Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators

Azniv Petrosyan

Department of Geography & Regional Planning, School of Rural & Surveying Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Irron Polytechniou Str., Zographou Campus, Athens, Greece

Abstract: The contemporary manuscript proposes eight (8) procedures to prescribe concepts and define ways to composite progressive indicators (CPI). Composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) is processed using proper defined indicators as per apt methods. The emphasis is on CPI to express its unification with CASP. Huge range of authors papers is contributed to obtain and estimate the best procedures guiding CPI to progressive economy. The imposed conceptions of CPI are aspects, goals, criteria, categorization and principles with pressure-state-response (PSR) framework. The characterized means to compulsory CPI are design process, framework model and top-down and bottom-up approaches to assess CASP.

Keywords: sustainable development, sustainability assessment, sustainability indicators, composite indicators, design process, indicators' categorization and principles, Pressure State Response (PSR)

Received May 30, 2014; Revised January 01, 2015; Accepted February 26, 2015

Citation: Azniv Petrosyan, Procedures Designing Composite Progressive Indicators. International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management, 3 (2). 104-109. January 2015. doi:10.12691/ijefm-3-2-8

1. Introduction

Seeing its commence in the World Conservation Strategy [1], sustainable development is progressively augmented status in presuming, writing and debating since 1990s [2]. Sustainability appears when the present requirements are in control to cover the aptitude of prospect generations and convene their own requests [3]. Sustainable development is aspiring human-centeredness to progress the worth of humanity and respecting nature’s aptitude to supply resources and services for life-sustenance. In this stance, sustainable development represents progressing the significance of human life while surviving within the carrying capacity of sustaining ecosystems [4].

Previous attitudes cope with sustainability having rather contradictory accents on these assorted requests [5,7,8], which in turn guide to disparities in types of indicators used to compute the achievements of these sustainability labours. Indicators can be more valuable systematic apparatus than obtainable records, helping in appraisals of tendencies, assisting knowledgeable perseverations, realizing motivations of statistics and supplying inputs into policy procedures [9]. Indicators facilitate communities recognizing imperative exchanges in decision making that have effects on sustainable development in the way to composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) [10].

An attractive proceeding is proposed in the composite appraisal of supportive progress to the management of indicators through several steps as: aspects, goals, criteria, categories as per principles, design process, framework model, top-down & bottom-up approaches, Pressure-State-Response (PSR) frameworks and composite indicators.

2. Review of Sustainability Indicators' Procedures

Eight (8) procedures of sustainability indicators are presented in Table 1 & Table 2. These steps are used to support in policy making, guiding CASP metrics and pursuing sustainable development [12]. More specifically, some descriptions of these indicators procedures are existing in Section 3.

The main purpose of this article is to retrieve proposals, based on authors’ review of eight chosen procedures, which have been chosen on the subsequent basis:

1. Hundreds of articles with the keywords of sustainable development indicators and sustainability indicators are counted;

2. A table of authors and indicators acts is created;

3. The most repeated steps on indicators are chosen;

4. Indicators including “sustainability” are selected;

5. A table of eight (8) approaches (Table 1 & Table 2) is constructed as per the aforementioned works.

Table 1. Eight Procedures Defining Composite Indicators

The attention is given to eight (8) procedures, which play an important role to the sustainable development and guide to the appraisal of composite indicator. The details of indicators' procedures are in process to support their roles in the progressive economy [12].

3. Discussions on Sustainability Indicators

3.1. Aspects and Goals

3.1.1. Aspects

A wide quantity of reports specify an indicator as [24]:

•  A proxy; A sign;

•  A parameter; A variable;

•  A measuring instrument; A fraction; A counting measure; A value; A measure;

•  An index; An empirical model; A meter.

3.1.2. Goals

Three (3) aspirations of the decision-making procedures are raised as [14,15,16]:

(1) Managing the identification of ecology, economy and society towards sustainable future progress, i.e. what are the reasons?

