A Framework for Sustainability 

Indicators at EPA 

Office of Research and Development

,National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division

EPA/600/R/12/687 | October 2012 | www.epa.gov/ord
A Framework for Sustainability
 

Indicators at EPA
 

Authors 

Joseph Fiksel
 

Tarsha Eason
 

Herbert Frederickson
 

Edited by 

Tarsha Eason 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword
 

Science provides the foundation for credible decision-making. Only through adequate 

knowledge about the risks to human health and ecosystems, and innovative solutions to 

prevent pollution and reduce risk, can we continue to enjoy a high quality life. With a 

better understanding of environmental risks to people and ecosystems, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency can target the hazards that pose the greatest risks 

and anticipate environmental problems before they reach a critical level. 

EPA balances its scientific research activities across the two broad categories of 

problem-driven research (to solve current environmental problems of high risk and high 

scientific uncertainty) and core research (to improve the underlying scientific foundation 

for understanding and protecting human health and the environment). These two 

aspects of EPA's research program at times overlap, and can be mutually reinforcing-­

work on a particular problem can lead to a fundamental breakthrough, and discoveries 

made while conducting core research can solve a particular environmental problem. 

EPA needs both types of research, and the synergy between them enhances EPA's 

overall research program. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Office of Research and 

Development’s strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made available by 

EPA to assist the user community and to link researcher s with their clients. 

Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

ii 
 

 

 

The development of this report is the result of a collaborative effort that could not have 

been accomplished without the input and commitment of many people. We thank the 

following individuals for their contributions to this work: 

ORD Sustainability Indicator Workgroup 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Subhas Sikdar, Herbert Frederickson, Joseph Fiksel (Ohio State), Patricia Erickson, Annette 

Gatchett and Tarsha Eason 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

Denise Shaw, Kevin Summers, Michael Slimak, Pat Murphy, Madalene Stevens and Becki 

Clark 

Office of Resources Management and Administration 

Mya Sjogren 

SHC 1.2.2.1 Inventory of Sustainability Indicators Task Members 

Tarsha Eason, Lead
 

Alejandra Gonzalez-Mejia (ORISE Post doctoral Associate)
 

Linda Harwell (Web-tool Development)
 

In addition, we thank the following researchers from NRMRL for their critical review and 

insightful comments 

Mary Ann Curran 

Ahjond Garmestani 

Troy Hawkins 

Matthew Hopton 

Wesley Ingwersen 

Sheryl Mebane 

Gerardo Ruiz-Mercado 

Raymond Smith 

Leisha Vance 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
 

1.1. Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

1.2. The Role of Sustainability Indicators at EPA ...................................................................................... 2
 

1.3. Origin of this Document.....................................................................................................................4
 

2. Conceptual Foundations ....................................................................................................................... 4
 

2.1. Definitions of Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 4
 

2.2. Sustainability Indicator Frameworks.................................................................................................. 6
 

3. Classification of Sustainability Indicators.................................................................................................. 8
 

3.1 Three “Pillars” of Sustainability .................................................................................................... 8
 

3.2 Report on the Environment Topics.....................................................................................................9
 

3.3. ORD National Programs ..................................................................................................................... 9
 

3.4. System-Based Indicators.................................................................................................................... 9
 

4. Global Inventory of Sustainability Indicators..........................................................................................12
 

4.1. Motivation........................................................................................................................................12
 

4.2 Survey Results and Database Development.....................................................................................13
 

4.3. Searching, Sorting and Filtering in the Database.............................................................................14
 

4.4. Future work......................................................................................................................................16
 

5. Selecting Sustainability Indicators ..........................................................................................................18
 

5.1. Indicators for National Reporting ....................................................................................................18
 

5.2. Indicators for Focused Investigation................................................................................................20
 

5.3. Integrated Indicator: Index ..............................................................................................................22
 

6. Implementing the Use of Sustainability Indicators.............................................................................23
 

7. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................26
 

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................27
 

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................................28
 

Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................31
 

Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................35
 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures and Tables 

Figure 1 - Agency-wide process for implementing sustainability at EPA...................................................... 3
 

Figure 2 - The three dimensions (pillars) of sustainability (modified from Beach (2010)) to show the
 

Figure 3 – Systems taxonomy for resource flow indicators, with examples (in yellow) of specific metrics
 

selection of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D indicators proposed by Sikdar (2003)............................................................ 7
 

for material intensity, recovery, and impact ..............................................................................................10
 

Figure 4 – Basic Steps for Filtering the Database........................................................................................15
 

Figure 5 – Sample Custom Filter Search: Regional environmental indicators related to SSWR................16
 

Figure 6 – Typical categories of sustainability indicators ...........................................................................20
 

Figure 7 – The Sustainability Assessment and Management Process........................................................23
 

Figure 8 – Selected Key indicators for Mitigation of Nutrient Impairment................................................25
 

Table 1 - Major Categories of System-Based Indicators.............................................................................11
 

Table 2 - Taxonomy for Sustainability Indicators: Classification Schemes ................................................12
 

Table 3 – Examples of Sustainability Indicators Used Worldwide..............................................................22
 

Table A. 1 – Sample of DOSII.......................................................................................................................32
 

Table A. 2 - Sample of the Resource List for DOSII .....................................................................................33
 

Table A. 3 –Distribution of DOSII within the Classification Schemes..........................................................34
 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA 

1.	 Introduction 

1.1. Purpose 

The purpose of this document is to provide useful methods and guidance to support the application of 

sustainability indicators in EPA decision making, and particularly within the Office of Research and 

Development’s (ORD) research programs. The primary target audience is EPA researchers, as well as 

Program and Regional Office staff, that have a need for measurement of progress in some aspect of 

sustainability. However, it is anticipated that external organizations will find this information useful, as 

well. 

When choosing goals and indicators, it is important to consider the intended use of the indicators and 

how they will be received and interpreted. There are at least four different “lenses” or perspectives that 

may be considered in EPA’s use of indicators. 

1.	 Public Reporting. The EPA Report on the Environment (ROE) is an example of an informational 

document that describes the current state of the environment and observed trends in the US 

(USEPA, 2008). It is not related to any particular decision, but serves to characterize overall 

environmental conditions. The relevant sustainability indicators should similarly be broad 

measures that relate to economic, environmental, and social conditions, mainly at a national 

scale. Potential indicators for the ROE are discussed in Section 5.1. 

2.	 Decision Making. In the context of specific environmental problems or agency programs, EPA 

will need to make decisions about alternative actions that are possible. These actions could 

range from statutory enforcement to voluntary collaboration or communication. As discussed 

below, a recent report by the National Resources Council (NRC) of the National Academies (NRC, 

2011) provides a detailed blueprint for how EPA can incorporate sustainability considerations 

into such decisions. In this case, decision makers should select primary sustainability indicators 

that will be used to track specific outcomes of the decision and will be meaningful to the 

concerned stakeholders. Guidelines for selection of such indicators are presented in Section 5.2. 

3.	 Research Planning. For ORD’s purposes, priorities need to be established across a number of 

broad research domains, driven by the needs of EPA Program and Regional offices. The primary 

indicators used for agency decision making will provide a basis for identification of additional 

indicators to be incorporated into research projects that investigate the causal relationships 

among environmental, economic, and social conditions. Thus, the additional sustainability 

indicators adopted by ORD will typically correspond either to underlying drivers or to 

unintended consequences of changes in the primary sustainability indicators. Selection of 

indicators for such investigation is further discussed in Section 6. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.	 Program Evaluation. For purposes of analyzing the productivity and effectiveness of ORD 

programs, it is necessary to use program evaluation indicators that measure the outputs and 

direct outcomes of research activities relative to the time and funds invested. For example, an 

output indicator is the number of research publications and a direct outcome indicator is the 

number of citations. However, program evaluation is outside the scope of this document. The 

primary indicators addressed in this document are measures of ultimate outcomes that are 

meaningful to stakeholders, such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to adoption of 

energy conservation practices. While there is a presumed link between research outcomes and 

ultimate outcomes, attribution can often be difficult. 

Having a uniform, consistent framework of sustainability indicators will facilitate communication among 

ORD and the Regional and Program Offices, and will enable integration across the six major ORD 

programs focused on air, water, energy, products, communities, human health risks, and national 

security. Effective choice of indicators will assure that the benefits of sustainable solutions can be 

identified and validated and will enable an adaptive management process that responds to changing 

conditions. 

1.2. The Role of Sustainability Indicators at EPA 

The recently published NRC report, known as the “Green Book”, provides a framework for 

implementing sustainability at EPA (see Figure 1) (NRC, 2011). An important component of this 

framework is the establishment of sustainability objectives, goals, indicators, and metrics as a basis for 

evaluating and reporting of the agency’s progress. NRC recommends that EPA set breakthrough 3 to 5­

year sustainability objectives based on an overarching vision for the agency and suggests establishing 

measurable short-term goals using appropriate indicators to measure progress toward these objectives. 

Moreover, it defines the following concepts relevant to performance measurement: 

•	 Goal—what is specifically sought to be achieved. Progress toward a goal is determined through 

the use of measurable indicators. An example of a goal is: Reduce mercury emissions from 

electric utility steam generating units. 

•	 Indicator—a summary measure that provides information on the state of, or change in, the 

system that is being measured. An example of an indicator for the above goal is: Mass of 

mercury emitted per unit of energy delivered. 

•	 Metric –the measured value(s) used to assess specific indicators. It defines the units and how 

the indicator is being measured. An example of a metric for the above indicator is: Grams of 

mercury per kilowatt-hour. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 - Agency-wide process for implementing sustainability at EPA 

The report also provides guidelines for the Level 2 Sustainability Assessment and Management process, 

in which indicators and corresponding metrics play a key role in problem definition, trade-off analysis, 

and tracking the outcomes of Agency decisions. Once indicators and metrics are chosen, it is necessary 

to define the methods that will be used for data collection and interpretation to calculate the value of 

the metric. These methods should be transparent and well documented in order to enable verification 

and replication over time. As discussed in Section 5, to apply this process to the investigation of specific 

decisions or problems there will be a need to identify indicators at an appropriate spatial and temporal 

scale to match the scope of the application. In particular, for purposes of ORD research programs, a 

variety of different tools and metrics will be needed to characterize the environmental, social, and 

economic aspects that are addressed within the project portfolio. Frameworks like those presented by 

Zamagni et al. (2009) and Eason et al. (2011) provide guidance on tools and key considerations useful for 

sustainability based development and decision making. In conjunction with these frameworks, this 

report provides guidelines for the selection of metrics relevant to sustainability assessment and 

management, ranging from broad national indicators for annual reporting to detailed, problem-specific 

indicators that address individual communities, regions, watersheds, chemicals, media, receptors, or 

categories of impacts. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3. Origin of this Document 

This document is primarily the result of a Sustainability Indicator project completed in September 2011 

by a team of researchers drawn from several ORD laboratories and centers. The principal goals of the 

project were: 

•	 To support the development and inclusion of sustainability indicators in a new EPA ROE to be 

released in electronic form in 2012. 

•	 To assist ORD’s national research programs in the selection of appropriate sustainability 

indicators that are compatible across programs at the national level. 

•	 To enable monitoring of long-term trends which are relevant to sustainability. 

Accordingly, the project team established a conceptual framework for research planning and 

performance measurement and developed a comprehensive inventory of sustainability indicators based 

on worldwide benchmarking. This work has since been developed into a task within the EPA Sustainable 

and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHCRP) and will be discussed further in Section 4. It is 

expected that this document will provide a shared language for the application of sustainability 

indicators within EPA, as well as a common framework for guiding the selection and use of sustainability 

indicators in specific research projects and decision contexts. 

2.	 Conceptual Foundations 

2.1. Definitions of Sustainability 

The concept of sustainability is based on the interdependence between human societies and the natural 

environment. Current patterns of economic and social development are placing pressures upon natural 

resources, and may threaten the continued health and prosperity of human societies. In recognition of 

these concerns, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 articulated a growing interest in 

understanding the importance of the relationship between humans and the environment. The very 

language of the act foreshadows ideals soon to be of great significance globally: 

“...to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.” 

In 1987, a World Commission on Environment and Development report (UN, 1987) entitled, Our 

Common Future (also known as the Brundtland report) called for the global adoption of these principles 

and presented the classic and most quoted definition of sustainable development: 

“...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future 

generations to meet their own needs.” 

