1.0 Introduction
The word for indicator in Arabic is pointer. Indicators
point to a desirable outcome, to 'which way is up' in the policy arena.
The different levels of data for policy purposes are shown in the Information
Pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are data, which unprocessed
are of little value for policy purposes. Once data are processed into statistics
or tables, they can be used in reports or as the basis for ad-hoc evaluations,
but still they are often difficult to understand or use for policy. Indicators
are statistics directed specifically towards policy concerns and which
point towards successful outcomes and conclusions for policy. They are
usually highly aggregated and have easily recognizable purposes. Classic
indicators include the unemployment rate or GDP growth, numbers which are
such powerful and recognizable indicators of performance that they may
cause governments to fall. At the highest level are indices, such
as the consumer price index or human development index, which combine different
indicators into a single number useful for comparison over time and space.
Measuring and monitoring environmental conditions has been a major concern
of Governments and international organisations during the 1990's. Some
of the main international initiatives have included the activities of UNSTAT/UNEP,
including the the State of the World Environment and Environmental Data
Report series (1994), the development of an Earthwatch database and the
beginnings of the development of a series of environmental indicators.
Other bodies such as OECD and WHO have been involved in the development
of a conceptual framework.
Growing realization of the failings of the conventional GNP and income as the primary indicators of economic progress has led to the development of alternative yardsticks. Two interesting recent efforts are the Human Development Index (HDI) devised by the United Nations Development Programme and the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) developed by economist Herman Daly and theologian John Cobb. A third indicator, per capita grain consumption, is a useful measure of changes in well-being in low-income countries, where the data needed to calculate the more sophisticated indices are typically not available on an annual basis.
The Human Development Index, measured on a scale of 0 to 1, is an aggregate of three indicators: longevity, knowledge, and the command over resources needed for a decent life. For longevity, the UN team uses life expectancy at birth. For knowledge, they use adult literacy and mean years of schooling. And for the command over resources, they use gross domestic product (GDP) per person after adjusting it for purchasing power. Because these indicators are national averages, they do not deal directly with inequalities in wealth distribution, but by including longevity and literacy they do reflect indirectly the distribution of resources. A high average life expectancy, for example, indicates broad access to health care and adequate supplies of food and safe drinking water.
A comparison of countries ranked by both per capita gross domestic product (adjusted for purchasing power) and HDI reveals some wide disparities. Costa Rica ranks 40th in the HDI, while South Africa, with an adjusted per capita GDP 27 percent higher than Costa Rica's, comes in at number 57. Despite their lower average purchasing power, Costa Ricans boast an adult literacy rate of 92 percent, compared with only 85 percent in South Africa, and at birth can expect to live 13 years longer than a newly born South African. Argentina, Chile, Poland, and Yugoslavia are among the other countries exhibiting high human development with comparatively modest per capita income.
The HDI is still evolving; indeed, the country rankings published in 1991 differ markedly in some cases from those in 1990, the first year of the index, because of refinements made by the UN team. As more data become available, the HDI will begin to capture other determinants of human development as well. For example, enough information already exists in 30 countries to include sex inequalities in the HDI. When this is done, top-ranked Japan drops to number 17, while Finland, where women have rights and economic opportunities comparable to men's, moves up from 13 to number 1. Similarly, an HDI sensitive to the distribution of income has been calculated for 53 countries that could provide the needed data; again, the rankings change when this important factor is included.
While the HDI represents a distinct improvement over income figures as a measure of human well-being, it so far says nothing about environmental degradation. As a result, the HDI can rise through gains in literacy, life expectancy, or purchasing power that are financed by the depletion of natural resources, setting the stage for a longer term deterioration in living conditions.
The Daly-Cobb Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive indicator of well-being, taking into account not only average consumption but also distribution and environmental degradation. To date, it has only been calculated for the United States. After adjusting the consumption component of the index for distributional inequality, the authors factor in several environmental measures, such as depletion of nonrenewable resources, loss of farmland from soil erosion and urbanisation, loss of wetlands, and the cost of air and water pollution. They also incorporate what they call "long-term environmental damage", a figure that attempts to take into account such large-scale changes as the effects of global warming and of damage to the ozone layer.
Applying this comprehensive measure shows a rise in welfare per person in the United States of some 42 percent between 1950 and 1976. But after that the ISEW began to decline, falling by just over 12 percent by 1988, the last year for which it was calculated. Simply put, about 15 years ago the net benefits associated with economic growth in the United States fell below the growth of population, leading to a decline in individual welfare.
The principal weakness of the ISEW is its dependence on information that is available in only a handful of nations. For example, few developing countries have comprehensive data on the extent of air and water pollution, not to mention measurements of year-to-year changes. The same drawback applies to the HDI, since life expectancy data depend heavily on infant mortality information that, astonishing as it may seem, is collected at best once a decade in most of the Third World.
