Content uploaded by Pramit Verma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pramit Verma on Sep 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
TITLE PAGE
Title: Urban Sustainability Indicators: Challenges and Opportunities
Article type: Review Article
Author name and affiliations
Pramit Verma, A. S. Raghubanshi*
Pramit Verma
Integrative Ecology Laboratory (IEL), Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development
(IESD), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi – 221005, INDIA
Email: coda.zeppelin@gmail.com; pramit.verma@bhu.ac.in
A. S. Raghubanshi*(Corresponding author)
Integrative Ecology Laboratory (IEL), Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development
(IESD), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi – 221005, INDIA
Email: asr.iesd.bhu@gmail.com
Phone number: 09919240241
Graphical Abstract
Abstract
Urbanization has become one of the most important issues which define the human
relationship with the ecosystem. Measuring progress towards sustainable or unsustainable
urban development requires quantification with the help of suitable sustainability indicators.
There is a general ignorance about contextual meaning and understanding of the concept of
sustainability which differs from country to country and economic strata of the society. Our
review aims to reduce this challenge by identifying major issues faced in the development
and implementation of sustainability indicators and suggesting remedial recommendations.
We have identified two broad categories of challenges according to their development and
implementation phase respectively, and three preliminary criteria in the application of urban
sustainability indicators.
Keywords: indicator application; indicator evaluation; indicator framework; sustainability
targets; urban sustainability
1. Introduction
The ecological footprint of cities extends much beyond their administrative boundaries, with
the productive and assimilative services of ecosystem facilitating the flow of energy as well
as material. The resource base used by urban population is generally found away from its
place of consumption. Therefore, biophysical consequences of rapid and uncontrolled
urbanization are felt elsewhere. Urbanization is a large proportion of human population living
in cities (Davis, 1955). According to United Nations it is movement of people from rural to
urban areas accompanied by three major trends (Mori and Christodoulou, 2012): first,
concentration of ‘metacities’, that is, conurbations of more than 20 million people, in the
developing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa (Habitat, 2006) ; second, presence of
more than half of world’s urban population in cities of less than 500,000 inhabitants; and
third, 95% of urban population growth in cities of developing countries accounting for about
4 billion people (Habitat, 2006; Mori and Christodoulou, 2012). India and China in particular
are expected to see an increase of about one third urban population in the coming decade with
rapid urbanization (Shen et al., 2011). Following the afore mentioned three trends, urban
growth is dynamically balanced between economies of scale and scope, along with
diseconomies like environmental degradation and leakages (Munda, 2006). Cities are
confronted with the problem of trade-off between positive and negative effects of
urbanization in respect to environmental, social and economic aspects (Mori and
Christodoulou, 2012). As cities grow anthropogenic assets accumulate while natural assets
suffer a corresponding decrease (Bithas and Christofakis, 2006). This accumulation of
anthropogenic assets is the result of growth in economic and social states. Sustainable
development has been traditionally identified with three major areas of environmental,
economic and social dimensions along with institutional addendum.
Sustainable development must be equitable, liveable and viable (Tanguay et al.,
2010). It is considered a weakness that sustainability has a loosely defined conceptual base
(Pissourios, 2013), with lopsided developments in the multiple dimensions of sustainability,
chiefly environmental aspects. It is claimed by many authors that definition of sustainability
transforms itself according to the target area of researchers (Tanguay et al., 2010). According
to Turcu (2013) there is generally no universally accepted definition of sustainability.
According to Allen (1980), sustainable development means achieving enduring development
addressing human needs and improvement of quality of life. At the same time natural
resources should be utilized at a frequency and degree that can be sustained by regenerative
capacity of the ecosystem.
Mori and Christodoulou (2012) supported nested hierarchical approach for
biophysical, social and economic aspects of sustainability. They argue that in the triple
bottom line structure social, economic and environmental considerations cannot be treated as
parallel. Functioning life-support system, social structures, institutions and economies depend
on each other to keep working. Though they have explained this approach with a limited
scope, it is important to mention that nested hierarchy approach considers biophysical limits
of the earth as the final boundary which contains and consists of social and economic
parameters (Fischer et al., 2007).
Table 1. Definition of sustainability: Economic, Social, Environmental and Urban
Theme Urban Sustainability References
Economic It should focus on man-made, natural, human
and social capital
Hamilton (2006)
Resource utilisation should not affect future
income
Moldan et l. (2012)
Intergenerational equity for resources
Economic activity should consider ecological
basis
Intergenerational equity, distributional equity,
optimal growth
Anand and Sen (2000)
Social Should address the perpetuity of social values,
identities, relationships and institutions
Black, 2004; Moldan et
al. (2012)
Common goals and social cohesion Gilbert et al. (1996)
Health, education, food, water, housing
should be sustained for each individual
Gilbert et al. (1996;
Longoni and Cagliano
(2015); Moldan et al.
(2012)
Actively support the maintenance and
creation of skills as well as the capabilities of
Longoni and Cagliano
(2015)
future generations
Environmental Social and economic development should
have sound environmental foundation
Natural resource management should have
high priority
Moldan et al. (2012)
Tipping points, thresholds (air, water
pollution levels), sudden changes should be
well understood
Moldan et al. (2012),
(Booth, Zipper,
Loheide, & Kucharik,
2016)
Sustainable development definition gives rise to multiple interpretations (Tanguay et al.,
2010), with differing emphasis on “what is to be developed, what is to be sustained”, the
relationship between environment and development and the temporal scale of such
development. This means that in order to be sustainable, those resources which can be
utilised for development should be identified with their limitations (carrying capacity), along
with the natural components or limits that need to be protected or sustained respectively for
proper functioning of ecosystems. Sustainability is a very “loosely” defined term (Pissourios,
2013; Turcu, 2013). The broader concept ideally includes the triple bottom line however the
concepts gets more focused to include mostly environmental sustainability in practice.
Sustainability is the most “challenging and controversial” issue with regard to its
“interpretation and application” and further when the term ‘sustainable’ combines with
‘development’, its focus changes to economic development rather than overall sustainability
(Lee and Huang, 2007). When nations focus on economic development as the main aspect of
sustainable development it inevitably drains the earth’s regenerative and carrying capacity.
Social influence on the concept of sustainability renders it’s measurement less objective,
limited to a certain scope, with possible conflict of interests and manipulation by
stakeholders. Further, according to Moldan et al. (2012) social sustainability is the most
important pillar of sustainable development and yet it is not fully clear as to what it consists
of. They question whether it includes growing, or not diminishing, inequality between people
or nations, good health or failure of national institutions. Mori and Christodoulou (2012) have
identified the triple bottom line as an abstract notion of biophysical, economic and social
elements, and intergenerational equity as the fundamental notions of sustainability and Turcu
(2013) holds that definition of sustainability is a normative choice rather than a concrete well-
defined concept. According to Pupphachai and Zuidema (2017) sustainable development
provides a more general direction for evaluating and streamlining policies towards urban
function and structure rather than a precise definition. This very fact has resulted in the
development of Sustainable Development Goals with 17 broad goals and 169 interconnected
targets based on national priorities (UN, 2015). Mori and Christodoulou (2012) argue that
cities have social and economic impacts on sustainability while they export their
environmental externalities to areas out of their boundaries. This notion is very important in
assessing the sustainability of urban areas as they extend much beyond their administrative
boundary.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets were adopted in 2015 (Kumar,
Thakur, Bansod, & Debnath, 2017b) for the next 15 years with the specific aim of achieving
a holistic approach towards sustainable development for both developing as well as
developed countries (Griggs et al., 2013). These goals are believed to be more integrated into
policy than Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as nations can prioritise the targets and
goals over national scales and local conditions (Le Blanck, 2015) while working with
internationally accepted norms. SDGs are accompanied by concrete indicators and some
goals also have a “means of implementation” which includes finance, trade, technology
transfer, etc (Le Blanck, 2015). For example, Goal 17 presents a cross-cutting theme of
targets which includes finance, trade, multi-national cooperation and capacity building to
facilitate implementation of the other 16 SDGs. These indicators and targets are theoretically
aimed to be universal but practically they are not applicable to every country (Hák,
Janoušková, & Moldan, 2016). Goal 11 of SDG, making cities inclusive, safe resilient and
sustainable, addresses urban sustainability in terms of the following corss-cutting issues of
affordable housing, sustainable transport, human settlement planning and management, green
and public spaces, supporting positive economic, social and environmental links between
urban, peri-urban and rural areas and developing and implementing, in line with the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, “holistic disaster risk management at all
levels” (United Nations – Sustainable Development). Indicators proposed to measures these
targets include, but are not limited to, proportion of population living in slums, ratio of land
consumption rate to population growth rate, total and per capita expenditure on preservation
of natural and cultural heritage, solid waste collected, proportion of local governments that
adopt disaster risk reduction strategies according to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030, etc. (Inter-Agency and Expert Group in Sustainable Development
Goal Indicators, 2016). SDG targets have emerged from a long process of political
negotiations. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015) states that when these
targets were assessed for their scientific robustness it was found that only 49 targets out of
169 had a well-developed scientific background. 54% of the targets needed to be more
specific in terms of their scope while 17% needed significant improvement (SDSN, 2015).