It is clear that a significant transformation of human production and consumption patterns will be 

needed in order to enable continued economic growth while protecting critical environmental 

resources. International agencies such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank have focused considerable attention on the 

challenge of achieving sustainability while promoting poverty alleviation and economic development. As 

stated in the Green Book, “...current approaches aimed at decreasing existing risks, however successful, 

are not capable of avoiding the complex problems in the United States and globally that threaten the 

planet’s critical natural resources and put current and future human generations at risk, including 

population growth, the widening gaps between the rich and the poor, depletion of finite natural 

resources, biodiversity loss, climate change, and disruption of nutrient cycles” (NRC, 2011). Likewise, 

the international business community has recognized the practical and economic consequences of the 

sustainability challenge (WBCSD, 2011). With increasing commitments to corporate responsibility, many 

companies have adopted global environmental management system standards such as ISO 14001 (ISO, 

2004), which specify performance indicators as a required element. The emergence of the Global 

Reporting Initiative (GRI; http://www.globalreporting.org/Home) (GRI, 2006) and other sustainability 

reporting schemes has placed renewed emphasis on the selection, monitoring, and verification of 

sustainability indicators. 

Although the Brundtland Commission definition succinctly captures the essence of sustainability, it is too 

abstract for purposes of program planning and operational management. Many organizations have 

developed more functional definitions that are aligned with their specific focus and values. These are 

often based on the concept of the “three pillars” of sustainability—environmental, economic, and 

social—and may place more or less emphasis on each of the three pillars. For example, the following 

definition was used in a recent EPA Executive Order: 

‘‘sustainability’’ and ‘‘sustainable” mean to create and maintain conditions, under which 

humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, 

and other requirements of present and future generations (Federal Register, 2009) 

Human health is frequently considered to be a component of the social pillar of sustainability. However, 

for EPA’s purposes, the following may be a useful definition of sustainability, appropriately emphasizing 

human health and the environment: Sustainability is the continued protection of human health and the 

environment while fostering economic prosperity and societal wellbeing. 

In response to the large and growing need for better understanding of how sustainability trends relate 

to EPA’s mission, the ORD has aligned its research programs with the overarching theme of 

sustainability. This is an opportune time for EPA to act as a catalyst for innovation in technologies, 

policies, and business models that will enable society to prosper within the limits of available natural 

capital. Therefore, ORD’s research will focus on understanding the interplay between environmental, 

social and economic systems. This approach is required to enable the Agency to fundamentally change 

the manner in which it addresses systemic environmental problems (e.g., climate change, 

eutrophication, mercury, etc.) – and relates to the “...difference between treating disease and pursuing 

wellness” US EPA Lisa Jackson remarks (Greenley, 2012). 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2. Sustainability Indicator Frameworks 

From the perspective of environmental research and regulatory policy, there are two fundamental 

questions that underscore the need for indicators of progress toward sustainability (Kates et al., 2001): 

•	 How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social 

conditions be integrated or extended to provide more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a 

transition toward sustainability? 

•	 How can today’s relatively independent activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment and 

decision support be better integrated into systems of adaptive management and social learning? 

Based on the three pillars concept, a sustainability indicator can be defined as a measurable aspect of 

environmental, economic, or social systems that is useful for monitoring changes in system 

characteristics relevant to the continuation of human and environmental well being. 

The use of sustainability indicators and corresponding metrics is essential for an integrated systems 

approach to the addressing challenges of sustainability. When carefully chosen and implemented, 

indicators can help managers and policy makers to (modified from “An overview of sustainability 

assessment methodologies” (Singh et al., 2009): 

• Anticipate and assess conditions or historical trends 

• Provide early warning information to prevent adverse outcomes 

• Benchmark against other systems 

• Communicate ideas 

• Support decision-making 

• Formulate strategies and establish improvement goals 

• Track progress 

The conceptual framework in which indicators are to be applied is an important consideration in the 

selection of indicators. Many sustainability frameworks have been proposed and used by different 

organizations around the world. These include the three pillars concept mentioned above, the 

driver/pressure/state/impact/response (DPSIR) model (European Commission et al., 1999), the 

driver/pressure/state/exposure/effects/action (DPSEEA) model (Kjellström and Corvalán, 1995; Briggs et 

al., 1996; Corvalán et al., 1999)(Serageldin, 1996) and the Daly (Daly, 1973) triangle as discussed by 

(Meadows, 1998). System dynamic models can provide more detailed information on the structure and 

behavior of complex dynamic systems and can enable the more informed selection of indicators 

(Gustavson et al. 1999). The choice of an appropriate conceptual framework and corresponding 

indicators is heavily dependent upon an individual’s purpose, worldview, and system of values. The 

approach presented here is compatible with any and all of these schemes. 

The logic of these frameworks can also serve as a basis for aggregating individual indicators into an 

integrated/composite indicator or index. An index is a quantitative aggregation of many indicators and 

can provide a simplified, coherent, multidimensional view of a system (Mayer, 2008). Many schemes 

have been proposed for creating an integrated sustainability index and examples include the 

Environmental Quality Index, Genuine progress, the Yale Environmental Sustainability Index, Fisher 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information, Ecological Footprint, Emergy, and Genuine Savings Index (Redefining Progress, 1995; The 

World Bank, 1997; The World Economic Forum, 2001; USEPA, 2010)(Redefining Progress 1995), 

(http://envirocenter.research.yale.edu/programs/environmental-performancemanagement/environmental-sustainability-index/). However, construction or adoption of such an 

aggregation scheme requires insight and careful considered as discussed in Section 5.3. 

In the three pillars model, one common approach is to select and consider a set of indicators unique to 

each of the three overlapping domains (environmental, economic and social), as illustrated in Figure 2. 

Figure 2 - The three dimensions (pillars) of sustainability (modified from Beach (2010)) to 

show the selection of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D indicators proposed by Sikdar (2003). 

The indicators chosen from each domain and their relative importance in a decision-making process are 

important considerations and should be explicitly discussed because they reflect the focus and values of 

the decision makers. An analysis of the system to determine which indicators capture aspects that 

significantly contribute to movement toward or away from sustainability may provide additional insight 

on indicator selection. 

Some indicators that reside in only one domain (1-D) can be normalized to create two-dimensional (2-D) 

indicators that are more meaningful and comparable. For example, water use, population, and 

economic output are 1-D indicators that can be combined to create 2-D indicators such as water 

consumption per capita, water consumption per $ of GDP, or GDP per capita. This type of normalization 

approach is proposed for inclusion of “resource intensity” indicators in the ROE (see Section 3). 

It has been argued that “’...an environmental indicator becomes a sustainability indicator with the 

addition of time, limit or target.” (Meadows, 1998). Indeed, any 1-D indicator can be tracked over time 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to examine the degree of change relative to either a historical baseline or a future objective. As 

discussed in Section 4, the rate or amount of improvement is a relative measure, indicating whether the 

system is moving toward or away from sustainability (USEPA 2010). 

In some cases, a single indicator can be chosen that provides information relevant to two overlapping 

domains. For example, average concentration of blood lead (Pb) in humans is an indicator of both 

environmental exposures and possible impairment of human health (Fig. 2; SE). Similarly, changes in 

industrial employment as a result of green chemistry innovations (Fig. 2; E$) is an indicator of both 

natural resource protection and economic development. The annual amount of charitable donations 

(Fig. 2; S$) provides an indicator of both economic prosperity and improvements in human well-being. 

Some carefully selected single indicators can be relevant to all three domains (Fig. 2; SE$); for example, 

the per capita floor space of residential dwellings is a useful indicator because it correlates with both 

energy consumption and poverty alleviation, thus capturing the tension between financial prosperity, 

quality of life, and resource depletion. 

Once indicators are selected and corresponding metrics are identified, criteria must be established and 

methods (e.g., Life Cycle Assessment) employed to acquire the data for each metric to evaluate the 

systems under study. Zamagni et al. (2009) and Eason et al. (2009) provide further details on topics 

related to sustainability based decision making and key tools for evaluating the aspects of the system 

related to the pillars of sustainability. 

3. Classification of Sustainability Indicators 

As defined above, a sustainability indicator is a measurable aspect of environmental, economic, or social 

systems that is useful for monitoring changes in system characteristics relevant to the continuation of 

human and environmental well being. In order to support the selection of indicators for specific 

applications, it is useful to classify sustainability indicators according to clearly defined categories and 

subcategories. Such a classification scheme is referred to as a taxonomy. There are numerous 

taxonomies that have been developed in the field of sustainability, and most of these have been 

surveyed for purposes of this project (see Section 4). The following identifies several taxonomies that 

will be helpful to EPA for purposes of program planning and performance tracking. 

3.1Three “Pillars” of Sustainability 

The most widely used taxonomy is based on the three pillars of sustainability described in the previous 

section, and commonly referenced in traditional definitions of sustainability. These pillars are 

characterized as follows environmental, social and economic. Each category can be further divided into 

subcategories; for example social sustainability indicators for industrial health and safety are 

distinguished from those for community well being. Sometimes classifying an indicator depends on the 

scale and type of system being considered: for example, water use can be a one-dimensional or a twodimensional indicator depending on the scope of analysis. As discussed in the previous section, some 

indicators such as “energy intensity” may capture the intersection of multiple pillars or dimensions of 

sustainability. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Report on the Environment Topics 

The 2008 EPA ROE is organized according to a number of topics that provide a taxonomy relevant to 

EPA’s traditional statutory responsibilities: 

•	 Air 

•	 Ecological Condition 

•	 Human Exposure and Health 

•	 Land 

•	 Water 

Additional sustainability topics that could supplement the above might include Social Condition (e.g., 

educational attainment) and Economic Condition (e.g., household income). 

3.3. ORD National Programs 

Another useful way to organize indicators is by relevance to the newly realigned national research 

programs of ORD, listed below: 

•	 Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) 

•	 Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) 

•	 Homeland Security Research (HSR) 

•	 Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) 

•	 Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) 

•	 Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) 

Since these programs are linked to one another, there will be many indicators that are relevant to 

multiple programs. For example, sustainable water indicators, which are significant in SSWR, will also be 

an important issue for SHC. The scale of research conducted under these programs will vary from a 

broad national scope to a regional or local context. Therefore, the framework for sustainability 

indicators will support multi-scale applications. In some cases, indicators can be aggregated from a local 

or regional scale to national scale (e.g., total emissions of a specified pollutant). In other cases, local or 

regional indicators will be specific to the geographic context and cannot easily be aggregated to a 

broader scale. 

3.4. System-Based Indicators 

It is clear that the characterization of sustainability and the development of sustainable solutions require 

a comprehensive “holistic-systems” approach with integrated evaluation of the social, environmental, 

and economic consequences (NRC, 2011). ORD has developed an innovative “triple value” (3V) 

framework, depicted in Figure 3 that helps to capture the dynamic interactions among industrial, 

societal, and ecological systems (Fiksel, 2009). There are four major categories of indicators that are 

applicable to these systems: 

•	 Adverse Outcome (AOI)—indicates destruction of value due to impacts upon individuals, 

communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

•	 Resource Flow (RFI)—indicates pressures associated with the rate of consumption of resources, 

including materials, energy, water, land, or biota. 

•	 System Condition (SCI)—indicates state of the systems in question, i.e., individuals, 

communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment. 

•	 Value Creation (VCI)—indicates creation of value (both economic and well being) through 

enrichment of individuals, communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment. 

Table 1 shows how these four major categories of indicators can be applied at different scales, and 

Figure 4 illustrates the detailed taxonomy of indicators associated with Resource Flow. This approach is 

intended to support both high-level aggregate indicators and more focused indicators associated with 

specific research areas or programs. Examples of the utilization of system-based indicators for the above 

ORD programs are provided in Section 6. 

The Green Book (NRC, 2011)describes other types of indicator classifications that have been proposed. 

For example, one can distinguish between “policy-oriented’ indicators that will respond in the shortterm to policy initiatives and “outcome-oriented” indicators that reflect changes in fundamental stocks 

and flows of natural resources such as water, energy, and minerals. However, this distinction is often 

ambiguous, and was not deemed useful for present purposes. 

