AFRAMEWORKFORTHEULTIMATEENVIRONMENTALINDEX

PUTTINGATMOSPHERICCHANGEINTOCONTEXTWITH
SUSTENTABILIDADE
JAMESW.S.YOUNG
SENESConsultantsLimited, 121GrantonDrive, Unit12, Bucharest, Ontario, L4B3N4Canada
(Receivedinnalform24November1995)

Abstrato.
Assessingthemajoratmosphericissues
acidicdeposition
climatechange,
ozonedeple-o, poluio atmosfrica, hazardousairpollutantsandsuspendedparticulatematter
togetherratherthanindivid-uallyprovidesmanyadvantages.Buttobesuccessful,
thisintegrationrequiresacommonmethod
forrelatingtheseissuestooneanother.Thisisascienticquestion.Inordertosuccessfullyresolve
theatmosphericissues
(apolicyquestion)
requirescommunicationoftherelevantsciencetonon-scientistsinplainlanguage.Non-scientistsneed
tobepartofthedevelopmentofthestructureofthe
communicationsvehicle.Theobjectiveformulti-issueassessment, andthusforthedevelopmentof
anindextotrackthestateoftheenvironmentinanintegratedway, isofcourserelatedtothedesire
toachieveenvironmentallysustainabledevelopment.Sustainabilitycanberepresentedbya3-patas
stoolandisanaptsymbolofthestruggleofCanadianstobalancetheirecological,
sua
socialneeds.Althoughtheenvironmentisthebasisofalllife, humankindhascreatedsocietyandhas
denedhowthatsocietywillfunction(theeconomy).Thethreelegsofthestool (ecossistema, econo meu,
sociedade)
representthethreepartsofthesustainability
equilbrio.Theseatofthestoolrepresents
thegovernanceprocess
andthethreelegsaredeeplyembeddedinthisgovernanceprocessbecause
itisthegovernance
whichensuresthestabilityofthesystemovertime.Thechallengethenisto
measurethestabilityofthestoolinawaywhichallcanunderstand.Thismeasureofsustainability
mustrespondtoindividualandcollectiveactionswhichimproveordegradetheenvironment.Este
paperpresentssuchaframeworkforasustainabilityindexandoutlinesthenextstepsthatneedtobe
tomada.Theframeworkstartsfromthepremisethatecosystem,
economyandsocietyareequalpartsof
sustentabilidade.Ecosystemindicesarerepresentativemeasuresofthestateoftheenvironmentwhil
Palavras-chave:
atmosphericchange, sustainabilityindex
e economicindicesarerepresentativemeasuresofthestateoftheeconomy.Socialindicesinsomeway
havetomeasurethestateofsociety.Conhecido, forasuccessfulsustainabilityindex, willbetoensure
thattheimportantaspectsoftheecosystem, theeconomyandsociety, areincluded.Theoverallindex
mustberelativelystablebutmustberesponsivetochanges.

1. Introduo
Therearesixmajoratmosphericissuesthatneedtoberesolved acidicdeposition,
climatechange, poluio atmosfrica, ozonedepletion, hazardousairpollutantsandsuspended
particulatematter.Assessingthemtogetherratherthanindividuallyprovidesmany
vantagens.Buttobesuccessful, thisintegrationrequiresacommonmethodfor
measuringand/orassessingtherelativeimportanceofeachissuetooneanother.
Cincia Eachissuehastwoparts
(tryingtoputtheissueintocontextfor
Multilizer PDF Translator
Free version - translation
is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
respectivatransmisso scientistsandengineers) (tryingtoputtheissueintocontext
forthepublicandthepolicymakers).Inordertosuccessfullyresolvetheseissues
requirescommunicationoftherelevantsciencetonon-scientistsinplainlanguage.

EnvironmentalMonitoringandAssessment 46:135 149,1997.

c KluwerAcademicPublishers.PrintedintheNetherlands de 1997.

INTERLINIE-pc1/datagele/emas4601:PIPSnr.122448SPACKAP
emastm11.tex;17/07/1997;15:53;v.7;p.1

136

J.YOUNG

Figure1.TheCanadiansustainabilitystool.

Thereceivingpartyneedstobeinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthestructureofthe
communicationsvehicle.
Forthepurposesofthispaperenvironment est tudo itisthewholeethos
ofwhereandhowwelive, oursenseofone-ness. Theenvironmentincludinghumans de
isthelivingpartof do ecossistema. Doingatlivinginharmonywithourenvironment de
isameasureofhowwellweare de sustentabilidade.Sustainabilityhasthreemajor peas
theecosystem, theeconomyandsociety.

2. sustentabilidade
IwillstartfromthepremiseoutlinedbytheBritishColumbiaRoundTablethat
ecossistema, economyandsocietyareequalpartsofsustainability, whichcanbe
representedbya3-leggedstool (Figura 1), whichisanaptsymbolofthestruggle
ofCanadianstobalancetheirecosystem, theireconomyandtheirsocialneeds.O
3-leggedstool (societysinvention) ismadefrompartoftheecosystem (madeira), uma
productimportanttoCanadaseconomy.
Becausewithouttheenvironment Thestoolsitsintheenvironment (ourearth)
wehavenothing
nopeopleandnofuture.Thethreelegsofthestool
Multilizer PDF Translator nowood,
Free version
- translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
(ecossistema, economyandsociety) representthethreepartsofthesustainability
equilbrio.Andthethreelegs de Theseatofthestoolrepresentsthegovernanceprocess
aredeeplyembeddedinthisgovernanceprocessbecauseitisgovernance que

emastm11.tex;17/07/1997;15:53;v.7;p.2

AFRAMEWORKFORTHEULTIMATEENVIRONMENTALINDEX

137

ensuresthestabilityofthesystemovertime.Alackofcondenceinthegovernance
processbyanyonelegofthesustainabilitystoolwillleadtoinstabilityofthe
wholestoolbecausesociety, theeconomyandtheecosystemareintricatelylinked
juntos.
Saidhumankindhasnotwoventheweboflife ChiefSeattle (1854).Wearebut
onethreadwithinit.Whateverwedotothewebwedotoourselves.Allthings
areboundtogether.Allthingsconnect.WhateverbefallstheEarthbefallsthe
childrenoftheearth.
Desafio, notonlyforCanadabutalsofortheworld, istomeasurethestability
thestoolinawaywhichweallunderstand.Thismeasureofsustainability
mustrespondtoindividualandcollectiveactionswhichimproveordegradethe
ambiente.
Someoftheoperationalfactorsthatweneedtoconsiderbeforemakinga
decisionthatmightaffectsustainabilityinclude:

de

theimpactofthedecisiononourecosystemendowment;
theimpactacrossmultiplegenerations;
reversibilidade/irreversibilidade;
theunknownsandunpredictables(ameasurablebaselineisvitalhere);
thedegreeofintegration(consideringecosystem,economyandsociety);
separationoftheprocessfromthecontent.
Thispaperpresentsadesignforasustainabilityindexandoutlinesthestepsthat
havetobetakentooperationalizethenalindex.Thisindexwouldbeusedin twoways:
(1)
tomeasurecurrentconditionsperiodicallyand
(2)
asaframework
topredicttheanticipatedimpactofacontemplatedactionunderscrutinyinthe
governanceprocess.

3. ndices
Acharacteristic dos deneanecosystemindicatoras HunsakerandCarpenter (1990)
oftheecosystemthat, whenmeasured, quantiesthemagnitudeofthestress,
habitatcharacteristics, degreeofexposuretothestressororthedegreeofecological
responsetotheexposure.Asustainabilityindicatormustthenbeacharacteristic
oftheenvironmentthat, whenmeasured, reectsthevaluethathumankindplaces
theeconomyorsociety.
Multilizer PDFonthedegradationofthatpartoftheenvironment,
Translator Free version - translation
is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
Indicesaresinglevaluesbasedonmathematicalaggregations, orcombinations
ofindividualindicatorvalues(seeFigure2).Acommoncriticismofindiceshas
beenthattheiruseresultsinalossofinformation.No entanto, ifallthesub-indicadores

emastm11.tex;17/07/1997;15:53;v.7;p.3

138

J. YOUNG

Figure 2. Structure of a proposed sustainability index (assuming for illustrative purposes that there
are 241, 133 and 127 ecological, economic, and social indicators, respectively).

