Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656

The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment

Andre Mascarenhas a, Pedro Coelho b, Eduarda Subtil a, Tomas B. Ramos b,*a Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugalb CENSE, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus da Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 23 November 2008

Received in revised form 20 October 2009

Accepted 7 November 2009

Keywords:

Sustainable development

Stakeholder engagement

Common indicators

Local–regional assessment

A B S T R A C T

Sustainable development indicators (SDIs) are one of the most frequently used tools to assess sustainable

development from an international to a local scale, supporting evaluation and reporting purposes.

Indicators can also be particularly useful in addressing the growing need for interaction at regional and

local scale in sustainability initiatives and assuring that regional assessments reflect community values,

concerns and hopes. The main goal of this research is to develop a conceptual framework for common

local sustainability indicators within a regional context, one that is supported by a participative approach

and allows interaction between local and regional scales. Other major goals were to design the regional

profile on local SDI initiatives and develop a set of common local indicators for the Algarve region – the

most southerly region of Portugal. The framework is mainly supported on common strategic goals,

objectives, targets, features and resources and on the existing regional and local SDI sets. A regional

survey involving all municipalities was conducted to obtain data on local SDI initiatives and the regional

profile was defined. By testing the framework in the Algarve, a proposed set of common local indicators

was developed and presented in the survey for local authority evaluation. The main findings reveal that,

despite the fact that there are still few local SDI initiatives in the Algarve region, the majority of

municipalities surveyed fully agree on the importance of developing a minimum common local indicator

set for the region. The role and usefulness of the proposed framework were demonstrated in the selection

of 20 common local indicators for local–regional scale interaction in the Algarve. Establishing a set of

common indicators on a local spatial scale can contribute to providing a coherent assessment framework,

by preventing the duplication of effort, allowing local sustainability benchmarking and enhancing the

analyses of asymmetries within a region.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /ecol ind

1. Introduction

To be considered strategic and effective, national actiontowards sustainable development (SD) must catalyze SD actionat sub-national and local levels and manage the interdependencybetween levels of government (Swanson et al., 2004). However,Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000), analysing 10 jurisdictionsworldwide have observed that encouraging the emergence ofsub-national approaches to SD has not been taken up by centralgovernments. In unitary states, rather vague or sporadic guidelineshave been given to local or regional administrations to integratesustainable development, as well as few new resources to do it. Inlarge federal systems, SD has caused some tension between central

* Corresponding author at: CENSE, Departamento de Ciencias e Engenharia do

Amnbiente, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,

Campus da Caparica. 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal. Tel.: +351 212948397;

fax: +351 212948554.

E-mail address: tabr@fct.unl.pt (T.B. Ramos).

1470-160X/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.11.003

authorities and the states/provinces, given the difficulty ofreconciling regional and national priorities.

As stressed by Zurlini and Girardin (2008), resources exist andinteract at multiple scales within spatially and temporally dynamicecosystems and assessments made on a single scale or organiza-tion level can, at best, capture only the patterns and processespertinent to that scale or level of assessments. They also pointedout that, new indicators are needed, able to integrate phenomenaacross multiple scales of space, time, and organizational complex-ity to highlight cross-scale effects and mismatches.

As presented by ESDN (2008), vertical integration of SD policieswithin the European Union (EU) Member States is rather weak,with the Natura 2000 network being an emerging exception.Institutional arrangements vary across Member States, which isreflected in different forms of vertical integration between nationaland sub-national levels. However, what is predominantly observedis the articulation of national SD strategies with Local Agenda 21(LA21). In the United States of America (USA), integration betweenscales has also been termed a difficult challenge by Beratan et al.(2004), for federal and state government agencies with localgovernments. The low domestic political salience given by the USA

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656 647

government to Agenda 21 (Lafferty and Meadowcroft, 2000), leadsto the reduced number of LA21 initiatives observed by ICLEI (2002)in that country. Despite that, there are various examples ofsuccessful sustainability assessment initiatives, integrating multi-ple scale approaches, such as the well-known example ofSustainable Seattle (see Holden, 2006). Other examples worldwidecan also be presented, such as the case of the Australian SouthwestVictoria region (see Wallis, 2006; Wallis et al., 2007), where thelinks between scales (regional and local) are shown, and stressedthat the measurement of regional sustainability must include localapproaches, as sustainability will be determined by what thecommunity values. Also, Fraser et al. (2006) with the analysis ofthree sustainability indicator case studies in Canada, UnitedKingdom and Botswana underline that it is necessary to be flexiblewhen choosing the scale at which sustainability monitoring anddecision-making occurs, since ecological boundaries rarely meetup with political jurisdictions.

It is widely recognized that action towards SD is more effectiveat a local scale. However, there are common resources for whicheffective management occurs at a supra-municipal scale, namely aregional scale. Following this rationale, this paper argues that theregional scale is also a good level of governance for planning,coordinating and assessing actions towards sustainable develop-ment. This important role of the regional scale is also highlighted inShearlock et al. (2000), Benneworth et al. (2002) and Berger(2004). Regions can be seen as the driving force for growth anddevelopment, within the framework of the three objectives ofregional policy – convergence, regional competitiveness andemployment, and wide territorial cooperation.

Properly defined and applied sustainability indicators arepowerful instruments for identifying and evaluating optimalcourses of action and supporting structured and coherentdecision-making processes (PASTILLE, 2002). They are animportant tool for making SD operational and, as stated byHametner and Steurer (2008), they can facilitate verticalintegration. Therefore, acknowledging the vertical integrationof SD policies, where indicators can have a leading function, thechallenge lies in analyzing the vertical integration betweenthose monitoring instruments. Despite their shortcomings, someof which have been pointed out by Bell and Morse (1999) andParris and Kates (2003), local and regional sustainabilityindicators are often noted as very effective tools in monitoring,evaluating and communicating complex phenomena, operatio-nalising the concept of sustainable development, increasingtransparency and accountability with the provision of wide-spread access to information, engaging stakeholders andsupporting decision making. They also allow comparisons acrosstime or space with other municipalities or regions, identifyingproblems and assessing performance on a wider basis withinlocal and regional territories, as stressed by Eckerberg andMineur (2003).

Valentin and Spangenberg (2000) suggest that each communityhas to develop its individual set of indicators within a commonstructure. According to the authors, this approach (commonstructure, different indicators) offers the possibility to comparecommunities without ignoring their specific needs and situations.Stakeholder involvement in the conceptualisation and develop-ment of the indicators is crucial, in order to include their views,values, concerns and common goals (Valentin and Spangenberg,2000; Kelly and Moles, 2002; Beratan et al., 2004).

Without questioning the approach of a common structure withdifferent indicators, for the assessment of local and regionalsustainability it can be asked if a common set of local indicatorswould not be necessary to provide interaction with the regionalscale, regardless of the possibility of each municipality having abroader individual set of local indicators.

