Sustainable Development in the United States: An Experimental Set of
Indicators

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.21875in" height="0.7083333333333334in"}

**A Progress Report Prepared by the**

**U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators**

**Washington, D.C.**

**December 1998**

Table of Contents

**The U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development
Indicators welcomes public participation in the discussion and selection
of indicators for sustainable development. Please send your comments to
the following address:**

**David Berry**

**Executive Director**

**U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators**

**c/o Council on Environmental Quality**

**722 Jackson Place, NW**

**Washington, D.C. 20503-0002**

**Email address: sdi@ios.doi.gov\
**

**Table of Contents**

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Sustainable Development: A Working Definition and a Framework
for Indicators

Chapter 3. Sustainability Issues and Criteria for Selecting Indicators

Chapter 4. An Experimental Set of Sustainable Development Indicators

List of Indicators

Economic Indicators

Environmental Indicators

Social Indicators

Chapter 5. What the Indicators Do and Do Not Tell Us about Sustainable
Development

Chapter 6. Future Work on Sustainable Development Indicators

Appendices

A. Acronyms

B. Inventory of Candidate Indicators

C. Indicators Developed by the OECD, UNCSD, and the PCSD

D. Outreach Efforts

E. List of Regular Participants U.S. Interagency Working Group on
Sustainable Development Indicators September 1997\
**Foreword**

**\"This report is unique in presenting a diverse mix of U.S. indicators
in the context of sustainable development\...\
Its main goal is to stimulate further thought and discussion.\"\
**

Sustainable development is *an evolving process that improves the
economy, the environment, and society for the benefit of current and
future generations*. The actions we take today must provide for our
needs without diminishing the assets, resources, and capabilities
available to our descendents.

This report of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable
Development Indicators (SDI Group) marks an important first step in
examining the United States' progress along a path of sustainable
development. It includes a framework for organizing indicators and an
experimental set of 40 indicators that relate to various aspects of
sustainability. Some of the individual indicators appear in other
documents, but this report is unique in presenting such a diverse mix of
U.S. economic, environmental, and social indicators in the context of
sustainable development. Among the 40 indicators, 30 showed trends with
a clear impact relevant to sustainable development and of these 17
recently moved in a favorable direction.

Information about current and long-term conditions and about the
processes that affect those conditions is essential to evaluating our
progress in pursuit of sustainable development. Indicators, such as
those described in this report, provide a useful tool for simplifying,
quantifying, and communicating vast amounts of information in ways that
are more easily understood. Indicators provide a useful feedback
mechanism for highlighting areas where we are doing well and for
alerting us to areas that may need greater attention. This feedback is
particularly important as people across the country work to put the
Nation on a path toward greater economic, environmental, and social
well-being.

In its initial report \"Sustainable America,\" the President's Council
on Sustainable Development (PCSD) recommended that the Federal
Government, in collaboration with the private sector and
non-governmental organizations, develop national indicators of progress
toward sustainable development and regularly report on these indicators
to the public. This report represents an initial response to that
recommendation.

As we learn more about the conditions and processes that support
sustainable development, the indicators that are the most meaningful
will undoubtedly change. In presenting this report, our primary goal is
to stimulate further thought and discussion within and outside the
Federal Government, on which measures are most useful in assessing and
furthering the Nation's progress toward a more sustainable future. The
next report of the SDI Group will reflect that discussion.

**Acknowledgments**

This report would never have been possible without the help and support
of many individuals and organizations, both within and outside the
Federal Government. We would like to extend a special thanks to the
White House Office of Environmental Quality and its staff, particularly
Keith Laughlin and Carolyn Mosely, for their encouragement, guidance,
and support.

We would also like to thank all of the Federal agencies that
participated in the SDI Group and especially those that provided the
funding and staff support that made this project possible. A number of
individuals contributed significant time and energy to the SDI Group.
These included:

• those who served as detailees to the Secretariat, including Don
Rogich, Department of the Interior (DOI); Tim Stuart and Rick Cothern,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and Kevin Schaefer, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);

• Brand Niemann (EPA), who developed an electronic version of this
report for dissemination over the Internet;

• Evert Byington (EPA), who compiled many of the indicators and steered
the draft report through the interagency review and revision process;

• Ted Heintz (DOI), who provided leadership in developing a framework
for sustainable development indicators;

• Rebecca Moser, Department of Commerce (DOC), who served as chief
writer/editor and helped develop a report that could be embraced by all
participants; and

• David Berry, who served as Executive Director of the SDI Group and
played an essential role in gaining the Administration\'s support for
this project, in facilitating interagency participation, and in inviting
comments and suggestions from all those with an interest in sustainable
development.

In addition, we would like to thank Nick Fedoruk, a volunteer who helped
with the SDI Group\'s outreach efforts, and all of the interns who
provided staff support and conducted research for the Secretariat.

We would also like to express our appreciation to those individuals
outside the Federal government who so willingly shared their knowledge
and expertise about indicators, including Albert Adriaanse (formerly
Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment, The
Netherlands), Allen Hammond and Eric Rodenburg (World Resources
Institute), and John O'Connor (formerly of The World Bank).

Finally, the SDI Group would like to thank the many individuals who have
reviewed and provided comments on the work of the SDI Group. Their input
will continue to be important in developing a set of indicators that is
useful and meaningful to policy makers and the public.

**Executive Summary**

**\"This set of indicators is not a complete assessment, but rather a
first look at U.S. progress toward greater economic, environmental, and
social well-being.\"**

What does sustainable development really mean? How do we know if we are
making progress? And what measures are most useful in evaluating our
progress? These are just a few of the questions the SDI Group asked in
developing this experimental set of 40 indicators. This set is not a
complete assessment of the United States\' progress toward sustainable
development, nor is it a recommended set of indicators for the Nation.
Rather it is a first look at some of the key economic, environmental,
and social factors that may be important. The purpose of this first look
is to encourage a national dialogue that will ultimately result in a set
of national indicators of sustainable development.

One of the greatest challenges in measuring sustainability is capturing
its breadth, richness, and complexity. In 1987, the Brundtland
Commission defined it as \"development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.\" Many of the issues are global\--from climate change
and biodiversity, to human rights, world peace, and international
security\--and no one country can realize sustainable development on its
own. Recognizing that sustainability is global, the nations of the world
came together in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Together, they
developed a bold new agenda for the 21st Century, known as Agenda 21,
and agreed to take concrete steps to implement it within their own
borders and worldwide.

In the United States, President Clinton responded to Agenda 21 by
appointing the President\'s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).
The Council set forth a new vision for the nation:

\"Our vision is of a life-sustaining Earth. We are committed to the
achievement of a dignified, peaceful, and equitable existence. A
sustainable United States will have a growing economy that provides
equitable opportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy,
high quality of life for current and future generations. Our nation will
protect its environment, its natural resource base and the functions and
viability of natural systems on which all life depends.\"

This is a vision of economic prosperity, a healthy environment, and a
just and equitable society. If we can make sustained progress in all
three areas, both at home and abroad, then we will leave the world in at
least as good a state as the one we inherited. Within the context of
Agenda 21 and the PCSD\'s vision statement, and for the purpose of
selecting indicators, the SDI Group defined sustainable development as
\"an evolving process that improves the economy, the environment, and
society, both today and over the long term.\"

A key to sustainability is to conserve and use available resources
wisely. We draw upon these resources\--economic, environmental, and
social\--to meet our own needs and then we pass them along to future
generations. We must pay attention to how our own actions today could
affect the future well-being of our nation and the world.

The SDI Group organized the set of 40 indicators in two ways: (1)
economic, environmental, and social; and (2) long-term endowments and
liabilities; processes; and current results. The first categorization
helps us think about the indicators in a conventional way; the second
focuses our attention on the need to take a long-term view.

Long-term endowments and liabilities include things like capital assets,
natural resource stocks, or hazardous wastes \--things that could affect
our well-being today and in the future. Processes include things like
investment or pollution which could affect either long-term endowments
or current conditions. Current results include those things that we
experience or hear about in our everyday lives, such as crime rates, air
quality, or the gross domestic product.

The SDI Group gave equal consideration to the economy, the environment,
and society in selecting this set of indicators. Yet because some
indicators are more highly aggregated than others, an exact balance
among the different types of indicators is not necessarily required. For
some issues, the sustainability connection seems clear; while for
others, the relationship is more complex. This set of indicators
includes both those with a clear link to sustainability, and those that
have mixed or uncertain impacts now and potentially major impacts over
the long term.

By looking at this diverse group of indicators, we can begin to get a
sense of the conditions or processes that may be important in realizing
sustainability. Among the 40 indicators, 30 showed trends with a clear
impact relevant to sustainable development and of those 17 are moving in
a favorable direction. The remaining 10 indicators have mixed or
uncertain impacts. This illustrates the many unanswered questions that
we still have about the nature of sustainability. Indicators therefore
can be a useful tool not only for monitoring progress, but also for
helping us explore the issues in greater depth.

**Table 5.4 Summary of Indicators**

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- -----------------------
  **SDI Framework   **Total No. of **Relevance of                
  Subcategory**     Indicators**   Trends to                     
                                   Sustainable                   
                                   Development**                 

                                   **No. of        **No. of      **No. of Indicators
                                   Indicators with Indicators    with Trends that Result
                                   Trends that     with Trends   in Mixed or Uncertain
                                   Result in       that Result   Impacts**
                                   Favorable       in            
                                   Impacts**       Unfavorable   
                                                   Impacts**     

  **Economy**       13             7               2             4

  **Environment**   16             5               7             4

  **Society**       11             5               4             2

  **Total**         40             17              13            10
  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- -----------------------

The SDI Group presents this document as a \"work in progress\" and hopes
that it will stimulate further thought and discussion. As we learn more
about the nature of sustainability, the indicator sets that are most
useful will surely change. Because the creation of sustainable
development indicators is still in its infancy, there are several
possible approaches for developing, organizing and relating indicators.
Some practitioners seek to eventually develop a smaller set of
non-redundant indicators that summarize a wide range of information for
decision makers and other users. Other practitioners think a larger set
of overlapping indicators better demonstrates the relatedness of
economic, environmental and social results and that decision makers are
best served by having the flexibility to pick from such a "suite" of
interrelated indicators. The SDI Group does not attempt to resolve this
issue in this report, and over time, it will evaluate a variety of
approaches.

In the coming months, the SDI Group will continue its work to refine the
current set of indicators, examine other indicators, evaluate
alternative approaches to indicator development, and study the
relationships among various sustainability issues. We welcome input from
all interested parties\--government, industry, nongovernmental
organizations, and communities\-- in developing a set of indicators that
is truly useful in monitoring and advancing the Nation\'s progress
toward sustainability.

**Chapter 1. Introduction**

**\"The main challenge of sustainability is to integrate our various
goals and aspirations over the long-term.\"**

The concept of sustainable development touches many different aspects of
our lives\--from pursuing economic prosperity, to utilizing natural
resources, to enhancing the environment, to pursuing peace and social
justice for people around the world. The main challenge in actually
pursuing sustainability is in learning how to integrate our various
goals, aspirations, and competing demands in ways that improve economy,
the environment, and society over the long term.

In June 1993, President Clinton established the President's Council on
Sustainable Development (PCSD) with a mandate to develop recommendations
on steps the United States could take to realize sustainable
development. The Council presented its initial findings to the President
in March 1996 in the document *Sustainable America: a New Consensus for
Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future.* In
this report, the Council noted the importance of monitoring the Nation's
progress toward national sustainability goals. It recommended that the
Federal Government intensify its efforts to develop national indicators
of progress toward sustainable development in collaboration with
nongovernmental organizations and the private sector.1

In response to this recommendation, the Administration established the
U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators
(SDI Group). This action formalized the activities of a group of agency
representatives who had been meeting informally since early 1994 to
discuss various approaches for developing a set of sustainable
development indicators. The SDI Group reports to the Council on
Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President and is
supported through voluntary contributions of staff and resources by
participating Federal agencies. In the coming months, the SDI Group will
continue to maintain its own identity, and some members may also
participate in discussions of the PCSD's Evaluating Progress Working
Group.

This report summarizes the work of the SDI Group from 1996 through 1998.
The Group's major activities during this period have included the
following:

• *Developing the SDI Framework*. The Group developed a conceptual
framework for indicators that reflects the multidisciplinary and
intergenerational nature of sustainable development. This framework
builds on indicator frameworks developed by others.

• *Establishing A Process For Selecting Indicators*. The Group developed
a process for examining and selecting an experimental set of indicators
which involved extensive discussions among the Federal agencies and a
number of outside groups.

• *Selecting a Set of 40 Indicators*. The Group selected an experimental
set of 40 economic, environmental, and social indicators that represent
a cross-section of many of the issues that are judged to be relevant to
sustainable development. This set of indicators was selected from an
inventory of more than 400 indicators identified by Federal agencies;
the PCSD; the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development
(UNCSD); the World Bank; other countries; and various nonprofit groups,
businesses, and communities.

• *Establishing World Wide Web Site*. The Group established a World Wide
Web site (http://www.sdi.gov) to facilitate public access to its work
products.

• *Identifying Areas for Future Work*. SDI Group participants identified
a number of issue areas that they feel are inadequately represented in
the current set of indicators (see Chapter 6). The development of
indicators of sustainability is still at an early stage, and future work
of the SDI Group could include joint efforts with the academic community
and/or others to develop additional indicators of sustainability.

Many of the individual indicators presented in this report appear in
other Federal agency publications, but they have not previously been
published in the same document. By presenting this diverse group of
indicators together, we hope to communicate the integrated nature of
sustainability.

Each type of indicator helps us assess sustainability in a somewhat
different way. Indicators that reflect current conditions can provide
easy-to-understand information on how well we are doing in meeting
near-term objectives. Many of these indicators of current results are
quite familiar and include such things as the gross domestic product
(GDP), the crime rate, unemployment rates, and educational achievement
rates. Some indicators provide information on the assets, resources, or
liabilities that we pass on to the future. They include such things as
water resources or the quantity of spent nuclear fuel we pass on to our
children and grandchildren. Other indicators provide information on
processes and driving forces that affect current or long-term
conditions. These include such things as the utilization of fisheries,
emissions of greenhouse gases, or investment in research and
development. Many of the indicators on long-term endowments or
liabilities or on processes can serve as early warning signals of
challenges that we may face in the future.

Over the past several years, the SDI Group has gained profound humility
about its ability to understand and measure sustainable development. We
do not yet understand many of the relationships among sustainability
issues, and we are still unsure how to measure some important
parameters. This report focuses primarily on indicators for which data
are currently available, but it does not preclude the development of new
measures at some point in the future. In the coming months, the SDI
Group plans to examine a number of sustainability themes and indicators
in greater depth.

1 President's Council on Sustainable Development*, Sustainable America:
A New Consensus*, Chapter 3, Information and Education, p. 66, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1996.

**Chapter 2. Sustainable Development: A Working Definition and a
Framework for Indicators**

**\"Sustainable development: an evolving process that improves the
economy, the environment, and society way for the benefit of current and
future generations.\"\
**

One of the SDI Group's activities has been to develop a working
definition of sustainable development and a conceptual framework for
indicators of progress. The Group's discussions began with the
definition of sustainable development proposed by the Brundtland
Commission in 1987: which is, \"development that meets the needs of the
*present* without compromising the ability of *future* generations to
meet their own needs." This definition can be interpreted in various
ways.

For purposes of this report, the SDI Group considers sustainable
development to be *an evolving process that improves the economy, the
environment, and society for the benefit of current and future
generations*. If we achieve sustained progress in all three areas, then
it is likely that we will leave the world in as good a state as the one
we inherited, if not better.

Sustainable development is a journey, and measuring progress on that
journey can never be an absolute process because the journey involves a
complex mix of biophysical realities and human values. Ideally, we would
like to have balanced and continuous social, economic and environmental
progress down the path of sustainable development. Ideally, we would
also like to monitor accurately and frequently our rate of progress on
the journey. But in reality, achieving such balanced and continuous
progress will be difficult because of the complexities involved.
Variations in climate, cycles in the economy, shifts in social values,
and advances in science and technology are among the many unpredictable
forces currently limiting our ability to predict and monitor accurately
our rate of progress on the sustainable development journey.

Finding opportunities to minimize these limitations continues to be
central to the work of the SDI Group. The Group is still far from
achieving an ideal indicator set for monitoring the rate of social,
economic and environmental progress toward sustainable development. But
at this time, there is sufficient understanding of the nature of
sustainable development to prepare an experimental set of indicators
that can be used for a comparative qualitative assessment to determine
if the Nation is at least proceeding in the right direction on the path
of sustainable development. In such an assessment, the number of
indicators showing a positive trend can be compared to the number
showing a negative trend. If the net difference is positive, this would
be a general indication that the Nation is moving in the right
direction.

If we think of sustainable development as a three-legged stool, then one
leg can be thought of as representing the economy, another as
representing the environment, and the third as representing society or
equity. The legs of the stool are grounded in traditional academic
disciplines, such as the social, economic, political, biological, and
physical sciences. Over the years, each academic discipline has
developed its own concepts, statistical programs, and classification
systems and is often treated separately by government agencies and the
private sector.

Concerns about job creation, economic growth, or investment have often
been considered apart from concerns about environmental quality or
education, with less than optimal results. For example, efforts to
further economic growth in a particular geographical region without
adequate consideration of the region's environment, natural resources,
and social character may lead to urban sprawl, the disintegration of
inner city neighborhoods, pollution, and/or the destruction of habitat.
On the other hand, efforts to avoid any changes in natural habitat or
the environment may hamper a region's ability to meet the economic and
social needs of its residents.

Each economic, environmental, and social issue requires attention, but
from the standpoint of sustainable development, we must examine the
issues together, rather than in isolation. There will always be
trade-offs among different interests, but this does not preclude us from
making decisions that advance all interests over the long term. For
example, as a Nation, we have agreed that we want clean air and water,
protection from hazardous wastes, and a healthy environment; and we have
instituted a number of environmental regulations to further the
achievement of those goals. At the same time, we have not decided to
eliminate all anthropogenic pollution, since that would require us to
halt many activities\--from manufacturing, to transportation, to
information services\--which improve our economic well-being. The income
provided by these activities makes it possible for us to invest in
research and development, to invest in improved technologies and
infrastructure, to improve education, and to purchase food and shelter.
Trade-offs among the environment, the economy, and society will always
occur, and there may be more progress in one area than another at any
particular point in time. Nevertheless, by adopting multidisciplinary
decision-making processes, we can develop approaches that do a better
job of advancing progress in all three areas over the long term.

We frequently pay more attention to our wants and needs than we do to
the potential long-term consequences of our actions. While we know that
future development depends on having adequate assets and resources,
concerns about the future often pale in comparison to immediate and
pressing needs (e.g., for public safety or jobs). Consideration of the
future becomes even more difficult when there are uncertainties about
environmental trends, ecosystem carrying capacities, economic
interactions, and future technological advances.

A set of indicators that reflects today's conditions as well as the
assets and liabilities we pass on to future generations can be an
important tool in fostering integrated decision-making processes. The
indicators selected by the SDI Group are based on data that are
currently available, primarily from the Federal agencies. The SDI
Framework organizes the indicators into three major categories
representing (1) long-term endowments and liabilities, (2) processes,
and (3) current results. These categories are then divided into
subcategories for the economy, the environment, and society.

One category of indicators chosen by the SDI Group\--the current results
indicators\--reveals the United States' progress or shortcomings in
improving current conditions and experiences (e.g., GDP, air quality, or
educational achievement). These indicators focus on human experiences
today and often receive the most attention in the day-to-day media. A
second category of indicators\--long-term
endowments/liabilities\--provides insights into possible future
challenges by measuring the status of resources, capacities, and
liabilities that we pass on to future generations (e.g., capital assets,
endangered ecosystems, or population). These indicators are a key to
understanding the evolving and intergenerational nature of sustainable
development. A third category of indicators\--process
indicators\--includes the processes and driving forces that affect
either long-term endowments and liabilities or current results (e.g.,
investment in research and development, emissions of greenhouse gases,
or births to single mothers). In many cases it is these processes that
we may need to change if we are to design a path toward greater
sustainability.

The SDI framework emphasizes the links between the resources we inherit
and utilize to meet today's needs and those that we pass on to future
generations. It also encourages us to think about the economy, the
environment, and society together, rather than in isolation. By
examining a diverse set of indicators together, we can begin to
understand the conditions and approaches that will support sustainable
development. If we can do a better job of meeting today's needs, while
also enhancing the assets and resources we ourselves inherited, then we
will be a step closer to designing a path of sustainable development.

In developing the SDI Framework, the SDI Group drew upon the indicator
work that has been done by Federal agencies, by colleagues in The
Netherlands and Canada, and by groups such as the PCSD, the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UNCSD, the World
Bank, and the World Resources Institute. A commonly-used framework for
organizing environmental indicators is the Pressure-State-Response
(P-S-R) model.

**Figure 2.1. Pressure-State-Response Framework**

![](media/image2.png){width="6.0in" height="2.65in"}

The P-S-R model is based on environmental *pressures* (e.g., emissions
or the use of natural resources), environmental conditions or *states*,
and human *responses* to those conditions. From the standpoint of
sustainable development, one drawback of the P-S-R model is that it does
not readily accommodate the full range of economic and social variables
and time scales that are relevant to sustainability. In addition, it is
not well-suited to accommodating the uniquely human skills of
anticipation, prevention, and design. A useful framework for sustainable
development indicators should be able to incorporate our ability to
imagine and design alternative futures, including sustainable ones. If
we focus only on damage control, then we are likely to miss
opportunities for innovation and new ways of thinking.

The SDI Framework builds on the P-S-R model, but it accommodates a range
of processes\--both positive and negative\--related to the economy, the
environment, and society. It divides the "state" category in the P-S-R
model into two separate categories: "long-term endowments and
liabilities" and "current results". This division emphasizes the
multi-generational nature of sustainability.

The SDI Framework also builds on the familiar economic concept of stocks
and flows. One can sometimes think of processes as the activities that
utilize initial stocks to yield current goods and services, as well as
the resulting stocks that are passed on to future generations. The
endowments that are available in the future may be smaller or larger
than today's stocks depending on how much we use and whether we are able
to restore or enhance those stocks (e.g., through new technologies or
environmental restoration).

**Figure 2.2. Sustainable Development Indicator Framework**

![](media/image3.png){width="6.0in" height="3.5694444444444446in"}

As illustrated in Figure 2.2, *sustainable development is not an end in
itself, but rather an evolving process*. All components of the Earth
system\--including human knowledge and technological development\--are
constantly changing, and in our effort to realize sustainable
development, we must recognize and respond to these changes. In
evaluating our progress, we can examine some of the parameters that
appear to be most important today, even though these parameters are
likely to change over time.

It may be useful to take a closer look at the major categories of the
framework.

**Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

We inherit various assets, resources, and capacities from our
predecessors, utilize some of them to meet our own needs and wants, and
then pass them on to future generations. We also inherit a variety of
challenges such as hazardous wastes, income disparity, and racial
tensions that can carry over from generation to generation. Children can
also be seen as another kind of endowment\--one with very special
characteristics\--that is provided by each generation to the future.
Indicators that reflect these long-term assets and challenges are
labeled as \"long-term endowments and liabilities\" in the SDI
Framework. These indicators are especially important in assessing
sustainability since they emphasize the need to consider the impacts of
current actions on the well-being of future generations.

As an analogy, one can think about the endowment of a university as the
long-term capital base that the university needs to ensure adequate
funding for current operations. This endowment must be maintained to
provide the income the university needs for the future. Indicators of
long-term endowments and liabilities reflect the legacy we pass on to
the next generation.

**Processes**

In the SDI Framework, *general processes* include (1) the human
activities that utilize endowments to yield current goods and services;
(2) natural Earth system processes (e.g., hydrological, atmospheric,
terrestrial, biological, or chemical); and (3) social, cultural, or
political processes. Processes can include things as diverse as
manufacturing, atmosphere/ocean interactions, and democratic governing
processes.

These processes give rise to a number of *driving forces*\--both
desirable and undesirable\--that directly affect the status of long-term
endowments. For example, the industrial production of paper is a process
that provides paper for consumers and jobs for some workers (current
results), while also giving rise to the harvesting of timber and the
release of chemicals (driving forces) that could affect the long-term
status of forested and aquatic ecosystems (endowments).

Many of the general processes are affected by *decision-making*
processes of government, industry, communities, and individuals.
*Decision-making* includes things such as law-making, regulating,
developing policies and management approaches, and evaluating consumer
choices. Decision-making is guided by information\--such as that
provided by indicators\--about current results, driving forces, and
endowments. For example, consider the production of wooden furniture
(the general process): the decision-making processes that determine the
level and type of production would be guided by information about supply
versus demand for wooden furniture and associated economic costs
(current results), by information about the balance between forest
growth and removals (a driving force), and by information about the
status of forested areas (the endowment).

Other examples of decision-making processes that regulate driving forces
directly affecting endowments are the government regulatory processes
controlling the rate of wetland conversion; and private sector
decision-making processes resulting in shifts from high-sulfur to
low-sulfur coal for generating electricity.

The SDI Group did not identify a suitable decision-making indicator for
inclusion in this report. However such indicators will be considered in
the future because many government agencies, in implementing their
missions, often directly affect economic, environmental, and social
sustainable development. A further opportunity for developing
decision-making indicators that will capture the linkages between
sustainable development and government decision making is the current
effort by Federal Agencies to develop and monitor performance standards
under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA data
collection and analysis strategies that include both monitoring the
achievement of program standards and assessing the broader impact of
program implementation on natural, built, human and social capital could
create a greater synergism between SDI and GPRA efforts.

**Current Results**

In the SDI Framework, current results include the goods, services, and
conditions that are enjoyed or experienced by present generations.
*Indicators of current results focus on human well-being today and in
the near-term.* Many of the indicators with which we are most
familiar\--such as the gross domestic product, unemployment rates, or
crime rates\--are indicators of current results.

