This may be a question that would interest urban planners.  Portland, Maine in the USA is one of the leaders in trying to measure sustainability impacts.  You could check with the Planning and Urban Development Department (www.portlandmaine.gov).

Thank you Robert. Can you be a bit more specific? I looked at the link you sent me, but I cannot find any information on the issue..

See new volume Sustainability: Key Issues (http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415529860/) CHAPTER 3. ETHICS IN SUSTAINABILITY INDEXES

By Sarah E. Fredericks

Hi Helen

Thanks for your suggestion. However, I am a bit intrigued. Can you please explain how ‘ethics on sustainability indexes’ relates to ‘sustainability in resource -water, land, energy, air- use’?

Does it propose any indicators or thresholds?

Kind Regards

Hi there, I don't know if this is quite what you are after, but my research looks at trying to measure ecosystem services that occur in urban areas and then compare levels to what an undeveloped ecosystem was able to achieve in the same location (so what was the ecosystem on the site able to do before it was a city). I call this ecosystem services analysis. Here is a link to a paper about it and a PhD thesis if you want more depth and a case study of the methodology applied to an existing city. Most of my publications are along these lines and most are free on my profile here. Thanks

Article Ecosystem services analysis for the design of regenerative b...

Thesis Ecosystem Services Analysis for the Design of Regenerative U...

Hola Ricardo, 

Un buen sitio para empezar a ver qué indicadores se han usado hasta ahora es Ness et al (2007) o Singh et al (2012): 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800906003636

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X08000678

En estas revisiones veras citados algunos ejemplos de los indicadores que pides en diferentes contextos. 

El tema de umbrales, como sabrás es algo mas controvertido. Si bien la gente de la resiliencia llevan años investigando este tema, no hay muchas conclusiones. Mi propuesta sería que hicieses un proceso participativo para explorar esos umbrales, ya que no solo existen de tipo ecológico si no también sociales:

http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/thresholds_database

Por otra parte, si consideras el comercio (fundamental en areas urbanas) el asunto se vuelve aun mas complejo sobre todo en tema de recursos. Pero bueno, en general una aproximación desde el metabolismo socioeconómico te puede dar pistas para sistematizar esta información:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204699000092

Saludos!

Dear Ricardo,

A very interesting experience, unfortunately still only related to biodiversity, is the Norwegian Nature Index. I see many analogies to the logic of sustainability indicators mentioned within the provided reference.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51082732_The_Nature_Index_a_general_framework_for_synthesizing_knowledge_on_the_state_of_biodiversity 

For reference values, you can use the thresholds already present in the local, regional or national laws (regulations on soil, water, atmosphere, etc.). They have been usually elaborated by experts and constitute threshold values related to human health (e.g. quantity of certain materials in water to be employed for different uses). As Sergio mentioned, threshold values are one of the most disputed aspects of ecological indicators, and not many threshold values have widely been accepted. 

Kind regards.

Article The Nature Index: A General Framework for Synthesizing Knowl...

This recent publication may help:

Steffen et al. 2015. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, January 2015. DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855 .

The Stockholm Resilience Centre website has a overview article of this paper: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-news/1-15-2015-planetary-boundaries-2.0---new-and-improved.html . The lead author, Will Steffen, is a researcher at the Centre.

Hope this helps,

SG

Thanks Steven 

I was still working with the previous version [2009] !!. I have already requested the updated report.

Ricardo

@ Sergio

Perdón por el retraso en contestar. El artículo de Newman ya lo había leído, y me parece muy interesante. La web del Resilience center no la conocía, pero veo una cantidad abrumadora de información, así que necesitare algún tiempo para revisarla. Sin embargo a priori me ha parecido demasiado específica como para incluirla en un modelo de Sostenibilidad Urbana.

Los dos artículos que me indicas, me los apunto para consultarlos lo antes posible.

La verdad es que me sigue extrañando muchísimo que habiendo tanta investigación en el tema, haya tan pocas propuestas [no digamos ya acuerdo] en relación a objetivos de sostenibilidad/umbrales de insostenibilidad.

Yo solo conozco dos propuestas exhaustivas [que abarcan cuestiones medioambientales, sociales y económicas] que son las de Prescott Allen et Al, 2001 [Human Wellbeing Index] y Graymore et Al, 2010 [Sustaining Human Carrying Capacity], que proponen un listado con muchos indicadores y detallan para cada uno de ellos dos limites [uno equivale a un Objetivo de Sostenibilidad y el otro a un umbral de insostenibilidad].

Una cuestión que no acabo de comprender es a que te refieres con los umbrales sociales. Al hecho de que además del impacto del uso de los recursos sobre los ecosistemas es necesario valorar el impacto de su ‘no-uso’ sobre las personas?.

O te refieres al hecho de que existen otras cuestiones [desigualdad, endeudamiento, etc..] para las cuales existen umbrales?

Ambas cuestiones las he considerado en el modelo, pero están recogidas en otros indicadores.

Me parece buena idea proponer algo y exponerlo para recibir comentarios más directos.

Gracias por los comentarios

Un saludo

Ricardo

@ Pedro

Thanks for the information. It appears to be a pretty ‘rigorous’ index.

I agree with you on using political targets [always being careful that they do have a scientific base], from which I am deducting some thresholds. Unfortunately, in the best case only one threshold is provided.

Still, I find weird not only that there is no general agreement on thresholds, but the fact that too few thresholds have been proposed.