A common set of local indicators can allow the coordinationof efforts at local level, thus precluding a proliferation ofinitiatives within a region. It can also prevent results from localsustainability monitoring losing a regional context and can actas a driver for local sustainability initiatives. At a regional scale,this can lead to having sustainability indicators with which localcommunities feel they can effect change (Parris and Kates,2003), which in turn can improve local stakeholders’ involve-ment in achieving regional SD goals and in sustainabilitymonitoring.

On the basis of a common indicator set, the relevant featuresand practices of a municipality are benchmarked or compared tothe corresponding ones in other municipalities. Used on a strategiclevel, benchmarking enables local sustainability managers toidentify local strengths and weaknesses, gather ideas and evaluatepotential for action (PASTILLE, 2002); also at the regional level itallows the identification of intra-regional asymmetries. ThePASTILLE consortium also stressed that the outcome is astrengths-weaknesses-profile of the municipalities involved, inrelation to one another. The main purpose of benchmarking is notto promote competition but to gain insight and fresh ideas andbenefit from a mutual learning process.

The main goal of this research is to develop a conceptualframework for common local sustainability indicators within aregional context, that are supported by a participative approachand allows interaction between local and regional scales. Othermajor goals were to design the regional profile on local SDIinitiatives and develop a set of common local indicators for theAlgarve region.

2. Local–regional initiatives on sustainability indicators

There are many initiatives on Sustainable DevelopmentIndicators (SDIs) at local scale (e.g. Crilly et al., 1999; Devuystand Hens, 2000; Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000; McMahon,2002; Eckerberg and Mineur, 2003; Holden, 2006; Scipioni et al.,2008). According to the results presented by ICLEI (2002), most ofthe initiatives regarding local sustainability indicators are relatedto monitoring the reporting of LA21. However, sustainabilityindicators can also play other roles in the context of LA21. They canact as the initial step in developing LA21 processes (Valentin andSpangenberg, 2000) or as the key elements in the implementationof such a process (LASALA, 2001; Kelly and Moles, 2002). Atregional scale there are fewer initiatives on SDIs (see Gahin et al.,2003; EC, 2004; Coelho et al., 2006; Mickwitz et al., 2006; Wallis etal., 2007), despite the amount of published literature and thegrowing interest at international level.

Certain efforts are being made to establish sets of commonindicators for local and regional scales. They either aim at localbenchmarking (Ferrarini et al., 2001; Kelly and Moles, 2002;Ambiente Italia Research Institute, 2003; Tortajada et al., 2007;Nader et al., 2008) or regional benchmarking (nrg4SD, 2006) or,again, the integration of different territorial scales (Mineur, 2007;Meadows, 2005; Custance, 2002).

Kelly and Moles (2002) designed an interactive researchprocess for the iterative selection of a representative set ofindicators for regional application, as a prerequisite for incorpor-ating SD into local authority decision making. The indicators werestructured in a DPSIR (driving force–pressure–state–impact–response) framework and were designed to assist planners andadministrators to evaluate policy effectiveness in progressingtowards sustainable development, and to inform and educate thegeneral public. The results of a broad public participation processshowed few differences among the sustainability issues identifiedby stakeholders, hence a single set of indicators was selected for alllocal authorities in the region.

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656648

The European Common Indicators (ECIs) initiative, developedby the Ambiente Italia Research Institute (2003) for the EuropeanCommission, has proposed 10 common (harmonised) indicatorsfor local sustainability. From the beginning of the project,indicators have been developed according to a bottom-upapproach that involves local authorities as main actors in theprocess. ECIs are characterised by a high level of complementaritywith respect to existing local, national and sectoral indicator sets,since they aim at representing local action towards sustainabilityin as integrated a way as possible. If, on the one hand, the ECIs’scope is to fulfil the requirements of indicators envisaged in thecurrent EU policy perspective – in as much as they intend topromote an integrated and harmonised approach across commu-nity policies – on the other, they aim to ensure local appropriate-ness, valuing local and lay knowledge and the principle ofsubsidiarity.

In Lebanon, Nader et al. (2008) describe the case of 17municipalities from 3 regions that participated in an effort toestablish a decentralized environment and SD monitoring networkusing agreed indicators. Applying a participatory approachthrough workshops at municipal level with different groups ofstakeholders, 110 indicators were selected. The compiled informa-tion supports a database at the municipal level that contributes tothe national indicator system as well as helping municipalities intheir planning of future development activities.

The work conducted by Tortajada et al. (2007) refers to theSISAL 21 project, which involves 4 regions in Spain and France. Themain objective is the development of a common system ofsustainability indicators that allows their collection and manage-ment, as well as their diffusion, promoting the co-operation of localentities at a cross-frontier level in favour of sustainable develop-ment. The project includes 32 indicators based on commoncalculation criteria and directed at providing uniform data that canbe compared between regions. The authors highlight the potentialof the SISAL 21 project in evaluating and monitoring LA21development.

In the work carried out in the province of Reggio Emilia (Italy),described by Ferrarini et al. (2001), 25 environmental andsustainability indicators have been developed for comparing theperformance of the 45 municipalities in the province. According tothe authors, the results of that comparative approach provideinformation about the level of sustainability attained in theprovince as a whole as well as in single municipalities. In thisapproach the indicators were selected focusing on those aspects forwhich sufficient data was available in all municipalities.

The Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Devel-opment (nrg4SD, 2006) has proposed a set of 10 + 1 indicators (10integrated SDIs plus the ecological footprint) to be used by regionsand allow measurement, comparison, benchmarking and coopera-tion among regions.

According to Mineur (2007), the Swedish Association of LocalAuthorities and Regions (SALAR) has established a common set of25 local indicators. This set aims to constitute a basis for themunicipalities to compare their environmental performance.Another Swedish indicator initiative taken by the municipalnetwork SEkom (Sveriges Ekokommuner – a network made up of64 municipalities) has developed 12 sustainability indicators fortheir members to use as a comparison tool. When analyzing theSwedish work on sustainability indicators, Mineur (2007) observesthat there is a clear ambition to link the different initiatives to the16 National Environmental Quality Objectives. A secondary goal isto link the work at the different scales.

Meadows (2005) describes the work on the Linked IndicatorProject by Statistics New Zealand, which embarked on identifying acore set of indicators that were relevant to central and localgovernment and could be linked across different levels of

government. The linkage between national and sub-nationalindicators was accomplished through expert reference panelsand a senior management steering committee from both centraland local government. A framework was conceived to establish acommon reference for assessing indicators suitable for localgovernment in New Zealand. A draft list of indicators wasdeveloped but more work with local government was identifiedas being needed to refine the list.

