deriving indicators of sustainable development

Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1 (1996) 193-218 193

Deriving indicators of sustainable development

H a r t m u t Bossel

Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, D-34109 Kassel, Germany

Received 6 November 1996; revised 6 January 1997

Assessments of current and future development paths require comprehensive sets of indicators coveting all essential aspects. From a holistic systems point of view, most currently proposed indicator sets are incomplete and deficient. Assessments of sustainable development require a full representation of the satisfaction states of the "basic orientors" (= fundamental interests) of constituent sector systems, and of their contribution to basic orientor satisfaction of the total system. Basic orientors are value dimensions (existence, effectiveness, freedom of action, security, adaptability, coexistence) emerging from a self-organizing system's interaction with its environment, and its fundamental properties (normal environmental state, scarce resources, variety, variability, change, other systems). Basic orientors are also reflected in human emotions, societal punishment, psychological and social needs, life styles, and values emerging in self-organization of artificial life. The relative weight assigned to basic orientors of partner systems is a question of ethics. Based on these concepts, a general scheme for finding a "complete" set of indicators of viability and sustainability is derived, and it is applied to deriving a comprehensive set of indicators of sustainable development for society and its sector systems (infrastructure, economic system, social system, individual development, government, environment and resource system). The method can be applied at different levels of complexity and regional resolution. A full set of regional indicators for sustainable development is presented, a method for compact assessment of development paths using orientor stars is described, and the approach for application at the community level is outlined.

Keywords: Sustainable development, viability, indicators, orientors, ethics, future discount, assessment.

1 Ind i ca to r s : G u i d e p o s t s in a c o m p l e x wor ld

We live by indicators. A smile signals friendliness, a gray sky: possible rain, a red traffic light: danger of colli- sion, the hands of a watch: the t ime of day, a high body temperature: illness, rising unemployment : social trouble. The more complex our environment , the more indicators we have to watch. I f we want to compare future paths and their impacts, we have to look at representative indicators.

Indicators are our link to the world. They condense its enormous complexi ty to a manageable amount of meaningful informat ion informing our decisions and directing our actions. I f we have learned to watch the right indicators, we can unders tand and cope with our dynamic environment . I f we follow the wrong signals, we get confused or misled, responding inappropriately, against our true interests and intentions.

In the course of growing up, in our formal education, and in learning to cope with our specific personal and professional envi ronment we have learned the meaning and significance of the indicators we use in our daily lives. The indicators we watch mean something to us, they are of value to us because they tell us something that is in some way impor t an t to us. They help us to construct a picture of the state of our environment on which we can base intelligent decisions to protect and p romote what we care about . Indicators are therefore an expres- sion of values.

Learning to handle a complex system means learning

to recognize a specific set o f indicators, and to assess what their current state means for the "heal th" , or viability, of the system. Often this learning of indicators is intuitive, informal, subconscious: a mothe r learning to recognize, and to respond to, the signals f rom her new- born baby, or a farmer learning to recognize the signals f rom the animals, plants, and soil under his care.

Intuitive learning is not sufficient for handling m a n y of the complex systems that humans have constructed, such as airplanes, product ion systems, the economy. In fact, such systems require specific instruments providing indicator information to the humans in charge of them, such as air speed indicators, pressure and temperature gauges, cost-of-living and employment indicators, or the Dew-Jones index.

Indicator sets about a given system are determined by two distinct requirements: (1) They have to provide vital information providing a "p ic ture" about the current state of the system (health, viability); (2) they have to provide sufficient informat ion to the "p i lo t " to suc- cessfully intervene and correct system behavior with respect to given objectives, and to determine the relative success of his or her intervention. In other words, indicator sets are determined by (1) the system itself, and (2) the interests, needs, or objectives of their opera tor or observer.

A modern airplane is a good example of this dual role of indicators. The restrictions of space and weight, and of the information processing capacity of the crew, allow only instruments providing essential information.

�9 Baltzer Science Publishers BV

194 H. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development

There are basically two groups of instruments providing information about (I) the current state and viability of the airplane itself, and (2) its position and heading with respect to the destination chosen by the pilot. Moreover, these indicators will not all be of equal importance to the pilot and to the operation of the airplane. Some of these, like airspeed and attitude indicators, require his or her continuous attention, while others, like fuel and oil pressure gauges, are only needed for occasional checks.

The human societal system, its component systems, and the resource and environmental system on which they depend, are complex dynamic systems. Just like the pilots of aircraft, the human individuals and organizations who run these systems need comprehensive sets of indicators providing essential information about (1) the state and viability of these systems themselves, and (2) about their "position" with respect to human goals. The latter point means that human goals and values figure prominently in the definition of indicator sets of human societal development. In fact, ethical choice is reflected in the selection of indicators and the attention focused on each of them.

The aircraft instruments analogy (and in fact, every instrument panel of a complex industrial or technical process) provides us with another important hint about the general nature of indicators. There are always two different types: One for the measurement of system states and position ("stocks" or "levels"), such as the content of fuel tanks and batteries, or current position, the other for the rates of change of system state or position, such as current fuel consumption per minute, electric power consumption (watts), rate of climb (meters per second, or feet per minute), or flight speed (kilometers per hour, or knots).

System theory tells us that there can be no other type of indicator, i.e., indicators of "states" and of "rates". The state indicators inform us about the current states of the system, the rate indicators tell us how quickly these states change. Usually, the rate indicators are the more important ones: They inform us of any change that is under way, much sooner than we can notice it in the states themselves. For example, the hang-glider pilot concentrates on his or her rate-of-climb indicator: It will show "climb" long before any gain in altitude shows up on the altimeter.

Systems theory tells us another important thing: We do not have to use each and every variable in the system as an indicator. Many are merely combinations of others and provide no new information. This simplifies the task: We only have to consider those variables that provide essential information, which cannot be gotten from clever use of other variables. For example, we can com- pute average daily food consumption of individuals in a population from the population number (a state) and annual national food sales (a rate); we do not have to count calories in every household.

Indicator information can be quantitative ("hard"

numbers) or qualitative (e.g. "sufficient food", or "sub- standard education"). In the end, any "hard number" must be translated into a qualitative statement anyway in determining whether or not that indicator contributes to system viability, or goal achievement. This again brings in unavoidable valuation.

We now know what we need and want as indicators: system variables that provide us with all essential information about the health (viability) of a system and its rate of change, and about how they contribute to the goals we want to achieve with the help of that system.

That was the easy part; the hard part is defining a suitable set of indicators for a given application. In the following, we shall concentrate on finding a comprehensive set of indicators for sustainable development (cf. Pinter and Hardi [40]). We need it: (1) to see where we stand and where we are going, and (2) to compare - as objectively as possible - the relative merits and demerits of competing alternatives, and of different paths into the future.

2 The search for indicators

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, indicator sets should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. The simplest case would be to agree on a single indicator - would that work?

For ages, people have often been judged by a single indicator: their wealth. But that single magic figure of x million dollars, or y hundred hectares of land, or z heads of cattle implicitly expressed much more than property: It expressed the ability to buy sufficient food, to build a comfortable house, to feed even a large family, to live in luxury, to educate children, to pay for health care, and to support oneself in old age. And it implied that under these circumstances, you could be reasonably happy. In other words, under prevailing conditions, "wealth" could be used as an aggregate indicator for completely different dimensions of life contributing to general happiness. But it could not account for personal tragedy or disability, and "wealth" would fail as an indicator for "happiness" if, say, the children were killed in an accident. In other words, we need more indicators to capture all important aspects even in this simple case.

The fascination with a single indicator has carried over to economics and national development, with a rather bizarre twist: Economists have not focused on per capita wealth (of financial assets, land, or resources), but rather on the rate at which natural resource wealth is being depleted - the faster, the "better". This is the GDP indicator - gross domestic product - the total money value of the overall annual flow of goods and services produced in an economy. This includes all goods and services, irrespective of their contribution to national development: social goods (like education, food, housing) as well as social bads (cost of crime, poilu-

H. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development 195

tion, disability, poor health). Since, with current technology, each of these goods and services is associated with significant consumption of non-renewable resources, and generation of environmental pollution, GDP is really a measure of how fast resources are squan- dered and converted into money flows - irrespective of their effect on society [15]. Hardly an indicator of national wealth and well-being!

In response to these obvious shortcomings of the popular GDP, various groups have sought to define aggregate indicators which present a more accurate picture of material well-being [3,14,18,26,27,43]. In the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW - later evolved into the Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI [21]), GDP is corrected by subtracting (rather than adding) social bads (like the cost ofpollution cleanup, or car accidents), and adding (rather than ignoring) the value of unpaid services (e.g. in household and community). Other aggregate indicators include concerns beyond money flows. The UNDP' s Human Development Indicator (HDI), for example, includes literacy and life expectancy.

These are important improvements, but they cannot remove a fundamental deficiency of aggregate indicators: Aggregation may hide serious deficits in some sectors, which actually threaten the overall health of the system. And aggregate indicators become even more questionable when they require adding apples and oranges (as in the HDI), i.e. items that cannot be meas- ured in the same units (like money flows). Why not use separate indicators in the first place7

An aggregate indicator that makes physical sense is the Ecological Footprint, or the (almost) equivalent Sus- tainable Progress Index (SPI) [33,52]. It computes the total land area that is required to maintain the food, water, energy, and waste-disposal demands per person, per product, or per city. This is an excellent summary indicator of environmental impact, but it does n o t - and is not meant to - capture the social dimensions of sustainable development, for example.

In response to the deficiencies of the aggregate indicator concept, some researchers prefer to use more or less extensive lists of indicators covering the proble m area under investigation [51,54]. While they are an improve- ment over the aggregate indicator concept, I would criti- cize these lists on several counts: (1) They are derived ad hoc, without a systems-theoretical framework to reflect the operation and viability of the total system; (2) they always reflect the specific expertise and research interest of their authors; (3) as a consequence of (1) and (2), they are overly "dense" in some areas (multiple indicators for essentially the same concern), and "sparse" or even "empty" in ocher important areas. In other words, they are not a systematic and "complete" reflec- tion of the system.

In an attempt to be more systematic, the PSIR (pressure, state, impact, response) framework has been intro-

duced, and is widely applied to sustainable development problems [29,48]. In this approach, (isolated) chains of cause and effect are identified for a particular environmental problem, and corresponding indicators are monitored. For example: CO2-emissions (pressure) --, CO2 in atmosphere (state) ~ global temperature (impact) --, carbon tax (response).

The most serious objection to this approach is that it neglects the systemic (and dynamic) nature of the processes, and their embedding in a larger total system con- taining many feedback loops. Representation of impact chains by isolated PSIR-chains will usually not be permissible, and will in most cases not even be an adequate approximation. Impacts in one causal chain can be pres- sures, or states in another, and vice versa. Multiple pres- sures and impacts are not considered. The real (usually nonlinear) relationships between the different components of a chain cannot be accounted for (see also Mea- dows [36]). States, and rates of change (stocks and flows) are treated inconsistently.

The conclusion from this brief look at indicator schemes is that none of them is adequate for the purpose defined in the previous section: (1) to provide all essential information about the health (viability) of a system and its rate of change, and (2) to indicate the contribution to the overall objective (e.g. of sustainable development).

This burdens us with two separate tasks: (1) We must develop an approach for identifying indicators of viability of a given system; and (2) we must think about the goal of sustainable development and its ethical implications, in order to define the proper weight and attention that must be focused on different systems and indicators [10].

3 0 r i e n t o r s of system viability

Doctors have a whole set of indicators for determining a patient's health: body temperature, coating on your tongue, pulse, blood pressure, blood and urine tests, finding where it hurts, testing your reflexes. Foresters have a completely different list for judging the health of a forest. Pilots go through long check lists of indicators before they take off. Economists discuss the "health" of the economy by looking at inflation rate, unemployment rate, trade balance, currency exchange rate, and other indicators.

These are all very different systems whose health (or viability) is important to very different people for very different reasons. All the indicators are totally different. But all of them can be related to the viability of a particular system. What is it that they may have in common? And ff they do have something in common - could we use it to help us find indicators for healthy, sustainable development?

"Health" means "physical and mental well-being;

196 1-1. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development

soundness; freedom from defect, pain, or disease; nor- mality of mental and physical functions" (Webster [53]). And "viable" is defined as "able. . . to live and develop; able to take root and grow" (Webster [53]). When we talk about a viable system, we mean that this system is able to survive, be healthy, and develop in its particular environment. In other words, system viability has something to do with both the system and its properties, and with the environment and its properties. And since it is usually the system that has to adapt to its environment, we can expect that the properties of the environment will be reflected in the properties of the system. Can we find something like general properties of environments, which would help us focus our search for indicators of system viability?

3.1 Properties o f system environments

A system can only exist and prosper in its environment if its structure and functions are adapted to that environment. If a system is to be successful in its environment, the particular features of that environment must be reflected in its structure and functions. The form of a fish and its mode of motion reflect the laws of fluid dynamics of its aquatic environment, and the legal system of a society reflects the social environment in which it developed.

