skeletons out of the closet: effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable...

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

* Correspondence to: Jari Lyytimäki, Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, FIN-00251, Helsinki, Finland.E-mail: [email protected]

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 16, 301–313 (2008)Published online 30 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.330

Skeletons Out of the Closet: Effectiveness of Conceptual Frameworks for Communicating Sustainable Development Indicators

Jari Lyytimäki* and Ulla RosenströmFinnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACTFinland is one of the forerunners in sustainable development reporting, with abundant long term statistics on environmental, social and economic issues. In this article, we introduce the Finnish experience on producing and disseminating sustainable development indica-tors. We describe four indicator initiatives prepared and published during the last decade and discuss the role of different conceptual frameworks for preparing and presenting the indicators. The requirements for a good conceptual framework are reviewed and the effec-tiveness of different frameworks for different purposes is discussed based on the cases presented. We conclude by stressing the importance of paying more attention to indicator set frameworks instead of individual indicators and using specifi cally tailored frameworks for specifi c uses. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 17 January 2007; revised 7 June 2007; accepted 8 June 2007

Keywords: conceptual frameworks; indicators; reporting; sustainable development

Introduction

THE ANALOGY WITH SKELETONS PROVIDES A FRUITFUL PASSAGE INTO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (SD)

frameworks. Both conceptual frameworks and skeletons can be seen as structures designed for enclosure

or support. At a general level, skeletons can be divided into three categories. One category is the endoskel-

eton or internal skeleton, which defi nes the basic form and structure of the body but does not completely

determine the outward appearance. Vertebrates are among the animals that have endoskeletons. The other category

is the exoskeleton or external skeleton. Many small invertebrates and some larger animals such as turtles have an

outer shell that defi nes their outward appearance very rigidly.

Different skeletons and frameworks provide different possibilities to react to pressures caused by the environ-

ment. An external skeleton gives good protection and support, but it allows only limited possibilities to adapt.

Likewise, a well constructed and static conceptual SD framework may provide a generic, clear and unambiguous

reference point needed to implement long term sustainability policies (see, e.g., Parris and Kates, 2003). On the

negative side, it may be too static to respond to the fast ups and downs in public concerns and fl uctuations in the

state of the environment, economy or social issues.

302 J. Lyytimäki and U. Rosenström

Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 301–313 (2008)DOI: 10.1002/sd

Internal skeletons are more adaptable. They provide many opportunities for developing muscular power, endur-

ance, fl exibility or swiftness. However, making full use of this adaptability requires long training and constant

practice. Internal skeletons resemble SD frameworks that are designed to be easily modifi ed according the current

data availability or information needs. The clear disadvantage of using these kinds of constantly evolving framework

is the diffi culty of making comparisons between various places and points in time.

Building up and maintaining a strong external skeleton, as well as making full use of the adaptability of the

internal skeleton, require substantial resources. These resources are not always available. A third type of organiz-

ing for living organisms is to have no fi xed skeleton, the amoeba serving as a prime example. These skeletons are

called hydrostatic skeletons, consisting of pressurized fl uid in body compartments. Amoebas survive by constantly

changing the shape of their bodies. This kind of fl exible framework requires few resources to build and it is elastic

enough for various situations, but it provides almost no protection against external pressures. Likewise, building

an SD indicator collection without a concrete, well planned conceptual framework may provide a cheap and quick

solution that is suffi cient for some situations. The drawback is that the organizing structure and relations between

issues and indicators remain obscure and elusive. These kinds of ad hoc framework may also easily neglect

important issues and highlight wrong issues.

Our aim is to investigate how different conceptual frameworks can support the use of sustainable development

indicators at a national level. Our focus is on what kind of a framework provides the best tool to communicate SD

indicators to the decision makers. We base our study on experiences gained from national scale SD reporting

practices already in use in Finland. The primary research data comes from four different but successive collections

of indicators. We refl ect on our experiences on preparing and disseminating indicators for Finnish decision makers

and other audiences and contrast our cases with the requirements of a good conceptual SD framework. The primary

source of data is our own participation in the reporting processes, unpublished written records such as memoran-

dums and meeting minutes of the indicator task force (see below) and earlier studies on the use of indicators (see

Välimäki, 2002; Heinonen et al., 2005; Rosenström, 2007; Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007).

In what follows, we will fi rst discuss the requirements for a good SD framework, especially from the perspective

of holistic reporting. Second, we will describe the four frameworks used in national level reporting in Finland.

Third, we will discuss the effectiveness of these frameworks. Effectiveness is one key criterion used in evaluations

of environmental and other policies (Mickwitz, 2006). Effectiveness illustrates to what degree the achieved out-

comes correspond to the intended goals. Finally, we will draw conclusions and identify development needs based

on our cases. When explored within the Finnish context of a highly developed information society (see e.g. Castells

and Himanen, 2002), these cases can provide valuable lessons about the practices of producing and using SD

indicator frameworks in contemporary information societies. We argue that these lessons can be applied especially

on national level SD reporting in other countries but also in sector based reporting and international reporting.