Kind Regards

Dear Ricardo,

Perhaps, the use of additional sustainability criteria such as "improvement overtime" and "non-compensability between the indicators" might help with the threshold issue. Once your indicators are measured, you can apply your criteria to establish a threshold. Unfortunately, I don't have a document I can provide to you yet. Part of my current PhD thesis addresses the threshold issue in measuring urban sustainability. 

Best of luck in your research,

Juste

Hi Ricardo,

Since urban sprawl is a major challenge on the way to sustainable land use, I feel you could be very interested in quantifying urban sprawl and the different components of it. There are several metrics you can consider, for example, urban dispersion, urban permeation, urban sprawl per capita, weighted urban profileration, etc. These metrics were developed by Jochen Jaeger and collaborators (please, see some references bellow), with whom I work now. Indeed, we have already quantified many of these metrics at multiple scales for all Spain (we are close to submit the manuscript). Some countries like Switzerland have already implemented these metrics in monitoring systems. An important characteristic of these metrics, which might be important for you to know, is that all of them consider the spatial arrangement of built-up areas. Please let me know if you need further information of these indicators or whether you are interested in our results.

All the best,

Aurora

Article Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl

Article Urban permeation of landscapes and sprawl per capita: New me...

Article Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: Weighted Urban Pr...

@ Juste and all

You bring up an interesting issue. Shall a good value in one dimension [i.e., shall a high sustainability degree in the use of some type of resource] be able to compensate a poor value in another dimension [i.e., a high unsustainable use of another type of resource]?

It somehow approaches us to the discussion ‘Strong Sustainability’ [dimensions cannot compensate among them] vs ‘Weak Sustainability’ [dimensions can compensate].

Now, when I started this research, I clearly aligned with the first view, dimensions should not be able to compensate among them.

Mainly because compensating 'environmental worsening' with 'social development increase' seems to have been one of the causes of current environmental unsustainability. Hence, allowing for compensation apparently leads to no changes in the future [especially because developments increases are ‘short term benefits’ while ‘environmental decreases’ are usually ‘long terms costs’ which take more time to be perceptible, and humans have an inherent high discount rate; i.e., we value less long term benefits than short term benefits].

As the interest of models is always to set courses of action, we should prevent directing ourselves to development paths that we already know to be unsustainable.

But when I started to ‘formally’ define sustainability, I found that a consistent calculation of sustainability requires admitting dimensions compensability [I will try not to extend too much on math, but just a brief review].

If we do not admit compensating dimensions, then any system would be as unsustainable as it is for the worst relevant dimension for its sustainability. This relates to a ‘minimum’ function [the minimum value determines the global value]. But the fact is that it cannot be sustained on any mathematical basis.

We may have a strong atmospheric pollution, and yes, we are in a bad [unsustainable] state. But if we are in good conditions for any other dimensions, then we are not so bad as if we are also in bad conditions for those dimensions [though not so bad as for atmospheric pollution]. The minimum value may not modify, yet clearly in the second situation we are in a more dangerous state / worst condition [more unsustainable state] than in the first situation.

This relates to what is usually designated as ‘monotonicity’. The majority of real phenomenon act -for a large range of values- monotonically. This does not imply linearity [additivity] and does not exclude that at certain points [thresholds] a single variable can determine the whole state of the system [there are certain thresholds at which monotonicity disappears]. An easy example is a nuclear accident ina an area. No matter how the rest of sustainability indicators are, radiation determines the total unsustainability of such environment.

In math terms, the solution takes us to an ‘averaging’ function [though rarely to an ‘arithmetic mean’]. It usually is of the types: weighted arithmetic mean, geometric mean or harmonic mean, entropy functions,…

So, at this point a question emerges… if modelling sustainability in a consistent manner requires admitting dimension inter-compensability… ¿how can we prevent repeating past errors as compensating ‘environmental destruction’ with ‘social development’?

For me, the more consistent answer comes from Decision Theory in the form of ‘Pareto improvement condition’ which states that when a decrease in one value cannot fully be compensated with an increase in another value, the only possibility to consider that a state is better than another one, is that in the first state all relevant parameters are in the same or better condition that in the second state.

Then, the important feature is that any model shall clearly state which indicators decrease shall never be compensated [accepted as a development path].

The benefits of this second approach is that we can model a global sustainability degree value, while introducing some restricting conditions later in the decision making.

All above leads us to introducing non-compensability at two levels:

• as an ‘indicator’ feature for the thresholds of any variable that can lead to total unsustainability of a system [such as radiation]. If the system is not located as such thresholds, dimensions do compensate, though not additively.

• as a ‘methodological’ feature, identifying indicators whose worsening shall not be accepted in any case.

And the first issue takes to a point already mention; every relevant phenomenon for sustainability has two limiting values for a range of monotonicity [let us assume the first value is higher than the second, though it may easily be the other way, and even sometimes there are four limiting values]:

• a value where an increase on the variable value no longer increases the global sustainability of the system [i.e, you can think of green area provision. It is generally accepted that above 10-15 sqm/person, and increase in area no longer increases urban quality]

• a value where a decrease on the variable value no longer decreases the global sustainability of the system ; the maximum influence of the variable on the sustainability has been achieved. For some specific variables it may be a value that determines the total unsustainability of the system [e.g., radioactivity], though for many it is not such case [e.g., a urban area with no green areas provision at all is not totally unsustainable…]

So, these limits determine the ‘monotonicity’ range for the indicator, and a consistent indicator modelling shall therefore incorporate both.

