Back to A methodological review of U.S. indicator projects

g. Indicators for a Sustainable San Francisco - San Francisco, California San Francisco's indicator project was organized by the Commission on San Francisco's Environment, the City Planning Department, the nonprofit organization Sustainable City, and many others working under the name Sustainable San Francisco. Their indicators are just one part of a larger Sustainable San Francisco agenda. The overall goal is to, "develop a prosperous and healthful urban system which can provide for the physical and other needs of the population while reversing the trends of increasing pollution and environmental degradation now threatening the quality of urban life."10 The executive director of Sustainable City, Beryl Magilavy, also directed Sustainable San Francisco. In their process, a steering committee met twice monthly and was open to all San Francisco citizens. There were a number of endorsers who helped fundraise, and advertise the project. Their final "plan" was drafted by "City Circles," which were made up of representatives from the business community, city departments, environmental activists, and any other interested citizens. Once the drafting meetings started, they were closed to further membership so that all participants would be familiar with the process from the beginning. For those who could not attend the drafting meetings, the city invited public input at open hearings, meetings, and outreach booths. The City Circles met four to five times over four months to draft separate goals, objectives, and indicator reports. The goals focused on broad, long-term social goals that are ìvery general, and speak to the basic human/ecosystem needs that are to be addressed," whereas the objectives are specific measures to be met by the year 2001. 11 There was a second, more extensive, section on objectives that examined how to make the city sustainable. The documents focused on environmental issues and left out social issues like homelessness, crime, and spirituality. This was done to increase manageability and to focus on the "physical systems of the planet that normally get short shrift from planners, and the social systems that have a direct impact on these."12 They also gave limited attention to land-use, because existing public projects focus heavily on land-use. The documents were written for an audience who had never heard of sustainability and addressed public and private sector issues. Sustainable San Francisco's project excelled in dealing thoroughly with its selected topic areas, its intense coordination of citizens and government, and its balance of public and private sector involvement. The lack of focus on social issues, however, was a significant omission. In terms of process, San Francisco did not reinvent the wheel; they spent time researching other sustainability plans from around the world and based their project primarily on the European Agenda 21 Implementation Plan (for the UK) and Sustainable Seattle's Indicators for Sustainable Community. Their attention to goals and objectives expresses their commitment to use indicators as a means toward action and not an end unto itself. For these reasons we think this was a successful project.