(2) Describing ways to assess the sustainability procedures, i.e. what are the determination spaces?

(3) Retrieving strategies for the management enhancements expected by progressive economy, i.e. how goals can be determined?

3.2. Criteria

Many supplementary prescripts are produced to make steady on values of selected countable as [51-56]:

(1) Responsive;

(2) Asserting;

(3) Imprecise;

(4) Strong;

(5) Revising;

(6) Countable;

(7) Interpretable.

3.3. Categorization and Principles

European specified indicators are accompanied as [61]:

•  Shaping biodiversity components states;

•  Promoting proper use;

•  Conserving biodiversity;

•  Integrating ecosystems, goods and services;

•  Shepherding resource use;

•  Serving in the programs.

Four (4) progressively required principles are as [65]:

(1) Natural world is the topic to systematic augmenting compressions of substances excerpted from the Earth’s crust in the sustainable society.

(2) Compressions of stuffs are generated by society.

(3) Nature are preserved by society.

(4) Human requests are met globularly in a sustainable society.

Pathways of the indicators are processed per three (3) types [66,67]:

(1) Augmenting perceptive as practices;

(2) Communicating decision-making as prospect persistence;

(3) Gouging progress toward known targets as environmental consistencies.

3.4. Design Process

An overall process for generating the set of indicators is regarded towards the progressive economy as [73]:

•  Beginning the participant designation stage;

•  Carrying on imaging;

•  Categorizing a correct framework;

•  Assigning the progressive characteristics;

•  Reporting an iterative series of ways for the prospect generation;

•  Assorting the apposite indicators;

•  Estimating selected indicators.

3.5. Framework Model

A progressive indicator system encompasses the categorization of strategy views, frameworks, shapes, criteria, indicators and objectives. The conceptive model shows the central procedure stressing on the progressive indicator systems. The current approach is on the peer-reviewed papers; on the worthy support from the indicator patterns; on the producing message of the indicators; on the improving decision making proceedings [76,77].

The indicators persist recognizable, protected and lawful guaranteeing the connectedness of the sustainability progress and determining three (3) requirements [78,79]:

•  Acquiring understandable and easy frameworks;

•  Purveying the advantages from the indicators within the process;

•  Generating an access to many known indicators.

3.6. Top-Down & Bottom-Up Approaches

Two (2) procedural approaches of sustainability approximation carry four (4) basic steps of the Blue Print report [86,87]. Additionally, the connections of the top-down (↓) and bottom-up (↑) approaches in the integrative percept of the progressive economy [88].

3.7. Pressure State Response (PSR) Framework

Indicators are in an pertinent framework with the growth of their usefulness [44]. A driving force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) indicator framework is an ascendant framework for setting systems of the progressive indicators [89,90,91,92,93]. The framework presumes cause–effect connection between conspiring elements of society, economic and environmental systems [94]. Five (5) types of indicators are as [42]:

(1) Driving force indicators concerning to human activities, procedures and prototypes as an impact on the sustainable development.

(2) Pressure indicators concerning to human activities as a direct result on the characteristic matter.

(3) State indicators representing the noteworthy variations as a result of the earlier exposed pressures.

(4) Impact indicators awarding the ensue of the impact on the people, economy and ecosystems.

(5) Response indicators expressing the acts engrossed by the society in the response to the variations in the SD state.

The present book accents on the Pressure–State–Response (PSR) methodology is generated [95] and further proposed by [17,86,96,97,99,100] to assort the indicators according to the “stress – response” exemplary.

3.8. Composite Composition

Progression of sustainable development references on system engaging five (5) steps [101]:

(1) Associating the scope of the progressively referenced system;

(2) Generating a framework to compromise on the system components;

(3) Destining criterion, principles, latent indicators and reference values;

(4) Assigning the group of indicators and reference values;

(5) Determining the ways of aggregations and images.

Composite indicators are as the stitchery of diverse indicators under sensory and preset methodology [102].