Lack of implementation, conflict between targets and goals, and between international
agreements and political foci, unavailability of data and non-quantifiable targets were the
major weaknesses found in the assessment (Hák et al., 2016).
From table 1 it is clear that all aspects of sustainability arise from human activities,
like resource use, pollution, need to understand a system’s capacity, intergenerational equity
and tipping points among many others. Here space is used to define sustainability (Wang et
al., 2016). Since these activities are concentrated in urban areas (Mehta, Yadav, Chief, &
Planner, 2016), urban sustainability works as a cross cutting issue across the environmental,
social and economic sustainability. Inflow of materials and energy resources and generation
of wastes should not exceed the city’s capacity for a sustainable environment (Science for
Environment Policy, 2015). Economic activity, population growth, infrastructure and
services, pollution and waste should be internally limited in the system so that urban system
may develop in harmony, internally limiting negative impacts on the natural environment
(Hiremath et al., 2013). At this point mention should be made about lack of urban boundary
concept. Politically urban boundaries are defined as countries, states, cities and various other
terms. They have an advantage in terms of implementing policies and evaluating progress.
Measuring sustainability based on these boundaries is easy to understand for decision makers
and stakeholders. However, since urban areas extend beyond their political or administrative
boundaries, sustainability measured for politically defined urban areas is irrelevant and
arbitrary (Fiala, 2008). Importance of political and administrative boundaries persist, and
cannot be challenged, because they provide an existing pathway for delivering sustainable
policies to the society. For more information about models of sustainability see Ali-Toudert
and Ji (2017).
The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development in its landmark report
‘Our Common Future’ (WCED, 1987). According to it sustainable development means
utilising resources in order to meet the present needs of society as well as making efforts to
use the resources in an optimum manner within their regeneration capacity. (Moldan,
Janoušková, & Hák, 2012) gave three important aspects for defining sustainable
development, first, development is to first satisfy “certain basic human needs” before higher
needs can be fulfilled, second, such development should be in harmony with nature, and
third, sustainable development is a human centric concept with intergenerational equity at its
heart. While the Brundtland definition of sustainability leaves ample room for interpretation
and growth, it is considered that human beings are the focal point in any discussion about
sustainable development, and they are entitled (Moldan et al., 2012) and responsible to create
a “healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
2. Sustainability Indicators
Measuring progress towards sustainable or unsustainable development requires quantifying
phenomena which represent such progress. This is done through indicators. Indicators could
be anything from as simple as Gross Domestic Product per capita to measure economic
development to complex such as immunization against infectious childhood diseases to
measure health care. First set of indicators were published in 1996 by the UN Department of
Economics and Social Affairs in the form of Driving force – State – Response (DSR)
framework (King, 2016). Indicators are required at all levels of results-oriented development
goal. These indicators provide the necessary information for measuring environmental,
economic and social progress (Böhringer and Jochem, 2007). Indicators help towards
achieving sustainability targets and inform policy makers as well as public about current state
of environment, their weaknesses and strengths, and bring out the priority areas (Pupphachai
and Zuidema, 2017). Indicators not only validate a framework but also provide an insight into
the phenomena being monitored (Guzm'n, Roders, & Colenbrander, 2017). Simple indicators
are those which measure individual phenomena such as number of people living below
poverty line and percentage green cover, while they combine to form a composite index
based on different weightage given to constituting indicators. Both help in measuring,
analysing and implementing sustainable practices, in policy making and public
communication (Dizdaroglu, 2015; Singh et al., 2009). Sustainable development indicators
must clearly differentiate between sustainable and unsustainable development and results
should be clearly stated without any confusion for policy making (Lee and Huang, 2007).
Sustainability indicators can be a normative measure indicating the distance between current
and baseline states (Huang et al., 1998). They are made to reflect policy measures,
policymakers and those affected by such policies are the best judge to predict the feasibility
of implementing such measures. Hence, indicators which receive political support are liable
to be more successful and accepted (Science for Environment Policy, 2015). Measuring
sustainable development in urban areas remains the greatest challenge in implementing
sustainable development in cities (Lee and Huang, 2007), which requires comparable
information about the social, economic and environmental aspects of urban machinery.
Dizdaroglu (2015) states that indicator based sustainability assessment contributes in the
following four ways, first, by indicating the state of local sustainability, second, quantifying
sustainability, third, by providing feedback of policies during implementation, and fourth, by
finding the best policy measures for sustainability.
2.1 Urban Sustainability Indicators
Newman and Jennings (2012) define sustainable urban ecosystems as “ecosystems which are
ethical, effective (healthy and equitable), zero-waste generating, self-regulating, resilient,
self-renewing, flexible, psychologically-fulfilling and cooperative” (Dizdaroglu, 2015).
Sustainable urban development includes (1) improving quality of life through social
interaction and easier access to wide range of services; (2) minimizing energy consumption
via green building design technologies; (3) sustainable transport; (4) environmental
protection and restoration (Dizdaroglu, 2015; Dizdaroglu & Didem, 2017; Jabareen, 2006);
(5) renewable energy and waste management (Stossel, Kissinger, & Meir, 2015); (6) green
economies including clean technologies, green tax policies, green infrastructure, etc.
(Zygiaris, 2013); (7) environmental justice and equity through public health and welfare by
natural resource management including affordable housing, efficient transport, community
participation into policy decisions, etc. (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014); (8) Preservation of
public space, water resources, cultural and natural heritage (Fawzi Raed Ameen & Mourshed,
2016) and preventing groundwater contamination by wastes (Kumar, Thakur, Bansod, &
Debnath, 2017a). Urban sustainability includes a number of topics like biodiversity, energy,
material balance, air pollution, heat island, noise pollution, etc. Sustainable urban indicators
are defined by Peter et al. (1998) as “physical, chemical, ecological or socio-economic
measures” which can measure environmental or complex ecosystem variables (Dizdaroglu,
2015). While indicators help in measuring progress towards sustainability, their application is
not easy across different cities or regions. Cities have different definitions of sustainability,
indicators designed to measure sustainability for a particular city cannot be used for a
different city (Li Shen & Guo, 2014). Apart from a spatially focused approach there is no
special criteria for urban sustainability indicators that sets them apart from sustainable
development indicators.
2.2 Scope of the review and bibliometric analysis
Our aim was to analyse challenges in application of sustainability indicators in urban areas.
