Sustainability as defined by the Brundtland Commission, is a composite and thus ambitious policy target. It comprises environmental, economic, social, and institutional criteria with equal importance. Because of this complexity the first step of a (Local) Agenda 21 process should be to develop a vision of a sustainable society - a "leitbild" - useful as a compass, not a road map (or, even worse, a blueprint), attached by indicators that help to measure progress, distance to target, and failures of plans or their implementations. In the following article a model is proposed how local sustainability indicators can be developed and how they can help to reduce the complexity of sustainability and to concretize a program for the Local Agenda 21. To get a practical impression of the theoretical presentation an example is given in the last part of the article. It shows the experiences made while developing sustainability indicators in the City of Iserlohn.
Unsustainable consumption patterns of the North (or rather of the global affluent consumers class) have been identified by Agenda 21 as one of the key driving forces behind the unsustainable development. However, neither accounting based on the system of national accounts SNA nor household economics provide the proper instruments to assess the environmental impact of household decision making. Eco-efficiency assessments as familiar in the business sector provide no appropriate tool for households. As an alternative an environmental space based assessment scheme is suggested covering the major pressures on the environment caused by household decisions. The methodology is used twice: once to analyse the environmental relevance of the main activity clusters of household consumption and once to identify the dominant acts of consumption within each cluster. The latter provide the basis for deriving environmental performance indicators. A rough analysis of household influence potentials permits to identify housing, eating and mobility as the three priority fields for action for minimising the environmental impact of households. Extending the influence analysis actor matrixes are derived allocating influence and thus responsibility for environmental pressures to different groups of economic agents.
It is not the scarcity of resources that constitutes environmental problems, but their use, the physical throughput of our economies. Material flows are a proxy for the totality of the unspecific environmental risks from human activities. As a strategic goal, an increase of the life-cycle-wide resource productivity by a factor 10 is suggested, including the materials bought and sold and the not-valued materials: we have to take into account the product itself and its "ecological rucksack". Material flows are best measured at the input side of the economy, where their number as well as the number of entry gates is limited. Thus here regulation and economic incentives can work more efficiently and less bureaucratically than today. The material intensity of products and services can be expressed as MIPS, the material input per unit of service, and as TMR, the total material requirement on the macro level, an important element in physical input–output tables.
The objective of this paper is to identify those areas of consumption in which private households can make significant contributions to environmental sustainability, and to present a transparent and comprehensive set of indicators for them. The analysis of the environmental impacts of households focuses on consumption clusters that allow different life spheres of private households to be distinguished. Two criteria guided the investigation of the relevance of these clusters: (i) the environmental significance of the consumption cluster in terms of resource consumption, and (ii) the potential influence of households compared with other actors. Resource consumption was chosen as a simplified but reliable representation of environmental pressure dynamics. Growing resource consumption goes together with growing environmental pressures and vice versa, although not necessarily proportionally. The key resources analysed are energy and material consumption, and land use. Based on this analysis, three consumption clusters were identified as priority fields for action by households: construction and housing, food/nutrition and transport (in this order). All other consumption clusters can be considered environmentally marginal, providing combined saving potentials of less than 10% of the total resource consumption. Finally, from a description of the respective roles of actors based on anecdotal evidence, a semi-quantitative "actor matrix" is presented, indicating the relative influence of different actors in each consumption cluster.