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.4

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

139

have credibility (value), then a user can examine the detailed components of an
index.
Cairns et al. (1992) state everything is an indicator of something but nothing
is an indicator of everything. This view suggests that a sustainability index
is impossible to design. They also suggest that indicators should be selected to
maximize unique, relevant information and to minimize redundant information.
This presumes that we understand what is relevant and what is not. One thing
that scientists have learned over the years is that our knowledge is very limited,
otherwise how could we have had an acid rain issue or an ozone depletion issue? But
Cairns et al. (1992) also refer to the consequences of two forms of uncertainty: (1)
false negative (FN) signals and (2) false positive (FP) signals. FN signals provide
no warning of potential harm when it is bound to occur and FP signals warn of
potential harm when none exists. They conclude that multiple lines of evidence
(redundancy) are more likely to protect against unpleasant surprises. So rather
than minimizing redundancy, the sustainability index should use many indicators
(hoping that some of the information obtained will be redundant).
Thom and Ott (1975) outline a series of desirable attributes for air pollution
indices, many of which also will apply to a sustainability index:











is easily understood by the public;

is consistent with perception;
is spatially meaningful;
includes major pollutants (values) and is able to handle future pollutants (values);
is calculated in a simple manner using reasonable assumptions;
rests on a reasonable scientific basis;
relates to [ambient air quality] standards and goals;
relates to episode criteria;
exhibits day-to-day variation;
can be forecast a day in advance.

4. Context
Looking 50 years ahead, imagining how the next generation will live, what kind of
a world do we see? We would like to have a sustainable society, based on ethics and
values that limit the impact of human activity on the ecosystem. There will not just
be a concern for the ecosystem but a pattern of living and working that accepts the
obligation of sustainability. We will all, as a matter of course, consider the broader
implications of any actions that we take. As a society we will have accepted the
intrinsic value of the natural world for which we will provide a margin of safety
within which it can flourish. We will protect biodiversity and our basic life-support
systems. We will not just accommodate the ecosystem at its economic minimum;

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.5

140

J. YOUNG

rather we will assign aesthetic and even spiritual values to nature. We will be living
in a new economy where we recycle, reuse and conserve. Our children will have
the expectation of a quality of life equal to or better than our own. To achieve
these goals, our society will be participating fully in decision making and will be
individually empowered. We will have finally come to terms with the fact that our
earth is a finite space ship. As William Clark writes, we must become a frugal
society in the 21st century (Clark, 1990).
Most people assume that we can never regain what we believe to be the pristine
condition of an ecosystem attribute once it becomes degraded. While this may
be true, it should not influence our choice of an upper bound of a sustainability
parameter. Giving a value of 95, on a scale of 1 to 100, recognizes an irreversible
5% degradation in that parameter (a fact that we should not forget).
Natural ecosystems are complex, multivariate systems which are being simultaneously exposed to a large number of stresses. A sustainable environment is then
a super-complex phenomenon, made up of three multivariate systems (ecosystem,
economy, society), the cumulative effects of which we do not yet understand.
Ecosystem indices are representative measures of the state of the ecosystem
(e.g. an Air Quality Index) while economic indices are representative measures of
the state of the economy (e.g. the cost of living index; the GNP). Social indices
have to measure the values of society.
When an individual, or even a group of knowledgable individuals, create a series
of indicators, they focus on an objective that is usually stated in human terms rather
than on that part of our environment that we wish to protect/enhance. The objective
may not be broad enough to inherently protect the environment. A purely scientific
approach to choosing indicators may ignore the very indicator that will actually
do the best job of defining the value or state of the environment. Chief Seattle
defined the complexity of our task as follows:
... How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange
to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how
can you buy them? ... Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every
shining needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing
and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people ...
(Chief Seattle, 1854).
Cairns et al. (1992) insist that indicators need to be scientifically defensible but in
theconcep tof susta inabil ity ,theyalson eedt ob ed efensibleval uesofsoci ety .
Ecologist sof tentry todefin ethe stateofdes irab il it yoracceptabil ityofecolo gic al
condition s.T heydot hisas expe rtsbutour envi ro nm enthasmillion sofexperts .
Eachoneof usi sanexp ertinw hatw ethinkisan acce pt ab levalueforapa rticular
ecologica lco nditio n.Aswe tryt odefinesus tain ab il ity,ourecolo gicalvalue s
havetobet emp eredso mewhat byou rindividua leco no mi candsocialval ues.For