There is obviously an immense variety of system environments, just as there is an immense variety of systems. But could it be that all of these environments have some common general properties? If that were the case, we could expect their reflections in all systems that have been shaped by their environments. These reflections would orient not just structure and function of systems, but also their behavior in the environment. Moreover, with proper attention to these "orientors", we could design systems to be successful in a given environment [6,8,9]. The system "interests" that we are trying to define must have something to do with these orientors. And the indicators we are looking for would have to reflect these system interests.

Let us therefore first determine general properties of system environments. In the next section, we will consider how systems have to respond to these properties, i.e. which system orientors have to shape system structure, function, and behavior.

System environments that can be found on earth are characterized by six fundamental environmental properties: (1) normal environmental state, (2) scarce resources, (3) variety, (4) variability, (5) change, (6) other systems:

Normal environmental state: The actual environmental state can vary around this state in a certain range.

Scarce resources: Resources required for a system's survival are not immediately available when and where needed.

Variety: Many qualitatively very different processes

and patterns of environmental variables occur and appear in the environment constantly or intermittently.

Variability: The normal environmental state fluctu- ates in random ways, and the fluctuations may occasion- ally take the system far from the normal state.

Change: In the course of time, the normal environmental state may gradually or abruptly change to a per- manently different normal environmental state.

Other systems: The behavior of other systems intro- duces changes into the environment of a given system.

Example A, a forest ecosystem. Normal environmental state: A Central European forest exists in an environment characterized by a mean annual temperature of about 10 degrees Celsius (range - 2 0 to +30~ 800 mm annual rainfall (range: 500 mm to 1100 mm), nutrient supply depending on site properties, etc. Scarce resources: The forest ecosystem depends on sunlight, and scarce water and nutrients in the soil; sufficient sunlight is not available in the winter. Variety: The forest environment is affected by day and night, summer and winter, rain and snow, animals, logging companies, and many other different processes. Variability: The forest ecosystem may be stressed by unusual frost in early June, a sudden insect pest outbreak, a long drought, or pollution due to an industrial accident. Change: In Eur- ope and elsewhere, the climate has changed considerably since the last ice age, and now there is an accelerating change due to greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources. This alters the environment of forest ecosystems. Other systems: The forest ecosystem has to interact with browsing, pollinating, seed-dispersing animals; with agricultural, river, and mountain ecosystems at its edges; with urban settlements and transportation systems; with industries and their pollution.

Example B, an industrial company. Normal environmental state: An industrial company in a small town in Wisconsin has to deal with specific economic, social, cultural (language, schools, job training, attitudes, etc.), legal and political environments different from those, say, in India. Scarce resources: The company needs water, electricity, raw materials, loans, workers, all of which can only be secured with considerable effort. Vari- ety: The company has to exist in an environment of various sources of materials and energy, competitors, customers, different rules and regulations, alternative means of transportation and production, employees with very different training and pers~ etc" Varia- bility: The company may be hit by a recession, a stock market crash, a sudden jump in oil prices, an unexpected competitor, or a change in government that imposes stricter environmental regulations. Change: The economic, social, and technological environments of a company show gradual long-term trends (shifts to service economy; changing family size, incomes, and living con-


ditions; introduction of computers and industrial robots; integration in the North American and European common markets, etc.). Other systems: The company vitally depends on interactions with, and actions of, suppliers and customers, city officials and politicians, competitors and bankers.

Example C, a cow. Normalenvironmentalstate: Tempe- rate climate. Scarce resources: Grass and herbs on hillsides, water in the creek. Variety: Different plants with different tastes, some poisonous; rocks, meadows, cowshed. Variability: Weather, flood, drought. Change: Growing up, seasons, being sold to a different herd, having a calf. Other systems: Other cows and animals, the farmer.

It will probably be clear from the examples that we are indeed discussing very general properties of all system environments. These fundamental properties of the environment are each unique, i.e., each property cannot be expressed by any combination of other fundamental properties. If I want to describe a system environment fully, I have to say something about each of these properties.

Their content is system-specific, however. The same physical environment presents different environmental characteristics to different systems existing in it. For example, in the meadow environment shared by cows and bees, "resources" means grass to the cow, and nectar and pollen to the bee; "other systems" means other cows and the farmer to the cow, and other nectar-collect- ing insects to the bee, etc.

Having found these fundamental properties of system environments, let us now determine their orientor coun- terparts in systems.

3.2 Basic orientors

To demonstrate the basic idea, let us assume we have to "design" a cow as a viable system for producing milk and meat. We look at the properties of its environment, and try to define corresponding "design specifications" for the cow.

Normal environmental state: The cow should survive a temperate climate. So we give it a thick hide to protect it from the rain and hold everything together, and put hair on it to give it some insulation. In thinking about what we are doing, we are using an orientor "make sure it can exist in this environment", or existence.

Scarce resources: We want the cow to convert grass from unplowable hillsides into lots of milk. So we have to equip it with 3D-vision, four-hoof drive suitable for any terrain, a grass harvester, a digester for making milk, and a storage tank with taps. We are using an orientor "find, harvest, and convert resources effectively and efficiently", or effectiveness.

Variety: The cow should be able to cope on its own

with a variety of different situations, without relying on the farmer for advice. It should be able to distinguish between different species of plants, leave the poisonous stuff alone, should know how to find water and drink it, should know how to flirt with the handsome bull on the other side of the fence, should run away when a dog chases it, and should behave nicely when the farmer sticks the suction cups on its udder. We are now using an orientor "be able to cope with a variety of different situations", or freedom of action.

Variability: The cow should also be able to survive occasional sudden fluctuations of its normal environment, such as a snowstorm, a flooded riverbank, a drought. So we equip it with an extra layer of fur in the winter, extend the four-hoof drive by a meter to raise the body to safe level above the ground, and equip the beast with storage tanks for fat to last a couple of weeks. We are now applying an orientor "make sure the system is secure even under unusual conditions", or security.

Change: The cow must be able to adapt to seasons, get used to a new herd, cope with becoming a mother. So we equip it with a computer with considerable learning ability. We are applying an orientor "provide the ability to learn and adapt", or adaptability.

Other systems: The cow must coexist with other organisms who are part of its environment. So we equip it with horns to keep other animals at a safe distance, with a tail to chase away flies, and with a loudspeaker to communicate over large distances. We also install a cow-reproduction unit, and finally paint the contraption in a stark, individualized black-and-white pattern so it is easily recognized by others. We have applied the orientor "enable it to coexist with others", or coexistence.

Sentient being: To make sure the cow avoids hurting itself without noticing it, respects the electric fence, and looks after its calf, we design it as a sentient being. This means respecting an orientor "satisfy the needs for avoiding pain and stress", or psychological needs.

Have we forgotten anything? Well, at least on paper, this contraption looks like it could work and function like a cow. What does that teach us? It shows that system orientors can be used as a handy checklist of what is important in and for systems, i.e. system interests. In discussing societal development and future paths, the same approach can be used to define system interests for the different affected systems.

Let us now summarize the basic system orientors and their relationship to the corresponding properties of the system environment [6,9] (1) existence, (2) effectiveness, (3)freedom of action, (4) security, (5) adaptability, (6) coexistence.

Existence: Attention to this orientor is necessary to ensure the immediate survival and subsistence of the system in the normal en vironmental state.

Effectiveness: The system should on balance (over the long-term) be effective (not necessarily efficient) in


its efforts to secure scarce resources from, and to exert influence on its environment.

Freedom of action: The system must have the ability to cope in various ways with the challenges posed by environmental variety.

Security: The system must be able to protect itself from the detrimental effects of environmental variability, i.e. variable, fluctuating, and unpredictable conditions outside of the normal environmental state.

Adaptability: The system should be able to change its parameters and/or structure in order to generate more appropriate responses to challenges posed by environmental change.

Coexistence: The system must be able to modify its behavior to account for behavior and orientors of other (actor) systems in its environment.

Psychological needs: For sentient beings, we must add psychological needs as an additional orientor.

Obviously, the system equipped for securing better overall orientor satisfaction will have better fitness, and will therefore have a better chance for long-term survival and sustainability [32]. Quantification of orientor satisfaction therefore provides a measure for system fitness in different environments. This can be done by identifying indicators that can give us information about how well each of the orientors is being fulfilled at a given time. In other words, the basic orientors provide us with a checklist for asking the right questions for finding out how well a system is doing in its environment. We shall come back to this when we derive an indicator set for sustainable development later in this paper.

3.3 Properties of orientors

Each of the orientors stands for a unique requirement. That means that a minimum of attention must be paid to each of them, and that compensation of deficits of one orientor by over-fulfillment of other orientors is not possible. For example, a deficit of "freedom of action" in a society cannot be compensated by a surplus of "security".

Note that uniqueness of each of the orientor dimensions does not imply independence of individual orientor satisfactions: For example, better satisfaction of the security orientor may require a sacrifice in freedom of action because financial resources are needed for the for- mer, and are then unavailable for the latter. But that does not mean that "freedom" can be used as a substitute for "security".

Health and fitness of a system require adequate satisfaction of each of the system's basic orientors. Planning, decisions, and actions in societal systems must therefore always reflect at least the handful of basic orientors (or derived criteria) simultaneously. Comprehensive assessments of system behavior and development must also be multi-criteria assessments. In analogy to Liebig's

Principle of the Minimum, the system's development will be constrained by the orientor that is currently "in the minimum". Particular attention will therefore have to focus on those orientors that are currently deficient.

In the orientation of system behavior, we deal with a two-phase assessment process where each phase is different from the other: Phase 1: First, a certain minimum satisfaction must be obtained separately for each of the basic orientors. A deficit in even one of the orientors threatens long-term survival. The system will have to focus its attention on this deficit. Phase 2: Only if the required minimum satisfaction of all basic orientors is guaranteed is it permissible to try to raise system satisfaction by improving satisfaction of individual orientors further - if conditions, in particular other systems, will allow this.

Characteristic differences in the behavior ("life styles", "life strategies") of organisms, or of humans or human systems (organizations, political or cultural groups) can often be explained by differences in the relative importance attached to different orientors (i.e. emphasis on "freedom", or "security", or "effectiveness", or "adaptability") in phase 2 (i.e. after minimum requirements for all basic orientors have been satisfied in phase 1) [32].

In many systems, in particular ecosystems, "goal functions" are often more immediately obvious than the basic orientors that cause the emergence of these goal functions in the first place. Goal functions can be viewed as appearing on a level below the basic orientors in the hierarchical orientation system. They translate the fundamental system needs expressed in the basic orientors into concrete goals linking system response to environmental properties.

With regard to finding a comprehensive indicator set for ecosystem integrity, such an approach, based on ecosystem "goal functions", has been outlined in considerable detail [37]. Ecosystem goal functions emerge as general ecosystem properties in the coevolution of ecosystem and environment. They can be viewed as ecosystem-specific responses to the need to satisfy the basic orientors. Major ecosystem goal functions are (according to Miiller [37]): Maximization of: use of solar radia- tion, material and energy flow intensities (networks), matter and energy cycling (cycling index), storage capacity (biomass accumulation), nutrient conservation, respiration and transpiration, diversity (organisation), hierarchy (signal filtering).

3.4 Some other evidence for orientors and their role

The emergence of basic orientors in response to the general properties of environments can be deduced from general systems theory, as has been done here, but sup- porting empirical evidence and related theoretical concepts can also be found in such fields as psychology, sociology, and the study of artificial life.


Table I Basic orientors reflected in emotions.

Basic orientor Emotion iforientor is Emotion if threatened orientor is satisfied

Existence fear of death Subsistence hunger, thirst, pain

Effectiveness

Freedom of action Security Adaptability

irritation, frustration

defiance, revolt

anxiety, fear impatience, curiosity, uncertainty, boredom

Coexistence jealousy, hate, envy, powerlessness

Psychological needs self-doubt, inferiority complex, hnmiliation

Ethical futility, unreliability, meaning, order, orientation irresponsibility reliability,

responsibility

joyofHfe satisfaction, feeling well feeling of accomplishment relief, liberation, lightness feeling sheltered, safe joy of learning, of novelty, awakening love, solidarity, friendship confidence

If basic orientors are indeed the consequence of adaptation to general environmental properties, and therefore of fundamental importance to the viability of individuals, then we can expect them to be reflected in our emotions. This is indeed the case (table 1) [7].

Also, we find that all societies have developed methods of punishment by selective basic orientor deprivation (table 2) [7].

In his work on "human scale development", Max- Neef has classified human needs according to several categories which can be mapped on the basic orientors (table 3) [35].

One can find solid evidence of the basic orientors even in computer experiments with "animats" simulat- ing the evolution of intelligence in artificial life [32]. Ani- mats are artificial creatures that learn to live and cope in a fairly complex computer world. Mimicking evolution, they use genetic algorithms to develop and learn efficient rules to find "food" and avoid "obstacles". But

Table 2 Basic orientors reflected in punishment.

Basic orientor Punishment by basic orientor deprivation

Existence Subsistence Effectiveness Freedom of action Security Adaptability

Coexistence Psychological needs

Ethical orientation

execution starvation censure, defamation, professional bans jail arbitrary justice, declaring as outlaw censorship, isolation, withholding or falsifying information exile, separation from family, expulsion destruction ofidentity, self-confidence, self-respect; committing to psychiatric ward religious prohibition, intolerance, mental duress

Table 3 Basic orientors reflected in psychological and social needs.