**Figure 2.3. Sustainable Development Indicator Framework with Flow of
Information**

![](media/image4.png){width="6.0in" height="3.479861111111111in"}

**Table 2.1. Frame**work Categories

+------------+----------+-----------+---------------------------------+
| **         | **Defi   | **Ra      | **Examples**                    |
| Category** | nition** | tionale** |                                 |
+------------+----------+-----------+---------------------------------+
| *          | The      | To track  | \* Built capital such as public |
| *Long-Term | assets,  | the       | infrastructure, houses, and     |
| Endowments | re       | condition | telecommunications systems      |
| &          | sources, | of the    |                                 |
| Lia        | cap      | assets,   | \* Natural resources such as    |
| bilities** | acities, | r         | forests, fisheries, oil and     |
|            | and      | esources, | mineral reserves, air, water,   |
|            | lia      | ca        | and soil                        |
|            | bilities | pacities, |                                 |
|            | i        | and       | \* Environmental conditions     |
|            | nherited | li        | such as the quantity and/or     |
|            | from our | abilities | quality of air, water, or soil; |
|            | pred     | that we   | or toxic contamination and      |
|            | ecessors | pass on   | hazardous wastes.               |
|            | and from | to future |                                 |
|            | nature   | gen       | \* Capacity of natural systems  |
|            | and      | erations. | to provide aesthetic enjoyment  |
|            | passed   |           | and recreational activities     |
|            | on to    |           |                                 |
|            | future   |           | \* Social systems including     |
|            | gene     |           | families, educational           |
|            | rations. |           | institutions, community         |
|            | We draw  |           | organizations, and governments; |
|            | upon     |           | and cultural and historical     |
|            | many     |           | resources                       |
|            | en       |           |                                 |
|            | dowments |           | \* Human capital, particularly  |
|            | to meet  |           | status of children.             |
|            | current  |           |                                 |
|            | and      |           |                                 |
|            | future   |           |                                 |
|            | needs    |           |                                 |
|            | and      |           |                                 |
|            | wants.   |           |                                 |
+------------+----------+-----------+---------------------------------+
| **P        | \(1\)    | To track  | \* General human-related        |
| rocesses** | General  | the human | processes, such as the          |
|            | p        | and       | production of consumer goods    |
|            | rocesses | natural   | and services                    |
|            | such as  | processes |                                 |
|            | human    | that      | \* General Earth system         |
|            | ac       | u         | processes, such as              |
|            | tivities | ltimately | hydrological, atmospheric,      |
|            | that     | determine | terrestrial, biological, and    |
|            | utilize  | the       | chemical processes              |
|            | assets   | extent to |                                 |
|            | and      | which     | \* General societal processes   |
|            | r        | current   | such as education or democratic |
|            | esources | and       | processes                       |
|            | (end     | future    |                                 |
|            | owments) | needs and | \* Driving forces such as the   |
|            | to yield | wants can | generation of pollutants or the |
|            | current  | be        | consumption or enhancement of   |
|            | goods    | s         | natural resources               |
|            | and      | atisfied. |                                 |
|            | s        |           | \* Driving forces such as       |
|            | ervices; |           | investment in capital and       |
|            | (2)      |           | research and development        |
|            | general  |           |                                 |
|            | Earth    |           | \* Socioeconomic driving forces |
|            | system   |           | such as poverty                 |
|            | pr       |           |                                 |
|            | ocesses; |           | \* Decision-making processes    |
|            | (3)      |           | such as law-making, regulating, |
|            | general  |           | developing policies and         |
|            | social,  |           | management approaches, and      |
|            | c        |           | marketing                       |
|            | ultural, |           |                                 |
|            | or       |           |                                 |
|            | p        |           |                                 |
|            | olitical |           |                                 |
|            | pr       |           |                                 |
|            | ocesses; |           |                                 |
|            | (4)      |           |                                 |
|            | driving  |           |                                 |
|            | forces   |           |                                 |
|            | arising  |           |                                 |
|            | from     |           |                                 |
|            | human or |           |                                 |
|            | Earth    |           |                                 |
|            | system   |           |                                 |
|            | p        |           |                                 |
|            | rocesses |           |                                 |
|            | that     |           |                                 |
|            | directly |           |                                 |
|            | affect   |           |                                 |
|            | the      |           |                                 |
|            | c        |           |                                 |
|            | ondition |           |                                 |
|            | of       |           |                                 |
|            | l        |           |                                 |
|            | ong-term |           |                                 |
|            | end      |           |                                 |
|            | owments; |           |                                 |
|            | and (5)  |           |                                 |
|            | decisio  |           |                                 |
|            | n-making |           |                                 |
|            | p        |           |                                 |
|            | rocesses |           |                                 |
|            | that     |           |                                 |
|            | utilize  |           |                                 |
|            | inf      |           |                                 |
|            | ormation |           |                                 |
|            | about    |           |                                 |
|            | current  |           |                                 |
|            | results, |           |                                 |
|            | end      |           |                                 |
|            | owments, |           |                                 |
|            | or       |           |                                 |
|            | driving  |           |                                 |
|            | forces   |           |                                 |
|            | and      |           |                                 |
|            | affect   |           |                                 |
|            | human    |           |                                 |
|            | act      |           |                                 |
|            | ivities. |           |                                 |
+------------+----------+-----------+---------------------------------+
| **Current  | The      | To track  | \* Food, clothing, and shelter  |
| Results**  | goods,   | our       |                                 |
|            | s        | success   | \* Income, financial security,  |
|            | ervices, | in        | and employment                  |
|            | and      | meeting   |                                 |
|            | co       | the needs | \* Personal and professional    |
|            | nditions | of        | services                        |
|            | enjoyed  | current   |                                 |
|            | or       | gen       | \* Safety and low pollution     |
|            | exp      | erations. |                                 |
|            | erienced |           | \* Recreational opportunities   |
|            | by       |           |                                 |
|            | current  |           | \* Freedom from crime, and      |
|            | gene     |           | national security               |
|            | rations. |           |                                 |
|            | The      |           | \* Civil rights, personal       |
|            | emphasis |           | freedom, and personal           |
|            | is on    |           | fulfillment                     |
|            | the      |           |                                 |
|            | present, |           | \* Educational achievement      |
|            | rather   |           |                                 |
|            | than on  |           |                                 |
|            | the      |           |                                 |
|            | future.  |           |                                 |
+------------+----------+-----------+---------------------------------+

The inclusion of an indicator in a particular category or subcategory of
the SDI Framework depends to some extent on the questions one asks. For
example, an indicator on population could be categorized as an endowment
in the sense that it reflects workforce capabilities or as a current
result in the sense that it reflects current conditions. Another
indicator such as income distribution, which is categorized in this
document as an economic indicator, could also be categorized as a social
indicator since it is so closely connected to a number of societal
issues.

**Using the Framework to Organize Indicators Related to a Particular
Sustainability Issue**

The SDI Group has found the framework useful in thinking about the many
dimensions of various sustainability issues. The example of the
framework below includes some of the indicators that relate to energy
and climate change. It is not intended to be a complete model of all of
the relevant factors, but simply an illustration of how the framework
can be used to organize a number of related indicators. Just a few of
the indicators in the diagram are actually included in the set of 40
indicators selected by the SDI Group and described in this document
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, investment in
research and development, and the Greenhouse Climate Response Index).
This diagram is based on some of the changes we might expect if current
greenhouse gas emission patterns continued into the future, that is, a
"business as usual" scenario.

**Figure 2.4. Framework-Energy & Climate: Initial Endowments &
Liabilities**

![](media/image5.png){width="6.0in" height="3.5194444444444444in"}

**Figure 2.5. Framework-Energy & Climate: Future Endowments &
Liabilities**

![](media/image6.png){width="6.0in" height="3.5194444444444444in"}

At this point, the SDI Framework should be viewed as an *experimental
tool.* In the coming months, the SDI Group will begin to explore how the
framework might be made more useful, and outside comments and
suggestions would be welcomed.\
**Chapter 3. Sustainability Issues and Criteria for Selecting
Indicators**

**\"This set of 40 indicators was selected from a list of over 400
candidates.\"\
**

In developing a set of sustainable development indicators, the SDI Group
felt that it was important to build on the work that had already been
done in this area. The Group drew upon related efforts by Federal
agencies; by The Netherlands and Canada; and by organizations such as
the PCSD, the OECD, the UNCSD, and the World Bank. The indicators which
some of these groups identified as being important to sustainability are
listed in the appendix.

The SDI Group also wanted to ensure that a full range of potential
issues and indicators\--not just those that had already been
identified\--could be considered for inclusion in the SDI Group's
indicator set. The Secretariat for the SDI Group convened a number of
thematic meetings\--focused on the economy, the environment, or
society\--to discuss sustainability issues and indicators that one might
wish to track, either now or in the future. These meetings included
representatives from the Federal agencies, the academic community, the
private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. The lack of fully
developed indicators or existing data did not preclude an issue or
indicator from being considered.

**General Selection Criteria**

The SDI Group developed the following general selection criteria to
screen lists of existing indicators and identify those indicators that
might be considered as candidates for the SDI Group's set of indicators.
A candidate indicator was required to meet all of these general
criteria, with the possible exception of the last (i.e., being scalable
to regional, state, and local levels)

• Represent an issue that is important to sustainable development;

• It is understandable to a general audience, even if the methodology
behind the indicator is more complicated;

• It is quantifiable;

• It is based on available data (indicators identified for future
development may be based on data that are not currently available);

• It is national in scope or relevant to an issue of national concern;
and

• It is scalable to regional, state, and local levels if appropriate for
the issue under consideration.

Using these general criteria, the SDI Group compiled a list of over 400
candidate indicators that could potentially be included in its set of
sustainable development indicators (see Appendix B).

**Specific Selection Criteria**

The SDI Group developed the following more specific criteria to narrow
this list of candidate indicators to a more manageable set and to guide
the consideration of input from the thematic meetings. Each indicator
selected for the SDI Group's indicator set was required to meet at least
one of these criteria:

• reflects changes in important endowments (e.g., public infrastructure,
air or water quality, natural resource stocks, and governmental
institutions);

• reflects an issue that could have significant costs or benefits for
current or future generations (e.g., technological advances; political
stability; loss of biodiversity, status of children, and
desertification);

• reflects an issue that can only be addressed over a period of years,
decades, or centuries (e.g., global climate change); or

• reflects an issue that involves thresholds beyond which small changes
could potentially lead to irreversible effects (e.g., endangered species
becoming extinct).

Each participating Federal agency was asked to review the list of
candidate indicators and to identify the ten indicators that it felt
should be included in the SDI Group's indicator set. The initial result
was a list of 32 different indicators.

It should be noted that in a few instances, the selection of indicators
was based on the availability of Federal data and estimates, rather than
on what one might consider to be an ideal measure. For example, the
indicators on surface water quality and air quality are based on
enforcement and/or compliance data (e.g., metropolitan air quality
non-attainment areas), rather than on the observed environmental data
itself. The SDI Group recognized that this approach is not ideal, since
changes in environmental regulations, rather than changes in
environmental quality, could generate fluctuations in the data and
result in misleading interpretations of the indicators. In the coming
months, the SDI Group will work to identify more appropriate measures
for these areas.

Follow-up discussions among participants from the SDI Group and outside
organizations resulted in the expansion of the set of 32 indicators to a
set of 40 indicators. (The outreach process is described in the
appendix.) Interestingly, the comment most frequently heard by members
of the SDI Group was, "You have too many indicators in the set, but you
need to add one more indicator on . . . " The 40-indicator set seemed to
provide the most acceptable balance between the desire to paint a
complete picture of the Nation's progress and the need to communicate
progress in simple and effective ways. Further discussion, research, and
public outreach will be required to develop a more complete picture of
any given issue and of the interactions among issues.

Table 3.1 represents some of the sustainability issues that were
identified by the SDI Group and the related indicators that were
selected for inclusion in the SDI Group's indicator set. *The order of
the indicators on the following pages is not intended to imply an
assignment of priorities.* The individual indicators are described in
the next chapter.

**Table 3.1. U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development
Indicators Issues & Indicators**

+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| ***Issue***              | ***Selected Indicators***                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Economic Prosperity**  | Capital Assets                            |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Labor Productivity                        |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Domestic Product                          |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Fiscal                 | Inflation                                 |
| Responsibility**         |                                           |
|                          | Federal Debt to GDP Ratio                 |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Scientific &           | Investment in R&D as a Percentage of GDP  |
| Technological            |                                           |
| Advancement**            |                                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Employment**           | Unemployment                              |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Equity**               | Income Distribution                       |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | People in Census Tracts with 40% or       |
|                          | Greater Poverty                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Housing**              | Homeownership Rates                       |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Percentage of Households in Housing       |
|                          | Problems                                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Consumption**          | Energy Consumption Per Capita & Per \$ of |
|                          | GDP                                       |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Materials Consumption Per Capita & Per \$ |
|                          | of GDP                                    |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Consumption Expenditures Per Capita       |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Status of Natural      | Conversion of Cropland to Other Uses      |
| Resources**              |                                           |
|                          | Soil Erosion Rates                        |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Ratio of Renewable Water Supply to        |
|                          | Withdrawals                               |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Fisheries Utilization                     |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Timber Growth to Removals Balance         |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Air & Water Quality**  | Surface Water Quality                     |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Metropolitan Air Quality Non-attainment   |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Contamination &        | Contaminants in Biota                     |
| Hazardous Materials**    |                                           |
|                          | Identification and Management of          |
|                          | Superfund Sites                           |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Quantity of Spent Nuclear Fuel            |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Ecosystem Integrity**  | Acres of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems     |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Invasive Alien Species                    |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Global Climate         | Greenhouse Gas Emissions                  |
| Change**                 |                                           |
|                          | Greenhouse Climate Response Index         |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Stratospheric Ozone    | Status of Stratospheric Ozone             |
| Depletion**              |                                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Population**           | U.S. Population                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Family Structure**     | Children Living in Families with Only One |
|                          | Parent Present                            |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Births to Single Mothers                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Arts & Recreation**    | Outdoor Recreational Activities           |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Participation in the Arts & Recreation    |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Community              | Contributing Time & Money to Charities    |
| Involvement**            |                                           |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Education**            | Teacher Training Level and Application of |
|                          | Qualifications                            |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Educational Attainment by Level           |
|                          |                                           |
|                          | Educational Achievement Rates             |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Public Safety**        | Crime Rate                                |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| **Human Health**         | Life Expectancy at Birth                  |
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+

**Chapter 4. An Experimental Set of Sustainable Development Indicators**

**\"The indicator set will change over time, as we learn more about the
conditions that support sustainable development.\"\
**

This chapter presents data on the 40 individual indicators of
sustainable development selected by the SDI Group. The criteria that
were used to select these indicators are described in Chapter 3, and a
general assessment of the indicator set as a whole is provided in
chapter 5.

This set of indicators focuses on a number of issues that we currently
believe to be important to sustainability. The indicators are organized
according to the SDI Framework which was presented in Chapter 2. They
fall into three overarching categories\--long-term endowments and
liabilities, processes, and current results. Each of these categories is
further divided in subcategories for the economy, the environment, and
society. This categorization is not rigid, and a number of the
indicators could have been categorized in several ways, depending on the
questions that one asked. But for the sake of clarity, each indicator is
listed in just one category. The main objective of this categorization
is to reflect the multidisciplinary, intergenerational, and evolving
nature of sustainable development.

The indicators listed in the long-term endowments and liabilities
category relate to issues that carry over from one generation to the
next. They can provide some insights into the challenges or
opportunities that we may face in the future, such as toxic
contamination or global climate change.

All of the process indicators selected by the SDI Group reflect driving
forces that have a direct effect on long-term endowments or liabilities,
such as fisheries utilization or soil erosion rates. These indicators
focus our attention on the processes that we may need to change if we
are failing to meet current human needs or if we are depleting our
endowments (economic, environmental, or social).

The indicators that are included in the current results category relate
to our ability to meet today's needs and wants. The SDI Group recognized
that the results measured by some of the current results indicators may
not necessarily be desirable in the long term; they are included because
meeting current needs, as we perceive them, is an important element of
sustainability. Any trends that indicate a failure to meet our own needs
would suggest problems related to our endowments or to the processes by
which we use them. Identifying and addressing such problems is essential
in realizing a path of sustainable development.

The selection of an appropriate length for data time series to be used
in developing a set of indicators is an important issue. Initially, the
SDI Group recommended that the time series for each indicator start with
1970 data and end with the most current data available. Using such a
standard time series would make it easier to compare trends from
indicator to indicator. However, as the agencies developed indicators,
they found they needed flexibility in selecting time series for each
indicator. In some cases, our society has only recently identified
important endowments and processes that need to be measured and
assessed.

Consequently, available data series for several important indicators
cover only a few years. Despite these limitations, several such
indicators are included in the experimental set to provide support for
continuing to collect such data, and to establish a base line for
assessing trends in the future.

In some cases, very long data series are required to accurately access
trends in endowment status. For example, assessing the status of natural
ecosystems requires a time series going back before European settlement
to establish an accurate baseline so this generation can adequately
assess what it inherited and what is being passed on to future
generations. Ecosystem coverage prior to European settlement can be
estimated from soil data, the distribution of native flora and fauna,
and historical records. From estimates of coverage, we see that over
half of our wetlands were lost before 1950. Since then, we have greatly
slowed the rate of loss but have not succeeded in establishing a
significant trend towards restoration.

At this point, no attempt has been made to prioritize or assign
different weights to the 40 indicators or to combine them into
aggregated indices; nor has any attempt been made to conduct a
comprehensive assessment. In the coming months, the SDI Group will
strive to gain a better understanding of the interactions, trade-offs,
and relative importance of various sustainability issues and indicators.
One of the Group's tasks will be to explore the development of a set of
indicators that relate to various sustainability themes (e.g., economic
prosperity, consumption, natural resources, equity, or quality of life).
Although continuity from year to year might be desirable, it seems
likely that the set of indicators that is most useful will change as our
base of knowledge expands and our priorities shift. The ultimate goal is
to develop the types of informational tools that will be most useful to
policy makers and the public in making decisions that further
sustainability.

The following three tables list the 40 indicators selected by the SDI
Group. Table 4.1 organizes the indicators based on the economic,
environmental, and social subcategories of the SDI Framework; Table 4.2
organizes the indicators based on the SDI Framework categories of
long-term endowments and liabilities, processes, and current results;
and Table 4.3 is a combination of the first two tables. The tables are
followed by a brief description of each indicator.

Each indicator is presented using one or more graphs. The data used to
generate these graphs is available on the SDI Group Website:
http://www.sdi.gov . If you have questions about the data for a specific
indicator that cannot be resolved using the reference material, contact
the representative of the agency that provided the indicator, or contact
the SDI Group at sdi@ios.doi.gov. Names and addresses for agency
representatives are listed in Appendix E.

**List of Indicators**

Economic Indicators

Environmental Indicators

Social Indicators

**Economic Indicators**

Capital Assets

Labor Productivity

Federal Debt to GDP Ratio

Energy Consumption Per Capita & Per \$ of GDP

Materials Consumption Per Capita and Per \$ of GDP

Inflation

Investment in R&D as Percentage of GDP

Domestic Product

Income Distribution

Consumption Expenditures per Capita

Unemployment

Homeownership Rates

Percentage of Households in Problem Housing

**Environmental Indicators**

Surface Water Quality

Acres of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems

Contaminants in Biota

Quantity of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Status of Stratospheric Ozone

Greenhouse Climate Response Index

Ratio of Renewable Water Supply to Withdrawls

Fisheries Utilization

Invasive Alien Species

Conversion of Cropland to Other Uses

Soil Erosion Rates

Timber Growth to Removals Balance

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Identification & Management of Superfund Sites

Metropolitan Air Quality Non-attainment

Outdoor Recreation Activities

**Social Indicators**

U.S. Population

Children Living in Families with One Parent Present

Teacher Training Level and Application of Qualifications

Contributing Time & Money to Charities

Births to Single Mothers

Educational Attainment by Level

Participation in the Arts & Recreation

People in Census Tracts with 40% or Greater Poverty

Crime Rate

Life Expectancy at Birth

Educational Achievements Rates

Table 4.1. Economic, Environmental, and Social View of Indicators

+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| # Economic     | #              | # Social                           |
|                |  Environmental |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Capital Assets | Surface Water  | U.S. Population                    |
|                | Quality        |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Labor          | Acres of Major | Children Living in Families with   |
| Productivity   | Terrestrial    | Only One Parent Present            |
|                | Ecosystems     |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Federal Debt   | Contaminants   | Teacher Training Level and         |
| to GDP Ratio   | in Biota       | Application of Qualifications      |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Quantity of    | Contributing Time & Money to       |
|                | Spent Nuclear  | Charities                          |
|                | Fuel           |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Energy         | Status of      | Births to Single Mothers           |
| Consumption    | Stratospheric  |                                    |
| Per Capita &   | Ozone          |                                    |
| Per \$ of GDP  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Materials      | Greenhouse     | Educational Attainment by Level    |
| Consumption    | Climate        |                                    |
| Per Capita &   | Response Index |                                    |
| Per \$ of GDP  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Inflation      | Ratio of       | Participation in the Arts &        |
|                | Renewable      | Recreation                         |
|                | Water Supply   |                                    |
|                | to Withdrawals |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Investment in  | Fisheries      | People in Census Tracts with 40%   |
| R&D as a       | Utilization    | or Greater Poverty                 |
| Percentage of  |                |                                    |
| GDP            |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Domestic       | Invasive Alien | Crime Rate                         |
| Product        | Species        |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Income         | Conversion of  | Life Expectancy at Birth           |
| Distribution   | Cropland to    |                                    |
|                | Other Uses     |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Consumption    | Soil Erosion   | Educational Achievement Rates      |
| Expenditures   | Rates          |                                    |
| per Capita     |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Unemployment   | Timber Growth  |                                    |
|                | to Removals    |                                    |
|                | Balance        |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Homeownership  | Greenhouse Gas |                                    |
| Rates          | Emissions      |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Percentage of  | Identification |                                    |
| Households in  | & Management   |                                    |
| Problem        | of Superfund   |                                    |
| Housing        | Sites          |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Metropolitan   |                                    |
|                | Air Quality    |                                    |
|                | Non-attainment |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Outdoor        |                                    |
|                | Recreational   |                                    |
|                | Activities     |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+

Table 4.2. Long-term Endowments & Liabilities, Processes, and Current
Results View of Indicators

+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| ***Long-term   | # Processes    | ***Current Results***              |
| Endowments &   |                |                                    |
| Liabilities*** |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Capital Assets |                | Domestic Product                   |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Labor          | Energy         | Income Distribution                |
| Productivity   | Consumption    |                                    |
|                | Per Capita &   |                                    |
|                | Per \$ of GDP  |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Federal Debt   | Materials      | Consumption Expenditures per       |
| to GDP Ratio   | Consumption    | Capita                             |
|                | Per Capita &   |                                    |
|                | Per \$ of GDP  |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Surface Water  | Inflation      | Unemployment                       |
| Quality        |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Acres of Major | Investment in  | Homeownership Rates                |
| Terrestrial    | R&D as a       |                                    |
| Ecosystems     | Percentage of  |                                    |
|                | GDP            |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Contaminants   | Ratio of       | Percentage of Households in        |
| in Biota       | Renewable      | Problem Housing                    |
|                | Water Supply   |                                    |
|                | to Withdrawals |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Quantity of    | Fisheries      | Metropolitan Air Quality           |
| Spent Nuclear  | Utilization    | Non-attainment                     |
| Fuel           |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Status of      | Invasive Alien | Outdoor Recreational Activities    |
| Stratospheric  | Species        |                                    |
| Ozone          |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Greenhouse     | Conversion of  | Crime Rate                         |
| Climate        | Cropland to    |                                    |
| Response Index | Other Uses     |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| U.S.           | Soil Erosion   | Life Expectancy at Birth           |
| Population     | Rates          |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Children       | Timber Growth  | Educational Achievement Rates      |
| Living in      | to Removals    |                                    |
| Families with  | Balance        |                                    |
| Only One       |                |                                    |
| Parent Present |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Teacher        | Greenhouse Gas |                                    |
| Training Level | Emissions      |                                    |
| and            |                |                                    |
| Application of |                |                                    |
| Qualifications |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Identification |                                    |
|                | & Management   |                                    |
|                | of Superfund   |                                    |
|                | Sites          |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Contributing   |                                    |
|                | Time & Money   |                                    |
|                | to Charities   |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Births to      |                                    |
|                | Single Mothers |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Educational    |                                    |
|                | Attainment by  |                                    |
|                | Level          |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | Participation  |                                    |
|                | in the Arts &  |                                    |
|                | Recreation     |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
|                | People in      |                                    |
|                | Census Tracts  |                                    |
|                | with 40% or    |                                    |
|                | Greater        |                                    |
|                | Poverty        |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+

Table 4.3. Multiple Views of Indicators

+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| ***Long-term  |                 |                                    |
| Endowments &  |                 |                                    |
| L             |                 |                                    |
| iabilities*** |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| # Economic    | ***E            | ***Social***                       |
|               | nvironmental*** |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Capital       | Surface Water   | U.S. Population                    |
| Assets        | Quality         |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Labor         | Acres of Major  | Children Living in Families with   |
| Productivity  | Terrestrial     | Only One Parent Present            |
|               | Ecosystems      |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Federal Debt  | Contaminants in | Teacher Training Level and         |
| to GDP Ratio  | Biota           | Application of Qualifications      |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Quantity of     |                                    |
|               | Spent Nuclear   |                                    |
|               | Fuel            |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Status of       |                                    |
|               | Stratospheric   |                                    |
|               | Ozone           |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Greenhouse      |                                    |
|               | Climate         |                                    |
|               | Response Index  |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| **            |                 |                                    |
| *Processes*** |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| *             | ***E            | ***Social***                       |
| **Economic*** | nvironmental*** |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Ratio of        | Contributing Time & Money to       |
|               | Renewable Water | Charities                          |
|               | Supply to       |                                    |
|               | Withdrawals     |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Energy        | Fisheries       | Births to Single Mothers           |
| Consumption   | Utilization     |                                    |
| Per Capita &  |                 |                                    |
| Per \$ of GDP |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Materials     | Invasive Alien  | Educational Attainment by Level    |
| Consumption   | Species         |                                    |
| Per Capita &  |                 |                                    |
| Per \$ of GDP |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Inflation     | Conversion of   | Participation in the Arts &        |
|               | Cropland to     | Recreation                         |
|               | Other Uses      |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Investment in | Soil Erosion    | People in Census Tracts with 40%   |
| R&D as a      | Rates           | or Greater Poverty                 |
| Percentage of |                 |                                    |
| GDP           |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Timber Growth   |                                    |
|               | to Removals     |                                    |
|               | Balance         |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Greenhouse Gas  |                                    |
|               | Emissions       |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
|               | Identification  |                                    |
|               | & Management of |                                    |
|               | Superfund Sites |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| ***Current    |                 |                                    |
| Results***    |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| *             | ***E            | ***Social***                       |
| **Economic*** | nvironmental*** |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Domestic      | Metropolitan    | Crime Rate                         |
| Product       | Air Quality     |                                    |
|               | Non-attainment  |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Income        | Outdoor         | Life Expectancy                    |
| Distribution  | Recreational    |                                    |
|               | Activities      |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Consumption   |                 | Educational Achievement Rates      |
| Expenditures  |                 |                                    |
| Per Capita    |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Unemployment  |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Homeownership |                 |                                    |
| Rates         |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+
| Percentage of |                 |                                    |
| Households in |                 |                                    |
| Problem       |                 |                                    |
| Housing       |                 |                                    |
+---------------+-----------------+------------------------------------+

**Economic Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

Capital Assets

Labor Productivity

Federal Debt to GDP Ratio

Energy Consumption Per Capita & Per \$ of GDP

Materials Consumption Per Capita and Per \$ of GDP

Inflation

Investment in R&D as Percentage of GDP

Domestic Product

Income Distribution

Consumption Expenditures per Capita

Unemployment

Homeownership Rates

Percentage of Households in Problem Housing

**Capital Assets**

Capital assets are one measure of the economic endowment that we pass on
to the future. If a nation continues to invest sufficiently and
successfully, its net tangible wealth increases.

A common measure of capital assets is the net stock of fixed
reproducible tangible. This measure comprises fixed private capital,
fixed government capital, and consumer durables, such as automobiles and
other goods with an expected service life of three years or more. It
also includes equipment and structures (such as bridges, highways, and
houses). This measure reflects annual investment and depreciation by the
private sector and government, but it does not include human capital,
such as direct investments in education and training.

Labor and the stock of capital, primarily in the form of structures and
equipment\--combined with the unmeasured but essential stock of
knowledge\--are used to produce the current output of goods and
services.

Figure 4.1 shows that since 1970, the net stock of fixed reproducible
tangible wealth doubled. This upward trend in capital assets is one
indicator of our progress in creating a solid economic foundation for
future generations.

Figure 4.1. Net Fixed Reproducible Wealth, 1970-1994

![](media/image7.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

For a discussion of chained dollars, see the "Preview of the
Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts:
BEA's New Featured Measures of Output and Prices," by Steven Landefeld
and Robert Parker in the *Survey of the Current Business*, July 1995,
pp. 31-38.

**Economic Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Labor Productivity**

Labor productivity is one of the capacities that makes economic
prosperity possible\--along with natural resources, materials, and
energy discussed in other indicators\--and in this sense, it is an
important variable to track in the context of sustainable development.
It can be measured as the output of all workers per hour. In general, as
workers produce more per hour, wages increase and standards of living
rise. Total labor productivity in the United States has increased since
1970, but the annual rate of increase has slowed. (see Figure 4.2.)

A number of factors drive increases in labor productivity and economic
growth, such as increases in physical capital, improvements in human
capital, and technological changes. In general, if labor productivity
continues to rise, future generations will be able to produce more goods
and services with a given amount of labor.

Figure 4.2. Productivity, 1970-1997

![](media/image8.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Note: Data are for the nonfarm business sector.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor

**Economic Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Federal Debt to GDP Ratio**

The measure of Federal debt that closely reflects the Federal
government's true debt obligations is "debt held by the public," defined
as gross Federal debt less the debt held in Federal government accounts.
As the chart shows, following World War II, Federal debt held by the
public was 111% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1946. It then fell
steadily as a percent of GDP to 23.9% in 1974. From 1974 to 1993, debt
held by the public rose from 23.9% to 50.2% of GDP. By 1996, debt held
by the public had declined to 49.9% of GDP.