Figure 3 – Systems taxonomy for resource flow indicators, with examples (in yellow) 

of specific metrics for material intensity, recovery, and impact 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 - Major Categories of System-Based Indicators 

Indicator 

Category 

Indicator Types National Scale Examples Community Scale Examples 

Resource 

Flow 

Indicators 

• Volume 

• Intensity 

• Recovery 

• Impact 

• Quality 

• Resource depletion 

• Water treatment efficacy 

• Greenhouse gas 

emissions 

• Material flow volume 

• Greenhouse gas emissions 

• Material flow volume 

• Recycling rate 

• Land use 

Value 

Creation 

Indicators 

Adverse 

Outcome 

Indicators 

• Exposure 

• Risk 

• Incidence 

• Impact 

• Loss 

• Impairment 

• Health impacts of air 

pollution 

• Public safety 

• Life cycle footprint of 

energy use 

• Health impacts of air pollution 

• Public safety 

• Sewer overflow frequency 

• Profitability 

• Economic Output 

• Income 

• Capital Investment 

• Human Development 

• Health 

• Wealth 

• Satisfaction 

• Growth 

• Dignity 

• Capacity 

• Quality of Life 

rate 

• Cost (reduction) 

• Fuel efficiency (gain) 

• Energy efficiency (gain) 

• Air quality 

• Water quality 

• Employment 

• Household income 

• Cost (reduction) 

• Fuel efficiency (gain) 

• Energy efficiency (gain) 

• Vehicle use (miles per capita) 

• Air & water quality 

• Local employment 

• Local household income 

• Housing Density 

• Infrastructure durability 

• Community educational equity 

System 

Condition 

Indicators 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Global Inventory of Sustainability Indicators 

4.1. Motivation 

In accordance with the alignment of EPA research programs towards sustainability, a call to action was 

given within ORD to develop an inventory of peer reviewed sustainability indicators and link them to 

emerging EPA programs. The primary goals of the effort was to assist the ORD national research 

programs in the selection of appropriate sustainability indicators for programs such that a single 

taxonomy system is used and to make recommendations for candidate indicators which would be 

developed for the Report on the Environment. The project team engaged in an intensive search to 

understand the current “state of play” in sustainability indicators work and identify peer-reviewed 

indicators at various scales (e.g., national and regional). Further, they developed a taxonomy to help 

classify these indicators into a searchable database. The taxonomy itself is comprised of the 

classification schemes described in Section 3 (see Table 2) and includes linkages to national ORD 

programs. The database is intended to serve as a tool to aid in selecting indicators pertinent to EPA 

programs and incorporates information on relevant supporting resources. Outputs of the activity 

included draft versions of the indicator database cross-walked according to the taxonomies defined and 

a guidance document on the selection of sustainability indicators for EPA programs. 

Table 2 - Taxonomy for Sustainability Indicators: Classification Schemes 

Scale Country/Org Pillar ROE Topic Program 3V Dimension 

Global US ECO Air ACE AOI 1D 

National UNEP ENV Ecological Condition CSS RFI 2D 

Regional Europe SOC Human Health HHRA SCI 3D 

Community etc. Land HSR VCI 

Industrial Water SHC 

SSWR 

This activity has since been developed into a SHC task (1.2.2.1) supporting the effort to provide 

indicators and indices to assess, track and inform community sustainability (i.e., sub-regional, local, city). 

Sustainability is recognized as a major factor influencing the long-term success of communities and an 

untapped reserve for ecological and human health-related research. However, finding the appropriate 

indicators to assess and/or inform community sustainability needs is daunting. The Database of 

Sustainability Indicators and Indices (DOSII) provides a searchable inventory of peer reviewed 

sustainability Indicators classified into a single taxonomy system designed to assist EPA’s research and 

management in identifying candidate sustainability indicators and indices relevant to specific 

sustainability interests. Specifically, the task involves the development of (1) DOSII, a searchable 

database for selecting indicators, which may be used to assess sustainability and (2) a corresponding 

guidance document on the selection of sustainability indicators. Further, an interactive web-based tool 

will be developed to extend the indicator and indices database search capabilities to communities. 

Communities interested in exploring issues related to sustainability will be afforded a mechanism to 

develop a “customized” list of indicators and indices to support community-based decision-making, such 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as cost-benefit analysis, monitoring and assessment, and community outreach, based on the 

community’s specific sustainability priorities. Other uses of the results generated from the tool are 

potentially limitless in the integrated sustainability program envisioned within the Agency. The suite of 

indicators generated could supply the basis for, description of, or feedback for any number of modeling 

efforts, engagement tools, and analytic processes. Further, there is a plan for future export and 

connection to EPA-based tools that will use the results. While DOSII provides the foundation for the 

web-based tool, it is a standalone tool in its own right. Although this effort is housed within the SHC 

program, this research task is an integrated transdisciplinary and cross-laboratory effort aimed at 

providing critical information that will aid in the development and selection of sustainability indicators 

for EPA programs. Hence, the database will afford the ability to access indicators for various topics and 

scales (e.g., national, regional and community) of implementation to include measures for evaluating 

the sustainability of programs, projects and activities related to air, water, energy, products, 

communities, human health risks, and national security. This work is intended to serve as both a source 

and “sink” for many other activities across the Agency as it is naturally linked to advancing science in 

such areas as decision analysis, regional assessments, technology evaluations and ecosystem services. 

Hence, a high level of collaboration is desired and expected as it will be connected to activities including 

(but not limited to) the Sustainability Metrics project, Sustainable Supply Chains, the Durham project, 

CSS Dashboards, Decision Analysis for Sustainable Environmental, Economy and Society (DASEES), 

chemical sustainability, Human Wellbeing Index, Environmental Quality Index and New and Emerging 

Media. The first iteration of the DOSII will be available October 1, 2012 (with annual updates) and the 

web tool is expected to roll out October 1, 2014. A draft of the proposed architecture for the web-based 

tool is provided in the Appendix. 

4.2 Survey Results and Database Development 

There is a plethora of activity related to sustainability indicators throughout the world. The International 

Institute of Sustainable Development lists nearly 900 sustainability initiatives worldwide, including 

almost 200 indicator development activities (IISD, 2011). Indicator evaluation and development projects 

often last for several years and involve task groups containing many experts who typically engage in a 

high level of review of existing sources and provide comprehensive information and synthesis reports 

detailing their efforts. 

For this project, a number of well known resources (e.g., World Bank, UN Commission on Sustainable 

Development (UNCSD), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) were initially 

reviewed to begin compiling the list of sustainability indicators. As the mining effort has continued, the 

lists of resources and indicators have progressively grown. To date, more than 50 resources (e.g., 

databases, reports, websites, workgroup studies and journal articles) were reviewed and over 6000 

indicators have been identified and compiled. After eliminating obvious duplication and indicators from 

resources with no supporting description or metrics, compiling similar indicators (on-going), the list was 

reduced to 1411. Note: It is expected that the size of list change through subsequent iterations. These 

indicators have been organized according to the classification scheme (Table 2) and stored in a 

Microsoft Excel database; thereby, providing a “lay of the land” of existing indicators of varying spatial 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scale, scope and topic. Additional indicators will be synthesized, classified and incorporated during 

subsequent updates of the database. 

As of this iteration, nearly half (48.5%) of the indicators analyzed are multi-dimensional (i.e., 2-D or 3-D) 

and most are deemed usable at multiple scales (e.g., national, regional, etc.). While the majority of the 

indicators can be linked to Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC), nearly 30% of them relate to the 

Air, Climate and Energy. The remaining programs (i.e., SSWR, CSS, HHRA and HSR) are linked to 

between 7.65% and 13.75% of the indicators. 

The database is stored in a Microsoft Excel 2007 workbook (‘DOSII.v1.xlsx’) with tabs named [Indicators], 

[Sources] and [Summary]. The [Indicators] tab contains an inventory of the indicators and other 

pertinent details including the Source (shorthand for the reference (e.g., article, site, database) where 

the indicator was gathered), Scale, Pillar, Source theme (relates to the topic/theme as identified in the 

source), ROE topic, EPA Program, triple value (3V) classification, Dimension (e.g., two dimensional (2-D)) 

and Description (and/or metric). The [Sources] tab provides resource information including the Name, 

Acronym, Purpose or description of the study, the primary sustainability Pillar (i.e., economic, social 

and/or environmental) covered in the source, source themes, affiliated organization, scale (e.g., 

national), reference access information and date of last update. The [Summary] tab is a compilation of 

the summary statistics as provided in Table A3. A sample of the indicator database (Table A1) and 

resource list (Table A2) are provided in the Appendix. 

4.3. Searching, Sorting and Filtering in the Database 

The structured database can be used as a tool for selecting indicators relevant to particular programs or 

projects. This section provides instructions on how to extract sustainability indicators from the 

database by searching, sorting, and filtering according to specified criteria. 

Simple techniques such as the Find command (Ctrl+F) and alphabetical sorting may be used to navigate 

in Microsoft Excel. For example, an alphabetical sort was used to coarsely sift through and remove 

duplicate indicators from the database. While these are effective methods for simple searches, 

efficiently maneuvering through the database typically requires more complex actions. By leveraging 

the advanced features of Microsoft Excel, users are able to input specific criteria to filter, sort and 

search the database as needed. 

Suppose a user seeks a list of environmental indicators. One approach is as follows (see Figure 5): 

1.	 Click on the filter pull down in the ‘Pillar’ column of the database. 

2.	 Unclick the ‘Select All’ check box and then select the checkbox next to ‘ENV’. This filters the list 

to include only indicators classified as “environmental”. 

3.	 The number of records meeting the criteria is listed on the status bar below the workbook tabs. 

In this case, 537 records are returned denoting the number of indicators in the database that are 

classified as environmental indicators. 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Another approach to generating a list from these criteria is to use the [Text Filter] provided in the [Pillar] 

pull down heading. By setting the text qualifier [Equals] and entering [ENV], the same results are 

returned. An alternative method is to use the text filter [Contains] and enter [ENV] in the Pillar column 

and then select [1D] in the Dimension column. Note that with any of the filtering actions, the indicators 

not meeting the specified criteria are not lost, but are hidden. The database may be restored in full by 

clicking on each of the filtered columns and checking the box next to [Select All]. 

A different result is obtained when only using the [Contains] ENV text filter and leaving the dimension 

column unaltered. The 955 indicators returned contains indicators that are classified as environmental, 

but may also relate to social and economic impacts. Thus, the resulting list contains multiple categories 

of indicators including ENV, ENV-SOC, ECO-ENV and ECO-ENV-SOC. 

Figure 4 – Basic Steps for Filtering the Database 

Building from the search for environmental indicators, the criteria may be refined to find environmental 

indicators related the SSWR program by keeping the filter set to [ENV] in [Pillar] column (e.g., select 

[ENV] only, step A in Figure 6) and checking every box in the Program column that contains the text 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SSWR] (step B in Figure 6). This customized filtering method returns 115 records. A less cumbersome 

approach is to select [ENV] in the Pillar column and use the text filter [Contains] [SSWR] in the Program 

column. By drilling down a bit further and setting the [Scale] custom filter to [Contains] [Regional] or 

Figure 5 – Sample Custom Filter Search: Regional environmental indicators related to SSWR 

[Contains] [Any] (Step C in Figure 6), 80 regional environmental indicators related to the SSWR program 

are returned. 

4.4. Future work 

The preliminary database and guidance document were initially used to a gain sense of the “world” of 

sustainability indicators, its subsequent linkages to EPA programs and recommend candidate 

sustainability indicators for the inclusion of the 2012 online, interactive EPA Report on the Environment. 

These products were made available to various researchers within ORD research programs (i.e., CSS, 

SHC, and SSWR) as well as others within program offices (e.g., OSWER) and Regional Offices (e.g., Region 

1) who had an interest in investigating and identifying sustainability indicators. 

Since DOSII is intended to be a repository of indicators for EPA programs, through multiple iterations, it 

will be honed and expanded in subsequent updates of the database and guidance document. Additional 

indicators and indices from other sources (including internal Agency projects) may be incorporated 

during this period, as well. Further, as previously mentioned, the continuation of the SHC task involves 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the development of the web-tool to enhance database access and extend DOSII’s search capabilities to 

communities through a user-friendly web interface. The first iteration of DOSII will be available October 

1, 2012 (with annual updates) and the web tool is expected to roll out October 1, 2014. 

As we have set our sights and efforts on moving in conjunction with the Path Forward, many have 

identified and championed the importance of sustainability indicators and indices. This work is an effort 

to compile, logically organize (in line with developed taxonomies) and synthesize information on the 

abundance of sustainability measures used around the world. In order to further increase the impact of 

the work, we propose a few recommendations to enhance consistency foster a collaborative spirit and 

capitalize on our transdisciplinary expertise: 

•	 Due to the many terms and themes used and outlined in each source, it is necessary to undergo 

an iterative update and revision process to provide a succinct list and most accurately group 

similar indicators. However, much like typical sustainability indicator projects, it may be prudent 

to assemble an “expert” review panel in this effort. While we don’t want to limit the amount of 

information available to researchers, program and regional offices or communities, a 

transdisciplinary approach will provide key understanding of systems, supporting indicators and 

corresponding metrics to streamline the database along the taxonomy. The goal of such an 

effort is to develop the most rational set of indicators for assessment, planning and analysis. 