Requirements for Conceptual SD Framework

Sustainable development is a broad issue: actually, a variety of issues ranging from ecosystem viability to human

actions and aspirations. Some see it as an overused oxymoron, some as a useful or even an inspiring concept

(e.g. Lélé, 1991; Mebratu, 1998; Parris and Kates, 2003; Redclift, 2005). Various kinds of conceptual framework

can be used to increase the understanding of sustainable development issues by transforming data into informa-

tion and, further, into structured knowledge. Frameworks help to improve the organization and analysis of infor-

mation, to enhance the use of information and to increase the consistency of its handling, to minimize mishandling

and to avoid gaps in analyses and assessments.

By frameworks we refer to conceptual frameworks that provide the structure for the indicator system describing

SD. However, the borderline between conceptual and procedural or analytical frameworks is not clearly cut (see

e.g. Meadowcroft et al., 2005; Bell and Morse, 2007). Conceptual frameworks can be tailored to include a certain

geographical area or to describe a certain sector of the society, and successful communication with different target

groups may require the use of very different frameworks. Conceptual frameworks can aim to systematically capture

the sustainability status or trend of a nation compared with the performance of other nations or with selected

sustainability goals (see, e.g., Prescott-Allen, 2001; UN, 2001; Esty et al., 2005), or they can aim at comparisons

Skeletons Out of the Closet 303


within a certain sector (see, e.g., Roodman, 2006; SAM Indexes, 2006). A wide variety of frameworks defi ned in

case specifi c collaborative processes and adapted to local circumstances can be found (IISD, 2007). On a general

level, the frameworks differ mostly as to how they perceive sustainable development and the interlinkages between

the SD dimensions, how the issues are grouped, how different concepts are justifi ed and how the indicators are

selected and aggregated (Pintér et al., 2005).

Voluminous and growing literature shows a rather unanimous international consensus on general level require-

ments for frameworks describing SD (e.g. Hardi and Zdan, 1997; Bossel, 1998; Meadows, 1999; Segnestam, 2003;

Pintér et al., 2005), although many reports and studies concentrate more on the selection criteria that apply indi-

vidual indicators rather than criteria that apply conceptual frameworks and indicator sets (Välimäki, 2002; Nie-

meijer and de Groot, 2007). Musters and others (1998; see also Zhao and Opshoor, 1999) argue for a minimum

of four components that a socio-environmental framework for SD should have. These include identifi cation of the

socio-environment system, assessment of the people involved, delimitation of the system in space and time and

description of the system. According to Pintér and others (2005), conceptual frameworks should help anchor

indicator systems in theory (notably into operational concepts of sustainability), provide an organizing structure,

help identify useful indicators and data gaps, ensure indicator comparability and facilitate communication with

the public and decision makers.

A sound and unambiguous conceptual foundation can be seen as a precondition for any applicable framework.

The concept of sustainability can be considered as the basis for SD frameworks, even though it has many different

meanings (Bell and Morse, 1999; Sneddon, 2000; Parris and Kates, 2003; Hopwood et al., 2005). If sustainability

is accepted as a starting point, then various questions about the specifi c content of this concept inevitably follow.

We take a closer look at only one question, which is especially relevant here: whether it is reasonable to make an

assumption that sustainability is a property that can be found simply by incorporating the different dimensions

of SD together, or whether sustainability is essentially an emerging property, not easily detected from the proper-

ties of different dimensions. The latter assumption leads to understanding SD as a holistic concept, based on

ontology of interconnected events (Birkin, 2000). This is opposite to the former, atomistic assumption that any

whole can be analysed into its separate parts and the relationships between them.

Within SD reporting and research there is a strong emphasis towards the holistic or integrative approach (e.g.

Pezzoli, 1997; Spangenberg, 2004; Bagheri and Hjorth, 2007). The partition between the three pillars of ecologi-

cal, economic and socio-cultural development is probably the most common framework for conceptualizing dif-

ferent aspects of sustainable development. This framework has been used in numerous reports on international,

national and local scale. The wide use of these three pillars has been manifested in the so-called Brundtland Report

(WCED, 1987), the Rio Conference in 1992 and Agenda 21 (cf. UN, 2001). In most cases, the three-pillar frame-

work is illustrated as three domains, which overlap partially. The area where all three domains converge represents

SD.

From an atomistic perspective, sustainability means that three different building blocks are simply put one on

top of another and merged. Even if this is accepted, endless debate can follow about what kind of a balance is

appropriate between the different dimensions or what level of independence is most suitable between them. From

a holistic perspective, a more complicated picture emerges. It may not be suffi cient to depict three (or more) dif-

ferent domains with a simple two-dimensional illustration because the interaction between domains can produce

new, fundamentally different properties. It is very diffi cult to come by any visual interpretation of a holistic

approach that would be simple and unambiguous enough for practical indicator work. To highlight these diffi cul-

ties, one such attempt is presented in Figure 1.

Although SD is often emphasized as a holistic concept, in practice reports based on the three-pillar framework

often depict three different or even separate dimensions, rather than one systemic entity (Välimäki, 2002). It can

be maintained that SD indicator collections often leave holistic, overall interpretations for the audience to construct.