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.6

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

141

an index of sustainability to be acceptable, we must each be able to find and defend

our own component part of that index.
There are short-term and long-term indices. Sustainability must by definition
be a long-term index.

5. Framework
The trick, for a successful sustainability index, will be to ensure that the important
aspects of the ecosystem, the economy and society are included that everyone
can find a measure that applies. Choosing sustainability indicators (of which there
will be an infinite number) will not be easy. We do not want to fall into the trap
of choosing a few best indicators because this presumes that we individually
understand the essence of sustainability, which I submit we do not. Sustainability
can only be defined, in my opinion, as a collective assessment of the values of
environmentalists, economists, social scientists and all the rest of us humans. Each
person understands what ecosystem, economy and society (social values) mean and
only by pooling this knowledge can we hope to glimpse sustainability. Cairns
et al. (1992) indicate this by suggesting that indicator development must proceed
on a much broader scale than previously considered, adding that frameworks for
indicator development must be flexible enough to accommodate changes in policy
and management goals. I disagree with their view in that the framework is then
driven by policy and management goals, whereas they should be driven by the
measure (here sustainability index a measure of value to us all).
Cairns et al. (1992) indicate that ideal ecosystem indicators would be:
1. biologically relevant;
2. socially relevant;
3. sensitive to stressors without an all or none response;
4. broadly applicable;
5. diagnostic of the stressor causing the problem;
6. measurable;
7. interpretable;
8. cost-effective;
9. integrative;
10 .basedonhistoric aldat a;
11 .anticipatory;
12 .non-destructive ofthe ec osystem;
13 .continuityinmea surem en tovertime;
14 .ofanappropriate scale ;
15 .notredundant;
16. timely.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.7

142

J. YOUNG

While I can agree with some of the above (2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16), another (1)
assumes a level of understanding that we probably dont have, others (6, 7, 10) mix
science and values in an unacceptable way, some (5, 11, 14, 15) are too specific in
that they represent only one way to look at the environment and (8) might in fact
be a good measure of sustainability, but should be reviewed by an economist.
The structure proposed for a sustainability index is a simple scale of 0 to 100
where 100 represents societys ideal. The index should be made up of 3 types of
indicators ecosystem, economic and social. Each indicator should initially have
the same weight. This can be adjusted later as we try to match the index to our
collective perception. Each indicator should be constructed using the same scale
(0 ! 100) where 100 represents the ideal end state of the indicator. This can be
accomplished through normalization as outlined in the examples in Section 6.
The overall index must be relatively stable (no wild variations) but must be
responsive to changes in the underlying indicators. The basic normalization structure proposed is outlined in Figure 2. The figure suggests that the 3 major areas
(ecosystem, economy and society) need not have the same number of indicators
and also that any particular indicator can be looked at in detail. This type of system
meets the need of being stable (indicators can be added, removed or changed in
any area at any time in the future with a minor effect on the overall index) while
being responsive to individual action. The sub-indices for ecosystem, economy and
society will be more changeable than the sustainability index and some individual
indicators may be quite dynamic.

