Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Sustainable development assessment from a capitals perspective: Analytical

structure and indicator selection criteria
Juvancir da Silva a, b, Valdir Fernandes c, Marcelo Limont a, William Bonino Rauen d, *
a
Graduate Programme in Environmental Management, Universidade Positivo, R. Prof. Pedro Viriato Parigot de Souza, 5300 - Campo Comprido, Curitiba/PR, 81280-
330, Brazil
b
Department of Business Management, Ponta Grossa State University, Praça Santos Andrade, 01 - Centro, Ponta Grossa/PR, 84010-919, Brazil
c
Graduate Programme in Urban Environmental Sustainability, Federal University of Technology – Parana, Av. Sete de Setembro, 3165 - Rebouças, Curitiba/PR, 80230-
901, Brazil
d
Department of Hydraulics and Sanitation, Federal University of Parana, Av. Cel. Francisco H. dos Santos, 210 - Jardim das Americas, Curitiba/PR, 81130-001, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sustainable development assessment has been conducted considering its various dimensions, such as environ­
Sustainable development capitals mental, social, cultural and economic. In this paper, the representation of such dimensions is undertaken from
Indicator system the perspective of the natural, social and built capitals. These dimensions are usually represented by indicators,
Selection criteria
indexes and systems of indicators, but their abundance in the technical and scientific literatures without
Analytical structure
adequate analytical structures can impair assessment quality and speed. This study aimed to propose a structure
for sustainable development assessment whereby key aspects and indicators can be identified, prioritised and
meaningfully used from the perspective of sustainable development capitals. Content analysis of selected in­
ternational papers and technical reports was undertaken to identify relevant analysis elements and their hier­
archical order. This has led to a four-tier framework composed of three capitals, seven categories, 19
subcategories and 52 attributes, each of which can be measured with the aid of one or more locally relevant
indicator(s) in the context of sustainable development assessment. Selection criteria for such indicators were
compiled from the literature and are presented in terms of their political, management, data quality and eco­
nomic relevance. This study may contribute to the development and refinement of structured sustainable
development indicator systems with less analytical ambiguity, overlapping and gaps, and hence improve the
representativeness of future assessment efforts.

1. Introduction
Socioenvironmental degradation has been largely associated with
the prevailing development model centred on economic growth. For
instance, Meadows et al. (1972) highlighted the limits of ecological
systems in performing functions such as absorbing and recycling waste
of anthropogenic activities, with concurrent difficulties in improving
social, educational, health, employment aspects.
Sustainable development figures as a paradigm aimed at promoting
balance between social, economic and environmental aspects. The
Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987, p. 24) defined sustainable develop­
ment as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”. Such a vision is centred around the concept of intergenerational
equity, so that future generations have at least the same level of well
being as does the present generation. For Waas et al. (2014) sustainable
development is a social construct with decision making rules based on
values related to current and future development, which must be un­
derstood in a dynamic environmental context, indissociable from soci­
ety. As shown by Biasi et al. (2019), satisfying the needs of present and
future generations depends upon suitable conditions of the human,
natural and economic capitals to provide for human well being.
Understanding and describing sustainable development dimensions
and aspects stems from early efforts, such as the UN’s 1992 Conference
on the Environment and Development – which produced the Rio
Declaration on the Environment and Agenda 21 – and continued prog­
ress e.g. in the Rioþ20 Conference leading to further documentation and
discussions and the formulation of current sustainable development

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: juvancirsilva@hotmail.com (J. Silva), vfernandes@utfpr.edu.br (V. Fernandes), marcelo.limont@up.edu.br (M. Limont), wbrauen@gmail.com
(W.B. Rauen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110147
Received 28 May 2019; Received in revised form 13 January 2020; Accepted 14 January 2020
Available online 23 January 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Silva et al.
goals. Biasi et al. (2019) show that assessing sustainable development
requires monitoring and evaluation of capital changes. From such a
perspective, one of the main challenges is to assess various actions and
processes related to sustainability. Conceptual and operational diffi­
culties remain in relation to promoting sustainable development, which
can only be surpassed with the advancement of assessment models and
methods (Fernandes et al., 2012).
Sustainable development monitoring approaches using indicator
systems are typically structured in terms of its key dimensions (e.g.
Sartori et al., 2014; Raynaut et al., 2018), which tend to encompass
physical-natural and socioeconomic aspects relevant for the pursuit of
the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals and 169 associated subgoals
(Pinsky et al., 2015; UN, 2019). Such goals concentrate and are intended
to influence public and private policy towards mitigating extreme
poverty while promoting social inclusion, environmental sustainability
and governance for peace and security. In such a context, the selection
and usage of indicators must be aligned to a sustainable development
strategy to encompass key processes and results, as well to serve as social
mobilisation instruments through its capacity to inform on socio­
environmental conditions and assist decision making processes with
community political involvement (Meadows, 1998; OECD, 2003; UN,
2007). Indicators must also provide access to information on relevant
dimensions and aspects in an integrated way (Meadows, 1998; Gui­
maraes and Feichas, 2009; Pissourios, 2013; Wang et al., 2013; Waas
et al., 2014).
(2019) Wong argue that the challenge of the 193 countries who
committed to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda
of the United Nations is to ensure that their governments meet such an
Agenda, which requires overcoming resistance associated with the level
of autonomy of executive bodies and ministries, requiring political
capital on the part of who coordinates the Agenda in such countries.
Among the coordinating strategies is the need for ensuring inclusion of
sustainability commitments in ministerial plans and to seek scientific
contribution for deliberation among ministries on sustainability goals.
Thus, using indicators to monitor sustainable development can be an
effective way to demonstrate to governments the social, economic and
environmental results obtained thanks to development policies.
The complexity of sustainable development indicator systems is
apparent in terms of their considerable number of indicators. For
instance, the UN’s Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI) approach,
used e.g. in Brazil (IBGE, 2015), involves 63 indicators organised in
terms of four dimensions (environmental, social, economic and institu­
tional). Likewise, UNESCO’s Dashboard of Sustainability includes 60
indicators similarly divided in such four dimensions (UNESCO, 2006),
while OECD (2003) uses 50 indicators to assess how the environmental
dimension inter-relates and is considered in sectorial socio-economic
policy making (OECD, 2003). Indicators are recognised as key commu­
nication instruments on how countries are dealing with internal and
external objectives and conditions in relation to their environmental
commitments. An example of a country-led initiative can be found in
Switzerland, with its sustainable development indicator system (MONET
– Monitoring Sustainable Development) structured in terms of three
target dimensions: social solidarity, economic efficiency and environ­
mental sustainability, which were divided into 26 topics leading to 163
indicators (Altwegg et al., 2004).