In this review article we have focussed research published in peer reviewed journals in the
last decade from year 2006. We followed a three step approach in our literature review
similar to (Guzm??n et al., 2017; SRIVASTAVA et al., 2017). First a key phrase search was
performed to finalise the literature considered on the basis of whether they dealt with urban
sustainability indicators, followed by the second step, a reference analysis related to indicator
application and development, and the third step, identifying challenges and
recommendations. First, we searched publications related with sustainability indicators, urban
sustainability and indicator frameworks in the Scopus database on 3rd October, 2017.
Publications with keywords of“urban sustainability indicators” or “sustainable development
indicators” in the title, abstract or keywords were shortlisted since our focus was on
understanding the indicators applied in urban setup. The scope of the search included 341
documents pertaining to fields of environmental, social, energy, engineering, business,
management and accounting, economics, agricultural and biological sciences, earth and
planetary sciences, decision sciences and multidisciplinary sciences. These broad fields of
study were considered in bibliometric analysis due to the cross-cutting nature urban
sustainability. We further refined to those publications which had the word “urban” in their
title, abstract or keywords for the next step. We found 108 research articles, 14 conference
proceedings, 10 review articles, 2 articles in press and 1 book out of a total of 138 research
publications (Fig. 1). Research publications have peaked in the year 2012 with 22
publications, while they were only 3 and 13 in 2006 and 2015 respectively. Research in this
field has increased in the last decade (Fig. 2) warranting a streamlining of its direction.
Second, we did a reference cross check and found some of the older reports and other works
from different agencies showing important developments which we included for proper
explanation of concepts. Third, analysis of literature was done to find out the specific issues
related with development and application of urban sustainability indicators. Only those
papers were selected for review which were closely related to the urban sustainability
indicators which were not focussed on a particular urban sustainability theme, and
duplication of ideas was avoided to include maximum aspects of recent studies and trends in
sustainability indicator research.
!"#$
%&' # %&
Fig. 1. Composition of peer reviewed literature in 2006-2017 indexed in Scopus database
(##) *
Fig. 2. Timeline of number of articles selected for our review published in the field of
urban sustainability indicators 2006-2017 indexed in Scopus database
2.3 State of Research
There are several organizations involved in developing and applying indicator-based
sustainability frameworks. From our review of current state of research, we present the
following account about such organizations and other research work done in the last decade.
The focus is to familiarize the reader about recent developments in this field. The World
Bank categorises three types of indicators, first, a large number of indicators covering various
environmental concerns comprise individual indicators; second, a small set of indicators for
evaluating environmental policies come under thematic indicators; and third, systemic
indicators where one indicator represents a difficult issue (Dizdaroglu, 2015). A Global City
Indicators Program was started in 2007 by the World Bank which provides a platform for
cities to compare their indicators and share results and best practices regarding sustainable
urbanization (Zoeteman et al., 2016). This program is run by the Global City Indicators
Facility (GCIF) at University of Toronto. The World Bank also provides an assessment tool,
called TRACE, which uses 28 main performance indicators to measure the energy
consumption of cities (Zoeteman et al., 2016). World Resources Institute identified four
categories of indicators. The first category, called source indicators, is based on depletion of
resources and degradation of ecological systems, like forest, marine, and freshwater; second,
sink indicators measure the capacity of resources to sustain emissions and waste; third, Life
support indicators assessing change in Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity; fourth, Human
Impact indicators for evaluating the effect of environmental degradation on human health and
well-being (Dizdaroglu, 2015). These indicators were specifically designed to capture the
anthropogenic and environmental interaction. It is worthy to note that indicator based
literature and independent studies are extensively available for European and North American
countries at national level while they are hard to find for Asian and African countries.
Zoeteman et al. (2016) have given an account of indicator studies limited to European cities.
EUROSTAT developed a monitoring framework called Urban Audit for European Union
countries with the help of national statistics organizations. It began in 1999 as a socio-
economic measuring tool collecting data at regular intervals and publishing the results in
EUROSTATS’s Regional Yearbooks. Urban Audit data informs about the sustainability of
urban regions of the European Union (Zoeteman et al., 2016). Other indicator studies include
the WHO European Healthy Cities Network collecting data since 1998 which published a
city fact sheet in for 100 European cities for twelve health indicators; the European Green
City Index for thirty European cities evaluated thirty environmental indicators; the Covenant
of Mayors on Climate Change, 2014, provides greenhouse gas emissions and reduction
targets set by participating cities (Zoeteman et al., 2016).
Lee and Huang (2007) proposed a set of 51 indicators for Taipei sustainability to
assess which public policies lead towards sustainable development. They have calculated
composite indicator values for four themes of economic, social, environmental and
institutional categories. Their indicator set belongs to weak sustainability framework and they
have highlighted the method through which balance can be reached between anthropogenic
and ecological aspects of indicators. Zhang et al. (2010) applied principal component analysis
(PCA) to determine the most useful indicator sets. Their basic premise to assess indicators
was that urban land use is driven by several factors like social and economic, the aim is to
find out the most important component from available indicators. They reported that
following indicator variables formed the first three factors of PCA: Factor 1 – Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), GDP per unit area of land, investment devoted to environmental
pollution treatment, total land area and retail sales of consumer goods per unit area of land;
Factor 2 - Proportion of construction land cover in the built-up urban area and road area per
capita; Factor 3 - Proportion of industrial solid wastes that are treated and reused and
population density.
Urban areas are characterised by concentration of built areas. (Xing, Horner, El-
Haram, & Bebbington, 2009) identified an urban sustainability model based on monetisation
of the buildings in an urban area. The aim was to determine sustainability by analysing and
internalising cost of environmental, social and economic externalities. Their study is focussed
on the building and urban planning cycle. On the other hand a study with a new perspective
by (Sakieh & Salmanmahiny, 2016) compares the urban growth to cancer spread in human
bodies. They argue that urban cores behave like cancer cells that constitute a neoplasm or a
tumour. They have given arguments comparing the spread of cancer cells with urban cores
stating that like cancer cells, priority needs to be to restrain the larger urban cores with more
physical and population size as they have bigger and extended ecological footprint. While the
smaller cancer tumours have more potential for growth they can be mitigated more easily
than their larger counterparts. Same holds for the urban cores. They analysed suitability of
different landscapes for urban growth, rangeland development and afforestation under three
scenarios of restricted urban growth with more potential for afforestation, rangeland
protection scenario with more potential for urban growth and a historical growth scenario
where whole of the study area was available for urban growth. They validated their
morphological analogy by using Multi-Criteria Evaluation, SLEUTH land use change model
and performance metrics to compare cancer growth and urbanization pattern.
Shen et al. (2011) proposed an International Urban Sustainability Indicators List
(IUSIL) after examining nine different practices followed in some cities. They concluded that
sharing knowledge about different practices leads to selection of indicators and
communication of comparative results. Their main drawback was that they did not examine
these practices against their implementation in these cities. Panda et al. (2016) developed a
composite Urban Social Sustainability Index under four themes of sustainability which
involved use of normalization of data values, weighting through expert survey and
confirmation through factor analysis, determining directionality of the scores and linear
aggregation of the thematic index. They used multivariate statistics to test their model which
is in resonance with suggestions of Huang et al. (2015) for indicator development and similar
to the methodology followed by Salvati and Carlucci (2014). De Sherbinin et al. (2014) state
for higher level policy making indicators need to be designed so as to reflect progress
towards certain targets or comparisons to help society find out solutions to sustainability
concerns.
De Sherbinin et al. (2014) developed a set of indicators focussing on three areas of
airborne particulate matter concentration, biomass burning and coastal chlorophyll trends. For
airborne particulate matter concentration, they created an exposure index from human health
policy perspective using population weighting. For example, population weighting gave more
weight to PM2.5 concentration in more populated areas. They used Moderate-Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer/Multiangle Imaging Spectro-Radiometer (MODIS/MISR) data
for aerosol optical depth measurements and Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project for
applying population weighting to spatial grids. Their main methodological achievement was
that they used satellite imagery to create sustainability indicators thereby proving the
relevance of using satellite data in urban sustainability measurement. Salvati and Carlucci,
(2014) applied a Factor Weighting Model to create an index of sustainability. The
methodology followed to select indicators included seven steps for variable selection, data
transformation, multivariate analysis, weight derivation, indicators composition and
descriptive statistical analysis of the derived index. They also conducted a PCA to find out
the factors affecting socioeconomic and environmental conditions for 8100 municipalities of
Italy. They further compared their derived index with target indicator values for Italy.