6. Examples
We will never be able to afford to measure everything but some measures may be
inexpensive. A farmer often has a sense (plus some accumulated knowledge) of
when to plant in the spring to avoid frost. This inherent knowledge cannot yet be
described mathematically.
As scientists we have often been surprised, as we try to manage ecosystems,
by such things as thinning eggshells. If we had examined the level of DDT in
the environment and made a judgement that zero of this non-natural chemical
in the environment was ideal, we might have worked toward the ideal and even
achieved that goal before the eggshells thinned. This is the level of analysis that
the sustainability index needs to encourage us to reach.
Hunsaker and Carpenter (1990) have defined several categories of ecological
indicators response, exposure, habitat and stressor. Response indicators provide
evidence of the biological condition of a resource. Exposure indicators provide
evidence of the magnitude of a stress. Habitat indicators characterize conditions
necessary for survival. Stressor indicators quantify changes in exposure and habitat.
Hunsaker and Carpenters paper gives excellent guidance in selecting ecosystem
indicators.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.8

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

143

These ecological indicators need to cover:









near-coastal waters;
inland surface waters;
wetlands;
forests;
arid lands;
agroecosystems;
atmospheric stressors.

Sustainability has to apply not only to natural systems such as wetlands but also
tourbanareaswh ere mo sthum ans live .A numbero furban indi ca torsare imp lied
byMacpherson(1 988 )a sfoll ows :
 air quality indicators;
 water quality indicators
drinking
recreational
fish consumption
sewage treatment plants
sewers
sediments
rivers
discharges
watershed/waterfront management
beaches
 land use
industry
green space
transformation
traffic
municipal waste
recycling

Under the social umbrella, indicators need to be established to look at the governance process to ensure that it is:








more consultative, to increase the participation level;

more open to input from the local level, increasing collaboration;
more understood by the public and more open in its workings;
more timely and forward looking;
more co-operative and consensual, less partisan;
more accountable;
more intersectoral and inter-generational.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.9

144

J. YOUNG

Other social indicators that might be considered include:



















complaint statistics from the Ombudsmans office;

threats to politicians (or some related police statistic);
number of candidates and parties contesting elections;
voter turnout statistics;
spoiled ballot trends and/or write-in tendencies;
number of vacant houses;
crime statistics for socio-political types of crime;
family stability;
number of divorces;
number of abortions;
literacy levels;
gender distribution in professions;
health;
United Nations quality-of-life indicators;
equitable taxation;
access to basic human needs;
peace and order.

The following examples (IVII) are meant only to outline the form of indicators
. W hileasegm entedlin earfunc tio nisth emos tp opularc alc ulat io nmethod,the
for mulationp resented isnotre str icted toli ne arfunct ion sbut ra thereachindicat
or shouldmat chitsobs ervedre spo nsein thee nv ironmen t.
Example I
Reducing beach closures due to contamination (ecosystem or social)
Indicator

No. of closures/year (X)

Remarks

100
0

0
5

Long-term goal
Arbitrary condition based
on current statistics
Indicator equation

100

(5

X)
5

The process of selecting indicators must involve the public as well as experts
such that (1) no obvious measure is overlooked, (2) the correct mathematical form
is adopted, (3) undue weight is not given to any part of sustainability, and (4) local
and individual concerns are incorporated. Where there is doubt about use of an
indicator, the indicator should be included, tested over time and then reviewed for
applicability. In fact, the index (and all its sub-parts) must be regularly reviewed,
tested and changed as necessary to reflect our evolving state of knowledge and
concerns.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.10

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

145

Example II
Reducing our reliance on the automobile (social)
No. of car engine
cylinders per person (Y)

Indicator
100

12

100

(12

Y)

Long-term goal (based on

2 people/1 car/2 cylinder)
Worst case
(based on 2 people/3 cars/
8 cylinders)
Indicator equation

11

Remarks

Example III
Stopping the disappearance of species (ecosystem)

Indicator

No. species that

disappeared over
last 5 years (Z)

100

100

(A

Z)

Long-term target for globe

(measure of biodiversity)
Based on worst 5-year
average
Indicator equation

Remarks

Example IV
Forest replacement (ecosystem)
Indicator

Fr/Fc (W)

Remarks

100
0
100

1
1/2
W

Replace all of cut

Replace 1/2 of cut
Indicator equation

(W

1=2)
1=2

Let Fc = % of forest cut.

