Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 409427, 2001

POLICY AND PRACTICE

Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Through a

(Planners) Glass Darkly

HELEN BRIASSOULIS
Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Karantoni 17, Mytilini 81100, Lesvos,
Greece. E-mail: e.briassouli@aegean.gr

(Received July 2000; revised January 2001)

ABSTRACT The paper evaluates the usefulness of indicators as decision support instru-
ments in planning for sustainable development. It examines key concepts and critical
issues in planning for sustainable development and reviews the development of indica-
tors in the last two decades. It evaluates their relevance in four planning functions by
means of planning-related criteria. It concludes that indicators are still a long way from
making a substantial contribution to planning and proposes broad research directions to
improve their contribution. The need for integrated, context-specic theories of planning
situations to frame the conceptualization, operationalization and use of indicators is
emphasized.

Introduction
In less than two decades since the idea of sustainable development became
established in policy and academic circles, the number of indicators produced
has become daunting. International, national, local, public and private organiza-
tions have all embarked on efforts to provide measures of natures and societys
long-term ability to survive and prosper together, as well as to guide planning
and policy making in the transition to sustainable livelihoods. Increasingly, also,
the importance of planning for sustainable development has been recognized
(Yanarella & Levine, 1992; Hardy & Lloyd, 1994; Roberts, 1994; Paterson &
Theobald, 1995; SchleicherTappeser, 1999).
Over time, the notions of sustainable development and of planning for
sustainable development have been closely scrutinized and redened. Similarly,
the usefulness and ability of indicators to guide policy have been seriously
questioned. In the context of planning, a central question is whether extant
indicators measure what planners and policy makers conceive as sustainable
development of particular spatial systems. In practical terms, the question is
whether extant indicators meet essential decision support needs of planning for
sustainable development. An evaluation of indicators from within planning does
not seem to exist yet. This paper is a modest attempt towards this purpose. It
examines key concepts and critical issues in planning for sustainable develop-
ment, reviews the development of indicators in the last two decades and
evaluates their planning relevance. Lastly, it summarizes the conclusions of the
0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 Online/01/030409-19 2001 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
DOI: 10.1080/09640560120046142
410 H. Briassoulis

evaluation and suggests research directions to produce indicators that are more
satisfactory decision aids in planning.

Planning for Sustainable Development: Key Concepts and Critical Issues

To frame the present evaluation and determine evaluation criteria that differen-
tiate planning from other perspectives, this section claries key concepts, dis-
cusses the uses of indicators in planning and identies critical issues in planning
for sustainable development.

Clarifying Key Concepts

Sustainable development is a concept understood intuitively by all but very
difcult to express in concrete, operational terms (Lele, 1991; Buckingham-
Hateld & Evans, 1996; ORiordan & Voisey, 1998). The seminal Brundtland
denition (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) serves
as a springboard for a variety of interpretations that emphasize the issues of
needs, limits on development, futurity, inter- and intra-generational equity and
the simultaneous satisfaction of economic efciency, environmental protection
and social justice goals (Sadler & Jacobs, 1989; Healey & Shaw, 1993; Hardy &
Lloyd, 1994; Castri, 1995; Campbell, 1996; Atkinson et al., 1997). Trade-offs
between these goals are deemed inevitable, however, to make progress towards
them. Sustainable development can be conceptualized as a state of dynamic
equilibrium between societal demand for a preferred development path and the
supply of environmental and economic goods and services to meet this demand
(Figure 1). Alternatively, an area develops sustainably when its well-being does
not decline over time (Atkinson et al., 1997).
The conceptual and practical difculties encountered with this all-
encompassing concept suggest that it is a multidimensional, fuzzy concept or
a meta-variable (Corson, 1994; Oldeman, 1995; ORiordan & Voisey, 1998;

Figure 1. A schematic presentation of sustainable development.

 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 411

Meadowcroft, 1999; Moss & Grunkemeyer, 1999; Schleicher-Tappeser, 1999).

Sustainability is a regulative idea, implying a vast paradigm shift, that gives
general orientation to development efforts (Redclift, 1999). While it is under-
stood as development that lasts (Atkinson et al., 1997) and all agree on its
basic principles, the details of how to achieve exactly what and how to remain
on a sustainable path are impossible to x, as perceptions of and necessary
actions for achieving sustainable development differ between socio-cultural
and political contexts and change over time (Lele, 1991; Henderson, 1994;
ORiordan & Voisey, 1998; Kane, 1999; Mormont et al., 1999; Schleicher-
Tappeser, 1999).
The contemporary discourse is framed as progress towards sustainable devel-
opment, reecting a shift from the certainty that concrete goals and objectives
can be achieved towards a search for ways to make the transition to sustainabil-
ity (Corson, 1994; ORiordan & Voisey, 1998). The planning implications of this
shift are: (1) the rejection of the assumption that all actors conceptualize and
understand sustainable development identically and, consequently, share com-
mon goalsthe public interest that planning is assumed to serve; and (2) a call
for planning approaches that accommodate socio-cultural and political plurality
as well as for planning toolsindicators includedadapted to particular needs
and uses (Kenny & Meadowcroft, 1999; Selman, 1999).
Planning is dened broadly as the deliberate social or organizational activity
of developing an optimal strategy of future action to achieve a desired set of
goals for solving novel problems in complex contexts and attended by the power
and intention to commit resources and to act as necessary to implement the
chosen strategy (Alexander, 1992, p. 73; see also Davidoff & Reiner, 1962;
Friedmann, 1969; Wildavsky, 1979). Hence, central concerns in planning are the
who (actors), what and why (goals and problems), where (contexts), when
(past, present and future) and how (deliberate decision making, the design of
courses of action, means and implementation). In this perspective, the following
points are essential.
Planning is an integrated sequence of inter-related decisions, from setting
goals, objectives and targets for certain time horizons, to designing courses of
action to be implemented with particular means and implementation processes.
The assumption of a singular public interest is dropped. It has already been
seriously questioned and experience has shown that, in the real world, many
groups strive to promote their particular interests (Schubert, 1960; Davidoff,
1965). Planning is bounded by constraints that are frequently politically struc-
tured (Wildavsky, 1979; Forester, 1989). The political nature of planning implies
that its constituent elements are not xed but change as socio-economic cir-
cumstances and contingencies change. As a result, all facets of the planning
process are fraught with uncertainty. Finally, several planning modes exist, the
choice of which depends on the characteristics of the planning problem, the
attributes of the decision-making environment and the intellectual traditions of
the contributing disciplines (Bolan, 1967).
Planning for sustainable development can be viewed as a continuous process
of designing courses of action to assist spatial systems to achieve and maintain
non-declining levels of welfare over time. Indicators have long been identied
as desirable instruments, measuring rods, to assess and monitor progress
towards sustainable development (Selman, 1999). In planning, they may support
decisions in four main functions:
412 H. Briassoulis