Cook et al. (2017) developed a simple index applying two different but
complementary approaches. They used a proximity-to-target approach in case of quantifiable
targets and where trend-based targets are present, a traffic lights approach is applied.
Basically, they have quantified progress towards or away from accepted targets of
sustainability. Since there is no limit for trend-based indicators, a reference point is found out
wherever data is available and a traffic lights approach is used, where red means
deteriorating, green means improving, yellow means little or no change and grey means data
not available. A set of 23 indicators were selected from 30 indicators against five key criteria
of policy relevance, utility, soundness, interpretability and data availability and quality.
Turcu, (2013) has emphasised the importance of incorporating local perspective by
integrating science and public as policy tools. Such indicators may reflect a more ‘truthful
image of local (un)sustainability’. Though the methodology by Turcu, (2013) would be hard
to reproduce by local governments or public. Babu and Datta (2015) report that here exists a
bidirectional association between developmental and environmental aspects in the developing
countries that are more dependent upon natural resources. They have showed that a 1%
growth in life expectancy contributes to $10291.46 increase in GDP, whereas 1% rise in GDP
results in marginal growth in life-expectancy and same is the case for GDP and adult literacy
rate. This means that growth in GDP does not immediately translates into health and
education improvements. GDP does not consider the diseconomies like deforestation, water
quality degradation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, depletion of fisheries stock,
etc. They have argued in support of eaNDP (environmentally adjusted net domestic product).
In a recent study (Luan, Lu, Li, & Ma, 2017) gave a comprehensive index based on
sensitivity analysis of 18 indicators taken from an existing index. They applied the extended
Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (EFAST) model to quantitatively determine the importance
of sustainable development indicators. Their study brings out the fact that now there is a need
to simplify the sustainable development evaluation process because of over-population of
such indicators.
3. Discussion
A number of authors have identified challenges faced in developing, selecting and
implementing sustainability indicators in general (Hák et al., 2016; Lee and Huang, 2007;
Moldan et al., 2012; Mori and Christodoulou, 2012; Tanguay et al., 2010; Turcu, 2013).
Since urbanization has become one of the most important issues which defines the human
relationship with the ecosystem, we have focussed on the urban context of sustainability
indicators. The indicator selection, baseline and target determination, evaluation and review
cycle for applying urban sustainability indicators in a top-down framework is described in
figure 3.
Fig. 3 Diagram showing the steps involved in top-down approach in an indicator framework
3.1. Challenges and Opportunities
After extensive review of literature we identified external and internal challenges as two
broad categories through which sustainable indicators can be analysed. This grouping was
aimed at simplifying the most common issues met during development and implementation
of indictors. Internal challenge are the problems inherent in indicators due to their
development methodology. Their causes can include, but are not limited to, methodology
used for developing indicators, weighting methods, complexity or over-simplicity in
measurement and lack of theoretical base.
External challenges are the issues which prevent implementation of sustainability
indicator frameworks. This is the external resistance that makes selection, interpretation and
application of indicators complicated and useless (Moldan et al., 2012). These are
characterized by lack of data, policy lethargy or unwillingness on part of government to
implement the indicators, lack of consensus on what constitutes standard indicators and lack
of comparative analysis across disciplines and cities. These are the problems that we face
during implementation and incorporation of indicators in decision use.
##
+
,-#.#
,) #
,- -
#
/"
!0.#-
# 0.#-
, ##-#.# $&
' - .1#
' - 1#
Fig. 4 Number of challenges and opportunities of each step in the indicator framework
identified for 2006-2017 (refer supplementary material table 1 and 2)
3.1.1. Internal challenges:
The way sustainable development indicators are developed is a matter of much debate
(Turcu, 2013). Development of indicators are many times backed up by unsound
methodologies (Mori and Christodoulou, 2012). Top-down or expert-led and bottom-up or
citizen-led models are well documented. Bottom-up approaches are suitable for local or
regional level studies while unsuitable for global studies and top-down methods are suitable
for global studies. A list of challenges innately present in indicators is given in supplement
table 1. Here we have discussed the issues and opportunities of sustainability indicators in
urban settings according to the steps of indicator framework identified in Fig. 3.
Preliminary assessment (A) is most important before setting the stage for an indicator
framework. This is the first step in indicator framework. It is determined by government
policy, government departments involved, the scope of urban boundary, time period and
whether updated urban conditions (Liyin Shen & Zhou, 2014) are taken under consideration.
Urban conditions refer to the local, regional and global interactions in an urban setting which
give it its unique identity. (Stossel et al., 2015) state that urban sustainability assessments
mostly focus on environment within city boundaries. Zhou et al., (2015) cite the importance
of public departments in creating indicators as they are the ones that have to implement and
report progress about sustainable development. They propose a responsibility based method
in which roles and scope of all concerned public departments is taken into account.
Setting goals (B) is the second step of indicator development. Stakeholder
participation is the principle activity in this step. While (Huang, Wong, & Chen, 1998; Turcu,
2012) pointed out that presently it lacks integration of citizen-led and expert-led approaches,
(Liu, Brown, & Casazza, 2017; Mascarenhas, Nunes, & Ramos, 2015; L. Y. Shen, Jorge
Ochoa, Shah, & Zhang, 2011; Tanguay, Rajaonson, & Lanoie, 2010) state that due to
confusion and ambiguity in the definition of sustainability there is no universal criteria for
sustainability goals. Stakeholder participation is needed in setting goals or outcomes. Goals
should be identified according to a universal criteria and based upon local conditions. For
example poverty reduction might be a universal criteria but the percentage reduction of
people living below would be determined by the realistic local conditions and capacity.
It was found that the indicator research is bent more towards their selection
methodology (fig. 4). Indicator selection (C) is an iterative process which involves setting the
selection criteria, identifying reliable (Huang et al., 1998) indicators with stakeholder
participation as an important component. Since most of the research has focussed on this
aspect a large number of indicators have been identified with as many number of selection
criteria and no universally accepted approach. Tanguay et al. (2010) suggested that we may
accept the most cited indicator as the most relevant one. This approach has benefits as well as
drawbacks. The most cited indicator means that it should be simple, easy to measure with
available data, but it also means that its simplicity might compromise its ability to measure
sustainability dimensions in depth. Further, they proposed that the index should cover all the
components of sustainable development and certain predetermined categories which occur
pertinently, as given in their study, and the simplest index should be chosen for easier data
collection, analysis and dissemination. For measuring sustainability a conceptual framework
is necessary to follow the most appropriate selection criteria for indicators. In order to
actualize their recommendations, Tanguay et al. (2010) proposed a SuBSelec strategy for
sustainable development indicators. They compared whether selecting indicators cited at least
four times and representing more categories of sustainable development was better than
choosing indicators cited more than four times but representing less number of categories.