Some regard the Federal debt as a sustainable development problem
because of the constraints it may place on future generations. But
unlike personal and corporate debt which limit future spending by
individuals and corporations, the greatest concerns about public debt
relate to distributional issues and to the desire to demonstrate fiscal
responsibility. For every debt owed by one institution, there is an
equal asset on the books of other institutions or individuals to whom
the debt is owed. With Federal debt, the burden of financing the debt is
shared across the American population, while the benefits accrue only to
those who can afford to hold the bonds (both in this country and
abroad).

Figure 4.3. Federal Debt Held by the Public, 1945-1995

![](media/image9.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury

**Economic Indicators\--Processes**

**Energy Consumption Per Capita and Per \$ of GDP**

Energy consumption per capita is calculated as the sum of all energy
consumed in the Nation in a given year divided by the population.
Consumption for all forms of energy is presented in British Thermal
Units (BTUs) to produce a common unit of measure.

Energy consumption per capita and energy consumption per dollar of gross
domestic product (GDP) are two widely used indicators of energy
consumption. Over the last 50 years, energy consumption per capita has
generally increased, while energy consumption per dollar of GDP has
decreased.

End use energy consumption is total energy consumption less losses
incurred in the generation, transmission, and distribution of
electricity, less power plant electricity use and unaccounted for
electrical system energy losses.

Energy consumption per capita reflects personal access to and use of
energy services such as heat, light, and mobility; but it does not tell
us what mix of energy services were actually utilized or what the
environmental and social effects of that energy use were. Energy
consumption per dollar of GDP highlights the economic efficiency of use.
Indicators of energy consumption can reflect the average material
well-being (access to warmth, transportation, electricity, and economic
activity), as well as the average efficiency of industrial processes
across the Nation.

It may also be useful to examine energy production and use related to
various sectors of the economy. For example, total vehicle-miles
traveled may be a useful indicator in assessing the contribution of
transportation sector to the nationwide consumption of energy. In 1994,
the Federal Highway Administration estimated that the total
vehicle-miles traveled in the United States was 2.36 trillion miles, and
that the average number of miles traveled per vehicle was 11,697 miles.
Total annual fuel consumption was 140.5 billion gallons or an average of
705 gallons per vehicle. This is a decrease since 1970, when the average
annual fuel consumption per vehicle was 830 gallons; but it is an
increase since 1990, when the average annual fuel consumption per
vehicle was 677 gallons.

Energy consumption is important from an environmental standpoint since
the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about 85% of current
U.S. energy supply, results in the emission of greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases can contribute to global climate change.

**Note:**

A comprehensive review of the National Income and Protection Accounts
was released by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce in early 1996 that resulted
in changes to the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) series; the
revised values for energy consumption per dollar of GDP for the years
1949-1958 were not available for inclusion in this graph.

**Reference:** Council on Environmental Quality, 25th Annual Report,
1994.

Figure 4.4. Energy Consumption Per Capita, 1949-1995

![](media/image10.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy

Figure 4.5. Energy Consumption per Dollar of GDP, 1959-1995

![](media/image11.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy

**Economic Indicators\--Processes**

**Materials Consumption Per Capita and Per \$ of GDP**

Materials use is shown here as the weight of materials consumed annually
per capita and per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP). The
term "materials" includes all raw materials used in manufacturing and
construction, such as wood, paper, metals, industrial minerals,
construction materials, and organic materials (e.g., asphalt and
plastics). It does not include the raw materials used for fuel or food.
In these indicators, the consumption of materials is measured by weight,
so the indicators are dominated by the heavier materials.
(Alternatively, materials use could be measured by volume.)

There continue to be abundant reserves of many materials; and advances
in product design, production, and recovery of materials are improving
the efficiency of utilization. At the current time, ensuring the
availability of most materials for future generations is not a major
concern in the United States. There are a few exceptions, such as
fertilizers and hardwood lumber. Total material use has risen
dramatically throughout this century, as has materials use per capita.
As the global population continues to grow, the availability of
materials could potentially become a concern, but it will depend on
factors such as the use per capita, advances in energy efficiency, and
the potential extraction of previously unavailable reserves.

A more immediate concern regarding materials is the impact of materials
extraction, processing, and utilization on the environment. The
extraction of materials can lead to the potential disruption of natural
habitats and ecosystems. In addition, toxic wastes can be released into
the environment when the materials are processed and manufactured into
products or when the resulting products are used and then disposed by
consumers. Other indicators related to ecosystems, the contamination of
biota, and air and water quality reflect these problems.

In recent years, the U.S. economy has become more dependent on the
delivery of services rather than on the traditional manufacturing and
industrial sectors. The slight decline in materials use per unit of GDP
over the past decade may be due in part to this shift in economic
activity. Yet other than for wood and primary metals, the decline in
consumption relative to GDP is not statistically significant at this
point in time. Foreign goods represent a rising percentage of the
products purchased by U.S. consumers, and the materials used to make
these imported goods are not included in the data presented here. On the
other hand, materials shipped overseas as U.S. exports or foreign aid
are included in the data. A more complete picture of U.S. materials
consumption could be obtained by including the weight of imported
materials and subtracting the weight of materials shipped overseas.

A recent study by institutions in the United States, The Netherlands,
Germany, and Japan adds to direct material inputs the "hidden flows" of
materials that result from economic activity. Examples include the
wastes in ore that are removed by mining and smelting, the earth moved
for the construction of infrastructure, and the erosion of soil due to
agriculture. These hidden flows are not part of the indicator pictured
above, but we may wish to incorporate these and other factors into this
indicator in future years. (A separate indicator on soil erosion appears
later in this chapter.)\
**Reference:** World Resources Institute, *Resource Flows: The Material
Basis of Industrial Economies.\
*

Figure 4.6. Intensity of Materials Use by Population, 1910-1990

![](media/image12.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Minerals Information Team, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior

Figure 4.7. Intensity of Materials Use by GDP,
1910-1990![](media/image13.png){width="6.0in"
height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Minerals Information Team, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior

**Economic Indicators\--Processes**

**Inflation**

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the most widely quoted figure
measuring inflation. It reflects the overall rate of price change for a
market basket of goods and services bought by households. When inflation
rises, it may be more difficult for some consumers to purchase needed
goods and services (e.g., food, clothing, and shelter), especially if
wages do not keep pace with inflation. Those members of society who live
on fixed incomes are more likely to experience economic stress than
those who can adapt to the economic instability; and this can accentuate
economic distributional issues.

This chart illustrates that inflation, as measured by the CPI, has been
low and stable in recent years. Since 1992, the annual increase in
prices has been 3% or less. However, there have been a few periods in
U.S. history when prices have increased rapidly; the most recent episode
was in the late 1970s when prices rose by more than 13%.

Figure 4.8. The Consumer Price Index, 1970-1998

![](media/image14.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor

**Economic Indicators\--Processes**

**Investment in Research and Development as a Percentage of GDP**

Scientific-technological advancements often result from expenditures for
basic and applied research and development (R&D). Basic research can
advance general scientific knowledge about natural phenomena. Applied
research is directed at discovering scientific knowledge with specific
benefits to human society and commerce. Development is the systematic
use of scientific knowledge to develop advanced technologies and
approaches that benefit the economy, the environment, and society as a
whole. In the early 1950s, U.S. R&D expenditures were approximately 1.5%
of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the Federal government provided
about 55% of the total. However, by 1975 as indicated in Figure 4.9,
over 2% of GDP was going to R&D, and by the 1990s, R&D expenditures
ranged between 2.5% and 2.8% of GDP and the Federal share had dropped to
about 35%.

Investment in R&D and the resulting scientific and technological
advances can enhance sustainability by improving our understanding of
the Earth system and how we interact with it and by providing a broader
range of options for responding to various challenges (economic,
environmental, or social). At the same time, the new technologies may
have unintended consequences related to employment, environmental
quality, or ensuring equal opportunity for all individuals, regardless
of economic status. A truly meaningful evaluation of how R&D
expenditures affect sustainability should include an assessment of the
full range of costs and benefits that result from the scientific and
technological advances.

Figure 4.9. U.S. Total and Non-Defense R&D Expenditures as a Percentage
of GDP, 1975-1990

![](media/image15.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Commerce

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Domestic Product**

Gross domestic product (GDP) is one of the most widely used indicators
of economic prosperity, and it includes the total output of goods and
services for final use produced by labor and capital located in the
United States. Net domestic product (NDP) adjusts GDP for the
consumption of capital goods and infrastructure, but neither measure
accounts for changes in stocks of natural resources or in the aesthetic
value of the environment. While it may be conceptually preferable in the
context of sustainable development to use NDP as an indicator of
economic prosperity, the movement of the two series is virtually
identical. Either indicator shows that aggregate domestic output has
more than doubled since 1970, after adjusting for inflation.1 At the
same time, it is important to note that these traditional measures of
economic output do not adequately represent related environmental and
societal variables that are important to sustainable development. Some
economic transactions included in GDP may reflect environmental and
social costs (e.g., costs associated with protection against crime or
with recovery efforts following natural disasters), rather than
contributions to the Nation's overall prosperity.

**Note:**

1 This series is adjusted for inflation using chained 1992 dollars. For
a discussion, see the "Preview of the Comprehensive Revision of the
National Income and Product Accounts: BEA's New Featured Measures of
Output and Prices," by J. Steven Landefeld and Robert Parker in the
*Survey of Current Business*, July, 1995, pp. 31-38.

Figure 4.10. Domestic Product, 1970-1994

![](media/image16.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Income Distribution**

One indicator of income distribution is the change in average income of
each fifth of households. This indicator is affected by---but does not
make explicit---the movements of specific households between income
groups over time.1 Since 1970 average household income for the top fifth
of households increased by 37% while the bottom fifth increased by 12%.
The top 5% of households had an even larger increase of 54%. The lower
middle fifth shows the lowest increase, only 2%. The middle and upper
middle groups, with increases of 6 and 16%, respectively, also gained
less than the top fifth. The long-term increase in income disparity for
all income groups relative to the top fifth is influenced by many
factors, including labor market and social changes.2 When examined over
a period of years, income distribution can provide a useful measure of
equity from one generation to the next. This intergenerational equity is
a central component of sustainable development.

**Notes:**

1 See "Moving Up and Down the Income Ladder," by Wilfred Masumura,
*Current Population Reports*, P-70-56, June, 1996. According to
unpublished Census data, about 35% of the population experiences an
income change of 20% or more each year, and Masumura estimates that
three-fourths see their income go either up or down by at least 5%.

2 See "A Brief Look at Postwar U.S. Income Inequality," by Daniel
Weinberg, *Current Population Reports*, P-60-191, Census Bureau, June,
1996.

Figure 4.11. Average Income Trends, 1970-1994

![](media/image17.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Consumption Expenditures Per Capita**

One measure of standard of living used by economists is personal
consumption expenditures (PCE) per person adjusted for inflation. PCE
measures the value of goods and services purchased by residents in the
United States. It includes purchases of autos, major appliances, food,
clothing, medical care, utilities, housing services, insurance, used
goods, and purchases abroad by U.S. residents.

Per capita PCE is an indicator of current economic prosperity. Except
for recessionary periods, inflation-adjusted PCE per person has shown an
upward trend over the last 25 years and has increased more than 60%
during that period.

It should be noted that per capita PCE reflects only the amount of money
one is able to spend on goods and services and not necessarily the value
of those goods and services from the standpoint of sustainable
development. For example, some equally-priced products may last longer
or be produced through more environmentally-sound processes than others;
these differences in sustainability value are not reflected by PCE. In
addition, some expenditures are incurred to protect oneself against
negative experiences (e.g., security systems are purchased as protection
against crime); these are expenditures that one might prefer not to need
or want. In the context of sustainable development, it might be useful
to develop a complementary indicator that reflects the value that people
feel they are getting from their purchases of goods and services.

Figure 4.12. Personal Consumption Expenditures Per Person, 1970-1995

![](media/image18.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Unemployment**

Unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the labor force who
are seeking employment. The labor force is defined as those employed
plus those who are actively looking for employment. The unemployment
rate is a major indicator of the degree to which the economy provides
jobs for those seeking work.

Since 1970, the average annual rate of unemployment has fluctuated from
a high of 9.7% in 1982 to 5.6% in 1994. In recent years, it has fallen
below 5%, reaching a low of 4.5% in 1998.

In the context of sustainable development, the particular unemployment
rate in any given year\--which depends largely on the business cycle and
other short-term economic variables\--is not as important as the impacts
of unemployment on individuals, families, and society as a whole. Those
who are chronically or repeatedly unemployed or who become unemployed
during recessionary periods may be unable to meet their basic needs
(e.g., for food, clothing, and shelter). In addition, when unemployment
rates are high, it puts additional strain on the Nation's social service
programs and diverts resources from other pressing needs.\
Figure 4.13. Civilian Unemployment rate, 1970-1998

![](media/image19.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Homeownership Rates**

The homeownership rate is the percentage of total occupied units which
are owner-occupied. It provides a useful measure of national economic
and social well-being. Homeownership continues to be an important part
of the American dream, and although some people prefer to rent, the
majority of Americans want to own a home.

In 1949, the United States set a national housing goal of a decent home
in a suitable environment for every American. After World War II, when
homeownership was about 45%, the rate rose steadily to reach a peak of
65.6% in 1980. After a period of lower rates, homeownership has begun to
rise again and in 1997, it reached 65.7%, passing the peak set in 1980.

Figure 4.14. Homeownership Rates, 1965-1997

![](media/image20.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

**Economic Indicators\--Current Results**

**Percentage of Households in Problem Housing**

In 1993, 29% of U.S. households had one or more of three housing
problems: physically inadequate housing, crowded housing, or housing
that costs more than 30% of household income. Crowded housing is defined
as housing in which there is more than one person per room. Crowded
housing decreased from 4.1% in 1978 to 2.5% in 1993. Inadequate housing
is defined as housing that has moderate or severe physical problems;
this has also become less common, decreasing from 8.7% in 1978 to 6.4%
in 1993. The percentage of houses with severe physical problems has also
declined from 3.4% in 1978 to 2% in 1993.

Improvements in housing conditions have been accompanied by rising
housing costs. Between 1978 and 1993, households paying more than 30% of
their income for housing increased from 16% to 25%. The percentage of
households with severe cost burdens\--paying more than half of their
income for housing\--increased from 7% to 10%. The percentage of
households with priority housing problems\--those with severe cost
burdens and/or severe physical problems\--increased from 9% in 1978 to
11% in 1993. Renters are more likely than owners to experience housing
problems. In 1993, 39% of renters had one or more housing problems,
compared to 22.5% of owners; and renters were more than twice as likely
as owners to have priority housing problems (i.e., severe cost burdens
and/or severe physical problems).

This indicator reflects the current housing stock and its
distribution\--important factors in assessing human well-being today. It
also provides some insights on the extent to which our children and
grandchildren may be faced with housing issues, since the housing
problems that are not solved today are passed on to the next generation.

Figure 4.15. Housing Problems, 1978-1993

![](media/image21.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

Surface Water Quality

Acres of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems

Contaminants in Biota

Quantity of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Status of Stratospheric Ozone

Greenhouse Climate Response Index

Ratio of Renewable Water Supply to Withdrawls

Fisheries Utilization

Invasive Alien Species

Conversion of Cropland to Other Uses

Soil Erosion Rates

Timber Growth to Removals Balance

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Identification & Management of Superfund Sites

Metropolitan Air Quality Non-attainment

Outdoor Recreation Activities

**Surface Water Quality**

A clean, abundant supply of water is essential to sustainable
development because it is required by all forms of life (humans, other
animals, plants, and other organisms) and supports a range of human
activities such as agriculture, recreation, mining, and manufacturing.
The United States is a water-rich nation with 3.5 million miles of
rivers and streams and 41 million acres of lakes. Many of these surface
waters, however, are polluted. Over the past 25 years, water quality has
improved and the most conspicuous point sources of pollution have been
eliminated; but water pollution continues to be a problem. Agriculture
is a major source of pollution for streams, rivers, and lakes today.
Other important sources of pollution include industrial and municipal
point sources, urban runoff, mining, and runoff and siltation associated
with the destruction of natural habitat.

Since the passage of the Clean Water Act, the quality of U.S. surface
waters has gradually improved even though the population and economy
have expanded (Figure 4.16). The most positive trend has been for total
phosphorus: concentration levels for total phosphorus have dropped at
22% of the stations analyzed in the U.S. Geological Survey's National
Stream Quality Assessment Network and shown no change in trends at 73%
of the stations. In contrast, nitrate levels have decreased at only 8%
of the stations and shown no trend at 86% of the stations. Suspended
sediments have decreased at 11% of the stations and shown no trend at
87% of the stations; and dissolved solids have decreased at 14% of the
stations and shown no trend at 78% of the stations. Concentrations of
heavy metals and persistent toxic chemicals in lakes increased until the
1970s but have declined since then due to regulatory controls. However,
since lakes tend to flush their contents very slowly, these toxic
substances (particularly mercury) continue to limit the use of some lake
resources.

Using water quality measurements by Federal and state agencies, a
portion of U.S. surface waters are periodically assessed to determine
their suitability for designated uses such as supporting aquatic life,
recreation, agriculture, and domestic uses. In 1994, roughly 50% of the
surface waters fully supported designated uses (Figures 4.17, 4.18, and
4.19). Threatened waters support designated uses at the current time,
but they may not support these uses in the future unless actions are
taken to control pollution. Partially supporting waters are in fair
condition and fail to meet designated uses on some occasions. Waters
that do not support designated uses are in poor condition and frequently
fail to meet criteria. Siltation, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides
are the most common pollutants in streams and rivers; while metals,
nutrients, organic enrichment, and siltation are the most common causes
of pollution in lakes.

**Reference:**

Council on Environmental Quality, *Environmental Quality, 24th Annual
Report,* 1993; and Council on Environmental Quality, *Environmental
Quality, 25th Annual Report,* 1994-1995.

Figure 4.16. Ambient Water Quality in U.S. Rivers & Streams, 1975-1993

![](media/image22.png){width="6.0in" height="4.379861111111111in"}

\* Data for total lead and dissolved oxygen were only available for the
years 1979-1992.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, and
Secretariat for the SDI Group using data from the 24th and 25th Annual
Reports of the Council on Environmental Quality

Figure 4.17. Percent of Assessed U.S. Rivers & Streams Supporting
Designated Uses, 1994.

![](media/image23.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Note: Based on an assessment of 17% of U.S. river and stream miles.

Figure 4.18. Percent of Assessed U.S. Lakes, Ponds & Reservoirs
Supporting Designated Uses, 1994.

![](media/image24.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Note: Based on an assessment of 42% of U.S. lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs.

Figure 4.19. Percent of Assessed U.S. Estuaries Supporting Designated
Uses, 1994.

![](media/image25.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Note: Based on an assessment of 78% of U.S. estuary square miles.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, and
Secretariat for the SDI Group using data from the 24th and 25th Annual
Reports of the Council on Environmental Quality

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Acres of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems**

Ecological systems, conventionally referred to as ecosystems, are
interconnected communities of living organisms, including humans, and
the physical environment (e.g., climate, fire, hydrology, geology,
topography) in which they interact. Stressed ecosystems are those
ecological systems that are diminished or degraded through habitat loss,
fragmentation, or contamination and that no longer support complete,
thriving populations of native flora and fauna. These ecosystems are
unable to sustain the full range of ecological functions (e.g.,
supporting normal animal migration patterns).

Ecosystems and their component species provide us with food, fuel,
fiber, medicines, and natural capacities for cleansing the air and
water. The full function of most species is not completely understood,
but each has an important role to play in the "web of life." As we gain
a better understanding of the structure and function of ecosystems, we
are better able to identify and implement the steps needed to restore
ecosystems that are in decline.

There have been significant changes in the size and ecological integrity
of some ecosystems since the middle of the 18th century. Approximately
21 ecosystems in the United States have been identified as being
particularly stressed:

• South Florida landscape

• Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest

• longleaf pine forests and savannas

• eastern grasslands, savannas, and barrens

• northwestern grasslands and savannas

• California native grasslands

• coastal communities in the lower 48 states and Hawaii

• southwestern riparian forests

• Southern California coastal sage scrub

• Hawaiian dry forest

• large streams and rivers in the lower 48 States and Hawaii

• cave and karst systems

• tallgrass prairie

• California riparian forests and wetlands

• Florida scrub

• ancient eastern deciduous forest

• ancient forest of Pacific Northwest

• ancient red and white pine forest of the Great Lakes States

• ancient Ponderosa pine forest

• midwestern wetlands

• southern forested wetlands

It should be emphasized that the graph shown above does not include
agricultural ecosystems, and most of the declines we have seen in other
terrestrial ecosystems have been due to agricultural conversion.
Although this indicator reflects the success of efforts to restore
forests, rangelands, and wetlands in recent years, it does not reflect
the important trade-offs between maintaining those ecosystems and
meeting agricultural and urban land needs.

**References:**

• Dahl, T. E and G. J. Allord, *"History of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States,"* in USGS National Water Summary on Wetland Resources,
Water Supply Paper 2425, 1996.

• Council on Environmental Quality, *Environmental Trends*, 1989.

• Council on Environmental Quality, *Environmental Quality: 25th Annual
Report*, 1994-95.

• Noss, R. F. and R. L. Peters, *Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report
on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife*, The Defenders of Wildlife,
1995.

• Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott, *Draft Report:
Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of
Loss and Degradation*, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995.

Figure 4.20. Estimated Acres of Major Terrestrial Ecosystems, 1650-1995

![](media/image26.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Biological Research Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Contaminants in Biota**

Biota (living organisms) can become contaminated with toxic substances
by ingesting contaminated water, food, or other substances; inhaling
toxic substances in the atmosphere; respiring contaminated water; or
bathing or swimming in contaminated waters. Biota often become
contaminated when they are exposed to substances that they can not
readily metabolize or excrete at high enough concentrations or
frequencies. The contamination of biota is often manifested in altered
metabolic or endocrine processes, developmental or reproductive
abnormalities, or the rapid and aberrant growth of certain cells (as in
tumors or cancers). In many cases, the contamination of terrestrial,
freshwater, or marine organisms can be an indicator of the impacts of
human activities on the environment, as well as a warning sign of the
potential contamination of human populations. An upward trend would not
be sustainable indefinitely.

Extensive monitoring of the contamination of freshwater fish and birds
by persistent pesticides and other synthetic organic compounds has been
conducted since the early 1970s. Figure 4.21 demonstrates that the
overall concentrations of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and
its derivatives and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have declined in
freshwater fish since the 1970s. In the 1960s and early 1970s, DDT (a
pesticide) and PCBs (a family of industrial compounds) were widely used,
and they eventually washed into rivers and lakes and accumulated in fish
and other organisms. Contaminated fish were eaten by eagles, which in
turn accumulated the DDT, impairing their ability to produce viable
eggs. As the use of DDT and PCBs was curtailed during the 1970s, fish
became less contaminated and the eagle populations grew. We have made
major progress in reducing the exposure of humans and other organisms to
DDT and PCBs in North America.

The contamination of marine organisms is an important concern for
growing coastal populations. Today more than 50% of the U.S. population
lives within 80 miles of an ocean or Great Lake, and population
densities are more than five times the national average. Since 1986, the
Mussel Watch Project of the National Status and Trends Program has
conducted measurements on surface sediments and on mussels and oysters
from about 250 coastal and estuarine sites. Samples are analyzed to
determine the levels and trends of synthetic chlorinated compounds
(e.g., DDTs), PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and trace
metals such as mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd). It should be
noted that not all 250 sites are sampled every year, that the sites
selected for sampling vary from year to year, and that mussels are
collected at some sites and oysters at other sites. At least four years
of data are needed to determine whether statistically significant trends
in concentrations are occurring, and it is overall trends that
matter\--not year-to-year variations.

Since 1986, the overall levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons and cadmium
in coastal biota have decreased; these changes were not unexpected since
chlorinated hydrocarbons have been banned for use in the United States,
and the use of cadmium in electroplating, rust-proofing, stabilizers in
plastics, and pigments has declined. Chlordane and tributyltin have also
decreased due to bans or restrictions on their use. The levels of most
other chemicals (e.g., PAHs, mercury, and lead) have remained about the
same since 1986, and no significant chemicals show an increasing trend
in concentration. Based on the overall data from 1986 through 1995, we
can say that coastal contamination has generally decreased for those
monitored persistent contaminants whose use has been curtailed.

It should be noted that despite improvements in a number of persistent
contaminants, there is some concern that other substances, such as
chlorine-containing compounds, released through a variety of human
activities may disrupt the normal functioning of endocrine systems in
humans and animals. Additional measures may be needed to track their use
and effects on biota.

**References:**

• O'Connor, T.P. and B. Beliaeff, *Recent Trends in Coastal
Environmental Quality: Results from the Mussel Watch Project*, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Silver Spring, Maryland; 40pp; 1995.

• O'Connor, T.P. *"Trends in Chemical Concentrations in Mussels and
Oysters Collected along the U.S. Coast from 1986-1993,"* Marine
Environmental Research, Vol. 41, pp. 183-200: 1996.

• Schmitt, C.J. and C.M. Bunck. *"Persistent Environmental Contaminants
in Fish and Wildlife"* Our Living Resources, National Biological Survey,
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington DC, 1995.

Figure 4.21. Contaminants in Eagle food, 1970-1985

![](media/image27.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior

Figure 4.22. Annual Median Concentration of Chemicals in Mollusks,
1986-1995

![](media/image28.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Quantity of Spent Nuclear Fuel**

Commercial nuclear reactors provided about one fifth of U.S. electricity
in 1994. The 109 commercial reactors, located at 70 sites across the
United States, produced almost no greenhouse gases or atmospheric
pollutants but did generate about 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear
fuel. Total U.S. commercial spent nuclear fuel from activities occurring
between 1968 and 1995 amounted to 32.3 thousand metric tons of uranium.
Estimates of the total volume to be accumulated by 2015 are about 74-75
thousand metric tons.

Reactor fuel consists of small pellets of uranium oxide sealed in long
tubes. Fission by-products build up in the fuel tubes during use and
gradually inhibit the reaction; at that time, the tubes are removed as
\"spent fuel.\" The spent fuel includes highly radioactive nuclides
which can cause illness or death, depending on the level of exposure.
The spent fuel must be safely stored at U.S. nuclear power plants or
away-from-reactor storage facilities in order to protect human health
and the environment. This spent nuclear fuel represents a long-term
liability in the sense that it imposes costs on future generations.

Developing and maintaining sufficient capacity for the safe very
long-term storage of spent fuel is one of the challenges involved in
continued use of nuclear power. A reactor loses the authority to operate
when there is insufficient storage space for its spent fuel. As of
December 31, 1994, thirty-one reactors had filled over half of their
on-site pool storage capacity. As a consequence, a number of utilities
are planning or building on-site dry storage facilities or Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installations. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act directs
that a permanent geologic repository shall be developed for the
long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive
waste from commercial and defense activities. The Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments of 1987 designated the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site for
detailed scientific investigation to evaluate the site\'s suitability
for a geologic repository. Site characterization analyses for this
assessment are underway but the preparation and filing of a license
application for the repository has been deferred. Since spent fuel
remains hazardous for thousands of years, spent fuel disposal and
management is one of the longest-term challenges for sustainable
development.

**References:**

EIA, *Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges from U.S. Reactors 1994*,
SR/CNEAF/96-01, February 1996; EIA, *Nuclear Power Generation and Fuel
Cycle Report 1996*, DOE/EIA-0436(96), October 1996.

Figure 4.23. Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges, 1968-1994

![](media/image29.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Sources: Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Status of Stratospheric Ozone**

Human activities that result in the emission of gases that contain
chlorine and bromine have resulted in the depletion of stratospheric
ozone. The stratospheric ozone layer is important because it shields the
Earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation. Reduced levels of
stratospheric ozone allow more UV-B radiation to reach the earth, and
this radiation is known to be harmful to certain biological systems and
is believed to be related to an increased incidence of skin cancer in
humans. A continuing increase in UV-B radiation over the long term could
potentially affect the health of all forms of life.

