Commerce
9 Subcommittees
(Education, Economy, Public Safety, Interested citizens
Natural Environment, Health,

 

Social Environment, Government & Politics,
Culture & Recreation, Mobility)

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

In 1991, the J CCI organized new task forces involving over 140 volunteers to review
the indicators. The task forces eliminated several indicators and added several other indicators
based on the careful examination of the indicator performance. Others were revised for clarity.
A new set of 71 measurable indicators4 was established through the review process. The task
forces set priorities among indicators to provide citizens a sense of relative importance. They
also set targets for each indicator for the year 2000. Each target represented a goal set at a level
felt to be both desirable and attainable by the year 2000. In addition, the task forces prioritized
each of the nine t0pic areas, selecting a top-priority indicator in each area for community action
during 1990s. Table III-l describes the top-priority indicator in each area and targets for the
indicator for the year 2000.

Table III-1. The Top-priority Indicators and Targets for the Year 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area Top-priority Indicator 89-90 97-98 Target for 2000
Education Public high-school graduation rate 72.6% 69.2% 90%
Economy Net job growth 7,402 18,896 Avg. 7,000

annually for
70,000 total
Public Safety % of people surveyed who report feeling safe 50% 62% 60%
walking alone at night in their neighborhood
Natural Number of days that the Air Quality Index is 260 284 325
Environment in the good range
Health Resident infant deaths per 1,000 live births 11.8 9.8 8.1
Social % of people surveyed who report that they 51% 51% 26%
Environment believe racism to be a local problem
Govemment/ % of people surveyed who rate the quality of 33% 67% 65%
Politics local-govemment leadership good or excellent
Culture! City financial support per capita of arts $1.88 $2.17 $2.42
Recreation organizations
Mobility % of working people surveyed who report 69% 73% 70%
commuting times of 25 minutes or less

 

Source: Modified from Jacksonville Community Council Inc. 1999.

 

4 See the Appendixl for 71 indicators.
18

Each year, a citizen committee reviews and monitors the project giving different areas
either gold stars to indicate progress or red stars to indicate digression. Its members are selected
to represent a range of interests and expertise. Each incoming chair of the Jacksonville Chamber
of Commerce Serves as chair of the committee. The committee helps oversee the data collection
process and provides comments and recommendations on the specific results. The J CCI is about
to begin a rethinking process for indicators that will include consideration of the
interrelationships among indicators as well as difference among neighborhoods with Jacksonville.
After several years, the funding for the project shifted from the Chamber of Commerce to city
government, and the City began to take certain indicators into account in its annual budgeting

process.

3) Quality Indicators for Progress

The set of quality indicators for progress uses an issue-based framework5 falling within
nine different topic areas. According to Maclaren, the issue-based framework is organized
around a listing of the sustainability issues (1996: 192). Table III-2 describes the nine areas and
their scope. The issue-based framework is readily understandable and easy to construct, but has

limitations of integrating the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability

 

5 Maclaren identifies six general frameworks that can be used for developing sustainability indicators by
reviewing current practices. These frameworks include domain-based frameworks, goal-based
frameworks, sectoral frameworks, issue-based frameworks, causal frameworks, and combination
frameworks (Maclaren, 1996). The issue framework identifies the key sustainability issues in the
community and then develops indicators for each issue.

19

into each indicator. The lack of integrating is a main reason why the JCCI is currently

undertaking the rethinking process to identify interrelationships among indicators.

Table 111-2. The Quality of Life Model: Nine Areas and Their Scope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Areas Scope
Education The system of public education (kindergarten through 12th grade) and higher education,
including adult education '
Economy The standard of living for local residents including individual economic well-being and
community economic health
Public safety The perception of personal safety and the quality of law enforcement, fire protection,
and rescue services
Natural The earth’s ecosystem including the quality and quantity of water and air, as well as
Environment visual aesthetics
Health The fitness and health of residents and the local system of medical and health care
Social Collective or group concerns such as equality of opportunity, racial harmony, family life,
Environment human services, philanthropy, and volunteerism
Govemment/ Participation in public affairs, an informed citizenry, as well as leadership and
Politics performance in local government
Culture/ The available supply and use of sports and entertainment events, the performing and
Recreation visual arts, public recreation, and leisure activities
Mobility Opportunities for and convenience of travel within Jacksonville and between
Jacksonville and other locations

 

Sources: Modified from Jacksonville Community Council Inc. 1999.

Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators were selected based on seven guidelines and three

additional factors, which the citizen task forces developed to define good indicators. The seven

guidelines are following.

o Validity: Does the indicator measure a factor or issue, which is directly related to the

quality of life? If the indicator moves, would a diverse group of people agree on how the

movement affects the quality of life-positively or negatively?

0 Availability and timeliness: Is the indicator readily available on an annual basis? If it is

no compiled in one place, can the JCCI staff readily collect and compile the data on an

annual basis?

20

 

Stability and reliability: Can we be confident that the statistic will be compiled using
systematic and fair method and that that same method will be used each year?
Understandability: Is the indicator simple enough to be interpreted by the general user
and the public?

Responsiveness: Does the indicator respond quickly and noticeably to real changes?
Policy relevance: Does the indicator have relevance for public decisions? Is it possible to
do anything about it?

Representativeness: Do the indicators as a group cover important dimensions of the

element?

Additional three factors taken into account include the following:

Is the indicator leading, coincident, or lagging relative to the occurrence of a problem?
Leading indicators are more valuable, since they allow a proactive, rather than a reactive
response to a situation.

Is it preferable to state the indicator as a rate or relative to population, rather than as an
aggregate figure?

If money is involved, it is preferable to state it in terms of constant dollars, eliminating

the effect of inflation. (JCCI, 1999)

Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators have several characteristics. First, they are forward-

looking indicators. An annual report on Life in Jacksonville: Quality Indicators for Progress

contains historical trends that provide indirect information about future sustainability. The

forward-looking capabilities of trend indicators were enhanced when specific targets for each

indicator for Year 2000 were established in 1991. Thus, Jacksonville’s indicators function not

only as measuring standards but also as target indicators. Currently, the J CCI considers

21

establishing the next set of targets for Year 2005. Second, some indicators take into account the
distribution of socio-economic conditions within the region. For example, the gap between total
and black unemployment and the percentage of elected officials who are people of color or
female are some forms of distributional indicators. Third, Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators were
developed with input from a broad range of multiple stakeholders within the community.
Initially, a large volunteer group of over 100 people worked to develop sustainability indicators
in 1985. In 1991, a new committee of over 140 volunteers reviewed the performance of quality
indicators. Each year, a citizen Quality of Life Committee, whose members are selected to
represent a rage of stakeholders and expertise, assesses the community’s progress and identifies
the community actions needed to achieve the targets. These characteristics distinguish

Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators from other types of traditional indicators.

4) Implication of J acksonville’s Quality Indicators

The main purpose of Jacksonville’s indicator project is to evaluate the quality of life in
Jacksonville and signal where a particular course of action might be needed. According to
Community Sustainability Resource Institute, Jacksonville’s Quality of Life project has provided
useful information on community performance in a number of key areas (1998: 27).

The project helps community members acknowledge the importance of sustainable
development. The annual report on the project provides general citizens knowledge about their

community. The report uses specific signs, “gold stars” and “red flags”, to help public

22

understanding on community performance. Some indicators that show significant progress are
given “gold stars”. “Red flags” are given to other indicators that show current or emerging
problems. Targets for each indicator for Year 2000 help local governments and other community
groups set proactive policies and community activities.

Jacksonville’s Quality Indicators have been widely used by a variety of groups in the
community including local government agencies. According to the Institute for Sustainable
Development, the City of Jacksonville began specifically to take certain indicators into account
in its annual budgeting process (1999). Community Sustainability Resource Institute also

introduces two successful applications of indicators:

“A continuing decline in water quality indicators from 1983 to 1987
resulted in a citywide campaign and the establishment of a group,
Stewards of the St. Johns River, which worked with local jurisdictions and
private citizens to improve water quality; similarly, a decline in high
school graduation rates from 1984 to 1989, led to the development of a
very successful “Cities in School” program in which local citizens and
businesses worked with school personnel, students, and parents to improve
educational performance (1998: 28).”

Another important aspect of the project is the participatory approach, which has played
a vital role for the project to be successful. The quality indicators developed by the JCCI have
been supported by a volunteer-based development process. One reason for the large
participation in the process is that the J CCI is a large, established organization with 500~600
members. Many members of the J CCI have voluntarily participated in the project. They have

also tried to put citizens’ voices in the project advertising the project in media and through

23

interest group contacts. The strong organizational structure of the J CCI and its partnerships with
community groups, local business, government agencies and general citizens have led to diverse
supports including technical and financial supports for the project. Jacksonville’s ongoing effort
in measuring the community’s progress over time has not only made an impact on the local

govemment’s policy, but also improved citizen’s awareness and understanding of the importance

of sustainable development.

2. SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE INDICATORS

1) Background

The Sustainable Seattle Indicators Program, which was initiated in 1990, is one of the
notable local sustainability indicator initiatives. Sustainable Seattle is the name of a volunteer
civic forum comprised of a variety of stakeholders ranged from business, government,
environmental groups, and other sectors of Seattle. The group published a report, entitled 1993
Indicators of Sustainable Community after three years of work. The report examined 20 key
indicators over the past two decades and each indicator assessed whether Seattle was moving
towards or away from sustainability (Sustainable Seattle, 1993).

Sustainable Seattle was established as a product of a one-day civic forum held in
November 1990 (Sustainable Seattle, 1999). At the forum sponsored by the Global Tomorrow

Coalition and organized by a small local team, over 70 community leaders discussed about

24

definitions of sustainability and how citizens might develop their own ways to measure Seattle’s
long-term sustainability. After the forum, participants agreed to create a new volunteer civic
network called Sustainable Seattle and decided to develop a set of sustainability indicators as its
first task.

The Sustainable Seattle Indicators Program, initially funded by small grants from the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other organizations, is a multi-year effort to
identify and develop specific indicators of sustainable community for the Seattle region. In 1993,
Sustainable Seattle released 20 indicators in the following four areas: Environment, Population
and Resources, Economy, and Culture and Society. An additional set of 20 indicators was
released two years later. The target audiences of the sustainability indicator program were the
media, decision-makers, the business community, and the general public. Sustainable Seattle is
now using the indicators to influence public policy and planning and to implement programs that

promote sustainable development.

2) The Process of Indicator Development

Sustainable Seattle undertook several steps to develop a set of indicators (Zachary,
1995: 10). After the civic forum, a group of 16 people gathered together to define the concept of
sustainability and provided an initial effort to develop sustainability indicators. Based on the
group’s effort, a group of 25 trustees that represent all sectors of the community was created to

advise the indicator project. At the same time, an Indicators Task Team made up of individuals

25

with diverse backgrounds was created to research possible indicators. Acknowledging the need
of a broad based community involvement in developing indicators, the team organized a civic
panel, which consisted of individuals from a variety of sectors in the community, to provide the
project legitimacy and to enhance the quality of indicators. Figure III-2 illustrates the
organizational structure of the indicator project.

At the beginning, the voluntary group of 16 people defined the concept of sustainability
as “long-term cultural, economic, and environmental health and vitality (Sustainable Seattle,
1993: 2).” Based on the definition, the Indicators Task Team developed 29 key indicators with a
number of other secondary and provocative indicators in the beginning of 1992. The draft
indicators were reviewed and refined throughout four participatory workshops of the civic panel

(Sustainable Seattle, 1999: 2).

Figure III-2. Organizational Structure for Indicator Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Voluntary Group Fay Board of Tl'ustees
(16 members) (25 members)
7’ t
5 Task T
GTC Civic Forum , earn , ,
(econormst, energy specrahst,

engineer, social worker, planner, etc.)

I

Sustainable Seattle Civic Panel
(150 citizens in 10 topic areas)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

At the first meeting, civic panelists went through a Visioning process, which aimed to
envision one generation from now. After the meeting, participants reviewed the draft indicators
individually and sent their opinions via a written feedback survey. After receiving the feedback
from civic panelists, the task team prepared a set of revised key indicators, which would be
discussed in the next meeting of the civic panel. At the second meeting, dividing into the ten
topic groups, civic panelists worked to develop and refine a list of 10 indicators for each topic
area. The topic areas were resource consumption, the education, the economy, transportation, the
natural environment, health, the social environment, culture & recreation, population, and
community participation. In the third workshop, participants worked for refining a set of
indicators for each topic area and developed a set of 99 indicators based on criteria the task team
had developed. In the fourth workshop, panelists discussed the linkages between key indicators
and discussed strategies for the indicators to be used in various areas in the community.

After the successful completion of civic panels, the task team narrowed the draft list of
99 indicators to 40 indicators for research and publication based on consideration of
measurability, data availability, and professional credibility. Some of these indicators were
revised or changed in the process of research and data collection because of the lack of data
availability and professional credibility. In 1993, Sustainable Seattle produced the first report,

which contained an initial subset of 20 indicators. Two years later, the second report, which

27

contained all 40 key indicators6, was published. Since then, Sustainable Seattle with voluntary
group’s input has continuously measured the community’s performance updating the report. In
1998, the group published the Indicators of Sustainable Community Update. By the year 2001,

the Millenium Update will be published.

3) Indicators of Sustainable Community

Sustainable Seattle sustainability indicators use a domain-based framework. According
to Maclaren, the domain-based framework organizes indicators within the key dimensions of
sustainability such as the environment, the economy, and society (1996: 190). The domain-based
framework is most effective for ensuring coverage of the dimensions of sustainability.
Sustainable Seattle indicators initially presented four dimensions of sustainability: Environment,
Population and Resources, Economy, and Culture and Society. In the 1995 Update, the group
revised the dimensions adding one more dimension, Youth and Education. However, most
indicators in “population and resources” and “youth and education” can be classified under the
heading of “environment” and “society” respectively. Table 111—3 presents five dimensions, an
indicator for each dimension.

Sustainable Seattle deve10ped several principles to develop sustainability indicators.
These principles could be used by other communities as an example of a method for indicator

development. Table III-4 presents these principles.

 

6 See Appendix 2 for the list of 40 indicators.
28

Table 111-3. Indicators for the Key Dimensions, and their Descriptions and Linkages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension Indicator Description
Environment Wild Salmon Wild Salmon are an important economic resource and fundamental
environmental indicator, as well as a cultural symbol to those living in
the Northwest.
Population & Vehicle Miles An increase in the number of miles traveled reflects growing
Resources and Fuel dependence upon non-renewable natural resources, an increased
Consumption amount of time allocated to a stressful activity, and a declining ability
to work, live and participation in a neighborhood or community.
Gasoline-fueled vehicle use creates air and water pollution as well as
traffic congestion.
Economy Children Living Children living in poverty are defined by the Federal Government as
in Poverty those living in families with income below the poverty line.
Youth & Youth Youth involvement in community service builds the foundation for a
Education Involvement in lifetime of community activity, engaging the idealistic impulses of
Community youth to make positive contributions to their communities’ civic and
Service social life.
Health & Voter The level of voter turnout reflects the commitment that people have to
Community Participation the political system and the extent to which all segments of society
participate in key decision-making. It is also a measure of citizen
confidence in social and political institutions.

 

Source: Modified from Sustainable Seattle. 1995.

Table III-4. Principles of Indicator Development

 

Principle

Discussion

 

Use existing data

Existing data is useful because it can provide immediate information on methods
to quantify sustainability indicators. However, existing data may not have been
gathered or gesented in a manner useful for sustainability issues.

 

Reevaluate underlying
assumption

Existing data carries assumption that may be contrary to sustainability.
Understanding these assumptions and the way they influence data collection can
reveal alternative methods to define and quantify sustainability indicators.

 

Integrate long-term
focus with short-term
change

Identify indicators that are sensitive enough to show change within a one-year
period so that progress can be easily monitored, but also pursue indicators that
require long-term data gathering and monitoring.

 

Relate indicators to the
individual

Identify indicators that can be measured on a per-capita basis, can bring large
numbers down to earth, are easy for individuals to identify with, and can be
extrapolated out to the entire population.

 

Identify the direction of
sustainability

Without a model of sustainable society, predicting a particular level of
sustainability is impossible. Avoid setting targets and instead identify each
indicator’s direction of change-either moving toward or away from sustainability.

 

Present indicators as a
whole system

Indicators presented in isolation fail to depict the health of the whole community.

 

 

Determine the linkage

 

Identifying and evaluating the links between indicators is key to presenting a
broad measure of community sustainability. Linkages show that a change in one
indicator is usually accompanied by changes in others.

 

Source: Sustainable Seattle. 1993.

29

 

 

The group also developed four criteria to select good sustainability indicators. The four

criteria are following.

0 Reflectiveness: Indicators should reflect something basic and fundamental to the long-
terrn economic, social, or environmental health of a cormnunity over generations.

0 Comprehensiveness: Indicators can be understood and accepted by the community as a
valid sign of sustainability or symptom of distress.

0 Measurability: Indicators should be statistically and practically measurable in a
geographic area, preferably comparable to other communities, and yield valid data.

0 Attractiveness to media: Indicators should have interest and appeal for use by local media
in monitoring, reporting and analyzing general trends toward or away from sustainable

community practices.

The principles of indicator development present several characteristics of Sustainable
Seattle indicators. First, indicators show the links between two or more dimensions of
sustainability. For example, “wild salmon runs through local streams” is relevant both
environmental and economic sustainability of the community. The health of salmon runs is
linked to the economy, tourism, recreation, and food production as well as to the environment,
especially, quality of water. Second, Sustainable Seattle indicators are forward-looking
indicators even though the group did not set specific targets or goals for each indicator. The
indicator report identifies each indicator’s direction of change and shows the direction is either
moving toward or away from sustainability. Currently, the group is attempting to set specific
targets for each indicator. Third, Sustainable Seattle indicators take into account the distribution

of socio-economic conditions within the community. For example, the housing affordability

30

ratio, children living in poverty, and ethnic diversity of teachers reflect the distribution of socio-
economic conditions. Finally, as the process of indicator deve10pment shows, Sustainable

Seattle indicators were developed with input from a variety of sectors in the community. Initially,
over 200 people from a variety of sectors participated in developing a set of 40 indicators for two
years. These indicators have been reviewed and measured with input from a voluntary civic

group over time. These characteristics distinguish Sustainable Seattle indicators from other types

of traditional indicators.