However, there is no guarantee that such interpretations will be made. Instead, it is possible that only information

provided by a certain dimension or individual indicators is obtained and other indicators are overlooked. Even

when the overall interpretations are made by the target audience, they may be very different from what the pub-

lisher of the indicator report has in mind. This is partially inevitable, because no matter how well planned the

reporting initiative is or how well the results are communicated the fi nal interpretation is always highly dependent

on various external factors, such as the interpretation contexts (e.g. economic interests, attitudes), infl uence of



other issues currently or previously highlighted in public discussion (e.g. major accidents) and currently occurring

environmental, social and economic processes (e.g. fl oods, droughts, unemployment).

This brief introduction shows that it is easy to list the characteristics of an ideal framework, but it is not so easy

to fi nd frameworks that actually meet these ideal characteristics. The same situation applies to naming and imple-

menting the criteria for individual indicators. There are at least two basic problems, brought up by Donella

Meadows (1998). One is that, having made a comprehensive list of ideal characteristics, it is left for someone else

to come up with actual work that meets with all these criteria. Another problem is that long lists of indicators or

extensive frameworks may be introduced that fail to meet the criteria.

The Development of SD Reporting Frameworks in Finland

Sustainable Development Indicators 2000

The fi rst set of Finnish sustainable development indicators was published with the title Signs of Sustainability in

2000 (Rosenström and Palosaari, 2000). The indicator report was published in Finnish, Swedish and English

both in printed form and on the Internet. It was preceded by three years of work that involved a number of experts

and civil servants from ministries and research institutes. The Finnish National Commission for Sustainable

Development (FNCSD) also had an important role in the work (for the process, see Rosenström and Kyllönen,

2007). Besides the national work, Finland participated actively in international indicator initiatives such as the

United Nation’s Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) indicator project (Rosenström and Muurman,

1997). This work was valuable especially because it showed that many of the indicators proposed by the UN were

not directly applicable in Finnish context.

The impetus for the indicator work came from the national sustainable development strategy that was published

in 1998 (Ministry of the Environment, 1998). The indicators were considered a suitable tool to monitor the

strategy’s impacts. A special task force was established to guide the selection of the indicators (Rosenström and

Kyllönen, 2007). Members for the task force were offi cially invited from nearly 20 ministries and research insti-

tutes and the same group has been operating to the present date.

Although a policy document with distinguishable objectives was available (Ministry of the Environment, 1998;

see also EEAC, 2005), it was not used directly as a basis for the framework of the indicators. Instead, the task force

wanted a more holistic approach than the political document could provide and sought a framework that would

encompass everything relevant to sustainable development in Finland. The main options considered were sector

oriented and problem oriented frameworks (Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007). As a result, the main objective of

the framework was to provide a comprehensive set of indicators representing all essential information for sustain-

ability. The selected framework was problem oriented and included issues that were considered as persistent, long

term concerns in the Finnish context (Figure 2). The 20 issues identifi ed were further presented along the three

dimensions of sustainable development. The result was a large set of 83 indicators that represented the consensus

Figure 1. Atomistic (left) and holistic (right) illustration of sustainable development framework. (Source: modifi ed from Välimäki, 2002.) Note that these are static presentations of an inherently dynamic (Bagheri and Hjorth, 2007) process



views of several authorities (Rosenström and Palosaari, 2000). The indicators were updated and published on the

Internet after two years with only minor changes to the indicators and the framework.


Originally, the national indicators were to be updated every two years, but as indicators and frameworks were

constantly discussed and evolved in international exercises the researchers felt a need to further develop the frame-

work. The trend of focusing on fewer, carefully selected, over-arching themes on sustainable development instead

Dimensions: Themes: Indicators:

Ecological Climate change (3) Urban land area and the urban population

Ozone layer depletion (2) Urban population densities

Acidification (2) Average commuting distance

Eutrophication (4) Car numbers and use

Biodiversity (5) Trends in car and public transport use

Toxic contamination (5) Air quality in cities

Economical

Environmental policy instruments (4)

Natural resources (6)

Community structure and transport (6)

Production and consumption (9)

Socio-cultural

Lifestyles and illnesses (5)

The workforce (4)

Social problems and equality issues (6)

Education, research and participation (4)

Access to information (3)

Cultural heritage (3)

Ethnic minorities (2)

Development co-operation (2)

Trends in car and public transport use

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

million passenger km

Cars

Public transport

Economic development (4)

Demographic developments (4)

Figure 2. Conceptual framework used for the Finnish sustainable development indicators in 2000 (Rosenström and Palosaari, 2000). The number of indicators under each theme is given in parenthesis and titles of the indicators under the theme ‘Com-munity structure and transport’ are presented as an example. The graph describing the ‘Trends in car and public transport use’ is presented as an example of an indicator



of issues divided into traditional SD pillars had emerged in other countries and institutions as well (e.g. Statistics

Sweden, 2001; Eurostat, 2004; EEA, 2005; DEFRA, 1999, 2006). The need for and use of SD indicators were

investigated in 2001–2002 by conducting interviews with politicians and high level civil servants (see Heinonen

et al., 2005; Rosenström, 2007). Evidence of meagre use provided an important incentive to restructure the indi-

cators into a new framework in 2004.

The new framework used the GEAR-SD (Guidelines for Environmental Assessment and Reporting in the

Context of Sustainable Development) model introduced by the European Environment Agency, with an added

social dimension (Rosenström, 2004). The number of indicators presented in 2000 was reduced to 68 and the

indicators themselves were updated and grouped along the new themes. The main objective of this new framework

was to register the need to consider all three domains to support sustainability with closer adherence to the defi ni-

tion of sustainable development (cf. Niemeijer and de Groot, 2007). Another important objective was to increase

the interest of policy makers in SD indicators. The framework is presented in Figure 3.

The restructuring was carried out by a small group of researchers, without wider consultation rounds. The

indicator task force was kept informed about the work and comments requested. The revision was published only

on the Internet and the launch was not publicized widely because at that time the Ministry of the Environment

was already preparing the process of revising the existing SD strategy. The purpose of this exercise was to revisit

and update the existing indicators, as the new structure had not been envisaged yet.

Themes: Indicators:Adapting to the future (14) Trends in car and public transportation use

Distributional equality (6) Number of passenger cars and use

Eco-efficiency and community structure (10) Commuting distance

Environmental pressures (7) Internal migration

Human health and well-being (12) Urbanization

Inter-generational equity (12) Household spending

Preserving natural resources (6) Waste accumulation

Global responsibility (5) Re-use of material in packages

Total energy consumption

Consumption of energy and natural resources in relation to economic growth

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Millions of passenger kilometers

Passenger cars

Public transportation

TRENDS IN CAR AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION USE

Figure 3. Conceptual framework used for the Finnish sustainable development indicators in 2004. The number of indicators under each theme is given in parenthesis and titles of the indicators under the theme ‘Eco-effi ciency and community structure’ are presented as an example. The graph describing the ‘Trends in car and public transport use’ is presented as an example of an indicator




The third revision of the Finnish indicators ensued in 2006, in connection with the renewal of the national sus-

tainable development strategy (Prime Minister’s Offi ce, 2006). Both of these processes involved a number of

experts and civil servants, who participated in the identifi cation of the visions and targets for the new SD strategy

and in the identifi cation of the indicators to measure and support the progress towards these goals.

As a result, the new indicator framework refl ects the visions and themes of the strategy and the indicators are

grouped to closely follow the strategy. 34 indicators are highlighted as headline indicators and published embedded

in the strategy (Prime Minister’s Offi ce, 2006). In addition, further 48 indicators are identifi ed along the same

framework but data for these indicators are not collected. Figure 4 presents the headings of the framework.

The framework bears some resemblance to the 2004 framework in trying to highlight the main issues relevant

to SD. However, the 2006 framework is clearly more policy oriented with more comprehensible and visible targets.

While the indicators published in 2000 shifted away from national SD strategy during the preparation phase

(Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007) and the 2004 indicators mainly followed international developments, the frame-

work for the 2006 indicators was clearly subordinate to the national SD strategy.

Themes: Indicators:

Relative change in population accross different regionsDistance of certain services from homes of people

Residents' satisfaction in residential environment and surroundings

Urban population densities

Economic dependency ratio by province

Development of secondary-house living

Municipal residents' satisfaction in services

Estimations of the elderly concerning the poor availability of important services

The implementation of guaranteed access to health care by region

Availability of broadband connections

Development of public and passenger car transport

Car numbers and use

Supporting sustainable choices (1+1) Average commuting distance

Development of domestic passenger traffic and transportation of goods

Price development of locomotion

Proportion of different commuting distances of total commutes and total commuting

The most important reason for telecommuting and commuting distance

The economy as a means of ensuringsustainable development (5+4)

Finland as a global actor and bearer ofresponsibility (2+3)

The strengths and challenges of sustainabledevelopment in Finland (2+2)

Balance between the use and protection ofnatural resources (9+8)

Sustainable communities in a sustainableregional structure (5+12)

Citizens' well-being throughout the entirelife span (10+16)

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Development of public and passenger car transport

Million person kilometres

Passenger cars

Public transport

Figure 4. Conceptual framework used for the Finnish sustainable development indicators in 2006. The number of indicators under each heading is given in parenthesis (headline indicators + core set indicators) and titles of the indicators under the theme ‘Sustainable communities in a sustainable regional structure’ are presented as an example. The headline indicators are high-lighted in bold. The graph describing the ‘Development of public and passenger car transport use’ is presented as an example of an indicator. The indicator set is available on the Internet (http://www.ymparisto.fi /default.asp?node=15099&lan=en)



Indicator Leafl ets 2004–2007

In addition to the national indicator sets, an alternative way to promote the use of indicators and highlight poten-

tially relevant emerging issues was developed in early 2004 (Figure 5). The original impetus for the indicators was

to support the work of the National Commission for Sustainable Development. As the working programme

2003–2007 of the commission introduced special themes to be discussed in each meeting, supporting indicators

were developed. Since then, several small leafl ets have been produced and distributed to the participants at the

start of each FNCSD meeting.

The process behind the leafl ets has been as arduous as with the other indicators: meetings with civil servants

and experts. Finding suitable indicators for the many themes was laborious, and many of the indicators do not

fully comply with the criteria set for good indicators. Special attention was paid to the layout and the indicators

were supplemented with clear messages as headlines to the graphs, but longer textual descriptions were left out.

Each leafl et provides several indicators and references to additional information.

Here the main objective was to produce a common base for discussions and argumentation. Judging by the

responses of the participants of the FNCDS meetings, the leafl ets have reached this objective. The leafl ets, build-

ing on visually presented indicators and containing only a minimum of textual content, are easy to use as a basis

of argumentation.

Indicator themes in 2004: IndicatorsClimate change (8) Application of de-icing salt on roadsTransport (8) Particulate matter concentrationsResponsible society (8) Road transport emissionsEcological tax reform (8) Trends in the use of private cars and public transportationEutrophication of the Baltic Sea (8) Cost by transport mode

Number of people moving from countryside to citiesAverage commuting distancePassenger and freight transport

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

TRENDS IN THE USE OF PRIVATE CARS ANDPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 1960-2003

Million passenger km

Private cars

Public transportation

Figure 5. Conceptual framework for indicator leafl et themes in 2004. The number of indicators under each theme is given in parenthesis and indicators under the transport theme are presented as an example. The graph describing the ‘Trends in the use of private cars and public transportation’ is presented as an example of an indicator. Some of the indicator leafl ets are translated and available in English on the Internet (http://www.ymparisto.fi /default.asp?node=15132&lan=en)



Effectiveness of the Frameworks Used for the Finnish SD Indicators

Based on the review of the requirements for a good conceptual SD framework and cases presented above, we now

move on to discuss the different types of framework from the point of view of effectiveness. We utilize in this

effort the analogy with skeletons (external, internal, hydrostatic) as a heuristic tool. We focus on effectiveness from

the perspective of resource use in the preparation phase of indicator reports and the potential saliency and usabil-

ity as regards the target group. The overall evaluation is presented in Table 1.

The amount of information describing SD has increased enormously, at least in highly developed countries

where monitoring systems are already established and operating across a broad spectrum of areas. Niemi (2006),

for example, gives an overview of the most important environmental monitoring programmes in Finland. Although

the monitoring systems must be continually developed, especially in the less developed countries (see, e.g., Hezri,

2004), it seems that the gathering of the data is no longer the most crucial aspect of SD reporting in many indus-

trialized countries. Finding and highlighting the most relevant information was the reason why the indicators were

introduced in the fi rst place, but besides selecting relevant individual indicators attention has to be paid also to

the connections between the indicators (Niemeijer and de Groot, 2007). With regard to SD frameworks, this means

that the ability of a framework to facilitate the selecting and highlighting – but also screening out – of information

is becoming more important.

Using abundant data to update old indicator reports without any substantial changes made to the conceptual

framework can be a tempting option because of the low costs of adding new data to existing indicators. If there is

an institutionalized need for updated information disseminated through indicators, this may in fact be an effi cient

solution. However, unless updated data reveal some unexpected developments, the ease of updating is often coun-

tered with low interest in the updated report. In some cases it is possible to highlight updated indicators by using

new communication methods and formats or by targeting communication to more relevant target groups.

In the worst case, relying on the existing framework leads to wasted resources when updated indicators provide

information that is no longer applicable due to the quickly fl uctuating state of the environment and rapidly chang-

ing social concerns and economic conditions. As Gallopín and others (2001) argue, non-linearity, plurality of

perspectives, emergence of properties, self-organization, multiplicity of scales and irreducible uncertainty are

fundamental features of complex socio-ecological systems. For example, ecological thresholds (Groffmann et al.,

Indicator Resources used in Main target group Visibility regardingframework preparation and target group dissemination

2000 High: three years of preparation, Extensive: policy Partial and scattered: Internet and printed makers, the public low compared to the publication, three language expectations versions2004 Very low: only re-organizing Extensive: policy Low: only those who and updating the makers, the public searched the indicators, only information from the Internet version Internet pages2006 Moderate: based on Focused: based on the Too early to evaluate and included in implementation of the national SD strategy national SD strategyIndicator leafl ets Low: small number of Very focused: policy Good: indicators are (2004) indicators, simple makers in specifi ed used in the meetings; brochures meetings other use is very limited

Table 1. Overall evaluation of the four indicator frameworks based on this research and previous studies (Välimäki, 2002; Heinonen et al., 2005; Rosenström, 2007; Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007)



2006) and social transformations (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2006) can produce surprises and new kinds of issue

that cannot be included within existing frameworks, and new perspectives provided by new frameworks may be

needed in order to guide the development towards a sustainable path (see Santos, 2005). These features underline

the need to constantly evaluate the relevance of the applied data and indicators. It must be noted that identifying

remaining gaps in data and new information needs remain an important requirement for SD frameworks.

Besides updating existing indicators within old frameworks – or relying on old skeletons – other options include

making minor or major alterations to the existing framework or developing a completely new framework. It must

be noted that using a new framework does not necessarily require developing new indicators. The individual

indicators presented above (see Figures 2–5) show that the same data can be at least partially utilized to build

indicators within various kinds of framework. The indicator based on the data describing the trend in car and

public transport use shown in Figures 2–5 illustrates how the same data can be framed as an economic issue

(2000 framework), connected to discussion about so-called eco-effi ciency (2004 framework), highlighted as one

key constituent of sustainable regional structure (2006 framework) or treated as a basic issue of the transport

sector (indicator leafl et 2004).

The Finnish indicators from 2000 were aimed to fulfi l the criteria on data availability, ease of updating and

scientifi c robustness (Rosenström and Palosaari, 2000). Hence, they were relatively easily converted into the 2004

framework and many of the indicators for the leafl ets were also selected from the 2000 indicator set. In other

words, the same kind of internal skeleton may provide a wide variety of different outward appearances and the

same kind of outward appearance may conceal very different structures.

Important questions include what would be the right time to resort to completely new approaches and what are

the potential costs and benefi ts. One key factor is the type of expertise that is available and employed. The experts

from the Ministry of the Environment and researchers at the Finnish Envi ronment Institute had the main respon-

sibility for the preparation of the 2000 indicator collection (Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007). Partly because of

this, the Finnish SD indicators were initially built on the existing environmental indicators. This was a practical

approach since it allowed the effi cient use of existing knowledge. A similar approach was also used internationally:

the fi rst sustainable development strategies presented their themes refl ecting environmental issues, with added

economic and socio-cultural dimensions (see, e.g., UNCED, 1992). Many of the environmental issues were still

relatively novel in the 1990s, such as discussion considering climate change. Hence, there was both potential for

public interest towards these new issues and a need to describe and explain them. Based on the interviews of the

Finnish policy makers regarding the year 2000 indicator set, the indicators were seen as a useful tool to learn

about SD and especially about environmental issues but the direct (instrumental) use of the indicators was very

limited (Rosenström, 2007).

There are distinct differences between the overall pictures given by the Finnish SD indicator sets. The 2000

framework depicts what kinds of element and issues are pertinent to sustainability and the 2006 framework is

strictly confi ned to presenting the objectives of the Finnish government on sustainable development. Concentrat-

ing on issues that the scientists have identifi ed as key priorities for sustainability potentially makes the framework

usable for a long time period of time and increases its usability in different policy sectors. On the other hand, this

easily leaves the indicators more as background information, since direct links to decision-making are weak.

Frameworks that are designed to support specifi c political agendas can be useful in policy making, but they may

not be the most useful ones if contrasted with long term sustainability goals (Parris and Kates, 2003). The frame-

work may be useful to only a limited group of politicians or for certain policy processes and diffi cult to use in

other contexts. Furthermore, the usefulness may be limited by the time period when the given policy is current.

Specifi c frameworks may also result in highly technical indicators that are demanding to develop and diffi cult for

non-experts to understand.

As the analogy with internal skeleton suggests, a coherent internal structure may allow some response to the

changing reporting needs. The analogy with the hydrostatic skeleton suggests that it is possible to construct a

dynamic framework that is constantly evolving. Compared with the holistic, all-encompassing indicator collection

of 2000, the indicator leafl ets provide a concise and less laborious solution to serve political needs. The concise

format itself limits the work needed and the publication and dissemination of leafl ets is also considerably easier

and faster because of the narrowly defi ned target group and specifi c communication procedure. Hence, they can

be distributed when the subject matter is still debated and saliency is strengthened. The cost of narrow focus and



uncomplicated layout is that the links between indicators included in a leafl et remain vague and links to issues

presented in other leafl ets are not visible at all.

Potential saliency of the information presented can be taken into consideration when developing conceptual

frameworks, even though saliency is usually treated as a question primarily related to the use rather than the

substance of the indicators. Frameworks describing so-called key indicators are one attempt to increase the visibil-

ity of certain information (Heinonen et al., 2005). A framework including a short list of key indicators may be

relatively easy and quick to publish, but it may not have the ability to capture the reality with suffi cient precision.

On the other hand, there are often insuffi cient resources to collect, update and disseminate the information con-

tained in a long list of indicators.

Timeliness of the indicators is one important constituent for saliency. Producing geographically wide-ranging

assessments incorporating various issues is time and resource consuming work and even the latest reports avail-

able often describe the situation several years previously (Rosenström and Lyytimäki, 2006). The efforts to improve

the quality and quantity of the data have had only a limited impact on improving the timeliness of the data. This

may be partly because timeliness is mainly seen as a criterion for individual indicators and not for a conceptual

and procedural framework of indicators.

SD indicator reports may gain only limited visibility in public debate and in policy making because other forms

of environmental information and other issues are more salient. With the current abundance of information it is

also more diffi cult to formulate and deliver the right message to the right audience at the right time. Decision

makers, whether they are politicians, businessmen or consumers, are confronted with overwhelming numbers of

messages from a wide array of communication channels. Within this fragmented communication environment,

extra attention should be paid to selecting the media and method according to the communication situation and

target group. A participatory approach has been suggested as one tool to activate people. However, as the evidence

from the island of Guernsey shows, it may be possible to generate grass roots interest towards the indicator process

only after the indicators are already operational (McAlpine and Bimie, 2006). The Finnish experience on large

scale voluntary expert participation shows that experts can be keen on commenting, but often only after indicators

are already selected and data gathered (Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007). This suggests that it is diffi cult to induce

large scale participation in an early phase, when the framework is outlined.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conceptual frameworks for SD indicators can be theoretically well justifi ed, transparent and clearly defi ned guide-

lines, or they can be obscure and implicit rules of thumb based on different assumptions and knowledge, built

within different contexts and traditions. Some frameworks are well established and widely used while others are

theoretical constructions with scant practical testing. A conceptual framework may even be pieced together after

the indicators are already selected, simply in order to justify the selection of certain indicators.

Calls for more policy-resonant indicator systems are often voiced (Hezri, 2004; Rosenström, 2007, Turnhout

et al., 2007) and recent developments both in Finland and in some other countries (see, e.g., Statistics Sweden,

2001; Environment Australia, 2002; Eurostat, 2004; DEFRA 2006) suggest a shift from over-arching SD frame-

works formulated primarily on scientifi c knowledge into more practically oriented frameworks, i.e. indicator

frameworks that follow closely the structure of the national SD strategy. This trend can be considered as a threat

to the scientifi c soundness and holistic approach of SD reporting. However, even though the key requirement of

a conceptual framework is to refl ect the reality as objectively as possible, this should not lead to frameworks that

neglect to take into account their actual use. Monitoring and evaluating how indicators are used and learning based

on this are at least as important as the development work aimed to improve the ability of a framework to depict

the reality objectively. This can be considered as the one key challenge for future research on SD frameworks and

indicators.

Reasons for having a common, widely used framework for SD include that it would further develop a shared

terminology, improve the comparability of indicators and targets and thus yield better performance, and possibly

also increase international cooperation (Pintér et al., 2005). However, no commonly applied conceptual framework



has yet emerged, despite widely accepted general level requirements for a good framework and years of interna-

tional and national efforts to build frameworks.

Attempts to fi nd a common framework can also be criticized. First, it can be argued that the reality is too multi-

faceted and dynamic to be captured by any single framework. Second, SD indicators and reports can be used for

various purposes and in various contexts. As noted by Niemeijer and de Groot (2007), indicator sets describing

the very same issue can include different indicators and this could be avoided by putting the indicator set at the

heart of the selection process instead of individual indicators. However, the usability of an individual indicator or

a conceptual framework is always dependent on the context and target group, and the key point is to use specifi c

frameworks for specifi c purposes. Because of the diversity of communication situations and target groups and the

inherent complexity of the concept of sustainability, it seems undesirable to aim at a universal conceptual frame-

work for SD indicators. With this conclusion we wish not to attenuate the need for well planned conceptual

frameworks but to highlight the need for developing and using various kinds of framework that can make it pos-

sible to fi nd ways to utilize data more effi ciently and to communicate successfully with various target groups in

different situations.

References

Bagheri A, Hjorth P. 2007. Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a process-based approach. Sustainable Development 15: 83–96.

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

Bell S, Morse S. 2007. Story telling in sustainable development projects. Sustainable Development 15: 97–110.

Birkin F. 2000. The art of accounting for science: a prerequisite for sustainable development? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 11: 289–

309.

Bossel H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications, report to the Balaton Group. IISD: Winnipeg.

Castells M, Himanen P. 2002. The Information Society and the Welfare State: the Finnish Model. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 1999. Quality of Life Counts. DEFRA: London.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2006. Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket 2004 – a Selection of the UK Government’s Indicators of Sustainable Development. DEFRA: London.

Environment Australia. 2002. Are We Sustaining Australia? Report Against Headline Sustainability Indicators. Environment Australia: Canberra.

http://www.environment.gov.au/esd/national/indicators/report/index.html [16 May 2007].

Esty DC, Levy M, Srebotnjak T, de Sherbinin A. 2005. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Steward-ship. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: New Haven. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/ESI2005.pdf [18 December

2006].

European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2005. EEA Core Set of Indicators – Guide, Report 1/2005. EEA: Copenhagen.

European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC). 2005. Sustaining Sustainability, a Benchmark Study on National Strategies Towards Sustainable Development and the Impact of Councils in Nine EU Member States, EEAC series, Background Study

2. Lemma: Utrecht.

Eurostat. 2004. EU Member State Experiences with Sustainable Development Indicators. Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Com-

munities: Luxembourg.

Gallopín GC, Funtowicz S, O’Connor M, Ravetz J. 2001. Science for the 21st century: from social contract to the scientifi c core. International Journal of Social Science 168: 219–229.

Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, Levinson BM, Palmer MA, Paerl HW, Peterson GD, LeRoy Poff N,

Rejeski DW, Reynolds JF, Turner MG, Weathers KC, Wiens J. 2006. Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental manage-

ment or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9: 1–13.

Hardi P, Zdan T (eds). 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. IISD: Winnipeg.

Heinonen S, Hietanen O, Lyytimäki J, Rosenström U. 2005. How to approach the sustainable information society? Criteria and indicators as

useful tools. Progress in Industrial Ecology – an International Journal 2: 303–328.

Hezri AA. 2004. Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: a framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environ-mental Management 73: 357–371.

Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G. 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13: 38–52.

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2007. Compendium of Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives. IISD. http://

www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/ [22 May 2007].

Lélé SM. 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development 19: 607–621.

Loorbach D, Rotmans J. 2006. Managing transitions for sustainable development. In Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Dif-ferent Disciplines, Olshoorn X, Vieczorek AJ (eds). Dordrecht: Springer; 187–206.

Meadowcroft J, Farrell KN, Spangenberg J. 2005. Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8: 3–11.



Meadows D. 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development, report for the Balaton Group. Sustainability Institute:

Hartland Four Corners, VT.

McAlpine P, Bimie A. 2006. Establishing sustainability indicators as an evolving process: experience from the islands of Guernsey. Sustainable Development 14: 81–92.

Mebratu D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18:

493–520.

Mickwitz P. 2006. Environmental Policy Evaluation: Concepts and Practice, Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 66. Finnish Society of Sci-

ences and Letters: Vaajakoski.

Ministry of the Environment. 1998. Finnish Government Programme for Sustainable Development, The Finnish Environment 261. Ministry of

the Environment: Helsinki.

Musters CJM, de Graaf HJ, ter Kreus WJ. 1998. Defi ning socio-environmental systems for sustainable development. Ecological Economics 14:

243–258.

Niemeijer D, de Groot RS. 2007. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators in press.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012.

Niemi J (ed.). 2006. Environmental Monitoring in Finland 2006–2008, The Finnish Environment 26/2006. Finnish Environment Institute:

Helsinki.

Parris TM, Kates RW. 2003. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28: 559–

586.

Pezzoli K. 1997. Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40: 549–574.

Pintér L, Hardi P, Bartelmus P. 2005. Sustainable Development Indicators. Proposals for the Way Forward, United Nations Division for Sustain-

able Development, Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, New York, 2005. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/

measure_indicators_sd_way_forward.pdf [18 December 2006].

Prescott-Allen R. 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations. A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment. IDRC–Island: Covelo, CA.

Prime Minister’s Offi ce. 2006. Towards Sustainable Choices. A Nationally and Globally Sustainable Finland. The National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Publication 7/2006. Prime Minister’s Offi ce: Helsinki.

Redclift M. 2005. Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development 13: 212–227.

Roodman D. 2006. The 2005 Commitment to Development Index: Components and Results, GDC Brief. Center for Global Development:

Washington, DC. http://www.cgdev.org/fi les/3647_fi le_Commitment_to_Development_Index_Brief.pdf [18 December 2006].

Rosenström U. 2004. Päivitetyt kestävän kehityksen indikaattorit. Ympäristö ja Terveys 35(9): 10–15.

Rosenström U. 2007. Exploring policy use of sustainable development indicators: interviews with politicians. Journal of Transdisciplinary Envi-ronmental Studies 5: 1–13. http://www.journal-tes.dk/vol_5_no_1_2/no_2_ulla_h.pdf [25 May 2007].

Rosenström U, Kyllönen S. 2007. Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in

Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 84: 282–298.

Rosenström U, Lyytimäki J. 2006. The role of indicators in improving timeliness of international environmental reports. European Environment 16: 32–44.

Rosenström U, Muurman J. 1997. Results from Testing CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development in Finland 1997. Finnish Environment Insti-

tute: Helsinki.

Rosenström U, Palosaari M (eds). 2000. Signs of Sustainability. Finland’s Indicators for Sustainable Development 2000, Finnish Environment

404e. Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki.

SAM Indexes. 2006. Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. SAM Indexes. http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/ [18 December 2006].

Santos MA. 2005. Environmental stability and sustainable development. Sustainable Development 13: 326–336.

Segnestam L. 2003. Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development: Theories and Practical Experiences, Environment Department Envi-

ronmental Economics Series Paper 89. World Bank: Washington, DC.

Sneddon CS. 2000. ‘Sustainability’ in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: a review. Progress in Human Geography 24: 521–549.

Spangenberg JH. 2004. Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies. Sustainable Development 12: 74–86.

Statistics Sweden. 2001. Sustainable Development Indicators for Sweden – a First Set 2001. Statistics Sweden, Swedish Environment Agency,

Ministry of the Environment: Stockholm.

Turnhout E, Hisschhemöller M, Eijsackers H. 2007. Ecological indicators: between the two fi res of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 7:

215–228.

United Nations (UN). 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies – 2001. UN: New York.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992. UN: New York.

Välimäki J. 2002. Tiedon Mitalla Kestävyyteen, The Finnish Environment 556. Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987 Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Zhao J-Z, Opshoor JB. 1999. Indicator system and evaluation framework for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Sciences 11:

492–497.

skeletons out of the closet: effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable...

Documents