Let Fr = % of forest replanted.
Example V
Acid rain (ecosystem)

Indicator

Sulphate loading
in kg/ha (L)

100
50

10
20

100

(30

L)
5

Remarks
Pristine state
Protect moderately
sensitive lakes
Indicator equation

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.11

146

J. YOUNG

Example VI
Health (social)
Doctor visits/
person/year (V)

Indicator
100
0
100

(10

V)
9

10
V

Remarks
Ultimate goal
(1 checkup per year)
Level indicative of ill health
Indicator equation

Example VII
Income (economic)

Indicator
100

Increase in average
real income per person (I)

1.5%

0
100 I
1:5

0%
I

Remarks
Usual economic measure of
healthy growth
Economic breakeven
Indicator equation

Other indicators that could be used are presented in Table I. While no equation
isgiv enforthese indi cator s, afirs tcu tattheiru pp erand lo werbo un dshasbeen
sugge sted.
Figure 3 outlines one approach that could be used for sustainability reporting.
This is presented as illustrative only.

7. Next Steps
It is recommended that a 2 to 3 day meeting of experts and non-experts be held, to
develop a first cut at a Canadian Sustainability Index. Participants should include a
number of people who have been looking at environmental accounting and indices
recently, such as Tony Friend (University of Ottawa) and Al Davidson (President
of the Canadian Geophysical Society). Also Potvin (1990) provides an overview
of international developments on economic-environmental accounting which may
help to formulate some environmental cost indicators. International players should
include a person from the team that prepares the annual Human Development
Report for the United Nations, a similar person that prepares the annual World
Development Report for the World Bank and someone from the team that publishes
the annual State of the World report for the World Watch Institute.
On the first day of the Workshop, it would be necessary to establish some general
acceptability criteria for individual indicators. These acceptability measures would
ensure that both vision and balance were included in the final product.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.12

147

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

Table VIII
Some suggested sustainability indicators

No.

Worst and best

value of indicator

Description

100

State of knowledge 1
% of forest inventoried
2a%o fw orldsmount
a i ng oats30 %60%
2b%o fw orldstrump
e t er swans2 5%50%
2c%o fw orldsgrizz
i y be ars12% 25%
2d%o fw orldsbalde
a g ie s12%25 %
3No.o fs peciesonma
n a ge mentco ncernlist7
0 Lan dc onversion 4
a %o ftotal landconvert
4b%o fp rimefarmlan
d c on verted tourban2%0
% 4c %o flandwhichi
s p ri mefarm land0%4%
5Tonn es ofsolidwast
e p ro ducedp eryear3mill
on0.1 mi llion
6Amou nt ofsolidwast
e r ec overed byrecycling
0%100 % 7Amountofpa
c k ag ingbyy ear20000%10

0%

5
ed

100% Diversity

tourban20%0%

reduction reduction
Water pricing
$0
real cost
Number of boil water edicts per year
10
0
Systematic water use planning in what % of North America
0%
100%
Number of wells going dry
5
0
% of marine waters free of pollutants
50%
100%
Number of shellfish harvesting closures
5
0
% of wetlands converted to agriculture
100%
0%
Decrease in annual abundance of 5 species of salmon
100%
0%
Automobile population increase vs. population rate
2
0.5
Trend in SO2 levels over next 20 years
double
half
Change in total emissions of greenhouse gases/year
+10%
20%
Change in emissions of ozone layer depleting gases/year
+10%
20%
% Increase in energy demand over the next 20 years
5%
0%
Use of hydroelectricity
discussion required
clean since no pollutants
dams, transmission lines degrade ecosystem
construction provides jobs
2 2%ofexportsb asedonno n-renew
a bl enatura lreso ur ces5%0%
2 3Growthofthe economy0 %5%
2 4Canadianper capitain comemin
u st hegloba laver ag e5%+15%
2 5%ofpopulati onearnin glessth
a n$ 20,0007 5%10%
2 6Structureof employme ntpool
E p/ Ej0.51. 0
w hereEj=%ofjo bsneedin g>12yea
r se ducatio n
a ndEp=%ofpopu lationwi th>12ye
a rs educati on
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.13