The total atmospheric column ozone for the United States is measured at
a number of U.S. stations with Dobson spectrophotometers by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U. S. Department of
Commerce (DOC). *Figure 4.24 shows that the average monthly total column
ozone over the United States has declined by about 7% since 1979* (based
on measurements at Fresno, California; Boulder, Colorado; Nashville,
Tennessee; and Wallops Island, Virginia)*.*

The largest ozone depletions related to chlorine and bromine emissions
have been observed in Antarctica during the austral spring. *Figure 4.25
shows that more than 50% of the springtime ozone at the South Pole has
been lost compared to pre-1970 values.*

Regulations on the emission of certain ozone-depleting gases became
effective on January 1, 1996. NOAA measurements indicate that the total
ozone depleting potential of these gases reached a peak at the surface
in 1994, presumably due to steps taken in anticipation of the
regulations. Based on this data, the concentrations of these
ozone-depleting gases in the stratosphere are expected to peak by the
turn of the century.

It is likely that the first evidence of stratospheric ozone recovery
will be seen at the South Pole since the springtime depletion there is
very large compared to natural variability. Based on atmospheric
chemistry models, the implementation of international agreements, and
current regulations, the beginning of stratospheric ozone recovery is
expected to occur early in the 21th century. This recovery will be
harder to detect in the mid-latitudes\--for example, over the United
States\--since the depletion there is of the same order of magnitude as
natural variability.

If the stratospheric ozone layer does begin to recover, as expected, it
will demonstrate the success of the scientific community, international
policy makers, the private sector, and the public in protecting the
environment, while also addressing the related economic concerns through
the development and phase-in of ozone-friendly substitutes.\
**Reference:**

NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL), *Summary
Review* (Bi-Annual); NOAA Climate Prediction Center, Northern Hemisphere
Winter Summary.

Figure 4.24. Stratospheric Ozone Reduction in the U.S. Since 1979

![](media/image30.png){width="6.0in" height="4.329861111111111in"}

Source: Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Figure 4.25. South Pole Ozone Hole, 1960-1990

![](media/image31.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

**Environmental Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Greenhouse Climate Response Index**

The U.S. Global Climate Response Index (GCRI) is comprised of five
different indicators of weather conditions over the United States. It
can be used as a tool to determine whether U.S. weather patterns have
changed in a manner consistent with global greenhouse warming. The
expected value for the GCRI in any given year under stable conditions is
10%. As depicted in Figure 4.26, the GCRI has averaged 13.3% since 1980;
this is 3.3% above the average from previous years in the century.
Although there is a 5 to 10% chance that this trend could occur under
stable conditions, *the tendency toward increased values of the U.S.
GCRI over the past two decades suggests that the climate of the United
States is changing in ways that would be expected with global greenhouse
warming.*

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (established jointly by
the United Nations Development Program and the World Meteorological
Organization) has stated that observations suggest "a discernible human
influence on global climate." Since the turn of the century, the average
daily temperature in the United States (for the 48 conterminous states)
has risen by about .3o Centigrade (.7o Fahrenheit), and most of the
increase has occurred in the last 30 years. This trend is consistent
with the best estimates for the Earth as a whole over the same period of
time. Changes in global climate could lead to changing weather patterns
and rising sea levels and have major impacts on ecosystems, agriculture,
transportation, water resources management, and communities.

If greenhouse warming is indeed occurring, we would expect to see
changes in local weather patterns over a period of years. The United
States has some of the most complete and continuous meteorological
records in the world, and we can examine these records to see if weather
patterns have changed as we would expect with greenhouse warming.
Although the United States covers only 2% of the Earth's surface,
weather trends we detect in the United States could also be a
bellweather of global change.

It should be noted that weather patterns can change due to random events
or to human-induced or natural changes over the long term. The challenge
for scientists is to separate the background noise from meaningful
signals. By examining a number of weather variables together over a
period of years, we can begin to see the whole picture.

The Greenhouse Climate Response Index (GCRI) combines the following five
climate indicators into a single index. The weight of each indicator
increases in proportion to our confidence in the projected changes in
weather and climate due to rising atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. The five indicators are:

\(1\) the percent of the United States with much above normal
temperature (i.e., temperatures falling in the upper tenth percentile of
the local, century-long record)

\(2\) the percent of the United States with much above normal
precipitation (i.e., precipitation in the upper tenth percentile of the
local, century-long record) during the cold season (October through
April);

\(3\) the percent of the United States in extreme or severe drought
(i.e., precipitation in the lower tenth percentile of the local,
century-long record) during the warm season (May through September);

\(4\) the percent of the United States with a much greater than normal
proportion of precipitation derived from heavy rainfall events (over 2
inches or 50.8 mm); and

\(5\) the percent of the United States with much below normal day-to-day
temperature differences.

As stated above, the expected value for the GCRI in any given year under
stable conditions is 10%. Since 1980, the GCRI has averaged 13.3%,
suggesting that U.S. climate is changing in a manner consistent with
global greenhouse warming.

**Reference:**

Karl, T., R. Knight, D. Easterling, and R. Quayle. "Indices of Climate
Change for the United States," *Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society,* Volume 77, Number 2, February 1996.

Figure 4.26. U.S. Greenhouse Climate Response Index, 1900-1995

![](media/image32.png){width="6.0in"
height="4.179861111111111in"}Source: National Climatic Data Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Asheville, North Carolina.

**Environmental Indicators-Processes**

**Ratio of Renewable Water Supply to Withdrawals**

Water is critical for human survival and well-being and important to
many sectors of the economy including recreation and tourism,
transportation, real estate, agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and
mining. It is essential to balance the rate of water use with the rate
at which it can be renewed by natural hydrological processes and by
human reuse/recovery efforts. The United States as a whole has a
favorable ratio of renewable water supply to withdrawals, but some parts
of the country (e.g., the arid West) do not.

Estimates of surface and ground water withdrawals in the United States
show continued increases from 1950 through 1980, but a drop in overall
use in both 1985 and 1990; but public supplies of water have increased
continuously since 1950, reflecting the growth in the U.S. population.
Thermoelectric power generation plants withdraw the greatest amounts of
surface water, while agriculture withdraws the highest amounts of ground
water and the second highest amounts of surface water. The average
amount of water applied per acre for agricultural irrigation in the
United States during 1985 was about 2.1 acre-feet. This is about the
same as in 1990, slightly less than the 1985 average of 2.2 acre-feet,
and well below the 1975 and 1985 average of 2.5 acre-feet. Irrigation
application rates depend on annual rainfall, surface water availability,
energy costs, farm commodity prices, application technologies, and on
farmers' understanding of the advantages of conserving water.

In the context of national sustainable development, it may be important
to recognize not only problems that affect all regions of the country,
but also problems that affect the ability of specific regions and
communities to meet their basic needs.

**Reference:**

U.S. Geological Survey, *Estimate Use of Water in the United States*,
USGS Circular #1081; 1990.

Figure 4.27. Ratio of Renewable Water Supply to Fresh Ground and Surface
Water Withdrawl, 1960-1995

![](media/image33.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

Figure 4.28. Fresh Ground and Surface Water Withdrawls in the United
States, 1960-1995

![](media/image34.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Fisheries Utilization**

The United States has consistently ranked fifth in worldwide fisheries
production during the 1990s (5% of the total catch or 5.6 million metric
tons annually). In 1996, commercial marine fisheries contributed 0.3% to
the Gross National Product (\$21 billion *in value added* to a \$6,932
billion GNP); more than 8 million people engaged in marine recreational
fisheries, completing an estimated 64 million trips. In the same year,
consumer expenditures for all commercial marine fishery products was
estimated at \$41.2 billion. The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is
the world's largest and takes in 2,831,400 sq. n.m. or about 1.7 times
the entire land area of the U.S. and its territories (e.g., 3.9 billion
acres vs. 2.3 billion acres). Management within the 3-to-200 n.m. EEZ is
the responsibility of the Federal government and regional Fishery
Management Councils.

Historically, overfishing definitions were not available as a management
tool. Recent changes in law now set the basis for the identification of
overfished stocks in the current overfishing definitions found in the
Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) developed to manage fishery resources in
Federal waters.1

Simply put, \"overfishing\" occurs when the rate or level of fishery
removals jeopardizes the ability of the resource (i.e., species or
stock) to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.
For most species, the existing overfishing definitions are based wholly
or in part on a estimated fishing mortality rate. Such definitions
typically assess the species on the basis of whether overfishing (as a
rate of removals) is currently taking place (i.e., whether the current
fishing mortality rate is greater than the maximum allowable rate
specified in the definition). FMPs that base their definition on
something other than a fishing mortality rate, such as stock biomass,
typically assess overfishing of the species on the basis of the current
status of stock relative to a stock or index level specified in the
definition of overfishing. A fishery will be classified as \"approaching
a condition of being overfished\" if, based on trends in fishing effort,
fishery resource size, and other appropriate factors, the fishery will
become overfished within two years. Whenever possible, species were
assessed using existing overfishing definitions in FMPs or FMPs under
development; the remainder were evaluated using the 1995 edition of *Our
Living Oceans*.

Employing these criteria in 1997, the Fisheries Service finds that 86
species (12%) are \"overfished,\" 183 species (25%) are \"not
overfished,\" and 10 species (1%) are considered to be approaching an
overfished condition; for 448 species (62%), their status relative to
overfishing is currently unknown. Trend data in this format is not yet
available since prior efforts focused on other reporting objectives
(e.g., *Our Living Oceans, Fisheries of the U.S.*); however, the 1997
overfishing assessment will be the benchmark for future reports to
Congress and for trend analyses.

The \"not overfished\" condition of a fishery stock is the most
beneficial since it represents the most efficient use of the resource,
with fishing effort neither significantly greater than or less than the
level needed to achieve the stock's long-term potential yield. The
relative number of stocks that are not overfished (i.e., fully utilized)
can be used as a measure of our success in managing fisheries to
maintain the underlying stocks at levels needed to produce high average
yields over the long term.

From the standpoint of sustainable development, one of the key questions
regarding fisheries is whether we will be able to meet society's future
demand for fish and shellfish. It seems likely that this demand will be
met through both the wise management of natural fisheries stocks and the
development of aquaculture.

**References:**

• National Advisory Commission on Ocean and Atmosphere. *The Exclusive
Economic Zone of the US: Some Immediate Policy Issues*, Washington,
D.C., May 1984.

• National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, *Fisheries of the United States, 1996*, Silver Spring,
Maryland, July 1997.

• National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, *Report to Congress - Status of Fisheries of the United
States*, Silver Spring, Maryland, September 1997.

• National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, *Our Living Oceans, Report on the Status of U.S. Living
Marine Resources*, Silver Spring, Maryland, February 1996.

**Notes:**

1 The Sustainable Fisheries Act \[SFA (Public Law 104-297)\], which
reauthorizes and amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) was signed into law by President
Clinton on October 11, 1996. The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act
requires the Secretary of Commerce (through the National Marine
Fisheries Service) to report to Congress annually on the status of
fisheries within each Fishery Management Council's geographical area of
authority and identify those fisheries that are overfished or are
approaching a condition of being overfished.

Figure 4.29. Status of Fisheries Utilization of 727 Fishery Management
Plan Species

![](media/image35.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Invasive Alien Species**

Invasive alien species are plants, animals, insects, microorganisms, or
parasites that are not native to all or parts of the United States which
have been introduced from other nations or other parts of the United
States, often unintentionally. They are frequently referred to as
exotic, non-native, or nonindigenous species. An increasing number of
alien species are being found in landscapes across the United
States\--natural, rural, and urban\--and they frequently displace
indigenous species, sometimes with very costly results.

In 1992, the number of invasive alien species was estimated by the
Office of Technology Assessment to be over 4542 (\>2000 plants, 142
terrestrial vertebrates, \> 2000 insects and arachnids, 70 fish, 91
non-marine mollusks, and 239 plant pathogens). In the context of
sustainable development, an increase in the number of alien species can
lead to major disruptions of local and regional ecosystems which
continue into the future.

Many of these alien species are introduced through human travel or
commerce. Once they become established, these non-native species tend to
displace indigenous species, out-competing them for limited food
supplies and habitat. Native populations that are fragmented or under
stress from natural or human causes are especially vulnerable to the
invasion of non-native species. Major outbreaks of disease often occur
when pathogens enter new host populations of humans and other species.
Newly emerging or re-emerging diseases are of increasing international
concern because of the potentially devastating effects they can have on
the economy, the environment, and society.

Alien species often spread extremely rapidly due to the lack of natural
barriers in their new habitat. Examples include the intrusion of cheat
grass in western rangelands; the invasion of zebra mussels in the Great
Lakes and the Mississippi River and its tributaries; the appearance of
raccoon rabies in the eastern United States; mycoplasmosis in song birds
in the United States and Canada; and in the past, fungal chestnut blight
and Dutch elm disease which obliterated the American chestnut and elm
trees in North America.

**References:**

• Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, *Harmful
Non-indigenous Species in the U.S.* 1993

• Friend, M. "Increased Avian Diseases with Habitat Change," *Our Living
Resources*, National Biological Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 1995.

• *National Strategy for Invasive Plant Management*, prepared by a
national consortium of Federal and non-Federal organizations, 1997.

Figure 4.30. Invasive Alien Species, 1790-1990

![](media/image36.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Sources: Office of Technology Assessment.

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Conversion of Cropland to Other Uses**

The United States' use of its land has varied with time. Between 1982
and 1992, the net amount of land devoted to crops, pasture, and range,
respectively, declined by 39 million cropland acres (of which 36.4
million were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve program), 6 million
pasture acres, and 10 million rangeland acres. Forest land showed a
modest increase during the period.

The net acreage gained or lost to different land uses reveals only part
of the story. Although 60 million acres shifted from cropland to other
uses between 1982 and 1992, about 21 million acres shifted from other
uses into cropland during this same period. Nearly 3 million acres of
cropland were developed for residential purposes (or 68% of total
conversions). But this rate had slowed compared to earlier decades. The
ten-year rate of expansion in urban areas was 18%, which was half the
rate of growth in the 1950s (39%).

Although the rate of cropland conversion has been decreasing, we know
that we can not continue to convert the Nation's cropland indefinitely
without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their
needs for food and fiber. How much agricultural land we need in the
future will depend on many different variables such as population,
dietary patterns, world trading patterns, and advances in science and
technology.

**Reference:**

Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
*America's Private Land: a Geography of Hope*. Program Aid 1548.
Washington, D.C., December 1996.

Figure 4.31. Cropland Converted to Developed Land, 1982-1992

![](media/image37.png){width="6.0in" height="3.7194444444444446in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Soil Erosion Rates**

Maintaining adequate supplies of food and fiber to meet the needs of the
human population is essential to sustainable development. Crops, forage
plants, and trees are our main sources of food and fiber, and excessive
soil erosion can have an adverse effect on agricultural productivity and
communities (e.g., as occurred during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s). It
will become increasingly important to protect the soil from erosion due
to the rising food needs of the world's growing population and the
potential impacts of global climate change on agricultural patterns.

While soil erosion occurs naturally on all land, at least 40% of the
total soil erosion in the United States results from non-agricultural
activities such as construction, logging, and off-road vehicle use, or
from natural events such as floods and droughts. Erosion reduces soil
productivity and can affect the quality of both air and water resources.
A limited amount of soil erosion is tolerable in terms of soil
productivity, and this tolerable level of erosion (T) varies with
factors such as soil type and the time required for new soil to form.

Soil erosion rates greater than the tolerable level can threaten
agricultural productivity. Sheet erosion and rill erosion tend to be a
greater problem in the humid East than elsewhere in the country, while
wind erosion is a greater problem in the arid and semi-arid West.
Estimates of streambank, gully, irrigation-induced, and ephemeral gully
erosion are not currently included in standard soil erosion assessments,
although such forms of erosion can be substantial in certain situations.

In 1982, erosive forces moved nearly 3.1 billion tons of soil from our
Nation's cropland (1.4 billion tons via wind and 1.7 billion tons via
water). In 1992, erosive forces moved nearly 2.1 billion tons of soil
from our Nation\'s cultivated cropland. About 1 billion tons less than
were moved in 1982\--About 0.9 billion tons from wind erosion and 1.2
billion tons from sheet and rill erosion. Between 1982 and 1992, the
number of cultivated cropland acres where sheet and rill erosion and
wind erosion were occurring at levels above the tolerable rate (T)
declined by 5.5% and 5%, respectively.

Figure 4.32. Average Annual Soil Erosion on Cultivated Cropland as a
Proportion of the

Tolerable rate (T), 1982

![](media/image38.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Figure 4.33. Average Annual Soil Erosion on Cultivated Cropland as a
Proportion of the Tolerable rate (T), 1992

![](media/image39.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Figure 4.34. Average Annual Soil Erosion on Cultivated Cropland as a
Proportion of the Tolerable rate (T), 1992

![](media/image40.png){width="6.0in"
height="4.029861111111111in"}Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Timber Growth to Removals Balance**

A comparison of the net growth of timber stands to the removals of
timber provides a measure of the status of the timber inventory.
Harvesting timber more rapidly than the timber stands are able to grow
will reduce our ability to meet demands for forest products.

When growth exceeds removals, the growth/removal balance is greater
than 1. The value of the timber growth/removals balance has fluctuated
from year to year, but in every benchmark year since 1952 when the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service began collecting the data, the
growth of timber has exceeded removals. The most recent data were
collected in 1992, and the growth/removals balance at that time was
1.33, meaning that the United States grew 33 percent more timber than it
cut. Although the total growth of timber stands exceeds the rate of
harvest at a national level, it is important to note that the type and
composition of U.S. forests are changing and that the United States
currently imports about half of its paper pulp.

Americans have begun to debate the role of forests in relation to
biodiversity, climate change, water quality, recreation, and an
aesthetically pleasing environment. In the context of sustainable
development, the full range of products, services, and benefits provided
by forests\--from wood products to biodiversity\--must ultimately be
considered.

Figure 4.35. Timber Growth and removal Data for Selected years,
1952-1992

![](media/image41.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Greenhouse Gas Emissions**

The composition of the Earth's atmosphere is a key factor in determining
the Earth's temperature, and temperature has a critical effect on the
conditions and limits for life on Earth. Many human activities result in
the emission of gases that could contribute to changes in the Earth's
climate for generations to come. Each year, the emissions of ten
categories of greenhouse gases are estimated from reports of energy
consumption prepared by the Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy, and from emissions data reported to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The categories of monitored gases
include carbon dioxide; methane; nitrous oxide; chlorofluorocarbons-11,
-12, and -13; chlorodifluoromethane; hydrofluorocarbons;
perfluorocarbons; methyl chloroform; carbon monoxide; nitrogen oxides;
and nonmethane volatile organic compounds. The emissions of gases are
converted to million metric tons of carbon or carbon equivalents based
on their respective global warming potentials. Between 1990 and 1994,
the weighted total U.S. emissions rose by 3.9%; and between 1990 and
1995, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide rose 5.1%.

**Reference:**

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, *Emissions
of Greenhouse Gases in the United States*, 1995.

Figure 4.36. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1988-1995

![](media/image42.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

Figure 4.37. Difference in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990 vs.
1994\*

![](media/image43.png){width="6.0in" height="4.419444444444444in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

\*Values were calculated by subtracting quantities of gases emitted in
1990 from quantities emitted in 1994. Only methane emissions declined
during this period while carbon dioxide increased by nearly 60 million
metric tons carbon equivalent.

**Environmental Indicators\--Processes**

**Identification and Management of Superfund Sites**

Decades of improper and inadequate disposal of toxic substances have
left a nation-wide legacy of hazardous waste sites that are potentially
dangerous to public health and the environment. We are currently
incurring the costs of cleaning up contamination caused by our
predecessors, and unless sufficient remedial actions are taken, these
costs will be passed on to future generations. Realizing a path of
sustainable development depends on our being able to halt the improper
disposal of toxic substances and to restore those sites that are already
contaminated.

The extent and nature of the risks associated with contaminated sites
are not fully known, but regulatory and technological processes are now
in place to control the toxic pollution from these sites. In 1980,
Congress passed the first comprehensive Federal law\--the Comprehensive
Environ mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as \"Superfund\"\-- to address abandoned and uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Superfund activities include identifying and
classifying sites; responding to emergencies and immediate threats; and
studying, designing, and constructing long-term solutions to clean up
hazardous waste sites and restore natural resources.

In administering the Superfund Program, EPA is required to focus on
those sites where contamination presents the most serious threat to
human health and the environment. These sites are placed on the National
Priority List (NPL). Through September 1998, over 41,500 potentially
hazardous waste sites have been identified; and of this total, 1,436
sites are currently listed on the NPL as follows: 66 proposed, 1194
final, and 176 deleted.

The EPA continues to remove sites from CERCLIS after determining no
further federal Superfund work is needed. Through the end of FY98, the
total number of sites removed rose to 31,000. Sites removed from CERCLIS
are not necessarily clean, but based on current information, they are
not targeted for further work under the Federal Superfund Program.
However, the states are informed about sites removed from CERCLIS and
they may conduct further work on the sites. In FY95, EPA\'s Superfund
program removed 24,000 sites with no further Federal Superfund interest
from the active inventory of CERCLIS sites in support of the Agency\'s
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative.

Fifty million people live within four miles of the NPL sites, but living
near a site does not necessarily put people at risk. A risk assessment
is to be conducted at each site, and appropriate immediate and long-term
response actions are implemented depending on the amount and toxicity of
the hazardous wastes and the potential for human and environmental
exposure.

If there is an immediate threat at either an NPL or non-NPL site,
emergency clean-up actions are taken to ensure safety. Between 1980 and
1997, over 2,500 removals and emergency actions have been taken to
remove immediate threats. As part of these actions, 14,341 people have
been relocated and 338,767 people have been provided with alternative
water supplies.

After emergency actions have been taken, long-term actions are initiated
to clean up contaminated sites permanently. EPA has initiated or
completed construction activity\--rapid action or long-term
cleanups\--at 72% of the sites on the NPL. Construction has been
completed at over 585 sites\--40% of the sites on the NPL.

Figure 4.38. Short-term Actions Taken at Superfund Sites to Protect
Human Health and the Environment, 1980-1997

![](media/image44.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Environmental Indicators\--Current Results**

**Metropolitan Air Quality Non-attainment**

Poor air quality can have significant adverse effects on human health,
the built environment, and ecosystems, as well as on property values and
recreational values. It is important to achieve and maintain good air
quality if we are to ensure a healthy environment now and in the future.

From 1970 to 1990, increases in the Nation's population and economic
growth were accompanied by increasing air pollution. Over this period of
time, emissions of nitrogen oxides increased by about 700%, emissions of
volatile organic compounds increased by about 250%, and emissions of
sulfur oxides increased by about 200%. Many of the things that
contributed to air pollution\--such as low-cost automobile fuel\--also
had important economic and societal benefits.

The good news is that since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970
(which required the industrial and automobile sectors to reduce
emissions of air pollutants), the atmospheric concentrations of many air
pollutants in the United States have been substantially reduced. The
major exceptions are carbon monoxide and ground-level ozone, which
continue to pose serious problems.

As indicated in Figure 4.39, in 1996, approximately 165 metropolitan
areas still had unhealthy air, potentially affecting the health of 123
million people. However as indicated in Figure 4.40, there has been a
substantial drop in the number of metropolitan areas not attaining air
quality standards. In the context of sustainable development, the full
economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits of further
reducing air pollution must be considered.

**References:**

Council on Environmental Quality, *Environmental Quality*, 25th
Anniversary Report.

Figure 4.39. People Living in Metropolitan Areas Not Meeting Air Quality
Standards, 1991-1996

![](media/image45.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency

Figure 4.40. Number of Metropolitan Air Quality Non-attainment Areas,
1991-1996

![](media/image46.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency

**Environmental Indicators\--Current Results**

**Outdoor Recreational Activities**

The enjoyment and services we receive from the natural environment
through outdoor recreational activities are not fully captured by the
indicator on personal consumption expenditures. This indicator on the
participation in outdoor recreational activities reflects our changing
interests in various environmental services. In the context of
sustainability, it will ultimately be important to monitor not only the
participation in various outdoor activities, but also the degree to
which the natural habitat and environmental quality are maintained,
enhanced, or degraded by these activities.

By examining trends in outdoor recreation activities in the United
States, we can gain some insight into environmental conditions, the
availability of recreational services, and the amount of leisure time
and economic resources available for these activities. This indicator
shows a marked increase in the use of natural areas for camping and
hiking from 1982 to 1995, but it is difficult to draw any conclusions
about this trend based on these data alone.

The original National Survey on Recreation was established in 1960 by
the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The most recent survey was
expanded to include information on environmental concerns, and it was
renamed as the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture\'s Forest Service provided organizational
and technical leadership in conducting the most recent survey, and other
survey collaborators included the Bureau of Land Management, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. This survey information is
useful to private industry and public decision-makers as they strive to
understand and meet the public demand for outdoor recreational
activities.

**Reference:**

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, *National Survey on
Recreation and the Environment*, 1995.

Figure 4.41. Percent Change in Participation in Outdoor Recreational
Activities, 1982-1995

![](media/image47.png){width="6.0in" height="3.7194444444444446in"}

Source: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

**Social Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

U.S. Population

Children Living in Families with One Parent Present

Teacher Training Level and Application of Qualifications

Contributing Time & Money to Charities

Births to Single Mothers

Educational Attainment by Level

Participation in the Arts & Recreation

People in Census Tracts with 40% or Greater Poverty

Crime Rate

Life Expectancy at Birth

Educational Achievements Rates

**U.S. Population**

The U.S. population was 266.5 million as of January 1997, and it is
continuing to grow by about 2.5 million persons per year, or 1%
annually. The Census Bureau projects that if current trends continue,
the U.S. population will reach 347 million by 2030.

While there is no consensus on the ideal population level or rate of
growth, there is general agreement that if the world's population
continues to increase at current rates, the related consumption of
resources and the generation of wastes could have detrimental impacts on
the environment, the economy, and society. At the same time, increases
in population can also augment the workforce and the intellectual
capacities needed to address future challenges.

Although it may not be feasible for the U.S. population to grow
indefinitely, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the
sustainability of a specific population level or rate of growth without
examining factors such as the Nation's natural resource base, social
service capabilities, and ability to ensure that all members of society
have opportunities to succeed. Policy makers need a wide range of
information as they respond to the needs of a growing and aging
population and develop and implement immigration policies. Additional
work is needed in this area if we are to develop an indicator that
captures the full range of variables that relate to population in the
context of sustainable development.

Figure 4.42. U.S. Population, 1970-1994

![](media/image48.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce

**Social Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Children Living in Families with Only One Parent Present**

In 1995, there were 68.4 million children under 18 years old living in
37.2 million family groups. Nearly 28% of these children were living in
the 11.5 million family groups with only one parent present. In 87% of
these single-parent groups, the mother was present; and 72% of the
children in these cases lived in families with incomes of less than
\$25,000. In contrast, for families with two parents present, only 20%
of the children were living in households with incomes of less than
\$25,000; and 45% of the children were living in families with incomes
over \$50,000.

Single parenthood\--especially when the parent is a young woman\--can
increase the risk of poverty since the family is relying on the earning
abilities of only one parent, and child-rearing responsibilities limit
the parent\'s ability to work outside the home and to further her
education. At least one-third of the births in the United States are to
unmarried women, many of whom became pregnant as teenagers. These young
females with children\--especially when they are disadvantaged in other
ways\--form the core of the rising problem of child poverty in the
United States. In practice, single parents\--most of whom are
mothers\--often turn to their parents for support. As a result, more
than 2.5 million U.S. children today are living in households maintained
by grandparents with single parents present.[^1]1

The most serious problem among families with one parent present,
especially if that parent is a woman, appears to be poverty. Children
growing up in poor, single-parent families often start out with
socioeconomic disadvantages that can predispose them to lower
educational achievement rates, lower incomes as adults, and a greater
chance of forming single-parent families themselves. A rising trend in
the percentage of children living in one-parent households suggests that
for many of these children, there will be significant economic and
social burdens in the years to come.

**Note:**

1 U.S. Census Bureau, economics and Statistics Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Figure 4.43. Percentage of Family Groups with One Parent and Children
Under 18 Years Old, 1970-1995

![](media/image49.png){width="6.0in" height="3.7194444444444446in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Secretariat for
the SDI Group

**Social Indicators\--Long-term Endowments and Liabilities**

**Teacher Training Level and Application of Qualifications**

Teacher training levels provide a general indicator of teacher
capabilities and can be an important factor in determining the overall
quality of instruction and knowledge acquired by the students. The
better educated U.S. teachers are, the better prepared students will be
to meet the challenges of achieving sustainable development. For
example, Figure 4.44 shows the percentage of secondary teachers with
Master\'s Degree or more. In 1961, 14.6% of secondary teachers had less
than a bachelor's degree, but by 1996, the percentage was only 0.3%.
Graduate-level training also increased during this period as indicated
in the first figure. The percentage of public secondary school teachers
having a master's degree or higher in education, a subject matter
discipline, or another professional field has more than doubled between
1961 and 1996.