Indicator selection and usage in the context of a sustainable devel­
opment assessment require a well defined analytical context and
criteria, or the analysis may be impaired by the large availability of
indicators from several sectors. Sustainable development indicator sys­
tems have been criticised for their wide amplitude and low ability to
inform on cause-effect relationships (Pissourios, 2013). Depending on
the selection made, a redundant representation of certain aspects can
occur, while other relevant factors may not be adequately included
(Patten, 2006). Kajikawa (2008) highlights that selecting and measuring
sustainability indicators are among the main topics requiring further
research in socioenvironmental studies. For Venturelli and Galli (2006),
2
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
obtaining indicators of the inter relations among ecology, economy and
society is a key challenge, while Uwasu and Yabar (2011) pointed out
the existence of a large number of sustainability assessment systems in
the literature, but no clear indication of which are the most appropriate.
Meadows (1998) proposed an assessment perspective of inter­
connecting capitals of sustainable development, which encompasses the
natural, human, social and built capitals. The natural capital represents
low entropy energy and matter that constitute natural resources and
services with substantial market value (Islam et al., 2019; DesRoches,
2018), which must be preserved and included in the cost of goods and
services (O’Connor, 2000; Jacobi and Sinisgalli, 2012; Picone et al.,
2017; Zhang et al., 2018). The built capital is associated with production
infrastructure and defined as a key factor to promote development
(Zhang et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2012; P�erez-Maqueo et al., 2013) and
repair environmental damage caused by such development (Kline et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2017; Pandit et al., 2017). The social capital encompasses
values, civic behaviour, institutions, human relations and rules that
determine the quality and quantity of social interactions, and may be
considered together with the human capital as attributes of a commu­
nity, such as health, education, culture and security levels (Zhang et al.,
2018; Sehnem and Macke, 2015; Lugo-Morin, 2013; Bourdieu, 2001;
Coleman, 1994) that enable it to self-organise and obtain results.
Zhang et al. (2018) argue that the built, human, social and natural
capitals are in line with the three sustainable development pillars.
Lugo-Morin (2013) and Sehnem and Macke (2015) highlight that the
economic pillar is considered as an instrumental perspective of the social
capital, i.e., the social capital represents interrelations among econom­
ically driven rational actors who use their social connections and net­
works to access resources for survival. Social capital indicators, such as
related to work capacity, are closely linked with the economic relations
among social actors.
In this context, Meadows’ capitals perspective provides an estab­
lished framework for structuring sustainable development assessment,
in particular when complemented by more recent conceptual and
methodological advances on sustainable development and its moni­
toring and analysis with indicators (Wu et al., 2019; Biasi et al., 2019;
Zhang et al., 2018). OECD (2008, p. 20) highlights the importance of a
theoretical framework that “Provides the basis for the selection and com­
bination of variables into a meaningful composite indicator under a
fitness-for-purpose principle (involvement of experts and stakeholders is
envisaged at this step)”. A theoretical framework according to OECD
(2008, p. 20) is required “to get a clear understanding and definition of the
multidimensional phenomenon to be measured; to structure the various
sub-groups of the phenomenon (if needed); and to compile a list of selection
criteria for the underlying variables, e.g., input, output, process”. An
analytical structure thus based could assist in forming indicator systems
which are sufficiently complete and general, while allowing for adap­
tations to specific applications in terms of e.g. spatial and temporal
analytical delimitations. There is, also, an abundance of indicators and
indicator systems being used in sustainable development assessment, so
that practical usage of such structure requires a compilation of selection
criteria to assist the identification of suitable elements to compose the
assessment framework.
In this context, the general aim of this study was to contribute to
undertaking structured and meaningful sustainable development
assessment, through two specific objectives: i) to derive a related up-to-
date analytical structure from the sustainable development capitals
perspective of Meadows; and ii) to compile selection criteria for sus­
tainable development indicators and systems of indicators. These ob­
jectives are complementary at the level of composing or revising
indicator-based systems for sustainable development assessment. A
demonstration of how such a framework can be adapted and applied to
assess a socioenvironmental problem can be found in Silva et al. (2020).
J. Silva et al.
2. Methods
This study took a descriptive approach in aiming to achieve an
analytical representation of sustainable development aspects for use as
part of indicator-based assessment of socioenvironmental processes and
systems. The capitals perspective of Meadows (1998) was selected for its
representation of sustainable development and sustainability as prod­
ucts of socioenvironmental interrelations. This was part of a content
analysis (Bardin, 2008), whereby Meadows (1998) was selected at the
pre-analysis stage of the method, for its potential to provide an estab­
lished theoretical basis for building a conceptual sustainable develop­
ment model for indicator systems assessment. Content analysis of such
document provided a description of sustainable development aspects
based on the emphasis given to specific topics. Interpretation and further
detailing of such aspects was made by contrasting relevant technical and
scientific publications selected from the sustainable development liter­
ature, and particularly focusing on at least one of the sustainable
development capitals.
Such material was identified using CAPES Foundation’s interna­
tional literature access interface using the keywords sustainable devel­
opment, social capital, natural capital and built capital. Literature
compilation occurred from all databases and time periods and covered
peer reviewed papers. This stage led to a hierarchical subdivision of each
capital into categories, subcategories and attributes, which together
formed an analytical structure (section 3) built as a result of the litera­
ture review undertaken in this study. Such structure was aimed at being
generally applicable for sustainable development assessment, whereby
attributes representing specific sustainable development features may
be applied to local contexts and linked with one or more locally relevant
indicators, indexes and/or systems of indicators.
Fig. 1. Analytical framework for sustainable development (SD) assessment with the natural, social and built capitals in innermost first level, categories in second
level, subcategories in third level and attributes in fourth level (adapted from Silva, 2017; Silva and Rauen, 2016).