•	 An additional recommendation is the development of a core set of Agency sustainability themes 

to layer over the ORD research programs as an additional mapping mechanism that provides 

grouping themes that are source independent (e.g., World Bank, OECD). The Office of Science 

Information and Management’s (OSIM) managed vocabulary work may provide some key insight 

and guidance toward this endeavor. 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Selecting Sustainability Indicators 

“Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about), and they create values (we care about 

what we measure)” (Meadows, 1998). Whether in the context of government policy making or business 

decision making, indicators are essential for characterizing current conditions, evaluating management 

options that may be proposed, tracking the outcomes of actions taken, and assessing progress towards 

overall goals. The selection of indicators effectively determines the “lens” through which one views the 

system, and is therefore extremely important in influencing human decisions and judgments. 

As discussed in Section 4, there are a wide variety of sustainability indicators used by different 

organizations in the U.S. and around the world. Depending upon the perspectives of various stakeholder 

groups and interested parties, the preferred indicators may be quite different. In addition, different 

indicators are needed at different spatial scales—from national-level reporting and tracking of progress 

to local, place-based or program-based investigation. This section addresses the selection of indicators 

in connection with two major EPA needs—the Report on the Environment, and focused planning or 

decision making. 

5.1. Indicators for National Reporting 

One objective of the Sustainability Indicators project was to select a small number of sustainability 

indicators for EPA's 2012 ROE. The ROE has strict guidelines for the choice of indicators, and requires a 

careful statement of rationale as well as supporting data and methodology. The ROE defines an indicator 

is defined as a numerical value derived from actual measurements of a pressure, state or ambient 

condition, exposure, or human health or ecological condition, over a specified geographic domain, 

whose trends over time represent or draw attention to underlying trends in the condition of the 

environment or human health (USEPA, 2008). The major categories of indicators reported in the 2008 

ROE are discussed in Section 4. 

Consistent with the Green Book recommendations, it is possible to augment the current ROE indicators 

to represent fundamental trends in sustainability. The simplest way to achieve this is to build upon 

existing indicators of pressures on the environment and human health that are already included in ROE. 

For example, one important goal for moving toward sustainability in a developed economy is to avoid 

adverse health and ecological impacts by reducing emissions of pollutants in the face of population and 

economic growth. To capture this trend, airborne emissions can be normalized by population size or 

annual economic output to create a 2-D indicator. An example of such an indicator is “greenhouse gas 

emissions per capita” or “greenhouse gas emissions per $ of gross domestic product”. The normalizing 

factors are readily available from demographic and economic statistics maintained by other agencies. 

Rather than measuring an absolute condition, these indicators are measures of intensity, and reflect the 

rate at which pollutants are being generated in order to support the needs of the U.S. economy. 

Airborne emission rates may be seen as an indirect measure of resource consumption, since they 

generally correlate with the rate of energy consumption and industrial activity. However, it is possible to 

reduce emission rates simply by pollution prevention and control technology, which does not necessarily 

lower the rate at which scarce resources are depleted or degraded. Another desirable option is to 

increase energy efficiency, thereby reducing the amount of energy (and corresponding impacts) 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

required to deliver the same output (e.g., goods, services, electricity and transportation). Additional 

important goals for moving toward global sustainability are to reduce the rate at which non-renewable 

resources are consumed and to assure that consumption of renewable resources does not exceed their 

rates of natural regeneration (OECD, 2001). Accordingly, this project has investigated several additional 

indicators for national-scale reporting, reflecting the resource intensity for water, energy and materials. 

•	 Fresh water is a critical, finite resource, and both the quality and availability of U.S. water 

sources are being stressed due to agricultural, urban, and industrial uses. An informative choice 

of sustainability indicator for water resources would be the use of water with respect to 

economic output (e.g., gross domestic product (GDP): water use per unit of GDP. Water use 

measures the amount of water withdrawn from the environment minus the amount discharged 

back into water bodies. This is an important consideration because some industrial sectors (e.g., 

electric power generation) return large quantities of treated water to the environment, while 

other sectors (e.g., agriculture) do not. Additionally, this water intensity indicator could be 

interpreted in the context of water scarcity to enable an assessment of sustainability. However, 

data to support this indicator as described above are currently not available. Every 5 years the 

US Geological Survey reports data on total water withdrawals compiled at the county level for 

industrial sectors. While current data constrains us to total water withdrawal intensities and 

limits interpretations with respect to sustainability, trends in water withdrawals per capita and 

per GDP can provide useful information on water withdrawal efficiencies by industrial sector or 

geographic region. 

•	 Energy is a critical resource for economic growth and human well-being. However, there is 

growing concern over shrinking fossil resources, rising energy costs, and adverse impacts of 

certain energy generation technologies. The U.S. has achieved significant advances in energy 

efficiency and more opportunities exist to reduce energy demand and shift to renewable 

sources. Therefore, a useful sustainability indicator is the following measure of energy intensity: 

energy use per unit of GDP. Again, energy intensity can be measured on a national level and 

can be disaggregated across different energy use sectors. 

•	 Material flow is an important aspect of sustainability because increasing material consumption 

requires a greater demand on resources (water, energy, minerals, land, etc.) and larger 

quantities of pollutants and wastes. In the U.S., over 90% of the materials that are extracted 

from the environment, transported, and processed are eventually discharged as waste or 

atmospheric emissions. To achieve sustainability it is necessary to break this pattern by 

"decoupling" material consumption from value creation. A suitable indicator of progress in 

material use reduction is material intensity, but it is difficult to gather reliable data on a national 

scale regarding actual material consumption over the life cycles of all products and services. 

Instead, a surrogate indicator for which reliable data are available is waste intensity, which can 

be measured as follows: solid waste per unit of GDP. Conservation of mass implies that the 

lower the amount of waste generated, the lower the overall material flow through the 

economy. This approach is consistent with the "sustainable materials management" initiative 

being conducted by EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although it appears that these intensity indicators only account for environmental and economic 

aspects, it is clear that core resources (e.g., energy, material and water) have a significant and 

measurable impact on people (hence, the social pillar), both individually and collectively. The goal 

of developing and recommending sustainability indicators for the ROE was to enhance the coverage 

past its core focus on the environment. Ongoing work on the ROE includes investigating the 

feasibility and relevance of these indicators and possibly expanding the use of intensity indicators by 

developing per capita measures (e.g., municipal solid waste per capita) to augment the view of 

sustainability and further highlight the impact of human activity. Subsequent editions of the ROE 

intend to increase the development, tracking and use of sustainability indicators. 

5.2. Indicators for Focused Investigation 

To accelerate successful adoption of the Sustainability Framework, the Green Book (NRC, 2011) 

recommends that EPA pursue a set of place-based and program-based pilot projects to develop 

sustainability expertise, encourage cultural change, and demonstrate value for stakeholders. Such 

projects will typically involve collaborations both within and outside EPA, making it critical to select a 

comprehensive set of goals and indicators that reflect stakeholder aspirations for shared value. 

Generally speaking, in the context of decision making, a portfolio of indicators will be needed to 

represent the breadth of environmental and socioeconomic issues associated with sustainability. Typical 

categories of sustainability indicators that may be relevant to various stakeholder groups are illustrated 

in Figure 7. Note that in order to fully capture the dimensions of sustainability, environmental footprint 

reduction indicators need to be accompanied by stakeholder value creation. Table 3 further illustrates 

various categories of sustainability indicators that have been used by international organizations to 

characterize conditions in different countries and cities around the world. 

Reduced 

Environmental 

Footprint 

Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

Persistent Toxic 

Emissions 

Material 

Intensity 

Water 

Intensity 

Ecological 

Impacts 

Energy 

Intensity 

Land 

Use 

Increased 

Societal 

Value 

Human 

Dignity 

Health & safety 

Improvement 

Asset 

Recovery 

Resource 

Conservation 

Prosperity 

& Economic 

Resilience 

Poverty 

Alleviation 

Biodiversity 

& Ecological 

Resilience 

Figure 6 – Typical categories of sustainability indicators 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

Based on generally accepted performance measurement principles, an overarching criterion in the 

selection of indicators is “materiality,” i.e., their relevance to the problem or issue under consideration. 

The following is a list of selection criteria that can be used to choose sustainability performance 

indicators (Fiksel, 2009). The set of indicators should be: 

•	 Relevant to the interests of the intended audiences, reflecting important opportunities for 

enhancement of social and environmental conditions as well as economic prosperity. 

•	 Meaningful to the intended audiences in terms of clarity, comprehensibility and transparency. 

•	 Objective in terms of measurement techniques and verifiability, while allowing for regional, cultural 

and socio-economic differences. 

•	 Effective for supporting benchmarking and monitoring over time, as well as decision-making about 

how to improve performance. 

•	 Comprehensive in providing an overall evaluation of progress with respect to sustainability goals. 

•	 Consistent across different sites or communities, using appropriate normalization and other 

methods to account for their inherent diversity. 

•	 Practical in allowing cost-effective, non-burdensome implementation and building on existing data 

collection where possible. 

In addition, the Green Book (NRC, 2011) states that indicators should have the following attributes: 

•	 Actionable, so that practical steps can be taken to address contributing factors. 

•	 Transferable and scalable, so that they are adaptable at regional, state, or local levels. 

•	 Intergenerational, reflecting fair distribution of costs and benefits among different generations. 

•	 Durable, so that they have long-term relevance. 

While every indicator need not satisfy all of these criteria, a credible portfolio of sustainability indicators 

should have the above characteristics. The most effective performance measurement programs are 

those that focus upon a small number of quantifiable key performance indicators (KPIs) covering the 

most important aspects of sustainability for the specific problem at hand. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 – Examples of Sustainability Indicators Used Worldwide 

Poverty 

 Unemployment rate 

 Poverty index 

 Population living below

poverty line 

Population Stability 

 Population growth rate

trend 

 Population density 

Human Health 

 Average life expectancy 

 Access to safe drinking 

water 

 Access to basic Sanitation 

 Infant mortality rate 

Living Conditions 

 Urban population growth 

rate 

 Floor area per capita 

 Housing cost 

Coastal Protection 

 Population growth 

 Fisheries yield 

 Algae index 

Agricultural Conditions 

 Pesticide use rate 

 Fertilizer use rate 

 Arable land per capita 

 Irrigation % of arable land 

Ecosystem Stability 

 Threatened species 

 Annual rainfall 

Atmospheric Impacts 

 Greenhouse gas emissions 

 Sulfur oxide emissions 

 Nitrogen oxides emissions 

 Ozone depleting emissions 

Generation 

 Municipal waste 

 Hazardous waste 

 Radioactive waste 

 Land occupied by waste 

Consumption 

 Forest area change 

 Annual energy consumption 

 Mineral reserves 

 Fossil fuel reserves 

 Material intensity 

 Groundwater reserves 

Economic Growth 

 GNP 

 National debt/GNP 

 Average income 

 Capital imports 

 Foreign investment 

Accessibility 

 Telephone lines per capita 

 Information access 

Sources: 

United Nations, Indicators of Sustainable Development 

World Bank, World Development Indicators 

5.3. Integrated Indicator: Index 

Many organizations have developed integrated indicators that combine multiple indicators into a single 

index as a common “currency”. Examples include the Human Development Index used by the U.N., the 

Environmental Quality Index and the Genuine Savings Index mentioned earlier. While an index is 

convenient for purposes of communication and tracking, it reduces transparency by collapsing a variety 

of substantive information into a single index. Thus, it is difficult for a user or stakeholder to interpret 

the value of increasing the index or its underlying indicators by a certain amount. While reporting such 

aggregate indices, it is generally advisable to also present the information that comprises the index, and 

to make it available to interested parties. Many researchers have performed sustainability studies using 

multiple indices (e.g., Wilson et al., 2007; Nourry, 2008; Pulselli et al., 2008; Tiezzi and Bastianoni, 2008; 

Hopton et al., 2010). Such data can be presented as a spider diagram for visual inspection, but further 

aggregating these composite into a single overall index invites similar transparency concerns. 

Researchers around the world, including within ORD are wrestling with methods of identifying 

underlying drivers of behavior reflected in indices. Methods under investigation include principal 

components analysis (PCA), system dynamics models and correlation tests (Vyas and Kumaranayake, 

2006; USEPA, 2010; Primpas et al., 2010; Eason and Cabezas, 2012; Gonzalez-Mejia et al., 2012). 

Further, scientists are studying and testing methods based on fundamental properties of systems (e.g., 

thermodynamic and information-theoretic approaches) to develop a new generation of sustainability 

indices. Examples of these approaches include Fisher Information (Mayer et al., 2007), exergy (Dincer 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

and Rosen, 2007; Baral and Bakshi, 2010), and emergy (Odum, 1994). These composite indicators can be 

used alone or in combination with other indicators. Emerging indices offer powerful scientific tools for 

sustainability assessment and are the subject of ongoing research. However, since the focus of this 

document is on the selection and implementation of commonly used, transparent, and meaningful 

sustainability indicators, a detailed review of indices is not included in this report. 