4. Results

An interesting approach is provided to demonstrate eight (8) procedures designing progressive indicators. Number of papers are counted to reveal the authors' contribution to each metric as accessible in Table 2 and Figure 1.

Table 2. Counted authors papers contributions per each procedure

Figure 1. Eight (8) procedures designing progressive indicators

Eight (8) procedures are illustrated in Figure 2 increasing in the numbers per authors papers and emphasizing on the composite progressive indicators (CPI).

Figure 2. Increasing order of prescribed eight (8) procedures

CPI is in the middle of two (2) ways while describing and defining indicators such as:

(1) Prescription of aspects per their goals, categorization per their principles and criteria (Figure 3);

(2) Identification of framework model, design process and top-down and bottom-up approaches (Figure 4).

Only Pressure–State–Response Framework belong to high rate presentation of first group. The main purpose of PSR is the categorization of prescribed indicators [95]. The key concept of PSR being a part of first group is because of its categorization.

5. Actualization

As CPI is exactly situated on the borders of two (2) methods, CPI is considered to be the key concept of the current paper. The intention of CPI is on the path to progress composite indicators. An approach is given to describe indicators (Figure 3) as:

α. Representation of more ten authors papers per each indicator procedure;

β. Illustration of data impacts per each indicator procedure;

γ. Approval of major impacts of authors active papers as higher products in categorized indicator procedures;

δ. Depiction of each preferred indicator procedures as being more progressive;

ε. Realization of manuscript approving path to progress indicator procedures [12].

Figure 3. Five (5) procedures designing aspects of indicators

Another approach is provided to define ways of indicators representation (Figure 4) as:

α. Representation of up ten authors papers per each indicator procedure;

β. Illustration of methodological impacts per each indicator procedure;

γ. Approval of minor impacts of authors active papers as higher products in categorized indicator procedures;

δ. Depiction of each preferred indicator procedures as being more progressive;

ε. Addition of CPI as a step combining ways of progressive indicators procedures [12].

Figure 4. Four procedures designing approaches of indicators

CPI is defined as an aggregation of different indicators as per Figure 3 with a well-progressed methodology as per Figure 4 [102].

6. Conclusion

An interesting approach is provided as the premium supervision of indicators through several steps, the strong emphasis on sustainable development and the composite appraisal of supportive progress as:

(1) Creating aspects for generation of initialized data;

(2) Defining goals for utilization of created aspects;

(3) Prescribing criteria for defined goals;

(4) bCategorizing though principles the prescribed criteria;

(5) Designing the process in the categorized principles;

(6) Modelling the framework in the designed process;

(7) Applying top-down and bottom-up approaches in the modelled frameworks;

(8) Using pressure-state-response (PSR) frameworks in the applied approaches;

(9) Constructing the composite indicators in the appraisals of supportive progresses.

CPI is identified as an assortment of diverse indicators as per Figure 3 by ways of a well-progressed methodology as per Figure 4 [102].

CPI is the construction of described aspects and defined ways of indicators procedures such as:

•  Prescription of aspects per their goals, categorization per their principles and criteria (Figure 3);

•  Identification of framework model, design process and top-down and bottom-up approaches (Figure 4).

The current paper heightens on the significance of CPI escorting indicators and appraising supportive progress [12]. CPI progression requires the subsequent steps:

α. Preparation of features:

•  Aspects;

•  Goals;

•  Criteria;

•  Categories;

•  Principles;

•  PSR;

β. Identification of ways:

•  Design Process;

•  Framework Model;

•  Top-Down and Bottom Up Approaches.

Composite progressive indicators are projected to be the core of the present paper guiding the sustainable development in the way of the composite appraising supportive progress (CASP) according to eight (8) approved procedures [12].

