Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—A Survey Based Potential Future Development for Implementation and Interpretation

The aim of this study is to define, via an online expert survey, current challenges and possible future approaches in and for the implementation, application, and interpretation of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Using an online survey, sustainability experts from around the world were surveyed over a period of five weeks, resulting in 71 experts answering 25 questions. The experts were invited by e-mail and through networks; the online questionnaire was the preferred survey choice particularly for reasons of time, cost, and the pandemic. The survey evaluation shows that no change in LCSA is needed. Nevertheless, (1) a detailed optional baseline LCSA framework, with pre-selected fixed indicator sets, (2) a supporting optional but unified visualization tool, (3) a clear and transparent communication on assumptions, targets and system boundaries and (4) early defined stakeholders were identified as relevant for further LCSA implementation and interpretation. Due to natural subjectivity, the results of this written survey are to be understood as recommendations for action and orientation, not explicitly as a prediction. Finally, an action outlook for future LCSA-development is given.

On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience

As interest in smart city initiatives continues to grow rapidly, various involved actors and stakeholders increasingly rely on assessment frameworks or indicator sets for different purposes such as monitoring and benchmarking performance, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and determining priority intervention areas. Accordingly, many smart city assessment frameworks and/or indicator sets have been developed in the last decade. To guide actors and stakeholders in their selection of the most suitable frameworks, several studies have examined contents and structure of smart city assessment frameworks or indicator sets. Such studies have significantly improved our understanding of the thematic focus of assessment tools and their methodological approaches. However, there is still a lack of knowledge on the taxonomy of smart city indicators. In addition, since other concepts such as sustainability and resilience are increasingly recognized to be connected to the smart city concept, more clarity on how different assessment frameworks or indicator sets are aligned with sustainability and resilience dimensions and characteristics is needed. To fill these gaps, we developed a taxonomy and examined 33 assessment frameworks or indicator sets in terms of indicator type, sectoral linkages, and alignment with sustainability and resilience dimensions and characteristics. In terms of indicator type, results show that output indicators are dominant but limited attention has been paid to impact indicators. In terms of sectoral focus, existing indicators are mainly related to information and communication technologies, economy, and governance. Regarding resilience abilities, indicators are mainly related to planning abilities and limited attention has been paid to recovery and adaptation. As for resilience characteristics, reasonable levels of alignment with resourcefulness and efficiency were observed, but indicators are not well-aligned with other important characteristics such as redundancy and diversity. Finally, in terms of sustainability, limited alignment with the environmental dimension was found, which raises concerns regarding the suitability of smart city indicators for guiding environmental sustainability and informing efforts aimed at addressing climate change issues. Results of this study can support interested stakeholders in their efforts to select the most suitable assessment frameworks or indicator sets for promoting resilient, smart, and sustainable communities.

Conceptual frameworks for urban sustainability indicators - an empirical analysis

Indicator-based assessment represents a popular means of operationalizing the concept of sustainability. A central yet often neglected aspect in the development of indicator sets concerns the elaboration of accompanying conceptual frameworks. Despite the pivotal role that such frameworks play, and the normative power they wield, little explicit guidance exists for their development. To address this issue, we analyze an extensive sample of conceptual frameworks drawn from 67 urban indicator initiatives. The results of the analysis elaborate an empirically-based typology of four principal and two emerging framework types, each based on a particular logic for creating conceptual categories for urban sustainability indicators. We also develop a comparison of the framework types in terms of their respective abilities to meet the different purposes that conceptual frameworks ideally serve in indicator set development. The results allow us to provide much-needed guidance for indicator set developers; first, by laying out the range of options available; second, by helping developers choose between types of frameworks in accordance with their particular aims. In addition, through analysis of how urban sustainability is de facto defined in indicator initiatives, we aim to make a conceptual contribution that advances our understanding of the meaning of this complex concept.