Per capita grain consumption, however, is a useful measure of well-being in low-income countries that can be tracked on a yearly basis. This indicator captures the satisfaction of a basic human need, since people cannot survive if annual grain consumption falls much below 180 kilograms (about 1 pound a day) for an extended period. It is also less vulnerable to distortion by inequities of income and wealth. While the distribution of wealth between the richest and poorest one fifth of a population can be as great as 20 to 1, as indeed it is in Algeria, Brazil, and Mexico, per capita consumption of grain by these same groups will not vary by more than 4 to 1.
One drawback with this indicator is that it says nothing about how much of the grain consumed was produced unsustainably - by eroding soils, depleting water supplies, and the like. Another is that at some point, higher per capita grain consumption starts to imply a deterioration in human well-being rather than an improvement. Toward the top end of the scale people are consuming fat-rich livestock products known to increase heart disease and colon, breast, and other types of cancer, leading to an overall reduction in life expectancy. Per capita grain consumption is therefore best used as an indicator of well-being only in poorer countries.
The HDI is based on three indicators: longevity, as measured by life
expectancy at birth; educational attainment, as measured by a combination
of adult literacy (two-thirds weight) and combined primary, secondary and
tertiary enrolment ratios (one-third weight): and standard of living as
measured by real GDP per capita (PPP$).
For the construction of the index, fixed minimum and maximum values have
been established for each of these indicators:
For any component of the HDI, individual indices can be computed according
to the general formula:
Actual x1 value - minimum x1 value
Index = Maximum x1 value - maximum x1 value
If for example, the life expectancy at birth in a country is 65 years,
the index of life expectancy for this country would be:
65 - 25 40
Life expectancy index = 85 - 25 = 60 0.667
The construction of the income index is a little more complex. The average
world income of PPP$5.711 is taken as the threshold level (y*),
and any income above this level is discounted using the following formulation
based on Atkinson's formula for the utility of income:
W(y) = y* for 0 < y < y*
= y* + 2[(y . y*)1/2] for y*
< y < 2y*
= y* + 2 (y*1/2) + 3 [(y . 2y*)1/3]
for 2y* < y < 3y*
To calculate the discounted value of the maximum income of PPP$40.000,
the following form of Atkinson's formula is used:
W(y) = y* + 2(y*1/3) + 3(y*1/3) + 4(y*1/4)
+ 5(y*1/3)
+ 6(y*1/6) + 7(t*1/7) + 8[(40,000 . 7y*)1/8]
This is because PPP$40,000 is between 7y* and 8y*.
With the above formulation, the discounted value of the maximum income
of PPP$540,000 is PPP$6,040.
The construction of the HDI is illustrated with two examples - Greece,
an industrial country and Gabon, a developing country:
| Country |
Life expectancy (years) |
Adult literacy (% ) |
Combined enrolment ratio (%) |
Real GDP per capita (PPP$) |
| Greece |
77.7 |
93.8 |
78 |
8,950 |
| Gabon |
53.7 |
60.3 |
47 |
3,861 |
Life expectancy index:
77.7 - 25 52.7
Greece = 85 - 25 = 60 = 0.878
53.7 - 25 28.7
Gabon = 85 - 25 = 60 = 0.478
Adult literacy index:
93.8 - 0 93.8
Greece = 100 - 0 = 100 = 0.938
60.3 60.3
Gabon = 100 - 0 = 100 = 0.603
Combined primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment ratio index
18 - 0
Greece = 100 - 0 = 0.780
47 - 0
Gabon = 100 - 0 = 0.470
Educational attainment index
Greece = [2(0.938) + 1(0.780)] ¸ 3 = 0.885
Gabon = [2(0.603) + 1(0.470)] ¸ 3 = 0.558
Adjusted real GDP per capital (PPP$) index Greece's real GDP per capital
at PPP$8,950, is above but less than twice the threshold. thus, the adjusted
real GDP per capita for Greece would be PPP$5,825 because 5,825 = [5,711
+ 2(8.950 - 5,711)1/2]
Gabon's real GDP per capita, at PPP$3,861, is less than the threshold,
so it needs no adjustment.
The adjusted real GDP per capita (PPP$) index for Greece and Gabon would
be:
5,825 - 100 5,725
Greece = 6,040 - 100 = 5,940 = 0.964
3,861 - 100 3,761
Gabon = 6,040 - 100 = 5,940 = 0.633
Human development index
The HDI is a simple average of the life expectancy index, educational attainment
index and the adjusted real GDP per capita (PPP$) index. It is calculated
by dividing the sum of these three indices by 3. The HDI values for Greece
and Gabon are calculated using this formula:
| Country |
Life expectancy index |
Educational attainment index |
Adjusted real GDP per capita (PPP$) index |
S |
HDI |
| Greece |
0.878 |
0.885 |
0.964 |
2.727 |
0.909 |
| Gabon |
0.478 |
0.558 |
0.633 |
1.669 |
0.557 |
Refer to http://www.undp.org/undp/devwatch/indicatr.htm
The document below is an EXTRACT from a Report of the Department for
Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), United Nations
Division for Sustainable Development.
Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 calls for the development of indicators for
sustainable development. In particular, it requests countries at the national
level, and international governmental and non-governmental organisations
at the international level to develop the concept of indicators of sustainable
development in order to identify such indicators.
This issue was raised during the first two sessions of the Commission on
Sustainable Development (CSD), at which time a large number of countries
emphasized the urgent need for these indicators. Other countries expressed
some concern and insisted that indicators be developed in close contact
with Governments. Pursuant to the multi-year programme of work adopted
by the Commission at its first session, the progress achieved on developing
these indicators, in the context of Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, will be discussed
by the Commission during its third session.
The objective of this work programme is primarily to make the indicators
for sustainable development accessible to decision-makers at the national
level by defining them elucidating their methodologies and providing training
and other capacity-building activities, as relevant. Indicators, as used
in national policies, may also be used in the national reports to the CSD
and other intergovernmental bodies.
An increasing number of organisations has responded to the challenge
of Agenda 21 to develop indicators for sustainable development in the short-term.
Some of this work is being undertaken around specific issues, such as health
and the environment, or human settlements; others are attempting to define
a full set of indicators. Such redundancy and overlap has been extremely
valuable, since it has generated more creative thinking and a shared sense
of purpose. The role of the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable
development, as Task Manager of this issue, is now to coordinate the fruits
of this work, to underline areas of convergence, and to bring together
the many actors in a broad, cooperative programme that may directly serve
the needs of the Commission on Sustainable Development, as well as all
Member States. Much further work, primarily by the scientific community,
is needed in order to understand and explicate these interlinkages.
Economic indicators have ben used for many years at national, regional
and international levels. Social indicators have also been developed over
the past years and are widely used all over the world. It is feasible to
select among the economic and social indicators those which capture the
specific issues most relevant to sustainable development. Institutional
indicators related to Agenda 21 or sustainable development are largely
undeveloped and are at this stage limited to so-called yes/no indicators.
Environmental indicators have been developed more recently. For some of
the environmental aspects, data will not be easily available. Recent initiatives
include the environment statistics programme of the United Nations Statistical
Commission, environmental indicators being developed by UNEP, the UN system-wide
Earthwatch, the OECD, various relevant international legal instruments,
and so forth.
Based on relevant indicators that are available, it is proposed that the
Commission on Sustainable Development agree that work will proceed
on the basis of a core set of indicators, as contained in Table 1 (see
Indicator Template on main menu), with the understanding that this
is a flexible, working set of indicators that will be fine-tuned to the
needs of countries after further methodological work, testing and training.
It is further proposed that the Commission approve the work programme on
indicators for sustainable development, including the following elements:
(1) preparation of methodology sheets for distribution to governments;
(2) testing of the indicators, on a voluntary basis, in three to four countries
and their subsequent adaptation, as needed; (3) organisation of national
and regional training workshops and other capacity-building activities,
upon request; and (4) evaluation and readjustment of the indicators on
the basis of experience and further research as national and international
levels, including in the context of international legal instruments.
It is also proposed that the Commission of Sustainable Development encourage
continued cooperation with the work underway on environment indicators
under the auspices of the United Nations Statistical Commission.
Concurrently, work may proceed with developing highly aggregated indicators
for sustainable development. Although this represents a longer-term effort,
it is important for three reasons: it explores the relationship among the
variable, which lies at the heart of the linkages intrinsic to sustainable
development; it concentrates information collection and analysis and facilitates
presentation to decision-makers; and, it may serve as the basis of an early
warning systems, if desired.
A project is now being undertaken by the Scientific Committee on Problems
of the Environment (SCOPE), in cooperation with UNEP, aiming at developing
highly aggregated indicators for sustainable development. This initiative
is currently focusing on the environmental aspects of sustainability although
the project could be broadened to focus on other aspects of sustainable
development, as well.
A core set of indicators, as contained in Table 1 (see Indicator
Template on main menu) is proposed for monitoring progress at a national
level towards sustainable development through the implementation of Agenda
21. It is fully recognised that there is need for flexibility as the conditions,
activities and priorities for sustainable development differ from country
to country. At same time, the need for international comparability calls
for the development of standardised concepts, definitions and classifications
of indicators.
As mentioned, regional workshops and capacity-building programmes are needed
in order to facilitate the use of the core set of indicators at a national
level. Testing of the indicators in three to four countries could be used
to gain experience and further develop the indicators, and evaluation of
the use of the indicators at the national level, and national and international
developments, could be used to adjust the core set of indicators if necessary.
The indicators in the core set are presented in a Driving Force - State
- Response (DSR) framework. The DSR framework is adopted from the widely
agreed framework for environmental indicators, the Pressure - State - Response
framework. The concept of "pressure" has been replaced by that
of "Driving Forces", in order to accommodate more accurately
the addition of economic, social and institutional indicators. "Driving
force" indicators indicate human activities, processes and patterns
that impact on sustainable development, "state" indicators indicate
the "state" of sustainable development and "response"
indicators indicate policy options and other responses to the changes in
the "state" of sustainable development.