3
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
Indicator selection criteria (section 4) were also compiled from a
review of the technical and scientific literatures related to sustainable
development assessment. Indexed repositories were searched through
the CAPES interface for the period of 2000–2015 using combinations of
the keywords: environmental sciences, sustainable development, sus­
tainability, indicator selection criteria, and selection criteria for indi­
cator systems. Relevant publications selected and submitted to content
analysis included Meadows (1998), OECD (2003) and UN (2007) as key
technical publications on the topic, together with peer reviewed papers
cited in sections 3 and 4. Selection criteria were grouped in terms of
their political, management, data quality and economic relevance, for
indicators and systems of indicators.
3. An analytical framework for sustainable development
assessment
Meadows’ capitals are organised in terms of Herman-Daly diagram
(Daly and Farley, 2004). The natural capital is at the base of the dia­
gram, for encompassing the ultimate means for sustainability. The
transformation of natural capital forms by science and technology oc­
curs through the intermediate means of the built and human capitals.
Political and economic uses of the built and human capitals lead to
goods and services, as intermediate ends seen as necessary but not suf­
ficient to guarantee human satisfaction. Such intermediate ends are
converted into ultimate ends through ethics, religion and philosophy.
Such ultimate ends generally represent well being, as associated with
happiness, harmony, identity, fulfilment, self respect, self realisation,
community sense, transcendence and illumination, all of which char­
acterise the social capital (Daly and Farley, 2004). Thus, relevant SD
aspects were identified and categorised according to their constitutive
J. Silva et al.
role in the context of the natural, social and built capitals, as illustrated
in Fig. 1 and discussed below. This theoretical framework for sustainable
development assessment builds on earlier work (Silva, 2017; Silva and
Rauen, 2016) and is in line with OECD (2008) recommendations, in
encompassing dimensions to measure the level of sustainable develop­
ment, structuring of aspects into sub-groups and criteria for indicator
selection. The following sections detail each capital of the conceptual
model, whereby interaction among capitals is emphasised further.
3.1. Natural capital
The natural capital concepts originated in ecological economics
studies. The natural capital in such studies is described as an economic
resource in stock that can be used for market purposes. Islam et al.
(2019) emphasise that, from such a perspective, natural resources are
perceived as an asset in a similar way as any other economic asset.
According to DesRoches (2018), the natural capital concept denotes a
rich variety of natural processes, such as ecosystems, which produce
economically valuable goods and services.
The perspective of ecological economics studies is present in the
natural capital concept as nature’s stocks and flows, from which mate­
rial and energy are extracted as resources to be utilised by the economy,
and to which post-usage residual material and energy are sent. Natural
capital stocks and flows are returned to biogeochemical systems in a
transformed way. Concurrently, their extraction, processing and con­
sumption tend to produce waste which, when returned to the natural
capital, tends to impact environmental sustainability. Achieving a bal­
ance in this process is the greatest challenge for sustainable development
and one of the main reasons why indicator systems are needed to
represent the complexity of the natural capital (Meadows, 1998).
If waste of production systems are not recycled or made safe, the
socioenvironmental system cannot be sustained in the long term.
Typical challenges for producing adequate indicator systems include the
qualitative degradation of the natural capital, interaction amongst its
many forms, time for resource exhaustion and time for acceptable limits
to be reached. Such limits may arise from resource or waste fluxes and
their determination requires dynamic and integrated models of in­
dicators able to inform on the sustainable use of natural resources in
both time and space. Sustainability, in the context of natural capital
usage, can be assessed by means of resource decrease and recovery, e.g.
representing a relationship between usage and restoration rates
(Meadows, 1998). In ecological terms, the natural capital is the physical
volume of environmental stocks and fluxes that cannot be replaced by
the built capital (O’Connor, 2000; Jacobi and Sinisgalli, 2012; Picone
et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018).
Waste generated by production systems of goods and services, if
reutilised and/recycled, can be considered as investments in natural
capital, since its depletion is reduced thanks to the reinsertion of waste
in production processes. However, if such waste provokes destruction,
pollution, erosion or other form of degradation to ecological and built
capital systems, it must be treated as depreciation or consumption of
natural capital, in quantity and/or quality. Life support systems and
amenity services are produced by natural capital independently of
human activity, which may, nonetheless, have negative impacts on the
former. Natural capital stock reduction is a sign of environmental
unsustainability (Ekins, 2003; Ekins et al., 2003).
From an economic perspective, the natural capital has been assessed
by means of extraction costs associated with specific environmental
benefits and with repairing/avoiding its deterioration, as well as by its
demand and missed benefits. For Meadows (1998) natural capital ser­
vices are key to the economy, and their valuation is required if they are
to be utilised properly. In economic terms the natural capital can also be
associated with resource and energy inputs from an ecosystem to a
transformation process aimed at providing goods and services. Such
process utilises workforce and industrial and financial capitals to
generate income to producers. However, such income has not been
4
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
corrected considering the costs of waste, pollution treatment or damage
to the built, human and natural capitals. It can thus be inferred that costs
associated with the consumption of natural capital and its functions do
not represent its real value.
For instance, Costanza et al. (1997) and O’Connor (2000) point out
that natural capital and ecosystem services are not adequately com­
prehended by the market in terms of costs relatively to economic and
built capital services. O’Connor (2000) demonstrated that costs of
environmental degradation associated with the production and usage of
goods and services are not easily included in the prices of such goods and
services. Hence, environmental costs are not included in the final price
of goods and services. In this sense, ecosystem services and natural
capital continue to receive little attention in political decision making
and in the composition of costs of goods and services.
Raworth (2017) takes into account how economic activities impact
on social and environmental aspects, highlighting large scale effects
such as climate change, ocean acidification, pollution in general, water
over-extraction, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity and ozone layer
depletion. Assessment approaches focusing on ecosystem services
include e.g. UN (2005), MA (2003, 2005a, 2005b), Bennet et al. (2005),
New Scientist (2008) and Sukhdev (2008).
In summary, the literature shows that the natural capital can be
described in terms of a resource category, the sustainability of which
depends on availability, form of usage and restoration capacity by
ecosystems (direct restoration) or by human intervention (indirect
restoration). As a result, a situation of environmental sustainability re­
sults from the availability of natural capital in quality and quantity
above what is demanded for usage, in different historical conditions.
Based on this, an analytical structure for the natural capital (NC) is
illustrated as part of a proposed sustainable development conceptual
model in Fig. 1.