Teachers' knowledge of the subject matter they are teaching is also an
important factor in determining the overall quality of instruction and
the knowledge acquired by students. One indicator of teacher
subject-matter knowledge presented in the second figure is the
percentage of students taking classes from teachers who have academic
training, either at the undergraduate or graduate level, in the subjects
they are teaching. Teachers who are teaching subject areas where they
have not been trained are less likely to be able to communicate
challenging content in those subject areas when compared with teachers
having stronger academic backgrounds in those subjects. (See Figure
4.45.) Teachers may not be teaching subjects for which they are well
prepared because there is a lack of well-qualified candidates in some
locations, the assignment policies of school districts, or for other
reasons.

Figure 4.44. Percentage of Teachers in Public Secondary Schools with
Master\'s Degree or More, 1961-1996

![](media/image50.png){width="6.0in" height="4.329861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, *Digest of Educational Statistics,
1997,* Washington, 1997; and the National Education Association, *Status
of America's School Teachers, 1995-1996,* Washington, DC, 1997

Figure 4.45. Percentage of Public Secondary Students in Classes Whose
Teachers Were Trained in the Subject Taught, 1993-1994

![](media/image51.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, *Condition of Education, 1998*, Washington, D.C., 1998

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**Contributing Time and Money to Charities**

Americans contribute significant amounts of time, money, and goods
(e.g., food and clothing) to formal charitable organizations that are
involved in such things as the arts, education, the environment, health
and human services, international affairs, politics, recreation,
religion, and youth services. In 1993, Americans contributed \$102
billion in individual gifts and bequests and 15 billion hours of
volunteer service. Corporations contributed an additional \$6.1 billion.

In addition to these formal contributions, there is a significant amount
of informal giving which is largely unmeasured. Informal giving occurs
on an *ad hoc* basis and includes giving money and goods directly to
friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family members not in one's
household. Informal contributions of time are also significant and
include a broad range of activities such as caring for children, the
elderly, and the homebound and providing transportation services,
preparing meals, and making home repairs for those in need.

Realizing a path of sustainable development will depend to some extent
on the willingness of individuals to become involved in their
communities. Contributing money and time to charities is one indicator
of this community involvement. The willingness to contribute time and/or
money reflects how people perceive their own situation in relation to
the needs of others, as well as their faith in the ability of the
Nation's social, economic, and political institutions to address
societal needs. Factors that seem to affect contribution patterns
include income, tax policies, education, voting in presidential
elections, the length of time one has lived in a community, and whether
or not one has had a positive experience during youth with charitable
giving and volunteering. The single best predictor of charitable
contributions of money and time is membership in religious, civic, and
other voluntary organizations.

**Reference:**

Independent Sector, *Giving and Volunteering in the United States*;
Washington, D.C., 1996.

Figure 4.46. Contributing Time and Money to Charities, 1987-1995

![](media/image52.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Secretariat for the SDI Group using data from Independent
Sector, *Giving and Volunteering in the United States*, Washington,
D.C., 1996

Figure 4.47. Percentage of Households Contributing Time and Money to
Different Types of Charities for Years Surveyed, 1987-1995

![](media/image53.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: Secretariat for the SDI Group using data from Independent
Sector, *Giving and Volunteering in the United States*, Washington,
D.C., 1996

**Social Indicators-Processes**

**Births to Single Mothers**

Widespread poverty can prevent families from obtaining adequate food,
housing, educational, and health care and from participating in a broad
range of community activities. These limitations can impede progress
along a path of sustainability by making it harder for the children
reared in these families to realize their full potential or to
experience a true sense of community.

One of the greatest concerns regarding births to young, single women is
that the children of these women are more likely to be reared in
poverty. In 1995, 32% of female heads of households with children under
18 years old and no husband present were below the poverty line. In
addition, teenage mothers, particularly those who are single, often have
a very difficult time in pursuing their education or job training
because of the costs and responsibilities of caring for their children.

In 1994, the median income for a two-parent household was \$45,041. In
contrast, the median income for a single-parent household led by a woman
was \$19,872. (For black and Hispanic female heads of households, the
median income was \$14,650 and \$13,200, respectively.)

The number of births to all teenage mothers decreased from 656,000 in
1970 to 500,000 in 1997; however, the number of births to single teenage
mothers increased from 200,000 in 1970 to 390,000 in 1997. In 1970, 30%
of the teenage females who had children were single; but by 1997, this
percentage had increased to 78%

Despite the large number of single teenage mothers, the majority of
single mothers giving birth in recent years were 20 years old or older.
In 1997, there were 3.9 million live births to females of all ages in
the United States. Single mothers of all ages accounted for 32% of these
3.9 million births; about 10% of all births were to single teenage
mothers, while 17% of all births were to single mothers ages 20 through
29.

Between 1970 and 1997, births to single white women increased by 355%
resulting in 25.8% of all white births in 1997 being to single women.
During the same period, births to single black women increased by 93%,
resulting in 69.1% of black births being to single women. Most of this
increase occurred during the 1980s. More recently, between 1994 and
1997, births to single white and black women have stabilized, increasing
very little. These long-term trends are linked to delays in marriage,
declines in birth rates for married women, and increases in birth rates
for unmarried women.

Pregnancies among teenagers can have serious implications for the health
and future well-being of the children born. For example, teenage
pregnancies are more likely to result in the birth of low birth weight
infants. In 1996, 6.9% of all of the infants born to non-smokers had low
birth weights (under 2500 grams); but for mothers 15 to 19 years old,
9.3% of the babies born had low birth weights; and for mothers under 15
years old, 13.2% of the babies born had low birth weights. Low birth
weights can be associated with a range of medical and developmental
complications.

**References:**

• Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
*Statistical Abstract of the United States*, 1996, Tables 14, 92, 98,
113, and 713.

• Ventura, S.J., *Births to Unmarried Mothers: United States,
1980-1992*. National Center for Health Statistics, Series 21, Number 53,
1995.

• Ventura, S.J., Martha, J.A., Curtin, S.C., Mathew, T.J. Report of
final natility statistics, 1996, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol.
46, No. 11, Supplement. Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for
Health Statistics, 1998.

Figure 4.48. Live Births to Single Women, 1970-1997

![](media/image54.png){width="6.0in"
height="4.329861111111111in"}Source: Ventura, S.J., *Births to Unmarried
Mothers: United States, 1980-1992*. National Center for Health
Statistics, Series 21, Number 53, 1995; and Ventura, S.J., Martha, J.A.,
Curtin, S.C., Mathew, T.J. Report of final natility statistics, 1996,
Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11, Supplement.
Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for Health Statistics, 1998.

Figure 4.49. Live Births to Single Women By Race, 1970-1997

![](media/image55.png){width="6.0in" height="4.329861111111111in"}

Source: Ventura, S.J., *Births to Unmarried Mothers: United States,
1980-1992*. National Center for Health Statistics, Series 21, Number 53,
1995; and Ventura, S.J., Martha, J.A., Curtin, S.C., Mathew, T.J. Report
of final natality statistics, 1996, Monthly Vital Statistics Report,
Vol. 46, No. 11, Supplement. Hyattsville, Maryland, National Center for
Health Statistics, 1998.

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**Educational Attainment by Level**

Sustainable development is facilitated when the citizenry has the
knowledge and skills needed to address a range of economic, social and
environmental opportunities and challenges in an informed and integrated
way. One indicator for measuring the extent of the population's
knowledge and skills is the level of formal education that people have
completed by the time they reach adulthood. In the figure, these levels
of attainment are defined as the percentage of 25- to 29- year old
individuals who have completed high school or beyond; one or more years
of college, and a bachelor's degree or higher. This age group is often
measured because it takes into account young people who dropped out of
school for a period before returning to complete their education.

Higher levels of education in the population are consistently related to
rates of economic growth and development, the population's health,
participation in the community, further training and education in later
life, and many other variables. Recently, the percentage of the
population completing at least some college education has accelerated in
the U.S., reflecting demands, particularly economic, for higher levels
of education and skill. The percentage of 25- to 29- year-old people who
are high school dropouts decreased from 22.3% in 1971 to 12.7% in 1996.

Figure 4.50. Percentage of 25- to 29-Year Olds in the U.S. Population
Attaining Different Levels of Education, 1971-1996

![](media/image56.png){width="6.0in" height="4.329861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, *Condition of Education, 1998,* Washington, DC, 1998.

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**Participation in the Arts and Recreation**

In the United States, we believe that the freedom of assembly and
expression\--particularly the expression of shared community interests
and cultural values\--are important in fostering the development of
social capital essential to sustainable development. Developing
indicators of processes that contribute to creating social capital is
still in its infancy and much work must be done to identify appropriate
indicators and associated data sets. Participation in the arts and
recreation that brings people together from diverse backgrounds are
thought to be processes that contribute to building social capital. The
information presented in this indicator is a first step in trying to
assess trends in such participation by examining data on attendance,
expenditures and employment.

Availability of long-term data on participation and expenditures for
arts and recreation that brings people together is limited. However, as
shown in Figure 4.51, there is data for the period 1992-1996.
Expenditures for books and maps were approximately equal to combined
admissions to motion picture theaters, the performing arts, and
spectator sports. During this period, expenditures remained nearly
constant in terms of percentage of GDP. In 1996, expenditures for
attendance to motion picture theaters, spectator sports, and the
performing arts totaled \$80.8 billion. This was about 0.3% of GDP and
4.3% of all expenditures on recreation. These numbers do not reflect the
substantial participation in these activities through television, radio,
recordings, and other media. These numbers also do not reflect the
number of individuals who performed artistic and sports activities in
public and private locations.

In 1992, adult attendance\--in millions\--in seven categories of arts
events was as follows: art museums\--49.6, musicals\--32.3,
plays\--25.1, classical music\--23.2, jazz\--19.7, opera\--6.1, and
ballet\--8.7. In addition, 75.6 million people attended art/craft fairs.
In comparison, attendance was 1.3 billion at motion picture theaters;
106.7 million at professional sporting events; and 68 million at NCAA
college football and basketball. Horse and greyhound racing attendance
was 77.3 million.

The second figure presenting data on employment in selected cultural and
recreational businesses indicates that since 1964 there has been a
steady increase in employment in these activities.

**References:**

National Endowment for the Arts; Research Division Note #59; based on
information supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department
of Commerce, *Statistical Abstract of the United States*, 1996.

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, *County Business
Patterns.*

National Endowment for the Arts news release concerning research results
that show low participation in the arts by "baby boomers," Washington,
D.C., May 15, 1996.

Figure 4.51. Total Personal Expenditures for Selected Cultural and
Recreational Choices as a Percentage of Real GDP, 1992-1996

![](media/image57.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Secretariat for the SDI Group using data provided by the
National Endowment for the Arts

Figure 4.52. People Working in Selected Cultural and Recreational
Private Businesses, 1964-1994

![](media/image58.png){width="6.0in" height="4.329861111111111in"}

Source: Secretariat for the SDI Group using data from Bureau of the
Census, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, *County Business Patterns, 1996*, Washington, D.C.

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**People in Census Tracts with 40% or Greater Poverty**

Census tracts have been defined for metropolitan areas which cover 75%
of the total U.S. population. The poverty line is defined as the income
level at which the estimated cost of a low-cost food plan for a family
of three or more would consume 33% of the family's total income. A high
poverty census tract is defined as one in which 40% or more of the
population is below the poverty line. The percentage of poor people
living in high poverty census tracts is a measure of the concentration
of poverty in urban areas. It is widely believed that poor people are
worse off living in areas of concentrated poverty than they would be in
other areas, and that society as a whole suffers when these areas of
concentrated poverty exist. Furthermore, growth in areas of concentrated
poverty has negative implications for the future because children reared
in very poor neighborhoods are at risk of poor developmental outcomes.

The graph shows three measures of the concentration of poverty in urban
areas:

\(1\) the percentage of the population below the poverty line living in
high poverty census tracts (from 16.5% in 1970 to 28.2% in 1990);

\(2\) the percentage of census tracts which are defined as "high
poverty" with 40% or more of the population in the tract below the
poverty line (from 6% in 1970 to 13.7% in 1990); and

\(3\) the percentage of total population living in high poverty census
tracts (from 5.2% in 1970 to 10.7% in 1990).

Figure 4.53. High Poverty Census Tracts: 40% or More of Population Below
the Poverty Line, 1970-1990

![](media/image59.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

**Social Indicators\--Current Results**

**Crime Rate**

Crime clearly affects a community's safety and sense of security, and it
is also believed to have major impacts on neighborhood stability, urban
economic development, education, social integration, and the perceived
quality of life. Today, crime and disorder are often viewed as a cause,
as well as an effect, of the decline of many inner city neighborhoods.

In the graph below, household crimes include burglary, residential
larceny, and motor vehicle theft; personal theft includes theft and
personal larceny with contact; and violent crimes include murder and
non-negligent homicide, rape, robbery, and assault. Estimates of major
crimes other than homicides are provided annually through the National
Crime Victimization Survey. This survey is conducted by the Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Justice. Estimates of homicides are provided by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and published in its Uniform Crime Reports. These
estimates are based on a national tabulation of murders and
non-negligent homicides known to the police. These two inventories do
not capture all crime (e.g., many types of fraud) and are believed to
present an incomplete counting of other crimes, such as domestic
violence. Nevertheless, they are the best figures currently available
and they are generally considered to be more accurate than those of
other nations.

Figure 4.54. Crime Rates, 1973-1994

![](media/image60.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**Life Expectancy at Birth**

Life expectancy is a widely accepted and standard measure of health
outcomes. It is revised annually based on mortality data collected from
the States. The latest published data, for 1994, show a life expectancy
in the United States of 75.7 years (72.4 years for males and 79.0 years
for females). This level has changed slowly in recent years.

Life expectancy is included in this set of U.S. sustainable development
indicators as a broad-based measure of health. Human health is one of
the most important parameters of sustainable development; if poor health
prevents us from working and being able to contribute to society as a
whole, we may be unable to meet our own needs and to lay a solid
foundation for future generations.

There is a direct and substantial relationship between economic
development, life expectancy, and other measures of health such as
infant mortality and other types of premature death. As might be
expected, developing countries with widespread poverty often lack the
resources to provide for such basic needs as food, shelter, clothing,
and medical care and this can adversely impact on life expectancy at
birth. However, even for developed countries, protracted changes in life
expectancy can result from significant shifts in a variety of social,
economic and environmental factors important to maintaining a healthy
population. Unfavorable changes in U.S. life expectancy at birth would
indicate the need to consider other indicators linked to the overall
health of the population.

Figure 4.55. Life Expectancy, 1940-1990

![](media/image61.png){width="6.0in" height="4.029861111111111in"}

Source: Secretariat for the SDI Group using data provided by the
Department of Health and Human Services

**Social Indicators\--Processes**

**Educational Achievement Rates**

Educational achievement-as measured by student proficiency in
mathematics-provides a measure to what extent the leaders of tomorrow
are being educated. A central goal of high-quality formal schooling is
to ensure that students acquire a solid foundation of knowledge in
subject areas, such as mathematics. In recent years, there has been a
positive trend in achievement rates in the three grades measured.

Mathematics achievement has been shown to affect many aspects of student
development: thinking ability, the likelihood of going to college,
employment, earnings in the labor market, and career success.

The mathematics achievement of students is represented by test score
results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) from
grades 4, 8, and 12. NAEP has defined national standards of achievement
according to what students should know and be able to do at different
grades. The *Basic* level means that students have partial mastery of
the prerequisite knowledge and skills that are required for proficient
work at a designated grade level. The *Proficient* level means solid
academic performance and demonstrated competency in concepts and
applications.

Figure 4.56. Trends Achievement in 4th Grade Mathematics: National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1990-1996

![](media/image62.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics: Report Card for the Nation and the
States*,* Washington, DC, 1997.

Figure 4.57. Trends Achievement in 8th Grade Mathematics: National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1990-1996

![](media/image63.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics: Report Card for the Nation and the
States*,* Washington, DC, 1997.

Figure 4.58. Trends Achievement in 12th Grade Mathematics: National
Assessment of Educational Progress, 1990-1996

![](media/image64.png){width="6.0in" height="4.179861111111111in"}

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics: Report Card for the Nation and the
States*,* Washington, DC, 1997.

**Chapter 5. What the Indicators Do and Do Not Tell Us about Sustainable
Development**

**\"Indicators can be a useful tool for understanding the challenges,
opportunities, and trade-offs involved in sustainable development.\"**

This chapter looks at the full set of indicators to see what they do and
do not tell us about the Nation's progress toward sustainability. This
does not represent a full assessment, and further work will be needed to
understand the relationships among the indicators or to combine them in
ways that are most useful to policy makers and the public.

For some indicators (e.g., water quality or crime rates), the meaning
for current and future generations seems clear. But for others (e.g.,
materials and energy consumption), the meaning for future sustainability
is less clear and may depend in part on future advances in science and
technology.

Although this experimental set of indicators does not provide a single
answer regarding our progress toward sustainable development, it does
provide a tool for examining many of the factors we believe to be
important. The information provided by these and other indicators may
make it possible for society to have a more informed debate about the
challenges, opportunities, and trade-offs involved in pursuing
sustainable development. Ultimately, we must all take responsibility for
adopting practices, policies, and approaches that will be beneficial to
all generations.

The following tables and discussion provide a summary of the 40
indicators and the expected impacts of trends in these indicators on
sustainable development.

Go to Discussion and Further Considerations

Table 5.1 Economic Indicators & Sustainable Development

+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **Ind    | *        | *  |    |    |                              |
| icator** | *Trend** | *R |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | an |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ce |    |    |                              |
|          |          | to |    |    |                              |
|          |          | S  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | us |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ta |    |    |                              |
|          |          | in |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ab |    |    |                              |
|          |          | le |    |    |                              |
|          |          | D  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | op |    |    |                              |
|          |          | me |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nt |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **-**    | **-**    | ** |    |    | **Comments**                 |
|          |          | Im |    |    |                              |
|          |          | pa |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ct |    |    |                              |
|          |          | of |    |    |                              |
|          |          | T  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | re |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nd |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **-**    | **-**    | *  | *  | *  | **-**                        |
|          |          | *+ | *- | *? |                              |
|          |          | ** | ** | ** |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Capital  | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Net fixed reproducible       |
| Assets   | media/im |    |    |    | tangible wealth has          |
|          | age65.wm |    |    |    | increased by more the 90%    |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | since 1970.                  |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Labor    | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Productivity growth has      |
| Prod     | media/im |    |    |    | averaged 1.1% since 1973.    |
| uctivity | age66.wm |    |    |    |                              |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Federal  | ![](     | *  | *  | X  | Debt held by the public has  |
| Debt to  | media/im | *- | *- |    | declined only slightly, from |
| GDP      | age66.wm | ** | ** |    | 50.2% of GDP in 1993 to      |
| Ratio    | f){width |    |    |    | 49.9% of GDP in 1996.        |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Energy   | per      | *  | *  | X  | Energy consumption per       |
| Con      | capita   | *- | *- |    | capita reflects personal     |
| sumption |          | ** | ** |    | access to energy (heat,      |
| Per      | ![](     |    |    |    | transportation,              |
| Capita & | media/im |    |    |    | electricity), and increases  |
| Per \$   | age65.wm |    |    |    | are often considered to be   |
| of GDP   | f){width |    |    |    | beneficial. However, this    |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | measure alone does not       |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | capture important            |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | distributional,              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | intergenerational,           |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | environmental, or consumer   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | conservation issues. Energy  |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | consumption per GDP          |
|          |          |    |    |    | highlights the efficiency of |
|          | per GDP  |    |    |    | use, and in the United       |
|          |          |    |    |    | States, decreases would      |
|          | ![](     |    |    |    | generally be considered to   |
|          | media/im |    |    |    | be beneficial. We can not be |
|          | age67.wm |    |    |    | certain whether future       |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | increases in energy use per  |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | capita or for the population |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | as a whole could be          |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | sustained\--even with        |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | improvements in energy       |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | efficiency\--without         |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | examining all of the related |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | economic, environmental, and |
|          |          |    |    |    | social impacts.              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| M        | per      | *  | *  | X  | Since 1900, the U.S.         |
| aterials | capita   | *- | *- |    | consumption of materials per |
| Con      | since    | ** | ** |    | capita has increased         |
| sumption | 1970     |    |    |    | substantially; but it is     |
| Per      |          |    |    |    | lower today than it was in   |
| Capita & | ![](     |    |    |    | 1970. Like energy,           |
| Per \$   | media/im |    |    |    | increasing materials         |
| of GDP   | age67.wm |    |    |    | consumption can reflect      |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | greater material well-being, |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | but this measure does not    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | capture important            |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | distributional,              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | intergenerational,           |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | environmental, or consumer   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | conservation issues. The     |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | consumption of materials per |
|          |          |    |    |    | GDP has decreased since 1900 |
|          | per GDP  |    |    |    | and since 1970, possibly     |
|          | since    |    |    |    | reflecting greater           |
|          | 1900 and |    |    |    | efficiency as well as a      |
|          | since    |    |    |    | shift toward a more          |
|          | 1970     |    |    |    | service-oriented economy. We |
|          |          |    |    |    | can not be certain whether   |
|          | ![](     |    |    |    | future increases in          |
|          | media/im |    |    |    | materials use per capita or  |
|          | age67.wm |    |    |    | for the population as a      |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | whole could be               |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | sustained\--even with        |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | improvements in production   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | efficiency\--without         |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | examining all of the related |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | economic, environmental, and |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | social impacts.              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| I        | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Since 1992, the annual       |
| nflation | media/im |    |    |    | increase in inflation has    |
|          | age66.wm |    |    |    | been 3% or less.             |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| In       | since    | *  | X  | \- | Investment in R&D has        |
| vestment | 1991     | *- |    |    | decreased since 1991. R&D    |
| in R&D   |          | ** |    |    | can potentially lead to      |
| as a     | ![](     |    |    |    | scientific and technological |
| Pe       | media/im |    |    |    | advances that help us        |
| rcentage | age67.wm |    |    |    | address various              |
| of GDP   | f){width |    |    |    | sustainability issues (e.g., |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | pollution and climate        |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | change). A complete          |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | assessment of the benefits   |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | of R&D investment should     |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | include an analysis of the   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | costs and benefits of the    |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | resulting technologies.      |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Domestic | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Gross domestic product\--an  |
| Product  | media/im |    |    |    | aggregate measure of         |
|          | age65.wm |    |    |    | economic performance\--has   |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | more than doubled since      |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | 1970, after adjusting for    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | inflation.                   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Income   | income   | \- | \- | X  | Since 1970, average income   |
| Dist     | levels   |    |    |    | has generally increased for  |
| ribution |          |    |    |    | all income groups; but the   |
|          | ![](     |    |    |    | increase has been greatest   |
|          | media/im |    |    |    | for those in the two highest |
|          | age65.wm |    |    |    | income groups and lowest for |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | those in the middle and      |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | low-middle income groups.    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
|          |          |    |    |    |                              |
|          | dist     |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ribution |    |    |    |                              |
|          |          |    |    |    |                              |
|          | among    |    |    |    |                              |
|          | income   |    |    |    |                              |
|          | groups   |    |    |    |                              |
|          |          |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ![](     |    |    |    |                              |
|          | media/im |    |    |    |                              |
|          | age67.wm |    |    |    |                              |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Con      | ![](     | X  | *  | *  | Personal consumption         |
| sumption | media/im |    | *- | *- | expenditures (PCE) per       |
| Expe     | age65.wm |    | ** | ** | person, adjusted for         |
| nditures | f){width |    |    |    | inflation, have increased    |
| Per      | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | more than 60% over the past  |
| Capita   | 55555555 |    |    |    | 25 years. This is generally  |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | accepted as evidence of an   |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | improved standard of living  |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | and is thus scored as a      |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | positive impact. While PCE   |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | measures the value of goods  |
|          |          |    |    |    | and services purchased by    |
|          |          |    |    |    | U.S. residents, it does not  |
|          |          |    |    |    | reflect many of the related  |
|          |          |    |    |    | distributional,              |
|          |          |    |    |    | environmental, or social     |
|          |          |    |    |    | issues that may be important |
|          |          |    |    |    | to long-term sustainability. |
|          |          |    |    |    | To the extent possible,      |
|          |          |    |    |    | these concerns are addressed |
|          |          |    |    |    | by other indicators in the   |
|          |          |    |    |    | SDI set.                     |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Unem     | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Unemployment has decreased   |
| ployment | media/im |    |    |    | from a high of 9.7% in 1982  |
|          | age67.wm |    |    |    | to below 5% in recent years. |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Homeo    | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Homeownership rates rose     |
| wnership | media/im |    |    |    | steadily after World War II  |
| Rates    | age65.wm |    |    |    | to reach a peak of 65.6% in  |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | 1980. After a period of      |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | somewhat lower rates in the  |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | mid-1980s and early 1990s,   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | rates began to rise again    |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | and have nearly reached the  |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | 1980 peak.                   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Pe       | ![](     | *  | X  | \- | Although the prevalence of   |
| rcentage | media/im | *- |    |    | physically inadequate        |
| of       | age65.wm | ** |    |    | housing and crowding in      |
| Ho       | f){width |    |    |    | housing declined from 1978   |
| useholds | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | to 1993, the percentage of   |
| With     | 55555555 |    |    |    | U.S. households that pay     |
| Housing  | 55556in" |    |    |    | more than 30% of their       |
| Problems | height=  |    |    |    | income for housing has       |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | increased from 16% in 1978   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | to 25% in 1993. When         |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | considered together, the     |
|          |          |    |    |    | percentage of households     |
|          |          |    |    |    | with either severe cost      |
|          |          |    |    |    | burdens or severe physical   |
|          |          |    |    |    | problems increased from 9%   |
|          |          |    |    |    | in 1978 to 11% in 1993.      |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+