0%

148

J. YOUNG

Table VIII
Continued.
Worst and best
value of indicator

No. Description

0
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

% of government expenditures on social programs

% of government expenditures on health
% of government expenditures on welfare
% of government expenditures on education
% of government expenditures on environmental management
% of government expenditures on economic development
Portion of the debt servicing costs
Population increase in %/year
% of total number of govt programs eliminated in.
% change from target GDP/person (+ or )
% change from inflation rate target (+ or )
% change from unemployment rate target (+ or )

0%
30%
20%
10%
1%
0%
15%
5%
0%
20%
10%
20%

100
30%
15%
5%
25%
5%
2%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%

Figure 3. A presentation model.

Then a number of test cases or examples of contemplated actions should be

disc u ssedin th econt extofs us tainabil it yonthelevelo fthings thatim pactpeople
on
aday - to-day ba sis.T hiswil ls ervetove ri fytheprincip lesando perati onalcriteri
a. I f weexam in ethen umbero fc ylinders -p er-personind icator, forexa mple,atest c as emi ghtbe:

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.14

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX

149

 limit the number of automobiles in Canada by reducing the number of gas-fired

cylinders used for transportation to an average of 4 per person across Canada.
Do this over a period of years by progressively reducing the allowable number
from 1012 to 4.
 implement this by setting a license limit of 4 per person and increase the license
fees sharply for numbers greater than 4 per person. Allow license limits to be
traded as an economic good in the marketplace.
 the anticipated benefits to be considered are (1) improved use of non-renewable
fuel resource, (2) improved air quality and (3) a better unit cost for transportation.

8. The Future
The transition to sustainability will often require trade-offs and difficult choices,
choices that may impose substantial hardships and costs. Concessions will have to
be made in the interests of achieving longer-term progress, and finding adaptive
strategies to cope with these changes will be crucial. To employ this tool effectively
and to make judgements that are sound, a better decision-making process will be
required, involving a wider range of stakeholders more meaningfully and ensuring
that all values ecosystem, economic and social are given consideration. Over
time, the index and the processes should be expected to evolve as our understanding
of sustainability improves.

References
Cairns, J., McCormick, P. V. and Niederlehner, B. R.: 1992, A Proposed Framework for Developing
Indicators of Ecosystem Health for the Great Lakes Region. Report submitted to the International
Joint Commissions Council of Great Lakes Managers.
Chief Seattle:1854 ,Asquot ed byS.J effer s1992.Brothere agle,sis tersk y .Schol as ti cInc.
Clark ,W.(Asquoted byJ.Ja ge r,N.S onnta g,D.BernardandW .Kurz):1 990, Th eChall en ge of
Susta inableDevelo pmentin aG reenh ouseW orld:SomeVision softheFu ture .R eporto fa Po licy
Exerc iseheldinBad Bleiber g, Austr ia.
Hunsa ker,C.T.andC arpente r, D.E.: 1990, EnvironmentalM onitorin gandA ss essmen tP ro gram
Ecolo gicalIndicat ors.EP A/ 600/3 -90/0 60.
Macph erson,A.S.:1 988.To ro nto:S tateo ftheEnvironment .Arepor tbyth eC ityofT or on to
Depar tmentofPubli cHealth ,8 4pp.
Potvi n,J.R.:1990, Econom ic -envi ronme ntalAccounts:AC onspectu sonCu rr entDev el op ments.
ARepo rtPreparedfo rtheRaw so nAcad emyof AquaticScience, 36pp.
Thom, G.C.andOtt,W .R.:197 5, AirP ollut ionIndices.ACom pendiuma ndAss es smento fI nd ices
usedi ntheUnitedSt atesand Ca nada .Pape rpreparedjointl ybyTheCo uncil on Enviro nm en tal
Quali tyandTheU.S. Environ me ntalP rotec tionAgency.

emastm11.tex; 17/07/1997; 15:53; v.7; p.15