Back to Sustainable Indicators: A Review of National Methods and Suggestions for Long Island

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING INDICATOR PROJECTS The ten studies we reviewed display a wide range of alternative methodologies. In this section we compare these projects and summarize the key features that each provides. Except for Willapa and Pacific Research, all of the projects involved both the community and government through community-wide meetings. These kinds of interactions are vital to indicator projects. Without extensive community involvement, it is difficult for a community to develop a sense of responsibility and ownership for indicators or other community sustainability projects. In general, government involvement increases the likelihood that indicators will generate desirable public policy and planning changes. Government involvement can be problematic, however. Government officials may try to restrict which indicators are chosen, and some segments of the community, such as disenfranchised low-income citizens or those who have experienced racism within government, may be averse to getting involved in a project sponsored by local government. Over time, project members must find ways to overcome these kinds of destructive practices if indicators are to be successful. There are differences in the ways that communities obtained widespread participation. Two effective strategies include Oregon's intensive media campaign and Cambridge's "reaching in. Intensive media campaigns have the potential of being very expensive. Public radio advertisements, visits to schools, organizations, and businesses, posters, and local cable and local newspaper ads can be less expensive forms of media outreach than commercial television. Those with experience in hosting meetings know that it is much easier to insure a significant audience by going to a group than asking groups to come to you. For this reason "reaching in" is effective at engaging large numbers of people. Citizens are also likely to feel less anxious about new proposals, like indicators, if they are introduced on their home turf, rather than in larger, more confrontational, and/or more impersonal public forums. The ideas generated through cross-group interaction, however, can be valuable and should be encouraged. Therefore, a mix of "reaching-in" and community-wide meetings provides an effective balance. Examining the linkages among indicators is another valuable process. For example, why not examine how expanding after-school programs affects local crime rates. Maureen Hart stresses in her document, Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, "Because sustainability requires a more integrated view of the world, the indicators should link the economy, environment, and society of the community."16 Here is a fuller example of why linkages matter: "Consider this scenario: when child poverty rates are high, more youth are likely to enter into a life of crime. High crime rates make parents less likely to let their children walk to school, and more likely to drive them. Increased driving means more leaks and spills of motor oil or radiator fluid, some of which will find its way into local streams where salmon live. Tracing linkages can help us understand that the decline of salmon in our streams and the poverty of children may be related in more ways than we previously thought." 17 Another reason to address linkages is that solutions that address economic, environmental and community problems as separate issues often create new problems. As our perspective becomes more holistic, our solutions will become more effective. While linkages are difficult to incorporate into initial draft reports, indicator projects should explicitly aim to incorporate linkages in subsequent phases of their work. Of the ten projects reviewed, only Seattle directly addressed these kinds of linkages. Willapa and Jacksonville are in the process of addressing linkages in their projects. An "objectives section" is a crucial and often neglected aspect of indicator projects. Goals are more general than objectives and focus on broad ideals. Objectives lead to specific policy and planning initiatives. For example, general goals might include increasing renewable energy. A specific objective would be to install two wind turbines by the year 2001. Only San Francisco, Jacksonville, Santa Monica, and Minnesota developed objectives. Pasadena has a "goals section," but this was not specific enough. San Francisco's project is thorough in its inclusion of both goals and objectives. Having an objectives section, however, is not an end in and of itself. Communities must have some process by which they can evaluate whether they are effectively working towards those objectives. As part of their Sustainable City Progress Report, Santa Monica developed sections for "Progress Towards Goals," "Obstacles," "Plans for the Future," and "Recommendations." These sections discuss specific projects or laws that are in process or being planned to achieve specific objectives. Jacksonville set community "targets" and its citizens' committee awards gold (for progress) or red (for digression) stars as a grade for each project. Minnesota will be writing progress reports in the future as its monitors its progress in achieving key objectives. Table 2 summarizes these key differences among indicator projects:

Table 2: Comparison of Indicator Projects
City	Government Involvement	Involved Wide Variety of People	Held Community- wide Meetings	Follow-up After First Indicator Report	Discussed Linkages	Set Specific Objectives/ Follow-up Assessment	Key Assessment
Seattle, WA	Some	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	National model
Cambridge, MA	Some	Yes	Yes	Unknown	Unknown	No	"reaching in"
Santa Monica, CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes/Yes	Sustainability Checklist
Pasadena, CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not yet	No	Yes/No Health	Focus
Jacksonville, FL	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	In process	Yes/Yes	Citizen- government coordination; Opinion surveys
Willapa, WA	No	No	No	Yes	In process	No
San Francisco, CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	First one in 1997	No	Yes/Yes
Minnesota	Yes	Yes	Yes		Unknown	Yes/Yes	Strong media campaign
Oregon	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Phone surveys
Pacific Research Institute	No	No	No	Unknown		No