This becomes an easy task for phenomenon where the lower limiting value is ‘zero’, due to a physical impossibility. For instance, we cannot have less green areas in a city than ‘0’ sqm/person, and since any green area provision higher than that is good, then 0 can be considered the lower bound [unsustainability threshold].

But it is not so easy to solve for many other issues.

For example, which are the limiting values for Water Footprint?. And for Ecological Footprint? And for Waste Residuals? And for Energy Use?

Our usual approaches [e.g, lets recycle 50% of Waste generated, or let us use 20% of renewable energy] are clearly not sustainability measures, since the important feature is not the recycled rate [or renewable energy rate] but the total waste produced after recycled ratio has been discounted [or the total nonrenewable energy consumption].

In some cases, thresholds may be intuitively deducted. For instance, Water Footprint cannot be larger than Water Availability. Hence a natural threshold to consider would be that. But... What happens with biodiversity?.

From many authors it seems reasonable to think that at least a 33% of water resources should be preserved for other forms of biodiversity. Hence the threshold would be 66% of water resources…

Still, there shall be a minimum amount of water resources required for human society. Intuitively again we can think some figure around 33%?

My concern is that it is quite difficult to find serious analysis on these thresholds which arrive to some useful and agreed proposals…

Comments + suggestions are welcome!

Regards to all

Dear Ricardo,

You may want to read the following manuscript:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X13001428

There we used a threshold. I don't think this indicator will answer all you questions, but it may answer one or two.

Regards,

@ Nadia

Thank you for your suggestion [and sorry for the delay in reading it but I have received lot of suggestions]. I find the paper really interesting.

Could you please explain me the meaning of the 'trash thresholds’? Why do you propose them in Tm/Ha and not in TM/person? ... and why do you propose such numbers?.

Thresholds for the maximum amount of allowable trash are one of the most difficult information to find. Besides your paper I have only found Graymore et Al, 2010 who proposes 2 Tm/person/year as unsustainability threshold [critical load in your terms] and 0,2 Tm/hab as Sustainability Goal [almost coincident with your 0,5kg/hab/day proposal as best value].

Ricardo

PS: On the other hand, there are some more papers which propose 'Sustainability Goals' though they are generally higher than you and Graymore propose [around 1,2 km/person/day]

Also, your proposed 'Degree of Carrying Capacity' is quite similar to my proposed Sustainability Degree, that you may interested in take a look [I attach the link]

Book A mathematical Theory of Sustainability and Sustainable Development

Hi Ricardo,

I finally tracked down a possible contact for you in Portland, Maine: Caitlin Cameron in Urban Planning.

Dear Ricardo,

Check this paper on land use change

It may meet your requirement  or serve as  a pointer.........

Achten, W.M.J., Mathijs, E., Muys, B. (2009) Proposing a life cycle land use impact calculation methodology, in:Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector- Towards a sustainable management of the food chain, Zurich, Switzerland, 22-33

Regards

Lokesh

@ Adhappa

Pretty interesting proposal; it appears both consistent and easy to understand/use.

I do not find it directly suitable for the model I am building which is an operational model focused to assess urban transformations. Hence, I am developing/looking for indicators that indirectly assess ‘impacts’ usually by assessing 'pressures' [e.g., material consumption] insted of real impacts.

Yet, I find it provides useful indicators against with compare predictions [expected transformations as per measured pressures], which application on the regional/national scales could provide input on how the environment is actually reacting to such pressures.

As said before, interesting article

Best Regards.

Sustainability refers to five main capitals: natural capital, social capital, manufactured capital, financial capital, and human capital. Sustainability in general should refer to those forms of capital. It hypothesizes that a balance among these five types of capital is necessary to satisfy human needs and generate individual and community well-being (Costanza et al., 1997).

Natural Capital is any stock or flow of energy and material that produces goods and services. It includes:

Resources - renewable and non-renewable materials

Sinks - that absorb, neutralise or recycle wastes

Processes - such as climate regulation. Natural capital is the basis not only of production but of life itself!

Human Capital consists of people's health, knowledge, skills and motivation. All these things are needed for productive work. Enhancing human capital through education and training is central to a flourishing economy.

Social Capital concerns the institutions that help us maintain and develop human capital in partnership with others; e.g. families, communities, businesses, trade unions, schools, and voluntary organisations.

Manufactured Capital comprises material goods or fixed assets which contribute to the production process rather than being the output itself – e.g. tools, machines and buildings.

Financial Capital plays an important role in our economy, enabling the other types of Capital to be owned and traded. But unlike the other types, it has no real value itself but is representative of natural, human, social or manufactured capital; e.g. shares, bonds or banknotes.

Any kind of capital contributes to the areas you mentioned: Water Resources use, Land Use, Material Use, and GHG Footprint with its own indicators and indices. The sustainability assessment should find out the best balance among the five integrated and overlapping capitals in a specific context.

Hi Ricardo!

This is a complex question since it rely on subjetive definitions of which sustainability means for different "social actors", and the projection of development proposed for a landscape. But in the other hand, the ecosystem itself has its own threesholds, for example; you can meassure the ammount of water available from a specific basin, the cost of bring it to certain number of people and the infrastructure needed to colect and return this water (in "good" conditions) to the water cycle. Here the threeshold is defined by: the total ammount of water (there will be a maximum number of people supported by the basin), the capacity of the  infrastructure (to transport, colect and clean the water) and the cost of this process, which will support a fixed ammount of "contamination", above certain contamination threeshold, the water treatment process will be ineficient or too expensive...