(1) description/explanation of the state of spatial systems and its deviation from
some reference state;
(2) impact assessment/evaluation of the effect of particular actions on the state
of spatial systems and its deviation from some reference state;
(3) prediction of future conditions of spatial systems under various scenarios of
socio-economic and environmental change;
(4) monitoring to keep track of changes in the state of spatial systems and to
support appropriate corrective actions.1

To judge whether extant indicators meet satisfactorily the decision support

requirements of the above functions, evaluation criteria are derived from an
analysis of critical issues in planning for sustainable development.

Planning for Sustainable Development: The Critical Issues

The critical issues in planning revolve around a set of intertwined questions:
who, what, where, when, why and how. In planning for sustainable
development, the where and when questions come rst, as the spatial system
and the time-frame of reference determine all other considerations and the scope
of the planning problem. Spatial designationsthe nature and size of the spatial
system of referencediffer between the dimensions of sustainable development.
Eco-regions (e.g. watersheds) and economic regions have been proposed but,
because a minimum level of governance is required for plan implementation,
administrative areas are commonly used (Scheicher-Tappeser, 1999). Eco-
political regions have also been proposed (Manning, 1988).
The optimum size of the relevant spatial system is not easy to determine. The
sustainability of small areas depends strongly on external factors that are
beyond their direct control. Large areas are more self-contained but involve
many and diverse dimensions, spatial levels and actors that make planning
problems intractable and plan implementation difcult. The commonly encoun-
tered designations of local, regional, national and international have vari-
able spatial coverage. The regional level is suggested as an appropriate level,
between local and national decision structures, at which environmental, econ-
omic, socio-cultural and political processes are usually integrated (Hardy &
Lloyd, 1994; Roberts, 1994; Paterson & Theobald, 1995; Bell & Morse, 1999;
Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 1999a; SchleicherTappeser,
1999). Whatever their nature and size, the fact remains that all spatial systems
are open, interacting with their external environment.
Similar concerns apply to the time-frame of reference. In planning for sustain-
able development, usually it refers to the long term. However, it is frequently
limited to shorter time horizons owing to uncertainty, lack of means, ethical
choices and power imbalances, which constrain the set of feasible planning
options.
Coming to the who and what questions, note that the who precedes the
what, as the subjects engaging in planning determine the whatthe objects of
the planning endeavour. The literature stresses the need for strategic vision to
frame the formulation of goals of sustainable development and to ensure their
cohesion and unity (Roberts, 1994; Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions (DETR), 1997; Moss & Grunkemeyer, 1999; Schleicher-Tappeser,
1999), but who develops this vision and espouses the associated goals, or whose
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 413

vision and goals should be adopted, are not explicit. Implicitly, the competent
government, or the formal sector generally, is assumed to adopt general goals
such as economic prosperity, environmental protection and resource conser-
vation, intra- and inter-generational equity, public participation, empowerment,
self-reliance/self-sufciency, inter-regional responsibility and the integration of
economic, environmental and social goals (Janicke & Jorgens, 1999; Selman,
1999). The main dimensions of sustainable development associated with these
goals, then, are the environmental, the economic, the social and the political/
institutional.
To achieve these goals, economic, resource, environmental, technological,
social, demographic, life-style, political, information and ethical transitions from
unsustainable to sustainable practices are needed. These are constrained, how-
ever, by perceptual, information, cultural, institutional/organizational and
power barriers (Corson, 1994; Selman, 1999) that planning cannot ignore.
To plan for the transition to sustainability, the direction of change and targets
must be specied somehow, otherwise planning is reduced to muddling through
the unknown and the complex. The direction of change is usually specied, e.g.
a reduction in pollution and eradication of poverty, etc., but meaningful targets
can be set only when spatial areas, actors (individual or collective) and time-
horizons are clearly dened. Only then can social actors identify the inevitable
goal trade-offs and decide how to act to make the desired progress. However,
setting targets is constrained, especially in the case of critical resource limits, by
scientic uncertainty, limited information, the openness of spatial systems, value
conicts, the continuous renegotiation of norms in societies and the required
minimum co-ordination between goals (Janicke & Jorgens, 1999; Redclift, 1999).
Essentially, it is a continuous process informed by scientic ndings and social
processes of consensus building (Mormont et al., 1999).
Effective planning action requires proper answers to the why question.
Explanation of unsustainable conditions and of particular courses of action, etc.
is a complex and multifaceted task with no xed and single-valued answers. It
is always place-, time- and actor-specic, hence, the uncertainty of specifying
targets and the lack of infallible courses of action.
The heart of planning is the how questionwhat courses of action, means
and implementation processes to use to effect the transition to sustainability.
This is a traditional planning concern that is place-, time- and culture-specic
(Baneld, 1959; Harris, 1994). The literature suggests several general principles
only to guide the design of courses of action (McClendon, 1993; Hardy & Lloyd,
1994; Jordan & ORiordan, 1994; Roberts, 1994; Castri, 1995; Campbell, 1996;
SchleicherTappeser, 1999; Sikor, 1999). Also, ethical, psychological, economic,
technological, social, organizational, and institutional means to facilitate the
transition to sustainable development are indicated but without reference to
particular actors or spatial/organizational levels usually (Healey & Shaw, 1993;
Corson, 1994; Campbell, 1996; SchleicherTappeser, 1999). The connection
between means and objectives, on the one hand, and means and planning
outcomes, on the other, is not always specied and clear (Janicke & Jorgens,
1999). This is problematic, as diverse types of means must be co-ordinated to
achieve desired transitions to sustainability. Moreover, without an approximate
knowledge of this connection, the effectiveness of means cannot be assessed
either ex ante or ex post.
Lastly, implementation of a course or courses of action using the chosen
414 H. Briassoulis

Table 1. Planning-relevant criteria to evaluate extant

indicators of sustainable development

Questions in planning Critical issues in planning

Who?/What? Actors involved

Dimensions of sustainable development
Disaggregation by sector, group, etc.
Goal trade-offs
Transitions needed
Barriers to change
Targets/critical resource limits
Where? Spatial area of reference
When? Time-frame of reference
Why? Explanation of (un)sustainable
conditions
Means employed
How? Processes of change
(implementation included)

means is the Gordian knot of the whole process. Very rarely, plans are imple-
mented as originally designed and means used as intended. Observed outcomes
may not coincide with those expected, as numerous inuences complicate
implementation processes, the discussion of which is beyond the present pur-
poses (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980). Environ-
mental and socio-economic monitoring and reporting systems are proposed
(Rodenburg, 1995) to keep track of implementation processes and guide correc-
tive actions.
On the basis of the preceding discussion of critical issues, Table 1 presents
evaluation criteria that will be used in judging the planning relevance of extant
indicators.

Indicators of Sustainable Development: A Brief Overview

Indicators are used for the empirical specication of concepts that cannot be
(fully) operationalized on the basis of generally accepted rules (Vos et al., 1985).
As such, they compromise scientic accuracy because of the demand for concise
information. Indicators are used for both planning and communication purposes
(Verbruggen & Kuik, 1991; Selman, 1999); hence, they do not exist in isolation
from their particular function in decision making. The need for indicators of
sustainable development to assist in assessing and evaluating the sustainability
of current and future development under various circumstances has been
expressed in various fora.2 According to Opschoor & Reijnders (1991, p. 9),
indicators of sustainable development are more than mere state descriptors;
they are normative measures of distances between current states and the
reference situation.
Numerous indicators have been proposed to date to meet the criteria of policy
relevance, analytical soundness and measurability, which can be grouped vari-
ously. A rst grouping draws from the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Developments (OECDs) PressureStateResponse framework (OECD, 1991),
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 415

which distinguishes between indicators of pressures on environmental receptors,

impacts on the environment (and the economy/society) and responses (of
society to environmental degradation). A second grouping classies indicators,
according to the main dimensions of sustainability, as environmental, economic,
social and integrated. A third grouping distinguishes indicators, according to
spatial scale, as global, national and local. A fourth grouping concerns the
environmental medium to which indicators refer, i.e. air, water, land and biota,
etc. Finally, indicators are grouped hierarchically as (1) headline or core, (2) local
or basic and (3) detailed or area-specic (DETR, 1997; Deelstra, 1995).
Parallels can be drawn between the evolution of indicators, and of approaches
to their development, and changes in the perception and operationalization of
the economyenvironmentsociety relationship, in general, and of sustainable
development, in particular, in the last two decades. In the mid-1980s, ecological/
environmental indicators were proposed, which were quantitative, descriptive
measures of either human pressures on the environment or of environmental
conditions (air and water quality indices and pollutant emissions, etc.). The
emphasis on the environmental dimension was not accidental. Historically, the
concern with sustainable development sprang from the recognition of the
detrimental impacts of human activities on the natural environment, for which
indicators already existed. Indicators of economic sustainability were proposed
also, such as gross national product (GNP), pollution control costs and early
versions of the strong and weak sustainability criteria (Pearce et al., 1990). Social
indicators barely existed at that time. Early versions of integrated indicators
appeared. Mono-disciplinary approaches to the study of the economy
environmentsociety relationship, emphasizing one and ignoring the other two
components, characterized this rst period of indicators. A distinction between
economic, environmental, and social sustainability was made also, which has
been gradually abandoned.
In the early 1990s, more environmental indicators appeared, the notions of
green accounting, green GNP and strong and weak sustainability criteria were
advanced (Repetto et al., 1989; Barbier et al., 1990; Bartelmus, 1990; Hueting &
Bosch, 1991) and social indicators improved. Indicators for issues such as energy
use, transport, cities, etc. were developed. Methodological approaches to
the development of indicators were proposed (e.g. Mitchell et al., 1995; OECD,
1991, 1994). Gradually, multi-disciplinary replaced the mono-disciplinary ap-
proaches to the study of the economyenvironmentsociety relationship.
In the following years up to the present day, the lists of indicators of
sustainable development expanded, while important changes occurred. The
study of the economyenvironmentsociety relationship changed from being
multi-disciplinary to being inter- or even trans-disciplinary. Increasingly, sus-
tainable development is being viewed as a guide for choosing between future
development paths rather than as a terminal state. In addition to its environmen-
tal, economic and social dimensions, it is dened also in terms of organizational
and institutional arrangements necessary to achieve it (ORiordan & Voisey,
1998; SchleicherTappeser, 1999). Its culture and scale dependence is acknowl-
edged, as is the impossibility of xing a priori desirable norms (Buttimer, 1998;
Kane, 1999). The development of indicators is viewed as a continuing process
that produces sets of indicators revised periodically as concepts, scientic
knowledge and technology evolve (Mormont et al., 1999; Moss & Grunkemeyer,
1999; SchleicherTappeser, 1999).
416 H. Briassoulis

Currently, sustainable development indicators have the following features: (1)

the initial enthusiasm with the prospect of ideal indicators has declined
sharply; (2) the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability are
represented more or less satisfactorily, but all other dimensions are lagging
behind; (3) more integrated indicators are available; (4) the interest has moved
from global to local/urban and even micro-level indicators; and (5) most projects
produce lists of indicators and suggest ways to combine them to address
particular issues.

Planning for Sustainable Development: Which Indicators?

The following evaluation posits that indicators selected to address problems in
planning for sustainable development should be related to one another because
the planning process involves a sequence of interdependent decisions linking
goals, targets, time horizons, courses of action, means and implementation
processes and cannot be broken up into bits and pieces. Otherwise, indicators
may serve symbolic purposes but not the purpose of informing planning action.
The evaluation criteria of Table 1 are employed to judge the planning relevance
of extant indicators in description/explanation, impact assessment/evaluation,
prediction and monitoring.

Description/Explanation
Most indicators refer to a single dimension of sustainable development. These
are state and/or pressure indicators, in OECDs terminology (OECD, 1998).
They represent mostly the environmental dimension, describing state conditions
of environmental receptors and of critical resources. Examples of such indicators
are shown in Table 2.
Fewer and less detailed economic indicators exist, mostly for the national
level, whose transfer to other spatial levels is questionable, as: (1) most spatial
systems are more open than nations; (2) governance structures differ between
spatial levels; (3) conceptual denitions of indicators may differ between spatial
levels; (4) nations are not always appropriate units for studying sustainable
development; and (5) data availability and quality problems are encountered
at other than the national levels, especially in countries with incomplete
information systems and thriving informal economies.
National-level indicators proposed include GNP, GNP/person, NNP (Net
National Product), green GNP, economic structure, private nal consumption,
personal savings, terms of trade ratio, external debt and ination. These are
considered pressure indicators in OECDs (1998) terminology, although they
describe state conditions of the economic system. Even if these indicators are
suitable for other spatial levels, additional indicators are needed to represent the
input and output ows of capital, labour and raw materials of the spatial
economy, distinguished by the most important sectors, at least. Several other
national-level indicators, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
(ISEW) (Daly & Cobb, 1989) and the strong and weak sustainability criteria
(Atkinson et al., 1997), still wait for adaptation to other spatial levels.
Various other indicators describing the rate of resource use as well as
pollution control costs are also relevant economic indicators and include those
shown in Table 3.
 Table 2. Indicators of sustainable development: the environmental dimension

Chlorine loading in the atmosphere Ecosystem-specic indicators

Exceeding of critical loads for acidity Net primary production
Ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide concentrations Plant bio-diversity
Rural, forest, urban land cover Animal populations
Habitat fragmentation Threatened species
Carrying capacity estimates Concentrations of key pollutants in rivers, ground water,
Bathing water quality biota
Radiation exposure Heavy metals in topsoil
Percentage of designated/protected areas Balances of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus in the soil
Metal reserves index Soil quality indices
Energy supply; depletion of fossil fuels Topsoil and farmland loss
Sustainable Development and its Indicators
417
418 H. Briassoulis

Table 3. Indicators of sustainable development: the economic dimension

resource use and pollution control

Growth of economic activity (total; by sector) Pollution abatement expenditure

Passenger cars/1000 inhabitants Agricultural production density
Energy consumption/person (and by type of energy Energy intensity
source) Residential energy use
Energy efciency index; percentage of energy from Road transport energy use
renewable sources Fossil fuel use by cars
Air travel Rural to urban conversion rate
Freight trafc Timber harvest levels
Short, leisure, regular journeys Urban transit use
Total passenger travel Land degradation as percentage of
Wood production/person vegetated land
Water withdrawals as percentage of total water resources Index of food production
Rate of soil loss from air and water erosion Water abstraction, treatment,
Deforestation rate distribution expenditure

Table 4. Indicators of sustainable development: the social dimension

Population, density, growth rate Urban/rural population distribution

Percentage of population living in absolute poverty Telephones/1000 people
Percentage of households without electricity Percentage of malnourished children
Percentage of population registered to vote Percentage of literacy and related indexes
Percentage of population voting in elections Life expectancy, infant mortality rate

The social, institutional, cultural and political are the less represented dimen-
sions of sustainable development. Indicators for these dimensions have been
proposed for the national level mostly, whose transfer to other spatial levels
raises questions as before. Local-level indicators have proliferated also in recent
years. However, these are meaningful where social formations and actors are
readily identiable, which is not always the case in reality. Selected indicators of
this group include those shown in Table 4.
Most indicators mentioned thus far are uni-dimensional, describing one di-
mension of sustainable development (e.g. the environment), one sector (e.g.
agriculture or industry) or one medium (e.g. air). Exceptions are indicators
combining two dimensions, e.g. energy use/person (economic and social dimen-
sion). Most indicators are spatially aggregate, i.e. they do not discriminate
between social groups and economic sectors and do not reect the spatial
distribution of the referent characteristic within the spatial system. Therefore,
they cannot represent the spatial distribution of sources of problems and of their
effects to explain the unsustainability of development. By concealing the diver-
sity of interests, they create the false impression that there is one public interest
which planning should serve; hence, they cannot address issues of spatial
equity. The literature has only recently started to address the issue of indicator
disaggregation (OECD, 1998).
Most importantly, indicators that capture the balance between societal de-
mand and environmental/economic supply, and the integration of all dimen-
sions, do not seem to exist. Proposed national-level integrated indicators
(Human Development Index (HDI) and ISEW, etc.) suffer from various
shortcomings and may not be appropriate for other levels (Henderson, 1994;
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 419

Table 5. Indicators of transitions to sustainable development

Use of green accounting, green GNP
Access of under-privileged groups to social
services and to decision making
Rate of adoption/use of environmentally
friendly technologies and practices
Percentage of energy from renewable
resources
Changes in food and nutrition styles
Rate of use of cleaner fuels, less
polluting transport technologies
Environmental and general education
Reduced use of agro-chemicals
Integration of the environmental
dimension into policies and plans

Atkinson et al., 1997). The issue of integration is difcult to tackle theoretically,

as the question is to nd the spatial level and time-frame within which the
economyenvironmentsociety integrative dynamics operate to determine
proper indicators of integration.
Not all indicators necessarily make sense to decision makers. This depends on
the planning situationwho is interested in what, for what purpose, with what
power and resources to do what, when? Neither will a xed set of indicators be
appropriate in all situations. It is conjectured that interested actors are more
concerned with resource and welfare distributional issues rather than with
aggregate performance measures. In addition, they may be interested in the
interactions between more than one dimension of sustainability, particular
clusters of dimensions and issues for which they have the means to do
something. There is a potential need for indicators of combinations of dimen-
sions and goal trade-offs in which decision makers are interested.
A limited number of indicators of transitions towards sustainable develop-
ment are available. Transitions can be operationalized as quantitative changes in
environmental and socio-economic indicators. More critical and difcult to
express, however, are the qualitative, context-specic, aspects of transitions such
as changes in values, beliefs and norms, related processes, their time duration
and the actors involved (social groups, economic sectors and institutions).
Qualitative and process indicators have not been developed yet, as quantitative,
output indicators are usually prioritized. Moreover, short-term changes in
certain indicators are not necessarily evidence of the longer-term changes
required for transitions to different modes of socio-economic functioning. At
present, indicators of transitions include scanty and incomplete measures, such
as those listed in Table 5.
Setting well dened targetssingle values or ranges of valuesfor most
indicators is difcult, due to scientic uncertainty, spatially variable environ-
mental and socio-economic conditions, the openness of spatial systems and the
qualitative character of several indicators. At best, desirable directions of change
are indicated. Moreover, targets for one indicator are inuenced by the values of
other indicators because of the economyenvironmentsociety interdependen-
cies. However, setting targets for combinations of indicators, which also reect
goal trade-offs, is a tough, if not unfeasible, task. It requires integrated analysis
of the spatial system in question, as well as consensus building among the
interests involved. It also depends on the resources available to decision makers,
the time horizon within which they operate and the actors associated with
targets (who is going to achieve what). These are usually variable and uncertain
over space and time and between sectors and depend on an areas horizontal
and vertical linkages in the spatial/organizational hierarchy.
420 H. Briassoulis

Setting targets for indicators of critical resources is even more difcult. Critical
limits or thresholds for certain environmental indicators have been specied (e.g.
critical loads for acidity). For most others, the interconnectedness of environmen-
tal media generates highly uncertain assessments. For economic, social and
human resources, determining critical limits depends on spatially variable and
uncertain societal valuations that make this task more or less meaningless.
Overall, targets for indicators of critical resources are very rare, especially for
different time horizons.
The spatial system to which indicators refer is frequently unspecied and
vague. Designations such as global, national and local may not reect the true
spatial scope of several issues. The spatial specication of indicators is important
because different dimensions of sustainability and associated planning targets
usually refer to different spatial designations. For example, environmental
indicators refer usually to ecological units (e.g. watersheds, ecosystems or river
stretches), while economic and social indicators may refer to quite different and
non-overlapping areas. The spatial system of reference for combinations of
indicators is unspecied, although it is crucial in: (1) identifying relations between
indicators at the same or different spatial/organizational levels to distinguish
local from non-local inuences on an areas conditions; and (2) determining how
the sustainability of its development depends on that at higher or lower spatial
levels. Similar concerns apply to the temporal specication of indicators, which
varies between the different dimensions of sustainability.
The literature is not very rich as regards explanatory indicators. Frequently,
pressure and response indicators (OECD, 1998) are considered explanatory.
However, the OECDs (1998) framework and its variations (DETR, 1997, 1998)
suffer from several drawbacks (Bossel, 1999). Pressurestateresponse is a vague
classication scheme that is not linked to any particular theory, especially not to
theories of action needed to inform planning. Indicators may alternate between
categories and they interact between them (e.g. environmental pressure indica-
tors are socio-economic state indicators; pressure indicators are related to
certain response levels). The relationships between pressure, state and re-
sponse indicators, processes of change and dynamic feedback relationships are
not specied. Pressure indicators concern selected economic sectors (e.g. elec-
tricity generation, agriculture, municipal wastes and tourism). Response indica-
tors are fewer and not well developed. This scheme does not indicate
complementarities and trade-offs between planning goals, nor does it account
for the openness of spatial systems and cross-scale interdependencies. Overall,
it reduces indicators from descriptors of the essential nature and working of
the spatial system to static, supercial, quantitative descriptors of selected
characteristics.
It is questionable whether extant pressure and response indicators capture
the causal forces underlying unsustainable conditions within particular spatio-
temporal frames, as: (1) they are not sufciently spatially, temporally, sectorally
and socially detailed; and (2) they do not yet cover satisfactorily critical
dimensions of sustainability. These are fundamental considerations in building
planning-relevant theory. Currently, only lists of indicators are provided, which
must be glued together somehow to offer meaningful explanations and to
suggest avenues for problem resolution (Henderson, 1994; Presidents Council an
Sustainable Development (PCSD), 1996; DETR, 1997; Bossel, 1999; Moss &
Grunkemeyer, 1999; SchleicherTappeser, 1999).
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 421

To this purpose, the literature suggests organizing indicators around particu-

lar issues or societal goals and specifying plausible relationships between them
to provide a basis for dening planning problems and designing courses of
action to address them (Henderson, 1994; PCSD, 1996; Moss & Grunkemeyer,
1999; Schleicher-Tappeser, 1999). Although helpful, this is an instrumental
approach to theorizing and explanation that focuses on functional relationships
only and does not address the causal powers underlying real world phenomena.
Approaches focusing on the agents, mechanisms and processes of change in a
spatial system over particular time-periods are more appropriate in planning
(Redclift, 1999). If essential explanatory factors are not described by related
indicators, combining indicators from the lists of those available does not
necessarily explain observed conditions, nor does it provide a basis for targeting
sectors, groups, etc. or selecting means and processes of intervention to facilitate
the sustainability transition.
Recapitulating, with respect to their usefulness in description and explanation,
most extant indicators are:
uni-dimensional measures of certain dimensions of sustainable development;
indicators are still needed for: (1) several critical dimensions; (2) the (global or
partial) integration of the dimensions of sustainability; (3) the transitions to
sustainability and barriers to change; (4) goal trade-offs; (5) processes; and (6)
spatial horizontal and vertical relationships;
spatially aggregate, i.e. indicators of spatial distributions of environmental and
socio-economic conditions do not exist;
spatially and temporally unspecied; relationships between spatial/organiza-
tional levels are difcult to establish.

Impact Assessment/Evaluation and Prediction

Impact assessment/evaluation and prediction are examined together, as they
pose common concerns with respect to indicators. The literature is not very rich
on these subjects. In both cases, changes in the values of indicators before and
after an intervention or in the future are estimated to assess environmental and
socio-economic impacts of proposed or implemented actions or to predict future
conditions under alternative scenarios (OECD, 1998). These changes can be
compared with socially agreed targets to judge progress to or regress from
stated objectives. In addition to the issues raised with respect to description,
particular questions are whether indicators:
distinguish between direct, indirect, induced, short- and longer-term impacts
and impacts on particular groups and sectors, etc.;
discriminate between (present or future) impacts of planning interventions,
particular processes of intervention and other factors;
indicate the temporal occurrence of impacts and offer temporally compatible
estimates;
can be combined in ways of interest to decision makers;
are valid evaluation instruments.
The answers to these questions depend not so much on the operational form of
the indicators as on the impact assessment and predictive methods used, the
theoretical frameworks employed and the availability of appropriate (time-
422 H. Briassoulis

series) data sets. Beforeafter comparisons, simple impact, trend extrapolation

and comparative static models (e.g. CEC, 1999b), in general, do not offer
estimates that address satisfactorily the above planning concerns. In particular,
comparative static models offer no guidance as to when predicted changes will
occur and, hence, no indication of the urgency of particular actions.
Theoretical frameworks that address the broad planning question, Who did
(or, will do) what, when and where, for what purpose and with what means?,
capture changing conceptions of sustainable development, and anticipate future
surprises, are necessary to indicate meaningful combinations of indicators,
suggest methods and explain and evaluate estimates of impacts. Simple report-
ing of impacts or predictions for individual indicators provides fragmented
pictures of reality and is of no real value in planning unless planners make
heroic assumptions about causeeffect relationships.
Decision makers may be interested in estimates for particular indicators only,
depending on whether they can inuence pending developments. For example,
estimates for indicators of barriers to change, critical resource limits or an areas
horizontal and vertical linkages indicate trends in the areas self-sufciency, thus
helping to focus potential planning interventions and choose means that may be
more effective in coping with changes and facilitating the sustainability tran-
sition. Similarly, disaggregated estimates of impacts and predictions assist
decision makers to identify more easily goal trade-offs in future planning
situations.
Decision makers may be more interested also in assessments of specic
combinations of indicators and their comparison with a planning-specic ideal
partial balance rather than with a global balance. Evaluation, however, is
hampered by difculties in: (1) setting targets for individual indicators or
combinations of indicators; and (2) specifying socially dened distances from
targets (variable perhaps over space and time) as well as ideal, global or partial,
balances of the dimensions of sustainability (Meadowcroft, 1999). Under these
circumstances, assessments and predictions alone are insufcient indications of
whether certain states are more desirable than some others.

Monitoring
For several practical purposes, selected indicators (e.g. air, water, biota and
economic indicators) are monitored continuously. Problems arise with respect to:
(1) indicators that are difcult to monitor unambiguously and in detail (e.g. the
intensity of resource use); and (2) the dimensions of sustainability for which
indicators do not yet exist. Monitoring some indicators and not some others may
provide insufcient information about ongoing changes and may divert atten-
tion and planning action from essential interventions to those which may simply
cure symptoms and avert short-term ills. In addition, long-term monitoring is
required for most indicators to decide whether patterns of change signify
desirable progress.
Another issue is how the results of monitoring can inform meaningfully
planning action. Simply monitoring changes in selected indicators may be of
little use in judging which means, policies and implementation processes, etc.
have contributed to these changes and, hence, in guiding planning action.
Indicators of sustainable development monitored currently should, therefore, be
used with caution as guides for planning action. A monitoring scheme useful for
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 423

planning should provide a balanced and disaggregate picture of the state of the
spatial system, its horizontal and vertical linkages in the spatial/organizational
hierarchy, and ongoing formal and informal, external and internal, processes of
change. Theory should guide this task, the interpretation of the results of
monitoring and the choice of necessary interventions. This type of monitoring
may be difcult to implement, however, given the political realities of planning.

Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Still through a (Planners) Glass

Darkly
The development of indicators of sustainable development can be viewed as a
supply-side response to scientic and policy demand for this product under
various constraints. The current supply of indicators reects demand for certain
spatial levels and dimensions of sustainability under a serious constraint: the
difculty of conceptualizing sustainable development. A commonly used pro-
cedure is to break down the concept into a number of constituent dimensions
and obtain indicators for them. With respect to their role as decision support
instruments in planning, the present evaluation suggests that extant indicators
do not address satisfactorily the who, what, where, when, why and how
questions in all four planning functions.
Several critical dimensions of sustainable development and goal trade-offs still
remain without proper indicators. The who and where questions are ad-
dressed incompletely, as most indicators are spatially aggregate. The why and
the how questions are largely ignored, as most indicators do not draw on
particular theories and cannot be linked meaningfully to determinants of unsus-
tainability as well as to actual or proposed means and processes of intervention.
The lack of theoretical support explains also the lack of denitive guidance on
how to combine them to approximate the concept of sustainable development.
The self-sufciency of spatial systems cannot be assessed, due to a lack of targets
for most indicators, especially those concerning critical resources, as well as a
lack of indicators of inputoutput relationships. Their use for impact assessment
and prediction generates additional concerns as regards the theories and
methods used and the availability of proper data.
If planning is viewed as an integrated process where indicators used at
various stages should be inter-related, then the present evaluation points to the
limits of the usefulness of extant indicators in planning, i.e. they cannot be used
as the sole basis for informing planning decisions. To render them more reliable
and meaningful aids in planning, research should target three fronts. First,
indicators need to be developed for those dimensions of sustainable develop-
ment that are incompletely represented, and for the integration of all (or certain,
at least) dimensions. Spatially, sectorally and socially disaggregate as well as
spatially and temporally compatible indicators should be developed, as they
constitute important prerequisites for consistent analysis and effective planning.
Secondly, the development of indicators should draw on integrated theory of
the economyenvironmentsociety system in particular planning contexts.
Developing indicators rst and then identifying simple, empirical relationships
between them may detract from the real causal relationships and be of little
assistance in planning. Thirdly, indicators of impacts and future trends should
result from theory-based methodologies addressing the issues of disaggregation,
discriminatory power and system dynamics.
424 H. Briassoulis

Indicators are still a long way from making a substantial contribution to

planning. In their current form, they provide a fragmented picture of an ill
dened but not yet abandoned concept: sustainable development. Their uncriti-
cal use in planning may do more harm than good, as it may detract from the real
nature of planning problems. This may be avoided if context-specic theories of
planning situations frame their conceptualization, operationalization and use.

Acknowledgements
A rst version of this paper was presented at the Sixth World Congress of
the Regional Science Association International, 1620 May 2000, Lugano,
Switzerland.

Notes
1. Prescription is not considered, given the current discourse on sustainable development.
2. See, among others, Atkinson et al. (1997), Bartelmus (1990), Bell & Morse (1999), Bossel (1999),
Corson (1994, 1995), Dalal-Clayton (1992), Daly & Cobb (1989), DETR (1997, 1998), Deelstra (1995),
Environment Canada (1990, 1993), Finger & Kilcoyne (1995), Hannon et al. (1993), Henderson
(1994), Hille (1998), Hueting & Bosch (1991), Hunsaker & Carpenter (1990), International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1991, 1995), Kane (1999), Krotcheck
Narodoslawsky (1996), Kuik & Verbruggen (1991), Mitchell et al. (1995), Moffatt (1994), Moldan
et al. (1997), OConnor (1995), OECD (1991, 1994, 1998), Opschoor & Reijnders (1991), Opschoor
& Weterings (1994), Rodenburg (1995), United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
(1996), Wackernagel & Rees (1996) and Winograd (1995).

References
Alexander, E. (1992) Approaches to Planning, 2nd edition (Philadelphia, PA, Gordon & Breach).
Atkinson, G., Dubourg, R., Hamilton, K., Munasinghe, M., Pearce, D. & Young, C. (1997) Measuring
Sustainable Development: Macroeconomics and the Environment (Aldershot, Edward Elgar).
Baneld, E. (1959) Ends and means in planning, International Social Science Journal, 11(3), pp. 212235.
Barbier, E.B., Markandya, A. & Pearce, D.W. (1990) Environmental sustainability and costbenet
analysis, Environment and Planning A, 22, pp. 12591266.
Bartelmus, P. (1990) Environmental accounting and the system of national accounts, in: Y.J. Ahmad,
S.E. Sarafy & E. Lutz (Eds) Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development (Washington, DC,
World Bank).
Bell, S.G. & Morse, S. (1999) Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable (London, Earthscan).
Bolan, R.S. (1967) Emerging views of planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33(3),
pp. 233245.
Bossel, H. (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications (Winnipeg,
International Institute for Sustainable Development).
Buckingham-Hateld, S. & Evans, B. (Eds) (1996) Environmental Planning and Sustainability (New
York, Wiley).
Buttimer, A. (1998) Landscape and life: appropriate scales for sustainable development, Irish
Geography , 31(1), pp. 133.
Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions
of sustainable development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), pp. 296312.
Castri, F. (1995) The chair of sustainable development, Nature and Resources, 31(3), pp. 27.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1999a) Sustainable Development of European Cities
and Regions, Final Report, CEC, DG XII, Environment and Climate Research Programme, Contract
No. ENV4CT960271, Brussels.
CEC (1999b) System for Planning and Research in Towns and Cities for Urban Sustainability, Summary,
Final Report, CEC, DG XII, Contract No. ENV4CT960201, Brussels.
Corson, W.H. (1994) Changing course: an outline of strategies for a sustainable future, Futures, 26(2),
pp. 206223.
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 425

Corson, W.H. (1995) Linking sustainability levels to performance goals at national and subnational
levels, in: T. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World (Sacramento, CA, International Center for the
Environment and Public Policy).
Dalal-Clayton, B. (1992) Modied EIA and Indicators of Sustainability: First Steps towards Sustainability
Analysis (London, International Institute for Environment and Development).
Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B. (1989) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward the Community,
the Environment and a Sustainable Future (Boston, MA, Beacon Press).
Davidoff, P. (1965) Advocacy and pluralism in planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
31, pp. 330337.
Davidoff, P. & Reiner, T.A. (1962) A choice theory of planning, Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 28(2), pp. 102109.
Deelstra, T. (1995) The European Sustainability Index Project, in: T. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World
(Sacramento, CA, International Center for the Environment and Public Policy).
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1997) Indicators of Sustainable
Development for the United Kingdom (London, DETR).
DETR (1998) Sustainability Counts (London, DETR).
Environment Canada (1990) Implementing Sustainable Development, Report of the Interdepartmental
Workshop on Sustainable Development in Federal Resource Departments (Ottawa, Environment
Canada).
Environment Canada (1993) Environmental Indicator Bulletin (various issues) (Quebec, State of the
Environment Reporting Program, Environment Canada).
Finger, M. & Kilcoyne, J., Jr (1995) Learning our way out: indicators of social environmental learning,
in: T. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World: Dening and Measuring Sustainable Development (Sacramento,
CA, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/International
Center for the Environment and Public Policy (ICEP).
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
Friedmann, J. (1969) Notes on societal action, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35,
pp. 311317.
Hannon, B., Ruth, M. & Delucia, E. (1993) A physical view of sustainability, Ecological Economics, 8(3),
pp. 253268.
Hardy, S. & Lloyd, G. (1994) An impossible dream? Sustainable regional economic and environ-
mental development, Regional Studies, 28(8), pp. 773780.
Harris, B. (1994) The real issues concerning Lees Requiem, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 60(1), pp. 3134.
Healey, P. & Shaw, T. (1993) Planners, plans and sustainable development, Regional Studies, 27(8),
pp. 769776.
Henderson, H. (1994) Paths to sustainable development, Futures, 26(2), pp. 125137.
Hille, J. (1998) The Concept of Environmental Space: Implications for Policies, Environmental Reporting and
Assessments (Copenhagen, European Environment Agency).
Hueting, R. & Bosch, P. (1991) Note on the correction of national income for environmental losses,
in: O. Kuik & H. Verbruggen (Eds) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development (Dordrecht,
Kluwer Academic).
Hunsaker, C.T. & Carpenter, D.E. (Eds) (1990) Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program, EPA 600/390/060 (Research Triangle Park, NC, US Environmental
Protection Agency).
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1991) Caring for the Earth,
Second Report on World Conservation and Development (London, Earthscan).
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1995) Assessing progress
toward sustainability: a new approach, in: T.C. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World: Dening and
Measuring Sustainable Development (Sacramento, CA, International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources/ICEP).
Janicke, M. & Jorgens, H. (1999) National environmental policy planning in the face of uncertainty,
in: M. Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds) Planning Sustainability (London, Routledge).
Jordan, A. & O Riordan, T. (1994) The Precautionary Principle in UK Environmental Policy and Law,
GEC 9411, Working Paper (London, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global
Environment).
Kane, M. (1999) Sustainability concepts: from theory to practice, in: J. Kohn, J. Gowdy, F. Hinter-
berger & J. van der Straaten (Eds) Sustainability in Question: The Search for a Conceptual Framework
(Cheltenham, Edward Edgar).
426 H. Briassoulis

Kenny, M. & Meadowcroft, J. (1999) Introduction, in: M. Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds) Planning
Sustainability (London, Routledge).
Krotcheck, C. & Narodoslawsky, M. (1996) The sustainable process index: a new dimension in
ecological evaluation, Journal of Ecological Engineering, 6, pp. 241258.
Kuik, O. & Verbruggen, H. (Eds) (1991) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development (Dordrecht,
Kluwer Academic).
Lele, S.M. (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review, World Development, 19(6), pp. 607621.
Manning, E.W. (1988) Analysis of land use determinants in support of sustainable development, in:
F. Brouwer, A.J. Thomas & M.J. Chadwick (Eds) Land Use Changes in Europe: Processes of Change,
Environmental Transformations and Future Patterns (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic).
McClendon, B.W. (1993) The paradigm of empowerment, Journal of the American Planning Association,
59(2), pp. 145147.
Meadowcroft, J. (1999) Planning for sustainable development: what can be learned from the critics?,
in: M. Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds) Planning Sustainability (London, Routledge).
Mitchell, G., May, A. & McDonald, A. (1995) PICABUE: a methodological framework for the
development of indicators of sustainable development, International Journal of Sustainable Develop-
ment and World Ecology, 2, pp. 104123.
Moffatt, I. (1994) On measuring sustainable development indicators, International Journal of Sustain-
able Development and World Ecology, 1(2), pp. 97120.
Moldan, B., Billharz, S. & Matravers, R. (Eds) (1997) Sustainability Indicators: A Report on the Project
on Indicators of Sustainable Development, SCOPE Report 58 (New York, John Wiley).
Mormont, M., Selman, P. & Deverre, C. (1999) Consensus Building for Sustainability in the Wider
Countryside, Final Report, European Commission DG-XII, CT960193, Brussels.
Moss, M. & Grunkemeyer, W. (1999) Key concepts in sustainable development, in: S. Loveridge (Ed)
Web Book of Regional Science (Morgantown, WV, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia
University).
Nakamura, R.T. & Smallwood, F. (1980) The Politics of Policy Implementation (New York, St Martins
Press).
OConnor, J. (1995) Toward environmentally sustainable development: measuring progress, in: T.C.
Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World: Dening and Measuring Sustainable Development, (Sacramento, CA,
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/ICEP).
Oldeman, R.A.A. (1995) Sustainable development is fuzzy development, Nature and Resources, 31(3),
p. 1.
Opschoor, H. & Reijnders, L. (1991) Towards sustainable development indicators, in: O. Kuik & H.
Verbruggen (Eds) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic).
Opschoor, J.B. & Weterings, R. (1994) Environmental utilization space: an introduction, Milieu, 5,
pp. 198205.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1991) Environmental Indicators
(Paris, OECD).
OECD (1994) Environmental Indicators: OECD Core Set (Paris, OECD).
OECD (1998) Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators (Paris, OECD).
ORiordan, T.R. & Voisey, H. (Eds) (1998) The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics of Agenda 21 in
Europe (London, Earthscan).
Paterson, A. & Theobald, K.S. (1995) Sustainable development, Agenda 21, and the new local
governance in Britain, Regional Studies, 29(8), pp. 773778.
Pearce, D., Barbier, E. & Markandya, A. (1990) Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in
the Third World (Aldershot, Edward Elgar).
Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) (1996) Sustainable America: A New Consensus
(Washington, DC, PCSD).
Redclift, M. (1999) Pathways to sustainability: issues, policies and theories, in: M. Kenny & J.
Meadowcroft (Eds) Planning Sustainability (London, Routledge).
Repetto, R., McGrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C. & Rossini, F. (1989) Wasting Assets: Natural Resources
in National Income Accounts (Washington, DC, World Watch Institute).
Roberts, P. (1994) Sustainable regional planning, Regional Studies, 28(8), pp. 781787.
Rodenburg, E. (1995) Monitoring for sustainability, in: T. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World (Sacra-
mento, CA, International Center for the Environment and Public Policy).
Sabatier, P. & Mazmanian, D. (1980) The implementation of public policy: a framework for analysis,
Policy Studies Journal, Special Issue, pp. 538558.
Sadler, B. & Jacobs, P. (1989) A key to tomorrow: on the relationship of environmental assessment
 Sustainable Development and its Indicators 427

and sustainable development, in: P. Jacobs & B. Sadler (Eds) Sustainable Development and Environ-
mental Assessment: Perspectives on Planning for a Common Future (Quebec, Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council).
Schleicher-Tappeser, R. (1999) INSUREDInstruments for Sustainable Regional Development, Final
Report, CEC, DG XII, Environment and Climate Research Programme, Contract No. ENV4-CT96-
0211, Brussels.
Schubert, G. (1960) The Public Interest (Glencoe, II, Free Press).
Selman, P. (1999) Three decades of environmental planning: what have we really learned? in: M.
Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds) Planning Sustainability (London, Routledge).
Sikor, T. & Norgaard, R.B. (1999) Principles for sustainability: protection, investment, cooperation
and innovation, in: J. Kohn, J. Gowdy, F. Hinterberger & J. van der Straaten (Eds) Sustainability in
Question: The Search for a Conceptual Framework (Cheltenham, Edward Edgar).
Toman, M.A. (1992) The difculty of dening sustainability, Resources, 106, pp. 36.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1996) Indicators of Sustainable Development:
Framework and Methodologies (New York, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Develop-
ment).
Verbruggen, H. & Kuik, O. (1991) Indicators of sustainable development: an overview, in: O. Kuik
& H. Verbruggen (Eds) In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development (Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic).
Vos, J.B., Feenstra, J.F., Boer, J. de, Braat, L.C. & Baalen, J. van (1985) Indicators for the State of the
Environment, R-85/1 (Amsterdam, Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University).
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
(Philadelphia, PA, New Society Publishers).
Wildavsky, A. (1979) Speaking Truth to Power (Boston, MA, Little, Brown).
Winograd, M. (1995) Environmental indicators for Latin America and the Carribean: tools for
sustainability, in: T. Trzyna (Ed) A Sustainable World: Dening and Measuring Sustainable Develop-
ment (Sacramento, CA, International Center for the Environment and Public Policy).
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Yanarella, E.J. & Levine, R.S. (1992) Does sustainable development lead to sustainability?, Futures, 24,
pp. 759774.