Table 5.2 Environmental Indicators & Sustainable Development

+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **Ind    | *        | *  |    |    |                              |
| icator** | *Trend** | *R |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | an |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ce |    |    |                              |
|          |          | to |    |    |                              |
|          |          | S  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | us |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ta |    |    |                              |
|          |          | in |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ab |    |    |                              |
|          |          | le |    |    |                              |
|          |          | D  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | op |    |    |                              |
|          |          | me |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nt |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **-**    | **-**    | ** |    |    | **Comments**                 |
|          |          | Im |    |    |                              |
|          |          | pa |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ct |    |    |                              |
|          |          | of |    |    |                              |
|          |          | T  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | re |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nd |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **-**    | **-**    | *  | *  | *  | \-                           |
|          |          | *+ | *- | *? |                              |
|          |          | ** | ** | ** |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Surface  | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Since 1972, there have been  |
| Water    | media/im |    |    |    | substantial improvements in  |
| Quality  | age65.wm |    |    |    | surface water quality,       |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | primarily due to the         |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | reduction of the most        |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | conspicuous point-sources or |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | contamination.               |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Acres of | since    | \- | \- | X  | There has been a significant |
| Major    | 1750     |    |    |    | decline in the acres and     |
| Ter      |          |    |    |    | ecological integrity of      |
| restrial | ![](     |    |    |    | pristine ecosystems since    |
| Ec       | media/im |    |    |    | the middle of the 18th       |
| osystems | age67.wm |    |    |    | century. In recent years,    |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | reclamation has resulted in  |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | the partial rebound of some  |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | ecosystems. As restoration   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | techniques become more       |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | sophisticated, significant   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | improvements to ecosystem    |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | conditions can be expected.  |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Cont     | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Based on data from 1986      |
| aminants | media/im |    |    |    | through 1995, concentrations |
| in Biota | age67.wm |    |    |    | of many of the contaminants  |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | measured declined for the    |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | contaminants whose use had   |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | been banned or restricted.   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | There continue to be         |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | significant scientific       |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | concerns concerning the      |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | release of substances into   |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | the environment that may     |
|          |          |    |    |    | disrupt the normal           |
|          |          |    |    |    | functioning of endocrine     |
|          |          |    |    |    | systems.                     |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Quantity | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The safe storage of spent    |
| of Spent | media/im |    |    |    | nuclear fuel will create a   |
| Nuclear  | age65.wm |    |    |    | burden for generations to    |
| Fuel     | f){width |    |    |    | come at a cost of millions   |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | of dollars per year. In the  |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | coming years, we will need   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | to balance the dangers,      |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | costs, and benefits of       |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | nuclear energy with the full |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | costs and benefits           |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | (economic, environmental,    |
|          |          |    |    |    | and social) of other energy  |
|          |          |    |    |    | sources and technologies     |
|          |          |    |    |    | (e.g., fossil fuels,         |
|          |          |    |    |    | renewable forms of energy,   |
|          |          |    |    |    | and energy efficiency).      |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Status   | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | Stratospheric ozone across   |
| of       | media/im |    |    |    | the United States has        |
| Strat    | age67.wm |    |    |    | declined by about 7% since   |
| ospheric | f){width |    |    |    | 1978; and more than 50% of   |
| Ozone    | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | springtime ozone has been    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | lost over the South Pole     |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | since 1970. The good news is |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | that due to regulations on   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | ozone-depleting gases (e.g., |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | chlorofluorocarbons) which   |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | became effective January 1,  |
|          |          |    |    |    | 1996, the concentrations of  |
|          |          |    |    |    | these gases in the           |
|          |          |    |    |    | stratosphere are expected to |
|          |          |    |    |    | peak by the turn of the      |
|          |          |    |    |    | century. We expect to see    |
|          |          |    |    |    | the first evidence of        |
|          |          |    |    |    | stratospheric ozone recovery |
|          |          |    |    |    | early in the 20th century    |
|          |          |    |    |    | and the beginning of         |
|          |          |    |    |    | recovery will first be       |
|          |          |    |    |    | observed at the South Pole   |
|          |          |    |    |    | since the springtime         |
|          |          |    |    |    | depletion there is very      |
|          |          |    |    |    | large compared to natural    |
|          |          |    |    |    | variability.                 |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Gr       | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | Under stable conditions, the |
| eenhouse | media/im |    |    |    | greenhouse climate response  |
| Climate  | age65.wm |    |    |    | index would be 10%. Since    |
| Response | f){width |    |    |    | 1980, the greenhouse climate |
| Index    | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | response index has averaged  |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | 13.3%, suggesting that U.S.  |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | climate is changing in a     |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | manner consistent with       |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | greenhouse warming.          |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Ratio of | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | The ratio of renewable water |
| R        | media/im |    |    |    | supply to withdrawals        |
| enewable | age65.wm |    |    |    | decreased from 1950 to 1980, |
| Water    | f){width |    |    |    | but there was an increase    |
| Supply   | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | from 1980 to 1985 and 1990.  |
| to       | 55555555 |    |    |    | The Nation as a whole has a  |
| Wit      | 55556in" |    |    |    | favorable ratio of supply to |
| hdrawals | height=  |    |    |    | withdrawals, although some   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | regions of the country do    |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | not (e.g., the arid West).   |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
|          |          |    |    |    |                              |
|          | since    |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 1980     |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| F        | Trend    | \- | \- | X  | In 1997, the National Marine |
| isheries | data not |    |    |    | Fisheries Service found that |
| Uti      | yet      |    |    |    | 86 species (12%) were        |
| lization | a        |    |    |    | overfished, 183 species      |
|          | vailable |    |    |    | (25%) were not overfished,   |
|          | for U.S. |    |    |    | and 10 species (1%) were     |
|          | f        |    |    |    | considered to be approaching |
|          | isheries |    |    |    | an overfished condition. For |
|          | as a     |    |    |    | 448 species (62%), their     |
|          | whole.   |    |    |    | status relative to           |
|          |          |    |    |    | overfishing is currently     |
|          |          |    |    |    | unknown. Overfished stocks   |
|          |          |    |    |    | may be at risk of severe or  |
|          |          |    |    |    | irreversible depletion.      |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Invasive | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The number of invasive alien |
| Alien    | media/im |    |    |    | species of plants, animals,  |
| Species  | age65.wm |    |    |    | insects, microorganisms, and |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | pathogens has continued to   |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | increase. These non-native   |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | species often displace       |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | indigenous species, and the  |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | associated environmental,    |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | economic, and social costs   |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | can be significant.          |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Co       | ![](     | \- | \- | X  | The rate of cropland         |
| nversion | media/im |    |    |    | conversion to other uses has |
| of       | age67.wm |    |    |    | declined in recent years, as |
| Cropland | f){width |    |    |    | has the rate of expansion in |
| to Other | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | urban areas. This seems to   |
| Uses     | 55555555 |    |    |    | be a positive trend, but we  |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | know that even if the rate   |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | of conversion is decreasing, |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | cropland conversion can not  |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | continue indefinitely        |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | without having a detrimental |
|          |          |    |    |    | impact on the ability of     |
|          |          |    |    |    | future generations to meet   |
|          |          |    |    |    | their food needs. There is a |
|          |          |    |    |    | good deal of uncertainty     |
|          |          |    |    |    | (scientific, technological,  |
|          |          |    |    |    | and societal) about how much |
|          |          |    |    |    | cropland will be needed to   |
|          |          |    |    |    | meet the food needs of       |
|          |          |    |    |    | future generations.          |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Soil     | ![](     | \- | \- | X  | Cropland erosion rates have  |
| Erosion  | media/im |    |    |    | generally declined since     |
| Rates    | age67.wm |    |    |    | 1982, but there are still    |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | areas where erosion rates    |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | exceed soil regeneration     |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | rates. The current trend is  |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | favorable, but it is not     |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | clear whether it is          |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | sustainable in the           |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | long-term.                   |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Timber   | since    | X  | \- | \- | In every year since 1952,    |
| Growth   | 1952     |    |    |    | the growth of timber has     |
| to       |          |    |    |    | exceeded removals. In 1992,  |
| Removals | ![](     |    |    |    | the timber growth/removal    |
| Balance  | media/im |    |    |    | ratio was 1.33 meaning that  |
|          | age65.wm |    |    |    | the U.S. grew 33% more       |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | timber than it cut.          |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Gr       | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | Between 1990 and 1994, the   |
| eenhouse | media/im |    |    |    | weighted total U.S.          |
| Gas      | age65.wm |    |    |    | emissions of greenhouse      |
| E        | f){width |    |    |    | gases rose by 3.9%; and      |
| missions | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | between 1990 and 1995, the   |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | U.S. emissions of carbon     |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | dioxide rose by 5.1%.        |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Identi   | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The number of Superfund      |
| fication | media/im |    |    |    | sites grew from 8,689 in     |
| &        | age65.wm |    |    |    | 1980 to 39,099 in 1994. In   |
| Ma       | f){width |    |    |    | 1994, there were 1360        |
| nagement | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | National Priority List       |
| of       | 55555555 |    |    |    | sites, and removal actions   |
| S        | 55556in" |    |    |    | had been completed at a      |
| uperfund | height=  |    |    |    | total of 1516 NPL and        |
| Sites    | "0.12222 |    |    |    | non-NPL sites. Yet of the    |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | approximately 40,000         |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | Superfund sites, 16,000      |
|          |          |    |    |    | still require the on-site    |
|          |          |    |    |    | treatment or removal of      |
|          |          |    |    |    | industrial or hazardous      |
|          |          |    |    |    | wastes in order to protect   |
|          |          |    |    |    | human health and the         |
|          |          |    |    |    | environment. In addition,    |
|          |          |    |    |    | there are a number of        |
|          |          |    |    |    | non-Superfund abandoned      |
|          |          |    |    |    | industrial and hazardous     |
|          |          |    |    |    | sites known as brownfields   |
|          |          |    |    |    | that require attention.      |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Metr     | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Since 1991, both the number  |
| opolitan | media/im |    |    |    | of metropolitan areas that   |
| Air      | age67.wm |    |    |    | failed to attain air quality |
| Quality  | f){width |    |    |    | standards and the number of  |
| Non-at   | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | people living in             |
| tainment | 55555555 |    |    |    | non-attainment areas         |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | decreased.                   |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Outdoor  | ![](     | \- | \- | X  | Since 1982, the              |
| Recr     | media/im |    |    |    | participation in a number of |
| eational | age65.wm |    |    |    | outdoor recreational         |
| Ac       | f){width |    |    |    | activities has increased.    |
| tivities | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | This indicator could reflect |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | not only current             |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | environmental conditions,    |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | but also changing societal   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | interests, leisure time,     |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | personal economic resources, |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | and the availability of      |
|          |          |    |    |    | recreational services. Even  |
|          |          |    |    |    | though increasing demand for |
|          |          |    |    |    | outdoor recreational         |
|          |          |    |    |    | activities probably reflects |
|          |          |    |    |    | positive changes in our      |
|          |          |    |    |    | current quality of life, it  |
|          |          |    |    |    | could put increasing         |
|          |          |    |    |    | pressures on the environment |
|          |          |    |    |    | (e.g., through habitat       |
|          |          |    |    |    | degradation or littering)    |
|          |          |    |    |    | unless appropriate           |
|          |          |    |    |    | management measures are put  |
|          |          |    |    |    | in place.                    |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+

Table 5.3 Social Indicators & Sustainable Development

+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **Ind    | *        | *  |    |    |                              |
| icator** | *Trend** | *R |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | an |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ce |    |    |                              |
|          |          | to |    |    |                              |
|          |          | S  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | us |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ta |    |    |                              |
|          |          | in |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ab |    |    |                              |
|          |          | le |    |    |                              |
|          |          | D  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ev |    |    |                              |
|          |          | el |    |    |                              |
|          |          | op |    |    |                              |
|          |          | me |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nt |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| **-**    | **-**    | ** |    |    | **Comments**                 |
|          |          | Im |    |    |                              |
|          |          | pa |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ct |    |    |                              |
|          |          | of |    |    |                              |
|          |          | T  |    |    |                              |
|          |          | re |    |    |                              |
|          |          | nd |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| \-       | \-       | *  | \- | ?  | \-                           |
|          |          | *+ |    |    |                              |
|          |          | ** |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| U.S.     | ![](     | \- | \- | X  | The U.S. population is       |
| Po       | media/im |    |    |    | growing by about 2.5 million |
| pulation | age65.wm |    |    |    | persons or 1% per year. In   |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | the United States, it is     |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | difficult to draw any        |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | conclusions about the        |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | population size or rate of   |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | growth in the context of     |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | sustainable development      |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | without also examining       |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | factors such as the Nation's |
|          |          |    |    |    | natural resource base,       |
|          |          |    |    |    | international trading        |
|          |          |    |    |    | patterns, social service     |
|          |          |    |    |    | capabilities, and ability to |
|          |          |    |    |    | draw upon and enhance the    |
|          |          |    |    |    | contributions that each      |
|          |          |    |    |    | individual can make to       |
|          |          |    |    |    | society as a whole.          |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Children | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The percentage of children   |
| Living   | media/im |    |    |    | living in families with one  |
| in       | age65.wm |    |    |    | parent present has increased |
| Families | f){width |    |    |    | in white, black, and         |
| with     | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | Hispanic families. The       |
| Only One | 55555555 |    |    |    | mother was the parent        |
| Parent   | 55556in" |    |    |    | present in 87% of the cases, |
| Present  | height=  |    |    |    | and 72% of single parent     |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | families had incomes less    |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | than \$25,000. Although each |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    | parent makes a distinct      |
|          |          |    |    |    | contribution to a child's    |
|          |          |    |    |    | social development, a key    |
|          |          |    |    |    | problem among single-parent  |
|          |          |    |    |    | families is poverty.         |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Teacher  | ![](     | \- | \- | X  | The percentage of teachers   |
| Training | media/im |    |    |    | with a masters degree or     |
| and      | age65.wm |    |    |    | higher has steadily          |
| App      | f){width |    |    |    | increased in secondary       |
| lication | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | public schools; however,     |
| of       | 55555555 |    |    |    | approximately 10% of         |
| Qualif   | 55556in" |    |    |    | students are taught by       |
| ications | height=  |    |    |    | teachers teaching subjects   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | outside their major or       |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    | minor.                       |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
|          |          |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ![](     |    |    |    |                              |
|          | media/im |    |    |    |                              |
|          | age66.wm |    |    |    |                              |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Cont     | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | Although Americans continue  |
| ributing | media/im |    |    |    | to contribute billions of    |
| Time &   | age67.wm |    |    |    | dollars and hours of         |
| Money to | f){width |    |    |    | volunteer service to charity |
| C        | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | each year, the percentage    |
| harities | 55555555 |    |    |    | households that contribute   |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | and the percentage of the    |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | population volunteering has  |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    | decreased since 1989.        |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Births   | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The percentage of births to  |
| to       | media/im |    |    |    | single women has increased   |
| Single   | age65.wm |    |    |    | from 1970 to 1993. The       |
| Mothers  | f){width |    |    |    | increases were most marked   |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | among women older than 20    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | years old (versus teenagers) |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | and among white women        |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | (versus black women).        |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Edu      | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Educational attainment at    |
| cational | media/im |    |    |    | high school and college      |
| At       | age65.wm |    |    |    | levels has steadily          |
| tainment | f){width |    |    |    | increased since 1971.        |
| by Level | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Parti    | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Millions of Americans        |
| cipation | media/im |    |    |    | participate in cultural and  |
| in the   | age66.wm |    |    |    | recreational activities each |
| Arts &   | f){width |    |    |    | year; this participation     |
| Re       | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | reflects both leisure time   |
| creation | 55555555 |    |    |    | and shared community         |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | interests and cultural       |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | values.                      |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| People   | ![](     | \- | X  | \- | The percentage of the total  |
| in       | media/im |    |    |    | population living in high    |
| Census   | age65.wm |    |    |    | poverty census tracts has    |
| Tracts   | f){width |    |    |    | risen from 5.2% in 1970 to   |
| with 40% | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | 10.7% in 1990.               |
| or       | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
| Greater  | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
| Poverty  | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Crime    | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Since 1970, overall crime    |
| Rate     | media/im |    |    |    | rates\--including household  |
|          | age67.wm |    |    |    | crimes, personal theft, and  |
|          | f){width |    |    |    | violent crimes\--have        |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | declined.                    |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Life     | since    | X  | \- | \- | Life expectancy is a         |
| Ex       | 1984     |    |    |    | standard measure of overall  |
| pectancy |          |    |    |    | health. It is higher than it |
| at Birth | ![](     |    |    |    | was in 1984, but it has      |
|          | media/im |    |    |    | remained stable for several  |
|          | age65.wm |    |    |    | years.                       |
|          | f){width |    |    |    |                              |
|          | ="0.1555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    |                              |
|          | height=  |    |    |    |                              |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+
| Edu      | ![](     | X  | \- | \- | Educational achievement      |
| cational | media/im |    |    |    | rates\--as reflected in      |
| Ach      | age65.wm |    |    |    | average math                 |
| ievement | f){width |    |    |    | proficiency\--have increased |
| Rates    | ="0.1555 |    |    |    | slightly since 1990. The     |
|          | 55555555 |    |    |    | high school dropout rate has |
|          | 55556in" |    |    |    | declined since 1971, to      |
|          | height=  |    |    |    | about 12%.                   |
|          | "0.12222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 22222222 |    |    |    |                              |
|          | 2222in"} |    |    |    |                              |
+----------+----------+----+----+----+------------------------------+

**Discussion and Further Considerations**

It may be useful to take a closer look at indicators that relate to the
economy, the environment, and society to understand where progress has
been made and where additional attention is needed. *The following
description is primarily intended to initiate a discussion of what these
indicators can tell us about sustainable development.\
*

**Economic Indicators**

Assessing economic progress in the context of sustainable development
requires us to look not only at current goods and services but also at
the long-term capacity to provide for human needs. A major challenge in
interpreting current economic results is to determine whether changes
are outside the range of normal variability.

The media generally pay closest attention to short-term economic
indicators, such as monthly or quarterly unemployment and GDP, but in
the context of sustainable development, we must also consider long-term
trends. It seems likely that future generations will want a somewhat
different mix of goods and services than we consume today, so we would
eventually like to be able to measure the capacity of our economic
system to adjust to changing needs and wants.

A widely used indicator of current economic output is the gross domestic
product (GDP). In general, GDP has grown over the past 25 years, as has
net domestic product (NDP, or GDP minus depreciation). NDP adjusts for
the depreciation of reproducible capital, but it does not adjust for
changes in other variables that affect production such as natural
resource stocks, human capital, advances in knowledge and technology, or
innovation.

Inflation has varied with the business cycle, but it is lower today than
it was in the mid-1970s and early 1980s. The civilian unemployment rate
has also varied with the business cycle, but it has been below 6% for
the past two years. These are positive economic trends, but these
indicators alone can not tell us whether current patterns of economic
growth are sustainable over the long term.

A key question in assessing progress toward sustainable development is
whether we are maintaining the basic resources and productive capacities
we need to provide for current and future needs. Two key sample
indicators that provide some information about the capacity of our
economic endowments to support current and future needs are (1) capital
assets, as measured by net fixed reproducible tangible wealth, and (2)
labor productivity in the non-farm business sector. Both capital assets
and labor productivity have grown substantially since 1970.

These economic indicators have some limitations in the context of
sustainable development. Capital assets and labor productivity do not
provide us with related, important information on the environment,
natural resources, or advances in knowledge and technology.

Like all endowments, capital assets, labor productivity, and a skilled
labor force must be maintained through investment. The stock of fixed
capital must be rebuilt to offset depreciation, and productive capacity
can be enhanced by the development of improved technologies and
investments in new capital (including research and development and the
education and training of the workforce).

In addition to looking at overall economic performance and investment,
it is important to look at economic distributional issues. The
distribution of income has important consequences for society as a
whole. The indicator on income trends shows that the top income groups
are making greater gains in income than the middle and lower income
groups. Although there is no broad consensus in the United States on
what constitutes an equitable income distribution, it seems likely that
a long-term trend of increasing income inequality could exacerbate some
societal problems. When examined over a period of years, income
distribution can provide a useful measure of equity from one generation
to the next. Consideration of intergenerational equity is particularly
important in the context of sustainable development.

A second key distributional indicator is the percentage of the
population in problem housing. Although the prevalence of physically
inadequate housing and crowded housing have declined, increases in
housing costs have forced 25% of U.S. households to pay more than 30% of
their income for housing in 1993, compared to 16% of households in 1978.
Without additional information, it is difficult to interpret the
implications of such a trend for sustainable development. If the burden
falls more on the lower income groups, it could suggest inequities in
the availability of affordable housing. It could also reflect
demographic changes, changing preferences for housing relative to other
goods and services, or changing preferences for more expensive
locations. A related indicator\--home ownership\--is rising and has
nearly reached the previous peak of 65.6%, which occurred in 1980. The
decrease in physically inadequate housing and in crowding and the
increase in home ownership rates should have positive impacts on social
stability and community pride.

Two of the economic indicators provide a starting point for considering
related environmental and social variables: energy use per capita and
per dollar of GDP and materials consumption per capita and per dollar of
GDP. Over the past 50 years, U.S. energy consumption per capita has
increased. Energy consumption per capita reflects personal access to and
use of energy (e.g., heat, transportation, electricity); and from a
short-term economic perspective, increases in energy consumption can be
beneficial, particularly in developing countries. But this measure does
not adequately reflect important distributional, intergenerational,
environmental, or conservation issues. Energy consumption per dollar of
GDP has decreased over the past 50 years due to increasing efficiency of
use, and this trend is beneficial. Nevertheless, in order to meet future
energy needs without harming the environment, significant changes in
consumption patterns, the efficiency of use, and/or energy sources may
still be needed.

We could say similar things about the consumption of materials per
capita and per dollar of GDP. U.S. per capita use of materials has grown
dramatically since 1900, but it has decreased since 1970. Like energy,
increasing materials consumption per capita may represent greater
material well-being, but it does not capture important distributional,
intergenerational, environmental, or conservation issues. The decrease
in materials use per capita since 1970 could be due in part to a shift
toward a more service-oriented society. The consumption of materials per
GDP has decreased since 1900, perhaps reflecting both greater production
efficiencies and changing market forces. We can not be certain whether
future increases in materials use per capita or for the population as a
whole could be sustained\--even with improvements in production
efficiency\--without examining all of the related economic,
environmental, and social impacts.

The sample set of economic indicators also includes Federal debt per
dollar of GDP. In the context of sustainability, the major concern about
debt relates to distributional issues. For every debt owed by one
institution, there is an equal asset on the books of other institutions
or individuals to whom the debt is owed. With Federal debt, the burden
of financing the debt is shared across the American population, while
the benefits accrue only to those who can afford to hold the bonds, both
in this country and abroad.

**Environmental Indicators**

The environmental indicators selected by the SDI Group reflect a wide
range of natural resource and environmental issues and provide a
starting point for thinking about the environmental components of
sustainability. In some cases, the indicators clearly point to positive
or negative trends; but in other cases, scientific and technological
uncertainties make it difficult to assess the long-term implications of
current trends.

The environmental indicators show that we are continuing to improve
surface water quality, reduce the contamination of biota, and reduce air
pollution. Since 1972, there have been substantial improvements in
surface water quality, due primarily to the reduction of some of the
most conspicuous point sources of contamination. The overall
concentrations of contaminants of coastal biota decreased from 1986 to
1995, due to restrictions or bans on the use of some of the most toxic
substances. Yet, in spite of these improvements, a number of states must
still issue advisories warning against the consumption of fish and
shellfish from coastal waters. Substantial progress has been made in
reducing air pollution, but there are still 165 metropolitan areas that
do not yet meet national air quality standards.

One issue that has received significant international attention is the
depletion of stratospheric ozone. The depletion of stratospheric ozone
relates to human activities that result in the emission of chlorine and
bromine-containing gases. Reduced ozone levels can result in increased
UV-B radiation at the Earth's surface, and this increased radiation is
known to be harmful to certain biological systems and is believed to be
associated with an increased incidence of skin cancer in humans.
Stratospheric ozone levels over the United States have declined by about
7% since 1978, and more than 50% of springtime ozone has been lost over
the South Pole since 1970. Due to regulations on ozone-depleting gases
(e.g., chlorofluorocarbons) which became effective on January 1, 1996,
the concentrations of these gases in the stratosphere are expected to
peak by the turn of the century. We expect to see the first evidence of
stratospheric ozone recovery early in the 20th century, and the
beginning of that recovery will be observed first at the South Pole
since the springtime depletion in that part of the world is very large
compared to natural variability.

Other environmental indicators raise serious concerns. U.S. emissions of
greenhouse gases increased by 3.9% between 1990 and 1994, and between
1990 and 1995, the U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide rose by 5.1%. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that observations
suggest a "discernible human influence on global climate", and although
the impacts of global warming on sustainable development are not
entirely clear, they could be substantial.

The Global Climate Response Index is composed of five different
indicators of weather patterns (e.g., percent of the U.S. with much
above normal temperatures or with much greater than normal proportion of
precipitation derived from heavy rainfall events). This index provides
us with a tool that we can use to determine whether U.S. weather and
climate patterns have changed as we would expect with greenhouse
warming. Under stable conditions, the expected value of this index in
any given year would be 10%. But since 1980, the GCRI has averaged
13.3%; this is 3.3% above the average from previous years in the
century. Although there is a 5-10% chance that this trend could occur
under stable conditions, the tendency toward increased values of the
index over the past two decades suggests that the climate of the United
States is changing in a manner consistent with greenhouse warming.

Another area for concern is the generation of highly radioactive spent
nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. The safe storage of this spent
fuel will create a burden for generations to come at a cost of millions
of dollars per year. The high costs associated with ensuring safe and
efficient nuclear energy operations and storage could reduce the
generation of nuclear energy and the resulting spent nuclear fuel in the
years to come. But if the generation of nuclear energy decreases, we may
need to rely on other energy sources\--such as fossil fuels\--to a
greater degree and those alternatives are associated with their own
environmental consequences (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions and
pollution). Greater energy efficiency measures and an increase in the
use of renewable forms of energy hold the promise of providing
environmentally favorable energy services for the next century.

We are making progress in conserving some natural resources and
utilizing them in a more sustainable manner. Important regional
differences exist, but at the national level, timber growth exceeds
removals and soil erosion is declining. The United States as a whole has
a favorable ratio of renewable water supply to withdrawals, but some
parts of the country continue to experience water shortages.

In the case of fisheries, we need to do more to ensure that natural
resource stocks are adequate for current and future generations. In
1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service found that 86 species (12%)
were overfished, 183 species (25%) were not overfished, and 10 species
(1%) were approaching an overfished condition. For 448 species (62%),
their status relative to overfishing is currently unknown. There is
clearly a need for further scientific research and sustainable fishery
management practices.

There is a growing demand for outdoor recreational services, and this
implies that the natural environment supporting these activities is
adequate and aesthetically pleasing. Although an increase in outdoor
recreation probably represents positive changes in our current quality
of life, continued increases in demand could place increasing pressure
on the environment (e.g., through habitat degradation) unless
appropriate management measures are put in place.

**Social Indicators**

There are a number of factors that make it difficult to identify and
analyze indicators of social sustainability. The selection of social
indicators is particularly affected by one's cultural and social values,
personal background, and experiences; and it is difficult to identify
the indicators that will ultimately be the most useful in measuring
equity, social cohesiveness, and societal well-being.

One way to think about the social aspects of sustainability is to focus
on the factors that affect the well-being of individuals, families, or
communities. A number of the indicators relate to communities as a
whole; examples include population, teacher training levels, the
prevalence of poverty, participation in the arts and recreational
activities, contributions of time and money to charities, and the crime
rate. Several other indicators\--such as children living in families
with one parent present or births to single mothers\--focus on the
family. And the remaining indicators, such as life expectancy, focus on
the individual.

The U.S. population is continuing to grow at the rate of approximately
2.5 million people or 1% per year. Increases in population can result in
positive economic growth and provide new sources of labor and social
capital, but they can also put increasing pressures on the environment,
natural resources, and social institutions. There is currently no
consensus on what the optimal U.S. population level is, and if consensus
is ever reached, it will depend on a broad-based examination of all of
the related economic, environmental, and social factors, including
advances in science and technology, in both short-term and long-term.

A few of the trends in social indicators raise concerns. The percentage
of the total population living in high poverty census tracts has risen
from 5.2% in 1970 to 10.75% in 1990. This trend has significant negative
implications because of the harmful effects of concentrated poverty on
children\'s development and the social capital of our inner cities.

Americans contribute billions of dollars to charity and billions of
hours to volunteer activities each year, but the percentage of
households that contribute time and money to charity has decreased
slightly since 1989. The reasons for this decline are unclear, but they
could be related to factors such as the increasing dependence of many
families on two wage earners, longer commuting times, personal and
financial stress, and efforts to spend more time with one's own family.

One of the most important issues for communities across the country is
crime prevention. Crime has far-reaching effects on individuals and
communities. It not only affects the sense of personal safety and
security, but it also has major impacts on neighborhood stability, urban
economic development, education, and the perceived quality of life. The
good news is that crime rates for the Nation as a whole\--including
household crimes, personal theft, and violent crimes\--have been
declining. The improvement could be due to a range of factors such as
better law enforcement, community policing, crime prevention programs,
and the improvement of economic or social conditions.

One positive social indicator is the increase in the level of education
attainment since 1971. Graduation rates have fluctuated in recent years,
and elementary and secondary school enrollment rates have remained
stable for a number of years. Educational achievement rates\--as
reflected in the average proficiency in mathematics\--have increased
slightly since 1990, and teacher training levels in secondary schools
have increased, but about 10% of students are attending classes where
teachers are teaching subjects outside their major or minor. We know
that education will be a key to ensuring a sustainable future, and a
great deal more needs to be done to improve the quality of education
across the country.

Family structure has changed significantly over the past 25 years.
Between 1970 and 1995, the number of children living in families with
one parent present increased in white, black, and Hispanic families. In
1995, the mother was the parent present in 87% of the time. One of the
most serious problems for many single-parent families is poverty: in
1995, 72% of single-parent families had incomes of less than \$25,000.