In conclusion, your threesholds are unique (the interaction of natural resources of your local ecosystem, the current facilities for resources managment and the "lifestyle" of the peole that will be there). For me, the core for any sustainability index or threeshold should be based on the natural environment dynamics and resilience. If you want to be more accurate, try to measure the natural timing of ecological phenomena (is not the same to make a major discharge in the river in winter than in summer...), local species abundances and interactions or the degree of conectivity between landscapes units.

This document is not about sustainability indicators or fixed threesholds, but it tells a story about how sustainability must be addressed from the coordinate effort of policy makers, local communities and economical projections, all of them supported and limited (but also powered) by the natural dynamics of the ecosystem.

http://www.intechopen.com/books/howtoreference/perspectives-on-nature-conservation-patterns-pressures-and-prospects/applied-landscape-ecology-future-socioeconomics-and-policy-making-in-the-neotropics

Dear Ricardo, you could consider this recent paper on landscape connectivity. There is also an accepted article on Ecological Indicators. I think you could consider this issue when you are evaluating land use change in urban areas.

Best Regards, Raffaele

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262925924_BIO-ENERGY_CONNECTIVITY_AND_ECOSYSTEM_SERVICES._AN_ASSESSMENT_BY_PANDORA_3.0_MODEL_FOR_LAND_USE_DECISION_MAKING 

P.S. For thermodinamics and sustainability in planning look also this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262925576_SUSTAINABILITY_AND_PLANNING._THINKING_AND_ACTING_ACCORDING_TO_THERMODINAMICS_LAWS

Conference Paper BIO-ENERGY CONNECTIVITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. AN ASSESSMEN...

Conference Paper SUSTAINABILITY AND PLANNING. THINKING AND ACTING ACCORDING T...

Dear All

After reviewing most of the received articles, which have been largely interesting, I have come to a proposal which I have uploaded to Researchgate, since I think it may be interesting for you.

Unluckily currently I can only provide a Spanish version [since a translation would take 2-3 weeks which I cannot expend at the moment]. At some point in the future, I will make it available in English. However, it is an open pdf, so text can be copied and placed into a translator.

Beware it is a draft, so please do not be too rough with the mistakes, which I am sure there are.

Any comments will be welcome!

Best Regards

Ricardo

Dear Ferrarini

Thank you so much for the link to your articles, which I find pretty specific on the issue and providing a highly technical analysis.

While they build on commonly accepted bases for developing indexes and indicators, I must admit that I disagree with some of the approaches undertaken.

This is my personal point of view, which I admit is somehow different from generally accepted basis [hence I do not specifically disagree with your article but with such commonly accepted basis], so please do not consider this as an ‘impolite’ criticism but more as an invitation for a debate.

My issue of concern relates to how we can structure information describing sustainability, and the use of Correlations and Principal Compound Analysis.

I agree they are two frequently used tools for analysis and structuring ‘big data’, and in fact they are suggested in well-known literature [e.g., JRC/OECD 2008, Handbook on composite indicators…] Yet, I find that there are some alternative analysis that are more interesting when reviewing Cities/societies and their sustainability; those building on Systems science.

Systems science approaches societies [and cities] conceptualizing them as systems [socio ecological systems], hence the information describing their sustainability must be a system [we can only know that an object is a system if the information describing such object behaves’ like a system; each variable interacts with every other variable].

From this approach, the first interesting author is Herbert Simon, with two texts that have become fundamental: ‘Variable aggregation in complex systems’ [1955] and ‘The Architecture of Complexity’ [1962].

In the first text, the author reviews the fact that information describing systems is always redundant to a certain extent, but it is very rarely completely redundant.

If we then accept Miller’s [1956] assertion that ‘correlation between variables means they convey shared information’, non-correlation is then information that is not shared. Since variables almost never completely correlate, eliminating variables with high correlation cannot be an objective, since total information conveyed is reduced [the part which was not shared].

The proposed way to avoid double counting from this complexity perspective is by generating a hierarchy of sets containing system’s variables highly correlated, so highly correlated variables are always aggregated in the first place. If two variables highly correlate, then they are conveying a large part of shared information, but if we aggregate them prior aggregating to the other variables, then no double count exists [neither loss of information].

This idea is further developed by Mr Simon in ‘The Architecture of Complexity’ [1962], where he deepens into the characterization of hierarchies as sets of variables with higher interaction [correlation is characterized as a type of interaction], detailing different variable correlations at different hierarchical levels.

For brevity, let me just skip many others which further develop Simon’s proposals till recent times [e.g. Shpak et Al, 2004 …]

Apparently this brings us to the fact that we should try to model SES’ sustainability by detecting the underlying hierarchy of the information describing their sustainability, which in turn should be done by a correlation analysis.

However, this is clearly a wrong approach, something evident when we review the idea of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development arises precisely because development is being highly unsustainable.

If we review it from the perspective of environmental sustainability, we can say that from Industrial Revolution, economic development has had a high correlation with environmental destruction. [A similar example in your articles is the high correlation between ‘taxable income’ and ‘energy consumption for domestic uses’]. Should we consider them highly correlated variables?

This seems highly contradictory since our analysis of systems’ sustainability is largely done to change such undesired correlations. Development is highly correlated with unsustainability, but we want to transform it so it becomes largely correlated with sustainability [e.g., all the ‘decoupling ‘approach mainly relates to the will to ‘de-correlate’ GDP and resource consumption].