In the core set, the indicators are grouped in categories covering the
economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of sustainable
development. The indicators are related to chapters of Agenda 21. The coverage
of the four aspects of sustainable development and of all the chapters
of Agenda 21 ensures that the most significant aspects of sustainable development
are monitored by the indicators.
The indicators in the proposed framework have been developed in accordance
with the following criteria:
(a) primarily national in scale or scope (countries may also wish to use
indicators at state and provincial levels);
(b) relevant to the main objective of assessing progress towards sustainable
development;
(c) understandable in that they are clear, simple, and unambiguous;
(d) realizable within the capacities of national governments, given their
logistic, time, technical and other constraints;
(e) conceptually well founded;
(f) limited in number, remaining open-ended and adaptable to future developments;
(g) broad in coverage of Agenda 21 and all aspects of sustainable development;
(h) representative of an international consensus, to the extent possible;
and
(i) dependent on data which are readily available or available at reasonable
cost/benefit ratio, adequately documented, of known quality and updated
at regular intervals.
As noted, the core set of indicators may change and new indicators may
be included, for example, in the context of international legal agreements,
or as national level experience is gained. Furthermore, there are some
potentially important indicators which require further methodological work
before they can be used. This is especially the case for various ecosystem
(geo-referenced) indicators, including biodiversity and other habitat indicators,
and for the following issues, for which indicators are not included in
the core set at this stage:
- transfer of technology (driving force, state and response indicators);
- science (driving force, state and response indicators);
- capacity-building (driving force, state and response indicators);
- decision-making structures (driving force indicators);
- strengthening of "traditional information" (driving force and
response indicators);
- role of major groups (driving force and response indicators);
- oceans, all kinds of seas and coastal areas (response indicators);
- desertification and drought (response indicators);
- sustainable mountain development (driving force, state and response indicators);
- biotechnology (driving force, state and response indicators); and,
- toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes (response indicators).
Research and experimentation with advanced economic, social and institutional
indicators that might more effectively measure progress toward sustainable
development and continued research and experimentation with environmental
indicators appropriate for measuring progress toward sustainable development
should be endorsed. There may also be need for subsets and other, often
more comprehensive, sets of indicators for other purposes.
Table 1: Core Set of Indicators for Sustainable Development
| Category | Chapters of Agenda 21 | Driving Force Indicators | State Indicators | Response Indicators |
| Economics | Chapter 2: International cooperation | o Real GDP per capita o growth rate (%) o Exports of goods and services (US$) o Imports of goods and services (US$) | o GDP per capita (US$) o EDP per capita/ environmentally adjusted value added (US$) o Share of manufacturing valued added in GDP (%) o Export concentration ratio (%) | o Investment share in GDP (%) |
| Chapter 4: Consumption and production patterns (1) | o Depletion of mineral resources (% of proven reserves) o Annual energy consumption per capita (J) | o Proven mineral reserves (t) o Proven energy reserves (oil equivalents) o Lifetime of proven energy reserves (years) | o Ratio of consumption of renewable sources over non-renewable resources (%) | |
| Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms | o Total ODA given or received as percentage of GDP (%) | o Environment protection expenditure as % of GDP o Environment taxes and subsidies as % of government revenue o Amount of new or additional funding for sustainable development given/received since 1992 (US$) o Programme of integrated environment and economic accounting (yes/no) | ||
| Chapter 34: Transfer of technology | ||||
| Social | Chapter 3: Poverty | o Unemployment rate (%) | o Population living in absolute poverty (no and %) | |
| Chapter 5: Demographic dynamics and sustainability | o Total fertility rate o Population growth rate (%) o Population density (persons/km²) o Net migration rate (persons/year) | |||
| Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training (including gender issues) | o Adult literacy rate (%) o Primary school enrolment ratio (%) o Secondary school enrolment ratio (%) o Population reaching grade 5 of primary education (%) o Expected years of schooling | o % of GDP spent on education o Females per 100 males in secondary school (no) o percentage of women in civil service (%) o Women per 100 men in the labour force (%) | ||
| Chapter 6 (2): Protecting and promoting human health | o % of people without access to safe drinking water o Pesticide residue in fish (mg/kg) o % of urban population exposed to concentrations of SO2, particulates, ozone, CO and Pb o Calorie supply per capita (calories/day) o Concentration of coliforms and pesticides in drinking water (mg/1) | o Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 births) o Life expectancy at birth (years) o Incidence of environmentally related diseases (no) | % GDP spent on health | |