The themes of sustainable development were determined by them in order to incorporate a
sound conceptual framework in their strategy. They further applied the following three
conditions for selecting indicators, first, parsimony in the indicators with easy understanding
and usefulness, second, coverage of all categories of sustainable development, and third,
retaining indicators on which consensus exists in literature for a sound conceptual
understanding. They found that it is better to use lesser number of indicators. Six sustainable
development categories out of twenty, which were not represented by the selected indicators
were included by adding the most recurring indicator in their respective category. Indicator
based indices or composite indices constitute combination of different indicators. Choice or
selection of indicators and weighting are the biggest criticisms levelled against composite
indices. Indices like Dashboard of Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability Index,
Environmental Vulnerability Index, Environmental Policy Index, Wellbeing Index, Living
Planet Index, Human Development Index and City Development Index are examples of
composite indices (Mori and Christodoulou, 2012). But these are plagued by the
considerations of how much importance or weightage is given to constituent indicators
(Pissourios, 2013). Becker et al., (1987) conducted a study in United States and reported that
out of the selected cities 134 could be ranked first, 150 could be ranked last and 59 could be
ranked first or last, depending on the weighting scheme (Becker et al., 1987). Welfare indices
measure welfare contributions in common monetary units. They provide aggregation of
individual indicators using monetary units of measurement, but Pissourios, (2013) notes that
they lack sound theoretical foundations and even slight changes in weighting method of
consumption spending can substantially change the overall value of the index. The selection
of indicators determines its aggregation and the different choices made during aggregation
will produce different outcomes (Pissourios, 2013). Weights are target group specific because
policy makers, citizens, experts and businesses will have different priorities for different
issues, therefore how much an indicator contributes to the final index value depends on the
subjective understanding of different stakeholders (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017).
Setting baseline (D) is a neglected areas of indicator assessments. Socio-economic
data is usually collected through national or regional sampling surveys on a regular basis
while scientific data is collected through continuous monitoring of environmental parameters.
This data needs to be used to create a baseline for gap analysis.
Selecting targets (E) requires scientific input to determine the sustainability
requirements and stakeholder discussion to determine practicality of targets. Selection criteria
need to be set in this step. This is also an aspect which requires more research to bring out
definite threshold values (fig. 4). (Mori and Christodoulou, 2012) call for absolute thresholds
to reduce the confusion between elements of the triple bottom line and indicate the level up to
which the system can function sustainably. (Cook et al., 2017) second their opinion and
include expert judgement and nation specific analysis for a holistic assessment by
environmental indicators. Thresholds are scientifically determined or policy based targets
beyond which the system is considered unsustainable. Threshold hypothesis is basically an
ecological economics measurement concept. Basic human needs must be met before holistic
development is targeted (Smith et al., 2013) but in practice even after satisfying basic human
needs such development does not take place. When macroeconomic systems exceed beyond a
certain point the marginal benefits of further growth are offset by the marginal cost of
externalities (Pissourios, 2013). Indicators measuring these are called welfare indices which
measure the benefits and costs of growth. One of the earliest indices, Daly and Cobb’s Index
of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) was developed in 1989. It studied the trend of
GDP and ISEW values and concluded that economic growth is beneficial up to a certain point
only, beyond that it becomes detrimental (Pissourios, 2013). Lack of scientifically determined
thresholds has been pointed out by many authors (Marletto and Mameli, 2012; Moldan et al.,
2012; Mori and Christodoulou, 2012; Shen et al., 2011; Shen and Zhou, 2014). As can be
seen from figure 4, selection of appropriate set of indicators is the most important challenge
to be overcome for assessing urban sustainability.
3.1.2. External challenge:
Tanguay et al. (2010) state that sustainable development has a broad definition which gives
rise to multiple interpretations. Mori and Christodoulou, (2012) associate the same reason to
indicators’ weakness and further add the diversity of purposes for measuring sustainability
and the confusion of terminology, data and methods applied in measurements as the major
causes.
Application (F) of indicators to gather real information is the most important step of
indicator frameworks. It involves collection of data and results by applying the indicators.
Application of indicators is to collect data and results, while application of findings is to
implement the information generated from indicators to bridge the gap between sustainable
and unsustainable development. Application of indicators has the biggest crucial challenge of
data unavailability. Because of paucity of data even the most logical and scientific indicators
framework would fail. According to Moldan et al. (2012), even if data is available, selection,
interpretation and use of indicators is the main difficulty. But as data availability has been
identified as a challenge by many authors, we can conclude that it is a very frequent external
challenge while applying indicators in actual situation. The issue of commensurability limits
the use of indicators and results in another external resistance in the form of lack of
comparison between case studies.
Evaluation (G) of indicator results includes performing sensitivity analysis and
identifying short-comings to modify the indicator assessment framework. This is also a
neglected step of indicator framework studies (fig. 4). In an interesting study, Ramos &
Caeiro (2010) cited the importance of meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of
indicators. They said that very few indicator frameworks implemented had provision for
meta-analysis. In the absence of such an evaluation the credibility and long term
sustainability of the indicator frameworks is jeopardised.
Reporting findings (H) and Sustaining the indicator (J) framework steps are not much
researched either and we were not able to identify challenges in respect to these steps. In a
top down approach the governments have the administrative machinery to implement these
through publications, public information dissemination as well as numerous government
departments to sustain the framework.
Decision use of indicator assessments (Applying findings, I) is rare. This aspect has
been neglected and it is one of the emerging question in indicator assessments.
Unclear methodologies might give rise to sustainability indices with unsustainable issues
(Turcu, 2013). Development of indices continue to be a search for technical and scientific
solutions rather than answer for political and social challenges which includes ethical and
moral dimension (Turcu, 2013). Thus, steps D, G, H, I and J need better analysis and
inclusion in urban sustainability assessments. The balance between political and social with
scientific characteristics of sustainability indices need to be achieved.
Generally a list of criteria for indicator selection and development is easily prepared
while the task of such indicator frameworks is hard to accomplish (Ramos & Caeiro, 2010).
Universal acceptability and influence on policy making are lacking in all indicator sets (Mori
and Christodoulou, (2012). Further, extensive and large scale studies, such as European
Common Indicators developed for European Union, are rare and very expensive (Pissourios,
2013). A very large amount of data has to be gathered which is usually repeated on timely
basis. Such reports quickly lose their relevance with time. A lot of indicator sets are
developed with the aim of providing policy directions for the public and government bodies
but their sheer numbers and complexity involved in measurement make them unattractive for
real use (Pissourios, 2013). In United States a study by Gahin et al., (2003), reported that five
indicator projects resulted in intangible benefits like sustainability, increased community
dialogue, better understanding of community issues, while the real benefits like policy
making and implementation of results was rare (Gahin et al., 2003). Pissourios, (2013) holds
that publication of such studies seldom make any policy decision or mobilize public towards
sustainability. Studies that cover a broad range of themes cannot do justice to details which
are necessary from policy-making perspective. Such studies cannot link unsustainability to its
causes as they are not linked to problems or focussed on certain issues (Pissourios, 2013).
Sustainability indicators should have following simple criteria like easy calculation,
data availability, commensurability, scientifically determined thresholds, with easy
penetrability into policy decisions. This is in accord with the Bellagio principles for assessing
progress towards sustainable development (Council). In this section we discuss
recommendations from various studies for urban sustainability indicators.
3.2 Outcomes
Nations have developed indicators according to their local or national priorities (Shen et al.,
2011). While urban sustainability performance is measured across the world, there is no
single set of indicators that can be used for all the urban areas (Shen et al., 2011). Common
indicators are needed for comparison and ranking between cities and countries. It is important
to consider that sustainability indicators serve as a means to an end and are not in themselves
the goal of achieving sustainability.
Shen and Zhou, (2014) identified five principal criteria for sustainability indicator
selection, they are, scope of sustainable development dimension, coherence for strategy,
public participation, focus on sustainable development goals and consistency regarding
meaning and dimensions of sustainable development indicators. A list of major suggestions
come across after a review of recent literature is given in supplementary material, Table 2.