Births among single women of all ages increased from 1970 to 1993, and
the majority of these births were to single women 20 years old or older.
The number of births to all teenage mothers decreased from 1970 to 1993,
but the number of births to *single* teenage mothers increased from
200,000 to 368,000. In 1970, 31% of teenage mothers were single, but by
1993, 74% of teenage mothers were single. As noted in the discussion of
single-parent households, one of the greatest concerns regarding
pregnancies to single teenage mothers is the increased risk that the
children will be reared in poverty. It becomes extremely difficult for
single teenage mothers as the only parent present to pursue educational
or job training opportunities when faced with the costs and
responsibilities of caring for their children.

Americans typically enjoy long life-spans, and although life expectancy
has been stable over the past few years, it has risen substantially over
the past 50 years. The aging of the baby boomers (individuals born
between 1946 and 1964) means that in the next few decades, the largest
percentage of the U.S. population in history will be retired. Even if
there are only modest increases in the overall population, the
increasing age structure of the U.S. population could strain the ability
of working-age adults to provide support for older Americans.

**The Overall Picture**

The total number of economic, environmental, and social indicators that
show trends which may result in favorable, unfavorable, or mixed or
uncertain impacts on sustainable development are shown in Table 5.4. The
SDI Group recognized that the conclusions that one draws from this
indicator set depend in part on the judgements that were made during the
indicator selection process. The selection of indicators is guided not
only by objective criteria, but also by values and priorities, and it is
important to keep in mind that the selection of different indicators
could lead to a different conclusion about the Nation's progress in
realizing a path of sustainability.

Table 5.4 Summary of Indicators

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ------------------
  **SDI Framework   **Total No. of **Relevance of                
  Subcategory**     Indicators**   Trends to                     
                                   Sustainable                   
                                   Development**                 

  \-                \-             **No. of        **No. of      **No. of
                                   Indicators with Indicators    Indicators with
                                   Trends that     with Trends   Trends that Result
                                   Result in       that Result   in Mixed or
                                   Favorable       in            Uncertain
                                   Impacts**       Unfavorable   Impacts**
                                                   Impacts**     

  **Economy**       13             7               2             4

  **Environment**   16             5               7             4

  **Society**       11             5               4             2

  **Total**         40             17              13            10
  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ------------------

In selecting indicators, the SDI Group agreed that the environment, the
economy, and society should be given equal consideration. However, some
of the indicators incorporate many different variables and are highly
aggregated \[e.g., gross domestic product or inflation (as measured by
the Consumer Price Index)\], while others represent a comparatively
small number of variables (children living in households with one parent
present). This means that an exact balance among the number of economic,
environmental, and social indicators is not necessarily required.

In addition, for the sake of clarity, each indicator is listed in just
one subcategory (economy, environment, or society), even though many of
the indicators relate to several subcategories. For example, energy
consumption could have been listed as an economic and/or environmental
indicator and housing problems could have been listed as an economic
and/or social indicator; but in the SDI set of indicators, they are
listed only as economic indicators. In some cases, we do not yet know
how best to measure the factors we believe to be important to
sustainability, such as social cohesion, societal values, and personal
and corporate responsibility.

Given all of these factors\--the different degrees of aggregation, the
inexact categorization of indicators, and uncertainties about the most
appropriate measures to use\--an exact balance among the number of
economic, environmental, and social indicators is not necessarily
required*.* In assessing progress toward sustainability, we must give
equal consideration to the economy, the environment, and society, but
this balance can potentially be achieved even when the number of
indicators in each subcategory varies.

At this point, the SDI Group has not attempted to judge whether one
individual indicator is more important than another, and for purposes of
calculating totals, the indicators were assumed to be of equal weight.
With further examination and analysis, it may make sense to assign
different weights to various indicators depending on their degree of
aggregation or on their potential impacts on long-term sustainability.

Given the need for further analysis, we can not yet conclude that the
United States is on a path toward greater sustainability. There are
still a number of areas that require greater attention (e.g., global
climate change); and other areas (e.g., consumption) where it is not
entirely clear whether or for how long the trends we are seeing can be
sustained without having negative impacts on the environment, the
economy, or society. In addition, there are some important scientific
and technological uncertainties that make it difficult to draw definite
conclusions about the future. Yet even with these caveats, we can still
say that *among the 40 indicators, 30 showed trends with a clear impact
relevant to sustainable development, and of these, 17 show positive
trends*.

In the months ahead, one of the SDI Group's tasks will be to explore the
development of a set of cross-cutting indicators that focus on various
sustainability themes (e.g., economic prosperity, consumption, the
status of natural resources, equity, or the quality of life). By
examining the current set of indicators and possible future sets in the
context of sustainable development the SDI Group hopes to stimulate the
types of thinking and analysis that will further the simultaneous
pursuit of economic prosperity, a safe and healthy environment, and
social equity.

**Chapter 6. Future Work on Sustainable Development Indicators**

**\"By studying thematic groups of indicators, we could shed some light
on the trade-offs and interactions that are involved in pursuing
long-term sustainability.\"**

When the SDI Group was first established, many participants envisioned
developing a set of about ten highly aggregated indicators that could
communicate U.S. progress toward sustainable development to a wide range
of users. It quickly became clear that achieving this objective would
require not only broad-based consensus on which issues are the most
important, but also additional research and the development of
methodologies for weighting and aggregating the indicators. It also
become evident that no single set of indicators would be able to satisfy
the needs of all potential users.

The most feasible starting point seemed to be to develop a set of
indicators based on available data for some of the issues that the SDI
Group judged to be important to sustainable development. The SDI Group
felt that the development of this set would be the most practical and
useful to Federal agencies in the short-term, since it would build on
existing data holdings and familiar concepts and also further
interagency discussions of sustainable development.

Identifying and evaluating alternative approaches for selecting,
grouping and analyzing indicators are among the most important and
challenging tasks the SDI Group must address in its next round of work.
The conceptual framework, experimental set of 40 indicators and
qualitative assessment presented in this progress report are important
first steps in finding the best approach to meet the national need for
indicators. Over the next period of work, the SDI Group will consider
alternative conceptual approaches and methodologies to find those that
are most effective in relating indicators to concepts of sustainability,
improving clarity of data presentation and assessment, reducing
excessive redundancy between indicators, and identifying linkages
between social, economic and environmental endowments and processes.
Feedback on the results presented in this progress report from the
public and private sectors will be vital to moving foreword efficiently
to complete these tasks.

**Refining Indicators for Sustainable Development**

In the coming months, the initial task for the SDI Group will be to
foster discussions on the proposed set of indicators, both within and
outside the Federal government, and to refine the indicators. Continued
outreach and research is needed to understand the issues that are most
important to sustainable development and to determine which indicators
best reflect those issues. We may find that the current set does not
adequately represent an important issue, and we may need to identify
additional or alternative indicators.

In many cases, the importance of an indicator trend may change over
time. For example, the current rate of conversion of cropland to other
uses may be sustainable 10 or 20 years from now, but perhaps not 50
years from now. In other instances, an indicator may point to an issue
that is of major concern in some parts of the country, but not in
others. Examples might include crime rates, air pollution, or water
supplies. Further work will needed to develop effective ways of
examining and relating indicators on different temporal and spatial
scales.

As we identify trends in indicators, we will need to conduct a more
careful analysis of what those trends mean for sustainability over time.
Leading indicators that give advance warning of conditions or processes
that enhance or hinder sustainability could be particularly useful in
focusing our attention on important long-term issues.

The indicators that are most useful will undoubtedly change over time as
we gain new knowledge and experience. The concerns we have today about
issues such as global greenhouse warming may increase or diminish in the
years ahead depending on factors such as the implementation of
international agreements, the use of renewable energy sources and energy
efficient technologies, and energy conservation efforts by government,
industry, communities, and individuals. As the issues and variables we
wish to track change over time, the art of indicator development and
selection must continue to evolve.

It may be useful to develop decision-making indicators that relate the
decisions of government, industry, and individuals to processes and
conditions (both short-term and long-term). The SDI Group could
potentially work more closely with those in the Federal agencies who are
developing performance measures under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). In other cases, coordination with other Federal
agency indicator efforts could be useful (e.g., the National Ecosystem
Status Report or the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Metropolitan Competitiveness Index). In addition, members of SDI Group
have been invited to participate in discussions of the PCSD's Evaluating
Progress Working Group.

In the coming months, the SDI Group plans to begin examining indicators
that relate to various sustainability themes. The themes might include
things such as economic competitiveness, social cohesion, energy, food,
and materials availability, waste management, ecological integrity,
national security, equity, or others. This approach should shed some
light on the potential interactions and tradeoffs among various
sustainability issues.

In the long-term, the most important contribution the SDI Group hopes to
make is to develop a robust, transparent, and effective approach for
integrating and assessing indicators and to provide insights into the
conditions and approaches that support sustainability. We have
identified many of the factors that seem to be important to sustainable
development, but the real challenge will be to get a sense of the
overall picture.

**Development of Additional Indicators**

In the process of selecting the current set of indicators, members of
the SDI Group identified a number of other areas that they feel are
important. For some of these areas\--such as eutrophication or total
managed wastes\--much of the data needed to construct indicators is
available, but simple national-level indicators have not yet been fully
developed. For other areas\--such as brownfields\--we still lack much of
the data that is needed for a national-level indicator. And for other
areas\--societal values, arts and culture, and equity\--it is not
completely clear which measures are the most appropriate.

Some of the areas that SDI Group members identified as needing
additional work are listed below.

• Societal Values: Societal values underlie much of the behavior we
exhibit and observe in the United States\--from consumption patterns, to
environmental stewardship, to community service. It is not yet clear
which indicators could best represent these values, and additional
effort is needed in this area.

• Public Opinions and Perceptions: Public opinions and perceptions play
a major role in influencing behavior. For example, if a community
invests in additional safety measures (e.g., by increasing the funding
available for the police department or by installing new lighting),
people may feel safer walking alone at night, even if the crime rates
have not declined significantly. Another example might be consumer
confidence. If an individual feels confident in the strength of the
overall economy, he or she may be more willing to invest in or spend
money on certain types of goods and services. It is not clear what
measures might be most useful for gauging public opinions and
perceptions, but it is an area that warrants further work.

• Arts and Culture: The current set of indicators includes indicators
for participation in the arts and recreation and contributions of time
and money to charities, but there are a number of other issues that
could be represented. For example, we may want an indicator that
reflects the level of understanding of community culture and history or
an indicator that reflects the level of acceptance and respect for
different cultures, races, religions or generations.

• Equity: The current set of indicators includes indicators that reflect
economic disparities (e.g., income distribution and poverty), but these
indicators do not adequately capture the degree to which all Americans
are treated fairly and equitably and provided with equal opportunities
to succeed. Such an indicator could reflect differences in experiences
or opportunities that may be associated with sex, race, religion, sexual
preference, education, and/or socio-economic status.

• Food Distribution and Nutrition: The current set of indicators
includes measures such as income distribution and poverty that could
relate to the distribution of food, but these indicators do not tell us
the extent to which certain populations are underfed or malnourished.
Indicators on food distribution and general nutrition could be helpful
in assessing how well the United States is doing in meeting the basic
food needs of its population.

• Agricultural Productivity: The current set of indicators includes
indicators on soil erosion and the rate of cropland conversion, but it
does not include any direct indicators of agricultural productivity.
Yields-per-acre of agricultural crops have generally increased over the
last century due to advances in biotechnology, the development of new
pesticides, and agricultural production improvements, but it is
uncertain whether these trends will continue at the current rate. The
current indicators on cropland conversion and soil erosion could be more
meaningful in the context of sustainable development if presented along
with an indicator of agricultural productivity.

• Transportation: The usefulness of the indicator set would be improved
by more fully integrating such measures as vehicle-miles traveled and
the condition of transportation capital stock into broader indicators of
energy use and infrastructure endowment. The Nation's transportation
infrastructure includes highways, bridges, pipelines, railroads, the
airline fleet and the air traffic control system, waterways, and the
merchant marine. This infrastructure is an important endowment that is
passed on from one generation to the next.

• Telecommunication and Information Systems Technologies: Advances in
telecommunication and information systems technologies are changing the
fundamental ways in which we communicate and collect, analyze, and
distribute information. These advances have already had major impacts on
the economy and society (e.g., educational/training needs and jobs), and
indicators that reflect these advances and/or their impacts could be
meaningful in the context of sustainable development.

• Health: The current set of indicators includes an indicator on life
expectancy, but this is the only indicator that is directly related to
health. Good health is critical to human well-being and to meeting our
needs, both now and in the future. When individuals, communities, or
nations are faced with disease, malnutrition, poor environmental
conditions, or war-related or natural-disaster related injuries and
deaths, little attention can be paid to anything other than recovery or
survival. Poor health conditions can exhaust economic resources,
diminish one's resilience to other hardships, and make it difficult or
impossible to meet one's own needs, much less the needs of future
generations. It would be useful to include one or more additional
indicators of health in the United States.

• Coastal Eutrophication: U.S. estuaries have been receiving increased
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus for many years, primarily from sewage
and urban and agricultural runoff. These high nutrient levels have led
to widespread blooms of algae which reduce light penetration and deplete
the bottom waters of dissolved oxygen. In many cases, this results in
fish kills and the die-off of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which
can then have major impacts on coastal economies. Changes in water
quality parameters (e.g., chlorophyll a, bottom water dissolved oxygen,
nutrient concentrations, the extent of SAV, and the extent and duration
of anoxic and hypoxic events) could be combined into an aggregate
indicator for eutrophication. Work in this area is being pursued by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.

• Endocrine Disrupters: There is growing scientific concern about the
release of chemicals into the environment (e.g., from industrial
processes, cleaning compounds, or food containers) that could affect the
normal functioning of endocrine systems. These endocrine disrupters can
lead to serious developmental, reproductive, and metabolic
abnormalities. It could be useful to develop an indicator that tracks
the release and/or impacts of endocrine disrupters.

• Total Managed Wastes: The current set of indicators includes an
indicator for spent nuclear fuel, but it would also be useful to have an
indicator on total managed wastes. Such an indicator would provide
information on the stocks of wastes that must be managed appropriately
to prevent the release of harmful substances into the environment. It
could include data on the stocks of municipal and industrial wastes, as
well as the stocks of spent nuclear fuel and various radioactive wastes.

• Brownfields: There are many abandoned industrial and hazardous waste
sites across the country that do not quality for clean-up under the
Superfund Program. Fear of contamination from these sites and the
associated liability often prevent the sale and reuse of these sites. It
could be quite useful to develop an indicator that reflects the national
extent of the brownfields problem and the extent of progress that is
being made in redeveloping these sites.

• Natural Disaster Reduction: In recent years, U.S. losses due to
natural disasters have averaged approximately \$50 billion per year.
Worldwide insurance industry data suggest that losses to natural
disasters, expressed in constant dollars, have doubled or tripled over
each of the last several decades. An indicator that increases public
awareness of the problem and encourages steps to mitigate the impacts of
natural hazards (e.g., by avoiding development in hazard-prone areas)
could be important in building a society that is resilient to natural
hazards. One such indicator might be the annual loss due to all types of
natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts,
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or landslides); it would need to
address fatalities, injuries, structural and property losses, direct and
indirect business losses, and estimates of losses to managed and natural
ecosystems.

• International Relations: The current set of indicators does not
reflect the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world.
There are at least three areas for which we may want to develop
indicators: regional or global stability (political, ethnic, racial,
economic, or environmental); global markets and international trade; and
international cooperation and collaboration in addressing global
environmental, economic, and social issues. Sustainable development must
ultimately be realized on a global scale.

**Other Possible Approaches for Future Indicator Work**

In addition to developing new individual indicators or examining the
links among indicators, the future work of the SDI Group could include
the development of several different types of indicator sets. These
might include the following:

• a larger, more comprehensive set of indicators to provide a broader
base of information for assessment purposes;

• a set of indicators that relates conditions and processes in the
United States to those on a worldwide basis; in particular, sets of
transboundary flow indicators across international boundaries and
between the Nation\'s regional and local subdivisions to determine when
sustainable development in one location is being achieved by
transferring non-sustainable activities to another location;

• a smaller set of indicators to draw public attention to a few key
issues;

• sets of regional, state, and local indicators that relate
national-level indicators to the interests and concerns of state and
local governments, members of Congress, and communities; and/or

• sets of indicators that relate to particular economic sectors or
societal or environmental issues.

A larger set of indicators than the one presented in this document could
be useful in conducting a full assessment of the United States' progress
in realizing sustainable development. A larger set is also needed if we
wish to evaluate progress on each of the issues identified in Agenda 21.
The experimental set of 40 indicators will provide a good starting
point, but we may also wish to develop an expanded set of indicators for
the United States that address a broader range of international
sustainability issues.

A set of indicators that relates conditions and processes in the United
States to those worldwide could also be useful. We operate in the global
context of world trade, international agreements, regional conflicts,
and political instability in many places around the world. Our own
efforts to realize sustainable development must recognize and respond to
the global forces around us. National-level indicators that do not
relate the United States' status and relationships to the rest of the
world may be insufficient in the long-term.

A smaller set of indicators could be more useful than the current set of
indicators in drawing public attention to a few key issues. It is not
practical to try to communicate 40 indicators through the news media on
a regular basis, but this type of media communication will probably be
needed if sustainable development is to become a household word.
Developing a smaller set of indicators would require us to reach broad
public consensus on key sustainability issues and to improve the
scientific and technical methodology for analyzing various data sets. A
limited number of easy-to-understand indicators that focus on a few key
issues could be important in garnering public support for the
decision-making processes needed to support long-term sustainability.

For some potential users\--members of Congress, state and local
governments, and communities\--the indicators of most interest may
relate to specific regional, state, or local concerns. Indicators that
compare conditions in one community with those in other communities or
with conditions nationwide often draw widespread attention from both the
public and private sectors. State and local indicators tend to have more
direct meaning for the general public since they relate to personal
experiences and concerns. In some states (e.g., Oregon and Minnesota),
indicators are being used to help monitor government performance and
guide budget priorities. In these cases, indicators have been effective
in drawing public attention to critical issues and in building support
for tangible actions to address the most pressing problems. It would be
useful to be able to relate national-level indicators to similar
indicators at the regional, state, and local levels to determine the
degree to which a national-level problem affects particular communities.
Geographic information systems are likely to be an essential tool for
visualizing conditions across the Nation.

For the private sector, various interest groups, and the academic
community, sets of indicators that focus on specific economic sectors or
environmental or social issues may be the most useful. For example, the
Netherlands has developed indicators for sectors such as agriculture and
traffic/transportation that reflect both the economic and environmental
performance of those sectors. They have also developed a set of
aggregated indicators for environmental issues such as climate change
and the dispersion of toxic compounds.

**Research and Public Outreach\--Essential Components of Future
Indicator Work**

Further work to refine the current experimental set of indicators or to
develop additional individual indicators or sets of indicators will
require a wide range of research and public outreach with a number of
interested parties. As mentioned above, there are a number of
uncertainties that present challenges in assessing whether we are making
progress toward sustainable development. These uncertainties raise
questions about natural Earth system processes, to the impacts of human
activities on the environment, to the interactions among the
environment, the economy, and society, and to the importance of societal
and cultural values. Further research in many of these areas\--both
discipline-specific and multidisciplinary research\--will be required if
we are to develop indicators that reflect the true nature of sustainable
development.

A critical component of future indicator work will be public outreach.
One of the challenges in developing a set of sustainable development
indicators is that it involves not only scientific data and objective
information, but also values and subjective judgments. Broad input from
a wide range of stakeholders, both within and outside the Federal
Government, is essential if we are to develop a set of indicators that
will be widely-accepted and used by policy makers and the public.

During the first phase of its work, the SDI Group received input from a
number of individuals and organizations outside the Federal Government,
but additional input from a wider range of potential users is still
needed. In the coming months, the SDI Group will be seeking additional
comments, suggestions, and new ideas from a number of organizations and
individuals. These could include the following:

• the PCSD, through its Evaluating Progress Working Group

• the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, which is operated
jointly by the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference
of Mayors

• nonprofit organizations

• the private sector, including small businesses

• the Federal agencies

• members of Congress

• the academic community

• professional organizations

• the media

• communities, including low-income communities

• state and local governments

• the UNCSD

• the World Bank

• colleagues in the international community

These groups will be asked to identify which indicators are the most
important and to provide input on any other critical areas that should
be represented in a set of national-level indicators. It seems likely
that different user groups will have different recommendations for the
development of indicators. Depending on the input received, the SDI
Group may wish to pursue several different areas of indicator work.

As a means of facilitating outreach, the SDI Group will make greater use
of the Internet in the coming months. This report is available on-line,
and notices about SDI activities will be posted on a variety of bulletin
boards. A mechanism will be provided for interested parties to provide
comments electronically to the SDI Secretariat.

**Organizational Arrangements**

The SDI Group has considered several possible arrangements that could
facilitate its future work. Whatever arrangement is chosen, it must
facilitate outside comments, protect the integrity of data and
information, and ensure that the processes and methods used to construct
indicators are transparent and accessible.

The SDI Secretariat currently reports to the Chair of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and office space is provided by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. The Secretariat is supported by
contributions of funding and staff from participating Federal agencies.
The Secretariat staff is currently composed of five Federal agency
detailees and several interns and volunteers. Much of the data
collection and indicator development have been provided by SDI Group
participants, with support from their respective agencies.

This arrangement has worked well for the beginning stages of the SDI
Group's work and has provided the flexibility needed to enlist the
participation of as many agencies as possible. As one of the interagency
groups established by the Administration to implement the
recommendations of the PCSD, the SDI Group has had a ready mechanism for
communicating with PCSD members. If participating agencies wish to
continue the current arrangement, some mechanism must be found to ensure
greater certainty of funding and staff resources over the long-term
(perhaps through annual agency budget requests and the formal
identification of detailees for the activity each year).

The SDI Group has identified several possible organizational options for
the long-term development of sustainable development indicators:

• *The current arrangement: an interagency effort that reports to an
office in the White House (e.g., Council on Environmental Quality).*
Secretariat facilities would be provided by one of the participating
agencies, with other agencies contributing funding and staff resources.

• *An interagency effort that reports to and is supported by an office
in the White House.* The difference between this and the current
arrangement is that Secretariat support would be provided by the White
House office. This arrangement has not been feasible in the past due to
funding and staffing restrictions, but it may still be an option to
consider in the long-term.

• *Establishing a Federal contract with a nonprofit organization or
university to conduct research, coordinate development, and report on
sustainable development indicators.* The organization would draw on the
expertise and data holdings of the Federal government and possibly other
sources. Oversight and approval of publications would be provided by a
Federal steering committee or an office in the White House.

**Conclusion**

A true understanding of the breadth and richness of sustainable
development can only be achieved by examining the links among various
components of our life experience\--economic, environmental, and social.
By examining a broad cross-section of indicators together, the SDI Group
has taken a first step toward evaluating our progress toward
sustainability. In the coming months, the SDI Group may pursue a number
of indicator activities, but a continuing goal will be to advance our
understanding of the integrated nature of sustainability. The SDI Group
looks forward to working with all interested parties in the coming
months.

**Appendices**

Appendix A: Acronyms

Appendix B: Inventory of Candidate Indicators

Appendix C: Indicators Developed by the OECD, UNCSD, and the PCSD

Appendix D: Outreach Efforts

Appendix E: List of Regular Participants

Appendix A: Acronyms

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  BTUs                   British Thermal Units

  Cd                     Cadmium

  CEQ                    Council on Environmental Quality

  CERCLA                 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
                         Compensation, and Liability Act

  CPI                    Consumer Price Index

  DDT                    Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane

  GCRI                   U.S. Global Climate Response Index

  GDP                    Gross Domestic Product

  GPRA                   Government Performance and Results Act

  Hg                     Mercury

  NAEP                   National Assessment of Educational Progress

  NDP                    Net Domestic Product

  OECD                   Organization for Economic Cooperation and
                         Development

  Pb                     Lead

  PCBs                   Polychlorinated biphenyls

  PCE                    Personal Consumption Expenditures

  PCSD                   President's Council on Sustainable Development

  P-S-R                  OECD Pressure-State-Response framework for
                         environmental indicators

  R&D                    Research and development

  SDI Group              Sustainable Development Indicator Group (i.e.,
                         Interagency Working Group on Sustainable
                         Development Indicators)

  UNCSD                  United Nations Commission on Sustainable
                         Development
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

**Appendix B: Inventory of Candidate Indicators**

Environmental

Economic

Social

Legend:

\* PCSD Indicators

\# UNCSD Indicators

**ENVIRONMENTAL**

Forests with Reduced Ecosystem Function

Desertification Rate

Threatened Ecosystems by Area

Ecosystem Fragmentation by Ecotype

\*Endangered Species

Forest Diversity by Age

Forest Diversity by Type

Species Populations by Ecotype

\*Genetically Threatened Species

Forest Land Cover by Ecotype

\*Old Growth Forest Area

Forest Species with Reduced Range

\*Ecosystem Health

\*Number of Exotic Species in U.S.

Area of Exotic Species in Plantations

Exotic Species Introduction Rate

Research Dollars for Improved Management

Land Conversion Rates

Major Land Uses Including Urban

\*Native Grass & Shrub Lands

Modified Forest Land

Modified Grass & Shrub Lands

#Area of Reclaimed Land

Species Extinction Rates

#Fuel Wood Consumption

#Livestock/Unit Area on Arid Lands

#Percent Native Species Threatened

#Desertification Index

Forest Management Spending

Forest Product Mass

Polluted Forest Land

Toxic Forest Land

#Fertilizer Use

#Forest Area

#Natural Resource Industries Share of GDP

Non-Timber Forest Products Taken

#Renewable to Non-Renewable Energy Used

\*Renewable Resource Use

Timber Harvest to Growth Ratio

Diminished Forest Soils

Soil Chemistry by Location

Forest Soil Compaction

\*Soil Erosion

Soil Moisture Content

Soil Nutrients

Soil Structure

Soil Types

ENSO

Value of all forest products

#Agricultural Pesticide Use

Forest Management Spending

Value of wood products

Forest Product Mass

Value of non-wood forest products

#Soil Erosion Index

Modified Forest Streams

#Irrigated Arable Land

#Salination and Waterlogging

#Arable Land Per Acre

Consumption of Non-Wood Forest Products

#Deforestation Rate

Land Available for Timber Production

Lumber Harvest Rate

#Protected Land by Forest & Other Ecotype

#Reforestation Rate

#Acres of Reforested Land

#Roundwood Production

#Tender Stocks

Total Tree Growing Stocks

Total Wood Product Removal

Wood Product Consumption

Forest Data Users

Forest Indicators

Forest Measurements

Agricultural Land Conversion

Forest Recreation Facilities

Forest Visitor Days

Land Managed Primarily for Recreation

Outdoor Recreational Services

Park Visitors

Wetlands by Area

Aquatic Endangered Species

\*Wetland Area Lost

Coastal Water Biodiversity

Changes in Sea Mammal Populations

Water Constituents

Shellfish Areas Harvestable

Contaminants in Biota

Contaminants in Shellfish

Adverse Impacts on Estuarine Biota

Marine Biota Contaminants

Shellfish Quantities & Qualities

\*Healthy Lakes

#Algae Index

Algal Blooms & Ecological Impacts

#Coastal Water Nutrient Release/Loading

Acid Lakes

Groundwater Contamination

Coastal Water Fish Kills

Coastal Water Heavy Metals

Coastal Oil Spills & Resource Damage

Water Quality Index

#Coastal Water Oil & Grease Discharges

Terrestrial Oil and Chemical Spills

Total Water Discharges into Fresh Waters

Toxic Release Inventory

#Fresh Water Fecal Coliform

Usable Surface Waters

Heavy Metals in Water

Lakes Requiring Clean Up

Surface Water Thermal Pollution

#Oxygen Level in Water

\*#Access to Safe Drinking Water

Coastal Water Pesticides

#Coastal Population Growth

Coastal Population

Coastal Housing Trends

Fish Catch

Fragmented Water Systems

#Withdrawals of Ground & Surface Water

Groundwater Drawdown

#Groundwater Reserves

#Wastewater Treatment Capability

Water Consumption by Use

#Water Consumption per Capita

Water Consumption/ Renewal Ratio

Water Resource Availability

Areas with Water Shortages

#Poor People on Arid Lands

Fish Catch to Growth Ratio

Fish Stock Use

#Marine Max. Sustained Yield

#Marine Species Catches

#Marine Max. Sustained Yield Ratio

Snow Water Equivalent

Streamflow Forecasts

Seasonal Water Bodies

Snow Cover and Survey

Climate Extreme Index

Acid Rain

Drought Intensity

#Drought Frequency

McKee Drought Severity Index

Palmer Drought Severity Index

Precipitation Extremes

Snow Cover

Total Precipitation

Precipitation Distribution

Arctic Optical Depth

Carbon Dioxide

#Ozone Depletors

\*Global Climate Change

\*Global Environmental Research

Greenhouse Climate Response Index

#Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Reductions

Maximum Temperature

Methane & Isotopes

Minimum Temperature

Ocean Surface Temperature

Ultraviolet-B Radiation

Optical Depth

Sea Ice Volume

Stratospheric Water Vapor

Temperature Gradients

Vegetation Index

Chloroflorocarbon Production

Skin Cancer Rates

Stratospheric Ozone Concentration

Stratospheric Temperature

Flood Prone Cities

#Natural Disaster Loss

Tornado Frequency

#SOX and NOX Emissions

#Reductions in SOX & NOX Emissions

Ambient Toxin in Air

#Ambient Urban Pollutants

#People Exposed to Air Pollution

Lead Emissions

People Exposed to Ozone

Particulate Emissions

\*People in Non-Attainment Areas

Toxic Land Area

Tropospheric Ozone

Non-Attainment Areas

Non-Attainment Days

VOC Compound Emission

\*Toxic Exposures

\*Toxin Diseases

#Hazardous Waste Contaminated Land

\*Nutrients & Toxics Released/yr

Deposition of Atmospheric Nitrogen

Accumulation of Waste

#Hazardous Waste Generation

#Hazardous Waste Import/Export

Nuclear Waste Production

Permanent Nuclear Waste Storage

Temporary Nuclear Waste Storage

Forest Product Recycling

Hazardous Waste Accidents

#Hazardous Waste Spending

#Industrial & Municipal Waste

Missing Waste

Superfund sites

Total Managed Waste

#Expenditures per Capita for Waste Collection

#Waste Disposal per Capita

#\*Waste Recycling by Percent and Mass

#Waste Recycling by Type Material

#Waste Reduction Rates per Unit GDP

#Municipal Waste per Capita

#Energy Consumption By Type

Energy Consumption by Use

#Energy Consumption Per Capita

#Energy Imports by Type

Energy Reserves by Type

#Energy Reserves Lifetime

Fossil Fuel Reserves

Nuclear Material Used

Renewable Energy Consumption

Urban Energy Consumption

#Wood Energy Consumption

#Mineral Depletion

Mineral Depletion Rate

#Mineral Reserves

**ECONOMIC**

Consumer Benefits Per Capita

\*GDP and NDP

#GDP Per Capita & Growth Rate

#GDP Value Added

#GDP EDP

#Environmental Accounting

Forest Resource Accounting

\*Natural Resource Accounting

Environmental Dependent Jobs

Forest Industry Growth and Jobs

Forest Worker Wages

Work Force Skill Level

#National Debt

#National Debt Relief

Inflation Rate

Federal Debt/GDP Ratio

#National Debt Service

#Export Concentration

#Exports

#Imports

#Manufactures in Merchandise Export

#Employment Rate

Median Wage Level

\*Unemployment Rate

#Biotechnology Research Staff

#Biotechnology Research Funding

\*Environmental Technology Exports

Env. Technology Sales in U.S.