| CG Chapter 7 (3): Human settlements (including traffic and transport) | o Rate of growth of urban population (%) o Motor vehicles in use (no) o Number of megacities (10 mill. or more) | o % of population in urban areas o Area and population of marginal settlements (km², no) o Cost/number of injuries and fatalities related to natural diasters 4 o Floor area per person (m²) o % of population with sanitary services | o Expenditure on low-cost housing (US$) o Expenditure on public transportation (US$) o Infrastructure expenditures per capita (US$) | |
| Institutional | Chapter 35: Science | |||
| Chapter 37: Capacity-building | ||||
| Chapter 8, 38, 39, 40: Decision-making structures | o Mandated EIA (yes/no) o Programmes for national environmental statistics and indicators for sustainable development (yes/no) o Sustainable development strategies (yes/no) o National councils for sustainable development (yes/no) o Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants (no) | o Ratification of international agreements related to sustainable development (no) | ||
| Strengthening of "traditional information" (part of ch. 40) | o Representatives of indigenous people in national councils for sustainable development (yes/no) o Existence of database for traditional knowledge information (yes/no) | |||
| Chapter 23-32: Role of major groups | o Representatives of major groups in national councils for sustainable development (yes/no) | |||
| Environmental | ||||
| Water | Chapter 18: Freshwater resources | o Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water as % of available water o Industrial/ municipal discharges into freshwater bodies (t/m3) o Household consumption of water per capita (m3) | o Groundwater reserves (m3) o Concentration of lead, cadmium, mercury and pesticides in freshwater bodies (mg/l) o Concentration of faecal coliform in freshwater bodies (no/100 ml) o Acidification of freshwater bodies (pH value) o BOD and COD in water bodies (mg/l) | o Waste water treatment (% of population served, total and by type of treatment) |
| Chapter 17 (5): Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas and coastal areas | o Catches of marine species (t) | o Deviation in stock of marine species from maximum sustained yield (MSY) level (%) o Ratio between MSY abundance and actual average abundance (%) o Loading of N and P in coastal waters (t) o Algae index | ||
| Land (6) | Chapter 10: Planning and management of land resources | o Land use change (km²) | o Area affected by soil erosion (km²)/erosion index | o Protected area as % of total land area |
| Chapter 12: Combatting desertification and drought | o Fuelwood consumption per capita (m3) o Livestock per km² of arid and semi-arid lands | o Land affected by desertification (km²)/ desertification index | ||
| Chapter 13: Sustainable mountain development | ||||
| Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development | o Use of fertilizers (t/km²) o Use of agricultural pesticides (t/km²) o Arable land per capita (ha/capita) | o Area affected by salinisation and waterlogging (km²) | o Cost of extension services provided (US$) o Area of land reclaimed (km²) | |
| Other natural resources | Chapter 11: Combatting deforestation (7) | o Deforestation rate (km²/annum) o Annual roundwood production (m³) | o Change in biomass (%) o Timber stocks (m³) o Forest area (km²) | o Reforestation rate (km²/annum) |
| Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity | o Rate of extinction of protected species (%) | o Threatened, extinct species (no) | o Protected area as % of total land area | |
| Chapter 16: Biotechnology | ||||
| Atmosphere | Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere | o Emissions of CO2 (t) o Emissions of SOx and NOx (t) o Production of ozone destroying substances (t) | Ambient concentrations of SO2, CO2, NOx and O3 in urban area (ppm) | o Expenditure on air pollution abatement (US$) o Reduction in the consumption of ozone destroying substances (% per year) o Reductions in the emissions of CO2, SOx and NOx (% per year) |
| Waste | Chapter 21: Solid wastes and sewage-related issues | o Waste disposed (t) o Generation of industrial and municipal waste (t) | o Expenditure on waste collection and treatment (US$) o Waste recycling rates (%) o Municipal waste disposal (t/capita) o Waste reduction rates per unit of GDP (t/year) | |
| Chapter 19, 20, 22: Toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes | o Generation of hazardous waste (t) | o Area of land contaminated by toxic waste (km²) |
Notes to Table 1
1. Production and consumption patterns are also reflected in particular
by the following indicators:
o Share of manufacturing value added in GDP
(under economic)
o Export concentration ratio (under economic)
o Ratio of consumption of renewable resources
over non-renewable resources
(under economic)
o Motor vehicles in use (under social)
o Household consumption of water per capita
(under environmental, water)
o Fuelwood consumption per capita (under
environmental, land)
o Production of ozone destroying substances
(under environmental, atmosphere)
o Reduction in the consumption of ozone destroying
substances (under environmental atmosphere)
2. Consultations with WHO are ongoing.
3. Consultations with HABITAT are ongoing.
4. Following the SIDS Programme of Action, indicators of vulnerability
are to be developed.
5. Consultations with FAO are ongoing.
6. Consultations with FAO are ongoing for these chapters (10, 12, 13, 14).
7. Consultations with FAO are ongoing.
The pressure-state-response framework, follows a cause-effect-social
response logic. It was developed by the OECD from earlier work by the Canadian
government. Increasingly widely accepted and internationally adaopted,
it can be applied at a national level, at sectoral levels, at the levels
of an industrial firm, or at the community level.