Tanguay et al. (2010) warned against using Pressure-State-Response models and their
derivatives like Driving-Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Reaction models. They involve
multiplying the number of indicators four or five times as each category of sustainable
development must consist of pressure, state and response indicators. The PSR model is based
on cause and effect relationship between origin of change and their consequences. Social and
economic Drivers, like population growth, exert Pressure on the environment which changes
its State such as biodiversity or resource availability and leading to Impacts on human or
ecological matrix and anthropogenic Reaction on the Drivers of change (EEA, 1999). The
PSR and its derivative was more environmentally focussed but they did not address the
complex inter-linkage between drivers, state and response, and could not highlight the
relationship between indicators and policy relevance (Economic, 2007). Thus the PSR model
was abandoned from 2006 (Tanguay et al., 2010) and replaced with a theme/sub-theme based
flexible model by Commission for Sustainable Development for sustainability indicators
(Economic, 2007).
According to Tanguay et al. (2010) environmental and macro-economic indicators are
theoretically and methodologically more sound while quality of life, welfare and
sustainability indicators are supported by weak theoretical foundations which leads to
methodological inconsistencies. By applying their selection criteria (Tanguay et al., 2010)
may have been able to overcome this short-coming. Regarding targets, Hák et al. (2016) state
that they should be measurable and accessible by means of indicators (see Supplementary
Material Table 2). Dizdaroglu, (2015) state that indicators should be relevant for making
policy decisions, should be analytically sound and measurable. This discussion about
sustainability indicators brings forth three important criteria from the challenges mentioned in
supplementary material table 1 and recommendation given in supplementary material table 2,
that is, application of indicators and subsequent assessment of urban sustainability will be
most influenced by:
2 Data availability
2 Target/ sustainability threshold (whether scientifically determined or policy goal
based)
2 Conceptual framework for indicator selection
Other challenges will have a significant impact on sustainability assessment but the above
mentioned aspects can be considered as the first step to determine simple, or crude,
sustainability of a city. The theme/sub-theme based categorisation of indicators across the
triple bottom line or four dimensions of economic, social, environmental and institutional
sustainability is the most commonly practiced methodology. According to UN CSD
(Economic, 2007) issue and theme based indicator frameworks are adopted by most countries
for national, regional or theme based sustainability assessments as they are easier to
understand and present, and incorporate into policy framework.
4. Conclusion
There is a large literature on indicator application in sustainable development. Due to
overpopulation of indicators there is a need to distil out the most important and relevant ones.
But in order to select such a simplified indicator system the major challenges in application
and development have to be resolved. This work is a step forward in this direction. We
determined the steps involved in indicator framework in order to identify the challenges
associated with each step. The major challenges and opportunities were then analysed in
respect of each step in the framework. We found that data availability, target or thresholds
and a conceptual framework is needed as preliminary considerations for indicator based
evaluation of urban sustainability. While setting a Baseline and finding thresholds,
Evaluation of indicator framework after implementation including sensitivity analysis and
modifying the framework, and Application of findings in real world in order to move towards
sustainability, are the three emerging issues in indicator based sustainability research.
References
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., Airaksinen, M., 2017. What are the differences
between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60, 234-245.
Ali-Toudert, F., Ji, L., 2017. Modeling and measuring urban sustainability in multi-criteria
based systems—A challenging issue. Ecological Indicators 73, 597-611.
Anand, S., Sen, A., 2000. Human development and economic sustainability. World
development 28, 2029-2049.
Babu, S.S., Datta, S.K., 2015. Revisiting the link between socio-economic development and
environmental status indicators—focus on panel data. Environment, Development
and Sustainability 17, 567-586.
Becker, R.A., Denby, L., McGill, R., Wilks, A.R., 1987. Analysis of data from the Places
Rated Almanac. The American Statistician 41, 169-186.
Bithas, K.P., Christofakis, M., 2006. Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and
operational conditions. Sustainable Development 14, 177-189.
Black, A.W., 2004. The quest for sustainable, healthy communities. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education 20, 33-44.
Böhringer, C., Jochem, P.E., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable—A survey of sustainability
indices. Ecological economics 63, 1-8.
Cabello, J., Navarro, E., Prieto, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruiz, F., 2014. Multicriteria development
of synthetic indicators of the environmental profile of the Spanish regions. Ecological
Indicators 39, 10-23.
Cook, D., Saviolidis, N.M., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Ólafsson, S., 2017. Measuring
countries’ environmental sustainability performance—The development of a nation-
specific indicator set. Ecological Indicators 74, 463-478.
Council, E., Bellagio principles: guidelines for the practical assessment of progress toward
sustainable development, Implementing sustainable development: summaries of
special focus reports prepared for the Rio+ 5 forum, p. 3.
Davis, K., 1955. The origin and growth of urbanization in the world. American Journal of
Sociology 60, 429-437.
De Sherbinin, A., Levy, M.A., Zell, E., Weber, S., Jaiteh, M., 2014. Using satellite data to
develop environmental indicators. Environmental Research Letters 9, 084013.
Dizdaroglu, D., 2015. Developing micro-level urban ecosystem indicators for sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54, 119-124.
Du Plessis, C., Brandon, P., 2015. An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative
sustainability paradigm for the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 109,
53-61.
Economic, U.N.D.o., 2007. Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and
methodologies. United Nations Publications.
EEA, E., 1999. Environmental indicators: Typology and Overview. European Environmental.
Fiala, N., 2008. Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and
bad environmental science. Ecological economics 67, 519-525.
Fischer, J., Manning, A. D., Steffen, W., Rose, D. B., Daniell, K., Felton, A., … Wade, A,
2007. Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22(12), 621–
624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.016
Gahin, R., Veleva, V., Hart, M., 2003. Do indicators help create sustainable communities?
Local Environment 8, 661-666.
Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., Stren, R., 1996. Making cities work. London:
Earthscan.
Guzm'n, P. C., Roders, A. R. P., & Colenbrander, B. J. F., 2017. Measuring links between
cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of
global monitoring tools. Cities, 60, 192–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.005
Habitat, U., 2006. State of the World’s Cities. The Millennium Development Goals and
Urban Sustainability. Earthscan, London.
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for
relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators 60, 565-573.
Hamilton, K., 2006. Where is the wealth of nations?: measuring capital for the 21st century.
World Bank Publications.
Hiremath, R.B., Balachandra, P., Kumar, B., Bansode, S.S., Murali, J., 2013. Indicator-based
urban sustainability—A review. Energy for sustainable development 17, 555-563.
Huang, L., Wu, J., Yan, L., 2015. Defining and measuring urban sustainability: a review of
indicators. Landscape ecology 30, 1175-1193.
Huang, S.-L., Wong, J.-H., Chen, T.-C., 1998. A framework of indicator system for
measuring Taipei's urban sustainability. Landscape and urban planning 42, 15-27.
King, L. O., 2016. Functional sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 66, 121–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.027
Lee, Y.-J., Huang, C.-M., 2007. Sustainability index for Taipei. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 27, 505-521.
Li, F., Liu, X., Hu, D., Wang, R., Yang, W., Li, D., Zhao, D., 2009. Measurement indicators
and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable development: A case
study for China's Jining City. Landscape and Urban Planning 90, 134-142.
Liu, G., Brown, M. T., & Casazza, M. (2017). Enhancing the sustainability narrative through
a deeper understanding of sustainable development indicators. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 9(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061078
Longoni, A., Cagliano, R., 2015. Environmental and social sustainability priorities: Their
integration in operations strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 35, 216-245.
Luan, W., Lu, L., Li, X., & Ma, C. (2017). Weight Determination of Sustainable
Development Indicators Using a Global Sensitivity Analysis Method. Sustainability,
9(2), 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020303
Marletto, G., Mameli, F., 2012. A participative procedure to select indicators of policies for
sustainable urban mobility. Outcomes of a national test. European transport research
review 4, 79-89.
Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L. M., & Ramos, T. B. (2015). Selection of sustainability indicators
for planning: Combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 295–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.005
Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., Hák, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environmental
sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators 17, 4-13.
Mori, K., Christodoulou, A., 2012. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a
new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32,
94-106.
Munda, G., 2006. Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use
Policy 23, 86-94.
Newman, P., Jennings, I., 2012. Cities as sustainable ecosystems: principles and practices.
Island Press.