Basic orientors [6] Psychologicad+social needs [35]

existence, subsistence subsistence effectiveness understanding, leisure freedom of action freedom security protection adaptability creation coexistence participation psychological needs affection, identity

this artificial intelligence evolves differently in different animats, resulting in different life-styles. The differences can be traced back to different emphases on basic system orientors (existence, freedom, effectiveness, security, adaptability, coexistence). These value dimensions emerge in the animat's cognitive system as it gradually learns to cope with its environment. These experiments in artificial life show that values are not subjective inven- tions of the human mind, but are basic system requirements emerging from a system's interaction with its environment.

If even animats evolve different, value-guided life- styles in their two-dimensional computer world, what about real people in the real world? In recent years, cultural theory [50], which deals with the typology of ways of life, has found wide acceptance in the research community dealing with scenario studies of societal development [1]. It identifies five types of individuals in the social world, each having characteristic and distinct value orientation and life-style: egalitarians, hierar- chists, individualists, fatalists, and hermits.

The authors of cultural theory explain this grouping in terms of two dimensions: "group", meaning degree of social group integration, and "grid", referring to degree of external regulation [50, p. 8]. A more plausible expla- nation, at least to my mind, is that different orientor emphasis explains the different life-styles. The egalitarian stresses partnership in coexistence with others, the hierarchist tries to gain security by regulation and insti- tutionalized authority, the individualist tries to keep his freedom by staying free from control by others and the "system", and the fatalist just tries to secure his existence in whatever circumstances he finds himself in. The autonomous hermit is of no practical relevance to the social system.

From the point of view of orientation theory, two life-styles are missing from this list: those corresponding to orientor emphasis on "adaptability" and "effectiveness". We call them "innovator" and "organizer". The innovator stresses the basic orientor adaptability, while the organizer concentrates on effectiveness. They are usually the important movers and shakers of societal development, but they cannot be adequately explained by the two-dimensional grid/group categorization of cultural theory (table 4).


Table 4 Basic orientors reflected in life styles.

cultural type social external orientor integration regulation emphasis

egalitarian high low coexistence hierarchist high high security individualist low low freedom fatalist low high existence hermit autonomous autonomous (autonomy) innovator (low?) (low?) adaptability organizer (high ?) (high?) effectiveness

The authors of cultural theory associate certain characteristic views of nature, and corresponding management styles with each of their cultural types. Depending on which of the major types (egalitarian, hierarchist, individualist) is dominant, different decisions will be made in a society, resulting in different development paths. Since we cannot know which of the cultural types will dominate in a society in future, a study of the whole range of possible developments requires analyses of different life-style scenarios (cf. van Asselt and Rotmans [ l ] ) .

4 Coexistence o f systems: The need for ethics

In a world of limited resources (energy, materials, water, food, time), systems often compete for resources, advantages, and even survival. Even more dramatic, they may have no choice but to destroy other systems or organisms in order to survive, as in grazing or predator-prey food chains.

Even with the best of intentions, humans cannot be exempt from this fact of life. But being conscious beings, we have knowledge of what we are doing, we can visualize its implications for other beings and systems, we usually have the choice between different possible actions, and we are therefore responsible for our actions. In other words, we cannot escape an ethical choice, and we have to adopt an ethical framework for our actions. This has direct consequences for the indicator set we are looking for: It has to include indicators for the systems we care about. We therefore have to discuss ethics before we can define an indicator set for societal development.

For example, if a society does not care about its effect on the environment or on the chances of future generations, it would not pay attention to, and would not even observe, indicators of the state of the environment or natural resources. A society focusing entirely on national interest would not "see" the plight of a neigh- bor whose lakes and forests are poisoned by its pollution, or whose people are starving as a consequence of the terms of trade forced on it by the global market. Show me your indicator list, and I will tell you what your ethics are!

4.1 A necessary extension of ethics

Traditionally, ethics has dealt exclusively with humans and their interactions. It is only recently that "sentient beings" (i.e. animals that can experience pain) have been included in discussions of ethics [4,5,17,19,20,22,30,31, 34,41,42,44-47,49]. From a systems and sustainability point of view, this is still totally inadequate. Ethics should have something to say on issues like eradication of species, destruction of ecosystems and landscapes, depletion of resources, creation of irreversible environmental change, introduction of high-risk technologies and toxic compounds, disappearance of indigenous cul- tares, destruction of cultural accomplishments, reduc- tion of options for future generations, etc.

This is not saying that these systems must be accorded the same status as humans. It merely recognizes that these systems each play an important role in the development of the whole system, and that therefore their "interests" must be considered (and corresponding indicators must be watched). Ethics is concerned with the relative weight of these interests in human decision-making.

When we say that something is a "question of ethics", we usually imply that there can be different views about the relative importance of something, and that each of these views is equally legitimate, Does this mean, for example, that we should accept as "ethical" the discounting of the future practiced by economists, which assigns a negligible value to resources left for future generations (and hence to their interests, see below)?

Not if we have made a commitment to sustainability. This is a fundamental ethical choice, and it implies proper consideration of the interests of future generations, for one thing. We must assume that resources will be as important to them as they are to us - hence discounting is out of the question, and so is discounting of other interests of future component systems of the total system that is to be sustained - human, animate, sentient, or not.

The ethical choice for sustainability therefore demands sufficient regard for the interests of all component systems.

This is a tall order. Do we really have to figure out all the impacts of our everyday actions on other systems, animate and inanimate, now and in the future, if we want to act responsibly? The practical answer to this is that, no, for everyday individual decisions, we do not, but, yes, for major societal decisions we have to.

For everyday individual decisions, we can use a simple rule to guide us: "Sufficiency". Make your ecological footprints as light as possible. Do not take more from your (natural and social) environment than you really need, and do not burden it with more than is unavoidable.

You may live in a society that gives you no choice but to drive two hours to and from work each day in a gas-guzzling car. This is unsustainable, and applying the


guideline of "sufficiency" to the daily commute would not help much. Society as a whole must make alternatives available (fuel-efficient vehicles, rail lines, settle- ment patterns that do not separate residential areas from places of employment). This needs "major societal decisions" requiring more analysis and evaluation than a guideline of"sufficiency" can provide.

Such decisions call for sufficient regard for the interests of all component systems. We have to at least try to assess their role and function in the total system, now and in the future. This is the task of systems analysis. We therefore find an unexpected connection between ethics and the systems view:

(1) If we start with a systems view, trying to identify the role and importance of all component systems for the sustainable development of the total system, we find that ethical criteria must be developed and applied to protect the interests of the various component systems contributing to the total system.

(2) If we start with the ethical choice for sustainable development and try to break it down into practical ethical criteria for decision-making, we find that we cannot accomplish this without fairly detailed systems studies that also take into account the dynamics of development.

4.2 Ultimate end and ethical frameworks

An ethical framework provides normative guidance, but for what? It must serve an ultimate end, and it can only serve one ultimate end if it is to be consistent. "Human happiness" or "Serving the will of God" are examples for ultimate ends. Both of these do not say anything about nature, for example, thus implying that nature is there to serve the ultimate end. This should make us suspicious, and we have to look into the matter more carefully.

One popular model relates natural wealth (as the "ultimate means") to human happiness (as the "ultimate end") in a hierarchy of human institutions: technology, economy, politics, and (corresponding) ethics (figure 1)

[16]. This anthropocentric model is a misleading, and in fact dangerous framework (as should by now be evident from the environmental consequences of human activity). It should not be used, not even for political-tactical reasons (such as attracting votes). Nowadays, even con- servative politicians and industrialists in most parts of the world would not agree with this anthropocentric view any more.

A still very aggregate, but better description, would be to visualize biosphere and anthroposphere (the human system) as two partly separate but interacting systems, each with its own system of orientors, and its own ultimate end at the apex, and sharing the same global environment and resource base (figure 2). These three interacting systems - biosphere, anthroposphere, and (abiotic) environment- are subsystems of the global system. The top of each triangle symbolizes the normative system (or orientor hierarchy) of each system; the "ultimate end" is at its apex.

Figure 2 should make clear that although action under human control has a significant influence on the natural (and the global) system, (re)action by biosphere and environment is of equal importance. The net result is coevolutionary development of the global system (anthroposphere plus biosphere plus resources and environment).

Now what are the ultimate ends at the apex of each of the triangles? Of course, the natural and the global system do not have a (human) consciousness, but from their development during the past four (or more) billion years (successful survival and evolution), we can infer an (implicit, emergent) ultimate end (goal) like "survival, viability, and evolutionary development", or "perpe- tuity of life", or "system integrity". Something similar

Figure 1. A model relating natural wealth as the ultimate means to human happiness as the ultimate end.

Figure 2. A model visualizing biosphere, anthroposphcr�9 and abiolic environment and resources as interdependent and coevolving subsys-

tems of the total global system.

202 1t. Bossei / Deriving indicators of sustainable development

must hold for the anthroposphere: Implicit in most individual and collective action is a quest for continuity of the human enterprise, even permanence (belief in eternal life, and/or reincarnation; permanence of culture or ethnic identity). Let me submit, then, that (what might be called) sustainability (or sustainable development, or permanence, or continuation of the evolutionary process, or system integrity, or something like this) is the ultimate end of each (living) system, in particular the natural, the human, and the global system.

(The fact that the concepts of "sustainability" and "sustainable development" have become so widely accepted in all parts of the world, across all religious and political persuasions, tells me that we may indeed be talking about an ultimate end about which there is general agreement. Remember how people used to fight over goals like "socialism" or "capitalism"?).

It is an altogether different question how this ultimate end (call it"sustainability" now) has come about. Fortu- nately, the definition of indicators is not affected by how we answer it. For some, "sustainability" may be a prescription to "use means in the way that best serves God ... by caring for, protecting, and learning about Creation" (H. Daly, private communication), and hence may reflect the "will of God". For others, it may be an emergent ultimate goal function of any living, evolving system, developing as a consequence of evolutionary system processes [28]. We can allow any number of possible cosmologies to determine this ultimate end of "sustainability". What is important: This is a separate discussion, it has no bearing on the definition of indicators, and we do not have to get bogged down in it in order to pursue our practical problem of saving the planet while we still can.

Note that there can be only one ultimate end if the normative system is to be consistent and if ethical choice is to be determinate. However, people and human organizations at all levels often use different normative systems, based on different ultimate ends, almost simultaneously. Depending on your current role you may apply love and partnership in the family, fairness in sports and traffic, but exploitation of people and resources in a "successful" business, for example. You can be consistent within each normative system and role, but not by applying them simultaneously to the same context.

The ultimate end does not at all establish how it should be achieved- in general, there are many possibilities, and hence many different paths that system development can take to achieve the ultimate end. However, as orientation theory points out, in all cases the system has to pay minimum attention to the basic orientors ((1) existence, including psychological needs if applicable, (2) effectiveness, (3) freedom of action, (4) security, (5) adaptability, (6) coexistence). If minima are satisfied, systems may differ in stressing any of the basic orientors over others in their development paths. Advantages of

comparative fitness will favor some of these different paths over others, causing others to disappear completely.

As conscious systems, humans can visualize impacts of their actions, can make choices, and hence are responsible for what they are doing (or neglect to do). In particular, they cannot avoid including (or purposely neglecting) the "interests" (= basic orientors) of other systems in their decision calculus. But interests of other systems can be reflected in a wide range of ethical frameworks, reaching from crass egotism to altruism.

The ultimate end of "sustainability" in the human, natural, and global systems, plus immutable physical laws and constraints, plus the limiting finite rates of resource use permitted under sustainability, force us to adopt some ethical framework with respect to dealing with the biosphere which would guarantee sustainability [10]. Major candidates for accomplishing this with very different consequences for the three systems are the following:

(1) Anthropocentric: Protect only that which is of (direct or indirect) use to humans. Since we cannot know all implications of our actions in the global system, now and in the future, this approach cannot guarantee sustainability. It would lead to irreversible losses of system functions and future options. This is not a viable systems approach.

(2) Biocentric: Protect every species (and even individuals?) for their own intrinsic value, and irrespective of human interests. I suspect that against the interests of some 20 million species, the human species may have a distinct disadvantage in the long run. This is also not a viable systems approach. It does not account for the vastly different system roles of different species (including the human) in the global system.

(3) Evolut ionary fitness: The fittest protect themselves - too bad for all the others. This could only lead to sustainable development if human impacts are reduced to (very slow) rates compatible with rates of evolution

- which is impractical: Human processes are much faster than evolutionary processes. While ensuring viability for the biosphere (where it does not protect from species extinction and many other "cruelties of nature"), this approach is not viable when the anthroposphere is part of the whole system.

(4) Partnership: Protect all unique systems for their intrinsic value, and share available resources equitably, giving all subsystems the chance to contribute to the development of the whole (Partnership Principle [7], see below). This principle protects the mosquito (or chicken) as a species, but not as an individual. It protects individual conscious beings (humans, gorillas, whales?, dol- phins?), and unique systems like ecosystems, works of art, and human culture. It also protects future systems from exploitation by the present generation. It implies a sharing of resources, and an inclusion of the interests of the natural and future world (and its systems and spe-


cies) in the decision calculus of humans and the human system (including legal fights and protection!). This ethical framework encompasses aspects of love, compas- sion, respect, and "sense of the whole". I think it is the only viable systems approach to sustainability that can restrain the threat posed by the anthroposphere for the whole global system, and at the same time protect the human system.

"Sustainability" and "partnership" as a normative foundation leave an enormous choice of future paths for human society and the global system. In particular, they do not imply a particular shape and form era static, future sustainable society, but imply a continuous coevolutionary dynamic development process that can pro- ceed along many different sustainabl e paths.

4.3 Two competing sets of ethics and their consequences

"Ethical choice" means adoption of a fundamental ethical principle from which other normative standards can be derived. If we have made that fundamental choice the bounds of normative standards follow from the fundamental ethical principle, and from the relationships in the system. The standards are no longer completely open to choice, if the normative system is to be consistent. The adoption of a particular fundamental ethical principle therefore has far-reaching consequences- in particular for the choice of an indicator set - that we must briefly consider. Let us focus on the two ethical frameworks that are the most relevant for our future.

If anthropocentric utilitarian ethics are adopted, each human actor - individual or corporate - assigns greatest ethical weight to herself or himself. The rule [7, p. 70] is to

"Act in such a way that the direct and indirect results of your action have a high probability of producing the greatest net benefit for you. '"

Other actors - currently living humans or human organizations only - are accorded ethical respect on utilitarian grounds ("what has he done for meT', "what can she do to me?"), or for reasons of kinship (care for children or parents), or for patriotic reasons ("the nation").

As a result, the results of ethical assessments will differ from one actor to the next. For each, they are shaped by his or her particular relationship to the total system. A timber corporation will come to a different conclusion about the fate of a forest than an indigenous tribe living on its resources.

Obviously, the normative conclusions of different actors will not normally be in agreement in this ethical framework. For example, economic competition implies disagreement about who should collect the spoils of a struggle for resources. Competition would cease if competitors would all feel obliged to assist the most needy before turning to their own (less urgent) needs.

More importantly, under this ethical framework the ethics of individual actors cannot reflect the interests of the whole system, or of (non-human or future) component systems that may have fundamental importance but are taken for granted (ecosystems, environment).

As long as human action could not significantly affect such component systems, or threaten the total system, such anthropocentric ethics could be tolerated by nature and human society. Since this was true until recently, and since the individual "pursuit of happiness" has - until recently - indeed often contributed to the economic welfare of many, individualistic utilitarian ethics has been elevated to the status of the "fight" ethics by neoclassical economic theoreticians. More troubling, the relentless onslaught of scientific half-truths, adver- tisement, political ideology, popularized half-baked economic theory, and the success stories of yuppies, stockbrokers and entrepreneurs have lent so much cre- dence to this scheme of ethics that most people are afraid to admit to occasional bouts of altruism or other out- moded unselfish failings of human nature. The economic system we have built has caused us to adopt a system of ethics that is incompatible with sustainability.

Moreover, certain modes of behavior follow as a logical consequence. Where individual normative conclusions do not agree (because actor X values his or her own interests much higher than those of actor Y, and Y does the same in reverse), the only means of conflict resolution is the exertion of power. And actual or potential power therefore determines utilitarian ethics and corresponding behavior.

If partnership ethics are adopted, ethical considera- tions are extended to all present and future component systems, human or non-human, living or non-living. The rule [10, p. 71] is that

"All systems that are sufficiently unique and irreplaceable have an equal right to present and future existence anddevelopment. "

This extension to a much greater number of systems than would appear in the ethical horizon of the utilitarian complicates things on the one hand, while the "equal fight" simplifies things enormously on the other hand: it means that available resources are fairly shared according to needs. There may be debate about whether a system is "sufficiently unique and irreplaceable" to warrant ethical protection, but otherwise individual ethical assessments cannot differ very much in this scheme of ethics: the question can be decided by reference to objective criteria.

This removes a good deal of controversy: Debate about possible actions would not be tainted by conflicts of interest and power, but would focus on the relative "needs" of the different component systems. Some would think this to be totally unrealistic given what they believe to be "human nature". I think there is enough evidence that most people would prefer a system where they are treated fairly even if powerless, even if this occa-


sionally means surrendering privileges to others in greater need.

The Principle of Partnership simplifies things further by making no distinction with respect to the relative importance of a component system for the total system. This may seem a luxury that humanity in its environmental predicament can ill afford. Should we not be selective and cultivate those systems with "promising futures" at the expense of others? But we have failed in such efforts before. Billions of dollars and enormous human effort were wasted on nuclear and space technologies at the expense of solar and renewable energy technologies. Intensive agriculture has become the most energy-ineffi- cient and resource-wasting technology humankind ever utilized for producing food, while ecologically sounder agricultural practices were neglected.

Sustainable development means maintaining a maxi- mum of future options, and that requires maintaining the "seed bank" of available systems and approaches for potential future use. In other words, sustainability means preservation and encouragement of diversity. The Principle of Partnership helps to maintain a maxi- mum of diversity with a minimum of conflict.

Those who find this idea utopian should reflect for a moment on the ethical principles they apply in their family, or while driving a car, or when meeting with friends, or as members of a social group or club. In all of these situations, selfish behavior will not be tolerated for long; partnership principles dominate. In other words, these principles are already part of our lives. They are generally accepted determinants of behavior. We know that they work, and that they enhance the quality of our lives. So why not extend them to the rest of the world, even if economists tell us otherwise?

Application of the partnership principle does not mean that we have to look out after all of these "sufficiently unique and irreplaceable systems" all the time. It merely means that if our actions are likely to affect one of them, we have a responsibility to consider its interests in our decisions. It is like driving in city traffic: You make sure you are not endangering other drivers next to you, but you only worry about drivers and traffic at a greater distance if you are blocking the road, having an effect on them. In traffic, this system of partnership and shared responsibility works - you do not need a central authority to tell you when, where, and how to drive. But traffic would be utter disaster if it would have to operate on the competitive principle. Why then should we let this principle determine our lives and our future?

5 Discounting the future?

People tend to be consistent in what they are doing. Early in life, family and society "socialize" them to adopt general principles of behavior. These will usually guide their actions in a consistent manner, making their likely

behavior even in novel situations predictable and calcul- able for others. If they stay within that generally accepted framework of principles, their behavior is inter- preted as being "rational". If not, we tend to classify it as "irrational". It is seldom realized by those who are quick to make such distinctions that "rationality" is always relative to accepted norms. These may not be "rational" in some other (ethical) frame of reference.

When we try to understand why some accept - for example - the destruction of rain forests as rational, while others do not, we have to search for the general principles guiding their judgment.

Under utilitarian ethics, (real or corporate) "persons" living in the present are at the center of attention. Furthermore, each "person" is the center of its own attention. This determines the framework of rationality, and the principles deriving from it. Others count only insofar as they have an influence on me. The future beyond my lifetime, the foreigner I will never meet, or the species that provides no useful product are irrelevant to my decisions. I can ignore their welfare. They should solve their own problems. If they can not - too bad for them. Meanwhile, I have every right to use every living or non-living thing in my environment as I see fit, as long as the cost-benefit balance is in my favor. Clearly, that attitude has consequences for the use of resources, for other people, organisms, species and ecosystems, for the conditions and remaining options of the future.

The anthropocentric and egocentric Judeo-Christian heritage has much to do with this framework of rationality, but it is of course merely a codification of a world view that precedes that heritage, and that also appears in other religious or philosophical constructs. This framework has been partly built on ignorant interpretations of the natural world around us, and it therefore stands on shaky grounds. Modern economic "science" has tried to solidify the foundations in true alchemist fashion by pos- tulating (I) the substitutability (and hence inexhaustibil- ity) of natural resources, and (2) the equivalence of natural resource capital and bank accounts.

In that world it is "rational" (and in fact "prudent") to cut down a rain forest, sell the timber, put the money in the bank, and draw an interest rate which is higher than the value of the forest's timber production rate: A truly "sustainable resource" that will produce "rent" long after the clear-cut areas have turned into desert. Any economist worth his or her salt will "prove" the logic of that to you - within his or her framework of rationality.

This brings us to an important concept that determines much of what happens under utilitarian ethics: discounting of the future. In terms of neoclassical economics, it is completely rational, and should be applied to all decisions affecting the future. Here is how the argu- ment is used to determine the "value" of the future:

Assume you have inherited a piece of land with a beautiful large oak tree on it. The tree is quite healthy.

1t. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development 205

As oak trees go, it will still be there in a hundred years, but will not have grown much beyond its present size. Its timber would be worth $1000.- on today's market. Let us assume there is no inflation, and it would also be worth $1000.- in the future. To find out what to do with the tree, you try to assess the present value of several options: (1) Fell and sell this year, (2) in ten years, (3) in fifty years, (4) in a hundred years. You know that you can invest money at an assured interest rate of seven percent per year.

If you fell and sell this year, that means $1000 in the bank, on which you could draw interest from now on.

If you cut the tree ten years from now, you would not have earned the 7 percent interest on $1000 that you could have earned if you had cut it today. You would just get the $1000 then. But you could also have gotten $1000 by just putting $ 500 in the bank now, and letting it draw interest at 7 percent. In other words, the value to you now for selling the timber in 10 years would be $ 500.

For the interest rate I have chosen (7 percent), the discounted value of the future is halved every ten years. That reduces the current value of the tree very quickly: to $ 250 if felled in 20 years, $ 30 if felled in 50 years, 91 cents(l) if felled in 100 years. For lower interest rates, the discounted value would not fall quite as rapidly. For an interest rate of 3.5 percent per year, the tree would have a current worth of $ 30 if felled in 100 years.

So, if you are an economically responsible being (I hope you are not), you have no rational choice but to chop grandpa's oak tree down now and put the $1000 in the bank at 7 percent interest. You would have $ 2014 in ten years, $ 4055 in 20 years, $ 33,115 in 50 years, and more than a million dollars ($ 1,096,633) in a hundred years. If that is not "sustainable management of resources"! (Bankers will claim it is.) And would not your grand-grandchildren love to be millionaires instead of having that messy tree in the yard? (Never mind that you are using the $1000 to buy a new stereo, which you will throw away in a few years.)

The logic of discounting is very pervasive. It is causing governments and corporations to fell rain forests, clean out fishing grounds, and pump oil fields dry now - the sooner the better (i.e. the more rational). Once the money is in the bank, you have a "sustainable resource" with constant interest stream, and no more messing with unreliable real resources and all their problems.

Economists are not blind. They see rain forests disap- pearing, fish industries collapsing, oil fields going dry. But that does not worry them because they have discov- ered a new "law" that physicists and chemists must have overlooked: "Whenever a resource becomes scarce, technology will find a substitute." This belief is reminis- cent of the dream of alchemists to turn rocks into gold.

This belief in substitutability comes in handy when someone questions the wisdom of discounting to practi- cally nothing the value of future uses. What if rain for-

ests, fish populations, and oil resources have disappeared - there will be other, worthwhile, new things, and we will have so much more money in the bank to afford them. And with all that growth of the economy, our children and grandchildren will be so much richer! (Remember the doubling of the bank account every ten years, for a seven percent interest rate.)

If one accepts the principle of discounting future uses, and the "law of substitutability", one can arrive at logical conclusions, but they are only "rational" within that framework of thinking. This framework will not allow sustainable solutions, and it destroys the resource base for sustainability.

One arrives at totally different rational conclusions if one values future uses just as much as present uses (no discounting of the future), and if one accepts the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that constrain substitutability. This framework will be necessary for sustainability (c.f. Howard and Norgaard [23-25]).

The anthropocentric utilitarian mindset not only dis- counts the interests of future generations according to their distance in time, it applies similar "discounting" with respect to "social distance". My interests are para- mount, those of family members are important, but the interests of fellow compatriots in another social class count little, and the interests of far-away people or exotic bird species count next to nothing to me. This weighting of relative interests merely depends on my own acciden- tal "distance" to others in space or time. It has nothing to do with the actual importance of each "subsystem" for the total system. Should we call that "rational"?

In this scheme of things, environmental protection and prevention of pollution only make sense if their future-discounted benefits to me would be greater than the present day costs. Otherwise, I would irrationally give up my "right to consumption". In other words, if an environmental disaster would cause $ 1 million in damages now, I would pay up to $1 million now to prevent it. If, however, it would cause $1 million damage in a hundred years, I should not pay more than $ 912 now to prevent it (assuming again the 7 percent interest rate), according to standard economic reasoning. With this mindset, dikes would never have been built in the Neth- erlands, and we should not do anything about climate change, for example. Indeed, economists will "prove" to you that this would be "irrational" [38,39]. Our grandchildren willcurse us for this "rationality".

Sustainability does not allow discounting. A given ecosystem today is worth as much to the functioning of the whole as it will be in a hundred, thousand, or a million years. If we want the whole to function then, we cannot have discounters tell us that it would be irrational to be concerned about its future.

The partnership mindset derives its driving principles from the realization that biosphere and anthroposphere are coupled to each other and influence each other, and


from the premise that this combined system should be sustainable. The sustainability postulate has a most important consequence: It compels us to concede as much importance to future systems as to present systems. It does not allow any "temporal discounting" of the future. Similarly, the realization of system dependence does not allow any "spatial discounting" of systems farther removed from our attention. This holistic view is one of partnership with each other, the environment, other concurrent systems, and future systems. And "partnership" means dealing with these system partners in a spirit of equity, fairness, and justice - not competition, not exploitation.

The sustainability postulate does not come out of thin air, but rests on the intrinsic value of the processes and products of natural evolution and of human cultural evolution. If we value these, we must strive for ensuring their future existence, development, and evolution, i.e. for sustainability. If we take a more anthropocentric point of view, we arrive at the same conclusion: Human- kind is dependent on the natural systems of its environment, and its own interests compel it to be concerned for their sustainability. Even if we leave human interests out of this, we may want to acknowledge that nature is a living, evolving system, and that the products of this creative process have value in their own right.

Let us spell out in more detail what an ethic based on the sustainability postulate and the partnership principle implies. (I) With respect to the natural environment, it means acknowledging species and ecosystems as systems having their own identity and right to existence, in the present and in the future. The natural environment cannot be viewed as a (supposedly infinite) source of resources, but must be viewed as "life space" on which our existence depends, and for whose future we are responsible. (2) With respect to human systems, it means respecting the right to equitable treatment for all living humans, without differentiation by region, religion, race, gender, political conviction, income, wealth, or education. (3) With respect to future systems, it means respecting the right of existence and development of future generations, species, and ecosystems, in the spirit of the slogan "We have borrowed the earth from our children".

6 Const ruct ing a system o f indicators for sustainable development

We have now collected all the tools we need for con- structing a system of indicators for assessing the viability of systems, and in particular progress in sustainable development. Here is what remains to be done:

(1) We have to be clear about the ultimate end - our reason for being concerned in the first place. I have argued above that "sustainability" is a proper short- hand label for the ultimate end we are pursuing.

(2) We have to adopt an ethical framework to guide our relationship with other (animate and inanimate) systems on whom we depend, or whose fate we influence or control in some way. From a systems point of view, a "partnership ethic" is the most inclusive and appropriate ethic. It includes a fair representation of the interests of all the systems whose fates are linked in the development of the total system, today and in the future.

(3) We have to develop sufficient knowledge about what sector systems we have to include in the "total system" (definition of total system boundary), and about their role and function in the development of the total system.

(4) For each of the sector systems we have to find indicators in each orientor category that can answer two sets of questions: (1) what is the viability of each sector system (i.e. satisfaction of each basic orientor of that system)?, and (2) how does each sector system contribute to the viability (the basic orientors) ofthe total system?

(5) The indicators should be clearly and unambigu- ously defined. They can have qualitative ("sufficient", "insufficient") or quantitative measures. They should offer a hierarchy of specificity, i.e. simple and crude indicators for rough estimates, which can be substantiated by more precise and specific quantitative indicators, if necessary.

6.1 A scheme for asking the right questions

The general scheme of questions to which the indicator system must provide answers is given in table 5. It must be applied to each of the sector systems.

Note that these questions can be adequately answered without an extensive data base of numerical indicators by people with a good knowledge of the systems involved. In many applications it will therefore not be necessary to wait until an expensive and time-consuming data collection effort gets under way. For a more systematic analysis and comparison of regional developments, numerical indicators would be required. If more detail is required, several indicators may have to be defined.

Note that the different indicators cannot readily be combined into one number describing the current state of "sustainability". This would be possible if all indicators could be defined in the same units, and could then be added up to some representative value. In purely economic studies, monetary units are used, and the results can be aggregated to numbers like the gross national product (GNP). But we have found earlier that the interests of systems (as represented by their orientors) are always multidimensional, and that each of the respective orientors has to be satisfied separately. It is not possible to trade or even compare, say, a lack of personal freedom with an overabundance of food.

However, it is possible to aggregate and simplify in another way: If all orientors are in a satisfactory state,


Table 5 General scheme for finding subsystem indicators.

Orientor Subsystem Contribution to total performance system (region)

X Is the system Does subsystem con- Existence viable? Can it tribute its specific

exist7 share to existence and viability of total system7

P Is it compatible Does it contribute to Psychological with psychological the psychological Needs needs and culture? well-being of people7

E Is it effective and Does it contribute to Effectiveness efficient7 the effective and effi-

cient operation of the total system?

F Does it have the Does it contribute to Freedom of necessary freedom the freedom of action Action to respond and ofthe total system7

react as needed7

S Is it secure, safe, Does it contribute to Security stable7 the security, safety,

and stability of the total system7

A Can it adap t to Does it contribute to Adaptability new challenges7 the flexibility and

adaptabil i ty of the total system?

C Is it compat ible Does it contribute to Coexistence with interacting the compatibili ty of

subsystems7 the total system with its partner systems'?

i.e., if all interests of the system are adequately cared for, then we can simply state that the system is "viable", "healthy", or "sustainable". In this case we do not have to bother giving all the numerical details of the indicators we used to arrive at that conclusion. We may even have sufficient proof from other evidence that the system is "healthy", without having to measure a set of indicators, much as a good doctor or farmer will be able to "see" how "healthy" a patient or a crop is.

Sustainability assessments therefore often reduce to finding which of the affected systems are (currently) not sustainable, what the reasons are, and then finding solutions to the existing problems. In other words, we do not have to deal with the immense "control panel" of indicators all of the time, but only concentrate on the "red lights".

tem. A useful distinction of sector subsystems is the following:

I - Infrastructure (settlements and cities, transportation and distribution, supply system (energy, water, food, goods, services), waste disposal, health services, communication and media, education and training, science, research and development)

E - Economic system (production and consumption, commerce and trade, labor and employment, market and interregional trade)

S - Social system (population development, ethnic composition, income distribution and class structure, social security, medicalcare, old age provisions)

H - Individual development (civil liberties and human rights, equity, individual autonomy and self- determination, right to work, social integration and participation, gender and class-specific role, material standard of living, qualification, specialization, adult education, family and life planning horizon, leisure and recreation)

G - Government (government and administration, public finances and taxes, political participation and democracy, conflict resolution (national, international), human rights policy, population and immigration policy, legal system, crime control, international assistance policy, technology policy)

R - Resources, environment, future (environmental protection laws and policies, resource extraction policy and practice, protection of renewable resources, protection of species, rights of future generations, protection of ecological and cultural heritage).

This is not an ad hoc sector classification of the total system. These sector systems are all essential parts of the anthroposphere. The major relationships between the six sector systems are shown in figure 3. Each of these sector systems represents a component of "capital" that is vital to the development of the total system. The term "capital" is used to denote a stock of a vital asset, which

6.2 Developing a set o f sustainability indicators

Applying this approach to defining an indicator set for the assessment of societal development, we must first identify the different relevant sectors of the societal sys-

Figure 3. Major linkages of the six sector subsystems oft.he total regional system.


can grow or depreciate, and must be maintained in good state in order to contribute its share to the development of the total system.

Infrastructure capital denotes the stock of built structures like cities, roads, water supply systems, schools and universities. It is the essential "backbone" of all economic and social activity.

Production capital of the economic system includes the stock of production, distribution, and marketing facilities. It provides the means for all economic activity.

Social capital denotes something less tangible: the ability to deal constructively with social processes, and to employ them for the benefit of the total system. This has a strong cultural component.

Human capital describes the potential for competent individual action as produced by, and producing, the possibilities for individual development. It is the accu- mulated result of tradition, culture, socio-political, and economic conditions.

Organizat ional capital, as manifest in the know-how and performance standards of government, administration, and management, is vital for effective resource use (natural and human) for the benefit of the total system.

Natural capital represents the stock of renewable and nonrenewable resources of materials, energy, and biosystems, including the capacity for waste absorption and regeneration.

Sector-specific indicators must be found for each of these sector systems by defining indicators which can answer the orientor questions posed in table 5. The complete set of indicators therefore follows from a systematic completion of the six matrices for the sector systems.

There are always two sets of orientor questions to be answered (table 5): (1) What does the current state of the sector system imply for the integrity, viability, and sustainability of the sector system7 and (2) What does it mean for the integrity, viability, and sustainability of the total system7 This orientor assessment approach is shown schematically in figure 4. An assessment of the orientor fulfillment of the total system can only come from considering the contributions of all sector systems simultaneously. Note again that orientor deficits either with respect to a sector system, or with respect to the total system, cannot be compensated by orientor over- fulfillment elsewhere. A subsystem orientor deficit implies a threat to the viability of this sector system, and hence also to that of the total system, of which this system is an essential part. Basic orientor deficits are therefore "red lights" that demand immediate attention.

From the systematic derivation of indicators using the orientation-theoretic approach we finally obtain a list of some 220 sustainability indicators (table 6). In this list, indicators have been ordered according to more tra- ditional categories:

N normative and ethics indicators, P psychological indicators, Q qualification indicators,

Figure 4. Orientor satisfaction assessment procedure: The system state described by the indicator set is mapped on the basic orientors of sub-

systems as well as the total system.

O organizational indicators, L living condition indicators, W welfare and social condition indicators, M material resources indicators, F financial and economic indicators, D dependence indicators, B environmental burden indicators. Indicators are numbered consecutively in each of

these categories. It is obvious from these categories that our list of indicators of sustainable development reaches beyond the indicator sets proposed elsewhere (which focus on environment, resources, and economic indicators) by including indicators providing information about the sustainable development potential of all sectors of the total system.

Table 7 shows how these indicators are related to the specific orientor assessment questions of table 5 concerning sector system performance, and sector system contribution to total system performance.

The indicators listed in table 6 were selected for their ability to answer the respective orientor question. Other indicators can be chosen in their place if found to be more appropriate. Moreover, more specific hierarchies of indexes and indicators can be introduced, if necessary.

Several indicators are relevant to different orientor questions in different sector systems. They therefore appear simultaneously in several places. However, they may have very different implications in different con- texts. "High production growth", for example, would contribute positively to "freedom of action" of the economic system, but negatively to "security" of the natural system.

The indicators chosen should be understood as sug- gestions. There may be other indicators that are easier to obtain, or that answer the relevant question just as well (or better). The important point is that the chosen indi-


Table 6 Indicators of sustainable development (based on basic orientor assessment).

N - Normative and ethics indicators

NOI Protection of health and rights of individual, nature, future generations in basic law (constitution)

N02 Frequency of violations ofbasic human rights N03 Future discount applied in policy decisions N04 Percent agreement of operating principles of political and

economic system with ethical principles of regional culture N05 Pet. agreement of legal system with "interests" of other re-

gions, natural systems, future N06 Fairness level (pot of population seeing system as "extremely

unfair") N07 Fraction of population with predominantly cooperative vs.

competitive orientation N08 Dominance of business interests over service ethic: percent of

commercialization of essential social services N09 Fraction of controversial economic activity (environmental,

resource, economic and social problems, human rights, ethics) (national and international protest)

NI0 Ability to change behavioral norms pragmatically by reference to needs and fLrm ethical background: pet of population with ethically grounded way of life, and pragmatic (not legalistic) orientation; number of judges and lawyers per I00,000 population

Nl I Inertia of social norms: rate of change of social norms and behavior: (consumer appliance inventory) / (rate of replace- ment by efficient appliances) = adoption time

P - Psychological indicators

PO 1 Anxiety related to problems of the economic system (poverty, unemployment) (pot of population seeing "serious problem")

P02 Anxiety related to infrastructural problems (pet of population seeing "serious problem")

P03 Anxiety related to social problems (pet ofpopnlation seeing "serious problem")

P04 Anxiety related to individual development and self determination (pet of population seeing "serious problem")

P05 Anxiety related to government and administration (pet of population: "serious problem")

P06 Anxiety related to resources, environment, and future (pet of population: "serious problem")

P07 Index of personal happiness (well being): pet of population "happy with their life"

P08 Percent of individual life determined by external forces: bureaucracy, customs, social norms

P09 Work satisfaction (sick days per employee per year) / (sick days per avg. adult per year)

P10 Percent ofpopuiation who would rather live elsewhere for reasons of personal development

PI 1 Percent of population who would rather live elsewhere because ofinfrastrnctural deficits

P12 Percent ofpopuiation who would "escape" to another region for the sake of children's future

P13 Political alienation: pet nfpopulation not identifying with any of the political philosophies represented in elected bodies or government

P14 Agreement of political form of government and ofeconomic system with cultural and social norms

PI 5 Avg. proximity of places of rest, beauty, spirituality, culture (e.g. forests, parks, temples, churches)

P 16 Regional landscape esthetics (on scale of "pleasing" to "ugly")

Q - Qualification indicators

Q01 (Investment rate in education) / (investment rate in production capital)

Q02 (Annual cost of education) / (gross domestic product) Q03 (Cost of individual education (time and money) for given

qualification) / 0ifetime earnings) Q04 Lifetime fraction in education and training Q05 Education equity index: (years of education nfbest educated

10 pet) / (years of education of least educated 10 pct) Q06 Educational level of least educated 20 pet ofpopnlation Q07 Avg. quality and level nfeducation and skills: equivalent years

of European education Q08 Spectrum of qualifications, personal skills, experience: no of

qualitatively different qualifications per 1000 people (multiple qualifications per person countt)

Q09 percent of employees with narrow specialization only: pet of employees too specialized to change into different job

Q 10 Avg. ratio ofj ob competence vs. job competence requirements (business and industry, administration, politics, science, education)

Q 11 percent, adult population with organizational and management skills (paid or unpaid): pet of population who could efficiently manage a business of more than 3 people

Q 12 Qualification level of employees and management in relation to avg. qualificationlevel of population

Q 13 Avg. number of viable alternatives of individual to present situation (job, place to live)

Q 14 Average years in one job or position Q 15 Probability of being able to adhere to life plan Q 16 Personal freedom to pursue new paths: years of preparation

before major change is possible Q 17 Percent nfpopulation reached by quality media information

(newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, hooks) Q 18 Creative potential: artists, writers, scientists per 1000

population Q19 Percent of adult population continuing education after formal

education ends (> 200 hours per year)

O - Organizational indicators

O01 Degree of fiuancial, political, social stability: inflation rate; average duration of government before major change

002 Pet. of government projects that have to be changed or abandoned due to changing conditions

003 Budget balance (percent of total expenditures): (net surplus or deficit) / (total government revenues)

004 Potentially available uncommitted funds as fraction of total budget

005 (Cnst of government and administration per cap) / (average cost of living)

006 Redundancy of essential and central processes, services, and institutions

007 Index of viable system options (no ofqualitatively different viable options per decision implemented)

O08 (Stock of unsolved major problems) / (problems solved per year) = problem solving time

009 Percent of problems solved by govt. and administration (compared to those "solved" by neglect, business and industry, non-governmental organizations, or international agents

e l 0 Success rate in achieving long term goals: (goal backlog / goal achievement rate) = goal attainment time

e l I Percent of crimes leading to solution and conviction O 12 Percent of GDP going to graft, corruption, and political

favors O 13 Free organizational and administrative capacities and funds

(as percent of total): pct. scientists and planners in future oriented research and development


O 14 Avg. multiple professional qualifications per upper echelon administrator

O 15 Level ofinstitutional bureaucracy: bureaucrats and administrators in government and industry per working adult

O 16 Pet. of essential infrastructure which cannot be converted to different resource base or production in less than ten years

O 17 Avg. time for institutional change (law, institutions, infrastructure)

O 18 Avg. time required to implement maj or entrepreneurial decision (e.g. bringing a small industrial plant to a community)

O 19 Spectrum of political opinion (media): pet of media aligned with majority party

020 Telephone or telecommunication links per 1000 people (incl. PC's with Internet linkage etc.)

021 Degree of decentralized responsibility (subsidiarity): pet. of problems solved at the proper (lowest) level of responsibility

022 Percent ofworkforce self-employed or in small business (< 10 employees)

023 Effectiveness of political and social participation: pet of legislation originating from grassroots involvement

024 Percent of population politically active at all levels of self government and non-governmental organizations (NGO's)

025 Average active individual membership in social groups, clubs, NGO's per cap

026 Frequency of democratic elections and referendums (number per decade ).

027 Avg. period ofmajor political change in country 028 Fraction of self-organizing (NGO) vs. total social activity 029 Innovative programs introduced and completed by govt. and

administration: pet of economic activity that originated from innovative government support (research, subsidies, tax breaks,...)

030 Percent (major) change of product spectrum per year: avg. pet innovative products of regional origin per year o fall industrial sectors

031 Creative products (patents, books, art, music) etc. per 100,000 people

L - Living condit ion indicators

L01 Population density (people/sq. kin) L02 Net population growth rate L03 (Net population growth rate) / (net infrastructure growth

rate) I_,04 Rate of change of birth rate L05 Infant mortality rate L06 Life expectancy at birth L07 Rate of change of life expectancy at birth LOS Food calorie supply per cap as pet of minimum daily adult

requirement, for poorest quintile of population L09 Proportion of undernourished (and overnourished) children L10 Ratio of actual per cap material consumption to sufficient

consumption L11 Percent of population at poverty level, resp. below sufficiency

level (satisfaction of essential needs) LI 2 Percent of population within reach (one hour by foot, bike, or

public transport) of all essential services (essential supplies, medical, social, administrative, educational, cultural)

L13 Percent of population with access to sufficient clean water and sanitation at their place of habitation

L14 Pet of population living ha cities > 50,000 people L15 (Avg. property, savings, insurance) / (ann. income rate for

sufficiency) = financial cushion L16 Ratio of avg. house price to annual income L17 Floor area per person L 18 Walking and cycling distance per capita per day L19 Adult literacy rate

L20 Rate of change of per capita service capacity (roads, schools, hospitals etc.) (expansion or deterioration rate)

L21 Degree of internal and external security: people killed per year (per 100000) by terrorism, crime, social unrest, war

L22 Degree of internal social stability: people displaced per year (per 100000) by civil war, economic or ecological conditions, floods etc.

L23 Pet. of population ha hospitals, jails, mental institutions: (beds occupancy) / population

1_.24 Individual lifetime fraction required for sufficient life support: (hours / average life hours)

L25 Lifetime fraction required to reach essential services (transportation, waiting, incl. travel to work)

I_.26 Lifetime fraction available for leisure: (hours / average life hours)

L27 Lifetime fraction in meaningful, fulfilling activities: (hours / average life hours)

L28 Lifetime fraction lost in illness and disability L29 Rate of change of quality lifetime (education, health care,

transport, communication) (or rate of change of lifetime required to secure essential needs)

L30 Avoidable mortality and disability as fraction of total mortality and disability (starvation, poverty, epidemics, violence, lack of infrastructure)

W - Welfare indicators

W01 Degree of social inequity (e.g. percent of population under discriminatory conditions of gender, race, culture, religion, poverty, class)

W02 Burden on future generations due to excessive demands: (nonrenewable resource use / need for sufficient lifestyle); (debt/cap)

W03 Income distribution: (Income of the top 10%) / (Income of the bottom 10%)

W04 Rate ofchange of income inequity index (income of poorest 10 pot / average income)

W05 Social problems as percent of active political issues: pet of time ha parliament etc. devoted to acute social problems

W06 Percent of population with income below sufficiency level W07 Rate of change of social problems: rate of change of

population fraction with income below sufficiency (poverty) level

W08 Pet of population dependent on public welfare system W09 (Average savings or debt) / (annual income) WI 0 Fraction of population that could supply and support itself at

sufficiency level in emergency W 11 Avg. value of property access (private or communal: housing,

land, vehicles, appliances etc.) in terms of avg. annual income Wl2 Percent of major personal risks covered by insurance or social

safety net W 13 Percent of social needs effectively dealt with by system W14 Rate of change of social service capacity: net rate of change

of social service capital per cap (i.e. investment depreciation) W 15 Pet. security of funding, or ofsecure social processes, for next

five years W16 Probability of adequate financing for social support processes

in twenty years W17 Unemployment rate: pet. of working age adults who want to,

but cannot find work W18 Rate ofchange of unemployment rate W 19 Work distribution index: (total employed work volume per

week / working age population) / (regular workweek) W20 Social support ratio: (children + old people + sick

+ unemployed) / (working population) W21 Rate of change ofsocial support ratio W22 Social service unit cost: annual per cap cost of social service

per serviced persons vs. avg. annual income


W23 Fraction of working age population employed (paid or unpaid) in social service work

W24 Ratio ofvolunteer services (hours) to paid services (hours) W25 Lifetime fraction of societal contribution of individual vs.

work for personal gain (paid or unpaid) W26 Average size of cohabiting family unit W27 Avg. rate ofintense family type social contacts per day W28 Avg. distance between living places ofmembers of extended

family

M - M a t e r i a l r e s o u r c e u s e i n d i c a t o r s

M01 Resource throughput per cap: (energy / capyear), (metals/ capyear)

M02 Avg. resource consumption and pollution per product or service, related to best technical solution (ecological footprint/min, footprint)

M03 Energy cost as fraction of total system operating cost M04 (Food and essential product stocks) / (rate ofconsnmption)

= reserves time constant M05 Percent of regional carrying capacity used at current lifestyle

(primary production and waste absorption capacity) M06 Dependence on depletable resources, renewable energy

fraction M07 (Renewable resource use rate) / (renewable resource

regeneration rate) M08 (Depletable resource supplies)/(depletable resource use rate)

= resource life M09 Energy required to harvest one unit of renewable resource

(energy unit / energy unit) (e.g. fish, agriculture) M 10 Rate of change of energy required to harvest one unit of

renewable resource M 11 Energy required to extract a unit of nonrenewable energy

(energy unit / energy unit) M 12 Rate of change of energy required to extract a unit of

nonrenewable energy M 13 (Rate of development ofrenewable energy substitutes) /

(rate of depiction of nonrenewable energy resources) M 14 Supply redundancy (for energy, water, food): percent that

could be supplied from other sources than the present M 15 Powered vehicle kilometers per capita per year (people

transport in cars, buses, trains, airplanes) M 16 Average transportation distance for key resources (water,

energy, food, materials) M 17 Systemic need for transportation system: Pet. of economy

dependent on non-local transport M 18 Diversity factor for essential food, transportation, education,

health care: average number of alternatives M 19 Redundancy factor of essential infrastructure services: pet. of

essential services with at least duplicate and independent facilities

M20 Spectrum of future societal options provided by infrastructural solutions (pet. convertible to qualitatively different option in less than five years)

F - F i n a n c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c i n d i c a t o r s

F01 Economic effort per cap: (GDP per cap) / (GDP per cap for sufficiency)

F02 Productivity growth rate 1:03 Expenditures for maintenance of capital stock / value of

capital stock F04 Pet. security of fLXed cost and upkeep financing for next 20

years F05 (Total infrastructure capital) / (rate of infrastructure

investment) = renewaltime (avg. lifetime of infrastructure capital)

F06 (Value ofcapital stock) / (value of end use output rate) = pay-back years

1:07 (Savings rate) / (capital depreciation rate) F08 (Annual debt service cost) / (total revenues) F09 (Debt per cap) / (avg. cost ofliving) F 10 Future debt footprint: (debt) / (net pay-back rate) = pay-

back time F11 Rate of change of future debt footprint F12 Environmental and societal impact: Ratio ofexternal costs of

economic operations to value of economic transactions (GDP)

F13 Ratio of government or foreign economic subsidies (annual rate) to economic output rate (GDP)

F 14 Rate of material or financial surplus generation as fraction of total investment

F15 Commercialization depth of transformation chain for essential products: ratio of wheat price to price of bread ($/kg) / ($/kg)

D - Dependence indicators

D01 Percent dependence of vital supplies (food, water, energy, essential materials, foreign currency) on sources not under regional control

D02 Percent ofessential production generated within region D03 Domestic food potential production rate / food demand D04 Percent ofproduction, commerce, distribution by domestic

organizations D05 Percent ofenviroumentai and resource use loads dependent

on net uncompensated use of international commons (atmosphere, hydrosphere, soils)

D06 Net air and water pollution import or export: (quantity entering country) / (quantity leaving country)

D07 Percent of international partners with similar views and interests (language, political, cultural, religious)

D08 Trade partner disparity index: ~-'~ i (domestic life expectancy - life expectancy of partner i) / (i * domestic life expectancy)

D09 Cross border trade and communication vs. domestic: ratio of value of(import + export) trade to gross domestic product

D10 Import or export of social problems (migration, foreign assistance): (migration rate / population) * (average education level / avg. educational, level of migrants)

D 11 Percent ofpopulation born elsewhere (language compatibility, diversity)

D 12 Avg. intensive personal international contacts per cap and year (equiv. to 1 hr talk, 2 page letter etc.)

B - E n v i r o n m e n t a l b u r d e n i n d i c a t o r s

B01 Environmental footprint vs. permissible sustainable footprint: ecosystem area needed per cap to produce or absorb the ecosystem services utilized

B02 Rate of change of environmental footprint B03 External burden on environment due to personal demands:

(actual consumption rate) / (rate of sufficiency consumption) B04 Net greenhouse gas emissions per economic output: (tons

CO2 equivalent)./($ GDP) B05 Rate of change of key enviroumental indicators (pollution, de-

scrtification, depletion) (pet. change per year) B06 Percentage of intact ecosystems (relative area) B07 Rate of change of intact ecosystem area (wilderness) B08 Ecosystem encroachment by infrastructure: Road and traffic

density 0ength per square kilometer, vehicle kilometers per square kilometer)

B09 Rate ofchange of primary production claimed for human use (forests, agriculture,...)

BI0 Rate of change ofeculogical diversity index B 11 Endangered species as percent of native species

212 1t. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development

B12 Rate of change ofendangercd species list B13 Rate of increase in biocide-resistant species B14 Rate of change in the number of persistent chemicals in the

environment B15 (Rate ofproduction or import of key chemicals) / (rate of

absorption) : net accumulation of persistent pollution BI 6 Percent of unpolluted stream and beach kilometers B 17 Fertility loss: (contaminated + eroded + acidified + alkalized

soil) / (original fertile soft) B18 Rate of depletion of nonrenewable resources: static resource

lifetime = (resource reserves) I (resource use rate) B 19 Net renewable resource depletion rate -- (renewal rate

- harvest rate) (for forests, aquifers, fish, soft) B20 Buffer capacity vs. utilized reserves (reserves, intact

ecosystems, groundwater, soft buffer capacity) B21 Percent of resource supply, recycling, regeneration, waste

absorption functions which must be supplied by technical means (sewage plants, water systems, waste management...)

B22 Area used for environmentally compatible sustainable agriculture / total agricultural area

B23 Percent of local adaptation of resource use methods to local conditions

B24 Diversity and multiple use capability ofenviroument and resource base: number of regionally adapted field crops that could each supply more than 10 pet ofregioual demand

B25 Actual carrying capacity vs. utilized carrying capacity B26 Rate of change of regional carrying capacity: rate of change

ofprimary production and waste absorption capacity B27 Sustainability index of region: pet of GDP based on

sustainable activities B28 Closeness to collapse (eutrophication, erosion, resource

exhaustion, overuse) (pet. ofcritieal level) B29 Adaptability limit of key ecosystems: actual rate of change

vs. permissible rate of change B30 Rate of foreclosure of important options (environment,

resources, regional development): Rate of conversion of fertile agricultural land to infrastructure etc. (pot/year); accumulation of persistent wastes

B31 Health cost of environmental pollution: pet of lifetime lost to environmental pollution (illness, early death: see DALY index)

B32 Percent of economic output (theoretically) required to counteract detrimental effects of system

B33 Pet. share of environmental degradation (water, fuel-wood and forests, erosion) due to poverty

tions, without the need for expensive and time-consuming quantitative measurements of indicators. Even a qualitative orientor satisfaction assessment will quickly locate trouble spots and performance deficits threaten- ing subsystems and the total system (see below).

A relatively reliable and complete assessment can already be made by filling out an appropriate checklist, and grading orientor satisfaction on some crude scale. For international comparisons, however, accurate quantification must be possible. Eventual aggregation of indicator states to index values must account for the fundamental multidimensionality of the assessment problem, i.e. it is not possible to combine apples and oranges in one index (such as "life expectancy" with "groundwater pollution").

"Sustainability" can only be discussed in relation to a particular region, since it is directly related to its carrying capacity. Hence sustainability indicator sets are region-specific. They may have to include indicators in one region which would not be appropriate in another. For example, the indicator sets for a village in Lapland, and a village of similar size in West Africa, would be quite different, although overall conclusions concerning the sustainability of each system could again be compar- able.

7 Applications

Systems orientation theory has been applied above to generate a comprehensive set of indicators of sustainable regional development which could be used to guide data collection and international comparison. However, the approach can also be used to make quick but reliable assessments in cases where costly and time-consuming data collection is not possible or feasible.

7. I Orientor stars and performance grades

cater (or indicators) must give an accurate answer to a particular orientor question (of table 5).

It is now clear that we cannot hope to capture all aspects relevant to system development in one simple indicator (such as GNP), nor even a handful of indicators. Rather, a set of the order of at least(7 x 2 x 6 =)84 indicators appears to be necessary. This complication is somewhat alleviated by the fact that some indicator variable can be used in different sectoral assessments, and that most of the relevant assessment questions can be answered sufficiently by qualitative statements (present/absent, sufficient~insufficient) without requiring precise numbers for difficult-to-measure variables.

The latter observation is of great practical significance: If we have a good qualitative knowledge of the system, we can obtain a fairly reliable sustainability assessment by qualitative answers to the orientor ques-

The important questions that have to be asked and answered when trying to assess viability and sustainability were listed in table 5. In the previous section, representative indicators were collected to provide answers to each of these questions, and for each of the six societal subsystems (tables 6 and 7). These concrete, quantifiable indicators would normally have to come from some statistical data sources. But these orientor questions ulti- mately require simple qualitative answers of the type: "Basic orientor X of system N is (or is not) satisfied". Hence the approach can also be applied to coarser, qualitative assessments that still provide comprehensive and reasonably reliable results.

For a given scenario, we can estimate the degree of orientor satisfaction - about as well (or as poorly) as an English teacher can judge the quality of style, substance, grammar, composition of student essays. So let us use ordinary school grades to rate how well a development


Table 7 Basic orientor assessment of sustainable development performance.

Sector systems: I Infrastructure system E Economic system S Social system H Human individual development G Government system R Resources and environment

Sector system performance

I E S H G R

Sector system contribution to total system

I E S H G R

X L20 F13 existence F04 D01

P L12 psych. N08 needs

N04

E F06 W01 effective- Q02 M02 ness F15 F05

M15 L18 F03 L22 M01 020

L02 W14 W15

W26 W27 W28 P15

W23 W22 W24 B31 O12

L24 L30 L05

P07 W01 QO5 L26 L27

023 L27 L28

F F05 O18 WI7 L06 freedom MI8 F07 W22 N02

Q00 000 W13 P08 QI2 P09 W18 024 L14 F02 Q18

P13 L19

003 F08 F09

B05 LI3 LI1 W07 M08 L12 BI0 L04 M07 L30 L07 Bl l D03 W04 B25 L08 W08

B14

W10 W04

008 009

M05 B21

P13 N07 P02 P01 P03 P04 P05 P06 P14 P16 P l l N06 Pl0 P13 P12

M06 B06 M l l M12 M09 M10 M01 B00

O15 008

L25 L24 W13 Q l l 008 M16 B32 L23 B27 005 Q03 B26 W06 B26 O 11 O31 M06

M18 B08 MI7 L06 L17 L16 L25

L30 B05

F08 O13

M07 M08 B20

S M19 D01 W20 W09 O01 B01 security L05 M06 W21 L30 O10 B02

L30 006 W16 QI5 002 BI5 WI2 B28

A O17 030 028 Q08 O14 MI3 M20 adapt- Q07 O 13 O 15 Q04 021 B29 L03 ability Q01 Q07 Q 16 o 17 M 10 L29

O15 QI7 QI9 B23 B10

D07 024 N05

W25 B03 W01

F12 B06 B01 B02 B30 D09 L01

M03 M16

Q13 004 Q08 026 MI4 O00 W23 Q09 O19 M07 B30 W05 D02 007 L02 F01 FI4

W05 B33 W07

W l l QI0

LI5 L l l M00 B12 D00

L21 D01 O11 MI4 B05 M08 L22 B19

B22 B13

C B05 coexis- B01 tence B02

B30

N09 B09 L10

DI2 N01 D05 B01 008 B15 B02 D08 B18 F10 D06 FI1 B17

W01 W02

B07 BI0 N03

DI I D10 W02 W19 L09 W03 W05 W01

Qo8 025 Qos 027 O16 QI3 N l l NI0 029 B24 022 Q06 QI4 B14

B16

214

Table 8 Scheme for grading orientor satisfaction.

H. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development

Basic infrastructure orientor

economic social system individual government environ, and system development resources

sub total sub total sub total sub total sub total sub total

eXistence Psychol. needs Effectiveness Freedom Security Adaptability Coexistence

path can be expected to satisfy each of the basic orientors of each subsystem and the total system:

A = 4.0: excellent B = 3.0: good C = 2.0: fair D = 1.0: deficient F = 0.0: fail To provide somewhat finer grading, let us also use

pluses and minuses to modify grades for the better (+ : add 0.3) or for worse ( - : subtract 0.3). Next, we have to patiently work through the questions in table 5 for each of the six societal subsystems and for each development path to be assessed. We enter the grades in a table (table 8). For each subsystem, the entry in the first column ("sub") shows how well the respective basic orientor of that subsystem is satisfied. The entry in the second column ("total") indicates how well this subsystem contributes to the satisfaction of the respective basic orien- tot of the total system.

It is difficult to discern a pattern in such a table of grades. We have to aggregate the information and present it in a convenient graphic form. We therefore replace the letter grades by their numerical equivalents and com- pute average grades for each of the basic orientor satisfactions (by dividing by 2 x 6 = 12). (For simplicity, we have assigned equal weight to each subsystem, and to its contribution to the total system). We lose information this way, but we can now plot the results as an "orientor star" with seven rays, where the length of each ray repre-

sents the (average) degree of satisfaction of that basic orientor in the system. The pattern of this star gives an indication of the viability and sustainability of the system. The brighter (bigger) the star, and the more even its pattern, the better. Comparing the orientor star for one development path with that of an alternative path, we can clearly see where one path has advantages over another.

Z 2 Comparison of regional development

Let us apply this method of basic orientor assessment to a comparative assessment of current development trends.

The "current situation" is significantly different in different countries and regions of the world. To be consistent, we must restrict the assessment to one particular area - we cannot put population growth in Africa, rain forest destruction in South America, and unemployment in Europe into one assessment, for example. On the other hand, our assessment is rather crude and cannot reliably distinguish between similar European nations, say. So let us make assessments for representatives of two diverse groups of nations: (1) highly industrialized "rich" nations of the "Nor th" (represented by the USA), and (2) not yet industrialized "poor" nations of the "South" (represented by a sub-Saharan country such as Mali).

My personal assessments for these representatives of

Table 9 Grading orientor satisfaction for "North" .

Basic infrastructure economic Orientors system

sub total sub total

social system individual government environ, and development resources

sub total sub total sub total sub total

X B+ B+ B B p A - B+ A - B+ E C + B B - C - F B - B+ A - B S B B+ C - C - A B+ B B+ B+ C C + C C - C -

B - C A - C + C - B C - B - C B - A - B B - B C+ B - C C B+ C B B - C - B C - C - A - A - C+ B+ C+ B C - C - B - B B - C + C - B - C B A A A - B - C+ B B C+ C - C C C C+ C+

1-1. Bossel / Deriving indicators of sustainable development 215

Table 10 Grading orientor satisfaction for "South".

Basic infrastructure Orientors

sub total

economic social system individual government environ, and system development resources

sub total sub total sub total sub total sub total

X D C- P D+ D+ E C - D + F D C - S D C A C C- C B B

B+ D C - C - D + B C - C C B B - D B C C C C C B B C+ D B C- D+ C+ C- D+ C+ C- D+ D C C D+ D+ D+ C- B- D B D + C - B D + C - C - C C§ D + B C C C C C C C B - D + B B B C+ B+ A - B - B - B - B -

the current "Nor th" and "South" are shown in tables 9 and 10, and the average orientor satisfactions for these two cases are plotted in the orientor star of figure 5. The difference between "North" and "South" is quite obvious. In particular, current economic conditions in the South restrict "effectiveness", "freedom of action", "security", and "adaptability" compared to conditions in the North. The "coexistence" rating of the South is higher than that of the North because the South pro- duces a much smaller drain on global environment, resources, and the future than the North. The "adaptability" rating for the North reflects US conditions; it is significantly lower for European nations. Both regions are on unsustainable paths.

Can we trust this crude assessment? Are the results significant? I think the trend is clear, and will change little in more careful and detailed assessments: Viability and sustainability of both regions are at stake, and the orientor star provides some information about the different deficits in both regions.

Comparing the pattern and size of orientor stars for different development paths gives us a holistic view of

Figure 5. Orientor assessment for an industrial country of the "North" and a poor developing country of the "South".

where we stand now, what implications alternative paths would have on system viability and sustainability, and what changes each path is likely to bring. Much as traffic signs, these silhouettes of the future can give us clear warning of what lies ahead, without giving much detail, however. We would be prudent to heed these hints.

7.3 Indicators for sustainable community development

We can theorize about global sustainable development, but it can only come about through the actions of mil- lions of individuals who change things in their family, their homo, their community, or their business.

In this transition process, the community may be the most crucial component. The community is the smallest "cell" of human interaction that contains all the vital sector subsystems that we find in the larger units (citios~ states, nations) of human society:

Infrastructure system: Roads, buildings, hospitals, water supply, sower lines and sewage plant, electric power supply, and telephone system.

E c o n o m i c system: Shops, markets, businesses of all kinds, banks.

Social system: Population size and growth, social structure, ethnic composition, cultural diversity, income distribution, employment, clubs, social problems, welfare and social security, crime.

Individual development: Schools and other educational institutions, sports and recreation facilities, libraries.

Government system: Community administration, citizen participation, non-governmental organizations.

Resources and environment: Waste generation and disposal, sewage treatment, recycling, energy efficiency of public and private buildings, material balances of plants, ecological footprint of the community, parks and wilderness area.

If the world is to get onto a sustainable path, we must first make sure that communities are on a sustainable path.

But we need a good set of indicators to really " s e e "

the state of viability and sustainability of a community. Neither the political pronouncements of the mayor, the


city council, political parties, or the chamber of commerce, nor the community's budget sheet, number of tea- chers, firemen, doctors, or police tell the whole story in the "holistic" systems sense that is required for a comprehensive assessment.

We have dealt with the problem of finding representative indicators for sustainable regional development. These indicators must give a fairly reliable and complete picture of what really matters. We found that the state of satisfaction of the "real interests" (basic orientors) of actors, subsystems, and the total system must be represented by the indicators. Accordingly, the indicator set listed in table 6 was derived by using systems orientation theory. This set is applicable to regional or national development, but it cannot be used directly for assessing sustainable development at the local or community level.

There is such a diverse spectrum of communities in the world that it is not possible to find a set of indicators that would apply to all of them. For some, the run of wild salmon in the local river [2] might be an important indicator of environmental quality, for others, it might be the air pollution by a local steel mill. Some communities, trying to provide essential services, might have to count the number of outdoor latrines per I000 people, while others may include the efficient use of methane from their sewage plant for electric power generation in their indicator list.

The general procedure for systematically determining a set of indicators for the sustainability assessment of a community is then as follows:

Go through the basic orientor assessment questions of table 5 for each of the six sector systems, and find indicators that can answer those questions for the particular circumstances of the community. Note that indicators have to be defined for two sets of questions: (1) with respect to viability of the sector system itself, (2) with respect to contribution of this system to the community as a whole.

Grade performance in each of the categories by using familiar school grades. Plot the overall result as an "orientor star" (of. figure 5). Do not be afraid of the "subjective" grading system: If your indicators are clearly defined, and their role and contribution to community viability is obvious, agreement even among opponents will not be too difficult to achieve, whatever the final outcome of the exercise may be, it will certainly focus the discussion on the really important issues.

Here are some sample questions that would lead to appropriate indicators for the Infrastructure System sector (the same approach would have to be used for the other five sectors).

(1) Viability o f infrastructure system itself: Existence: Are there sufficient funds for the operation

and maintenance of roads, hospitals, sewage plant? Psychological needs: Are the various components of

the infrastructure system compatible with the psychological, cultural, esthetic needs of the population?

Effectiveness: Do the services provided by the infrastructure system justify its cost in money, resources, employees, pollution, and other environmental burdens? What is the energy efficiency of public and private buildings? What percentage of energy use is renewable? What percentage of waste is recycled?

Freedom of action: How constrained are decision- makers in this sector by budgets, bureaucracy, pressure groups, political constraints, markets, legal restrictions? Do they have the freedom and the means to implement more sustainable solutions?

Security: Are there sufficient financial reserves? Are the facilities safe? Are there redundancies that can take over in case of failure? Are facilities vitally dependent on external supplies or control (in particular: water, fuel, food)?

Adaptability: Could facilities adapt to changes of technology, population, energy supply etc.? In particular, could they easily adapt to much higher energy prices, or scarcity?

Coexistence: What impacts do infrastructure facilities have on the environment, on social relationships, on interests of future generations?

(2) Contribution of the infrastructure system to the viability and sustainability o f the community:

Existence: Do the infrastructure facilities secure human existence (water and food supply, waste disposal)? Do they secure the existence of a viable economic system?

Psychological needs: Do the facilities contribute to fulfillment of psychological needs for a healthy and secure environment that provides opportunities for individual development?

Effectiveness: Does the infrastructure permit effective and efficient operation of the community and all its sectors? Are community resources (energy, materials, money, people) used efficiently and effectively? Are environmental impacts efficiently minimized?

Freedom of action: Does the infrastructure provide freedom of personal development, and allow cultural and economic diversity, without restricting the diversity of species and ecosystems?

Security: How secure are lives and health of citizens? How secure is the environment? Is there sufficient protection from hazards of all kinds?

Adaptability: Can the facilities accommodate a change of population number and (age) composition? Do they allow a reasonably quick adaptation of the community to new technologies, change in economy and markets, or resource scarcity and cost? Does the environment remain sufficiently adaptive?

Coexistence: What environmental burdens does the community produce? What inputs of material, energy, food and water are required? Where do they come from?


What impacts do they produce there? What are the loads on the environment produced by the community? What consequences do they have? What irreversibilities con- straining future options are produced by the infrastructure system?

This list is by no means complete, and similar lists will have to be produced for the other sector systems, before one can sit down to define indicators for sustainable development for a particular community. But the work invested will be rewarded by a much better understanding of the community as a "living system" integrated in the global system, of its needs and functions, and of its potential to contribute to sustainable development of the global system.

7.4 Assessing and comparing future paths

Discussions about routes into the future tend to get bogged down quickly, even among intelligent people who have no trouble sorting out the facts and making rational decisions in everyday situations. Discussing the future is different from everyday decisions: It is partly based on well-known facts about the present, partly on conjectures and assumptions about future developments, but most of all on individual values and normative concepts about what the future should be like. And it is these concepts that are the most dear to us - we find it difficult or impossible to accept other points of view. We split into different political factions, accuse each other of being "ideologues", all the while clinging to our subjective convictions as if they were self-evident facts.

We must realize that, while discussions about the future cannot be entirely factual and "rational" on account of future uncertainty and normative differences, we should bring as much rationality into the process as possible. We can then separate indisputable facts from uncertain information and normative concepts. Instead of wasting time trying to convince the other side of our fuzzy subjective vision of the "right path" we can then have more substantial discussions of the points that really matter.

Here are the steps of a rational discussion about the future among people of different convictions:

(1) Data base: Gather the agreed-upon "facts" about the current situation in a common-data base.

(2) Future paths: Identify the major riverbeds of future development that could result from the current situation, and that are physically and logically possible and consistent (of. [7,8,12,13]).

(3) Impact assessment: Determine the likely consequences and impacts of each path for each of the stake- holders and subsystems of the total system.

(4) Comparative evaluation: Compare these consequences, evaluate their impacts by using orientor impact assessment, and seek to arrive at a collective conclusion.

Note that normative concepts (and hence differences in evaluation) become decisive only in the last step. The truly important disagreements will appear here, and discussions should focus on these. If there is agreement on ethical and procedural principles, there should then also be agreement about the path to be taken into the future.

It is important to make the comparative assessment as systematic and "fair" as possible, and to focus on the "big picture", which may show that a minor disadvantage in one sector may actually enable true "progress" in another.

The orientor-based assessment procedure discussed here was developed to allow this holistic view. It is designed to reflect the "interests" of all affected systems with respect to the integrity, viability, and sustainability of the total system. Such an assessment should point to potential problem areas long before they become acute, and should therefore be able to guide planning and decision-making. In particular, it should allow comparative assessment of future paths.

R e f e r e n c e s

[1] M. van Asselt and J. Rotmans, Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling - A cultural perspective-based approach, RIVM Report no. 461502009, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands (Globo Report No. 9) (1995).

[2] A. Atkinsson et al., "Sustainable Seattle" indicators (1995). [3] A. Baranzini and M. O'Connor, Green National Product: The

Neoclassical Capital Theory and lts Application (forthcoming). [4] D. Birnbacher, Ferantwortang fdr zukiinftige Generationen,

Enke, Stuttgart, 1988. [5] F.H. Borman and S.R. Kellert (eds.), Ecology, Economy, Ethics:

The Broken Circle, Yale University Press, New Haven CT, 199 I. [6] H. Bossei, Orientors of nonroutine behavior, in: Concepts and

Tools of Computer-assisted Policy Analysis, H. Bossel (ed.), Birkhauser, Basel, 1977, pp. 227-265.

[7] H. Bossel, B~rgerinitiativen entwerfen die Zukunft - Neue Leitbilder, neue Werte. 30 Szenarien, Fischer, Frankfurt/M, 1978.

[8] H. Bosscl, Viability and sustainability: Matching development goals to resource constraints, Futures 19 (1987) 114-128.

[9] H. Bossel, Modeling and Simulation, A K Peters, Wellesley Mass., and Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1994.

[10] H. Bossel, Ecosystems and Society: Implications for sustainable development, World Futures 46, 1996, 71 p.

[11] H. Bossel, 20/20 Vision - Explorations of Sustainable Futures, Gesamthochschulbiblinthek, Kassel, 1996.

[12] H. Bossel, P. Kramer, J. Schaffner, H. Weismantel and U. Zerger, AIternativen landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsweisen (Alternative paths of agricultural production), Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag, Materialen zur Drucksache 10/6801, Band V, Enquete-Kommission Technild'olgenabsch~itzung, 1987, 427 pp.

[13] H. Bossel, P. Kxamer, K.F. Miiller-Reissmann, J. Schaffner, H. Weismantel and U. Zerger, Perspektiven zur Zukunft der Landwirtschaft (Agrarpfade) (Future perspectives of agriculture), Enquete-Kommission "Technikfolgen- Absch~itzung und Bewertung" des 11. Deutschen Bundestags, Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel, 1989.


[14] R. Brouwer, M. O'Connor and W. Radermacher, Defining cost- effective responses to environmental deterioration in a periodic accounting system, London Group Meeting on Environmental Accoanting, Stockholm, 1996.

[15] C. Cobb, T. Halstead and J. Rowe, If the GDP is up, why is America down?, Atlantic Monthly (Oct, 1995) 59-78.

[16] H. Daiy, TowardaSteady-StateEconomy, W.H. Freeman, 1973. [17] B. DevaU and G. Sessions, Deep Ecology - Living as if Nature

Mattered, Pregrine Smith, Layton, LIT, 1985. [18] S. Fancheu and M. O'Connor (eds.), Valuation for Sustainable

Development: Methods and Policy Indicators, Eiward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1997.

[19] W. Fox, A critical overview of environmental ethics, World Futures 46 (1996) 1-21.

[20] E. Fromm, To Have or to Be?, Harper and Row, New York, 1976.

[21] The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology, Redefining Progress, San Francisco, One Kearny Street, Fourth Floor, 1995.

[22] G. Hardin, Exploring New Ethics for Survival, Viking Press, New York, 1972.

[23] R.B. Howard and R.B. Norgaard, Environmental valuation under sustainable development, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 80 (1992) 473--477.

[24] R.B. Howard and R.B. Norgaard, Intergenerational resource rights, efficiency, and social optimality, Land Economics 66 (I 990) 1-11.

[25] R.B. Howard and R.B. Norgaard, Intergenerational transfers and the social discount rate, Environmental and Resource Economics 3 (1993) 337-358.

[26] R. Hueting and P. Bosch, Note on the correction of national income for environment losses, Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 7, no. 2 (1990) 75- 83.

[27] R. Hueting, P. Bosch and B. de Boer, Methodology for the Calculation of Sustainable National lncome, Voorburg, 1991.

[28] E. Jantsch, The Self-Organizing Universe, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982.

[29] J. Jesinghaus, Green accounting and environmental indicators: The Pressure Indices Project, SCOPE Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development, EUROSTATE/Commission of the European Communities, Wuppertai, 1995.

[30] H. Jonas, Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt, 1979.

[31] A. Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Human Nature, Basic Books, New York, 1990.

[32] F. Kxebs and H. Bossel, Emergent value orientation in self- organization of an animat, Ecological Modelling 1762 (1997), (in print).

[33] C. Krotscheck and M. Narodoslawsky, The Sustainable Process Index (SPF) - A new dimension in ecological evaluation, Ecological Engineering 206 (1996).

[34] H. Kiing, Global Responsibility: In Search era New World Ethic, Crossroad Publ., New York, 199 I.

[35] M.A. Max-Neef, Human Scale Development, Apex Press, New York and London, 1991.

[36] D.H. Meadows, Indicators and information systems for sustainable development, Draft, Balaton Group, May 1996.

[37] F. Miiller, Ableitung yon integrativen Indikatoren zur Bewertung yon Okosystem-Zust~nden f'fir die UmweltSkonomische Gesamtrcchnung, Okologiezentrum, Universit~it Kiel, 1996.

[38] W.D. Nordhans, Managing the Global Commons, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1993.

[39] W.D. Nordhaus, Count before you leap: Economics of climate change, The Economist (July, 1990).

[40] L. Pinter and P. Hardi, Performance measurement for sustainable development: A compendium of experts, initiatives and publications, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1995.

[41] L.J. Pojman, Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Wadworth, Belmond CA, 1989.

[42] V.R. Potter, Bioethics: Bridge to the Future, Prentice Hail, Englewood Cliffs N J, 197 I.

[43] W. Radermacher, Sustainable income: reflections on the valuation of nature in environmental-economic accounting, Statistical Journal of the United Nations ECE 11 (1994) 35-51.

[44] J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, London, 1972.

[45] P. Singer (ed.), Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1994.

[46] P. Singer, Practical Ethics, 2rid ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1993.

[47] R. Sp~mann, Basic Moral Concepts, Routledge, London and New York, 1993.

[48] R.J. Swart and J. Bakkes, (eds.), Scanning the global environment - A framework and methodology for integrated environmental reporting and assessment, RIVM Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1995.

[49] P.W. Taylor, Respect for Nature - A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton University Press, Princeton N J, 1986.

[50] M. Thompson, R. Ellis and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford, 1990.

[51] United Nations, Work programme on indicators of sustainable development of the Commission on Sustainable Development, UN-DPCSD, Feb. 1996.

[52] M. Wackernagel and W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint, New Society Publ., Philadelphia, PA (Gabriola, Canada), 1996.

[53] Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, World Publishing, Cleveland and New York, 1962.

[54] Monitoring Environmental Progress, World Bank, Washington DC, 1995.

deriving indicators of sustainable development

Documents