3.2. Built capital
According to Meadows (1998), the built capital is associated with
infrastructure systems and economic capacity. Infrastructure systems
can be of the following types: industrial, domestic, services, consump­
tion goods, military, public infrastructure, resource exploitation and
pollution reduction. Industrial infrastructure is represented by the pro­
duction ability, machinery and industrial equipment, being an indicator
of economic development. Domestic infrastructure is made up of dura­
ble goods used in residences (fridge, stove, washing machine) and is an
indicator of well being. Service infrastructure includes hospitals,
schools, banks and governmental buildings. Consumer goods infra­
structure represents industrial capacity to provide goods such as paper,
clothes and food, and is an indicator of well being. Military infrastruc­
ture is the public security apparatus, being an indicator of security of
natural capital, economy and society. Public infrastructure is made up of
roads, bridges, ports, water distribution systems, and its function is to
support infrastructure systems. Infrastructure for obtaining natural re­
sources is made up of extraction equipment. Infraestrutura for reducing
pollution of the natural capital is made up of wastewater treatment
systems and waste incinerators, without which it is not possible to
recover the environment or reduce environmental damage. The last
three types represent supply or maintenance costs for the others. The
sustainability of these systems must be measured by verifying whether
installed capacity and investment are capable of meeting present and
future demand.
Zhang et al. (2018) and Shen et al. (2012) highlight the importance
of infrastructure for economic development. P�erez-Maqueo et al. (2013)
point out that the manufactured built capital is the infrastructure
resulting from the technological capacity. Bossel (1999), Prescott-Allen
(2001), Arriagada (2003) and Torres et al. (2009) define the built capital
in terms of the production capacity and infrastructure system.
There is correspondence between recent literature and Meadows
(1998), in terms of how the built capital is represented and analysed. Li
J. Silva et al.
et al. (2017) reflect modern scientific concern with the stability and
security of urban ecosystems and infrastructure, particularly in terms of
the inter-relations between built and natural systems. Kline et al. (2018)
consider the built capital as a catalyst for developing the social, human,
cultural and political capitals, based on Flora and Flora (2013)’s concept
of a ‘synergic fluxes’ among capitals within a community, which can be
positive or negative in terms of their impact upon growth or reduction of
such capitals.
Pandit et al. (2017) consider urban infrastructure systems as com­
parable to ecological systems due to their inter-connectedness,
complexity and adaptive capacity, and to exchanging material, infor­
mation and energy amongst themselves and with the environment. Such
systems should, thus, be assessed in a systemic manner. Ramaswami
et al. (2012) consider system sustainability as dependent upon complex
and cross-cutting interactions among the natural capital and infra­
structure, together with their multiple stakeholders. Liu et al. (2015)
also highlight the need for systemic approaches to sustainability
assessment, since the associated challenges are globalised and inti­
mately connected. Socioeconomic aspects related to the built capital
should, thus, be considered in a framework with other key components
of human and natural systems, to reflect cross-cutting effects and ex­
ternalities of socioenvironmental systems.
For Meadows (1998), the built capital requires natural resources,
work force and management to produce goods and services to satisfy
social needs. This process tends to generate waste and pollution that
should be absorbed by the natural capital or by built capital systems. The
built capital, in this context, is the stock of economic production ca­
pacity. Due to being long term, it requires high financial investment and
can generate stability and inflexibility in the economy. The availability
and quality of installed built capital determine economic productivity.
Profitability reinvestment in more built capital determines economic
growth rate. Built capital sustainability is, thus, related to the ratio be­
tween investment in production capacity and the rates of depreciation
and obsolescence. The built capital grows if investment is larger than
depreciation and obsolescence.
For Harris (1999), depreciation should serve to allocate infrastruc­
ture usage costs relatively to its life. Accumulated depreciation is key for
decision making and assessment of financial, economic, efficiency and
effectiveness conditions in governments. Bossel (1999) recommends
that the built capital is assessed by means of the ratio between main­
tenance investment and depreciation rate, while the net built capital
growth can be assessed based on infrastructure and the economic sys­
tem. For Sachs (2008), adequate maintenance of infrastructure stocks,
equipments and buildings increases its life and helps reduce deprecia­
tion. This also reduces demand for replacement capital and frees up
resources for other investments. According to Belt et al. (2013), built
capital is reduced if its depreciation is not accompanied by investment.
For Meadows (1998), the built capital is able to self-reproduce if
profit is higher than maintenance and depreciation costs, thus gener­
ating economic growth. Thus, assessing the built capital must be con­
ducted through its impact on the economy. Initially, the installed built
capital must be measured in terms of its capacity to produce goods and
services using attributes for stability, flexibility, quality, productivity,
capacity and profitability. Assessment should also take a process-based
approach in considering whether and how much built capital is under
construction, further development and maintenance, such as in terms of
investment on enhancement of installed capacity to meet growing de­
mand, improve efficiency and compensate for depreciation. Sustain­
ability promotion is generally favoured by such investment meeting or
surpassing depreciation and enhancement requirements.
For Belt et al. (2013), this process creates a virtuous cycle in the built
capital but can lead to an investment trap, as, in the short term, it is
difficult to determine when to stop investing more capital. Portu­
gal-Perez and Wilson (2012) consider the level of development and
quality of installed infrastructure as relevant aspects of the built capital.
In summary, the built capital can be assessed in terms of two categories:
5
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
infrastructure systems and economy, with subcategories associated with
the types of systems and the quantity and quality of installed and
development capacities, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
3.3. Social capital
According to Meadows (1998), the social capital is the stock of at­
tributes which do not belong to the individual, but to society, reflecting
how much a society is prepared to face its own problems and seek so­
lutions that promote sustainability. It is diverse and difficult to be
measured.
For Bellen (2006), there is convergence between individual well
being and matters associated with the social capital, such as laws, sta­
bility, trust, social networks, access to information, institutions and
corruption. According to Arriagada (2003), the notion of social capital
can be traced back to the origin of social sciences, being present in the
discourse on socialisation.
For Meadows (1998), the social capital can also be associated to
social cohesion, but its primary element is information, through which
social relations occur. Trust, relating ability and institutional efficiency
depend upon the quality of information. The social capital is surrounded
by information streams and society must be able to organise this flow
through data that represent happenings, transforming them into infor­
mation utilised in the decision making process and knowledge genera­
tion. According to Lehtonen (2004), the social capital has been
associated with economic benefits arising from information sharing and
the coordination of actions from collective decision making.