4) Implication of Sustainable Seattle’s Indicators of Sustainable Community

The main purpose of Sustainable Seattle’s indicators program is to track the
community’s progress towards the goals of sustainable living and development and to facilitate
local actions that make the community healthy and sustainable over time. The program also
provides an Open forum for cross-community dialogue around critical issues of sustainability by
involving citizens in its process and by informing necessary information to the community.

Sustainable Seattle indicators have been widely used as basic information, which can
guide decision makers and general citizens in making the community sustainable over time.
Although the indicators have not been officially adopted by the City, they enhanced policy
maker’s awareness of sustainability and influenced the City’s policy. The information was used,
by the City’s Planning Department, for updating its general plan, Toward a Sustainable Seattle

(Zachary, 1995: 15). The indicators program also facilitated the government’s effort in

31

developing its own set of sustainability indicators. In 1999, the group completed an indicator
development project for a coalition of local governments, agencies, and other organizations in
King County.

Sustainable Seattle’s effort in developing sustainability indicators shows that broad-
based community’s participation is essential in achieving sustainable community over time.
With hundreds of volunteers involved, the indicator program has stimulated dialogue throughout
and the vision for the entire community. The broad participation has provided the project
legitimacy and made it possible to enhance the community’s capacity to reach desired goals of
the community.

The group also identifies several key messages from the indicators program and these

messages show the meanings and values of the program. The key messages are following:

0 Presenting economic, environmental, and social indicators together is an effective way to

visualize and understand the interdependence and links between these three areas;

0 Collaboration between citizen’s, government, and business interests in defining indicators

build awareness of common values;

0 Patient, effective facilitation of this process can develop indicators that exemplify the

process of democratic governance; and

0 The idea of people taking charge of their own measurements of progress is a powerful
and far-reaching innovation that can bring about a new sense of civic engagement

(Sustainable Seattle, 1999).

A set of sustainability indicators developed and supported by the volunteer-based

32

process is one of leading efforts to measure community’s economic, environmental, and social
sustainability. Sustainable Seattle sustainability indicators became seen as a model and have
been adopted by a number of communities around the world (Sustainable Seattle, 1999). In 1994,
a number of communities around the world from EurOpe to Taiwan expressed their interest in
adapting the indicator project. The project was presented to the US. President’s Council on
Sustainable Development, the Global Forum in Manchester, England, and other international
forums. Sustainable Seattle was recently recognized by the United Nations Centre for Human

Settlement with an Excellence in Indicators Best Performance by the Community Sector.

3. OREGON BENCHMARKS

1) Background

Oregon Benchmarks7 Program is a well-known example of a state level initiative in
developing indicators. In 1989, the State of Oregon deve10ped a vision plan for the future, called
Oregon Shines, involving more than 150 business, government, and community leaders. The
state legislature established the Oregon Progress Board, which is required to report to the
legislature on progress towards achieving goals of Oregon Shines. In 1991, the board initially
developed 259 benchmarks and they were enacted into law.

The statewide strategic plan, Oregon Shines, was developed in the late 19805 in

 

7 Benchmarks can be defined as something that serves as standards by which others may be measured or
judged.

33

response to the socio-economic situation of Oregon. In the early 19803, Oregon’s timber-
dependent economy experienced a bust when high interest rates led to a sharp drop in housing
construction across the nation (The Oregon Progress Board, 1997: 13). The State lost thousands
of jobs in the timber industry and average incomes fell. far below the national average. Between
1979 and 1982, the State lost more than 25,000 jobs in the forest products industry along with
many other jobs that relied on them (The Oregon Progress Board, 1997: 29). Jobs had been
gradually created throughout the mid- 19803, but average incomes were still below the national
average. In response to this situation, the State created the revitalization plan, Oregon Shines,
which contained three statewide goals, a superior workforce, an attractive quality of life, and an
intemational frame of mind.

With its goals and strategies, Oregon Shines recommended the creation of a board,
which can “serve as the long-term caretaker of Oregon’s strategic vision, identify key activities
that need to be undertaken, and then measure progress over the next several decades (The
Oregon Progress Board, 1997: 14).” In response to the recommendation, the State legislature
established the Oregon Progress Board in 1989 as an independent state planning and oversight
agency. The board, chaired by the governor, is made up of citizen leaders. Since its
establishment, the Board has sponsored public dialogues, developed indicators to measure

progress toward the State’s goal, and identified strategies to achieve these goals.

34

2) The Process of Indicator Development

The Oregon Progress Board has developed benchmarks in collaboration with other
agencies and general citizens. An initial set of 259 benchmarks was developed with input from
various committees of the State Legislature and legally adopted in 1991. In 1996, a citizen Task
Force took charged of assessing the State’s progress towards the original goals of Oregon Shines
and updating the original vision. The Task Force and the Progress Board introduced a revision of
the original strategic plan, Oregon Shines II, with a revised set of 92 benchmarks in collaboration

with other agencies and community leaders. Figure HI-3 presents the development process of

Oregon Benchmarks.

Figure III-3. The Development Process of Oregon Benchmarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon Shines l The State Legislature
T The Oregon Progress
Over 150 Board
Stakeholders

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

259 Benchmarks
Citizen Task Force (1991)
(46 members)
>
17 Publ'c Me tn 3
(D 4100 Ice? (12:) Oregon Shines II
ver
92 Benchmarks
(1997)

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

35

The Progress Board articulated the State’s goals, developed with input from over 150
community leaders, as a set of 259 measurable indicators in a coherent plan in 1991. During
1990, the Board defined the scope of issues that indicators would cover, and developed a draft set
of benchmarks. The draft list of benchmarks was reviewed by other community members. In
1991, 18 committees of the State Legislature reviewed the draft list of benchmarks and made
several modifications. The modified set of benchmarks was unanimously adopted by the State
Legislature as a state policy. Every other year since then, the Board has issued an Oregon
Benchmarks report, measuring the State’s performance towards the State’s goals.

The original set of benchmarks was revised with extensive community’s input in 1997.
In 1996, the 46-member citizen Task Force was established to assess the performance of
benchmarks and to update the original vision. The Task Force initially worked to examine the
benchmarks with experts and researchers at the University of Oregon. The Task Force then held
meetings with community leaders to hear their aspirations for the State’s future. The Task Force
heard a number of issues and concerns for the future from over 400 business and community
leaders in 10 meetings. The Task Force held seven other public meetings with state agencies and
other interested groups and citizens to evaluate the effectiveness of the original set of
benchmarks. These public meetings were held based on seven topics of the Oregon Benchmark
system: Public Safety, Independence & Productivity, Education, Healthy Environment, Business
Development, Community Development, and Governance. Based on the recommendations

made by the meetings, a number of benchmarks were either revised or discarded and a new set of

36

928 revised benchmarks was introduced in 1997.

3) Oregon Benchmarks

Oregon Benchmarks use a combination framework, which brings together a goal-based
framework9 and a domain-based framework. Oregon Benchmarks define the State’s strategic
goals as measurable outcomes, with targets for improvement. The benchmarks are divided into
three categories that represent three goals of Oregon Shines II: Quality Jobs for All Oregonians,
Safe, Caring and Engaged Communities, and Healthy, Sustainable Surroundings. These
categories are consistent with three dimensions of sustainability: the economy, society, and the

environment respectively. Figure III-4 presents the structure of Oregon Benchmarks.

Figure III-4. Oregon Shines Vision, Goals and Benchmark Topic Areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prosperous Oregon that
Excels in All Spheres of Life
F J
Quality Jobs for Safe, Caring and Engaged Healthy, Sustainable
All Oregonian Communities Surrounings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Education Civic Social Public Community Environment
Performance Involvement Support Safety Development
(20) (12) (10) (21) (6) (9) (14)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Modified from The Oregon Progress Board (1997: 71)

 

8 See Appendix 3 for 20 key benchmarks.

9 Goal-based framework: This framework first identifies sustainability goals for the community and then
creates one or more indicators for each goal.

37

The original set of Oregon Benchmarks measures the State’s performance towards the
statewide goals. Some benchmarks measure progress toward sustainable future, such as
improving the readiness of young children for school, improving air quality, and raising per
capita income. Some benchmarks measure aspects of life that should not be deteriorated, such as
housing affordability and access to outdoor recreational opportunities. Some benchmarks
measure problems that should be reduced, such as the crime rate and the teenage pregnancy rate.
Other benchmarks measure the distribution of the State’s success.

In 1997, the citizen Task Force created a revised vision for Oregon Shines H: “a vital,
prosperous Oregon that excels in all spheres of life (The Oregon Progress Board, 1997: 27).”
The Task Force reviewed the original goals for Oregon Shines, and adopted three revised goals:
quality jobs for all Oregonians, safe, caring and engaged communities, and healthy, sustainable
surroundings. The Task Force also recommended several guidelines in evaluating the

effectiveness of Oregon Benchmarks. These guidelines include:

0 Appropriate number of benchmarks: The number of benchmarks should be reduced from
259 to approximately 100,

0 Linkages between Benchmarks: The Board should develop a system that shows how
benchmarks are related,

0 Measurability: The Board should only adopt benchmarks that can, and will be measured,

0 Locally available data: The Board should develop accurate, understandable and timely

local data for all benchmarks by 2002,

0 Leadership responsibility: The Oregon Legislature should encourage state agencies to

38

play a leadership role in achieving the benchmarks, and

0 The Board should facilitate the development of strategies that impact the benchmarks

(The Oregon progress Board, 1997: 69-71).

Based on these recommendations, the Board developed a new set of 92 benchmarks. Table 111-5

presents some examples of Oregon Benchmarks10 and their rationales.

Table 111-5. Examples of Oregon Benchmarks

 

 

Goals Benchmarks Rationales
Quality Jobs for % of Oregonians employed outside This benchmark underscores the importance
All Oregonians the Willamette Valley and the Portland of maintaining the geographic diversity of

tri-county area

the state’s economy and employment.

 

Self, caring and

% of Oregonians who volunteer at

This benchmarks is intended to measure the

 

 

Engaged least 50 hours of their time per year to extent to which Oregonians seek to improve
Communities ’ civic, community, or nonprofit the quality of life in their communities by
activities actively participating in civic, community,
and nonprofit activities.
Healthy, % of miles of limited-access Congestion exacts a toll in terms of driver
Sustainable highways in Oregon urban areas that frustration, lost work time, more air
Surroundings are heavily congested during peak pollution, more gasoline use, and higher cost

 

hours

 

of goods and services.

 

Source: The Oregon Progress Board. 1997.

Oregon Benchmarks have several characteristics, which can distinguish them from other

traditional indicators. First, Oregon Benchmarks are forward-looking. The Benchmarks

measure trends for each benchmark and set specific targets for the benchmark for the future. The

Progress Board set performance targets for Benchmarks for the years 1995, 2000, and 2010 in

consultation with citizen, experts, and decision-makers. Second, Oregon Benchmarks attempt to

show links between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. For

 

10 For a set of key Benchmarks in Oregon Shines, see Appendix 3.

39

 

example, the geographic diversity of the economy and employment links the economic
conditions of the State with the social dimension. The Board is further trying to establish a
system that shows how benchmarks are related to each other. Third, Oregon Benchmarks take
into account the distribution of the economic, social, and environmental conditions within a
population and across geographic regions. For example, the geographic diversity of the State’s
economy and employment deals with the geographic distribution of the economy. Finally,
Oregon Benchmarks have been developed with input from a number of community leaders and
experts in the process. The statewide goals established by the community leaders and interested
citizens played a very important role in benchmark development. Meetings with community
leaders and consultation with experts made it possible to develop more influential, valid, and

reliable indicators.

4) Implication of Oregon Benchmarks

Oregon Benchmarks were created as a means of monitoring progress towards the goals
set forth in Oregon Shines, aficitizen-based strategic plan. Oregon Benchmarks have not only
provided information on the State’s performance towards the sustainable future, but also played
as reference guide for the State’s policy and individual or collective activities. The benchmarks
have been widely u3ed by the State’s agencies, local governments, and community groups.

The State Legislature has used Benchmarks to support policy changes since legal

adoption of the Benchmarks as a State policy. One of notable legislation was “State Agency

40

Performance Measurement and Budget Policy (1993 Senate Bill 1130)”, which applied
benchmark planning to agency performance and budget policy for the State (The Progress Board,
1999: 4). The bill requires State agencies to develop their missions, goals, and objectives,
identify Benchmarks applicable to their missions, and develop performance measures to track
efficiency and effectiveness of their programs and activities. Under the State policy, over 30
State agencies use Benchmarks in strategic planning, budgeting, and/ or internal management
systems.

Oregon Benchmarks facilitated local communities to use them or develop their own
benchmarks. Some counties have used Benchmarks in their overall strategic planning process.
Several local governments, such as Multnomah County, Wasco County, Eugence City, and Dalles
City, developed their own indicators similar to Benchmarks and used them in their strategic
planning process (The Oregon Progress Board, 1999: 6-7). Oregon Benchmarks has been also
used by a number of community groups throughout the State. For example, Rural Development
Initiatives, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, strongly encourages its client communities to use
Benchmarks in their planning. The First Local Progress Board in Baker County used
Benchmarks to articulate its economic development strategies. Besides, a number of
communities initiated community-based efforts to identify and address policy issues through
Benchmarks.

Another important lesson derived from Oregon Benchmarks is the establishment of an

organizational structure, the Oregon Progress Board, which is responsible for implementing the

41

State’s strategic plan, Oregon Shines, and undertaking the ongoing assessment of the State’s
performance. It is necessary to build the organizational capacity or structure for repeated
measurement to determine trends over time and results-oriented management. The Progress
Board, established by the State Legislature, has played as a vehicle to develop Benchmarks,
ongoing measurement, and adjusting goals and Benchmarks over time.

The Progress Board, consisting of civic leaders as well as government officials, also
helps stakeholders and general citizens involve in the process of setting the statewide vision and
developing measurable standards. The need to involve all key stakeholders in decision-making
process is fundamental to sustainable development. Even though the Benchmark program was
initiated by the State government, the participatory approach of the program brought about a new

sense of civic engagement and increased the transparency of decision-making.

4. Comparison of Three Cases

Three cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon display both similarities and
differences in the indicator development process. This subsection compares three cases and
identifies the key features of each case. Table III-6 summarizes the key differences among three
cases.

First, the indicator projects of Seattle and Jacksonville were initiated by community-
based organizations while the State government initiated the Oregon Benchmarks Program.

Despite the difference, all three cases developed new organizational structures, which are

42

responsible for indicator development. Jacksonville and Seattle created new organizational

structures at the beginning stage of indicator development. The new organizational structures

were crated in a manner that allowed for meaningful communities’ participation. The steering

committee in Jacksonville was created with nine subcommittees, in which more than 100 people

participated to develop sustainability indicators. The Indicators Task Team in Seattle organized a

civic panel, which consists of 150 citizens from a variety of sectors in the community. Oregon

established the Oregon Progress Board as a State agency, which is responsible for development

of Benchmarks and the ongoing assessment of the assessment. The Progress Board established

the citizen Task Force to assess the performance of Benchmarks and to update them. The new

organizational structures function as vehicles to create organizational partnerships or nexus in the

community, and thus to develop community capacity for the ongoing assessment of the

communities’ progress.

Table 111-6. Comparison of Three Cases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factors Jacksonville Seattle Oregon
Leading Organization Nonprofit citizen group A civic forum State government
New organizational The steering committee The Indicators Task Team The Oregon Progress
structure for the prgject Board
Funding sources Chamber of Commerce EPA grant & sale of the State government

and local ggvemment reports

Framework Issue-based Domain-based Combination
Number of indicators 75 (71) 40 259 (92)
Time Frame for assessment 1 year Mostly 3 years 2 years
Specific goals & objectives Yes No/ in process Yes
Linkages among indicators Weak/ In process Yes Weak/ In process

 

Community participation

Yes (subcommittees)

Yes (civic panel)

Yes (citizen task force &
public meeting)

 

Data sources

Existing data & survey

Existing data

Existing data & survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to the strategic plan No/ Community agenda No Yes (Oregon Shines)
Key assessment Broad-based community Broad-based community Legal adoption of the
participation participation Benchmarks

 

43

 

Another important factor of community capacity is financial resources available for the
ongoing assessment of community’s sustainability. Jacksonville and Oregon have received
strong financial support for the indicator projects from the public or private agencies. The
financial capacity played a vital role to assess communities’ performance on the regular basis,
annually or biannually. On the other hand, Sustainable Seattle hasn’t much relied on the external
funding sources. The Sustainable Seattle Indicator program was initially funded by small grants
from the EPA and other organizations, but mostly relied on the funding from sale of the
sustainability indicators reports for the continuous management of the project (Sustainable
Seattle, 1999). The lack of financial capacity might have hindered the group from the more
intensive assessment of the community’s sustainability.

There are differences in both the number of indicators and the ways that indicators are
organized. While Sustainable Seattle developed a set of 40 indicators, Oregon initially
developed 259 Benchmarks. Even though there is no ideal number of indicators, Bossel suggests
that the number of indicators should be as small as possible, for the intended audience to
efficiently absorb (1999: 7). The three cases also use different frameworks for indicator
development. The case studies show that the domain-based framework, which was used by
Sustainable Seattle, is more useful to express the linkages among the dimensions of sustainability.

The indicator’s linkage to the goals and objectives of the community is also an
important factor in comparison of the cases. Even though all three cases are linked to the vision

and goals of the community, Sustainable Seattle indicators are not directly linked to the specific

44

objectives or targets. In the Seattle case, indicators intended to provide a snapshot of the concept
of sustainability rather than assign objectives or targets for indicators (Zachary, 1995: 13). On
the other hand, in the two cases of Jacksonville and Oregon, indicators are directly linked to their
objectives or targets. The case studies present that clearly defined objectives and targets for each
indicator are effective to identify policies and strategies necessary for the sustainable future of
the community.