Pressure indicators measure policy effectiveness more directly -- whether
emissions increase or decrease, whether forest depletion waxes or wanes,
and whwether human exposure to hazardous conditions grows or shrinks. Accountability
for the pressures each country exerts on the environment is claer -- as
in the case of the amount of ozone-degrading gases emitted. These indicators
are not only descriptive. They can also provide direct feedback on whether
policies meet stated goals because they are based on measures or model-based
estimates of actual behaviour. Pressure indicators are thus particularly
useful in formulating policy targets and in evaluating policy performance.
They can also be used prospectively to evaluate environmental impacts of
socioeconomic scenarios or proposed policy measures.
Response indicators measure progress toward regulatory compliance or other
governmental efforts, but don't directly tell what is happening to the
environment. As a practical matter, data to construct indicators is usually
most available for pressure indicators and sparsest for response indicators.
Core lists of environmental issues -- and of relevant indicators -- have
been and are being developed by several organisations, building on the
OECD's initial work. Such indicators can be organised within the pressure-state-response
framework into a matrix of indicators.
Table 2 is adapted from such a matrix under consideration by UNEP (World
Resources Institute, 1995).
Table 3 shows a similar matrix adapted from one being considered by the
World Bank (World Resources Institute, 1995).
Table 4 is a pressure-state-response model for indicators of sustainability
in land and natural resources use (Winograd, 1993)
World Resources Institute (1995) "Environmental Indicators: A Systematic
Approach to Measuring & Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance
in the Context of Sustainable Development", World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC.
Winograd, M (1993) "Environmental Indicators for Latin America
and the Caribbean: Towards Land Use Sustainability", Organisation
of American States, and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Table 2: Matrix of Environmental Indicators under consideration by UNEP
(World Resources Institute, 1995)
| Issues | Pressure | State | Response |
| Climate Change | (GHG) emissions | Concentrations | Energy intensity; env measures |
| Ozone Depletion | (Halocarbon) emissions; production | (Chlorine) concentrations; O3 column | Protcol sign; CFC recovery; Fund contrib'n |
| Eutrophication | (N,P water, soil) emissions | Deposition; concentrations | Investments; sign agreements |
| Acidification | (SOx, NOx, SOx) emissions | (VOC, NOx, SOx) concentrations | Recovery hazardous waste; investments/costs |
| Toxic Contamination | (POC, heavy metal) emissions | (POC, heavy metal) concentrations | Recovery hazardous waste; investments/costs |
| Urban Env Quality | (VOC, NOx, SOx) emissions | (VOC, NOx, SOx) concentrations | Expenditures; transp policy |
| Biodiversity | Land conversion; land fragmentation | Species abundance comp to virgin area | Protected areas |
| Waste | Waste generation mun'pal, ind agric | Soil/groundwater quality | Collection rate; recycling investments/cost |
| Water Resources | Demand/use intensity resid/ind/agric | Demand/supply ratio; quality | Expenditures; water pricing; savings policy |
| Forest Resources | Use intensity | Area degr frest; use/sustain growth ratio | Protected area forest, sustain logging |
| Forest Resources | Use intensity | Area degr forest; use/sustain growth ratio | Protected area forest, sustain logging |
| Fish Resources | Fish catches | Sustainable stocks | Quotas |
| Soil Degradation | Land use changes | Top soil loss | Rehabilitation/protection |
| Oceans/Coastal Zones | Emissions; oil spills; depositions | Water quality | Coastal zone management; ocean protection |
| Environmental Index | Pressure index | State index | Response index |
Table 3: Matrix of Environmental Indicators under consideration by The
World Bank
(World Resources Institute, 1995)
| Issues | Pressure | State | Response |
| I Source Indicators 1. Agriculture a Land Quality b Other 2. Forest 3. Marine Resources 4. Water 5. Subsoil Assets a. Fossil Fuels b. Metals & Minerals | Value Added/Gross Output Human-Induced Soil Degrad Land Use Changes, Inputs for EDP Contaminants, Demand for Fish as Food Intensity of Use Extraction Rate(s) Extraction Rate(s) Extraction Rate(s) | Cropland as % of wealth Climatic Classes & Soil constraints Area, volumes, distribution; value of forest Stock of Marine Species Accessibility to Pop. (weighted % of total) Subsoil assets % wealth Proven Reserves Proven Reserves | Rural/Urab Terms of Trade In/Output ratio, main users; recyc rates % Coverage of Int'l Protocols/Conv. Water efficiency measures Material balances/NNP Reverse Energy Subsidies In/Output ratio, main uers; recyc rates |
| II Sink or Pollution Indicators 1. Climate Change a. Greenhouse Gases b. Stratospheric Ozone 2. Acidification 3. Eutrophication 4. Toxification | Emissions of CO2 Apparent Consumption of CFCs Emissions of SOx, NOx Use of Phosphates(P), Nitrates(N) Generation of hazardous waste/oad | Atmosph. Concentr. of Greenhouse Gases Atmosph. Concentr. of CFCs Concentr, of pH, SOx NOx in precipitation Biological Oxygen Demand, P, N in rivers Concentr. oflead, cadmium, etc. in rivers | Energy Efficiency of NNP % Coverage of Int'l Protocols/Conv. Expenditures on Pollution Abatement % Pop. w/waste treatment % Petrol unleaded |