• If we remove such correlated variables from our analysis, we will not be able to monitor our success in achieving such ‘de-correlation’ [decoupling]. 
• If we aggregate them in the same set, the result makes no sense [this relates to your assertion; indicators must not only have high correlation but also measure similar phenomena]

But if we superimpose the condition that the indicators are measuring similar phenomena we introduce two issues:

• such issue is largely independent of correlations analysis, leading us to question whether correlations analysis is then necessary…
• it largely relates to meaning, leading us from ‘big data’ review [correlation] to ‘conceptual [logical and meaning] analysis’ [e.g., our usual understanding of sustainability as interaction of three dimensions Environmental, Economic and Social; we tend to group indicators according to the meaning we assign to measured phenomena]

So, how should we proceed?. The answer may come from two assertions

• the hierarchical structuring of sustainability shall not be deduced from currently existing correlations, but from the correlations that should exist in a sustainable state. 
• the hierarchical structuring of sustainability is largely that of our ‘conceptual’ modeling of sustainability, as long as it is tested against reality.

There are some societies more sustainable than others. Sometimes it is difficult to find the data to establish it, but sometimes we have plenty of available data [e.g., in the latest economic crisis some countries have performed much better than others, which have required external help. This provides us a lot of information regarding economic sustainability] and we have to collect this data and compose a holistic model which can accommodate it.

These ideas lead us to integrate ‘big data analysis’ into 'conceptual models', approaching us to fuzzy signatures, highly developed in the latest years [for a pretty complete review you can check Sumudu, 2008: Fuzzy Signatures: Hierarchical fuzzy systems and Applications].

Now the interesting issue of ‘fuzzy signatures’ [we can maybe designate them as ‘fuzzy hierarchies’] is that they provide a way to depart from sustainability rankings as comparison measures, towards sustainability measuring as absolute measures between zero [complete unsustainability] and one [complete sustainability].

This is my line of work, which I have mathematically developed in my two previous books [mainly in ‘A mathematical Theory of Sustainability’ but also from a more informational perspective in ‘A Unified Complexity Theory’], and on which principles I am currently building my operational model for urban transformation.

Just to finish, let me repeat that this message aims not to be a critic but may be the starting point of a debate that can shed some light to this issue, for which I find that currently almost every scientist uses a different approach… [i.e., there is no generally accepted view]

Therefore, any comment relating above will be of course welcome.

Kind Regard

Just a bit of a comment on previous message

Probably two texts were missing that provide a better understanding of the transition from big data analysis to conceptual analysis:

Koestler, 1969: Some properties of Self-regulating Open Hierarchic Order [SOHO]. In such text the author proposes the idea of ‘holon’ [as ‘whole’ unit] shifting the focus to ‘inclusion’ relationships.

Zadeh, 1969: ‘Towards a theory of fuzzy systems’. The author sets ground for a transition from pure mathematical models to ‘logical models’ for real systems analysis, which amount of information content is so high that prevents us from accurately modelling them.

The importance of the later is that

• that logic is a tool that allows us to summarize huge amount of data into a few parameters and 
• that we cannot understand something which is not logically structured for us, so it is not a matter of just finding the structure of big data, but also of expressing it in a way that we can understand it and make it decisions regarding it.

And we can only understand a model of reality if it is built on the basis of any theoretical ground of logic [it may be bi-valued logic, fuzzy, etc…].

In easy terms, logic greatly refers to describing reality with words, which equate classes; and Zadeh proposes that real systems almost never match completely a class; they always match it to an extent, so we describe reality by reporting the matching degree of a system and a class.

So the transition is made, we have come from the way systems [both real and conceptual] work to the way we need to structure their information in order to allow us to work with it. Hence the question is presented by itself: ¿how should we structure the information describing the sustainability of a system?

In my view, it is a very difficult question to answer, though there are many currently existing approaches..

I have been recently stimulated by a question from Susan B. Kask, on what is the purpose of a system related to the five main capitals: natural capital, social capital, manufactured capital, financial capital, and human capital. The issue she addresses (what is a system purpose?) I believe is at the root of the selection of sustainability indicators.  That is quite relevant for socio-economic-ecological systems (complex adaptive systems) like the ones we live in, actually, all kinds of macrosystems. The question she poses does depend on a strategic vision of values to be pursued. The construction of a system of values, analyzing motivations, can be traced to Maslow (1943), who developed a holistic-dynamic theory of motivation, well-known as ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’. It represents a pyramid of basic human needs in five levels (physiological needs, safety needs, love and belongingness needs, self-esteem, and self-actualization) that motivate and drive behavior and are sequenced in order of priority from lowest to highest. to satisfy basic physiological needs, such as food, air, water, then our needs for safety (e.g. security of environment, employment, health, law), belongingness (e.g. love, friendship, family), esteem (e.g. achievement, self-esteem, respect,) and lastly self-actualization (e.g. personal growth, self-fulfillment, morality, creativity). In this perspective, if basic (physiological and safety) needs are not met, it is unlikely that other higher values at the top of the pyramid (democracy, social justice, equity) will be prioritized (Hagerty 1999; Tischler 1999; Yawson et al. 2009; O‘Brien and Wolf 2010, Tay and Diener 2011). The ability of humans to satisfy these needs arises from the opportunities available and constructed from social, built, human and natural capital. In this viewpoint, in the sequence of Maslow‘s pyramid the human motivations connect the human being primarily to the natural capital and then to the built, social and human capital evoking the framework suggested by Meadows (1998) which relates natural wealth to ultimate human purpose through technology, economy, politics and ethics. Several researchers pointed out that the opportunities for sustainability increase as more of Maslow‘s human needs are met (Kofinas and Chapin 2009; Sidiropoulos 2013). In the perspective of environmental sustainability, Udo and Jansson (2009) have demonstrated that poorer nations that are struggling to survive are less concerned with environmental sustainability than advanced and stable nations at higher levels in the hierarchy of needs.

