5 Indicator Selection Using a Systems Approach
5.4 System compared to not-system indicator selection
The discussion of the different approaches of Vester, Robèrt, and Bossel to identifying indicators from a systems perspective highlights some distinguishing attributes that set them apart from selecting indicators for composite or dashboard type well-being measures (i.e. not a system perspective). Table 5-5 sets out guidelines for indicator selection and identifies some of the commonalities and distinctions.
58
To answer the seven different orientor questions for three subsystem classes58 for subsystem performance, and the contribution to total system, results in at least 42 indicators (3x7x2=42).
Table 5-5: Indicator selection guidelines differentiating between system and not-system indicator selection
Indicator selection guidelines System Not-
system The ultimate goal needs to be explicit. The first step is to describe the
purpose/aim of the measure the indicators contribute to and the key components that need to be tracked.
9
9
99
If indicators cover different dimensions (e.g. the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability) there should be a balanced number of indicators measuring each dimension.
9
9
99
The ethical reference point you are working from needs to be stated.
Ethical choice is reflected in indicator selection.
99
99
The value from indicators is largely determined by the appropriateness ofthe indicators used and how well they fit with the theoretical concept being measured.
9
9
99
The selection of indicators to use is determined by the system itself, asindicators need to provide a balanced picture of the system. Indicators should be similar in their level of importance to the overall system.
9
9
Indicator selection is subjective and the final choice should be astructured participatory process.
99
99
The selection of indicators to use is determined by the users, as indicators provide information for successful intervention and a way to monitor success.
9
9
The minimum number of indicators that capture the main componentsshould be used. Only indicators that provide essential information that cannot be obtained from clever use of other indicators should be included.
9
9
99
Rates of change provide the most important information about change inthe system and are, therefore, important candidates for indicators.
99
99
The ideal indicators provide essential information about the health(viability) of the system and its rate of change, and about how that contributes to the systems goals.
9
9
Thresholds are required so indicator deficit/surplus can be evaluated.99
Relatedness and interdependence is key criteria for being part of asystem, therefore selected indicators must all interrelate.
99
Indicators need to be easily recognisable, their role clear, and whetherthey are a positive or negative measure made explicit.
99
99
There needs to be understanding of the systemic and dynamic nature ofprocesses and boundaries, as all systems will be embedded in a larger total system containing many feedback loops.
9
9
The actual number of variables is less important than their propercomposition because if you embark on a system analysis with an incomplete picture the analysis will be biased.
9
9
If only qualitative knowledge is available, for example, the standard isacceptable/not acceptable this should be used, as it can be included. This type of information cannot be aggregated into a composite or dashboard measure but with a systems approach can provide input without
expensive and time-consuming quantitative measurements.
9
9
what is needed for future problem solving/decision-making. Effort should go into improving accuracy and comparability, rather than using lack of availability/reliability as an argument.
Qualities in one indicator should not be duplicated in another to avoid
double-counting.
99
99
Indicators should not be selected to direct a system to an optimal point as this implies a static destination. Instead, indicators should show progress towards a more complex, resilient, and viable system. It can be said if all indicators are in a satisfactory state the system is ‘viable’ or ‘healthy’.
9
9
If the system has identifiable subsystems each needs to be ‘healthy’ and
‘viable’ for the overall system to be ‘healthy’ and ‘viable’, i.e. resilient.
99
A deficit in one indicator cannot be compensated by an over-achievementof another.
99
Analysing the similarities and differences in Table 5-5 identifies that there are specific requirements with which indicators need to comply when they are part of an interlinked system.
The system itself drives the indicators selected for use, as a balanced picture of the entire system needs is required. There needs to be understanding of the systemic and dynamic nature of processes and boundaries, as all systems will be embedded in a larger total system containing many feedback loops. The actual number of variables is less important than that their proper composition provides a complete picture, able to show whether the system is ‘healthy’ and ‘viable’ and how it is changing. If there are subsystems, each must have indicators that show the subsystem is ‘healthy’ and ‘viable’.
Indicators should ideally have thresholds to identify any ‘deficit’ or ‘surplus’. The occurrence of either of these two situations is considered a limiting factor in the system that needs to be addressed.
Relatedness and interdependence are criteria for being part of a system. Therefore, selected indicators must interrelate. Indicators should all be similar in their level of importance to the overall system. Aggregation into an overall score is not an objective, as each part of the system is in itself of importance.
When selecting indicators from a systems perspective, qualitative indicators can be included (this is not possible with aggregated composite or dashboard measures).
Indicators are not chosen to optimize the system but instead to guide progress towards a more complex, resilient, and viable system.
5.5 SUMMARY
This chapter has considered the procedure for selecting well-being indicators based on their role in an interlinked system.
It first set out the attributes of an indicator and then overviewed the standard recommendations for selecting well-being indicators. There is a substantial amount of literature on indicators and indicator selection, and this discussion focuses on high- level principles for selecting indicator sets, rather than on the required attributes of individual indicators. It also identified some of the commonly recognised problems associated with selecting indicators to measure well-being.
Three approaches for selecting indicators from a system perspective were presented. These were sustainability centred, but considered equally applicable to well-being. Distilled from the three approaches were specific requirements when selecting indicators from a systems perspective. These were then compared and contrasted with the standard approach to selecting well-being indicators to identify key differences. From this it was concluded that there are additional requirements with which indicators need to comply when they are chosen to represent a system.
The next chapter outlines the method developed to interlink indicators, which is implemented in the three different case studies undertaken as part of this research. In the WR-GPI case study (Chapter 7) indicator selection from a systems perspective is applied.