6.	 Implementing the Use of Sustainability Indicators 

Following the guidance of the Green Book (NRC, 2011), it is assumed that EPA will begin to implement a 

Sustainability Assessment and Management (SAM) process as depicted in Figure 8. The important 

features of the process include the following: 

 Comprehensive and systems-based: Analysis of alternative options should include an integrated 

evaluation of the social, environmental, and economic consequences. 

 Selective application: The level and depth of analysis should match with the scale and 

magnitude of potential consequences for the decision at hand. 

 Intergenerational: The long-term consequences of alternatives should be evaluated in addition 

to the more immediate consequences. 

 Stakeholder collaboration: Stakeholders should be involved throughout the process. 

Sustainability indicators play a critical role in the SAM process, from the initial establishment of goals to 

the ultimate evaluation of outcomes. Ideally, the indicators used in the EPA sustainability assessment 

and management process will be consistent with the indicators in the Report on the Environment, thus 

providing linkages between broad national indicators (e.g., GHG emissions per capita) and focused local 

or regional assessments (e.g., annual energy use per urban household). 

Figure 7 – The Sustainability Assessment and Management Process 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar to SAM, the following is a five-step guideline for implementing the use of sustainability indicators 

in the context of applied research projects that are intended to support policy or decision-making. These 

steps are illustrated using a pilot project that is currently being conducted by ORD on mitigation of 

excessive nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) in New England waterways, in 

collaboration with EPA Region 1. This is a place-based study focused on the Narragansett Bay and its 

watershed, with a broad scope that includes social, economic, and environmental issues. 

Step 1 - Problem Definition, Scoping and Planning 

Problem definition is a critical activity in the SAM process because it determines the scope and 

boundaries of the system to be considered, and explicitly identifies the relevant stakeholder interests. 

Systems thinking is needed because an overly narrow problem formulation may omit important 

unintended consequences. Therefore, definition of sustainability goals should address all the important 

environmental, economic, and social aspects that might be affected by a system intervention. In the 

Narragansett example, the overall goal is to reduce nutrient impairment while supporting regional 

economic growth and community well being. 

Step 2 - Identification and Selection of Relevant Indicators 

As discussed in Section 5.2, a portfolio of sustainability indicators should be chosen to address the goals 

of the research as well as the interests of different stakeholder groups. For the nutrient study, the triple 

value framework (see Section 3.4) was selected to represent the overall system, and ten primary “key” 

indicators were chosen covering each of the three major subsystems—industries, communities, and 

environmental resources. As shown in Figure 9, the Narragansett Bay project involved identifying and 

modeling the causal linkages among these indicators. During the course of the project, a variety of 

additional indicators were identified for purposes of modeling the system behavior. 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industrial Supply Chains Community Stakeholders 

N & P loadings N & P loadings 

Resource 

intensity intensity 

Water

Safety

Water 

Safety 

Economic 

Growth 

Health &

Nutrition

Health & 

Nutrition 

Employment Employment 

Regional water

demand

Regional water 

demand 

Water

quality

Water 

quality 

Fresh water 

availability availability 

Precipitation Precipitation 

Environmental Resources 

Figure 8 – Selected Key indicators for Mitigation of Nutrient Impairment 

Step 3 - Specification of appropriate spatial scale and units of measure 

To implement the use of an indicator, it is necessary to define the scope or scale of measurement (e.g., 

single water body vs. watershed-scale vs. regional or national scale) as well as the physical or monetary 

units (i.e., metrics) to be utilized. For example, “water demand” can be quantified in terms of the 

following specific metric: millions of gallons of water consumed annually within the watershed. It is 

important to distinguish between absolute measures and relative metrics, which are normalized with 

respect to another quantity. Examples of relative metrics are time-based indicators, e.g., percent 

increase in water demand from 2010 to 2020, and “intensity” measures, e.g., water demand per capita” 

(see Section 5.1). Although stakeholder groups often advocate the use of absolute measures, these may 

lead to inappropriate comparisons whereas relative indicators are generally less biased by differences in 

system characteristics. For example, the largest facilities in a region will typically be the largest 

consumers of water, even though their water intensity may be significantly lower than others. 

Step 4 - Data collection and quality assurance procedures 

Once the indicators and measurement approaches have been determined, data must be collected from 

primary or secondary sources. Typically a baseline set of data will be established in a given year for 

purposes of future comparison. As in any research effort, care must be taken to assure the quality, 

accuracy, reliability, comparability of the data. It is also useful, where possible, to identify the sources of 

uncertainty and to establish uncertainty bounds. Since indicators will typically be tracked over a long 

period of time, provisions must be made for data archiving, maintenance and retrieval. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 5 - Communication and reporting 

Indicators are valuable tools for purposes of problem analysis, reporting of progress, evaluation of 

outcomes and assessment of performance. Through successive iterations of the SAM process, 

sustainability indicators can be used repeatedly to support decision-making and stakeholder 

communication. The availability of quantitative measures lends credibility to any type of communication 

exercise. However, care must be used to assure that indicators are used appropriately, bias is avoided, 

uncertainty is communicated and transparency is emphasized. If an aggregated index is used, the 

components and weighting factors that comprise the index should be available and understandable. 

Implementing the above process across EPA’s multiple activities will pose challenges in terms of 

coordination and consistency of interpretation. Establishing uniform guidelines, procedures, and tools 

for the use of sustainability indicators will not only facilitate coordination, but will also enhance EPA’s 

long-run credibility and provide leadership to stakeholders in the business community and civil society. 

7. Conclusions 

Incorporation of sustainability concepts into the EPA policy and decision making process will require the 

adoption of sustainability indicators for purposes of problem definition, goal setting, measurement of 

progress, evaluation of performance, communication with stakeholders, and public reporting. In 

particular, to effectively support sustainability initiatives in Program and Regional offices, coordination 

of ORD research programs will be facilitated by the adoption of a common framework for sustainability 

indicators. This document provides guidelines for the definition, selection, and implementation of 

sustainability indicators that are consistent with EPA’s mission. The approach presented here is an effort 

to provide a comprehensive and flexible toolkit for tracking of sustainability progress at multiple scales 

across the full spectrum of EPA activities. 

Sustainability indicators are a powerful tool for focusing attention on important environmental, 

economic, and social trends that provide signals of change. However, indicators can potentially be 

manipulated to convey biased messages, and therefore the selection of indicators for public policy 

purposes should be approached with the utmost effort to assure objectivity, transparency, and 

stakeholder consensus. It is in EPA’s interest to develop an ongoing repository of sustainability 

indicators that are meaningful, verifiable, defensible, and relevant to stakeholder audiences. The 

database developed under this project can provide a starting point for such a repository. 

The guidelines and tools provided through this work should be helpful as EPA moves forward with 

implementation of the Green Book recommendations. Selection and implementation of sustainability 

indicators should be coordinated across various Agency activities, including high-level, national-scale 

reporting through the Report on the Environment, programmatic activities including policy development 

and rule-making, and focused, place-based projects involving collaboration and decision-making. 

26
 
 

 

 

Acronyms 

CALCAS Co-ordination Action for innovation in Life-Cycle Analysis for Sustainability 

SHCRP or SHC EPA Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program 

EEA European Environment Agency 

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 

GRI Global Reporting Initiative 

IWGSDI Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators 

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

NRC National Research Council 

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

SEDAC Socio Economic Data and Applications Center 

SAM Sustainability Assessment and Management 

SDI Group Sustainable Development Indicator 

DOSII The Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices 

PCSD The President's Council on Sustainable Development 

ROE The USEPA Report on the Environment 

UN United Nations 

UNCSD United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development 

UNDP United Nations Development Programme 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 

UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme 

USEPA or EPA US Environmental Protection Agency 

WBCSD World Business Council on Sustainable Development 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Cited 

Baral, A. and B. R. Bakshi. 2010. Thermodynamic metrics for aggregation of natural resources in life cycle 

analysis: insight via application to some transportation fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(2):800­

807. DOI 10.1021/es902571b. 

Beach, K. 2010. Edmond Oklahoma Info for Citizens Planning to Survive Sustainability. Available from: 

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/edmond-info-for-citizens-planning-to-survivesustainability/. July 11, 2011. 

Briggs, D., C. Corvalán, and M. Nurminen, editors. 1996. Linkage Methods for Environment and Health 

Analysis: General Guidelines. 136. World Health Organization Publications. 

Corvalán, C. F., T. Kjellström, and K. R. Smith. 1999. Health, environment and sustainable development: 

identifying links and indicators to promote action. Epidemiology 10(5):656-660. 

Daly, H. E. 1973. Toward a steady-state economy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, USA. 

Dincer, I. and M. A. Rosen. 2007. Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. Elsevier., 

Burlington, MA, USA. ISBN 978-0-08-044529-8. 

Eason, T., D. Meyer, M. A. Curran, and V. K. Upadhyayula. 2011. Decision Support Framework for 

Sustainable Nanotechnology Design and Manufacture. EPA Report, EPA/600/R-11/107. 

Eason, T. N. and H. Cabezas. 2012. Evaluating the sustainability of a regional system using Fisher 

Information, San Luis Basin, Colorado. J Environ Manage94):41-49. 

European Commission, Eurostat, and THEME 8 Environment and Energy. 1999. Towards environmental 

pressure indicators for the EU. http://esl.jrc.it/envind/tepi99rp.pdf. 

Federal Register. October 8, 2009. 74(194):52117-52127. Executive Order 13514 “Federal Leadership in 

Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” into the Agency’s Green Purchasing Plan. 

Washington D.C. 

Fiksel, J. 2009. Design for the Environment. A Guide to Sustainable Product Development. Second 

edition. McGraw-Hill., New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-0-07-160556-4. 

Gonzalez-Mejia, A. M., T. N. Eason, H. Cabezas, and M. T. Suidan. 2012. Assessing Sustainability in Real 

Urban Systems: The Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 46(17):9620-9629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3007904. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3007904. 

Greenley, L. 2012. EPA's Plans for Implementing UN's Agenda 21. The New American. 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11224-epas-plans-forimplementing-uns-agenda-21. 

GRI. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. www.globalreporting.org. 

Gustavson, K. R., S. C. Lonergan, and H. J. Ruitenbeek. 1999. Selection and modeling of sustainable 

development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecol. Econ. 

28(1):117-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00032-9. 

Hopton, M. E., H. Cabezas, D. E. Campbell, T. Eason, A. S. Garmestani, M. T. Heberling, A. T. Karunanithi, 

J. J. Templeton, D. White, and M. Zanowick. 2010. Development of a multidisciplinary approach 

to assess regional sustainability. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 17(1):48-56. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500903488297. 

IISD. 2011. Global Directory of Indicator Initiatives. Available from: 

http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx. July 11, 2011. 

ISO. 2004. ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems -- Requirements with guidance for use. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=31807. 

Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Correll, M. J. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J. J. McCarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B. 

Bolin, N. M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Grübler, B. Huntley, J. Jäger, N. S. Jodha, R. 

E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore III, T. O'Riordan, and U. Svedin. 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001. Sustainability Science. Science 292(5517):641-642. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/641.full?sid=32099442-9bb8-43fa-b048­

3a41f694164e. 

Kjellström, T. and C. Corvalán. 1995. Framework for the development of environmental health 

indicators. World Health Stat Q 48(2):144-154. 

Mayer, A. L. 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional 

systems. Environ. Int. 34(2):277-291. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.004. 

Mayer, A. L., C. W. Pawlowski, B. D. Fath, and H. Cabezas. 2007. Applications of Fisher Information to the 

management of sustainable environmental systems. Pages 217-244 in B. R. Frieden and R. A. 

Gatenby, editors. Exploratory Data Analysis Using Fisher Information. Springer-Verlag London, 

UK. 

Meadows, D. 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development,. The Sustainability 

Institute, Hartland VT, USA. http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Indicators&Information.pdf. 

Nourry, M. 2008. Measuring sustainable development: Some empirical evidence for France from eight 

alternative indicators. Ecol. Econ. 67(3):441-456. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.019. 

NRC. 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., USA. ISBN10: 0-309-21252-9. 

Odum, H. T. 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Second edition. 

University Press of Colorado., Niwot, CO, USA. ISBN: 9780870813207. 

OECD. 2001. OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Available from: 

http://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentalindicatorsmodellingandoutlooks/1863539.pd 

f. 

Primpas, I., G. Tsirtsis, M. Karydis, and G. D. Kokkoris. 2010. Principal component analysis: Development 

of a multivariate index for assessing eutrophication according to the European water framework 

directive. Ecol. Ind. 10(178-183. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.007. 