The UK’s SDI framework is probably one of the good examples ofhow scale interaction occurs in practice. As presented by Custance(2002), the joint development of the indicators with the nationalSD strategy was central to the successful production of relevantand useable indicators of sustainable development. The set ofnational headline indicators translates into regional versions ofheadline indicators – ‘‘Regional Quality of Life Counts’’. Regionschoose indicators that seem most appropriate to them, in the lightof their own circumstances and priorities, but ‘‘Regional quality oflife counts’’ provides a useful set of indicators that are comparableacross regions and are as consistent as possible with the nationalindicators (DEFRA, 2004). There is also a menu of 29 indicators,including some of the national headline indicators, which localauthorities are recommended to consider for monitoring theirLA21 Strategies and Community Strategies – ‘‘Local Quality of LifeCounts’’. Local authorities, LA21 groups and their partners areencouraged to select and use those indicators from the menu thatare most appropriate to their local experience, needs andcircumstances. Additional locally chosen and developed indicatorsmay be used to supplement those selected from the menu (DETR,2000). At the moment, there are 20 headline indicators establishedat national level.

The above literature review shows that there are few initiativesthat effectively address the issue of interaction between indicatorsat different scales – specifically local–regional interaction. In theworks of Meadows (2005) and Mineur (2007), what is presented isinteraction between local indicators and national goals. The UK is asingular case where, besides interaction between SD indicators andgoals at different levels, interaction between SD indicators atnational, regional and local scale also occurs.

3. Methods

3.1. A conceptual framework for common local sustainability

indicators

Taking into account the literature review above, in particularMineur (2007), Meadows (2005) and Custance (2002), a con-ceptual framework for common local sustainability indicators wasdeveloped. It is supported by a participative process and aims atindicator interaction between local and regional scales (Fig. 1). Toaccomplish this general aim, appropriate steps should beimplemented to design a set of common local indicators. Thisset will be useful for benchmarking among municipalities within aregion and for vertical integration between local and regionalsustainability monitoring tools.

This process should begin with the analysis of local and regionalstrategies, in a scoping phase involving the selection of goals,objectives, targets, features and resources that are common to allmunicipalities. These common features and resources cut across allthe dimensions of SD and may be material or immaterial (e.g.natural, economic or human resources, cultural assets or socialfacilities).

Given the main objective of this framework – the interactionbetween local and regional scale sustainability monitoring – it isassumed that a regional indicator set and several local indicatorsets are in place within a region. These sets of indicators shouldusually be linked to regional and/or local sustainability strategies

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for common local sustainability indicators.

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656 649

(although this is not mandatory). However, existing indicator setsmay not have been built up on the basis of a participative approachand may, therefore, not reflect stakeholders’ views and opinions, orpossibly were not produced aiming at scale interaction. It isimportant that common local indicators reflect regional values andconcerns as identified by local communities. With this in mind, it isproposed that public participation workshops take place in each ofthe municipalities in order to provide a scoping process foridentifying common regional sustainability issues.

The selection of common local indicators should give pre-cedence to those that are most appropriate for: (i) an assessment ofthe common objectives, goals and targets of strategic instruments;(ii) an assessment of common features and resources; (iii) aparticipative scoping process (e.g. one supported by participativeworkshops open to key local stakeholders where the mainstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats will be identifiedby participants). A frequency analysis of local indicators shouldalso support selection and be followed by a comparison with theregional set to identify common indicators between the two scales(i.e. the most frequent local indicators that coincide with regionalindicators). Indicators that do not address common features andresources should be excluded from the selection. It is alsoimportant that selected indicators are consistent with a largenumber of other criteria, in particular those referred to by Ott(1978), HMSO (1996), Hardi and Zand (1997), Spangenberg (2002),Spangenberg et al. (2002), Cloquell-Ballester et al. (2006), Ramos etal. (2007) and Niemeijer and Groot (2008), and that they complywith the Bellagio Principles (Hardi and Zand, 1997).

The above steps allow the definition of a preliminary proposalfor common local indicators within a region. It is considered ofutmost importance that this proposal is subjected to an apprecia-tion by key local stakeholders. To accomplish this task aquestionnaire survey can be carried out to ascertain theirresponses to this preliminary proposal and also to receive inputsof new indicator proposals from them. The final set of commonlocal indicators will be obtained by means of a qualitative, expertknowledge based assessment of their frequency and relevancycriteria.

Following the concept developed by Ramos et al. (2007) andRamos and Caeiro (2009), the proposed framework includes areview/meta-evaluation component, for a critical assessment of itsstrengths and weaknesses, in order to draw conclusions about itsoverall utility, accuracy, validity and feasibility. Meta-evaluationcan serve as a valuable self-assessment quality-control tool for theframework. The results of this process may point to the need toadjust the selection or development of common local indicators.

The proposed framework could promote the acquisition ofregionally relevant data at local scale that at a given moment maynot exist. This could address the general trend identified byGustavson et al. (1999) that data reliability tended to degrade asthe spatial unit became smaller, which reflects the fact that mostinformation is, still, spatially aggregated to a high level beforebeing disaggregated again to smaller units.

The process of developing common local sustainabilityindicators could be led by the regional development agencyresponsible for the regional SD strategy and respective monitoring

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656650

tools, with the formal cooperation of municipalities. It should beguaranteed that dynamic interaction among all stakeholders willbe able to take place, supported by the participative andcollaborative procedures referred to, as a fundamental componentin the entire development and management process.

3.2. The Algarve region: a case study

The proposed framework was tested in the Portuguese region ofthe Algarve, where no formal regional sustainability strategy existsand few local ones are in place. The concept of a region in thisresearch corresponds to the second subdivision level of theEuropean Union Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics(NUTS), the NUTS II region. The concept of a municipalitycorresponds to the first level of Local Administrative Units(LAU), formerly the NUTS level 4, developed by the EuropeanUnion and commonly used by Eurostat and other European Unionbodies.

The NUTS II region of the Algarve is the most southerly region ofContinental Portugal, consisting of 16 municipalities (Albufeira,Alcoutim, Aljezur, Castro Marim, Faro, Lagos, Lagoa, Loule,Monchique, Olhao, Portimao, Sao Bras de Alportel, Silves, Tavira,Vila do Bispo and Vila Real de Santo Antonio) with significantdiversity in their main characteristics (Fig. 2). The region coversabout 5000 km2 (5% of the territory of Portugal) and has a coastlineof approximately 200 km. Roughly 33% of the region’s territory isincluded in the Natura 2000 network (a network established topreserve biodiversity by maintaining or restoring natural habitatsin European Union countries), with a significant part in the coastalzone. Nowadays, the Algarve has about 405 000 inhabitants, i.e.3.8% of the Portuguese population, a total that increased by 16%between 1991 and 2001. However, in the summer the populationapproximately triples, as this region is the main Portuguese touristdestination. Tourism and services are the central activities of theAlgarve’s economy. A major cleft inequality has arisen between itssparsely populated interior, with its agricultural production and

Fig. 2. Map of the Algarve region showing its 16 municipalities and corresponding popu

wetlands.

local crafts, and tourism on the coast, where hotels and servicespredominate.

The Algarve has significant internal asymmetries and also inter-regional asymmetries with other Portuguese regions. Its valuablenatural and cultural assets, significant human pressures, impor-tance for the Portuguese economy and, in addition, responsibilitiesrelated to its international tourist reputation show how relevantsustainability assessment and reporting are to the Algarve region.