Review of Smart City Assessment Tools

Today’s cities are estimated to generate 80% of global GDP, covering only about 3% of the land, but contributing to about 72% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Cities face significant challenges, such as population growth, pollution, congestion, lack of physical and social infrastructures, while trying to simultaneously meet sustainable energy and environmental requirements. The Smart City concept intends to address these challenges by identifying new and intelligent ways to manage the complexity of urban living and implement solutions for multidisciplinary problems in cities. With the increasing number of Smart City projects being implemented around the world, it is important to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for their future improvement and evolution track record. It is, therefore, crucial to characterize and improve the proper tools to adequately evaluate these implementations. Following the Smart City implementation growth, several Smart City Assessment tools with different indicator sets have been developed. This work presents a literature review on Smart City Assessment tools, discussing their main gaps in order to improve future methodologies and tools. Smart City Assessment can deliver important performance indicators monitoring for the evaluation of multiple benefits for different actors and stakeholders, such as city authorities, investors and funding agencies, researchers, and citizens.

Which Way Forward in Measuring the Quality of Life? A Critical Analysis of Sustainability and Well-Being Indicator Sets

The movement to develop indicators that provide a more nuanced view of quality of life (QoL) continues to gain momentum and support in both scientific and policy-making circles. However, measuring QoL still faces a number of challenges. While a range of indicator sets has been developed, it is unclear whether any of them is able to adequately capture the broad range of conditions it encompasses. In addition, it has yet to be determined whether different dimensions of QoL can be meaningfully integrated in one indicator or if separate indicators need to be employed alongside each other for clear and reliable scientific results and policy advice. In this article, we aim to contribute to answering these open questions. To that end, we offer a framework, grounded in the literatures on well-being and sustainable development, for unpacking the QoL concept, and categorize and evaluate different existing indicator sets in terms of their ability to measure this concept of QoL. Moreover, we identify the challenges involved in integrating two very distinct aspects of QoL in one indicator.

From the Indicators of General Comment No. 7 to GlobalChild

Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc) hinges on appropriate data collection to clarify actors’ accountability and the impact of this on children. In spite of widespread ratification and revised legislation, most State Parties have not adequately implemented the crc. The evidence demonstrates that indicators can assist with implementing and monitoring human rights. We present an account of a decade of work conducted under the auspices of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, towards developing indicator sets which map the degree of rights implementation. The work started with the rights of young children, outlined in the Committee’s General Comment No. 7. It will culminate in a comprehensive monitoring platform, called GlobalChild, to improve State Parties’ accountability to children through pointing at crucial aspects of the process of compliance with the crc for which the State Party and its administration are accountable.

A systematic review of monitoring and evaluation indicators for sexual and reproductive health in humanitarian settings

Objective To conduct a comprehensive mapping of published indicators for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services and outcomes in humanitarian settings. Methods A systematic search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2008 and May 2018 was conducted to identify all references describing indicator sets for M&E of SRH services and outcomes in humanitarian settings. The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Global Health, as well as 85 websites of relevant organizations involved in humanitarian response were searched. Characteristics of identified indicator sets and data from individual indicators was extracted. Findings Of 3278 records identified, 20 met the review’s inclusion criteria and 9 existing indicator sets were identified. A total of 179 relevant indicators were included in the mapping, and removal of duplicates yielded 132 unique indicators. Twenty-seven percent fell within the maternal health domain, followed by the HIV/AIDS domain (26%) and the gender-based violence domain (23%). The distribution of indicators by type (process/output, outcome, impact) was balanced overall but varied substantially across domains. The most commonly used data collection platforms were facility-based systems or population-based surveys. Domains covered and indicator definitions were inconsistent across indicator sets. Conclusion Results demonstrate the need to standardize data collection efforts for M&E of SRH services and outcomes in humanitarian settings and to critically appraise the extent to which different domains should be covered. A core list of indicators is essential for assessing response status over time as well as across countries.