Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks and Initiatives

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, Production Economics,

Potential impacts for monitoring sustainability: case study of hollow fiber membrane

Sustainability level is a new indicator of quality and efficiency for product life cycle. Sustainability should be balanced among Triple Bottom Line (TBL) aspects namely environmental, economic and social elements. For monitoring the sustainability of product, a comprehensive framework considering potential impacts for sustainability assessment should be developed. Previously, several studies presented frameworks to assess the sustainability level. However, few studies relate their frameworks with the potential impact of all TBL. Determination of potential impacts with its parameter is important during framework development. Potential impacts for environmental such global warming, acidification and eutrophication should be taken seriously. In this study, potential impacts for each sustainability aspects are shown. For the case study of hollow fiber membrane the potential impacts were obtained from primary and secondary data such product specification, bill of materials, literature reviews and help of GaBi Software

Leave It to the People: Position and Positioning of Stakeholders in Top-Down Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction Frameworks from Global to Local Levels

Dissertation concerning design, contents, priorities, and outcomes of development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) global indicator frameworks. Historical review of United Nations (UN) multilateral agreements and organizational dynamics precedes analysis of indicator data reported for Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets shared by the 2015 Paris Agreement and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR). Background on the planning of UN frameworks is considered along with results of indicator data analysis to identify actors and processes that steer the focus of frameworks hence influence selection of targets and indicators, and corresponding framework agendas. Fundamental flaws in resolution frameworks preventing global goal attainment are revealed, along with issues of indicator validity and data accuracy. Data evaluations performed for this study imply strongly that UN sustainable development, climate, and DRR targets will be left unmet, continuing a “business as usual” pattern for UN resolutions. Projected failures to address factors with hazards increasing potential prompts consideration and investigation of bottom-up approaches toward sustainable development and disaster risk reduction. Data resulting from a stakeholder survey concerning knowledge of and participation toward SDG targets is presented, along with preliminary results of a stakeholder survey conducted to assess preparedness levels of residents in the Greater New Orleans, LA area

REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM FAILURES AND HIGHLIGHTS

The systemic analysis of innovation conceives complex analytical frameworks, with intense socio-technological aspects of knowledge generation and encompasses a detailed analysis of system failures. These frameworks are not suitable for benchmarking a wide range of regions, due to low availability of such elaborate data sources. On the other hand, metric regional innovation micro data offer the opportunity for large-scale cross-regional benchmarking exercise illustrating mainly the market failures of the innovation systems although this type of analysis does not provide any detailed systemic envisioning. Is the combination of these two analytical approaches possible? This study presents the Interaction Intension Indicator (3I) analytical framework, analysing system failures and highlights of various regional innovation deployment patterns along with the analysis of the Romanian innovation system.Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, and Changes, Regional innovation policies, regional innovation metrics, regional innovation systems, innovation policy assessment

Prospects for Standardising Sustainable Urban Development

This paper goes beyond the well-established debate over how urban sustainability indicator sets should be constructed, and what purposes such indicators might serve, to examine what has actually happened as theory has turned into widespread practice. This involves two levels of analysis. First, there is consideration of how impacts on the ground involve negotiation between shifting networks of heterogeneous actors in particular local settings. Specific examples are given of how the outcomes of adopting sustainable indicator sets are indeterminate until these detailed local circumstances are considered. Second, there is a survey of the available urban sustainability frameworks at the global level, emphasising their sheer variety. Such frameworks are shaped by the proposer’s particular agendas and by expectations of their adopter’s needs. The field of frameworks is therefore constituted by emergent co-production both at the level of concrete results and of the frameworks themselves. At both levels, real-world innovation is enabled and constrained by divergent systems of motivations; it does not flow in a linear fashion from abstract principles of urban sustainability, however these may be defined. This emphasises the need for ongoing critical evaluation of the practices surrounding the adoption and mobilisation of these frameworks

Mapping of children and youth indicator reporting frameworks

This report provides an overview of the purpose, scope and reporting status of 6 national frameworks, 4 National Agreements and 5 National Partnership Agreements that are relevant to children and/or youth. Summary Infants, children and young people make up about a third of the Australian population, and have particular health and social needs that require access to a range of services. What happens in the early years provides the foundation for future health, development and wellbeing of the individual, and also shapes the future health and productivity of the whole population. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of indicators and reporting frameworks that report on the health and wellbeing of children and young people, in Australia and internationally. This rich reporting environment reflects growing recognition of the importance of reporting on a wide range of indicators to inform policy development. This report provides an overview of the purpose, scope and reporting status of 6 national frameworks, 4 National Agreements and 5 National Partnership Agreements (the Agreements) that are relevant to children and/or youth. Indicators from the frameworks and Agreements are mapped across 6 broad domains. In doing so, critical topic areas and underlying indicators of shared relevance across frameworks and Agreements, and those that are unique to a particular framework or Agreement, are identified. The findings show that in the children\u27s reporting environment, while frameworks and Agreements have some common topics, a large number of indicators are unique to a specific framework or Agreement. Of the child-specific frameworks and Agreements, the Key Child National Indicators is the most comprehensive. About half of its indicators are not reported in the remaining frameworks or Agreements. In the youth environment, there are few youth-specific frameworks, with minimal overlap, and no Australian Government report that comprehensively covers this age group. This is currently an information gap. The report concludes with recommendations on how reporting on children and youth in Australia could be streamlined and made more timely by drawing on existing web-based data infrastructure, while maintaining the necessary comprehensive coverage. It highlights the importance of co-ordination between the different policy areas responsible for the indicators within the frameworks and Agreements to agree on priorities and ensure a sustainable approach to data development, data collection and reporting

Evaluating social outcomes of HIV/AIDS interventions: a critical assessment of contemporary indicator frameworks

Introduction: Contemporary HIV-related theory and policy emphasize the importance of addressing the social drivers of HIV risk and vulnerability for a long-term response. Consequently, increasing attention is being given to social and structural interventions, and to social outcomes of HIV interventions. Appropriate indicators for social outcomes are needed in order to institutionalize the commitment to addressing social outcomes. This paper critically assesses the current state of social indicators within international HIV/AIDS monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Methods: We analyzed the indicator frameworks of six international organizations involved in efforts to improve and synchronize the monitoring and evaluation of the HIV/AIDS response. Our analysis classifies the 328 unique indicators according to what they measure and assesses the degree to which they offer comprehensive measurement across three dimensions: domains of the social context, levels of change and organizational capacity. Results and discussion: The majority of indicators focus on individual-level (clinical and behavioural) interventions and outcomes, neglecting structural interventions, community interventions and social outcomes (e.g. stigma reduction; community capacity building; policy-maker sensitization). The main tool used to address social aspects of HIV/AIDS is the disaggregation of data by social group. This raises three main limitations. Indicator frameworks do not provide comprehensive coverage of the diverse social drivers of the epidemic, particularly neglecting criminalization, stigma, discrimination and gender norms. There is a dearth of indicators for evaluating the social impacts of HIV interventions. Indicators of organizational capacity focus on capacity to effectively deliver and manage clinical services, neglecting capacity to respond appropriately and sustainably to complex social contexts. Conclusions: Current indicator frameworks cannot adequately assess the social outcomes of HIV interventions. This limits knowledge about social drivers and inhibits the institutionalization of social approaches within the HIV/AIDS response. We conclude that indicator frameworks should expand to offer a more comprehensive range of social indicators for monitoring and evaluation and to include indicators of organizational capacity to tackle social drivers. While such expansion poses challenges for standardization and coordination, we argue that the complexity of interventions producing social outcomes necessitates capacity for flexibility and local tailoring in monitoring and evaluation