According to Meadows (1998), information systems can be assessed
in terms of their usage in the decision making process and in knowledge
generation. The decision making process requires information systems
that transform data into information and allow for accessing quality
information. Knowledge generation occurs as a result of organising in­
formation, which requires scientific research, application of technology,
and population capacity and creativity.
Coleman (1994) defines the social capital from the perspective of
authority and trust systems arising from a requirement of social norms to
support the realisation of individual and collective objectives. From this
perspective, there is rationality in individual action and this contributes
to the production of goods aiming the satisfaction of individual and
collective interests. In turn, achieving such interests requires interde­
pendency among individuals by means of formal and informal relations.
Formal means are legal normatives that guide routine social processes.
The informal means include social order enabled by costumes, personal
and affinity relationships, empathy and cooperation among people.
Thus, from this perspective the social capital denotes the framework of
social relations in which individuals are inserted, and which enable
them to achieve certain objectives.
Human relations, according to Meadows (1998), are enabled by in­
formation systems and can be characterised by power relations and by
cultural isolation. This perspective encompasses the social interactions
that make up a society. Decentralised societies, with little social
mobility, tend to exhibit intense human interactions and favour social
capital functionality. However, cultural isolation can narrow creativity
and be linked with distrust in innovation and suppression of behaviour.
It is, thus, important to balance the level of human interaction with the
level of cultural isolation in such a way as to enable healthy contact
between a society and its surroundings.
Power, for Meadows (1998), is an aspect of human relations. It is
represented by the ability to force individuals to do something they
would not independently do. In this sense, power relations were iden­
tified as a key sustainable development element, which can be repre­
sented by attributes such as cohesion, participation, empowerment,
cultural identity, human diversity, equity, mobility and existence of
political prisoners. Zhang et al. (2018) considered two proxies, social
connection and social trust, are employed to measure social capital.
From an instrumental perspective, the social capital is defined in
J. Silva et al.
terms of relations among rational stakeholders, who, in being econom­
ically oriented, use their social connections and networks to access
survival resources (Espinoza, 2001; Arriagada, 2003; Lugo-Morin, 2013;
Sehnem and Macke, 2015). From this perspective, Bourdieu (2001) re­
lates the social capital to social effects which are not reduced to a
stakeholder’s individual properties, but reflect actual and potential re­
sources associated with the network of relations that are, to a certain
extent, institutionalised, of internal knowledge and recognition. From
this perspective, the social capital represents social connections and
approximations that are perceived and united by permanent and useful
linkages based on material and symbolic exchanges, shaped and
perpetuated by the recognition of social approximation and connection.
For Bourdieu (2001), the social capital is in the supremacy of social
relations as objective relations, social fields and structures which are
embedded in individual habits. Such an understanding indicates a
deliberate construction of sociability aiming to create resources from
social networks. Such resources must be shared in solidarity.
Institutionalism, for Meadows (1998), can be associated with the
concept of social capital as the networks of social relations pointed out
by Bourdieu (2001) and Espinoza (2001), through which individuals are
able to access a society’s resources. For Meadows (1998), institution­
alism represents a society’s ability to meet the needs of its population by
means of formal organisations. For Lugo-Morin (2013) and Sehnem and
Macke (2015), the social capital is constituted by elements of social
organisations such as networks, norms and trust, which facilitate action
for cooperation in a socio-cultural perspective.
For Meadows (1998), institutionalism also represents the integrity
and efficiency of organisations and can be assessed in terms of the legal
apparatus that regulates social and commercial relations, a society’s self
monitoring capacity, leadership trustworthiness, existence of efficient
and regulated markets and level of institutional development. Neglect­
ing such attributes can lead to institutional inability and difficulty to
meet societal needs.
The social capital can also be related to socialisation, whereas
normative consensus favours the civic spirit expressed in social life,
which defines individual contexts and establishes institutional order
(Espinoza, 2001). Thus, the social capital has been represented by means
of institutions, relationships and norms that influence social interaction,
allowing for people to share information and make decisions (Pre­
scott-Allen, 2001; Arriagada, 2003; Lehtonen, 2004; Lugo-Morin, 2013;
Sehnem and Macke, 2015).
As shown by Meadows (1998), the human and the social capitals are
similar in that human identify results from the social capital. Both can be
accumulated, suffer depreciation, be the focus of investments and are
essential for sustainable development. Investment on human capital
provide for well being, which is one of its basis. When seen as workforce,
the human capital is a production factor which interacts with the built
and natural capitals and produces economic results. Work capacity de­
pends upon the health and education of a population, with impacts on
productivity (Anand and Sen, 2000; Prescott-Allen, 2001; Arriagada,
2003; Sehnem and Macke, 2015).
For Meadows (1998), maintaining the human capital requires a
certain amount of matter and energy fluxes from the natural capital,
which varies according to the characteristics of a population. The human
capital produces outputs which also vary according to the characteristics
of a population. Thus, it is key to distinguish between matter and energy
needs required by the human capital and the outputs of workforce
productivity.
Time is an important factor of the human capital, particularly with
regard to the way it is allocated by a population. Time is distributed to
activities such as subsistence, learning, working, offspring upbringing,
leisure and communal work. A key feature of a sustainable society is the
lack of a feeling of lack of time. Thus, relevant indicators of the human
capital are the amount of time spent in sickness by individuals and the
time dedicated to subsistence activities, as these can be associated with
the workforce depreciation rate and social equity respectively
6
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
(Meadows, 1998). Zhang et al. (2018) considered two proxies, physical
health and education, as relevant for measuring the human capital.
In summary, the social capital can be represented by the four cate­
gories of information systems, human relations, institutionalism and
population, with the eight subcategories of knowledge generation, de­
cision making process, power, cultural isolation, integrity and efficiency
of organisations, time and work. According to Meadows (1998), infor­
mation systems can be assessed through their usage in the decision
making process and knowledge generation. The occurrence of such de­
cision making process requires knowledge generation that follows in­
formation. In terms of human relations, two analytical subcategories are
identified, namely power and cultural isolation. The latter can be
assessed in terms of the balance between cultures, in such a way that
cultural exchanges do not replace local cultures. Power is represented by
the capacity to force persons to do something which they would not
independently do among social groups. Institutionalism represents the
capacity of a society to meet population needs through formal organi­
sations, and this can be assessed through institutional integrity and ef­
ficiency, legal apparatus that regulates social and commercial relations,
self-monitoring capacity of a society, leadership trustworthiness, and
existence of efficient regulated markets and level of institutional
development. Meadows (1998) considers the human and social capitals
as similar, once human identity results from the social capital. The basis
for the human capital is the population, which has a group of attributes
such as age distribution, gender structure and workforce. These, in turn,
can be described by 31 attributes measurable by indicators, as shown in
Fig. 1.