Pulselli, F. M., F. Ciampalini, C. Leipert, and E. Tiezzi. 2008. Integrating methods for the environmental 

sustainability: The SPIn-Eco Project in the Province of Siena (Italy). J. Environ. Manage. 

86(2):332-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.04.014. 

Redefining Progress. 1995. ‘Gross production vs genuine progress’, Excerpt from the Genuine Progress 

Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. San Francisco, CA, USA. 

Serageldin, I. 1996. Sustainability as Opportunity and the Problem of Social Capital. 3 Brown J. World Aff. 

III(2):187-203. 

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/brownjwa3&div=73&g_sent=1&collectio 

n=journals. 

Sikdar, S. K. 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChe J. 49(8):1928-1932. 

10.1002/aic.690490802. 

Singh, R., H. Murty, S. Gupta, and A. Dikshit. 2009. An overview of sustainability assessment 

methodologies. Ecological Indicators 9(2):189-212. 

The World Bank. 1997. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. The International Bank for Reconstruction 

and Development, Washington D.C., USA. 

The World Economic Forum. 2001. Environmental Sustainability Index. An Initiative of the Global 

Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force. The World Economic Forum, the Yale Center for 

Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information 

Network, Davos, Switzerland. This report is available on-line at 

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI. 

Tiezzi, E. and S. Bastianoni. 2008. Sustainability of the Siena Province through ecodynamic indicators. J. 

Environ. Manage. 86(2):329-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.05.020. 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

UN. 1987. Our Common Future. Report transmitted to the General Assembly as an annex to document 

A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation, World Commission on Environment 

and Development, Oxford, U.K. 

USEPA. 2008. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report). Washington D.C. EPA/600/R07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484). http://www.epa.gov/roe. 

USEPA 2010. San Luis Basin Sustainability Metrics Project: A Methodology for Evaluating Regional 

Sustainability, EPA Number: EPA/600/R-10/182 

Vyas, S. and L. Kumaranayake. 2006. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal 

components analysis. Health Policy Plann. 21(6):459-468. 

http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/6/459.full. 

WBCSD. 2011. Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation - A framework for improving corporate decisionmaking. Available from: 

http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=104&NoSearchContextK 

ey=true. 

Wilson, J., P. Tyedmers, and R. Pelot. 2007. Contrasting and comparing sustainable development 

indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators 7(299-314. 

Zamagni, A., P. Buttol, R. Buonamici, P. Masoni, J. B. Guinee, G. Huppes, R. Heijungs, E. van der Voet, T. 

Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2009. CALCAS D20 blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis. 

Institute of Environmental Sciences, Lieden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 

30
 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

This appendix provides a sample of the sustainability indicator database, resource list and summary 

statistics on the classified indicators. 

31
 
 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A. 1 – Sample of DOSII 

N ame Sourc e Scale Pillar Sourc e Theme ROE Top c Program 3V D imension U nits /D es cription 

18- to 24-year-olds 

without a s c hool leaving 

c ertific ate 

G RM N ational/ Region 

al/ Community ECO -SOC Intergeneration equity SH C SCI/ VCI 2D 

Share of 18- to 24-year olds (of all 18- to 24-year olds ) who currently do not attend any s chool or ins titution 

of higher educ ation and are not in training and hold no qualific ations from pos t-16 educ ation or from the 

dual s ys tem of vocational training. 

25-year-old univers ity 

graduates G RM N ational/ Region al/ Community ECO -SOC Intergeneration equity SH C SCI/ VCI 2D Percentage of 25-year-olds (of all 25-year-olds ) who have c ompleted a univers ity degree. 

Abundanc e and 

dis tribution of s elec ted 

s pecies : butterflies 

EU RO SI/ EEA N ational/ Region 

al/ Community EN V Biodivers ity Ec ological Condition SH C RFI/ SCI 1D Population trend indicator, bas ed on aggregated data for a number of s pecies . Meas ure: N umber of s pec ies 

Abundanc e of invas ive 

alien s pec ies EU RO SI/ CSD N ational/ Region al/ Community EN V Biodivers ity/ Species Ec ological Condition SH C AO I/ SCI 1D 

This aim of this indicator is to monitor trends in invas ive alien s pecies (IAS) at the national s cale. An 

additional c omponent c ould be to meas ure the c os t of invas ions of s uc h s pecies . Meas ure: N umber of 

invas ive alien s pec ies in a given country or region 

Abundanc e of s elec ted 

key species EU RO SI/ CSD N ational/ Region al/ Community EN V Biodivers ity/ Species Ec ological Condition SH C RFI/ SCI 1D 

This indic ator us es es timates of population trends in s elec ted s pec ies to repres ent changes in biodivers ity, 

and the relative effectivenes s of meas ures to maintain biodivers ity. The indic ator can be applied to 

individual s pec ies groups (e.g. birds , butterflies ), or can be aggregated to incorporate a number of tax a (e.g. 

in a fas hion s imilar to the L iving Planet Index ), acc ording to data availability and indicator applicability. 

Meas ure: N umber of mature individuals or other relevant indic ator of abundanc e within a given area or 

population 

Ac ces s of population to 

mobility AU S N ational/ Region al/ Community ECO -SOC Mobility H uman H ealth/ L and SH C SCI 2D 

A person is considered to have local acces s to public transport from their place of residence if • the 

individual lives within a radius of 1500 m of a stop providing at least • one connection to the nearest 

appropriate centre (regional centre, work, s chool, etc.) • within a s pecified interval of departure and arrival 

with • no more than two changeovers are required. This data gives information about acces s to public 

trans port. H owever, neither the quality of the offer (travelling times , frequenc y of connec tions ) nor the 

quality of the location (H ow important are the objec tives that c an be ac hieved?) are illus trated by this 

indic ator. 

Ac ces s to improved 

s anitation (% of total 

population, rural, and 

urban) 

U N H ab/ W orld Bank N ational/ Region 

al/ Community 

ECO -ENVSOC Shelter/ W ater and s anitation 

H uman 

H ealth/ Land/ W ate 

r 

H H RA/ SH C/SS 

WR SCI/ VCI 3D 

Proportion of the population with ac c es s to improved s anitation or perc entage of the population with 

acc es s to facilities that hygienic ally s eparate human ex c reta from human, animal and ins ec t contact. 

Fac ilities s uch as s ewers or s eptic tanks , poor-flus h latrines and ventilated improved pit latrines are 

as s umed to be improved, provided that they are not public . To be effective, fac ilities mus t be c orrectly 

c ons truc ted and properly maintained, and not s hared by more than two hous eholds . Metric : % of total 

population, rural, and urban 

Acces s to improved water 

s ource (% of total 

population, rural, and 

urban); Ac ces s to s afe 

water 

W orld Bank N ational/ Region 

al/ Community ENV-SOC W ater and s anitation W ater SH C/ SSW R SCI/ VCI 2D 

Percentage of the population with reas onable ac c es s to an adequate amount of water from an improved 

s ourc e, s uc h as piped water into a dwelling, plot, or yard; public tap or s tandpipe; tubewell or borehole; 

protected dug well or s pring; or rainwater c ollec tion. U nimproved s ourc es inc lude an unprotected dug well 

or s pring, c art with s mall tank or drum, bottled water, and tanker truc ks . Reas onable acc es s to an adequate 

amount means the availability of at leas t 20 liters a 

pers on a day from a s ource within 1 kilometer of the dwelling. % of total population, rural, and urban 

32
 
 

 

 

Table A. 2 - Sample of the Resource List for DOSII 

# Source Acronym Type # Purpose/Description Pillar Source Themes Org 

(Scale) Access Last 

Update Notes 

1 

Biodiversity 

Indicators 

Partnership 

2010 BIP Report 29

 Includes 17 headline line indicators from 

seven focal areas for assessing progress 

towards, and communicating the 2010 target 

at a global level 

ENV 

Components of biodiversity, sustainable use, 

threats to biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, goods 

and services, status of knowledge, innovations 

and practices, access and benefits sharing and 

resource transfers 

Global/Natio 

nal (UNEP) 

http://www.bipindicators. 

net/indicators 2010 

2 2003 Report on the 

Environment ROE 03 Report 151 

Study trends in the condition of the air, water, 

land, and human health of the United States ENV and a 

few SOC-ENV 

Air, Human Health, Water, Ecological Condition, 

Land 

US 

(National/Re 

gional) 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ 

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?dei 

d=56830 

to 2008 

report 

3 2008 Report on the 

Environment ROE 08 Report 85 

Study trends in the condition of the air, water, 

land, and human health of the United States ENV and a 

few SOC-ENV 

Air, Human Health, Water, Ecological Condition, 

Land 

US 

(National/Re 

gional) 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/ 

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?dei 

d=190806 

2010 

(some) 

4 Environmental 

Pressure Indicators EPI Report and EURO SI DB 60 

Aims to give 

a comprehensive description of the most 

important human activities that have a negative 

impact on the environment. 

ENV 

Air Pollution, Climate Change, Loss of Biodiversity, 

Marine 

Environment & Coastal Zones, Ozone Layer 

Depletion, Resource Depletion, Dispersion of 

Toxic Substances, Urban 

Environmental Problems, Waste, Water Pollution & 

Water Resources 

Europe 

(National) 

http://esl.jrc.it/envind/tepi 

99rp.pdf 1999 

Based on DPSIR; 

Considering condensing 

these indicators into ten 

indices, File: epi99rp.pdf 

5 

European 

Environment 

Agency(EEA) 

Indicators 

used EEA 

Core Set 

and EURO 

SI 

Reports and 

databases European sustainability ALL 

Agriculture, Air pollution, Biodiversity, Chemicals, 

Climate change, Coasts and seas, Energy, 

Environment and health, Environmental scenarios, 

Environmental technology, Fisheries, Household 

consumption, Industry, Land use, Natural 

resources, Noise, Policy instruments, Population 

and economy, Soil, Specific regions, Tourism, 

Transport, Urban environment, Various other 

issues, Waste and material resources and Water 

Europe 

(National) 

http://www.eea.europa.eu 

/data-andmaps/indicators/#c7=all 

&c5=&c0=10&b_start=0 

2010 

6 

Eurostat Set of 

Sustainability 

Indicators 

EUROSTAT Report 144 European sustainability ALL 

Socio-economic development, Sustainable 

consumption and production, Social inclusion, 

Demographic changes, Public health, Climate 

change and energy, Sustainable transport Natural 

resources, Global partnership and Good 

governance 

Europe 

(National) 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.eur 

opa.eu/portal/page/portal 

/sdi/indicators 

2007 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A. 3 –Distribution of DOSII within the Classification Schemes 

Program* # % 

SHC 1267 89.79% 

SSWR 194 13.75% 

CSS 192 13.61% 

ACE 413 29.27% 

HHRA 182 12.90% 

HSR 108 7.65% 

Pillar* # % 

ENV 994 70.45% 

SOC 531 37.63% 

ECO 629 44.58% 

3V* # % 

VCI 262 18.57% 

SCI 1328 94.12% 

AOI 308 21.83% 

RFI 583 41.32% 

ROE Topic* # % 

Air 395 27.99% 

Ecological 

Condition 769 54.50% 

Human Health 323 22.89% 

Land 352 24.95% 

Water 276 19.56% 

Dimension # % 

1D 727 51.52% 

2D 586 41.53% 

3D 98 6.95% 

Total 1411 

Scale* # % 

Global 253 17.93% 

National 1075 76.19% 

Regional 764 54.15% 

Community 573 40.61% 

Industrial 460 32.60% 

This table provides summary statistics on the indicators in this iteration of the database. Note that * 

indicates that the categories within classification schemes are not mutually exclusive, i.e., many of the 

indicators are linked to multiple categories within each classification scheme (e.g., Pillar: ECO and SOC or 

Program: ACE and SHC). Due to the overlap, the total number of indicators will not add up to 1411, nor 

will the sum of the percentages equal 100%. 