Finally, the study outlines key features of the three indicator projects. The key feature
of Jacksonville and Seattle cases is the broad-based community participation in the process of
indicator development. According to the Community Sustainability Resource Institution, the
most important lesson of Jacksonville’s case is that tenacious and active community participation,
partnership between local community and state organization, and assistance from local and
national grassroots organizations are important for making the community sustainable over time
(1998: 30). Also, as the Institute for Sustainable Development (1999) and Zachary (1995: 30)
point out, intense public involvement of the Sustainable Seattle project is a key factor in
developing the tools for achieving community sustainability. The broad-based community
participation can make it possible to develop a sense of responsibility and legitimacy of the
project. On the other hand, the key feature of the Oregon case is the legal adoption of Oregon
Benchmarks as a State policy. Oregon incorporated the Benchmarks into the State’s strategic
plan, Oregon Shines, to guide the State’s policy and strategies towards progress. In summary,

these two key features of the cases, the broad-based community involvement and incorporation

45

of sustainability indicators into the strategic plan, will be the most important themes of indicator

development initiatives.

46

VI. A NEW PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A set of sustainability indicators is a very useful tool for measuring community’s
progress towards sustainable development. Sustainability indicators can build community
consensus on the community’s future and lead to individual or collective action to achieve
community sustainability. The three initiatives in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon clearly
present the role that indicators can play in the development and implementation of policies and
planning decisions at the various levels. This section will articulate several principles of
indicator development from these initiatives and their application to the planning process,

especially, at the community level.

1. PRINCIPLES OF INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT

Sustainability indicators incorporate economic, environmental, social dimensions of the
community in evaluating the community’s performance towards sustainability. Sustainability
indicators require the holistic view of the community and a complicated process in which all key
stakeholders involve over time. The holistic approach and the complicated process require more
sophisticated guidelines for indicator development.

As cases studies illustrates, three cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon developed

their own guidelines or principles of indicator development. Jacksonville established seven

47

guidelines and three additional factors11 to define good sustainability indicators. Sustainable
Seattle developed seven principles and four criteria12 for indicator development. Oregon
recommended six guidelines13 in evaluating the effectiveness of Oregon Benchmarks. Besides
these cases, Hart also identifies eight characteristics to define effective sustainability indicators.

These characteristics include:

0 Address carrying capacity of community capital;

0 Relevant to the concept of sustainability;

0 Understandable to the community at large;

0 Developed and accepted by the people in the community;

0 Link economy, society, and environment;

0 Focus on long range view;

0 Advance local sustainability, but not at the expense of others; and

0 Based on reliable and timely data (Hart, 1998).

In addition, the International Institute for Sustainable Development suggests a complete set of
ten principles for indicator development, called the Bellagio Principles for Assessment14 (1997:
2-4).

Based on the review of those guidelines and principles, this study articulates six basic

principles of indicator development. These principles include:

0 Systems Approach: Assessment of community’s sustainability should take a systems

approach, in which the whole system of the community as well as its sub-systems, the

 

11 See p. 20-21 for these guidelines and additional factors for indicator development.
12 See p. 29-30 for these principles and criteria.

13 See p. 38-39 for these guidelines.

14 See Appendix 4 for these principles.

48

economy, the environment, and society, is taken into account.

Linkages to the vision and goals of the community: Sustainability indicators should be
linked to the vision and goals of the community to ensure that a desirable direction for
change and policies and activities for the direction can be identified.

Redistribution of Community Resources: Sustainability indicators should measure
redistribution of community resources to ensure that development can give benefits to all
members of the community.

Broad-Based Participation: Indicator development should include all key stakeholders in
the process to ensure that indicators represent the vision and goals of the entire
community.

Understandability and Effective Communication: Indicators should be clearly defined and
easy to understand and require effective means to communicate with all community
members.

Community Capacity for Ongoing Assessment: Community’s sustainability should be
assessed over time and thus the process requires the organizational and financial capacity

for the ongoing assessment.

1) Systems Approach

Traditionally, social indicators did not measure the dynamics and interrelationships

between the sub-systems of the community, such as the economy, the environment, and society.

Those indicators measure the community’s well being in only one dimension of the community

and often encourage decisions that improve one area at the expense of another. On the other

hand, as cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon show, sustainability indicators attempt to

measure progress in all dimensions of the community. In those cases, many indicators are multi-

49

dimensional themselves, and, otherwise, show links between the different dimensions of the
community.

Sustainable development requires the systems approach, in which the wholeness of the
community as well as its sub-systems is taken into account. The systems approach is a way of
thinking and describing an issue or problem in respect to the entity where the issue or problem is
grounded. The concept of sustainability suggests that economic, social, and environmental
dimensions of the community are all linked to each other, and interrelated in the given
community. Sustainable development is possible only if sub-systems as well as the whole
system are sustainable. Therefore, it is necessary to develop appropriate indicators that can
provide information about sustainability of each sub-system as well as the whole system. Those

indicators would be holistic themselves, showing links between the sub-systems.

2) Linkages to the Vision and Goals of the Community

Sustainability indicators should be linked to the vision and goals of the community to
ensure that a desirable direction for change and policies and activities for the direction can be
identified. All three cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon linked indicators to visions and
goals that they established. As three cases show, clearly defined visions and goals provide
information about what to be measured for the community’s progress. Assessment of the
community’s change or trends based on visions and goals of the community makes it possible to

judge whether the community is heading to the desirable future the community identified. It can

50

also provide information about what kind of activities has to be taken for the desirable future.
The vision and goals reflect the community’s consensus on how the community should
appear at some specified future date as a sustainable community. In any case, the establishment
of the vision and goals of the community is the first step of indicator development. This step
requires broad-based community involvement to make sure that the vision and goals reflect the
interests of the entire community. All key stakeholder groups should be identified and invited in
the process of the establishment of the community’s vision and goals. The participatory process

can make the vision and goals legitimate and supportable by the community.

3) Redistribution of Community Resources

Sustainability indicators should measure the redistribution of community resources
within a population or across geographic areas to ensure that development can give benefits to all
members of the community and other communities. The community would not be sustainable if
some groups of the community were continuously marginalized while others were getting better '
off. Indicator sets in all three cases, Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon, measured not only the
communities’ prosperity, but also the distribution of the prosperity. As the cases present,
disaggregating certain information by factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, class, and location
would be helpful to measure the distribution of the community’s progress.

Another important aspect of the distribution is to distinguish between local and non-

local sources of costs of generating benefits. If the community generated benefits from the costs

51

borne by other communities, the global community would not be sustainable in the long-term.
Sustainability indicators should not measure the community’s progress at the expense of other
communities. Therefore, sustainability indicators should possibly measure local and nonlocal

sources of environmental degradation to ensure geographic equity of development.

4) Broad-Based Participation

Indicator development should include all key stakeholders in the process to ensure that
indicators represent the vision and goals of the entire community. Based on the experiences in
all three cases, Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon, it is evident that community participation can
be a key factor in developing the tools for moving towards a more sustainable community. In all
cases, a number of stakeholders and interested citizens have participated in indicator
development.

Traditionally, the assessment of social conditions heavily relied on experts and did not
involve all stakeholders in the decision making process. This tendency resulted in the public’s
distrust in information generated by such a process and failed in bringing about the community’s
collective actions to make the community better. This can be overcome by the democratic
process of indicator development, in which all key stakeholder groups are identified and invited.
The broad-based community participation can make the information generated by indicator
exercises legitimate. The democratic process also makes all community members accountable

for the decisions they made. This process may require an excellent facilitation skill and patience

52

in the complicated nature of community participation.

5) Understandability and Effective Communication

Indicators should be clearly defined and easy to understand and require effective means
to communicate with all community members. Traditionally, social or environmental indicators
have been too technical or complicated for the general public to understand. The technical
difficulty associated with traditional indicators has limited for the public to use indicators in their
decision-making. Sustainable development requires the community’s participation in the process,
so indicators should be understandable for all community members. For example, wild salmon
in Sustainable Seattle Indicators can provide enough information on water quality as well as the
economic condition of the community to those who does not have scientific knowledge
associated with the issues.

As indicators need to be understood by the general citizens, it is also important to
develop effective means to present information generated by the indicator exercise to the general
citizens. For example, the Sustainable Seattle report card, which shows whether the community
is moving towards or away from sustainability, can be a very effective communication tool. In
the Jacksonville’s case, the annual report uses specific signs, “gold stars” and “red flags”, to help
public understanding on community performance. A short summary paper can be also helpful to

communicate information with the community members.

53

6) Community Capacity for Ongoing Assessment

Community’s sustainability should be assessed over time and thus the process requires
the organizational and financial capacity for the ongoing assessment. The concept of
sustainability suggests that the sustainable community is not a fixed reality but requires
continuous efforts to make the community sustainable over time. So, it is essential to assess the
community’s performance periodically to know whether the community is heading on the right
direction and to take actions associated with existing or emerging problems.

All three cases of Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon assess the community’s
sustainability annually or biannually. This process requires the community capacity to ensure
that the community’s sustainability can be measured over time. The community capacity refers
to community’s ability to carry out its desired goals and purposes. It means not only physical or
financial resources available to the community, but also the community’s organizational
capability to carry out its goal. In the cases of Jacksonville and Seattle, they created
organizational partnerships or nexus to assess the community’s performance over time. Oregon
established an independent agency, the Oregon Progress Board, which is responsible for
indicator development and the ongoing assessment of the State’s performance towards progress.
The organizational capacity can be developed through collaboration within and between

community-based organization before and throughout the process of indicator development.

54

2. A NEW PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

Sustainability indicators are used not only to assess existing conditions or their trends of
the community, but also to set specific targets for the community’s progress. As three cases in
Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon present, the assessment of the community’s sustainability can
help the community set the new vision and goals of the community and plan further activities for
the community’s progress. This means that sustainability indicator initiatives can be applicable
to the planning process of community development. In the Oregon case, indicators are directly
linked to the statewide strategic plan, Oregon Shines, as a tool of monitoring progress towards
the goals set forth in the plan. In the other two cases of Jacksonville and Seattle, indicators have
been widely used as basic information that can guide decision-makers and community members
in changing public policies and identifying alternative activities to achieve sustainable
development.

This study outlines a planning framework for sustainable community deve10pment from
the experiences of three cases. Figure VI-l presents the framework, which incorporates the
processes and principles of indicator development in formulation of policies and strategies for

sustainable communities. The framework consists of six steps, which are following:

0 Setting the community vision and goals for the future;
0 Developing measurable standards;
0 Measuring conununity performance towards the vision and goals;

0 Identifying issues and strategies towards the community’s goals;

55

0 Implementing strategies; and

0 Evaluating indicator performance.

Figure VI-l. A New Planning Framework for Community Development

 

 

___fi Setting the Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vision and Goals
_, Developing OScoping
Measurable Standards cDefine Selection Criteria
l ODevelop Potential Indicators
0Choose a Final Set of Indicators
_, Measuring

Community Performance

1.

Identifying

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issues and Strategies

1

Implementing

 

 

Strategies

l

Evaluating

 

 

 

 

Indicators Performance
J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At first glance, the planning framework outlined here may not be much different from
others. In fact, the framework is a bit similar to other planning frameworks, which generally

consist of goal formulation, identification of problems and issues, selection of best alternative

56

strategies, implementation of strategies, and evaluation. However, the principles15 and activities
of the framework make it different from other planning frameworks. The framework requires a
more holistic view of the community and collective actions from the beginning stage of the
planning process. In addition, the framework attempts to incorporate sustainability indicator
initiatives, which basically aim at evaluating communities’ progress towards sustainability, into
the community development planning process. The framework can be used for most

communities to establish the strategic plan for community development.

1) Setting the Community Vision and Goals for the Future

Sustainable community development starts from a Visioning process: a process of
thinking and visualizing its desirable future. The Visioning process creates an image of what
the community would like to become at the future through collaboration and consensus building
processes. The Visioning process allows community to stretch beyond what exists now to reach
new potential for the future. In this process, all stakeholder groups should be brought about to
deliberate and make consensus on the community’s desirable future. The stakeholder input is
essential because the issues associated with the community’s future are complex and many
parties are involved in the issues.

As three cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon present, a community forum is a

useful tool to bring community leaders and interested citizens together to discuss, debate, and

 

15 The principles refer to six principles of indicator development outlined before.

57

deliberate a desirable direction for the community. If the community forum is successfully
organized, new relationships among individuals, stakeholder groups, and organizations can be
developed within the community. The new relationships can improve the community capacity to
assess the community’s sustainability over time and to implement plans and activities identified
by the assessment process.

The participatory and collaborative nature of the Visioning process makes it possible to
develop the vision and goals of the entire community. The vision can be articulated as a single
mission statement, and the goals can be developed by identifying key issues, which are relevant
to achieving the community’s vision. The vision and goals of the cormnunity provides
information what to be measured to detemrine whether the community is sustainable. The

process is not easy and requires the careful design of the community’s involvement and excellent

facilitation skills.

2) Developing Measurable Standards

Sustainability indicator development embraces many issues and dimensions. In order to
develop a set of sustainability indicators relevant to the vision and goals of the community,
several sub—steps are necessary. These sub-steps include the processes of scoping, defining
criteria for selecting indicators, deve10ping potential indicators, and choosing a final set of

indicators.

The scoping process deals with the framework of organizing indicators, the number of

58

indicators, and the time frame over which indicators are to be measured. First, an appropriate

indicator framework should be chosen based on the system in which the goals of the community

are organized. According to Maclaren, there are six frameworks that can be used for indicator

development. These include:

Domain-based framework: This framework uses the key dimensions of sustainability,
such as the economy, the environment, and society, and identify indicators for each
dimension;

Goal-based framework: This framework first identifies sustainability goals for the
community and then creates one or more indicators for each goal;

Sectoral frameworks: This framework develops indicators for each sector over which
local governments typically have responsibility, such as housing, transportation, economy,
public facilities, recreation, land use, and so on;

Issue frameworks: This framework identifies the key sustainability issues in the
community and then develops indicators for each issue;

Causal frameworks: This framework introduces the notion of causes and effects in
developing indicators and creates indicators based on the notion; and

Combination frameworks: This framework brings together two or more of the individual

frameworks (Maclaren, 1996).

The commonly used frameworks for developing sustainability indicators are the domain-based

framework and the goal-based framework. In any case, the framework can be chosen based

upon the system in which the community develops and organizes its vision and goals. The

second issue in the scoping process is to determine how many indicators are enough for

assessing the community’s sustainability. Sustainable Seattle developed a set of 40 indicators

59

while Jacksonville and Oregon initially developed 75 and 259 indicators respectively. Oregon
reduced the number of indicators to 92 in 1997 because of the difficulty in tracking and setting
priority. There is no ideal number of indicators in assessing the community’s sustainability, but
developing too many indicators should be avoided. The last issue in scoping is the time frame
over which indicators are to be measured. The time frame can be determined based on the
community’s capacity for the ongoing assessment of the community’s sustainability. In most

cases, communities assess their progress on the annual basis.

The second sub-step in indicator development is to develop criteria for selecting
indicators. The indicator selection criteria can be defined based on the community’s agreement
on what are good and effective indicators in assessing the community’s sustainability. All three
cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon defined their own indicator selection criteria. Hart
also identifies eight characteristics16 that effective indicators have in common (1999). In most
cases, the six principles of indicator development articulated in this study would a good starting
point of defining the selection criteria. The selection criteria should be continuously reviewed by
the participants of indicator development.

The third sub-step in indicator development is to identify potential indicators. As the
three cases illustrate, there are several ways to identify potential indicators or a draft list of
indicators. In the Jacksonville case, the 9 subcommittees went through the brainstomring

process to develop potential indicators in the given topic area. Sustainable Seattle created the

60

Indicators Task Team to research potential indicators. Oregon also created an independent
organizational structure, the Oregon Progress Board, which is responsible for indicator
development and the Progress Board developed a draft set of Benchmarks. In most cases,
indicators used by other communities could provide useful information in developing potential
indicators.

The forth sub-step in indicator development is to choose a final set of indicators. The
final set of indicators should be chosen through the collective process in which experts, key
stakeholder groups, and interested citizens are involved. In all three cases in Jacksonville,
Seattle, and Oregon, draft indicators were reviewed by community members based on the
selection criteria they established. An indicator evaluation matrix is a useful way to determine
the final set of indicators. The evaluation matrix has been used by many communities because of
the simplicity of organizing the information needed to evaluate indicators. In addition, experts
and scholars should be involved in this process to determine the scientific validity and the

measurability of indicators.

3) Measuring Community Performance
Once the final set of indicators has been chosen, the next step is to measure the
community’s sustainability by using indicators. An important issue in this process is to

determine whether data for each indicator is available. In most case, the information can be

 

16 See p. 44 for these characteristics.

61

obtained from existing sources, and used for each indicator after simple modification of the
information. Therefore, it is necessary to identify existing sources of the data and to create
partnerships with existing sources of information in the process of indicator development.

In some cases, it is necessary to collect new data. The costs and time for collecting new
data should be determined in the process of indicator development. In any case, indicators that
require long time and expensive costs for data collection should be avoided. As three cases show,

data on personal perceptions and behaviors can be easily collected through a telephone survey.

4) Identifying Issues and Strategies towards Community’s Goals

This step deals with identifying issues and strategies based on information obtained
from indicator results. In this step, sustainability indicators can function as both diagnostic and
target indicators. First, sustainability indicators can help identify the nature and magnitude of the
community’s problem. Indicator results may show whether the community is moving towards or
away from sustainability. Second, the community can set specific targets for each indicator in
order to achieve the community’s goals. The cases of Jacksonville and Oregon established
specific targets for each indicator for the certain time period.

The problems identified by indicator results and targets for each indicator can guide the
community in setting set proactive policies and strategies to achieve the community’s vision and
goals. Indicator results should show which problems are to be given priority in order to find out

key issues of the community. Targets for each indicator should be established with consideration

62

of both whether targets can be attainable in the given time period and which are the most
promising alternative actions to achieve targets. In addition, the indicator results should be
effectively informed to the decision-makers as well as the community members in order to find

out alternative actions.

5) Implementing Strategies

Once the alternative actions are established, the next step is to put the actions into
practice. The implementation step involves a wide range of practical activities, which all
community members will undertake. The changes made by the activities should be periodically
measured to ensure that the community is heading on the right direction.

In the implementation step, the role of leading agencies is very important to
carry out the community’s collective actions. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

developed several guidelines for implementation of the plan. These guidelines include:

0 Ensure that the changes recommended in the plan are correctly applies in
the plan: be available for technical consultations; discuss with
implementing agencies any suggested modification.

0 Help to maintain communications between all people and institutions
participating in or affected by the plan, i.e. land users, sectoral agencies,
government, non-govemmental organizations, and commercial
organizations.

0 Assist in coordination of the activities of the implementing agencies.

'0 Assist in institution-building by strengthening links between existing
institutions, forming new bodies where necessary and strengthening
cooperation.

0 Focus on the participation of the land users; ensure adequate incentives.

0 Organize research in association with the plan; ensure that results from

63

research are communicated and, where appropriate, incorporated into the
plan.

0 Arrange for education and training of project staff and land users. (FAO,
1993)

The guidelines developed by FAO and experiences in sustainability indicator initiatives
suggest general principles to successfully carry out the collective activities of the community.

These principles include:

o The leading organization should carefully coordinate the activities of the community
members to ensure that all important bodies of the community are involved in the
implementation step;

0 The leading organization should also provide necessary tools and techniques in
collaboration with other agencies to ensure that changes recommended in the plan are
correctly applied to the practice;

0 The leading organization should maintain effective communications among organizations
and the community members participating in to minimize conflicts resulting from the
activities;

0 Creating partnerships among existing groups and forming new organizational structures
where necessary throughout the implementation process should be necessary in order to
improve community capacity; and

0 Education and training should be provided to ensure that all community members are

empowered through the process.

6) Evaluating Indicator Performance
The purpose of this process is to evaluate indicator performance in assessing the

community’s sustainability. As the three cases in Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon present,

indicator performance should be evaluated periodically in order to improve quality of indicators.
This process, like the indicator development process, also requires broad-based community’s
participation. Indicators may be eliminated, modified, or added based on the evaluation of
indicator performance. Existing or new indicator selection criteria can be used to carry out the
evaluation process.

The continuous evaluation of indicator performance is essential in maintaining or
improving quality of indicators because people’s knowledge of the entire ecosystem is not
perfect and can be developed over time. Also, as Bossel addresses, “sustainable development
implies constant change, and the indicator set itself have to be adapted to changing conditions
(1999: 68).” Communities can establish a specific time frame, over which indicators are to be

reviewed and updated, base on the community capacity.

65

V. CONCLUSION

There have been numerous efforts to realize sustainable development both in theory and
in practice since the concept of sustainability became one of the most important issues in the
human society. As sustainable development became a long-term goal that communities have to
pursue, measuring the progress has also become an important issue.

Sustainable community indicators are different from traditional economic,
environmental, and social indicators because the concept of sustainability requires a more
integrated view of the community. Sustainability indicators can help people identify and
quantify current conditions of the community and to point the way towards more sustainable
conditions.

This study identifies several principles of sustainability indicators from experiences in

Jacksonville, Seattle, and Oregon. These principles include:

0 Systems Approach: Assessment of community’s sustainability should take a systems
perspective, in which the whole system of the community as well as its sub-systems, the
economy, the environment, and society, is taken into account;

0 Linkages to the vision and goals of the community: Sustainability indicators should be
linked to the vision and goals of the community to ensure that a desirable direction for
change and policies and activities for the direction can be identified;

0 Redistribution of Community Resources: Sustainability indicators should measure
redistribution of community resources to ensure that development can give benefits to all

members of the community;

66

0 Broad-Based Participation: Indicator development should include all key stakeholders in
the process to ensure that indicators represent the vision and goals of the entire
community;

0 Understandability and Effective Communication: Indicators should be clearly defined and
easy to understand and require effective means to communicate with all community
members; and

0 Community Capacity for Ongoing Assessment: Community’s sustainability should be
assessed over time and thus the process requires the organizational and financial capacity

for the ongoing assessment.

This study also attempts to apply sustainability indicator exercises to the community
development planning process. The study outlines a planning framework for sustainable
community development from the experiences of three cases. The framework incorporates the
processes and principles of indicator development identified in formulation of policies and
strategies for sustainable communities. The framework consists of six steps, which are

following:

0 Setting the community vision and goals for the future;

0 Developing measurable standards;

0 Measuring community performance towards the vision and goals;
0 Identifying issues and strategies towards the community’s goals;
0 Implementing strategies; and

0 Evaluating indicator performance.

The sustainable community is not a fixed reality but requires ongoing efforts to achieve

sustainability. Sustainability indicators can help the community measure its progress and set

67

specific targets and activities for the future. The study concludes that sustainability indicators

can provide a useful framework for the community development process.

68

Bibliography
Beatley, Timothy and Manning, Kristy. 1997. The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment,
Economy, and Community. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Bossel, Hartmut. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications.
Manitoba, Canada: The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Community Sustainable Resource Institute and Concern, Inc. 1998. Sustainability in Action: Profiles
of Community Initiatives Across the United States. Revised/Updated edition: June 1998.

Pinfield, Graham. 1997. “A Sustainability Indicators: A New Tool for Evaluation.” in. Evaluating
Local Environmental Policy. ed. Stuart M. Farthing. England: Ashigate Publishing Co.

Hart, Maureen. 1999. Guide to Sustainability Community Indicators. Second ed. North Andover.
MA/Hart Environment Data.

Haughton, Graham and Hunter, Colin. 1994. Sustainable Cities. Bristol. PA: Jessica Kingsley
Publishes.

Hoff, Marie D. ed. 1998. Sustainable Community Development: Studies in Economic,
Environmental, and Cultural Revitalization. Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers.

The Institute for Sustainable Development, 1999, Sustainable Indicators: A Review of National
Methods and Suggestions for Long Island. [On Line] Available: http://www.liunet.edu/sustain/
si04e.html [28 August 2000]

The lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development. 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development:
Principles in Practice. Manitoba, Canada: The lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development.

Jacksonville Community Council Inc. 1999. Quality of Life in Jacksonville: Indicators for Progress.
[On Line]. Available: http://www.icci.org/qo_l [28 August 2000]

Maclaren, Virginia W. 1996. Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning
Association. 62(2): 184-202.

National Commission on the Environment. 1993. Choosing a Sustainable Future: The Report of the
National Commission on the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

69

Oregon Progress Board. June 1999. A Brief History of the Oregon Progress Board. Salem, Oregon:
Oregon Progress Board.

Oregon Progress Board. March 1999. Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: the 1999 Benchmark
Performance Vision Highlights. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Progress Board.

Oregon Progress Board. 1997. Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon is Strategic Plan. Salem, Oregon:
Oregon Progress Board.

Selman, Paul. 1996. Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places. New
York, N .Y.: St. Martin’s Press.

Sustainable Seattle. 1999. Paper. A History of Sustainable Seattle: The Indicators of Sustainable
Community. Seattle, Washington: Sustainable Seattle.

Sustainable Seattle. 1995. Sustainable Seattle Indicators of Sustainable Community: A Status Report
on Long Term Cultural, Economic, and Environmental Health. Seattle, Washington: Sustainable Seattle.

Sustainable Seattle. 1993. Sustainable Seattle Indicators of Sustainable Community: A Report to
Citizens on Long Term trends in Iheir‘ Community. Seattle, Washington: Sustainable Seattle.

United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED). 1992. Agenda 21. New
York: UNCED.

Wilson, ED. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

World Resources Institute. 1994. World resources I994-95. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zachary. 1995. Sustainability Community Indicators: Guideposts for Local Planning. Santa
Barbara, CA: The Community Environmental Council, Inc.

70

Appendix 1. Jacksonville’s Indicators for Progress

 

Areas

Indicators

 

Education

Public high-school graduation rate

 

Average of median achievement-test percentile scores in public schools

 

Public-school educational expenditures per student

 

Average public-school salary

 

Percentage of public-school teachers holding advanced degrees

 

Percentage of public-students attending desegregated schools

 

Percentage of higher-education faculty holding terminal degrees

 

Higher-education degrees awarded

 

Total student participation in credit/noncredit higher-education programs

 

Economy

Net job growth

 

Gap between total and black unemployment

 

Effective buying income per capita

 

Retail sales per capita

 

Total taxable value of real estate

 

New housing starts

 

Affordability of a single-family home

 

Percentage of public-school students participating in the free or reduced-cost lunch
program

 

Tourism as measured by Bed-Tax revenues

 

Cost of 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity

 

Public Safety

Percentage of people surveyed who report feeling safe walking alone at night in their
neighborhood (telephone poll)

 

Index crimes per 100,000 population

 

Percentage of people surveyed who report having been victims of a crime within the last
ear (telephone poll) -

 

Average rescue call response time

 

Average fire call response time

 

Average Priority-One police call response time

 

Residents deaths from accidents or poisoning per 100,00030pulati0n

 

Motor vehicle accidents per 1,000 population

 

Natural
Environment

Number of days that the Air Quality Index is in the Good range

 

Frequency of compliance in the St. Johns River and mounths of major tributaries with
water standards for metals

 

Frequency of compliance in the St. Johns River and tributary streams with water
standards for dissolved oxygen

 

Water level in Floridan-Aquifer wells monitored by the Ciy

 

Average potable City water consumption per household account

 

New septic-tank permits issued

 

Sign permits issued

 

Per-capita tons of solid waste deposited in City landfills

 

 

Health

Residents infant deaths per 1,000 live births

 

Age-adjusted resident deaths per 100,000 population

 

Resident deaths due to heart disease per 100,000 population

 

Resident deaths due to lung cancer per 100,000 population

 

 

 

Packs of cigarettes sold per capita

 

71

 

Total newly diagnosed cases of AIDS per 100,000 population

 

Alcohol use reported by youth

 

Percentage of people surveyed who rate the health and medical—care system “good” or
“excellent” (telephone poll)

 

Percentage of people surveyed who report having no health insurance (telephone poll)

 

Social
Environment

Percentage of people surveyed who report that they believe racism to be a local problem
(telephone poll)

 

Substance-exposed newborns per 1,000 live births

 

Substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect per 1,000 children under 18

 

Resident live births to females under 18 per 1,000 live births

 

Employment-discrimination complaints filed with the Jacksonville Equal Opportunity
Commission

 

Percentage of people surveyed who report having volunteered time in the community
during the past year (telephone poll)

 

Govemment/
Politics

Percentage of people surveyed who rate the quality of local-govemment leadership
“ ood” or “excellent” (telephone poll)

 

Percentage of population 18 and over registered to vote

 

Percentage of registered voters who vote in scheduled general elections

 

Percentage of elected officials who are people of color,
Percentage of elected officials who are female

 

Percentage of people surveyed who can name two current City Council members
(telephone poll)

 

Percentage of people surveyed who report keeping up with local government news
“frequently” (telephone poll)

 

Percentage of people surveyed who feel that local public services are effectively
provided “frequently” (telephone poll)

 

Culture!
Recreation

City financial support per capita of arts organizations

 

City parks and recreation operating expenditures per capita

 

Public park acreage per 1,000 population

 

Public library materials per capita

 

Public library book circulation per capita

 

Total event/days of bookings at major City facilities

 

Symphony attendance per 1,000 population

 

Zoo attendance per 1,000 population

 

 

Mobility

Percentage of working people surveyed who report commuting times of 25 minutes or
less (telephone poll)

 

Total weekday commercial flights in and out of the Jacksonville lntemational Airport

 

Destinations served by direct flights to and from the Jacksonville lntemational Airport

 

Average weekdays ridership per 1,000 population on Jacksonville Transportation
Authority buses

 

Average weekdays miles of Jacksonville Transportation Authority bus service

 

 

Percentage of JTA bus headways within 30 minutes during peak hours and 60 nrinutes
during nonpeak hours

 

 

Source: Jacksonville Community Council Inc. 1999.

72

Appendix 2. Sustainable Seattle Indicators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area Indicators
Environment Wild salmon runs through local streams
Specific area/ecosystem health
Biodiversigl
Soil erosion
Number of good air quality days per year
Percentage of Seattle streets meeting “Pedestrian-Friendly” criteria
(ken space in urban villages ‘
Irnpervious surfaces
Population Total population of King County
And Gallons of water consumed per capita in King County
Resources Tons of solid waste generated and recycled per capita per year in King County
Pollution prevention and renewable resource use
Farm acreage
Vehicle miles traveled per capita and gasoline consumptionper capita
Renewable and nonrenewable energy (in BTUs) consumed per capita
Economy Percentage of employment concentrated in the top ten employers
Real unemployment
Distribution of personal income
Per capita health care expenditures
Hours of paid work at the average wage required to support basic needs
Housing affordability for median- and low-income households
Percentage of children living in poverty
Emergency room use for non-emergency purposes
Community capital
Youth Adult literacy rate
and High school graduation
Education Ethnic diversity of teachers
Arts instruction
Volunteer involvement in schools
Juvenile crime rate
Youth involvement in community services
Health EquitLandjustice
and Percentage of infants born with low birth weight
Community Asthma hospitalization rate for children

 

Percentage of population voting in odd-year (local) primary elections

 

Library and community center usage rates

 

Public participation in arts

 

Gardening

 

Neighborliness in King County

 

 

Perceived quality of life

 

 

Source: Sustainable Seattle. 1995.

73

Appendix 3. Key Benchmarks in Oregon Shines II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area Key Benchmarks
Economy Employment Dispersion (Percentage of Oregonians employed outside the Mllamette
(20) Valley and the Portland tri-county area)
Percentage of professional services exported (imported) relative to Oregon’s indusz
demand
Oregon’s national rank in new companies
Industry research and development expenditures as a percentaggcgt‘ gross state product
Per capita personal income as a percentage of the US. per capita income
Education Percentage of children entering school ready-to-leam
(12) High School dropout rates
Percentage of 8th graders who achieve establishing skill levels (ReadinggMath)
Percentage of Oregon adults (25+) who have completed a college degree
Percentage of all adult Oregonians with intermediate literacy skills (Prose, Document,
grantitative)
Civic Engage- Percentage of Oregonians who volunteer at least 50 hours of their time per year to
ment (10) civic, community, or nonprofit activities
Social Support Pregnancy rate per 1,000 females age 10—17
(21) Percentage of 8th grade students who report using alcohol in the previous month, illicit
drugs in the previous month, and cigarettes in the previous month
Number of children abused or neglected per 1,000Jersons under 1 8
Percentage of Oregonians with incomes below 100% of the Federal mverty level
Percentage of Oregonians without health insurance
Public Safety Overall reported crimes per 1,000 Oregonians
(6) Total Juvenile arrests per 1,000 juvenile Oregonians peLyem
Community Percentage of miles of limited-access highways in urban areas that are congested
Development during peak hours
(9) Percentage of low income households spending more than 30 percent of their
household income on housing (including utilities)
Environment Percentage of Oregonians living where the air meets government ambient air quality
(14) standards

 

Percentage of Oregon wetlands in 1990 still preserved as wetlands

 

Percentage of Oregon agricultural land in 1970 still preserved for agricultural use

 

Percentage of Oregon forest land in 1970 still preserved for forest use

 

 

Percentage of wild salmon and steelhead populations in key sub-basins that are at
target levels

 

Source: Oregon Progress Board. March 1999

74

 

Appendix 4. The Bellagio Principles for Assessment

 

 

Guiding Vision and Goals

be guided by a clear vision of sustainable deve10pment and goals that define that vision

Holistic Perspective

Include review of the whole system as well as its parts

consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-systems, their state as well as the
direction and rate of change of that state, of their component parts, and the interaction between
parts

consider both positive and negative consequences of human activity, in a way that reflects the

costs and benefits for human and ecological systems, in monetary and non- monetary terms

Essential Elements

consider equity and disparity within the current population and between present and future
generations, dealing with such concerns as resource use, over-consumption and poverty, human
rights, and access to services, as appropriate

consider the ecological conditions on which life depends

consider economic development and other, non-market activities that contribute to human/social

well-being

Adequate Scope

adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time scales thus
responding to needs of future generations as well as those current to short term decision-making
define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also long distance impacts on
people and ecosystems

build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions-where we want to go,

where we could go

Practical Focus

An explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision and goals to indicators
and assessment criteria

A limited number of key issues for analysis

A limited number of indicators or indicator combinations to provide a clearer signal of progress
Standardizing measurement wherever possible to permit comparison

Comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction of trends,

as appropriate

 

75

 

 

 

6. Openness
0 make the methods and data that are used accessible to all

0 make explicit all judgements, assumptions, and uncertainties in data and interpretations
7. Effective Communication
0 be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users
0 draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decision-makers
o aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear and plain language
8. Broad Participation
0 obtain broad representation of key grass—roots, professional, technical and social groups,
including youth, women, and indigenous people-to ensure recognition of diverse and changing

values

0 ensure the participation of decision-makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and resulting

action
9. Ongoing Assessment
0 develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends

0 be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems are complex and

change frequently
- adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained

0 promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision—making

10. Institutional Capacity
0 clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in the decision-making process

0 providing institutional capacity for data collection, maintenance, and documentation

0 supporting development of local assessment capacity

 

Source: The lntemational Institute for Sustainable Development, 1997

76

 

 

2625 5004

’ ‘1 k.‘___-._.’ “T 44 A

1.- m.

 

 

1"- -42.. ‘4‘ ‘.“_‘- m 2;.