3.4. Interrelations among elements of the assessment framework
According to Meadows (1998) the capitals are interconnected, as can
be exemplified by noting that the social capital determines the types and
levels of products and services required to meet human needs. This re­
quires available natural capital and ability to condition it for usage
through the built capital and, thus, to satisfy human needs through
goods and services required for improving the natural capital itself.
Among the several inter-capital connections, the work force in
particular depends upon natural capital quality, which is affected by
infrastructure (built capital) conditions, such as sanitation. Thus, a
deleterious impact on the environmental quality can be a source of
contamination to human health. It follows that the lack of investment
policies for the built capital can cause greater contamination of the
natural capital, which leads to worsening health conditions in the pop­
ulation and affects its work capacity and knowledge generation. Another
example of integration among capitals is the need for regulation of the
natural capital through institutional capacity (social capital), in such a
way that availability, usage and the restoration (both direct and indi­
rect) of the natural capital are regulated to ensure its quality and
quantity for current and future uses.
Socioenvironmental problems and analytical perspectives provide
contextualised examples of interconnections among elements of the
assessment framework. For instance, Silva et al. (2020) identified a
number of interconnections among aspects of a water sustainability
assessment framework derived from Fig. 1, which led to the identifica­
tion of leverage points that could be the focus of management action and
investment aimed at promoting sustainable development from a
water-centric perspective.
Wu et al. (2019) show that urbanisation associated with the built
capital has caused many problems to the natural environment and nat­
ural capital, with relevant knock on effects onto the health of a popu­
lation and social capital. Such authors exemplify that urbanisation has
caused urban heat islands which enhance the effects of pollution and
cause stress in urban organisms. Searching for ways to mitigate the ef­
fects of urban heat islands through the use of natural means of the
natural capital, such as urban green infrastructure, has been a social
concern.
J. Silva et al. Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147

Another key interconnecting aspect is the issue of inequality, which Table 1

encompasses all three capitals with social, environmental and economic Desired characteristics of environmental indicators (OECD, 2003).
aspects, which can be represented using suitable indicators in context- Desired characteristic Description
specific assessment. For example, as part of the Human Relations cate­
Political relevance and Represents environmental conditions, pressure on
gory of the social capital, at least two subcategories (namely Power and usefulness the environment
Decision Making Process) contain attributes that lead to the selection of and associated societal response
inequality-related indicators. Access-related indicators can be used as Simple, easy to interpret and able to reflect temporal
part of the natural and built capital analytical structures to reflect trends
Reflects environmental change
inequality causes and consequences, as part of a sustainable develop­ Affected by anthropogenic activities
ment assessment framework. Provides a basis for international comparison
National scope
4. Selection criteria for sustainable development indicators and Regional scope with national importance
Possible to determine reference levels for comparison
systems of indicators
Analytical clarity Based on theoretical, technical and/or scientific
aspects
OECD (2003, p.5) defines an indicator as “a parameter, or value Based on rules and/or agreement, has international
derived from parameters, able to convey information or description of validity
Connected to economic models
the state of a given phenomenon ( …)”. On the other hand, an index is
Connected to forecast and information systems
defined as “a group of parameters which are aggregated or weighed Measurement and data Available with adequate cost-benefit ratio
based on indicators”, while a parameter is “a measured or observed Documented with quality
property”. Meadows (1998) argue that indicators are part of the infor­ Up to date data available in regular intervals
mation flux used to understand the world, make decisions and plan Data gathered with established procedure

actions. Through them it is possible to monitor and exert some control

over complex systems which are socially relevant. Indicators arise from beyond environmental indicators in their ability to inform on the future
values, and can lead to the creation of new values (Meadows, 1998). and limits of the biophysical environment. However, due to the rele­
Waas et al. (2014) consider an indicator as an operational representation vance of sustainable development indicators, it is necessary to avoid
of a system attribute, which can be a qualitative or quantitative variable biases that could impair the identification of systemic trends, weak­
with a comparable reference level. nesses and strengths, as these could lead to extreme or superficial re­
For the environmental assessment context, Mattar Neto et al. (2009) actions by decision makers. Biases to be avoided include, e.g.:
suggested that indicators are representative parameters, concise in na­
ture, able to facilitate interpretation. They can be used to illustrate key i) excessive aggregation of factors, which can lead to cryptic
features of a given region, aiming to improve environmental conditions, messages;
mitigate degradation and contribute to sustainable development ii) measurement bias, which can happens when the focus is more on
assessment. the measurable aspects than on important aspects;
In sustainable development assessment, indicators are used to iii) mistaken conceptual basis, if indicator usage is guided by a false
monitor public policy establishment (Gallego-Alvareza et al., 2015; model;
Bolcarova and Kolosta, 2015; Lou et al., 2015; Pinar et al., 2014; Cassar iv) falsification bias, which amounts to deliberate alteration of
et al., 2013; Pissourios, 2013; Wang et al., 2013; Rinne et al., 2013; results;
Moreno-Pires and Fidelis, 2012; Dahl, 2012). Sustainable development v) alienation bias, if an indicator deviates attention or alters a real
indicators should, as a group, help direct decision making and contribute condition;
to action effectiveness through simplification, clarification and aggre­ vi) excessive trust bias, if an indicator generates positive thinking
gation of information for law makers. They should also assist in about what is at stake despite existing issues;
including scientific and social knowledge in the decision making pro­ vii) and an incompleteness bias, as indicators cannot reflect all sys­
cess, in goal measurement and calibration, alert about the risk of eco­ tem characteristics.
nomic, social and environmental drawback, besides being tools for
communicating ideas, thoughts and values (UN, 2007). Indicator usage
in various scales reflects their importance for public management
related to sustainable development. Thus, their correct selection is a Table 2
crucial step for the effectiveness of any subsequent usage. Desirable characteristics of sustainable development indicators (Meadows,
Veiga (2010) highlights the need for simultaneously assessing as­ 1998).