3.3. Local public participation workshops

The common local indicator selection procedure was supportedby a participatory process carried out by the regional agency –CCDR Algarve – with the organization of 16 local workshops, onefor each municipality. Three hundred and eleven participants wereinvolved (an average number of 19 participants per municipality,with a maximum of 26 and a minimum of 12). They represented:the regionally and locally decentralized public central adminis-tration, the local administration, development agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses, business associations,recreational, cultural and sports associations, professional associa-tions and trade unions, the media, universities, social careinstitutions and key stakeholders. At each workshop severalgroups of stakeholders were formed and each group worked with afacilitator to identify and prioritize the main regional problems,positive aspects and challenges connected with the sustainabledevelopment of the Algarve. After the group work, all stakeholderswere assembled to analyze and prioritize the overall results (fromall groups).

3.4. Survey of the Algarve’s municipalities

A regional questionnaire survey, sent to all 16 municipalities,was the methodological approach used to trace out the Algarve’sprofile on sustainability assessment and communication at locallevel.

lation size (for the last population census), topography and major water bodies and

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656 651

Despite the initial central aim of gathering the municipalities’views on a proposal for common local indicators, it was considereduseful to design a survey that included the broad domain of localsustainability assessment and communication practices (sincethey were almost unknown) and constituted a fundamental pieceof information for the proposed research objectives. The specificobjectives were centred on SDI use at local level and on theselection of a set of common local indicators for the region.

Regarding the purpose of this research, two main aspects of thequestionnaire survey were analyzed: (i) the use of indicators forlocal sustainability assessment and communication purposes; (ii)the proposal of a set of common local indicators for respondents tomake a selection and/or present alternatives. The questionnairewas developed and managed (design, administration and analysis)by the university research staff and was delivered by e-mail in May2007 to the 16 municipalities of the Algarve.

Eleven municipalities returned usable responses, a responserate of 69%. This represents a high level of responses for this kind ofmethod, as Garcia-Sanchez and Prado-Lorenzo (2008) report.According to them, a response rate of roughly 11% is slightly higherthan usual for papers on municipalities in which the requestedinformation can only be obtained through a tool such as a survey.However, given the number of municipalities in the region and thenumber of respondent municipalities, there are limitations on theuse of the data for statistical purposes, and any extrapolations ofthe current results to other cases should be undertaken withparticular care.

To obtain the desired profile various questions were considered.Most had closed-end response choices. A summary of the mainissues addressed by the questions is shown below:

b The local SDI system initiative: current state of implementation;the number of indicators; the structure of the indicator sets(sustainability dimensions; the conceptual framework andthemes/sub-themes); the driving forces for developing the SDIsystem; other SDI systems used as reference material; theindicator report format/platform – the medium used to com-municate the report information (e.g. analogical format, theinternet, CD-ROM); regularity – the frequency of reporting; thetarget audience.

b Voluntary sustainability-monitoring programmes involving localcommunities.

b The usefulness of external SDI systems (e.g. European, national,regional) for local indicator initiatives.

b The importance of common local indicators.

To obtain the municipalities’ responses to the proposal ofcommon local indicators for the Algarve region, the question-naire included a final part that presented a preliminary proposallisting common indicators that could be selected by therespondent municipalities. Additionally, each respondent couldpropose new common indicators for consideration in the finalselection phase.

A pre-test for the questionnaire was applied to a selected groupof individuals. It was conducted to assess the overall quality of thedraft questionnaire, which was especially designed for clarity,comprehensiveness and acceptability. In the case of doubt, inparticular where additional data explanations were required, therewere follow-up e-mails or telephone calls to respondents.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Sustainability indicator practices at local scale

The findings show that five respondent municipalities areimplementing an LA21 or similar approach to put a local

sustainable development strategy (LSDS) into practice, while sixof them have not yet implemented one or even declared theintention of doing so. LA21 is a growing practice in the region andmany of these strategic processes are in their early stages, as isobserved by Schmidt et al. (2006) for the whole country. Accordingto O’Riordan (1998), the degree and depth of LA21 processes offersa good indicator of how far a given region is making the transitionto sustainability. The association between local sustainability andLA21 beyond the European territory should be undertaken withparticular care. Some countries give low political importance toLA21 (e.g. USA) leading to a reduced implementation of thisstrategic instrument.

There are still few local SDI initiatives in the Algarve region,which may be related to the fact that existing LA21 efforts in theregion are still at an early stage (when they exist, SDI initiatives arelinked to LA21, as observed by ICLEI (2002). Only one of themunicipalities, within its LA21 process, has already developed andimplemented a local SDI set (although it has not been published)and three other municipalities are in the designing process of localsustainability indicators. The remaining municipalities stated thatthey do not have a local SDI system: of these, four have stated theirintention to develop a set and three have no intention at all ofdoing so.

The main driving influence for developing local SDI initiatives isto provide information to support decision making and policyprocesses. Additionally, the driving forces recognized as the mostimportant are: (i) the public visibility of the municipality’sprogress towards sustainable development; (ii) the monitoringof strategic instruments, in particular LA21/the local SD strategy;and (iii) the development of local state-of-the-environment andsustainability reports.

The three respondent municipalities that have initiated thedevelopment of local sustainability indicators or have them inplace stated that the organizational structure of their indicatorsfollowed two main options: sustainability dimensions (environ-mental, economic, social and institutional) and causality chainframeworks such as pressure-state-response (PSR). In this regard,Bonano and Ramos (2007) do not report a generalized structure forthe indicators used in LA21 processes. Neither do Coelho et al.(2006) nor EC (2004) for regional and national scales, respectively.Despite the fact that, overall, SDI systems are organized by theirsustainability dimensions, we can observe an unbalanced dis-tribution of indicators across these dimensions, with the pre-dominance of the environmental dimension over the economic,social and institutional ones. It should be noted that Bonano andRamos (2007) identified the growing weight of indicatorsaddressing sustainable lifestyles within local sustainability indi-cator sets. The total number of local sustainability indicatorsranges between 12 and 123, thus revealing great variations in sizeamong the respondent municipalities. The size of the indicatorsystems probably reflects different methodological approachesamong municipalities, with the use of a small, restricted core set orbroader monitoring frameworks, and probably depends on themethodology adopted for LA21.

All the respondent municipalities that are engaged in thedevelopment of local sustainability indicators have used anexternal set of indicators as the basis for the development oftheir local indicators. That includes initiatives such as theEuropean Common Indicators established by the EuropeanCommission, the SIDS Algarve (the regional SDI system) estab-lished by the Coordination and Regional Development Commissionfor the Algarve, the SIDS Portugal (the national SDI system)established by the Portuguese Environmental Agency and otherinitiatives proposed by private or non-governmental and non-profit organizations (e.g. that involving the Eco XXI indicatorsestablished by the FEE Portugal, a member of the Foundation for

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656652

Environmental Education). The regional SDI system – SIDS Algarve– was only followed by one municipality. On the other hand the 11respondent municipalities considered SIDS Algarve an importanttool for supporting the present and future development of localindicator initiatives. This result stresses that a regional initiativecan act as an important driving force in encouraging localauthorities to develop similar approaches for their territories, asreported by Ramos (2009) from the national to the regional scale.