References

[1]   | IUCN-International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland, 1980.
[2]   | Clement, K., Economic Development and Environmental Gain, Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, 2000, 192pp.
[3]   | WCED-World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, Chair: Gro Harlem Brundtland. Oxford University Press, 1987.
[4]   | Reed, D., Structural adjustment, the environment and sustainable development, Earthscan, London, 1996.
[5]   | Pearce, D. W., Turner, R. K., Economics of natural resources and the environment, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
[6]   | Pezzoli, K., “Sustainable development: a trans-disciplinary overview of the literature”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40 (5), 549-574, 1997.
[7]   | Rees, W.E., “Consuming the Earth: the biophysics of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 29, 23-27, 1999.
[8]   | Sachs, W., Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and Development, Zed Books, London, 1999.
[9]   | Segnestam, L., “Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development, Theories and Practical Examples”, World Bank Environment Group, Environmental Economics Paper No. 89, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2002
[10]   | Olewiler, N., “Environmental sustainability for urban areas: The role of natural capital indicators”, Cities, 23 (3), 184-195, 2006.
[11]   | Petrosyan, A. F., Karathanassi, V., “Review Article of Landscape Metrics based on Remote Sensing Data”, Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 5 (11), 1542-1560, 2011.
[12]   | Petrosyan, A. F., “A Model for Incorporated Measurement of Sustainable Development Comprising Remote Sensing Data and Using the Concept of Biodiversity”, Journal of Sustainable Development, 3 (2), 9-26. 2010
[13]   | Spangenberg, J.H., Lorek, S., “Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from aggregate environmental pressures to priority fields of action”, Ecological Economics, 43 (2-3), 127-140, 2002.
[14]   | Varma, V.K., Ferguson, I., Wild, I., “Decision support system for the sustainable forest management” Forest Ecology and Management, 128 (1-2), 49-55, 2000.
[15]   | Bell, S., Morse, S., “Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a Blue Plan project in Malta”, Sustainable Development, 12 (1), 1-14, 2004.
[16]   | Simianer, H., “Decision making in livestock conservation”, Ecological Economics, 53, 559-572, 2005.
[17]   | Finco, A., Nijkamp, P., “Pathways to urban sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3 (4), 289-302, 2001.
[18]   | Atkinson, G., Hamilton, K., “Accounting for progress: indicators for sustainable development”, Environment, 38 (7), 16-20, 1996.
[19]   | Mickwitz, P., Melanen, M., Rosenstrom, U., Seppala, J., “Regional eco-efficiency indicators – a participatory approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (18), 1603-1611, 2006.
[20]   | McAlpine, P., Birnie, A., “Establishing sustainability indicators as an evolving process: experience from the island of Guernsey”, Sustainable Development, 14 (2), 81-92, 2006.
[21]   | Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas, J.M., Subirats, A., Ibáñez, S., Alvarez, P., “Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50 (12), 1649-1660, 2005
[22]   | Connolly, J., Goma, H.C., Rahim, K., “The information content of indicators in intercropping research”, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87 (2), 191-207, 2001.
[23]   | Gallopin, G., “Indicators and their use: information for decision making”, In: Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.), Sustainability Indicators, Report on the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development, Wiley, Chicheste. 1997
[24]   | Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T., Burton, M., “Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice”, Ecological Economics, 39 (3), 463-478, 2001.
[25]   | Pagina, W., Measurement and indicators for sustainable development, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000.
[26]   | Parsons, W., “Not just steering but weaving: relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity and coherence”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43-57, 2004.
[27]   | Lehtonen, M., “Mainstreaming sustainable development in the OECD through indicators and peer reviews”, Sustainable Development, 16(4), 241-250, 2008.
[28]   | Brodhag, C., “Information, governance et development durable”, International Political Science Review, 21, 311-327, 2000.
[29]   | Paehlke, R., “Environmental politics, sustainability and social science”, Environmental Politics, 10, 1-22, 2001.