pects of the environmental, economic and life quality dimensions in Desirable Description
order to achieve adequate representations of sustainable development. characteristic
Three main approaches have been identified for such a purpose: i) in­
Clear in value Allows identification of good and bad results
dicator collections, so called dashboards; ii) composite indices including Clear in content Understandable, expressed in units that make sense
various dimensions, with variables associated with indicators; and iii) Convincing Enables understanding
indices related to overconsumption, underinvestment and/or excessive Political relevance Relevant to stakeholders
pressure on natural resources. Feasible Measurable at a reasonable cost
Sufficient Informs adequately
According to Joumard and Nicolas (2010) and Joumard et al. (2011), Appropriate in time Compiled in an up to date manner
indicator selection should be made according to certain criteria. Table 1 Appropriate in scale Adequate aggregation level
contains desired characteristics of environmental indicators according Democratic Participation in selecting and accessing results
to OECD (2003). Supplementary Measures what individuals cannot measure by themselves
Participation Uses what is measurable in such a way as to provide
OECD (2008) offer indicator selection criteria and highlight that
geographical and temporal vision
these should guide decision making on whether or not an indicator can Hierarchical Allows for subsequent in depth analyses while providing
be included in an index. An indicator should be as precise as possible and general information relatively quickly
describe the phenomenon under analysis in terms of input, output or Physical Measurable in physical units or with physical meaning
process. Directing Provides information in timely fashion to act
Experimental Can be debated and subjected to investigation and refinement
According to Meadows (1998), sustainability indicators must go

7
J. Silva et al.
To mitigate the occurrence and effect of such biases, Meadows
(1998) suggested that indicator selection should follow a rational pro­
cess of feature identification as outlined in Table 2.
According to Booysen (2002) and Singh et al. (2012), indicator se­
lection should be made based on its ability to measure a relevant aspect
of the problem in a cross-cutting or cross-temporal manner, either in
absolute or in relative terms. It may involve means (inputs) or ends
(outputs), but should be clear and simple in content, purpose, applica­
tion method, comparative capacity and focus. The importance of
adequately reflecting temporality is highlighted by Kajikawa (2008) as
associated with data demands for a given sustainability study object. For
Dahl (2012) and Uwasu and Yabar (2011), scale, measurement and
temporality are relevant aspects of indicator selection, since there can be
geographical differences in data. For Dale et al. (2013), temporality is
associated with the ability of an indicator to reflect the evolution of a
certain relevant aspect of sustainability, as related processes are usually
transient. Sustainability assessment normally involve alternative future
states and allow for continuous adjustments in response to changing
conditions, knowledge and priorities. Thus, sustainability assessment
requires an understanding of how dynamic processes interact under
alternative trajectories and how interpretation can depend on the pri­
orities of stakeholders at a given time and place. Thus, temporality is
part of a political perspective of indicator selection.
For Gallego-Alvareza et al. (2015) an indicator should be intentional,
measurable, representative, trustworthy, communicable and effective in
reducing the number of analytical factors and in enabling the assessment
of political objectives. For Dale et al. (2013), the key desired charac­
teristics of an indicator are practicality, easiness and speed of determi­
nation; financial costs associated with measurement; sensitive and
receptive of natural and anthropogenic system pressures; unequivocal in
what is represented; how measurement is made and how responses are
obtained; ability to anticipate imminent change; able to predict changes
that can be avoided with management actions; can be calculated within
known limits associated with possible changes; and sufficiency when
taken collectively.
In relation to data, it is important to consider validity, trustworthi­
ness, specificity, sensitivity to changes to the focus factor, quality, op­
portunity, representativeness, quality of time series and availability
(Meadows, 1998; Booysen, 2002; OECD, 2003; UN, 2007; Kajikawa,
2008; Singh et al., 2012; Dahl, 2012; S� ebastien and Bauler, 2013; Dale
et al., 2013; Gallego-Alvareza et al., 2015). It is also important to
evaluate measurement costs (OECD, 2003; UN, 2007; Dale et al., 2013).
Dahl (2012) indicates deficiencies in the development of sustain­
ability indicators, such as the lack of ability to capture dynamic in­
teractions among environmental, social and economic processes. It is,
thus, necessary to tackle problems with data, methods and time series;
lack of indicators at a global scale to measure human impact on the
sustainability capacity of the planet relatively to natural processes; lack
of sustainability indicators at the level of individuals to assess their
commitment with sustainability; lack of sustainability indicators to
assess families and cities; and lack of indicators based on moral values.
Indicator systems are relevant to monitor and assess sustainable
development policies. This purpose requires such systems to diagnose a
given situation with respect to sustainability and highlight differences
between current and ideal or minimum conditions for sustainability
(Wang et al., 2013; Gallego-Alvareza et al., 2015). Uwasu and Yabar
(2011) suggest that some indicator systems narrowly focus on certain
sustainability aspects, without explicitly accounting for interrelations
between the environment and socioeconomic systems. UN (2007) used
the selection criteria for sustainable development indicator systems
shown in Table 3.
Wang et al. (2013) analysed socioenvironmental indicator systems
and suggested that they should be effective in sustainability assessment;
wide ranging and hierarchical enough to cover sustainable development
dimensions; politically oriented; directed towards sustainability; inter­
sectorial; and transdisciplinary in nature and in relation to relevant
8
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
Table 3
Selection criteria of sustainable development indicator systems (UN, 2007).
Criteria Description
Context National scale
Relevance Able to assess sustainable development progress
Number Limited (open and adaptable)
Specificity Wide ranging in terms of Agenda 21 aspects
Wide ranging in terms of sustainable development aspects
Understandable Clear and unambiguous
Concept Has a conceptual basis
Ability to capture relevant phenomena
Does not distort results
Consensus Represents international consensus
Governmental Enables monitoring and data collection, analysis, synthesis
capacity and interpretation
Data Measurement cost-effectiveness
Quality
matters.
For Pissourios (2013), indicator systems should meet a multidi­
mensionality criterion and be based in interdisciplinary investigations.
For Singh et al. (2012), the multidimensionality of indicator systems is
key for reflecting dynamic relationships within a system, as it can be
difficult to capture such connections through measurement.
Gallego-Alvareza et al. (2015) highlight that the selection of an in­
dicator system should take into account its relevance according to a
sustainability context, as well as data availability in public, scientific
and institutional sources. For Veiga (2010), sustainability assessment
requires analysing the natural, economic and life quality dimensions.
