|
Thomas M. Parris, Robert W. Kates
Annual Review Environmental Resources 2003 28:13.1-13.28
"Sustainable development... We conclude that there are no indicator sets that are universally accepted, backed by compelling theory, rigorous data collection and analysis, and influential in policy. This is due to the ambiguity of sustainable development, the plurality of purpose in characterizing and measuring sustainable development, and the confusion of terminology, data, and methods of measurement"
JLJ - Here the authors refer to "assessment efforts" of sustainable development - I think instead in terms of "diagnostic tests", which is a simpler concept, and carries none of the baggage associated with an "assessment effort". Maybe I have something to learn here.
|
|
p.13.15 The distinction between indicators, driving forces, and policy responses is important. As defined above, indicators are limited to quantitative measures of progress toward or away from a stated goal. This definition of indicators explicitly excludes factors that influence progress and instead labels such factors as driving forces or policy responses.
p.13.15 As with any assessment effort, the process and methods with which various measurement efforts make choices about goals, indicators, and targets are closely related to their effectiveness in accomplishing their primary objectives (decision making and management, advocacy, participation and consensus building, and analysis and research). These processes and methods can be characterized by three attributes - salience, credibility, and legitimacy. [JLJ - bullets below added for readability]
- Salience refers to relevance of the measurement system to decision makers,
- credibility refers to the scientific and technical adequacy of the measurement system, and
- legitimacy refers to the perception that the production of the measurement system is respectful of stake-holders' divergent values and beliefs, unbiased, and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests
p.13.23 to date, there are no indicator sets that are universally accepted, backed by compelling theory, rigorous data collection and analysis, and influential in policy. Why is this so? We offer three major reasons:
- the ambiguity of sustainable development;
- the plurality of purpose in characterizing and measuring sustainable development; and,
- the confusion of terminology, data, and methods of measurement.
|