[30]   | OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Better understanding our cities: the role of urban indicators, Paris: OECD Publications, 1997
[31]   | Liu, W. H., Ou, C. H., A comparative analysis of sustainable fishery development indicator systems in Australia and Canada, Sustainable Development, 15 (1), 28-40, 2007.
[32]   | Smith, S. L., “Devising Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators for Canada”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (3), 305-310, 2002.
[33]   | Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., Wrbka, T., “Land use and sustainability indicators: an introduction”, Land Use Policy, 21 (3), 193-198, 2004.
[34]   | Moles, R., Foley, W., Morrissey, J., O'Regan, B., “Practical appraisal of sustainable development—Methodologies for sustainability measurement at settlement level”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2-3), 144-165, 2008.
[35]   | Merkle, A., Kaupenjohann, M., “Derivation of ecosystemic effect indicators—method”, Ecological Modeling, 130, 39-46, 2000.
[36]   | Diamantini, C., Zanon, B., “Planning the urban sustainable development The case of the plan for the province of Trento, Italy”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 (3), 299-310, 2000.
[37]   | Repetti, A., Desthieux, G., “A Relational Indicator set Model for urban land-use planning and management: Methodological approach and application in two case studies”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 77 (1-2), 196-215, 2006.
[38]   | OECD-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, 2001.
[39]   | Jung, W., “Sustainable development in industrial countries: environmental indicators and targets as core elements of national action plans - the German case”, Sustainable Development, 5 (3), 139-147, 1997.
[40]   | Pastilles Consortium, Indicators into Action, A Practitioners Guide for Improving Their Use at the Local Level, London School of Economics, London, 2002.
[41]   | Azapagic, A., “Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 639-662, 2004.
[42]   | Amajirionwu, M., Connaughton, N., McCann, B., Moles, R., Bartlett, J., O’Regan, B., “Indicators for managing biosolids in Ireland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 88 (4), 1361-1372, 2008.
[43]   | Balkema, A. J, Preisig, H. A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F. J. D., “Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems”, Urban Water, 4, 153-161, 2002.
[44]   | IISD-International Institute for Sustainable Development, City of Winnipeg Quality of Life Indicators, 1997, [Online]. Available: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/wpg.qoli.pdfS, accessed on 9/11/02.
[45]   | Gustavson, K., Longeran, S., Ruitenbeek, H. J., “Selection and modeling of sustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia”, Ecological Economics, 28, 117-132, 1999.
[46]   | Jollands, N., Harmsworth, G., “Participation of indigenous groups in sustainable development monitoring: Rationale and examples from New Zealand”, Ecological Economics, 62 (3-4), 716-726, 2007.
[47]   | Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991.
[48]   | Peterson, P. J., “Sustainable development indicators for rapidly industrializing countries”, In: Management Response Strategies, vol. 1. Penerbit UKM, Kuala Lumpur, 1997.
[49]   | Tate, J., “Void dwellings - a “headline” indicator?”, Sustainable Development, 10 (1), 36-50, 2002.
[50]   | Ekins, P., Dresner, S., Dahlstrom, K., “The four-capital method of sustainable development evaluation”, European Environment, 18 (2), 63-80, 2008.
[51]   | De Kruijf, H.A.M., Van Vuuren, D. P., “Following Sustainable Development in Relation to the North–South Dialogue: Ecosystem Health and Sustainability Indicators”, Eco-toxicology and Environmental Safety, 40 (1-2), 4-14.
[52]   | Ravetz, J., “Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 (1), 31-64, 2000.
[53]   | Spangenberg, J.H, Pfahl, S., Deller, K., “Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21”, Ecological Indicators, 2 (1-2), 61-77, 2002.
[54]   | Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Impacts and Conservation Actions, 2002.
[55]   | Yuan, W., and James, P., “Evolution of the Shanghai city region 1978-1998: an analysis of indicators”, Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 299-309, 2002.
[56]   | Ledoux, L., Mertens, R., Wolff, P., “EU sustainable development indicators: An overview”. Natural Resources Forum, 29 (4), 392-403, 2005.
[57]   | Braat, L., “The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators”, In: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991, 57-70.
[58]   | Huang, S. L., Wong, J. H., Chen, T. C., “A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei's urban sustainability”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 42 (1), 15-27, 1998.
[59]   | Tils, R., “The German sustainable development strategy: facing policy, management and political strategy assessments”, European Environment, 17 (3), 164-176, 2007.
[60]   | Patlitzianas, K.D., Doukas, H., Kagiannas, A.G., Psarras, J., “Sustainable energy policy indicators: Review and recommendations”, Renewable Energy, 33 (5), 966-973, 2008.
[61]   | UK Biodiversity Partnership. Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2007, National Statistics, 2007.
[62]   | Pittman, J. Wilhelm, K., “New economic and financial indicators of sustainability”, New Directions for Institutional Research, 134, 55-69, 2007.
[63]   | Devkota, S. R., “Is strong sustainability operational? An example from Nepal”, Sustainable Development, 13 (5), 297-310, 2005.
[64]   | Osinski, E., Meier, U., Buchs, W., Weickel, J., Matzdorf, B., “Application of biotic indicators for evaluation of sustainable land use—current procedures and future developments”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98 (1-3), 407-421, 2003.
[65]   | Korhonen, J., “Special issue of the Journal of Cleaner Production, ‘From Material Flow Analysis to Material Flow Management’: strategic sustainability management on a principle level” Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (17), 1585-1595, 2007.
[66]   | Zahm, F., Viaux, P., Vilain, L., Girardin, P., Mouchet, C. “Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method - from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 271-281, 2008.
[67]   | Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., “Indicators of sustainable production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 9 (5), 447-452, 2001.
[68]   | Kates, R. W., “Sustainability 2001 Transition: Human–Environment Relationship”, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 15325-15329, 2004.
[69]   | Lamberton, G., “Sustainability accounting—a brief history and conceptual framework”, Accounting Forum, 29 (1), 7-26, 2005.
[70]   | Palme, U., Tillman, A.-M., “Sustainable development indicators: how are they used in Swedish water utilities?” Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (13), 1346-1357, 2008.
[71]   | Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., “Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78 (4), 243-261, 2000.
[72]   | Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., van Erck., R. P. G., “Assessing the sustainability performances of industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 13 (4), 373-385, 2005.
[73]   | Boyd, H., Charles, A., “Creating community-based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries”, Ocean & Coastal Management, 49 (5-6), 237-258, 2006.
[74]   | Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S., “Identifying priorities for action in corporate sustainable development indicator programs”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 17 (2), 137-148, 2008.
[75]   | Nijkamp, P., Vreeker, R., “Sustainability assessment of development scenarios: methodology and application to Thailand”, Ecological Economics, 33 (1), 7-27, 2000.
[76]   | Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., Clift, R., Sustainable Development in Practice, Case Studies for Engineers, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2005, 446pp.
[77]   | Potts, T., “A framework for the analysis of sustainability indicator systems in fisheries”, Ocean and Coastal Management, 49 (5-6), 259-280, 2006.
[78]   | Hilden, M., Rosenstrom, U., “The use of indicators for sustainable development”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 237-240, 2008.
[79]   | Morrone, M., Hawley, M., “Improving environmental indicators through involvement of experts, stakeholders, and the public”, Ohio Journal of Science, 98 (3), 52-58, 1998.
[80]   | Brang, P., Courbaud, B., Fischer, A., Kissling-Naf, I., Pettenella, D., Schonenberger, W., Spork, J., Grimm, V., “Developing indicators for the sustainable management of mountain forests using a modeling approach”, Forest Policy and Economics, 4 (2), 113-123, 2002.
[81]   | Malkina-Pykh, I. G., “Integrated assessment models and response function models: pros and cons for sustainable development indices design”, Ecological Indicators, 2 (1-2), 93-108, 2002.
[82]   | Rosenstrom, U., Kyllonen, S., “Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 84 (3), 282-298, 2007.
[83]   | Slee, B., “Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: The case of forestry in the UK”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120 (1), 31-40, 2007.
[84]   | Macleod, C., Todnem, R., “Performance, conformance and change: towards a sustainable tourism strategy for Scotland”, Sustainable Development, 15 (6), 329-342, 2007.
[85]   | Bell, S., Morse, S., “Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects”, Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 37-51, 2005.
[86]   | Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., “An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities”, Ecological Economics, 59 (4), 406-418, 2006.
[87]   | Blue Plan-Regional Activity Centre, The Blue Plan, “Cradle of Mediterranean Futures”. Strategic orientations. Draft. Sophia Antipolis, December, 2006.
[88]   | Hartmuth, G., Huber, K., Rink, D., “Operationalization and contextualization of sustainability at the local level”, Sustainable Development, 16 (4), 261-270, 2008.
[89]   | Turner, R. K., “Ecosystem Functions and the Implications for Environmental Evaluation: An Executive Summary”, Report to English Nature, Peterborough. 2000.
[90]   | Bellini, G., “Agri-environmental Issues: Policies, Definition of Indicators Lists and Related Implementation Processes”, Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT), Working Paper No. 19, 2005.
[91]   | EEA-European Environment Agency, “A Framework for Assessing Policy Integration”, IRENA Indicators, EEA Report, No.2, 2006.
[92]   | Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., “Development of an indicator model and ranking of sustainable revitalization alternatives of derelict property: a Lithuanian case study”, Sustainable Development 14 (5), 287-299, 2006.
[93]   | Nuissl, H., Haase, D., Lanzendorf, M., Wittmer, H., “Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions— A context-sensitive approach”, Land Use Policy, 26, 414-424, 2009.
[94]   | Smeets, E., Weterings, R., “Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview”, Technical Report No. 25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 1999.
[95]   | OECD-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, OECD Environment Monographs, 83, Paris, France, 1993
[96]   | Keirstead, J., Leach, M., “Bridging the gaps between theory and practice: a service niche approach to urban sustainability indicators”, Sustainable Development, 16 (5), 329-340, 2008.
[97]   | Buchs, W., “Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture—introduction and background”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98 (1-3), 1-16, 2003.
[98]   | Wiggering, H., Dalchow, C., Glemnitz, M., Helming, K., Muller, K., Schultz, A., Stachow, U., Zander, P., “Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials”, Ecological Indicators, 6 (1), 238-249, 2006.
[99]   | Crabtree, B., Bayfield, N., “Developing sustainability indicators for mountain ecosystems: a study of the Cairngorms, Scotland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 52 (1), 1-14, 1998.
[100]   | Huang, S. L., Yeh, C. T., Budd, W. W., Chen, L. L., “A Sensitivity Model (SM) approach to analyze urban development in Taiwan based on sustainability indicators”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29 (2), 116-125, 2009.
[101]   | Garcia, S. M., Staples, D. J., Chesson, J., “The FAO guidelines for the development and use of indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries and an Australian example of their application”, Ocean & Coastal Management, 43 (7), 537-556, 2000.
[102]   | Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., Woodward, R., Environmental indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development, Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 1995.
[103]   | Prescott-Allen, R., The wellbeing of nations: a country-by-country index of quality of life and the environment, Washington DC: Island Press, 2001.
[104]   | Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., “A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43, 189-208, 2005a.
[105]   | Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., “How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 55, 551-563, 2005b.
[106]   | Tanzil, D., Beloff, B. R., “Assessing impacts: Overview on sustainability indicators and metrics”, Environmental Quality Management, 15 (4), 41-56, 2006.
[107]   | Van Dijk, M.P., Mingshun, Z., “Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers, evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities”, Environmental Impact Assessment, 25, 667-688, 2006.
[108]   | Hardi, P., DeSouza-Huletey, J. A., “Issues in analyzing data and indicators for sustainable development”, Ecological Modeling, 130 (1-3), 59-65, 2000.