Capital Assets

Forest Investment per Dollar Extracted

Forest Research

Investment per Capita

\*Capital Investment as Percent GDP

New Technology Spending

\*Savings per Capita

#Telephone Lines per Capita

Infrastructure Requiring Repair

#Public Infrastructure Spending per Capita

\*Productivity per Capita

Env. Technology Sales in U.S.

Energy Consumption per Capita

Energy Consumption per GDP

\*Energy Efficiency

Materials Consumption per Capita

Materials Consumption/ GNP

\*Material Consumption/ Unit Output

#Commuting Time

\*Public Transportation Use

#Transportation Fuel Use

**SOCIAL**

Test Score by Economic Group

Funding of Education

#Educational Spending as Share of GDP

Graduates with Jobs

\*Lifelong Learning Communities

#Primary School Enrollment

#School Age Population Growth

#Secondary School Enrollment

Student Teacher Ratio

Teacher Capabilities & Training

Teacher Training Capacity

#5th Grade Education

#Adult Literacy Rates

#\*Graduation Rate

\*National Achievement Test Scores

\*Community Information Use

Distance to Library

\*School Internet Access

\*Internet Access

Silviculture Logger Training

Nat. Resource Management Schools

\*National Standards for Sustainability

\*Environmental Equity

\*Income of Women

#Male-Female Wage Ratio

#Women in Work Force

\*Homeless People

#House Price v. Income

#Number of Housing Loans

Discrimination Cases

Homeownership Rates

\% in Substandard Housing

Hate Crimes

\*Social Equity

\*Urban Land Conversion

Urban Decay

Urban Migration

\*Urban Parks

High Growth Urban Areas

#People with adequate sanitation

\*Income Trends

\*Urban & Suburb Income

\*Community Income per Capita

\*Decrease of People in Poverty

Income Distribution

People Below Poverty Line

Families Below Poverty Line

#People in Absolute Poverty

Welfare Dependents

Welfare Spending

Concentration of Poverty

Nearby Recreation Opportunities

Time Used Traveling in Cars

\*Public-Private Collaborations

Suicide Rate

TV Viewing Time

Voter Sentiments

Divorce Rates

Family Effectiveness

Single Parent Families

Time Spent With Children

\*Community Group Participation

\*Community Organization Participation

Community Groups

\*Voter Turnout

Contributing to Charities

Participation in Arts & Cultural Activities

Television Viewing Time

Acts of Terrorism

Terrorist Groups

Prison Capacity

Combat Casualties

Faith in Justice System

Legal Prosecution Efficiency

Prison Population

\*Violent Crime Rate

Drug Abuse

Lawsuits per Year

Lawsuit Damage Awards

#Biosafety Regulations

#Environmental Protection Funding

#Environmental Taxes & Subsidies

Land and Water Management Laws

Natural Resources Law Enforcement

Environmental Law Enforcement

Legal Framework for Property Rights

U.S. Environmental Aid To Other Nations

#Maritime Agreements

#Ratified International Treaties

#Regional Trade Agreements

U.S. Aid to Sustainable Development

#Environmental Strategy Programs

Forest Planning Policy & Regulations

Public Hearings on Environmental Issues

Trade Policies on Natural Resource Products

Natural Resource Valuation

#Land Reform Policy

#Land Mapping by Type & Use

Decentralized Nat. Resource Management

#Required Env. Impact Assessments

#National Council on Sustainable Develop't

#Agricultural Research Spending

Biodiversity Protection Programs

Support of Ecological Research

\*Schools Teaching Sustainability Concepts

#Net Resource Transfer/GDP

#Spending on Sustainable Development

National Security Spending

National-State-Local Cooperation

U.S. Foreign Aid

#ODA (Official Development Assistance)

#Sustainable Development Strategies

\*Illegal Immigrants

#Fertility Rate

#Megacities (\>10 million)

#Population Density

#Population Growth Rate

#Population Migration Trends

#Total and Region Population Growth

#Urban Population

#Urban Population Growth

#Informal Settlements

\*Teen Pregnancies

Number of Abortions

Number of Adoptions

\*Unintended Pregnancies

#Equitable Health Care Coverage

#Immunized People

\*Infant Mortality by Economic Group

Health

Care Spending-Total & Growth

#Health Care Spending/ GDP

Percent National Funds to Local Services

#People With Inadequate Food

\*Spending on Maternal & Child Care

#Infant Mortality Rate

Life Expectancy

Maternal Mortality Rate

#Women Family Planning Access

**Appendix C: Indicators Developed by the OECD, UNCSD, and the PCSD**

OECD

UNCSD

PCSD

The following tables provide examples of indicator themes and/or
indicators identified by OECD, the UNCSD, and the PCSD.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Environmental Indicator Themes

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  climate change

  eutrophication

  acidification

  toxic contamination

  landscapes

  waste

  soil degradation

  water resources

  forest resources

  fish resources

  biodiversity

  ozone layer depletion

  urban environmental quality

  general indicators (e.g., GDP, consumption expenditures, industrial
  production, population growth & density, etc.)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Working List of
Indicators of Sustainable Development (and Chapter in Agenda 21)**

**CATEGORY: SOCIAL**

**Chapter 3: Combating poverty**

Driving Force Indicators:

Unemployment rate

State Indicators:

Head count index of poverty

Poverty gap index

Squared poverty gap index

Gini index of income inequality

Ratio of average female wage to male wage

Response indicators: None

**Chapter 5: Demographic dynamics and sustainability**

Driving force Indicators:

Population growth rate

Net migration rate

Total fertility rate

State Indicators:

Population density

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training**

Driving Force Indicators:

Rate of change of school-age population

Primary school enrollment ratio(gross and net)

Secondary school enrollment ratio(gross and net)

Adult literacy rate

State Indicators:

Children reaching grade 5 of primary education

School life expectancy

Difference between male and female school enrolment ratios

Women per hundred men in the labor force

Response Indicators:

GDP spent on education

**Chapter 6: Protecting and promoting human health**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators:

Basic sanitation: Percent of population with adequate excreta disposal
facilities

Access to safe drinking water

Life expectancy at birth

Adequate birth weight

Infant mortality rate

Maternal mortality rate

Nutritional status of children

Response Indicators:

Immunization against infectious childhood diseases

Contraceptive prevalence

Promotion of potentially hazardous chemicals monitored in food

National health expenditure devoted to local health care

Total national health expenditure related to GNP

**Chapter 7: Promoting sustainable human settlement development**

Driving Force Indicators:

Rate of growth of urban population

Per capita consumption of fossil fuel by motor vehicle transport

Human and economic loss due to natural disasters

State Indicators:

Percent of population in urban areas

Area and population of urban formal and informal settlements

Floor area per person

House price to income ratio

Response Indicators:

Infrastructure expenditure per capita

**CATEGORY: ECONOMIC**

**Chapter 2: International cooperation to accelerate sustainable
development in countries and related domestic policies**

Driving Force Indicators:

GDP per capita

Net investment share in GDP

Sum of exports and imports as a percent of GDP

State Indicators:

Environmentally adjusted Net Domestic Product

Share of manufactured goods in total merchandise exports

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 4: Changing consumption patterns**

Driving Force Indicators:

Annual energy consumption

Share of natural-resource intensive industries in manufacturing
value-added

State Indicators:

Proven mineral reserves

Proven fossil fuel energy reserves

Lifetime of proven energy reserves

Intensity of material use

Share of manufacturing value-added in GDP

Share of consumption of renewable energy resources

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 33: Financial resources and mechanisms**

Driving Force Indicators:

Net resources transfer/GNP

Total ODA given or received as a percentage of GNP

State Indicators:

Debt/GNP

Debt service/export

Response Indicators:

Environmental protection expenditures as a percent of GDP

Amount of new or additional funding for sustainable development

**Chapter 34: Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation
and capacity-building**

Driving Force Indicators:

Capital goods imports

Foreign direct investments

State Indicators:

Share of environmentally sound capital goods imports

Response Indicators:

Technical cooperation grants

**CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL**

**Chapter 18: Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater
resources**

Driving Force Indicators:

Annual withdrawals of ground and surface water

Domestic consumption of water per capita

State Indicators:

Groundwater reserves

Concentration of fecal coliform in freshwater

Biochemical oxygen demand in water bodies

Response Indicators:

Waste-water treatment coverage

Density of hydrological networks

**Chapter 17: Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas and coastal
areas**

Driving Force Indicators:

Population growth in coastal areas

Discharges of oil into coastal waters

Releases of nitrogen and phosphorus to coastal waters

State Indicators:

Maximum sustained yield for fisheries

Algae index

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 10: Integrated approach to the planning and management of land
resources**

Driving Force Indicators:

Land use change

State Indicators:

Changes in land condition

Response Indicators:

Decentralized local-level natural resource management

**Chapter 12: Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and
drought**

Driving Force Indicators:

Population living below poverty line in dryland areas

State Indicators:

National monthly rainfall index

Satellite derived vegetation index

Land affected by desertification

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain
development**

Driving Force Indicators:

Population change in mountain areas

State Indicators:

Sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas

Welfare of mountain populations

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development**

Driving Force Indicators:

Use of agricultural pesticides

Use of fertilizers

Irrigation percent of arable land

Energy use in agriculture

State Indicators:

Arable land per capita

Area affected by salinization and waterlogging

Response Indicators:

Agricultural education

**Chapter 11: Combating deforestation**

Driving Force Indicators:

Wood harvesting intensity

State Indicators:

Forest area change

Response Indicators:

Managed forest area ratio

Protected forest area as a percent of total forest area

**Chapter 15: Conservation of biological diversity**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators:

Threatened species as a percent of total native species

Response Indicators:

Protected area as a percent of total area

**Chapter 16: Environmentally sound management of biotechnology**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators:

R & D expenditure for biotechnology

Existence of national biosafety regulations or guidelines

**Chapter 9: Protection of the atmosphere**

Driving Force Indicators:

Emissions of greenhouse gasses

Emissions of sulphur oxides

Emissions of nitrogen oxides

Consumption of ozone depleting substances

State Indicators:

Ambient concentrations of pollutants in urban areas

Response Indicators:

Expenditure on air pollution abatement

**Chapter 21: Environmentally sound management of solid waste and
sewage-related issues**

Driving Force Indicators:

Generation of industrial and municipal solid waste

Household waste disposed per capita

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators:

Expenditure on waste management

Waste recycling and reuse

Municipal waste disposal

**Chapter 19: Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators:

Chemically induced acute poisonings

Response Indicators:

Number of chemicals banned or severely restricted

**Chapter 20: Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes**

Driving Force Indicators:

Generation of hazardous wastes

Imports and exports of hazardous wastes

State Indicators:

Area of land contaminated by hazardous wastes

Response Indicators:

Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment

**Chapter 22: Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive
wastes**

Driving Force Indicators:

Generation of radioactive wastes

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators: None

**CATEGORY: INSTITUTIONAL**

**Chapter 8: Integrating environment and development in
decision-making**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators:

Sustainable development strategies

Programme of integrated environmental and economic accounting

Mandated environmental impact assessment

National councils for sustainable development

**Chapter 35: Science for sustainable development**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators:

Potential scientists and engineers per million population

Response Indicators:

Scientists and engineers engaged in R & D per million population

Expenditure on R & D as a percent of GDP

**Chapter 37: National mechanisms and international cooperation for
capacity-building in developing countries**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 38: International institutional arrangements**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators: None

**Chapter 39: International legal instruments and mechanisms**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators: None

Ratification of global agreements

Implementation of ratified global agreements

**Chapter 40: Information for decision-making**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators:

Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants

Access to information

Response Indicators:

Programmes for national environmental statistics

**Chapter 23-32: Strengthening the role of major groups**

Driving Force Indicators: None

State Indicators: None

Response Indicators:

Representation of major groups in national councils for sustainable
development

Representatives of ethnic minorities and indigenous people in national
councils for sustainable development

Contribution of NGOs to sustainable development

President's Council on Sustainable Development Goals (10) and Indicators
(52)

+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| ***Goals***               | ***Indicators***                         |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| health & environment      | clean air                                |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | drinking water                           |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | toxic exposures                          |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | diseases & mortality                     |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| economic prosperity       | economic performance                     |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | employment                               |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | poverty                                  |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | savings & investment rates               |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | natural resources & environmental        |
|                           | accounting                               |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | productivity                             |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| equity                    | income trends                            |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | environmental equity                     |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | social equity                            |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| conservation of nature    | ecosystems                               |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | habitat loss                             |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | threatened and endangered species        |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | nutrients and toxics                     |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | alien species                            |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | global environmental change (e.g.,       |
|                           | greenhouse gases & stratospheric ozone)  |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| stewardship               | materials consumption                    |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | waste reduction                          |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | energy efficiency                        |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | renewable resource use                   |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| sustainable communities   | community economic viability             |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | safe neighborhoods                       |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | safe neighborhoods                       |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | investment in future generations         |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | transportation patterns                  |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | community access to information          |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | shelter                                  |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | metropolitan income patterns             |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | infant mortality                         |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| civic engagement          | public participation                     |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | social capital                           |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | citizen participation                    |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | collaborations                           |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| population                | population growth                        |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | status of women                          |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | unintended pregnancies                   |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | teen pregnancies                         |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | immigration                              |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| international             | international assistance                 |
| responsibility            |                                          |
|                           | environmental assistance                 |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | assessment of progress                   |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | environmental technology exports         |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | research leadership                      |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| education                 | information access                       |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | curriculum development                   |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | national standards                       |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | community participation                  |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | national achievement                     |
|                           |                                          |
|                           | graduation rates                         |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------+

**Appendix D: Outreach Efforts**

Throughout the work of the SDI Group, there has been a healthy tension
between the desire to represent as many sustainability issues as
possible and the desire to present a clear and concise picture of the
United States' progress in realizing sustainable development. The 40
indicators presented in this document represent just some of the
measures that could be relevant to sustainable development, and many
other indicators could have been selected for inclusion.

The indicator selection criteria developed by the SDI Group are
described in Chapter 3. Initial efforts by the Group resulted in a list
of over 400 candidate indicators and a smaller list of 32 indicators
that Federal agency participants recommended for inclusion in the SDI
Group's indicator set. The Group strongly believed that if the
indicators were to be useful to a wide range of users, they would need
to reflect the values and priorities of society as a whole. A concerted
outreach effort was needed to solicit the input of state and local
government agencies, the academic community, the private sector,
nongovernmental organizations, communities, and citizens.

The SDI Secretariat convened four meetings to solicit outside input on
the measures that should be included in a set of sustainable development
indicators. These meetings involved (1) high school and college
students, (2) industry, (3) nongovernmental organizations, and (4)
community representatives. The list of 400 candidate indicators, the
taxonomy of possible sustainability themes and indicators, and the list
of 70 indicators recommended for inclusion by the Federal agencies
provided a good starting point for discussions with outside groups.

The meeting with young people was organized through the Foundation for
the Future of Youth and the Native Youth Alliance. It was held on
October 1, 1996, in Washington, D.C., and included junior and senior
high school students who had worked on environmental and social issues.
Their comments were useful in clarifying the language used to describe
the indicators and in making the indicators as inclusive as possible.
They also encouraged the SDI Group to include more indicators for the
social parameters of sustainable development.

The meeting with industry representatives was sponsored in conjunction
with the nongovernmental organization Redefining Progress on October 9,
1996, in Washington, D.C. It included representatives from Monsanto,
Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Sun Company, AT&T, BP America, General Motors,
Dow Chemical, Browning-Ferris Industries, 3M, Intel Corporation,
American Electric Power, Chase Manhattan, and the National Alliance of
Business, as well as representatives of the Departments of Commerce and
Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. Participants emphasized the importance of
cyclical, non-waste generating processes and eco-efficient practices,
and they suggested that indicators be developed to reflect these
improved approaches to environmental protection and enhancement. They
also suggested that the set of SDI Group indicators place more attention
on areas in which we have already made significant progress (e.g., we
expect the depletion of stratospheric ozone to diminish in the future).
Participants urged the SDI Group to examine the relationships among
indicators and to develop leading indicators of sustainable development,
that is, indicators that could give advanced warning that particular
activities are not sustainable. \[For comparison, leading economic
indicators published by the Conference Board often provide advance
warning of changes in the business cycle (e.g., a recession); other
economic indicators may be coincident with or lag behind changes in the
business cycle.\]

An outreach meeting with nongovernmental organizations was held in
Washington, D.C., on October 10, 1996. It included representatives of
the American Catholic Conference, Zero Population Growth, the Institute
for Educational Leadership, Resources for the Future, the National
Association of Counties, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and
other organizations. Individual participants provided a number of
specific suggestions such as differentiating between the consumption of
renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, hydrological) and nonrenewable
energy (oil, gas, coal), including an indicator on crime, and examining
which indicators might best reflect educational concerns. In general,
participants felt that more attention should be devoted to social
indicators.

In collaboration with the Colorado Trust and Redefining Progress, the
SDI Group convened a meeting of community organizations in Denver,
Colorado, on November 22-23, 1996. Participants came from as far away as
Florida and Hawaii and shared information about the development and use
of indicators in their respective communities. A number of participants
emphasized the importance of working closely with concerned citizens to
develop indicators that those citizens believe are important. They also
emphasized the need to select indicators that are easy to understand and
communicate to the media and the public. Several individuals stated how
useful it had been to share information about indicators and urged the
SDI Group to continue involving state and local representatives. As had
occurred with the other three outreach meetings, many of the community
representatives reaffirmed the need to give more attention to social
indicators and to develop a better understanding of the relationships
among indicators.

Based on the results of these outreach meetings and additional
suggestions from the Rockefeller Foundation and ideas from participating
in the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, the SDI
Group agreed to expand the initial 32-indicator set to a set of 40
indicators. The resulting set of indicators does not cover all possible
sustainability issues, but it does represent a cross-section of
important driving forces and conditions\--economic, environmental, and
social and both short-term and long-term. As we gain further knowledge
about Earth system processes, the impacts of human activities, and the
relationships among different types of indicators, we will be better
positioned to assess our progress toward sustainability. Continuing
outreach efforts will be essential in developing a set of indicators
that is widely accepted and useful to policy makers, managers, and the
public.

**Appendix E: List of Regular Participants**

**U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators**

**September 1997\
**The address is provided for members of the team who assisted in
designing and reviewing the drafts of the report.

Member Agency Representatives

Liaisons from Other White House Offices and Councils

Other Participants

**Member Agency Representatives:**

**Department of Agriculture**

Tom Iivari\
Natural Resources Conservation Service\
Natural Resources Inventory Division\
Room 6248-5\
P.O. Box 2890\
Washington, DC 20013\
Phone: 202-690-0024\
Email: tiivari@usda.gov

Greg Ruark\
Forest Service\
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture\
201 14th St., SW\
Washington, DC 20250\
Phone: 202-205-1522\
Fax: 202-205-1530\
Email: gruark/wo@fs.fed.us

Timothy C. (Tim) Strickland\
Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension Service\
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture\
Mail Stop 2240\
1400 Independence Ave., SW\
Washington, DC 20250-2240\
Phone: 202-205-5952\
Fax: 202-401-1782\
Email: tstrickland@reeusda.gov

**Department of Commerce**

Laurence Campbell\
Economic & Statistics Administration\
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Rm. 4857\
Washington, DC 20230\
Phone: 202-482-3038\
Fax: 202-482-0325\
Email: lcampbell@doc.gov

Rebecca Moser\
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.\
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Rm. 5128\
14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW\
Washington, DC 20230\
Phone: 202-482-3436\
Fax: 202-408-9674\
Email: Rebecca.G.Moser@noaa.gov

**Department of Education**

John Wirt\
National Center for Educational Statistics\
Office of Educational Research and Improvement\
U.S. Department of Education\
Washington, D.C. 20202\
Phone: 202-219-2252

**Department of Energy**

David Bassett\
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy\
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Rm. 1J009\
1000 Independence Avenue, SW\
Washington, DC 20585\
Phone: 202-586-7943\
Fax: 202-586-9847\
Email: david.bassett@ios.doi.gov

Alan Schroeder\
U.S. Dept. of Energy\
1000 Independence Ave., SW, EE-24\
Washington, DC 20585\
Phone: 202-208-4923\
Fax: 202-208-5602\
Email: alan.schroeder@hq.doe.gov

**Department of Housing and Urban Development**

Lark Stevens\
Office of the Chief Financial Officer\
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development\
451 7th St., SW\
Washington, DC 20410-0100\
Phone: 202-708-0614, x3872\
Fax: 202-619-8025\
Email: Lark_I.\_ Stevens@hud.gov

**Department of the Interior**

David Berry\
Executive Director, SDI Group\
722 Jackson Place, NW\
Washington, DC 20503\
Phone: 202-208-4839\
Fax: 202-208-5602\
Email: David_Berry@ios.doi.gov

Michalann Harthill\
Biological Resources Division\
U.S. Geological Survey\
U.S. Dept. of the Interior\
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive\
Reston, VA 20192\
Phone: 703-648-4071\
Fax: 703-648-4238\
Email: Michalann_Harthill@nbs.gov

Ted Heintz\
U.S. Dept. of the Interior\
PPA 4458, MS 4429\
1849 C St., NW\
Washington, DC 20240\
Phone: 202-208-4939\
Fax: 202-208-5602\
Email: theintz@ios.doi.gov

Tim Smith\
U.S. Geological Survey\
U.S. Dept. of the Interior\
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive\
Reston, VA 20192\
Phone: 703-648-5022\
Fax: 703-648-5295\
Email: etsmith@usgs.gov

**Department of Justice**

Dick Lahn\
ENRD, P.O. Box 7754, MS S.620\
U.S. Dept. of Justice\
801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\
Washington, DC 20044\
Phone: 202-616-3098\
Fax: 202-616-3362\
Email: dick.lahn@justice.usdoj.gov

**Environmental Protection Agency**

Evert Byington\
Office of Pesticide Programs\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\
Mail Code 7503W\
401 M St., SW\
Washington, DC 20460\
Phone: 202-208-6234\
Fax: 202-208-5602\
Email: evert_byington@ios.doi.gov

Rebecca Dils\
Office of Policy, Planning, & Evaluation\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\
401 M St., SW, Mail Code 2165\
Washington, DC 20460\
Phone: 202-260-1957\
Fax: 202-260-2704\
Email: Dils.Rebecca@epamail.epa.gov

Steve Keach\
Office of Policy, Planning, & Evaluation\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\
401 M St., SW, Mail Code 2162\
Washington, DC 20460\
Phone: 202-260-2781\
Fax: 202-260-2704\
Email: Keach.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Brand L. Niemann\
Center for Environmental Information & Statistics\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\
401 M St., SW, MS-2164\
Washington, DC 20460\
Phone: 202-260-2510\
Fax: 202-260-4903\
Email: Niemann.Brand@epa.gov

**Liaisons from Other White House Offices and Councils:**

**Council on Environmental Quality**

Keith Laughlin\
Council on Environmental Quality\
722 Jackson Place, NW\
Washington, DC 20503\
Phone: 202-456-6224\
Fax: 202-456-2710\
Email: laughlin_k@eop.gov

**Office of Science and Technology Policy**

Don Pryor\
Office of Science & Technology Policy\
Executive Office of the President\
Washington, DC 20502\
Phone: 202-456-6135\
Fax: 202-456-6025\
Email: Donald_Pryor@oa.eop.gov

**U.S. Global Change Research Program**

Tony Socci\
U.S. Global Change Research Program\
400 Virginia Ave., SW, Suite 750\
Washington, DC 20024\
Phone: 202-314-2235\
Fax: 202-488-8676 or -8679\
Email: tsocci@usgcrp.gov

**Other Participants**

**Department of Agriculture**

Joe Aldy

Julia Jones

Susan Ferenc

Mike Funston

Tom Iivari

Katherine Jesch

Rob Maangold

**Department of Commerce**

Gerry Barton

**Department of Education**

Carole Wacey

Allen Schmeider

**Department of Energy**

Beth Campbell

Ray Prince

**Department of Health and Human Services**

Walton Francis

Matt Stagner

**Department of Housing and Urban Development**

Andrew Euston

**Department of the Interior**

Jim Lemons

Louella Snyder

**Department of Labor**

Karen Wargo

**Department of State**

George Herrfurth

**Department of Transportation**

Dave Mednick

**Department of Tresury**

John Kitchen

**Environmental Protection Agency**

Rick Cothern

Ron Schafer

Tim Stuart

**National Aeronautics and Space Administration**

R. K. Reider

Kevin Schaefer

**National Endowment for the Arts**

Tom Bradshaw

**National Science Foundation**

Leila Harris

**President\'s Council on Sustainable Development**

Gary Larson

Jane Siegel

Marty Spitzer

**Volunteers:**

Tracy Bowen

Nick Fedoruk

**Interns:**

Sam Corbett

Jennifer Horsley

Mike Myers

Mikal Reynolds

Harsha Thirumurthy

Amanda Tipton

Kala Venugopal

Timothy Woolsey

[^1]: