Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators

Azniv Petrosyan

  Open Access OPEN ACCESS  Peer Reviewed PEER-REVIEWED

Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators

Azniv Petrosyan

Department of Geography & Regional Planning, School of Rural & Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Irron Polytechniou Str., Zographou Campus, Athens, Greece

Abstract

The contemporary manuscript proposes eight (8) procedures to prescribe concepts and define ways to composite progressive indicators (CPI). Composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) is processed using proper defined indicators as per apt methods. The emphasis is on CPI to express its unification with CASP. Huge range of authors papers is contributed to obtain and estimate the best procedures guiding CPI to progressive economy. The imposed conceptions of CPI are aspects, goals, criteria, categorization and principles with pressure-state-response (PSR) framework. The characterized means to compulsory CPI are design process, framework model and top-down and bottom-up approaches to assess CASP.

At a glance: Figures

Cite this article:

  • Petrosyan, Azniv. "Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators." International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management 3.2 (2015): 104-109.
  • Petrosyan, A. (2015). Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators. International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management, 3(2), 104-109.
  • Petrosyan, Azniv. "Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators." International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management 3, no. 2 (2015): 104-109.

Import into BibTeX Import into EndNote Import into RefMan Import into RefWorks

1. Introduction

Seeing its commence in the World Conservation Strategy [1], sustainable development is progressively augmented status in presuming, writing and debating since 1990s [2]. Sustainability appears when the present requirements are in control to cover the aptitude of prospect generations and convene their own requests [3]. Sustainable development is aspiring human-centeredness to progress the worth of humanity and respecting nature’s aptitude to supply resources and services for life-sustenance. In this stance, sustainable development represents progressing the significance of human life while surviving within the carrying capacity of sustaining ecosystems [4].

Previous attitudes cope with sustainability having rather contradictory accents on these assorted requests [5, 7, 8], which in turn guide to disparities in types of indicators used to compute the achievements of these sustainability labours. Indicators can be more valuable systematic apparatus than obtainable records, helping in appraisals of tendencies, assisting knowledgeable perseverations, realizing motivations of statistics and supplying inputs into policy procedures [9]. Indicators facilitate communities recognizing imperative exchanges in decision making that have effects on sustainable development in the way to composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) [10].

An attractive proceeding is proposed in the composite appraisal of supportive progress to the management of indicators through several steps as: aspects, goals, criteria, categories as per principles, design process, framework model, top-down & bottom-up approaches, Pressure-State-Response (PSR) frameworks and composite indicators.

2. Review of Sustainability Indicators' Procedures

Eight (8) procedures of sustainability indicators are presented in Table 1 & Table 2. These steps are used to support in policy making, guiding CASP metrics and pursuing sustainable development [12]. More specifically, some descriptions of these indicators procedures are existing in Section 3.

The main purpose of this article is to retrieve proposals, based on authors’ review of eight chosen procedures, which have been chosen on the subsequent basis:

1. Hundreds of articles with the keywords of sustainable development indicators and sustainability indicators are counted;

2. A table of authors and indicators acts is created;

3. The most repeated steps on indicators are chosen;

4. Indicators including “sustainability” are selected;

5. A table of eight (8) approaches (Table 1 & Table 2) is constructed as per the aforementioned works.

Table 1. Eight Procedures Defining Composite Indicators

The attention is given to eight (8) procedures, which play an important role to the sustainable development and guide to the appraisal of composite indicator. The details of indicators' procedures are in process to support their roles in the progressive economy [12].

3. Discussions on Sustainability Indicators

3.1. Aspects and Goals
3.1.1. Aspects

A wide quantity of reports specify an indicator as [24]:

•  A proxy; A sign;

•  A parameter; A variable;

•  A measuring instrument; A fraction; A counting measure; A value; A measure;

•  An index; An empirical model; A meter.


3.1.2. Goals

Three (3) aspirations of the decision-making procedures are raised as [14, 15, 16]:

(1) Managing the identification of ecology, economy and society towards sustainable future progress, i.e. what are the reasons?

(2) Describing ways to assess the sustainability procedures, i.e. what are the determination spaces?

(3) Retrieving strategies for the management enhancements expected by progressive economy, i.e. how goals can be determined?

3.2. Criteria

Many supplementary prescripts are produced to make steady on values of selected countable as [51-56][51]:

(1) Responsive;

(2) Asserting;

(3) Imprecise;

(4) Strong;

(5) Revising;

(6) Countable;

(7) Interpretable.

3.3. Categorization and Principles

European specified indicators are accompanied as [61]:

•  Shaping biodiversity components states;

•  Promoting proper use;

•  Conserving biodiversity;

•  Integrating ecosystems, goods and services;

•  Shepherding resource use;

•  Serving in the programs.

Four (4) progressively required principles are as [65]:

(1) Natural world is the topic to systematic augmenting compressions of substances excerpted from the Earth’s crust in the sustainable society.

(2) Compressions of stuffs are generated by society.

(3) Nature are preserved by society.

(4) Human requests are met globularly in a sustainable society.

Pathways of the indicators are processed per three (3) types [66, 67]:

(1) Augmenting perceptive as practices;

(2) Communicating decision-making as prospect persistence;

(3) Gouging progress toward known targets as environmental consistencies.

3.4. Design Process

An overall process for generating the set of indicators is regarded towards the progressive economy as [73]:

•  Beginning the participant designation stage;

•  Carrying on imaging;

•  Categorizing a correct framework;

•  Assigning the progressive characteristics;

•  Reporting an iterative series of ways for the prospect generation;

•  Assorting the apposite indicators;

•  Estimating selected indicators.

3.5. Framework Model

A progressive indicator system encompasses the categorization of strategy views, frameworks, shapes, criteria, indicators and objectives. The conceptive model shows the central procedure stressing on the progressive indicator systems. The current approach is on the peer-reviewed papers; on the worthy support from the indicator patterns; on the producing message of the indicators; on the improving decision making proceedings [76, 77].

The indicators persist recognizable, protected and lawful guaranteeing the connectedness of the sustainability progress and determining three (3) requirements [78, 79]:

•  Acquiring understandable and easy frameworks;

•  Purveying the advantages from the indicators within the process;

•  Generating an access to many known indicators.

3.6. Top-Down & Bottom-Up Approaches

Two (2) procedural approaches of sustainability approximation carry four (4) basic steps of the Blue Print report [86, 87]. Additionally, the connections of the top-down (↓) and bottom-up (↑) approaches in the integrative percept of the progressive economy [88].

3.7. Pressure State Response (PSR) Framework

Indicators are in an pertinent framework with the growth of their usefulness [44]. A driving force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) indicator framework is an ascendant framework for setting systems of the progressive indicators [89, 90, 91, 92, 93]. The framework presumes cause–effect connection between conspiring elements of society, economic and environmental systems [94]. Five (5) types of indicators are as [42]:

(1) Driving force indicators concerning to human activities, procedures and prototypes as an impact on the sustainable development.

(2) Pressure indicators concerning to human activities as a direct result on the characteristic matter.

(3) State indicators representing the noteworthy variations as a result of the earlier exposed pressures.

(4) Impact indicators awarding the ensue of the impact on the people, economy and ecosystems.

(5) Response indicators expressing the acts engrossed by the society in the response to the variations in the SD state.

The present book accents on the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) methodology is generated [95] and further proposed by [17, 86, 96, 97, 99, 100] to assort the indicators according to the “stress – response” exemplary.

3.8. Composite Composition

Progression of sustainable development references on system engaging five (5) steps [101]:

(1) Associating the scope of the progressively referenced system;

(2) Generating a framework to compromise on the system components;

(3) Destining criterion, principles, latent indicators and reference values;

(4) Assigning the group of indicators and reference values;

(5) Determining the ways of aggregations and images.

Composite indicators are as the stitchery of diverse indicators under sensory and preset methodology [102].

4. Results

An interesting approach is provided to demonstrate eight (8) procedures designing progressive indicators. Number of papers are counted to reveal the authors' contribution to each metric as accessible in Table 2 and Figure 1.

Table 2. Counted authors papers contributions per each procedure

Figure 1. Eight (8) procedures designing progressive indicators

Eight (8) procedures are illustrated in Figure 2 increasing in the numbers per authors papers and emphasizing on the composite progressive indicators (CPI).

Figure 2. Increasing order of prescribed eight (8) procedures

CPI is in the middle of two (2) ways while describing and defining indicators such as:

(1) Prescription of aspects per their goals, categorization per their principles and criteria (Figure 3);

(2) Identification of framework model, design process and top-down and bottom-up approaches (Figure 4).

Only Pressure–State–Response Framework belong to high rate presentation of first group. The main purpose of PSR is the categorization of prescribed indicators [95]. The key concept of PSR being a part of first group is because of its categorization.

5. Actualization

As CPI is exactly situated on the borders of two (2) methods, CPI is considered to be the key concept of the current paper. The intention of CPI is on the path to progress composite indicators. An approach is given to describe indicators (Figure 3) as:

α. Representation of more ten authors papers per each indicator procedure;

β. Illustration of data impacts per each indicator procedure;

γ. Approval of major impacts of authors active papers as higher products in categorized indicator procedures;

δ. Depiction of each preferred indicator procedures as being more progressive;

ε. Realization of manuscript approving path to progress indicator procedures [12].

Figure 3. Five (5) procedures designing aspects of indicators

Another approach is provided to define ways of indicators representation (Figure 4) as:

α. Representation of up ten authors papers per each indicator procedure;

β. Illustration of methodological impacts per each indicator procedure;

γ. Approval of minor impacts of authors active papers as higher products in categorized indicator procedures;

δ. Depiction of each preferred indicator procedures as being more progressive;

ε. Addition of CPI as a step combining ways of progressive indicators procedures [12].

Figure 4. Four procedures designing approaches of indicators

CPI is defined as an aggregation of different indicators as per Figure 3 with a well-progressed methodology as per Figure 4 [102].

6. Conclusion

An interesting approach is provided as the premium supervision of indicators through several steps, the strong emphasis on sustainable development and the composite appraisal of supportive progress as:

(1) Creating aspects for generation of initialized data;

(2) Defining goals for utilization of created aspects;

(3) Prescribing criteria for defined goals;

(4) bCategorizing though principles the prescribed criteria;

(5) Designing the process in the categorized principles;

(6) Modelling the framework in the designed process;

(7) Applying top-down and bottom-up approaches in the modelled frameworks;

(8) Using pressure-state-response (PSR) frameworks in the applied approaches;

(9) Constructing the composite indicators in the appraisals of supportive progresses.

CPI is identified as an assortment of diverse indicators as per Figure 3 by ways of a well-progressed methodology as per Figure 4 [102].

CPI is the construction of described aspects and defined ways of indicators procedures such as:

•  Prescription of aspects per their goals, categorization per their principles and criteria (Figure 3);

•  Identification of framework model, design process and top-down and bottom-up approaches (Figure 4).

The current paper heightens on the significance of CPI escorting indicators and appraising supportive progress [12]. CPI progression requires the subsequent steps:

α. Preparation of features:

•  Aspects;

•  Goals;

•  Criteria;

•  Categories;

•  Principles;

•  PSR;

β. Identification of ways:

•  Design Process;

•  Framework Model;

•  Top-Down and Bottom Up Approaches.

Composite progressive indicators are projected to be the core of the present paper guiding the sustainable development in the way of the composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) according to eight (8) approved procedures [12].

References

[1]  IUCN-International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland, 1980.
In article      
 
[2]  Clement, K., Economic Development and Environmental Gain, Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, 2000, 192pp.
In article      
 
[3]  WCED-World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, Chair: Gro Harlem Brundtland. Oxford University Press, 1987.
In article      
 
[4]  Reed, D., Structural adjustment, the environment and sustainable development, Earthscan, London, 1996.
In article      
 
[5]  Pearce, D. W., Turner, R. K., Economics of natural resources and the environment, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
In article      
 
[6]  Pezzoli, K., “Sustainable development: a trans-disciplinary overview of the literature”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40 (5), 549-574, 1997.
In article      CrossRef
 
[7]  Rees, W.E., “Consuming the Earth: the biophysics of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 29, 23-27, 1999.
In article      CrossRef
 
[8]  Sachs, W., Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and Development, Zed Books, London, 1999.
In article      
 
[9]  Segnestam, L., “Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development, Theories and Practical Examples”, World Bank Environment Group, Environmental Economics Paper No. 89, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2002
In article      PubMed
 
[10]  Olewiler, N., “Environmental sustainability for urban areas: The role of natural capital indicators”, Cities, 23 (3), 184-195, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[11]  Petrosyan, A. F., Karathanassi, V., “Review Article of Landscape Metrics based on Remote Sensing Data”, Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 5 (11), 1542-1560, 2011.
In article      
 
[12]  Petrosyan, A. F., “A Model for Incorporated Measurement of Sustainable Development Comprising Remote Sensing Data and Using the Concept of Biodiversity”, Journal of Sustainable Development, 3 (2), 9-26. 2010
In article      CrossRef
 
[13]  Spangenberg, J.H., Lorek, S., “Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action”, Ecological Economics, 43 (2-3), 127-140, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[14]  Varma, V.K., Ferguson, I., Wild, I., “Decision support system for the sustainable forest management” Forest Ecology and Management, 128 (1-2), 49-55, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[15]  Bell, S., Morse, S., “Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a Blue Plan project in Malta”, Sustainable Development, 12 (1), 1-14, 2004.
In article      CrossRef
 
[16]  Simianer, H., “Decision making in livestock conservation”, Ecological Economics, 53, 559-572, 2005.
In article      CrossRef
 
[17]  Finco, A., Nijkamp, P., “Pathways to urban sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3 (4), 289-302, 2001.
In article      CrossRef
 
[18]  Atkinson, G., Hamilton, K., “Accounting for progress: indicators for sustainable development”, Environment, 38 (7), 16-20, 1996.
In article      CrossRef
 
[19]  Mickwitz, P., Melanen, M., Rosenstrom, U., Seppala, J., “Regional eco-efficiency indicators – a participatory approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (18), 1603-1611, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[20]  McAlpine, P., Birnie, A., “Establishing sustainability indicators as an evolving process: experience from the island of Guernsey”, Sustainable Development, 14 (2), 81-92, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[21]  Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas, J.M., Subirats, A., Ibáñez, S., Alvarez, P., “Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50 (12), 1649-1660, 2005
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[22]  Connolly, J., Goma, H.C., Rahim, K., “The information content of indicators in intercropping research”, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87 (2), 191-207, 2001.
In article      CrossRef
 
[23]  Gallopin, G., “Indicators and their use: information for decision making”, In: Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.), Sustainability Indicators, Report on the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, Wiley, Chicheste. 1997
In article      
 
[24]  Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T., Burton, M., “Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice”, Ecological Economics, 39 (3), 463-478, 2001.
In article      CrossRef
 
[25]  Pagina, W., Measurement and indicators for sustainable development, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000.
In article      
 
[26]  Parsons, W., “Not just steering but weaving: relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43-57, 2004.
In article      CrossRef
 
[27]  Lehtonen, M., “Mainstreaming sustainable development in the OECD through indicators and peer reviews”, Sustainable Development, 16(4), 241-250, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[28]  Brodhag, C., “Information, governance et development durable”, International Political Science Review, 21, 311-327, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[29]  Paehlke, R., “Environmental politics, sustainability and social science”, Environmental Politics, 10, 1-22, 2001.
In article      CrossRef
 
[30]  OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Better understanding our cities: the role of urban indicators, Paris: OECD Publications, 1997
In article      
 
[31]  Liu, W. H., Ou, C. H., A comparative analysis of sustainable fishery development indicator systems in Australia and Canada, Sustainable Development, 15 (1), 28-40, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[32]  Smith, S. L., “Devising Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators for Canada”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (3), 305-310, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[33]  Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., Wrbka, T., “Land use and sustainability indicators: an introduction”, Land Use Policy, 21 (3), 193-198, 2004.
In article      CrossRef
 
[34]  Moles, R., Foley, W., Morrissey, J., O'Regan, B., “Practical appraisal of sustainable development—Methodologies for sustainability measurement at settlement level”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2-3), 144-165, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[35]  Merkle, A., Kaupenjohann, M., “Derivation of ecosystemic effect indicators—method”, Ecological Modeling, 130, 39-46, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[36]  Diamantini, C., Zanon, B., “Planning the urban sustainable development The case of the plan for the province of Trento, Italy”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 (3), 299-310, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[37]  Repetti, A., Desthieux, G., “A Relational Indicator set Model for urban land-use planning and management: Methodological approach and application in two case studies”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 77 (1-2), 196-215, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[38]  OECD-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, 2001.
In article      
 
[39]  Jung, W., “Sustainable development in industrial countries: environmental indicators and targets as core elements of national action plans - the German case”, Sustainable Development, 5 (3), 139-147, 1997.
In article      CrossRef
 
[40]  Pastilles Consortium, Indicators into Action, A Practitioners Guide for Improving Their Use at the Local Level, London School of Economics, London, 2002.
In article      
 
[41]  Azapagic, A., “Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 639-662, 2004.
In article      CrossRef
 
[42]  Amajirionwu, M., Connaughton, N., McCann, B., Moles, R., Bartlett, J., O’Regan, B., “Indicators for managing biosolids in Ireland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 88 (4), 1361-1372, 2008.
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[43]  Balkema, A. J, Preisig, H. A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F. J. D., “Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems”, Urban Water, 4, 153-161, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[44]  IISD-International Institute for Sustainable Development, City of Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators, 1997, [Online]. Available: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/wpg.qoli.pdfS, accessed on 9/11/02.
In article      
 
[45]  Gustavson, K., Longeran, S., Ruitenbeek, H. J., “Selection and modeling of sustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia”, Ecological Economics, 28, 117-132, 1999.
In article      CrossRef
 
[46]  Jollands, N., Harmsworth, G., “Participation of indigenous groups in sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand”, Ecological Economics, 62 (3-4), 716-726, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[47]  Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991.
In article      CrossRef
 
[48]  Peterson, P. J., “Sustainable development indicators for rapidly industrializing countries”, In: Management Response Strategies, vol. 1. Penerbit UKM, Kuala Lumpur, 1997.
In article      PubMed
 
[49]  Tate, J., “Void dwellings - a “headline” indicator?”, Sustainable Development, 10 (1), 36-50, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[50]  Ekins, P., Dresner, S., Dahlstrom, K., “The four-capital method of sustainable development evaluation”, European Environment, 18 (2), 63-80, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[51]  De Kruijf, H.A.M., Van Vuuren, D. P., “Following Sustainable Development in Relation to the North–South Dialogue: Ecosystem Health and Sustainability Indicators”, Eco-toxicology and Environmental Safety, 40 (1-2), 4-14.
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[52]  Ravetz, J., “Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 (1), 31-64, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[53]  Spangenberg, J.H, Pfahl, S., Deller, K., “Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21”, Ecological Indicators, 2 (1-2), 61-77, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[54]  Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Impacts and Conservation Actions, 2002.
In article      
 
[55]  Yuan, W., and James, P., “Evolution of the Shanghai city region 1978-1998: an analysis of indicators”, Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 299-309, 2002.
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[56]  Ledoux, L., Mertens, R., Wolff, P., “EU sustainable development indicators: An overview”. Natural Resources Forum, 29 (4), 392-403, 2005.
In article      CrossRef
 
[57]  Braat, L., “The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators”, In: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991, 57-70.
In article      CrossRef
 
[58]  Huang, S. L., Wong, J. H., Chen, T. C., “A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei's urban sustainability”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 42 (1), 15-27, 1998.
In article      CrossRef
 
[59]  Tils, R., “The German sustainable development strategy: facing policy, management and political strategy assessments”, European Environment, 17 (3), 164-176, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[60]  Patlitzianas, K.D., Doukas, H., Kagiannas, A.G., Psarras, J., “Sustainable energy policy indicators: Review and recommendations”, Renewable Energy, 33 (5), 966-973, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[61]  UK Biodiversity Partnership. Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2007, National Statistics, 2007.
In article      
 
[62]  Pittman, J. Wilhelm, K., “New economic and financial indicators of sustainability”, New Directions for Institutional Research, 134, 55-69, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[63]  Devkota, S. R., “Is strong sustainability operational? An example from Nepal”, Sustainable Development, 13 (5), 297-310, 2005.
In article      CrossRef
 
[64]  Osinski, E., Meier, U., Buchs, W., Weickel, J., Matzdorf, B., “Application of biotic indicators for evaluation of sustainable land use—current procedures and future developments”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98 (1-3), 407-421, 2003.
In article      CrossRef
 
[65]  Korhonen, J., “Special issue of the Journal of Cleaner Production, ‘From Material Flow Analysis to Material Flow Management’: strategic sustainability management on a principle level” Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (17), 1585-1595, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[66]  Zahm, F., Viaux, P., Vilain, L., Girardin, P., Mouchet, C. “Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method - from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 271-281, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[67]  Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., “Indicators of sustainable production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 9 (5), 447-452, 2001.
In article      CrossRef
 
[68]  Kates, R. W., “Sustainability 2001 Transition: Human–Environment Relationship”, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 15325-15329, 2004.
In article      
 
[69]  Lamberton, G., “Sustainability accounting—a brief history and conceptual framework”, Accounting Forum, 29 (1), 7-26, 2005.
In article      CrossRef
 
[70]  Palme, U., Tillman, A.-M., “Sustainable development indicators: how are they used in Swedish water utilities?” Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (13), 1346-1357, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[71]  Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., “Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78 (4), 243-261, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[72]  Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., van Erck., R. P. G., “Assessing the sustainability performances of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 13 (4), 373-385, 2005.
In article      CrossRef
 
[73]  Boyd, H., Charles, A., “Creating community-based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries”, Ocean & Coastal Management, 49 (5-6), 237-258, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[74]  Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S., “Identifying priorities for action in corporate sustainable development indicator programs”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 17 (2), 137-148, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[75]  Nijkamp, P., Vreeker, R., “Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: methodology and application to Thailand”, Ecological Economics, 33 (1), 7-27, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[76]  Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., Clift, R., Sustainable Development in Practice, Case Studies for Engineers, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2005, 446pp.
In article      
 
[77]  Potts, T., “A framework for the analysis of sustainability indicator systems in fisheries”, Ocean and Coastal Management, 49 (5-6), 259-280, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[78]  Hilden, M., Rosenstrom, U., “The use of indicators for sustainable development”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 237-240, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[79]  Morrone, M., Hawley, M., “Improving environmental indicators through involvement of experts, stakeholders, and the public”, Ohio Journal of Science, 98 (3), 52-58, 1998.
In article      
 
[80]  Brang, P., Courbaud, B., Fischer, A., Kissling-Naf, I., Pettenella, D., Schonenberger, W., Spork, J., Grimm, V., “Developing indicators for the sustainable management of mountain forests using a modeling approach”, Forest Policy and Economics, 4 (2), 113-123, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[81]  Malkina-Pykh, I. G., “Integrated assessment models and response function models: pros and cons for sustainable development indices design”, Ecological Indicators, 2 (1-2), 93-108, 2002.
In article      CrossRef
 
[82]  Rosenstrom, U., Kyllonen, S., “Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 84 (3), 282-298, 2007.
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[83]  Slee, B., “Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: The case of forestry in the UK”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120 (1), 31-40, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[84]  Macleod, C., Todnem, R., “Performance, conformance and change: towards a sustainable tourism strategy for Scotland”, Sustainable Development, 15 (6), 329-342, 2007.
In article      CrossRef
 
[85]  Bell, S., Morse, S., “Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects”, Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 37-51, 2005.
In article      CrossRefPubMed
 
[86]  Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., “An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities”, Ecological Economics, 59 (4), 406-418, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[87]  Blue Plan-Regional Activity Centre, The Blue Plan, “Cradle of Mediterranean Futures”. Strategic orientations. Draft. Sophia Antipolis, December, 2006.
In article      
 
[88]  Hartmuth, G., Huber, K., Rink, D., “Operationalization and contextualization of sustainability at the local level”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 261-270, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[89]  Turner, R. K., “Ecosystem Functions and the Implications for Environmental Evaluation: An Executive Summary”, Report to English Nature, Peterborough. 2000.
In article      
 
[90]  Bellini, G., “Agri-environmental Issues: Policies, Definition of Indicators Lists and Related Implementation Processes”, Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT), Working Paper No. 19, 2005.
In article      
 
[91]  EEA-European Environment Agency, “A Framework for Assessing Policy Integration”, IRENA Indicators, EEA Report, No.2, 2006.
In article      
 
[92]  Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., “Development of an indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study”, Sustainable Development 14 (5), 287-299, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[93]  Nuissl, H., Haase, D., Lanzendorf, M., Wittmer, H., “Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions— A context-sensitive approach”, Land Use Policy, 26, 414-424, 2009.
In article      CrossRef
 
[94]  Smeets, E., Weterings, R., “Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview”, Technical Report No. 25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 1999.
In article      
 
[95]  OECD-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, OECD Environment Monographs, 83, Paris, France, 1993
In article      
 
[96]  Keirstead, J., Leach, M., “Bridging the gaps between theory and practice: a service niche approach to urban sustainability indicators”, Sustainable Development, 16 (5), 329-340, 2008.
In article      CrossRef
 
[97]  Buchs, W., “Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture—introduction and background”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98 (1-3), 1-16, 2003.
In article      CrossRef
 
[98]  Wiggering, H., Dalchow, C., Glemnitz, M., Helming, K., Muller, K., Schultz, A., Stachow, U., Zander, P., “Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials”, Ecological Indicators, 6 (1), 238-249, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[99]  Crabtree, B., Bayfield, N., “Developing sustainability indicators for mountain ecosystems: a study of the Cairngorms, Scotland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 52 (1), 1-14, 1998.
In article      CrossRef
 
[100]  Huang, S. L., Yeh, C. T., Budd, W. W., Chen, L. L., “A Sensitivity Model (SM) approach to analyze urban development in Taiwan based on sustainability indicators”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29 (2), 116-125, 2009.
In article      CrossRef
 
[101]  Garcia, S. M., Staples, D. J., Chesson, J., “The FAO guidelines for the development and use of indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries and an Australian example of their application”, Ocean & Coastal Management, 43 (7), 537-556, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
[102]  Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., Woodward, R., Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development, Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1995.
In article      
 
[103]  Prescott-Allen, R., The wellbeing of nations: a country-by-country index of quality of life and the environment, Washington DC: Island Press, 2001.
In article      
 
[104]  Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., “A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43, 189-208, 2005a.
In article      CrossRef
 
[105]  Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., “How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 55, 551-563, 2005b.
In article      CrossRef
 
[106]  Tanzil, D., Beloff, B. R., “Assessing impacts: Overview on sustainability indicators and metrics”, Environmental Quality Management, 15 (4), 41-56, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[107]  Van Dijk, M.P., Mingshun, Z., “Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers, evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities”, Environmental Impact Assessment, 25, 667-688, 2006.
In article      CrossRef
 
[108]  Hardi, P., DeSouza-Huletey, J. A., “Issues in analyzing data and indicators for sustainable development”, Ecological Modeling, 130 (1-3), 59-65, 2000.
In article      CrossRef
 
  • CiteULikeCiteULike
  • MendeleyMendeley
  • StumbleUponStumbleUpon
  • Add to DeliciousDelicious
  • FacebookFacebook
  • TwitterTwitter
  • LinkedInLinkedIn