34
 
Appendix B

This appendix provides a draft of the web-tool architecture. This is a milestone of SHC task 1.2.2.1. 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

SHC Theme 1: Developing Information and Tools to Support Community Sustainability (Betsy

Smith, Lead) • Topic 1.2: Assessing Community Sustainability (Kevin Summers, Lead) • Project

1.2.2: Provide Indicators and Indices to Assess, Track, and Inform Community Sustainability (Lisa

Smith, Lead) • Task 1.2.2.1: Inventory of sustainability indicators (Tarsha Eason, Lead) 

Architecture for an Interactive Web-Tool for 

the Inventory of Sustainability Indicators 

(Draft Version 1.0) 

Linda Harwell 

ORD/NHEERL/Gulf Ecology Division 

In Cooperation with: 

Dr. Lynne Petterson 

ORD/OSIM/Information Management Support Division 

Prepared by: 

Information International Associates, Inc. (IIa) 

Gail Hodge, Project Manager 

BPA EP10H001216—PO # EP-B11H-0083 

September 27, 2012
 
Page Intentionally Blank 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Acronym List and Definitions ........................................................................................................................ ii
 

1.0 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

2.0 Scope & Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
 

3.0 Objectives.......................................................................................................................................... 1
 

4.0 Architecture Components................................................................................................................. 2
 

4.1 Communities ............................................................................................................................. 2
 

4.2 Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices..................................................................... 2
 

4.3 ORD Managed Vocabulary ........................................................................................................ 4 

4.4 Synthesized Vocabularies.......................................................................................................... 4 

5.0 Conceptual Data Flow ....................................................................................................................... 5 

6.0 Conceptual Process Flow .................................................................................................................. 6 

6.1 Building and Maintaining the SII Content ................................................................................. 6 

6.2 User-System Interaction When Using the SII Tool .................................................................... 6 

7.0 Technology Options .......................................................................................................................... 7 

7.1 Technology Roadmap and the Interoperability Framework ..................................................... 8 

7.2 Technology Options by Architecture Component..................................................................... 9 

8.0 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 10 

References .................................................................................................................................................. 12 

Figures and Tables 

Figure 4-1: Conceptual Architectural Overview for Sustainability Indicators Inventory Discovery Tool ..... 2 

Figure 4-2: ORD MV Keywords are Mapped to Themes and Pillars ............................................................. 4 

Figure 5-1: Conceptual Data Flow................................................................................................................. 5 

Figure 6-1: Conceptual Process Flow for Building and Maintaining the SII Content .................................... 6 

Figure 6-2: Conceptual Process Flow for Using the SII Tool.......................................................................... 7 

Figure 7-1: General SHCRP Interoperability Framework .............................................................................. 8 

Figure 7-2: Specific SII Tool within SHCRP Interoperability Framework ....................................................... 8 

Table 4.2-1: Example of SII Database Theme Assignments .......................................................................... 3 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronym List and Definitions 

Broader Term (BT)—A term representing a concept that encompasses the concept represented by 

another term (i.e., the narrower term). For example, “body part” is the broader term for the term 

“arm”. 

DOSII — Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices 

Holistic — A term that describes a whole system, rather than analysis or treatment of parts. 

Index (calculated) — A number or symbol, developed from a series of observations or measure and used 

to indicate or describe a subject of interest. 

Index (search) — The data resulting from the collection and parsing of content to facilitate fast and 

accurate information retrieval. The purpose of storing an index is to optimize speed and performance in 

finding relevant content for a search query. Indicator — A measure used to describe a particular state or 

relationship, which may, or may not, be a direct measure of that state or relationship. 

Indices — Plural of index. 

Keyword — A term extracted from the ORD Managed Vocabulary and mapped to one or more Themes. 

Mapping — The act of semantically linking the concepts in one vocabulary to the concepts in another, or 

the actual representation of that relationship as stored in a database table or terminology management 

system. For example, the ORD MV keywords will be mapped to Themes. 

Metric — A standardized unit of measure. 

Narrower Term (NT) — A term representing a concept that is subordinate or is encompassed by to the 

concept represented by another term (i.e., the broader term). For example, “arm” is the narrower term 

to the broader term “body part”. 

OEI/OIC/DSB — EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Data 

Standards Branch. 

ORD MV — ORD Managed Vocabulary; a file of selected terms, relationships and definitions that 

represent the broad interests of the EPA Office of Research & Development. 

Pillar — One of three elements in a common framework used for the selection of indicators: 

environment, society and economy. 

Related Term (RT) — Terms that are conceptually associated with one another. For example, the term 

“pitching” is related to the term “arm”. 

SHCRP — Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program 

SII — Sustainability Indicators Inventory 

Synaptica — The commercial terminology management tool hosted by the OEI/OCI/DSB as Terminology 

Services. This commercial tool is used for the ORD Managed Vocabulary, and is proposed as the tool for 

managing the mappings of pillars, themes and ORD Managed Vocabulary keywords in support of the SII 

Tool. 

Theme (or Source Theme) — One of a series of 22 categories assigned to the indicators in the SII 

database based on the context of the source (e.g., World Bank, UNEP, etc.). Themes are assigned to one 

or more Pillars. 

iii 
 

 

Vocabulary — A group of terms collected for a common purpose, domain, or audience that are stored 

as a single file with a unique name in the Synaptica terminology management tool. 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Purpose 

The purpose of this document is to lay the foundation and provide a framework for the development of 

the Sustainable Community Indicators web-based discovery tool. It includes descriptions of the 

architectural components, the data and processes, and the technology options needed to provide 

quality data to support the proposed user experience. Finally, suggestions for next steps are provided. 

The Sustainability Indicators Inventory database discovery tool supports the SHC Research Action Plan 

(RAP) project as outlined under Theme 1: Data and Tools to Support Sustainable Community Decisions, 

Topic 1.2: Assessing Community Sustainability, Project 1.2.2: Provide Indicators and Indices to Assess, 

Track, and Inform Community Sustainability, Task 1.2.2.1: Inventory of sustainability indicators 

otherwise known as the Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices (DOSII). 

2.0 Scope & Background 

In the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Strategic Research Action Plan (US EPA 2012a), 

sustainability is defined as the ability “to create and maintain conditions under which humans and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, [and] that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations.”(NEPA 1969). It is recognized as a major factor 

influencing the long-term success of communities. Nonetheless, the assessment of the environmental 

conditions of a community, its ability to sustain those conditions under various challenges, and to 

improve in a particular area or overall is a complex undertaking. It is made more difficult by the 

interaction and complexity of the environmental, social, economic and political structures involved; the 

fact that there are a number of indicators available; and that the application of these indicators must be 

relevant in a local context. 

In order to begin to address these issues, a task was initiated within the US Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory (NRMRL) to develop an inventory of sustainability indicators using a subject taxonomy 

system initially designed to assist EPA’s research communities in identifying trusted sources of 

sustainability related data. ORD’s Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) National Research 

Program has recognized the value of this type of effort, particularly as it relates to providing 

communities, both internal and external to EPA, with a holistic suite of ”... indicators and indices to 

assess, track, and inform community sustainability.” (QAPP 2012). To that end, the scope of the DOSII 

project has expanded to include the development of an interactive web-based tool for searching its 

repository of vetted indicators and related source information. This document provides a high-level 

conceptual architecture that describes the strategy for building a synergistic community-centric 

discovery tool pairing concepts of controlled-vocabulary and information science with the indicators 

inventory. 

3.0 Objectives 

It is anticipated that this web tool will enhance the utility of DOSII by extending access to these data in a 

manner that is both informative and relevant to communities. By using prompts to solicit user input, 

customized list(s) of suggested indicators can be built based on user specified sustainability priorities 

(e.g., cost-benefit analysis, monitoring and assessment, education). The existing database will be 

assimilated into an information science-based framework to create the basis for a keyword-driven data 

mining engine and lay the foundation for integrating additional indicators stemming from ORD’s 

sustainability science portfolio. The resulting interface system, the Sustainability Indicators Inventory 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(SII) Discovery Tool, will leverage multi-platform web-based technology to create a stylized approach for 

disseminating indicator information. 

A major consideration in the development of the web-tool for community use is the negotiation of 

language and meaning (semantics). The indicators that have been created are based on field and 

laboratory science, at various levels of “indicative granularity” and by diverse groups, both national and 

international. They may be expressed in terms which may or may not be understood by the users 

looking to select and use the indicators. Therefore, a primary feature of the tool development, and a 

critical component of this architecture, is the integration of the ORD Managed Vocabulary to provide 

support for improving the search and navigation of the indicators through improved semantics. 

4.0 Architecture Components 

At the most basic level, the components of this system include data sources, various vocabulary 

resources, a database and user interface. The components are integrated using a service-oriented 

architecture, but this may be conceptual rather than physical since web services may not be used in the 

initial development of the system. 

Figure 4-1 depicts a general overview of the SII and its components. The interfaces, which may be 

tailored to particular communities, provide access to resources through an access layer that synthesizes 

metadata from indicator resources such as the DOSII and terminology from various terminology services 

such as the ORD Managed Vocabulary (ORD MV). 

Each of the major components of the Discovery Tool is described below. 

4.1 Communities 

Communities are individuals, groups, or services that focus on specific uses or aspects of the data 

contained in the SII. These may include scientists, neighborhood groups and local governments, interest 

groups, etc. Communities use web-based interfaces via desktops or mobile devices to access SII services. 

The specific look-and-feel of the interface and the 

features and services included can vary by 

community by virtue of the interface design 

or by profiling capabilities in the hands of the 

users. 

4.2 Database of Sustainability 

Indicators and Indices 

The DOSII contains an inventory of 

indicators and indices relevant to 

sustainability in the context of 

community-based assessments. 

ORD’s new sustainability-focused 

research areas as well as mature 

programs, such as the Report on the 

Environment (ROE), lacked an easily 

navigable repository containing reviewed and 

vetted sustainability indicator summary 

information to assist Figure 4-1: Conceptual Architectural Overview for Sustainability Indicators Inventory Discovery Tool 

research teams in 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

theme (e.g., forests and biodiversity), Report on the Environment topic, EPA program, Triple Value 

Designation (e.g., system condition), dimensionality (e.g., 2D) and computational units. In the initial 

implementation of the SII tool, the pillars and themes will be the major organizing factors. 

At the highest level, pillars represent a common framework for identifying, describing and selecting 

indicators. The three pillars are: 

• Environment—assurance of continued integrity of natural resources 

• Society—assurance of continued human health and well being 

• Economy—assurance of continued economic prosperity 

Most important for this process are the Source Themes, of which there are 22 unique assignments. The 

structure allows for a single indicator to be associated with multiple themes. In addition, a theme can be 

assigned to more than one pillar. Some examples of assignments are provided below (Table 4.2-1), using 

a partial extract example from the SII database (version 1) showing indicators from different sources and 

Indicator Source Scale Country Pillar 

Source ROE Progra 

Theme Topic m 

GDP 

World 

Bank National WB ECO Economic SHC 

Population 

World 

Bank Any (less industrial) WB SOC Demographic SHC 

Population growth 

World 

Bank Any (less industrial) WB SOC Demographic SHC 

Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions - per Capita 

(CDIAC) 

UNEP-GEO 

Core 

Global/National/Regiona 

l UNEP ENV-ECO Atmosphere Air ACE 

identifying data gaps, available sources, and collaboration opportunities. The DOSII database was 

designed using a subject-oriented taxonomy to help database users build lists of subject relevant 

candidate indicators. A pool of 1600+ peer reviewed indicators spanning multiple geographic scales 

(national, regional, etc.) were selected for inclusion in the initial database by a cross-organizational 

workgroup using worldwide benchmarking. The taxonomy was developed to provide intra-Agency 

organizations with clearly defined subject groupings that were cross-referenced to existing and planned 

research. Additionally, a guidance document was developed to assist EPA programmatic, administrative 

and research communities with accessing the DOSII information (US EPA 2012b). 

The indicator database is stored in MS Excel. It includes key metadata including the indicator/index 

name, acronym of the source name, scale (e.g., national, community), pillar of sustainability, source 

assigned to different themes. 

Table 4-1: Example of SII Database Theme Assignments 

As a test, the pillars and themes are stored in EPA’s Terminology Services (provided by OEI/OIC/DSB) 

using the Synaptica terminology management software. The pillars are treated as the names of specific 

vocabularies while the themes associated with them in the SII database are stored as descriptors or 

terms within those vocabularies. The same theme can occur in more than one vocabulary. Following is 

an example of the themes under the Economic Pillar Vocabulary. 

Vocabulary Name - Economic Pillar 

Built capital 

Commercial 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Changes 

Economic 

Economic development 

Financial 

Financial Instruments 

Global economic partnership 

Global Partnership 

Governance 

Human and social capital 

Intergeneration equity 

International Justice 

International responsibility 

National accounting aggregates 

Product 

Quality of life 

Social Performance: Product Responsibility 

Social Performance: Society 

There are other possible approaches to storing the mappings, which are covered under Next Steps. 

National Agricultural Library. 

Benefit-Cost Analysis is abbreviated by (AB) the acronym BCA. 