Panda, S., Chakraborty, M., Misra, S., 2016. Assessment of social sustainable development in
urban India by a composite index. International Journal of Sustainable Built
Environment 5, 435-450.
Peter, N., Joe, F., Mike, B., Kuldeep, B., Steve, B., Andre, C., Jeanette, G., John, H., Tony,
R., Veronica, R., 1998. Environmental indicators for national state of the environment
reporting: Human settlements. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Pissourios, I.A., 2013. An interdisciplinary study on indicators: A comparative review of
quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability indicators.
Ecological Indicators 34, 420-427.
Pupphachai, U., Zuidema, C., 2017. Sustainability indicators: A tool to generate learning and
adaptation in sustainable urban development. Ecological Indicators 72, 784-793.
Ramos, T. B., & Caeiro, S. (2010). Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators.
Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.008
Sakieh, Y., & Salmanmahiny, A. (2016). Treating a cancerous landscape: Implications from
medical sciences for urban and landscape planning in a developing region. Habitat
International, 55, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.008
Salvati, L., Carlucci, M., 2014. A composite index of sustainable development at the local
scale: Italy as a case study. Ecological Indicators 43, 162-171.
Science for Environment Policy. (2015). Indicators for sustainable cities. European
Commission, (12), 1–189. https://doi.org/10.2779/61700
Shen, L., & Guo, X. (2014). Spatial quantification and pattern analysis of urban sustainability
based on a subjectively weighted indicator model: A case study in the city of
Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Applied Geography, 53, 117–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.001
Shen, L.-Y., Ochoa, J.J., Shah, M.N., Zhang, X., 2011. The application of urban
sustainability indicators–A comparison between various practices. Habitat
International 35, 17-29.
Shen, L., Zhou, J., 2014. Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable
urbanization in China. Habitat International 44, 111-120.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators 9, 189-212.
Smith, L.M., Case, J.L., Smith, H.M., Harwell, L.C., Summers, J., 2013. Relating ecoystem
services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a US index. Ecological
Indicators 28, 79-90.
Somogyi, Z., 2016. A framework for quantifying environmental sustainability. Ecological
indicators 61, 338-345.
Stossel, Z., Kissinger, M., & Meir, A. (2015). Measuring the biophysical dimension of urban
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 120, 153–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.010
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.-F., Lanoie, P. (2010). Measuring the sustainability
of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological Indicators 10, 407-418.
Tran, L. (2016). An interactive method to select a set of sustainable urban development
indicators. Ecological Indicators 61, 418-427.
Turcu, C. (2013). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56, 695-719.
United Nations – Sustainable Development, accessed on 4th February, 2018. Web address -
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
Wang, Y., Chen, P.-C., Ma, H.-w., Cheng, K.-L., Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Socio-economic
metabolism of urban construction materials: A case study of the Taipei metropolitan
area. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
WCED, U. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and
Development Oxford University Press
Xing, Y., Horner, R. M. W., El-Haram, M. A., & Bebbington, J. (2009). A framework model
for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. Accounting Forum, 33(3),
209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.09.003
Zhang, Y., Yang, Z., Fath, B.D., Li, S. (2010). Ecological network analysis of an urban
energy metabolic system: model development, and a case study of four Chinese cities.
Ecological Modelling 221, 1865-1879.
Zhou, J., Shen, L., Song, X., Zhang, X. (2015). Selection and modeling sustainable
urbanization indicators: A responsibility-based method. Ecological Indicators 56, 87-
95.
Zoeteman, K., Mommaas, H., Dagevos, J. (2016). Are larger cities more sustainable? Lessons
from integrated sustainability monitoring in 403 Dutch municipalities. Environmental
Development 17, 57-72.
Additional references:
Booth, E. G., Zipper, S. C., Loheide, S. P., & Kucharik, C. J. (2016). Is groundwater recharge
always serving us well? Water supply provisioning, crop production, and flood
attenuation in conflict in Wisconsin, USA. Ecosystem Services, 21, 153–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.007
Development, S., & Network, S. (2015). Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the
Sustainable Development Goals Launching a data revolution for the SDGs, (Version 6).
Dizdaroglu, D. (2015). Developing micro-level urban ecosystem indicators for sustainability
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 119–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.004
Dizdaroglu, D., & Didem. (2017). The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in
Policy and the Decision-Making Process: A Review and Outlook. Sustainability, 9(6),
1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061018
Fawzi Raed Ameen, M., & Mourshed, M. (2016). Environmental , Social and Economic
Challenges for Urban Development : Stakeholder ’ s Perception in a Developing
Economy, (July).
Fischer, J., Manning, A. D., Steffen, W., Rose, D. B., Daniell, K., Felton, A., … Wade, A.
(2007). Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22(12), 621–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.016
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P.,
… Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet.
Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a
Guzm??n, P. C., Roders, A. R. P., & Colenbrander, B. J. F. (2017). Measuring links between
cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: An overview of
global monitoring tools. Cities, 60, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.005
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for
relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003
Huang, S. L., Wong, J. H., & Chen, T. C. (1998). A framework of indicator system for
measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00054-1
Inter-Agency and Expert Group in Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. (2016). Final
list of proposed Sustainable Development Goal indicators. Report of the Inter-Agency
and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, Annex IV.
https://doi.org/ISBN 978 92 4 150848 3
Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 38–52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05285119
King, L. O. (2016). Functional sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 66, 121–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.027
Kumar, P., Thakur, P. K., Bansod, B. K., & Debnath, S. K. (2017a). Multi-criteria evaluation
of hydro-geological and anthropogenic parameters for the groundwater vulnerability
assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(11).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6267-x
Kumar, P., Thakur, P. K., Bansod, B. K. S., & Debnath, S. K. (2017b). Groundwater: a
regional resource and a regional governance. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9931-y
Le Blanck, D. (2015). The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Monitoring
and Evaluation NEWS, 1(141), 1–4. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp141_2015.pdf
Liu, G., Brown, M. T., & Casazza, M. (2017). Enhancing the sustainability narrative through
a deeper understanding of sustainable development indicators. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 9(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061078
Luan, W., Lu, L., Li, X., & Ma, C. (2017). Weight Determination of Sustainable
Development Indicators Using a Global Sensitivity Analysis Method. Sustainability,
9(2), 303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020303
Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L. M., & Ramos, T. B. (2015). Selection of sustainability indicators
for planning: Combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 295–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.005
Mehta, S., Yadav, K. K., Chief, R., & Planner, T. (2016). Planning for a Smart City with a
Human Face in.
Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., & Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure
environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033
Nations, U. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. New York, NY. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/120815_outcome-
document-of-Summit-for-adoption-of-the-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf
Ramos, T. B., & Caeiro, S. (2010). Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators.
Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.008
Sakieh, Y., & Salmanmahiny, A. (2016). Treating a cancerous landscape: Implications from
medical sciences for urban and landscape planning in a developing region. Habitat
International, 55, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.008
Science for Environment Policy. (2015). Indicators for sustainable cities. European
Commission, (12), 1–189. https://doi.org/10.2779/61700
Shen, L., & Guo, X. (2014). Spatial quantification and pattern analysis of urban sustainability
based on a subjectively weighted indicator model: A case study in the city of Saskatoon,
SK, Canada. Applied Geography, 53, 117–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.001
Shen, L. Y., Jorge Ochoa, J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban
sustainability indicators - A comparison between various practices. Habitat
International, 35(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006
Shen, L., & Zhou, J. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of indicators for guiding sustainable
urbanization in China. Habitat International, 44, 111–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.05.009
SRIVASTAVA, P., SINGH, R., TRIPATHI, S., SINGH, P., SINGH, S., SINGH, H., …
MISHRA, P. K. (2017). Soil Carbon Dynamics Under Changing Climate—A Research
Transition from Absolute to Relative Roles of Inorganic Nitrogen Pools and Associated
Microbial Processes: A Review. Pedosphere, 27(5), 792–806.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60488-0
Stossel, Z., Kissinger, M., & Meir, A. (2015). Measuring the biophysical dimension of urban
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 120, 153–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.010
Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., & Lanoie, P. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of cities :
An analysis of the use of local indicators, 10, 407–418.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013
Turcu, C. (2012). Re-thinking Sustainability Indicators: local perspectives of urban
sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 695–719.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
Xing, Y., Horner, R. M. W., El-Haram, M. A., & Bebbington, J. (2009). A framework model
for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. Accounting Forum, 33(3),
209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.09.003
Zygiaris, S. (2013). Smart City Reference Model: Assisting Planners to Conceptualize the
Building of Smart City Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,
4(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0089-4
Supplementary Information
Table S. 1. List of external and internal challenges for indicator selection and development
Step Challenges Theme Reference
AConcerted scope and role of all concerned
departments related to policy making is not
taken into account
Internal Zhou et al., 2015
ADo not consider the urban setting in respect of
local, regional and global interactions in
sustainability assessments, rather focus only on
environment within city boundaries (eg. - air
quality index) or the local-global interactions
(eg. - carbon footprint)
Internal (Stossel, Kissinger,
& Meir, 2015)
ADo not reflect updated conditions of
backgrounds of urbanization
Internal Shen and Zhou,
2014
BIntegration of citizen-led and expert-led
approaches for SI development
Internal Turcu, 2012
BNo universal criteria Internal Shen et al., 2011;
BPublic participation for indicator development Internal Huang et al., 1998
BConfusion and ambiguity in target sustainability
definition of indicators
Internal Tanguay et al.,
2010;
(Mascarenhas,
Nunes, & Ramos,
2015); (Liu,
Brown, & Casazza,
2017)
CFinding indicators which can be easily assessed
and are as reliable as length on a scale
Internal Huang et al., 1998
CHard to choose the relevant indicator from
numerous choices
Internal Turcu, 2012
CLack of consensus on urban sustainability
indicators
Internal Shen et al., 2011;
(Moreno Pires,
Fidélis, & Ramos,
2014)
CConfusion and lack of conceptual soundness on
selection criteria of sustainability indicators
Internal Shen et al., 2011;
Tanguay et al.,
2010
CDue to different weighting and aggregation
methods inter-study comparison is difficult
Internal Huang et al., 2015;
Bohringer and
Jochem, 2007
CEven slight modifications in the weighting
method can substantially alter the value of
overall welfare index
Internal Pissourios, 2013
CInadequate selection of indicators Internal Shen et al., 2011;
Shen and Zhou,
2014
CNon-uniformity between different indicator
systems
Internal Shen and Zhou,
2014
CQuality of life, welfare and sustainability and
ecological economic indicators are supported
by weak theoretical foundations
Internal Pissourios, 2013
CIndicator sets are not equally distributed across Internal Tran, 2016
sustainable development categories
CSome indices include variables that are
meaningless in context of cities
Internal Mori and
Christodoulou,
2012
CThematic and technical aggregation lacking Internal Bohringer and
Jochem, 2007
CWeighting is target group specific Internal Ahvenniemi et al.,
2017
EPolicy targets rarely reflect sustainability
consideration
Internal Moldan, 2012
EBaseline/threshold value indicating
irreversibility or the instability of a system
missing
Internal Moldan, 2012;
Salvati and
Carlucci, 2014;
Mori and
Christodoulou,
2012; (Stossel et
al., 2015)
ENo absolute sustainability target value Internal Mori and
Christodoulou,
2012; Shen et al.,
2011
FData not available External Shen and Zhou,
2014; Tran, 2016;
Huang et al., 1998;
(Nader, Salloum,
& Karam, 2008);
(Klopp & Petretta,
2017)
GEmpirical analysis is lacking on indicators
which cities actually use to measure urban
sustainability
External Ahvenniemi et al.,
2017
GNo effective indicators and evaluation method
for urban sustainable development
External Feng Li et al., 2009
GSensitivity analysis to know the effectiveness of
sustainability indicators
External (Ramos & Caeiro,
2010)
GAnalysis lacking to determine the gap between
goals set and outcomes achieved
External (Ramos & Caeiro,
2010)
INo single set of indicators that suits equally to
all cities or communities
External Shen et al., 2011;
(Klopp & Petretta,
2017)
INo index/indicator can cover the triple bottom
line and treat external impacts beyond city
boundaries at the same time
External Mori and
Christodoulou,
2012
IApplication of SI has not led to comparative
analysis and identification of best practices
External Shen et al., 2011
IConfusion on relating selected indicators to
objectives and policy goals
External Shen et al., 2011
IDecision use of data is rare in cities External Holden, 2006;
(Klopp & Petretta,
2017)
ILimited number of interdisciplinary studies on External Pissourios, 2013
the use of indicators
ILack simplicity, reliability and spatiotemporal
suitability in practical measurements
(Li Shen & Guo,
2014)
Table S. 2 List of recommendations for urban sustainability indicator selection and
development
Step Suggestions Development
Reference
AResponsibility based method for indicator
development and selection to address the role
and scope of all concerned departments
involved
Zhou et al., 2015
BPressure State Response or theme based
indicators should be used covering all
dimensions of sustainability
Huang et al., 2015
BDue to multi dimensionality of the sustainable
development, an integrated approach based on
multivariate analysis and geographic
information systems may better explore latent
spatial patterns and trends of the main factors
affecting sustainability over large areas
Salvati and Carlucci,
2014
CVariable clustering procedure to address the
uneven distribution of indicators across SD
Tran, 2016
categories
CMore rigorous data reduction and statistical
methods should be employed like regression
analysis, PCA, Factor analysis, Data
Envelopment Analysis, Analytic Hierarchy
Process and Conjoint Analysis
Huang et al., 2015;
(Mascarenhas et al.,
2015)
CAt least one strong sustainability indicator
should be included in indicator set
Huang et al., 2015
CSpatialize urban sustainability indicators to
capture spatial heterogeneity
Huang et al., 2015
CIntegrate Urban Sustainability with landscape
pattern analysis, with an emphasis on ecosystem
services and human well-being in changing
landscapes
Huang et al., 2015
CIndicators should be objective and quantitative,
example - Full Permutation Polygon Synthetic
Indicator Method (FPPSI)
Li et al., 2009;
CUrban sustainability indicators should consider
triple bottom line of sustainability
Mori and
Christoudoulu, 2012;
Tanguay et al., 2010
CShould capture leakage effects on areas
elsewhere in the environment
Mori and
Christoudoulu, 2012
CChoose simplest indicators/indices (most cited) Tanguay et al., 2010
CSpecial attention should be paid to neglected
aspects of sustainable development like
Hak et al., 2016
immeasurable variables and intangibles
CIndicators should comprise other qualities like
methodology, legitimacy, etc.
Hak et al., 2016
CIndicator sets should be of manageable size Hak et al., 2016
CThere will be hundreds of indicators, but there
should be some headline or broad indicators to
inform and alert the general public
Hak et al., 2016
CHeadline or broad indicators help in preventing
the indicators from becoming a bureaucratic
exercise
Hak et al., 2016
CIndicators should be scientific and must respect
data constraints
Hak et al., 2016
CIndicators should be strongly relevant for given
targets
Hak et al., 2016
CIndicators should have - 1. Policy relevance; 2.
Analytical soundness; 3. Measurability
Dizdarouglu, 2015
EThree types of standards should be considered -
1. General or scientific thresholds, 2. Global
standards, 3. Local standards (relative
evaluation in an individual country)
Mori and
Christoudoulu, 2012
ETargets should be assessable by means of
indicators
Hak et al., 2016
ETarget should be SMART - specific,
measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound
Hak et al., 2016;
(Nader et al., 2008)
FImputation- based methodology to overcome Tran, 2016
missing data problem