It should also be noted that these few initiatives in placeapparently do not follow any of the well known communityindicator projects, such as Sustainable Seattle and the UK localquality of life indicators, neither do they use specific guidelines forcommunity sustainability indicators, where the guides developedby Hart (1999), PASTILLE (2002), and the resource book publishedby the US EPA (1997), are relevant examples.

One of the municipalities that has local sustainability indicatorsstates that it has published the indicator system as a reportavailable in printed format. However, the frequency of reportinghas not been established yet. All the respondents with localsustainability indicators in place or in development identify anumber of preferential target audiences for the communication ofindicators. Those who work for or work with the municipalities arethe most commonly identified. Nevertheless, central and regionaladministrations/governments and citizens of the municipalitiesare also recognized as being among the main audiences, alongsideenterprises and non-governmental organizations. This result maybe indirect evidence that SDIs are being primarily developed as aninternal organization-monitoring tool, despite their value forexternal audiences.

Overall, respondents identified several means of communicat-ing local sustainability performance. Informative leaflets and webportals or sites are the most commonly identified, followed byseminars, lectures and exhibitions, which are also recognized asimportant means of disseminating information on local sustain-ability.

Volunteer sustainability-monitoring initiatives involving localcommunities are confirmed by two of the four usable responses.The majority of the respondents did not respond to this question atall or stated that they do not know the answer. This finding couldbe mainly related to poor efforts to empower local communities’ insustainability assessment and monitoring processes and/or to ageneral lack of information about projects that are self-conductedby local communities.

The interest demonstrated by the municipalities with commonlocal sustainability indicators was also analyzed. The majority ofrespondents strongly agree on the importance of developing aminimum common local indicator set for the region. This resultcould represent the first positive step towards the implementationof an effective cooperation network to assess and reportsustainability within the context of an integrated local–regionalscale.

4.2. Common local indicators for the Algarve region

In the scoping phase, a qualitative analysis of goals, objectivesand targets that are common to all municipalities was carried out,based on the two main regional strategic instruments (the RegionalDevelopment Strategy for the Algarve 2007–2013 and the RegionalLand Use Plan) and the Municipal Master Plans (which are notconsidered sustainability strategies). This phase was complemen-ted by identification of the qualitative content of local features andresources common to all of the Algarve’s municipalities (e.g.natural resources, social facilities such has health facilities,traditional products, and features associated with patterns ofproduction and consumption). The information componentsobtained from the analysis of common features and resources

were mainly used as qualitative criteria to support the selection ofthe common local indicators.

The Algarve regional SDI set was used as the main input for thefirst selection of the common indicators, since there are nopublished local sustainability indicator sets, and therefore noneavailable for analysis.

The common indicator selection procedure was also supportedby the local workshops. The top three regional problems identifiedwere ‘‘human desertification in mountain and inland regions’’,‘‘poor economic diversity/an economy excessively dependent ontourism and services’’ and ‘‘seasonal employment/job insecurity’’;the three main positive aspects identified were ‘‘conditions forharnessing renewable energies (e.g. solar, wind, wave, biomass)’’,‘‘quality of regional products (e.g. handicrafts, honey, cork-work,basket work, pottery, the Aljezur sweet potato, peanuts, carob,gastronomy)’’ and ‘‘safety’’. As for the future of the Algarve, the topthree challenges or wishes/desires for coming generations were‘‘full employment’’, ‘‘use of renewable energies as a source ofpower’’ and ‘‘a good network of social support infrastructure’’.

The above steps allowed the formulation of a preliminaryproposal for common local indicators, consisting of 16 indicators.The questionnaire survey was sent to local authorities so that theycould add their contribution to the final selection of indicators,assuming their relevance in managing the common localindicators. Besides the proposed 16 indicators, each local authoritycould select other indicators from the regional SDI set or even newones, to integrate into the common set.

A frequency analysis of the 11 returned questionnaires showsthat the preliminary proposal for common local indicators waswidely accepted by the majority of the Algarve’s municipalities(Table 1). Nevertheless, the results show a great dispersion in theadditional indicators to the ones proposed, which mainly camefrom the regional SDI set. The analysis by frequency criterion ofthese additional indicators highlighted six of them: quality ofwater for human consumption; cultural resources and events; landuse; waste production; forest cover; and forest areas with anintegrated management scheme (ZIFs – Forest Intervention Zones,using the Portuguese acronym). The latter two failed the relevancycriterion, given that they are not common local features andresources and that there are no common objectives, goals andtargets set up for them.

The final common local indicator set was then obtained. It iscomposed of the 16 indicators from the preliminary proposal plusthe 4 additional indicators proposed by local authorities.

Table 2 presents the main relationships between the commonlocal indicators for the Algarve region, the strategic goals andobjectives and main sustainability issues as identified in publicparticipation.

The findings obtained from this case study pointed out anumber of important advantages and drawbacks. The lack ofeffective SD strategies in the Algarve, both at regional and localscales, made it difficult to carry out a robust analysis of commonsustainability objectives and goals. Despite these aspects, theframework performed well in the design of common localindicators aiming at scale interaction, strongly supported by thecontributions of the local public participation workshops and thesurvey; the preliminary proposal for common indicators waswidely accepted by the stakeholders surveyed, which representedan important outcome for the research performed.

The engagement of a broad range of local stakeholders in theidentification of community values, hopes and concerns, asunderlined by Valentin and Spangenberg (2000), Kelly and Moles(2002), Parris and Kates (2003) and Beratan et al. (2004), wasfundamental to the acquisition of common local indicators for theAlgarve region. Bringing together local communities withinregional strategies increases their sense of ownership of regional

Table 1Common local indicator set with a brief description and frequency obtained by municipalities’ responses.

Indicator Summary of rationale [units of measure]a Absolute frequency

(municipalities’ responses)

Unemployment Unemployment rate [%; % by sex], people registered in employment offices

[absolute number], people registered in employment offices according to

time of registration: <1 year or �1 year [%]

11

School achievement of the

working age population

Working age individuals according to completed school level [absolute number;

%; % by age group]

11

Final energy consumption Final energy consumption [toe/capita], final energy consumption by sector

[Mtoe], final energy consumption by form of primary energy [Mtoe],

electrical energy consumption [million kW h]

11

Population evolution Resident population [absolute number], effective growth

rate [%], age structure [%], population density [inhabitants/km2],

foreign resident population [absolute number; % decennial variation rate]

10

Access to healthcare Medical staff [number of doctors and nurses/thousand inhabitants],

public health and general medicine doctors [number/thousand inhabitants],

hospital beds [number/thousand inhabitants; % occupancy], average

waiting time for surgery [months], people registered in surgery waiting

lists

[absolute number]

10

Public green space Area effectively attributed for public green space vs. area to be attributed

by law for public green space in construction projects [m2]

10

Population covered by programmes

to combat poverty and exclusion

Requests vs. people benefiting from social insertion wage [absolute number],

people benefiting from social insertion wage [NUTS II % of total national

number; number/thousand inhabitants; number/thousand working age

individuals], requests vs. people benefiting from financial support for

disabled children [reference year index]

9

Water consumption Annual water consumption [million m3], annual water consumption

from public supply irrigation systems [million m3]

9

Valorisation and disposal of waste Valorisation/disposal of waste by type of waste and type of valorisation [t; %] 9

Business structure Enterprises [absolute number; NUTS II % of national value], enterprises

by economical activity [%], employees [absolute number; NUTS II % of

national value], turnover [s; NUTS II % of national value], gross value

added [NUTS II % of national value]

8

Tourist seasonability Hotel nights in the third trimester [% of total annual hotel nights],

hotel nights [nights/month]

8

Municipal purchasing power Purchasing Power Index per capita [% of national value] 7

Crime Annual variation rate of registered crimes by crime categories [%],

crime rate by crime categories [number of crimes/thousand inhabitants]

7

Sustainability management tools Certified organizations according to ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001:2004

[absolute number; number by economical activity], certified eco-schools

[absolute number]

7

Nature conservation and

management actions

Investment in nature conservation and management actions

within regional protected areas [s]

7

Passenger transport Modal split of home-work/school trips [%], modal split of passenger transport

[million passengers], use of private car on total trips [%], average daily

traffic on regional roads [number of passenger vehicles]

6

Quality of water for

human consumption

Water samples not meeting analysis frequency [%], analyzed water samples

not meeting national standard [%]

3

Cultural resources and events Cultural facilities: libraries, museums, art galleries, cinemas [absolute number,

number of users or audience], users of cultural facilities [reference year index],

live shows and audience [absolute number], religious popular events [absolute number]

3

Land use Area distribution of Corine Land Cover classes [%], variation rate in area of

Corine Land Cover classes between 1985 and 2000 [%]

2

Waste production Production of Municipal Solid Waste by type of waste [t; % of each type] 2

a Indicators are measured considering time evolution until the year 2007. Calculations were made both for NUTS II and municipal scale, whenever possible.

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656 653

sustainability options, which includes engagement with and anunderstanding of the approaches to assessment.

One advantage identified in the analysis of this case study wasthat institutional cooperation on SD issues between the regionaldevelopment agency and local authorities increased. Additionally,future developments in common local indicators will also promoteinter-departmental cooperation within local authorities.

It should also be stressed that there is a general absence ofcoherent municipal structures responsible for sustainability-related tasks and only few staff members from a single sectoraldepartment of each local authority are involved in sustainabilityinitiatives like those of LA21 or SDIs. This may reveal that thesustainability issue is not very important to local decision andpolicy makers, showing a compartmentalized vision of a broadintersectoral domain, with poor inter-departmental cooperation.This situation could be an obstacle to promoting sustainabledevelopment.

The proposed framework can reflect the approach suggested byValentin and Spangenberg (2000) in constituting a commonstructure in which each community develops its individual set ofindicators. In the light of the poor number of local indicatorinitiatives in the Algarve, this kind of work can act as a driving forcefor the development of such initiatives, and even the developmentof LA21 processes, as O’Riordan (1998) and Valentin andSpangenberg (2000) pointed out. This role as an impetus for localinitiatives becomes more important in cases where the nationalguidelines are fairly widely known and used and the institutionalframeworks for the promotion of LA21 are generally poor. This lackof support has been identified by other authors such as Schmidt etal. (2006), for Portugal, and ICLEI (2002).

There are, however, certain possible restraints on this approachto common local indicators. Quite often indicators collected forregional purposes do not have sufficient coverage in their datacollection for use at local level, e.g. Regional Gross Domestic

Table 2Relationships between common local indicators for the Algarve region and strategic goals and objectives and main sustainability issues as identified in public participation workshops.

Strategic goals and

objectives

Common local

indicators

Main sustainability issues identified in the workshops

[Strategic options]a

[Development axes]b

Problems Positive aspects Challenges and wishes

Human

desertification

in mountain and

inland regions

Poor economic

diversity/

economy excessively

dependent on tourism

and services

Seasonal

employment/

job insecurity

Conditions for

harnessing

renewable

energies

Quality of

regional

products

Safety Full

employment

Use of renewable

energies as a

source of power

Good network

of social support

infrastructure

[II] Municipal purchasing power x x x

[2] [I, II, IV] Business structure x x x

[VI] Unemployment x x x x

[I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII] School achievement of the

working age population

x x

[2, 3, 4] Population evolution x

[VII] Population covered by

programmes to combat

poverty and exclusion

x x x x x

[6] [I] Access to healthcare x x

– Crime x

[4] Sustainability management tools x

[4, 7] [I] Tourist seasonality x x

[2, 7] Passenger transport x

[II] Final energy consumption x x

[1] Water consumption

[1] [XIV] Nature conservation and

management actions

[3, 4] [XII] Public green spaces

[XIII, XV] Valorisation and disposal

of waste

x x

[1] [XIII] Quality of water for

human consumptionc

[1, 2, 3, 4, 6]

[IX, XI, XII]

Land usec x x x

[XIII, XV] Waste productionc

[2, 4, 5, 6] [I] Cultural resources

and eventsc

x x x x

a Strategic options (Regional Land Use Plan for the Algarve): 1 – Environmental Sustainability; 2 – Territorial Rebalancing; 3 – Urban Structure; 4 – Upgrading and Diversification of Tourism; 5 – Safeguarding and Enhancement of

the Historical and Archaeological Cultural Heritage; 6 – Structuring of Collective Equipment Networks; 7 – Structuring of Transport and Logistics Networks.b Strategic objectives and development axes (Regional Development Strategy for the Algarve 2007–2013): I – To diversify and qualify the tourism/leisure cluster; II – To strengthen and modernize the regional economy; III – To

restructure the organizational models of the business fabric; IV – To develop a niche of knowledge-based intensive services; V – To improve employability conditions in order to absorb new qualifications; VI – To improve the

qualifications of adults and young people, enhancing their basic and technological skills; VII – To foster socio-economic initiatives to support the integration of vulnerable groups; VIII – To modernize and qualify the Public

Administration in the region; IX – To promote an articulated territorial model capable of boosting its various spaces; X – To improve accessibility and mobility; XI – To complete the regional amenity networks; XII – To upgrade the

public space and the landscape; XIII – To complete and guarantee quality environmental infrastructure; XIV – To create high levels of environmental protection; XV – To promote participation, good practices and environmental

information and education policies; XVI – To implement a risk prevention policy.c Common local indicators proposed by municipalities.

A.

Ma

scaren

ha

set

al./E

colo

gica

lIn

dica

tors

10

(20

10

)6

46

–6

56

65

4

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656 655

Product data at municipal level (Meadows, 2005). Also, Roberts(2006) argues that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to the selection ofindicators and units of measurement, while convenient forgovernments if they wish to compare the relative performanceof lower scale territorial units, can impose undesirable restrictionson lower-tier territorial authorities. More importantly, it can leadto the imposition of indicators that either do not concern a territoryat all or, conversely, do not consider its specificities, a concern thatis also underlined by Meadows (2005). If a set of common localindicators is not accepted by some of the local authorities, there isthe risk that the benchmarking is limited, which jeopardizes publiccredibility, and the role of common local indicators itself.

The proposed framework could have implications in thepromotion and improvement of local–regional sustainabilitypartnerships. Usually, sustainability assessment initiatives areonly analyzed in one single scale – local, regional or national. Asstressed before in the previous sections, integrated multi scaleapproaches are more scarce and additionally complex.

Other regional sustainability indicators initiatives, such as thecases of the Australian Southwest Victoria region (Wallis et al.,2007) or the Finish Kymenlaakso region (Mickwitz et al., 2006), areexamples where the proposed framework for common local SDIscould be tested and compared, making the necessary adaption. Inthese two initiatives, additional cooperation and coordinationbetween local and regional authorities could be reached, improv-ing the sustainability assessment at multiple scales. Regional SDIinitiatives can act as a driver and support to design and implementcommon local indicators, and constitute a basis for the munici-palities to compare their sustainability performance. Therefore,this will be useful for the improvement of benchmarking amonglocal territories within the region and for vertical integrationbetween local and regional sustainability assessment tools. To usethe proposed common indicator framework it will be useful thatthe regional SDIs represent local values and the needs andpriorities of local users.

The attempts to make comparisons with other similar local–regional indicator approaches have been conducted, keeping inmind various limitations related to the scope of the studies and thedifferent situations across countries, including size, administrativeterritorial organization, culture and human development. There isa significant international diversity in the analysis and classifica-tion of regional and local sustainability initiatives, and thedistinction between these two scales is frequently blurred.

5. Conclusions

Sustainability strategies are more abundant at local andnational scales, with fewer being observed at regional scale.Vertical integration between sustainability strategies is generallyweak and when it exists, predominantly occurs between nationaland local scales.

Sustainability indicators are usually linked to such strategiesand, accordingly, are also most frequently observed at local andnational scales (and less at regional scale). Scale interaction in thistype of monitoring tool is very sparse and poorly analyzed in thecurrent literature, particularly between local and regional scales,though the UK is a singular example of the contrary. These twoscales play a significant role in the move towards sustainabledevelopment. The regional scale is also a highly relevant level ofgovernance for planning, coordinating and assessing action forsustainable development, which, in fact, are mainly taken at locallevel.

A conceptual framework for common local sustainabilityindicators aiming at interaction in the monitoring of local andregional sustainability was developed and tested in the Algarveregion. This tool allows the assessment of common resources

managed at regional level, benchmarking among municipalitieswithin a region, and the coordination of efforts at local level.

Overall, results show few local-scale initiatives despite thegrowing interest in this domain. At regional scale, despite theabsence of a formal sustainability strategy, a regional SDI set (SIDSAlgarve) has been developed in recent years and is already in place.Interaction between local SDIs and the regional SDI set is stillincipient – only one case has been observed where SIDS Algarvecontributed to the local SDI selection – despite the fact that themajority of the municipalities surveyed strongly agree with theimportance of developing a minimum common local indicator setfor the region.

An analysis of the main regional sustainability issues, asidentified by local stakeholders, along with the local commonobjectives, goals, targets, features and resources identified, wasused to select indicators from the regional SDI set. The resultingpreliminary proposal was assessed by local authorities on the basisof a questionnaire survey that they completed and 20 indicatorswere selected as common local indicators for the Algarve region.Their usefulness is mainly considered to lie in the pursuit ofeffective interaction between local and regional sustainabilityassessment, improvement in institutional cooperation and greaterinvolvement of local communities in regional strategies.

Despite certain constraints on its implementation (e.g. a lowlevel of LA21 and local SDI initiatives), the role and usefulness ofthe proposed conceptual framework has been demonstrated in theselection of common local indicators for local–regional scaleinteraction in the Algarve region. This initiative may act as animpetus for local sustainability initiatives and, on an institutionallevel, improve the coordination of sustainability assessmentbetween regional and local authorities.

References

Ambiente Italia Research Institute, 2003. European common indicators – towards alocal sustainability profile. Final Project Report. Milano.

Bell, S., Morse, S., 1999. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?Earthscan, London.

Benneworth, P., Conroy, L., Roberts, P., 2002. Strategic connectivity, sustainabledevelopment and the new English regional governance. Journal of Environ-mental Planning and Management 45 (2), 199–217.

Beratan, K.K., Kabala, S.J., Loveless, S.M., Martin, P.J.S., Spyke, N.P., 2004. Sustain-ability indicators as a communicative tool: building bridges in Pennsylvania.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94, 179–191.

Berger, G., 2004. REGIONET (Strategies for Regional Sustainable Development: AnIntegrated Approach Beyond Best Practice) – Work Package 5: Final Report andDissemination Deliverable 9: Final Report. Project funded by the EuropeanCommission under the ‘‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentRTD Programme of the 5th Framework Programme, Contract No. EVG1-2001-20003. Vienna.

Bonano, J.M.C., Ramos, M.I.A., 2007. Tendencias en la evaluacion de la sostenibilidadlocal. Ekonomiaz 64, 330–349.

Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., Monterde-Dıaz, R., Santamarina-Siurana, M.C., 2006. Indi-cators validation for the improvement of environmental and social impactquantitative assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26, 79–105.

Coelho, P., Mascarenhas, A., Vaz, P., Beja, I., Dores, A., Ramos, T.B., 2006. A meth-odological framework for indicators of sustainable development at the regionalscale: the case of a Portuguese region (Algarve). In: 12th Annual InternationalSustainable Development Research Conference 2006, University of Hong Kong,in Association with ERP Environment. Hong Kong (China), April 6–8.

Crilly, M., Mannis, A., Morrow, K., 1999. Indicators for change: taking a lead. LocalEnvironment 4 (2), 151–168.

Custance, J., 2002. The development of national, regional and local indicators ofsustainable development in the United Kingdom. Statistical Journal of theUnited Nations ECE 19, 19–28.

DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2004. RegionalQuality of Life Counts: Regional Versions of the National Headline Indicatorsof Sustainable Development. 4th edition. Product Code PB 9777. London.

DETR – Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000. LocalQuality of Life Counts – A Handbook for a Menu of Local Indicators of Sustain-able Development. London.

Devuyst, D., Hens, L., 2000. Introducing and measuring sustainable developmentinitiatives by local authorities in Canada and Flanders (Belgium) – a compara-tive study. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2, 81–105.