Figure 4-2: ORD MV Keywords are Mapped 

to Themes and Pillars 

4.3 ORD Managed Vocabulary 

The ORD MV is a repository of more than 10,000 scientific and technical terms of interest to ORD 

research. Terms have been collected in major categories such as the natural environment, chemical 

substances, human health, and society and economy. The ORD MV was created from a number of 

sources including key documents, web sites, other EPA sources such as glossaries, and other 

vocabularies, such as published thesauri, from other agencies such as the US Geological Survey and the 

The ORD MV also includes the hierarchical relationships, broader term (BT) and narrower term (NT). For 

example, Economic Analysis is a broader concept than Cost-Benefit Analysis. Therefore, economic 

analysis is a BT to Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis is an NT to Economic Analysis. Other 

relationships may include synonyms, which include acronyms and abbreviations (AB). For example, 

The relationships stored in the ORD MV can help to improve the retrieval and organization of content 

within systems or disseminated by systems. For example, the user can enter the term cost-benefit 

analysis and be presented with indicators that are tagged by only the theme (or broader term) Economic 

Analysis. 

The ORD MV and relationships it can store will be used to map commonly used terms to the DOSII 

themes. This will allow users of the tool to enter terms of interest and to obtain information from the 

system without having to understand the specifics of the terms used by the system. Because multiple 

indicators will be described using the same theme, it will also be possible to link indicators using this 

approach. 

4.4 Synthesized Vocabularies 

The synthesized vocabularies are built by matching the themes from the indicators database against the 

ORD MV and extracting the appropriate keywords from the ORD MV. The content from the Keyword 

extraction and the Indicator Information are linked based on the theme assigned to each indicator. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of the mapping is presented below. In this case, Economic Analysis is one of the Source 

Themes. It is found in the ORD MV with narrower terms (NT) and related terms (RT). Related terms are 

closely associated but they are not directly hierarchical (broader term or narrower term). Benefit-Cost 

Analysis is abbreviated by (AB) the acronym BCA. 

Economic Analysis 

NT Benefit-Cost Analysis 

AB BCA 

NT Cost-Benefit Analysis 

NT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

NT Economic Impact 

NT Input-Output Analysis 

NT Marginal Analysis 

NT Risk-Benefit Analysis 

NT Safe Minimum Standard 

RT Decision Analysis 

NT Green Accounting 

In addition, the keywords from the ORD MV can be mapped to terms in the names of the indicators. For 

RT Generally Accepted Accounting Principle 

Rainfall; Precipitation; Water Cycle; Hydrologic Cycle; Drought; 

Agricultural Drought; Hydrological Drought; Meteorological Drought 

example: 

Indicator Name Related Keywords from ORD MV 

Rainfall 

Energy Economics; Energy Market; Energy Consumption; Energy 

Total delivered domestic energy Management; Energy Use Optimization; Carbon Dioxide Tax; Fossil 

demand (electricity, other fuels) Fuel; Fossil Fuel Resource; Coal; Natural Gas; Oil; Carbon-Based 

Resource; Energy Production 

The use of mappings between the terms in the 

indicator names and the keywords in the ORD 

MV would provide more granular access. 

These more specific terms 

could also be used to extend 

the pillars and themes in a 

browse taxonomy. 

5.0	 Conceptual Data 

Flow 

Figure 5-1 shows the data flow for the SII 

tool at the conceptual level. This data 

flow is from the system perspective. Key 

functions needed to support this data flow 

include the extraction of indicators from the 

DOSII and eventually other sources. In the 

initial implementation, all records and data 

elements in the database may be extracted. This may 

change over time and may not be the case 

with other sources. The ORD Figure 5-1: Conceptual Data Flow 

Managed Vocabulary will be 

used to create a mapping of themes to keywords. These results are used to provide keywords for each 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indicator. This is the file which is then searched to provide the information when a user enters the 

name, a keyword or browses the taxonomy on the SII tool’s user interface. 

6.0 Conceptual Process Flow 

This section shows the conceptual process flow for the creation and maintenance of the DOSII and the 

process flow for the user system interaction of the SII Tool. 

6.1 Building and Maintaining the SII Content 

Figure 6-1: Conceptual Process Flow for Building and Maintaining the SII Content 

Figure 6-1 shows the process flow for building and maintaining the content in the SII. Content can be 

added manually to the DOSII, imported from other sources, or contributed by the user’s interaction with 

the system. In each case, the indicators and themes are extracted from the resulting database, the 

themes are matched against the ORD MV and a searchable index is created from the resulting tables for 

use by the SII Tool. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2 User-System Interaction When Using the SII Tool 

Figure 6-2 shows the interaction between the user and the system as the SII Tool is being used. The user 

accesses the system, enters a search or selects a category from the browse taxonomy (which may be 

based on the pillars and/or the themes), and is presented with the results from the synthesized 

indicators inventory. The display of the results may vary based on filters, user preferences, or user 

profiles. The results are evaluated by the user and may result in another request to the system or 

refinement of the current request. 

This interaction describes the most basic functionality for discovery and access. In the final system, there 

may be a variety of display formats or options and other functions may be available including the ability 

Figure 6-2: Conceptual Process Flow for Using the SI Tool 

to supply indicators or comments on indicators back to the Virtual Community through social media 

options. It is expected that the functions will grow as the system is used and user expectations and 

needs are assessed and incorporated into the design. 

7.0 Technology Options 

The conceptual design provided above does not dictate any particular technology options. No matter 

what the initial technology set turns out to be, we want to make sure it is implementable and requires 

only a basic skill set. However, it is valuable to consider technology options as the project moves 

forward if for no other reason than to continue to ensure that the design is technology agnostic. A 

7 
 

 

 

 

technology roadmap can also be advantageous when working with other stakeholders to determine 

where their systems will be in the near and long-term futures. 

7.1 Technology Roadmap and the Interoperability Framework 

A high level technology roadmap ensures that the SII tool will be in line with the principles expressed in 

the SCHRP interoperability architecture shown in Figure 7-1 below. The puzzle pieces representing the 

data, the user interface, the analytical tools, and the communication/community engagement through 

social media are interoperable pieces that make up the whole. 

Figure 7-1: General SHCRP Interoperability Framework 

––modified from an original graphic presented by Rick Ziegler (EPA) 

––modified from an original graphic presented by Rick Ziegler (EPA) 

Figure 7-2: Specific SII Tool within SHCRP Interoperability Framework 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7-2 uses the general framework to describe the high level components of the SII Discovery Tool. 

Any one of these pieces can be external to the other, allowing other entities to create products and 

services that interoperate and enhance the SII tool. 

7.2 Technology Options by Architecture Component 

This section describes the various technology options that may be considered in the future for each 

component identified in the Architecture Components section. 

Vocabulary Management 

The ORD MV is currently managed in Terminology Services, one of the registries in the EPA System of 

Registries (SoR) provided by the OIC/Data Standards Branch. Terminology Services is run on terminology 

particular case, one can readily imagine a scenario where the local resource manager is in the field when 

attempting to identify or coordinate the selection of sustainable community identifiers. Further, 

interface design considerations will include: 

Icon driven user prompts to help transcend language barriers; 

typology efforts (SCH Task: 2.1.3.2); and 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

Social Media Tools 

management software called Synaptica. This is actually an application over an Oracle database that 

manages the terms, controls and validates the entry of relationships between terms and other elements 

that are maintained, and provides an interface and APIs to access the terminology. 

However, the functionality of terminology management can be provided by several other products. The 

common features of these tools include adherence to the rules around the formation of a well-formed 

hierarchical vocabulary (aka thesaurus or taxonomy) and the ability to extend such a structure to include 

other metadata about each term. 

User Interface 

The development of the user interface will, in the short term, use an HTML development tool such as 

PHP. However, we are recommending that the development move quickly or even initially consider the 

use of HTML-5. This approach, along with a device agnostic design approach, will allow the resulting 

website to be accessible via all types of mobile devices. Mobile accessibility for end user systems is being 

promoted by EPA and by the Administration’s Digital Government Strategy (OMB 2012). In this 

•

• Application assisted community characterization using prompted scripts and SHC community 

• Future development of an audio component to assist with compliance of Section (508) of the 

The Sustainable Community Indicators web site can be viewed as just the beginning of an effort to bring 

the community together. Figure 7-2 offers an example of virtual community engagement effort under 

development in SHC New and Emerging Media (Task 1.1.2.1) research. One can imagine a robust virtual 

community where local officials share expertise, collaborate on challenges, identify joint solutions, and 

recommend improvements to indicators that have been provided. This type of forum can be facilitated 

by social media tools. 

While these types of tools are not the purview of this project, the design should be open enough to 

entertain the connection with tools such as Drupal and Jive. In particular, it should be open enough to 

be linked to or integrated with social media platforms, such as Julie’s Earth collaboration tool, which has 

been investigated as a platform by EPA. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key to the use of social media tools are user profiles and filters against the content that provide 

information that best matches the user needs. In addition, there are other social media tools such as RSS 

feeds to register and push targeted updates to users, bi-directional communication tools such as 

Twitter, community and group facilitation tools that mimic LinkedIn and Facebook, and multi-media 

content similar to You-Tube videos. 

Web Services 

As discussed above, the basic architecture takes into consideration a Service Oriented Architect (SOA) 

approach which links the resources and functions via web services. However, there can be issues related 

to the use of web services, particularly for public facing systems, that involve security issues, firewall 

protection, etc. For this reason, we have recommended the use of batch data exchanges between the 

layers rather than the use of web services. In addition, there can be performance issues and little to be 

gained with the use of web services, if the original content is very static. 

However, ultimately, it will be beneficial to move to web services in order to open the tool’s data to 

other systems and applications. This would also be in line with the Digital Government Strategy (OMB 

2012) which calls for APIs for all publicly available data. 

8.0 Next Steps 

There are several next steps related to further design, development and deployment of the SII Tool, 

specifically related to the vocabulary support. These include data, processes and further testing of the 

concepts expressed above. 

Most immediately, the next step is to develop a proof of concept and implementation of the tool based 

on this architecture. This proof of concept would limit the data to the DOSII database and the use of the 

ORD MV to a mapping of pillars and themes. 

Further work would extend the data to include the Health and Well-being indicators (HWBI SHC Task 

1.2.2.2) and the Environmental Quality Index (EQI SHC Task 1.2.2.3). Plans are already underway to take 

the Well-being and the EQI and build direct mappings between them. In these cases, there may be 

additional vocabulary work that is needed to support the indicator search and mappings. This would also 

extend the keywords from the ORD MV used to categorize and enhance access. Some of these terms 

have already been added to the ORD MV as part of its development. Increasing the number of data and 

vocabulary sources may raise other process issues, particularly with regard to the maintenance of the 

synthesized vocabularies to reflect changes made to the sources. There are also distinct characteristics 

of these sources that may need to be reflected in the data or in the user interface. For example, the 

HWBI has very distinct grouping categories for indicators/metrics. The appropriate way to incorporate 

these “more specific” grouping categories needs to be discussed. 

In addition to the design and proof of concept development of the tool, and extension of the data, next 

steps should include a complete analysis of the process and data flows between the ORD MV and the 

tool, an analysis of the maintenance requirements for all the files, and a review of the best structure for 

storing the terms and the mappings. In the initial Proof of Concept, the pillars and related terms are 

stored in a single directory (task view) in separate vocabularies for each pillar with the terms stored 

within each vocabulary. With this approach the themes are not only linked to the pillars but if the same 

theme occurs in multiple pillars, the two occurrences can be linked. There are other approaches for 

storing and mapping the pillars, themes and keywords. For example, one approach would store the 

themes in the same vocabulary and assign the pillars as top terms. Alternatively, the themes would be 

stored in a single vocabulary without duplication, and one or more pillars assigned as categories to each 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

theme. The best approach depends on the format needed when extracting terms from the vocabularies, 

the functionality required, and the impact of maintenance. 

Additional analysis is also needed to determine whether themes containing multiple concepts or those 

that could be considered hierarchical should be stored as single terms, as they were in the test, or in a 

different way. For example, the theme, “human and social capital,” includes two concepts – human 

capital and social capital. In this initial test, the themes were entered into Terminology Services in their 

combined, original form. However, they could be represented in the vocabulary as two separate but 

related concepts. For example: 

Human capital (related term) Social Capital 

Social capital (related term) Human Capital 

In this way, each concept can have its own mappings to specific keywords. 

Similarly, hierarchical terms such as Social Performance: Product Responsibility and Social Performance: 

Society were retained as joined strings. These could have been separated and stored with a hierarchical 

relationship as: 

Social Performance 

Product Responsibility 

Society 

The best approach to the style of the terms will depend on the proposed use cases and the tool’s user 

interface design. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

References 

OMB 2012. Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Service the American People. 

Office of Management & Budget. May, 2012. 

NEPA 1969. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4331a). 

QAPP 2012. Sustainability Based Decision Making Rev. No. 0. May 2012. Quality Assurance Project Plan. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, OH. 

US EPA 2012a. Sustainable and Healthy Communities Strategic Research Action Plan. US Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. Feb. 2012. EPA 601/R12/005 

US EPA 2012b. A Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA. (2012). Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 

OH. 

12 
Office of Research and Development (8101R)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35