Land Use

Indicators

• biodiversity loss,
• release of carbon dioxide,
• disruption of water and nutrient cycles,
• loss of fertile soil.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=32&ved=0CCMQFjABOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unep.org%2Fresourcepanel%2FPortals%2F24102%2FPDFs%2FFull_Report-Assessing_Global_Land_UseEnglish_%2528PDF%2529.pdf&ei=wMQCVca8N9iUuASxsYCQAw&usg=AFQjCNGbkFe_1cSoqUYIJKvqIoXU2Jlx3A

I agree with the contributions of  Professors Giovanni Zurlini & Krishnan Umachandran but I may add that an objective observation of the ongoing current trends do not point to a promising sustainability. Before the end of this century, 2 of the fossil fuels will be depleted while the 3rd (coal) will be under more demand. There are no serious efforts directed towards research to find out alternative renewable energy sources. What is needed is an overall change of research support ,e.g. from investment in deadly weapons of mass destruction into sound & reasonable sustainable E resources.

The important objective of sustainable development is to promote a healthy economy in order to generate the resources to meet people’s needs not the greed and improve environmental quality.

In Land Use --- The land is limited, not infinite. The sustainable development objective is to balance the competing demands for the finite quantity of land available. Some indicators:

- Land covered by urban development

- Household numbers

- Re-use of land in urban uses for development

- Stock and reclamation of derelict land

- Road building

- Out-of-town retail floorspace

- Regular journeys

- Regular expenditure

- Green spaces in urban areas

As land is limited and to make it sustainable, we have to:

1. Reduction of population

2. Balance the land use between agriculture and developmental purposes

Dear Florin I agree, actually all my research activity in the last 10 years has been dedicated to the issues you raised, see my publication list. However, those you indicated are not new indicators as such but the dimensions we should express the indicators of sustainability, that is their multiiple spatiotemporal dimensions.

Best

Dear All

Thank you all for your interesting suggestions.

Also, it seems two interesting debates are being discussed at the same time [my fault, since I first bring the issue that received so interesting answer form Giovanni].

As they are two quite different issues, I find preferable that we split them, so let me pose a different question regarding this last issue raised. Anyone interested can follow the link:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_the_information_describing_sustainability_be_structured

Best Regards

Ricardo

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions indicator reports the trend in human-made greenhouse gas emissions at a national, provincial/territorial, and sectoral level for the six main greenhouse gases in Canada: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=68&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjAHODw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.statcan.gc.ca%2Fpub%2F16-255-x%2F16-255-x2008000-eng.pdf&ei=gZ8HVZm7CYHpaK_qgNgC&usg=AFQjCNH2ixcgoT2IAj9NX7kOzmRk1l8sbg

It is not my specialty, urbanologists are more competent to give useful answers to this question

Dear Ricardo, 

Below you can find link to the book about SD indicators in selected 6 cities in Slovakia. The methodology was based on concepts of ECI (European Common Indicators) and TISSUE (EU Thematic Strategy on SD of Urban Environment) , but it was modified to the national ceondition and data available. Indicators were evaluated in several main areas - Transport, Urban planning and construction, Environment, landscape and biodiversity, Ecological footprint, Socio-economical situation, Management.

For most of indicators there were no threshould set, but you can find there some comparisons with European cities and I hope some recommendations for desired values of indicators. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269572497_Sustainable_Urban_Development_in_the_Slovak_Republic._2006

Second link is the Human development Report 2003 for the Czech Republic - in this framework we try to evaluate Quality and Sustianability of Life Index - for both Czech Republic and their Regions. The thresholds were set as a most favourable and least favourable with the values of 1 nad 0. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269572724_Human_Development_Report_-_The_Czech_Republic_2003

These are not very actual publication, but I hope you can find there some useful information. If you have any question, don´t hasitate and contact me.

All the best 

Peter

Book Sustainable Urban Development in the Slovak Republic. 2006

Book Human Development Report - The Czech Republic 2003.

The common and easy way to reduce the carbon footprint of humans is to:

1. Reduce - reduction in material

2. Reuse - finding another use of waste/used material

3. Recycle - recycle the package for further use

4. Refuse - reject

Thanks!

Are you looking for theoretical indicator or practical indicators.  A large number of theoretical indicators can be found in the literature.  If you are selecting practical indicators, I recommend starting by talking with the decision makers who would use the indicator data in their decision making.  They are usually the people who also have to "pay" to get the data.  I like foot printing indicators.  However, as impressive as they are, very few systems (e.g., municipalities, companies, agencies) use them for changing policies and making decisions.  Also, check out "context-based metrics".  They provide a better context for indicators than foot-printing.  Foot-printing gives you impact but context-based creates a context for determining whether you are sustainable.

Dear All

Let me apologize for not providing news for a long time. I have almost finished a set of six indicators:

• Water [based on Blue Water Footprint]
• Water Pollution [based on grey Water Pollution]
• Land Use [based on Ecological Footprint]
• Waste Management [own development]
• Energy Consumption [own development, with some suggestion of some relevant authors via email]
• GEI emissions [own development, but similar to existing indicators]

I can assert that assessing this dimension of urban sustainability is the most difficult part of a whole urban model I have designed. Many issues intervene:

• lack of properly designed indicators;
• difficulty of designing indicator that need to assess local and global issues
• lack of relevant information required to design indicators [sustainability/unsustainability thresholds] and a homogenous procedure to interpret them
• difficult to obtain the information required to calculate them [hence to test them at both levels: Design & Applicability

In a week or so, I will upload the text with the proposal as well as the result of the assessment for 20 different urban transformations regarding mobility, rooftop use and waste management.

You will be able to see that the values provided by the proposed indicators are greatly consistent with relevant literature on the issue.

Kind Regards

Carbon footprint

Is the sum of the greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of animal products. The measurement unit is kg of CO2 equivalent/kg of functional unit (milk, meat or egg. FeedPrint (version 2012.21) was used as the tool for calculating the carbon footprint. The methodology for calculating the footprint is based on the same Life Cycle Analysis approach (LCA). One difference in the new system is the use of dynamic models for calculating animal products from feed – a static approach had been chosen in Agrifootprint. There is also a difference in the approach to emissions from the use of organic or chemical fertilisers; as a result, FeedPrint gives slightly more favourable results

http://www.agrifirm.com/Portals/1/group/docs/engels/DUURZAAMHEIDS%20INDICATOREN%20ENG%2004-13%20LR.pdf

Hi All

I already uploaded a revised and tested version of the proposed set of indicators, which has provided consistent results for more than 20 urban possible transformations.

Unfortunately, currently I can only upload a spanish copy. You can find it at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271511706_4.2__INDICADORES_QUE_MIDEN_LA_PRESIN_SOBRE_EL_ENTORNO__ECOSISTEMA_GLOBAL?ev=prf_pub

The text is divided into three parts:

• Overall explanation of metabolism assessment [pg 3-8]
• Main Indicators:

• Annex VI: Procedures when relevant variables [consumption] surpass unsustainability thresholds pg 54-59.

For non spanish readers, I will do my best to upload as soon as possible a translated version as well as the results of the asessment of urban transformations, though it will take some time...

Any comments on the text shall be welcome

Best Regards

Technical Report 4.2_ INDICADORES QUE MIDEN EL GRADO DE SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL ME...

Also check out the GRI indicators.  Not perfect but they align to many other efforts and many efforts align to GRI.

Please check --- Economy-wide Material Flow Analysis and Indicators, through link.

http://wupperinst.org/en/projects/topics-online/material-flow-analysis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_measurement

http://msi.apparelcoalition.org/#/

Dear AllI

I uploaded an updated version [some comments on the energy consumption indicator received from Iñigo Capellan] and some small adjustments in the indicator for assessing BL use.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271511706_4.2__INDICADORES_QUE_MIDEN_EL_GRADO_DE_SOSTENIBILIDAD_DEL_METABOLISMO_URBANO?ev=prf_pub

Since it still will take some time till I am able to uplodad a translated document, I have uploaded a word file, so anyone very interested can open it and use an automatic translator [there are some available in the web, including the one provided with Ms-Word itself].

Regards to all, and as always, any comment shall be welcome !

Ricardo

Technical Report 4.2_ INDICADORES QUE MIDEN EL GRADO DE SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL ME...

Please refer to the below articles to answer your query to some extent , although the setting is not rural- the methods could apply

Water Resources use:Multiple water use as an approach for increased basin productivity and improved adaptation: a case study from Bangladesh

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15715124.2012.664551#.VecUb_lVhHw

Land use : LCLUC as an entry point for transdisciplinary research – Reflections from an agriculture land use change study in South Asia

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479714001546

Hi Ricardo,

Hope you find these two articles useful.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615006873

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616300762

Hi Amir

Any possibility of reading your article in any open repository? [or private email]?

Especially the first one...

Dear Ricardo,

Hi

The first article is available on my profile. I've attached the file here. The second one is not mine maybe the authors have put them on RG. If you couldn't find it drop me your email in a PM.

Best,

Article Designing a General Set of Sustainability Indicators at the ...

Great. Thank you Amir !

I guess the file you attach is ok for now. Only allow me a couple of weeks to read it, because currently I am totally focused on some issues of voting theory which do not allow for nay distraction !!!

Dear Ricardo,

Absolute pleasure. Sure thing. 

wish you all the best with your studies.

Dear All

Thanks for all your advices. As I commented when posted this question, the information was to be used in a model so usual urban transformations could be designed always aiming to maximize sustainability.

I finished the model in August 2015. Anyone interested in review a first application of the model for a estimate of the potential benefit of transforming all available rooftop surface in an existing urbana area, can check the following link [it is the english translation of a 90 pages monograph published by UPM] the model is briefly explained at the beginning of the text.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311862186_HazOtea_Project_An_estimate_of_rooftops'_potential_for_increasing_urban_Sustainability_and_suggestions_for_maximizing_this_potential_by_normative_regulation

Comments are always welcome

Best, Ricardo

Article Haz[Otea] Project. An estimate of rooftops’ potential for in...

Food and drink manufacturers are continuing to extend the integration of sustainability aspects in their sourcing practices in line with rising consumer demand for products complying with specified criteria. Agricultural and rural policies should support this process by encouraging sustainable farming practices and offering a framework to be regulated and flourish.

http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/documents/brochures/brochure_CIAA_envi.pdf

Hi Khrishan, so ... any insight on the proposed structure of indicators/model?

You should explore context-based metrics as they conceptually address the notion of sustainability thresholds.  I recommend using the criteria of areas of impacts.  A unit, business, community, etc. have areas of impact.  Stay focused on those and not on things out side the control of the unit. Finally, review areas of impact through the lens of obligation.  I have seen a number of community indicators that include items for which the unit has no obligation

This paper can be helpful for evaluating a land for sustainable development. you can check the index and get some indicators for your proposed framework.

Hi Andrew

Thanks for your comments. I totally agree with you that indicators should include thresholds implying goals [somehow is another way to express what you designate as ‘obligation’], but I feel incorrect that you assess a project by its local impact only !!

In your view, it seems a project where each inhabitant produces 25 TmCO2 a year and has a 50 GM3 water footprint a year be sustainable, is that what you think?

Hi Naveed

Interesting article. However, I find some important inconsistencies. Let me explain them to you [but please bear in mind, this is a constructive criticism for debate].

While any proposal as yours has always some interest, somehow you arrive to an index which resembles many currently existing indexes [Leed for neghbourhood Development, Breeam for Communities, Casbee For Cities…], yet it is more incomplete than these indexes. Have you reviewed them?

For instance, your decomposition of Sustainable Development [SD from now on] leaves many important issues out and takes into account as positive many factors that so far nobody has proven they have beneficial influence on SD [and some people have proven they may actually not be]. For instance:

Social and Economic; you assume city planning is correctly drafted, but it may be not the case. You assume local employment rates need to be always increasing, but it may not be so; you fail to monitor many issues as green areas provision, urban structure, facilities, mixed use, transportation networks, image and identity [urban scenery and imageability….]

Financial and Accounting: You have included standard Cost Benefit Analysis [from now on CBA] indicators, but without knowing the way you want to assess them [mathematical functions and thresholds], it is impossible to determine whether the indicators are right or wrong. You do not take into consideration anything of the long by now debate between growth and development. Furthermore, if you use usual CBA thresholds, then no social project would be ever approved. If you want to take into account social benefits which are not economic, you need to depart from current CBA indicators. You use them, but integrated into bigger economic indicators that measure the overall economic balance of the economy.

Environmental. Here is the area which I find to be more flaw-full. You forget most fundamental indicators: GHG emissions; Water Footprint, Energy Consumption, Waste generation…. A project could fulfill all your conditions yet be totally environmentally unsustainable even in the short term!!

If you are curious about a set of indicators to assess environmental sustainability, mathematically detailed including thresholds, you can check [in Spanish for now, sorry, but you may try to use automatic translation]:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271511706_42_INDICADORES_QUE_MIDEN_EL_GRADO_DE_SOSTENIBILIDAD_DEL_METABOLISMO_URBANO

Furthermore, according to your text only CBA indicators are quantitative!!!!!!  However, there are many proposals to quantitatively measure many of the issues that you include in your index.

More striking issues: How can you remove “improvement of living quality of local residents” as factor conditioning SD? It does not matter which results Factor Analysis has given you; 4,500 history tells you it is a most important issue for SD; no development can endure without inhabitants/people who want to support it in time!!!

Furthermore, there is wide agreement that improvement in quality of life is one of the most fundamental features of what we designate as 'human development'.....

The index you arrive at Table 9 in my view, leaves so many fundamental issues for SD outside, that it cannot be considered a model for assessing SD of projects. Even if you developed the best possible formalization of those indicators, the obtained measure would hardly be a measure of Sustainability, since many of most fundamental issues for Sustainability are ignored!!

Furthermore, a measure obtained using such index could mean completely different things depending how you developed each indicator into an actual formulation; setting thresholds and formulations…Without a formal developing of every indicator it is actually impossible to state at all what would your index be measuring!!

If you want to take a look to a very brief and easy to read article that explains how to design indicators including mathematical formulations, setting thresholds, etc… you can check:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262046896_A_%27logical%27_approach_to_Urban_Sustainability_Indicator_Design

Hope this critic may be helpful for you.

Best, Ricardo

Technical Report 4.2_ INDICADORES QUE MIDEN EL GRADO DE SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL ME...

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

@Andrew

Let me detail it a bit; of course environmental assessment has to be context dependent. The issue is that for most urban areas, current context is the whole world. Cities import biocapacity embedded in products [that is the whole paradigm underlying the ‘footprint’ concept].

A most evident example are cities in the Emirates, where context is hardly able to provide any of the resources used. But on a more general basis, any city around the world has nowadays extended its context to the whole world as environment.

Assessing cities sustainability needs assessing their impact on the world. However, it is not an easy issues, since local environment also matters.

For my model, I adopted the view that local context issues should be assessed in models for assessing regions, while urban units’ assessment should be made on the base of their impact on the world as model.

It is a simplification, but it allows assigning each city a value that describes how sustainable the world is if every city was as the one assessed.

Best, Ricardo

Ps. You can check the rationale of the approach at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271511706_42_INDICADORES_QUE_MIDEN_EL_GRADO_DE_SOSTENIBILIDAD_DEL_METABOLISMO_URBANO

Technical Report 4.2_ INDICADORES QUE MIDEN EL GRADO DE SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL ME...