A. Mascarenhas et al. / Ecological Indicators 10 (2010) 646–656656

Eckerberg, K., Mineur, E., 2003. The use of local sustainability indicators: casestudies in two Swedish municipalities. Local Environment 6 (8), 591–614.

EC – European Communities, 2004. EU Member State Experiences with SustainableDevelopment Indicators. Office for Official Publications of the European Com-munities, Luxembourg.

ESDN – European Sustainable Development Network, 2008. Mechanisms of VerticalIntegration. (accessed August 2008) [Web Page]http://www.sd-network.eu/?k=country%20profiles&s=vertical%20integration&country=all_countries.

Ferrarini, A., Bodini, A., Becchi, M., 2001. Environmental quality and sustainability inthe province of Reggio Emilia (Italy): using multi-criteria analysis to assess andcompare municipal performance. Journal of Environmental Management 63,117–131.

Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M., McAlpine, P., 2006. Bottom up andtop down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator iden-tification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environ-mental management. Journal of Environmental Management 78, 114–127.

Gahin, R., Veleva, V., Hart, M., 2003. Do indicators help create sustainablecommunities? Local Environment 8 (6), 661–666.

Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., 2008. Determinant factors in the degreeof implementation of Local Agenda 21 in the European Union. SustainableDevelopment 16, 17–34.

Gustavson, K.R., Lonergan, S.C., Ruitenbeek, H.J., 1999. Selection and modeling ofsustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin,British Columbia. Ecological Economics 28, 117–132.

Hametner, M., Steurer, R., 2008. Objectives and indicators of sustainable develop-ment in Europe: a comparative analysis of European coherence. In: ESDNQuarterly Report, European Sustainable Development Network Office.

Hardi, P., Zand, T., 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice.International Institute of Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada.

Hart, M., 1999. Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, 2nd edition. HartEnvironmental Data, North Andover, MA, USA.

HMSO – Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Develop-ment for the United Kingdom. HMSO Publications Centre, Indicators WorkingGroup, Environmental Protection and Statistics and Information ManagementDivision, Department of the Environment, London.

Holden, M., 2006. Revisiting the local impact of community indicators projects:Sustainable Seattle as prophet in its own land. Applied Research in Quality ofLife 1, 253–277.

ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 2002. Second LocalAgenda 21 Survey (conducted with support from UN Secretariat for WSSD, andin collaboration with UN Development Programme Capacity 21). ICLEI Eur-opean Secretariat, Freiburg.

Kelly, R., Moles, R., 2002. The development of Local Agenda 21 in the Mid-westRegion of Ireland: a case study in interactive research and indicator develop-ment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45 (6), 889–912.

Lafferty, W.M., Meadowcroft, J., 2000. Patterns of governmental engagement. In:Lafferty, W.M., Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.), Implementing Sustainable Development– Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

LASALA – Local Authorities’ Self-Reporting of Local Agenda 21, 2001. AcceleratingLocal Sustainability: evaluating European Local Agenda 21 Processes. Report ofthe LASALA Project. ICLEI, Freiburg.

McMahon, S.K., 2002. The development of quality of life indicators – a case studyfrom the City of Bristol, UK. Ecological Indicators 2, 177–185.

Meadows, P., 2005. Towards developing regional sustainability indicators: lessonsand progress. In: Fourteenth Conference of Commonwealth Statisticians. Mil-lennium +5: Managing Statistics for more Equitable Societies, September.

Mickwitz, P., Melanen, M., Rosenstrom, U., Seppala, J., 2006. Regional eco-efficiencyindicators – a participatory approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (18),1603–1611.

Mineur, E., 2007. Towards sustainable development indicators as a tool of localgovernance. In: Research Report 2007:5, Department of Political Science, UmeaUniversity, Sweden.

Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., Karam, N., 2008. Environment and sustainable devel-opment indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. EcologicalIndicators 8, 771–777.

Niemeijer, D., Groot, R., 2008. A conceptual framework for selecting environmentalindicator sets. Ecological Indicators 1 (8), 14–25.

nrg4SD – Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development, 2006.Methodological Files on Regional Sustainable Development Indicators. Donos-tia-San Sebastian, Basque Government.

O’Riordan, T., 1998. Civic science and sustainability. In: Warburton, D. (Ed.),Community and Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London.

Ott, W.R., 1978. Environmental Indices – Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor Science,Michigan.

Parris, T., Kates, R., 2003. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development.Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28, 559–586.

PASTILLE, 2002. Indicators into Action: A Practitioners Guide for Improving theirUse at the Local Level. London School of Economics, London.

Ramos, T.B., 2009. Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role ofacademia in this process: the Portuguese practice. Journal of Cleaner Production17, 1101–1115.

Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., Melo, J.J., 2007. Environmental performance policyindicators for the public sector: the case of the defence sector. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 82, 410–432.

Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S., 2009. Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indi-cators. Ecological Indicators, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.008.

Roberts, P., 2006. Evaluating regional sustainable development: approaches, meth-ods and the politics of analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage-ment 4 (49), 515–532.

Schmidt, L., Nave, J., Guerra, J., 2006. Who’s afraid of Local Agenda 21? Top-downand bottom-up perspectives on local sustainability. International Journal ofEnvironment and Sustainable Development 5 (2), 181–198.

Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Zuliani, F., Mason, M., 2008. The ISO 14031 standard to guidethe urban sustainability measurement process: an Italian experience. Journal ofCleaner Production 16, 1247–1257.

Shearlock, C., James, P., Phillips, J., 2000. Regional sustainable development: are thenew regional development agencies armed with the information they require?Sustainable Development 8, 79–88.

Spangenberg, J., 2002. Institutional sustainability indicators: an analysis of theinstitutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring theireffectivity. Sustainable Development 10, 103–115.

Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S., Deller, K., 2002. Towards indicators for institutionalsustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators 2,61–77.

Swanson, D., Pinter, L., Bregha, F., Volkery, A., Jacob, K., 2004. National Strategies forSustainable Development – Challenges, Approaches and Innovations in Stra-tegic and Co-ordinated Action. International Institute for Sustainable Develop-ment and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH,Winnipeg.

Tortajada, R., Echamendi, P., Cabello, M., 2007. SISAL21: cross-frontier sustainabilityindicators system for Local Agenda 21s. In: REAL CORP 007 Proceedings, Vienna,May 20–23.

US EPA, 1997. Community-based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book forProtecting Ecosystems and Communities. US EPA (EPA 230-B-96-003),Washington, DC, USA.

Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J.H., 2000. A guide to community sustainability indica-tors. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20, 381–392.

Wallis, A., 2006. Sustainability indicators: is there consensus among stakeholders?International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 5 (3), 287–296.

Wallis, A., Richards, A., O’Toole, K., Mitchell, B., 2007. Measuring regional sustain-ability: lessons to be learned. International Journal of Environment and Sus-tainable Development 6 (2), 193–207.

Zurlini, G., Girardin, P., 2008. Introduction to the special issue on ‘‘Ecologicalindicators at multiple scales’’. Ecological Indicators 8 (6), 781–782.