| III Life Support Indicators 1. Biodiversity 2. Oceans 3. Special Lands (eg wetland) | Land Use Changes Threatened, Extinct species % total | Habitat/NR | Protected Areas as % Threatened |
| IV Human Impact Indicators 1. Health a. Water Quality b. Air Quality c. Occupat'l Exposures etc 2. Food Security & Quality 3. Housing/Urban 4. Waste 5. Natural Disaster | Burden of Disease (DALYs/persons) Energy Demand Population Density (persons/km2) Generation of industrial, municipal waste | Life Expectancy at birth Dissolved Oxygen, faecal coliform Concentr. of particulates, SO2 etc Accumulation to date | % NNP spent of Health, vaccination Access to safe water % NNP spent on Housing Exp. on collect. & treatmt., recyc. rates |
Table 4: Pressure-State-Response Model for Indicators of Sustainability in Land and Natural Resource Use (Winograd,1993)
| Variable | Element | Descriptor | Indicator | Level and Scale |
| Population | Population Growth Density on Land Population Distribution | Measure of increase Ratio with Surface Area Urban-Rural Ratio | Total Population Density % Urban and Rural | Country, Bioregion, Region, Local Country, Bioregion, Region, Local Country, Bioregion, Region |
| Develop't Socio- economics | Production Increase Production Increase Purchasing Power Employment External Debt International Prices Social Welfare Health Conditions Conditions of Nutrition Condition of Education State of the Population | Measure of Increase Ratio with Population Purchasing Power Parity Level of Employment External Debt-Export Ratio Exports-Imports Price Ratio Level of Human Development Life and Mortality Expectancy Malnutrition and Calorie Intake Male and Female Literacy Population-Poverty Ratio | Annual Growth of GDP GDP per capita Real GNP per capita % of Unemployment External Debt and Debt Service as % of Exports Terms of Trade Ratio Index of Human Dev Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality Rate % of Malnourished Children and Daily Chronic Intake % of Literacy % of Incidence of Poverty | Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region |
| Agriculture and Food | Food Production Food Production Food Consumption Agricultural Inputs Land Availability Land Concentration Production Orientation Soil Condition Condition of Hillside Soil Condition of Hillside Soils Production Potential Land Availability Land Availability Load Capacity Production Orientation Orientation of Production | Measure of Increase Measure of Increase Measure in Calorie Intake Growth in Use of Inputs Agricultural Land and Pop Inequality of Land Distribution Grain Production and Destination Ratio Ratio with Hillside Lands Soil Limitations Soil Potential Agricultural Land, Population, and Level of Inputs Ratio Agricultural Land and Potential Population Ratio Potential and Current Agricultural Land Ratio Population Potential and Level of Inputs Ratio Production of Drugs and Employment Ratio Changes in Food Consumption | Change in Production and Yield Index of Food Production Calories per capita and % Change in Calorie Supply Annual Fertilizer and Pesticide Use Agricultural Land per capita GINI Coefficient % of Grain consumed by livestock % of Agricultural Lands % of Soil with Limitations Potential Agricultural Land Necessary Agricultural Land Agricultural Land per capita Potential for Land Expansion Ratio of Support Capacity Production of Drugs Food Sources | Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region, Local Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Bioregion, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Bioregion, Region Country, Bioregion, Region Country, Bioregion, Region Country, Local |
| Energy and Materials | Production of Bioenergy Bioenergy Production Production Potential Hydroelect Resources Hydroelect Production Hydroelect Potential Hydroelect Prod Materials consumption | Firewood and Coal Prod-Pop Ratio Production and Require ratio Production of Bienergy Generation Capacity Production and Capacity Ratio Generation Potential Generation and Surface Area Ratio Consumption and Population to Surface Area Ratio | Firewood and Coal per capita Traditional Fuels as a % of Total Requirements Bioenergetic Potential Installed Hydroelect Cap % of the Capacity Gen Exploitable Hydroelct Pot Kilowatts Generated per flooded hectare Per capita materials consumption | Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region |
| Ecosystems and Land Use | Change in Primary Productivity Change in Land Use Employment and production Land Production Impact of Land Use Impact of Land Use | Measurement of Primary Production Measurement of the Change in Patterns of Use Relationship Among Jobs and Surface Area, People Fed Economic Production Measure of Emissions and Changes in Use Intensity Urban and Rural Emissions Relationship | Current and Natural Primary Production % Change Jobs per hectare Annual Production and Value Net Emissions, Species Used and Years of Use Equivalent People Using Fossil Fuels | Bioregion, Region Country, Bioregion, Region, Local Country, Bioregion, Local Country, Bioregion, Local Country, Bioregion, Local Country, Bioregion, Local |
| Forests and Pastures | Cover of Vegetation Decrease of Forests Earnings from Forests Change in Forest Surface Area Change in Forest Surface Area Production of Forests Forest Potential Forest Potential Cover of Vegetation Livestock Population Load Capacity Production of Pastures Economic Value | Type of Forest Deforestation of Dense and Open Forest Reforestation in Dense and Open Forest Annual Deforestation Ratio of Deforestation and Reforestation Relationship of Production and Population Ratio of Wood Reserves and Population Ratio of Production and Reserves Change in Surface Area of Pastures Measurement of Increase Measurement of Increase Measurement of Increase in Meat Production Ratio of Surface Area and Export Value | Surface Area of Dense and Open Forests Annual Deforestation Annual Reforestation Annual Deforestation Rate Ratio of Deforestation and Reforestation Wood Production per capita Wood Reserves per capita and by hectare Ratio of Production /Reserves % Change in Pastures % Change in Livestock Index of Load Capacity % Change in Meat Prod Dollars per hectare | Country, Bioregion, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Local |
| Biological Diversity | Decrease in No Species Decrease in No Species Decrease in No Species System of Protect Areas Use of Biodiversity Risk of Species Disapp Investment in Protection Economic Value Economic Value | Ratio of Threatened Species to Total " " " " Ratio of Threatened Species to Surface Area Ratio of Protected Areas to Total Ratio of Used Species to Total Relationship of Investment and Surface Area Relationship of Investment and Surface Area Economic Production Profitability of Investment | % Threatened Animal Spe % Threatened Animal Spe Threatened Plants per 1000 km % of Protected Areas Index of Vegetation Use Index of Species Disappearance Risk Dollars per 1000 hectares Protected Value of Prod Current Net Value | Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Bioreg, Local Country, Bioreg, Local Country, Region Country, Local Country, Local |
| Atmosphere and Climate | Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emissions of Greenhouse Gases | Increase in Emission Through Change in Land Use Increase in Total Emissions Relationship of Activities and Change in Land Use Ratio of Current and Accumulated Emissions Incidence of Natural Disasters | Emissions of CO Es Carbon Total and per capita Emissions of CO Es Carbon Total per capita and per GNP Emissions of CO Eq Carbon by Activity Current and Accumulated Emissions of CO per cap Population, Affected and Economic Losses | Country, Bioreg, Reg Country, Region Bioregion, Region Country, Region Country, Region |
| Information and participation | Environmental information Societal Participation Public Option | Countries with Environmental Profiles and Inventories Possibility of Participation in Decisions Importance of Environment | No of Environmental Profiles and Inventories No of NGOs per Area of Activity Perception of Environmental Problems | Country, Region Country, Region Country, Region |
| Treaties and Agreements | Environmental Policy Sources of Financing for Conservation | Participation in Treaties and Agreements Debt-for-Nature Swaps | Signing and Ratification of International Treaties Funds Generated for Conservation | Country, Region Country, Region, Local |
| Land Use Projections | Land Use Potential Land Need Current and Potential Use Vegetation Land Use Consequences of Land Use Cost and Investment for Development Potential Land Use | Ratio of Potential Productive Land to Population Ratio of Needed Agricultural Land to Level of Inputs Ratio of Current to Potential Productive Land Ratio of Land Use to Pop Additions to Greenhouse Gases Ratio of Necessary Surface Area and Cost of Land Use Ratio of Actual to Potential Use Cost | Potential Productive Land per capita Agricultural Land Necessary in 2030 Index of Land Use Deforestation Rate and Ratio of Re/Deforestation Agricultural Land and Forests per capita Net, total, and per capita Additions Net, Total, and per capita additions Average Annual invest Cost and Benefit of Rehabilitation | Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Region Bioregion, Local |
| Agro- forestry | Potential for Mitigating the Consequences of Land Use | Ratio of Potential Surface Area to Absorption of Carbon | Carbon Absorption through Reforestation and Agroforestry | Bioregion, Local |
Social Indicators of Development contains data for assessing
human welfare to provide a picture of the social effects of economic development.
Data are presented for more than 170 economies. Up to 94 indicators are
reported for each country including: size, growth, and structure of population;
determinants of population growth; education and illiteracy; natural resources;
and transport and communication. The data set is available at the following
URL:
http://www.ciesin.org/IC/wbank/sid-home.html
Trends in Developing Economies (TIDE) provides brief reports on
most of the World Bank's borrowing countries. This compendium of individual
country economic trends complements the World Bank's World Development
Report. The data set is available at the following URL:
http://www.ciesin.org/IC/wbank/tde-home.html
Habitat II Indicators (refer to Table 5) lists a framework of indicators
for analysing Urban and Human Settlement Conditions, developed for the
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (known as Habitat II), which
was held in Istanbul in June 1996.
Table 5: Habitat II Indicators for Urban & Human Settlements
Welcome to the World of ESS Advanced Computer Applications:
info@ess.co.at
Copyright 1996 by:
Environmental Software and Services GmbH AUSTRIA
PO Box 100 A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen Tel +43225263305 Fax +432252633059