Guimaraes and Feichas (2009) have applied such a set of criteria in
the selection of indicators such as Human Development Index (HDI),
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare – currently Genuine Progress
Indicator (GPI), Ecological Footprint, Sustainable Development In­
dicators (SDI) of the United Nations and the Sustainability Territorial
Matrix (CEPAL/ILPES). The first criterion used was multidimension­
ality, i.e. the ability to represent more than one sustainable development
dimension; the second was comparability, as referred to the ability to
allow temporal and spatial comparisons; the third was the ability to
generate social participation through building consciousness and legit­
imising change processes; the fourth was the ability to communicate and
influence decision making and behaviour; and the fifth was the ability to
reflect interaction among variables.
Table 4 presents a proposal for indicator selection based on the
publications discussed above. Relatively to the relevance criteria (po­
litical and for management), it can be noted that indicators must be used
as an instrument for promoting social mobilisation through their ability
to inform the conditions of sustainable development, assisting in the
decision making process (Meadows, 1998; OECD, 2003; UN, 2007;
Moreno-Pires and Fidelis, 2012; Cassar et al., 2013; Pissourios, 2013;
Pinar et al., 2014; Gallego-Alvareza et al., 2015; Bolcarova and Kolosta,
2015; Lou et al., 2015). Indicators must also provide access to infor­
mation on sustainability dimensions in an integrated manner (Meadows,
1998; Pissourios, 2013; Wang et al., 2013; Waas et al., 2014).
Indicator must also be evaluated in terms of methodologies used in
their development and of corresponding data availability and trust­
worthiness (Meadows, 1998; Booysen, 2002; OECD, 2003; UN, 2007;
Kajikawa, 2008; Singh et al., 2012; Dahl, 2012; S� ebastien and Bauler,
2013; Gallego-Alvareza et al., 2015). Relatively to the economic
Table 4
Proposed criteria for indicator selection.
Criteria Description
Political relevance Generate social engagement
Relevance for Useful for planning, execution and monitoring of
management sustainable development
Data trustworthiness Available and validated data
Economic Available at a suitable cost-benefit ratio
J. Silva et al.
criterion, it is necessary to take into account the costs of data acquisition
required for measuring an indicator (OECD, 2003; UN, 2007; Dale et al.,
2013).
5. Conclusion
Currently the literature on sustainable development indicator sys­
tems is vast and follows the progress of theoretical discussion and
proposition of actions related to such a socioenvironmental paradigm.
However, this growing body of research does not appear to have
advanced as much in terms of the application of related assessment tools
in a range of territorial and thematic contexts. This brings us to an in­
flection point about the actual opportunity and usefulness of different
existing indicator systems, in particular those which are intended at
assessing sustainability for all its complexity. In this sense, it becomes
relevant to consider the analytical structure that can provide a basis for
indicator systems, since such a framework is the starting point of the
process of adapting indicator systems to a given assessment reality. The
clear proposition of indicator selection criteria, as suggested in this
study, encompassing political and management relevance, data trust­
worthiness and economic, figures as an appropriate strategy that pre­
cedes the stages of indicator identification, priorisation and definition.
Such a step, when associated with the early delimitation of categories,
subcategories and attributes corresponding to the three capitals, en­
hances the possibility of practical application of indicator systems as the
associated context analysis mitigates errors of the indicator selection
process.
Declaration of competing interest
X The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Acknowledgement
The first author Silva gratefully acknowledges the support of Ponta
Grossa State University for the support granted to undertake his doctoral
studies, an outcome of which is reported herein. Author Fernandes thank
the Brazilian National Council for Research and Development (CNPq)
for PQ research grants. An earlier version of this study was published in
conference series Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE, CIB, UN Envi­
ronment, FIDIC). Three anonymous reviewers are also acknowledged for
their constructive criticism of the manuscript, which led to important
improvements being made to this paper.
References
Altwegg, D., Roth, I., Scheller, A., 2004. Monitoring sustainable development MONET:
final report methods and results. Swiss federal statistical office, Swiss agency for the
environment, forests and landscape, Swiss federal office for spatial development.
http://www.nies.go.jp/db/sdidoc/publ.Document.50367.pdf.
Anand, S., Sen, A., 2000. Human development and economic sustainability. World Dev.
28, 2029–2049. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00071-1.
Arriagada, I., 2003. Capital social: potencialidades y limitaciones analíticas de um
concepto. Estud. Sociol. XXI, 557–584. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40420794.
MA, 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: a
Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. http://pdf.wri.org/e
cosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf.
MA, 2005a. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystem and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://www.millenniumassessment.
org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
MA, 2005b. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystem and Human Well-Being:
Scenarios, vol. 2. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:
/48223/pf0000243159.
Bardin, L., 2008. An�alise de conteúdo. Ediç~oes, Lisboa, p. 70.
Bellen, H.M., 2006. Indicadores de sustentabilidade: uma an� alise comparativa. Editora
FGV, Rio de Janeiro.
9
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
Belt, M., Bowen, T., Slee, K., Forgie, V., 2013. Flood protection: highlighting in
investment trap between built and natural capital. American water resources
association. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jawr.12063.
Bennet, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Levitt, E.A., 2005. Looking to the future of ecosystem
services. Ecosystems 8, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0078-y.
Biasi, P., Ferrinia, S., Borghesi, S., Rocchi, B., Di Matteo, M., 2019. Enriching the Italian
Genuine Saving with water and soil depletion: nationaltrends and regional
differences. Ecol. Indicat. 107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105573.
Bolcarova, P., Kolosta, S., 2015. Assessment of sustainable development in the EU 27
using aggregated SD index. Ecol. Indicat. 48, 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2014.09.001.
Booysen, F., 2002. An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development.
Soc. Indic. Res. 59, 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016275505152.
Bossel, H., 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications.
A Report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://www.iisd.org/pdf/balatonreport.pdf.
Bourdieu, P., 2001. O capital social – notas provis� orias. In: Escritos de Educaç~ ao. Seleç~
ao,
organizaç~ ao, introduç~ao e notas de Maria Alice Nogueira e Afr^ anio Catani.
Petr�opolis. Editora Vozes, Rio de Janeiro.
Cassar, L.F., Conrad, E., Bell, S., Morse, S., 2013. Assessing the use and influence of
sustainability indicators at the European periphery. Ecol. Indicat. 35, 52–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.011.
Coleman, J.S., 1994. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Rarkin, R.G., Sutton, P., Belt, M., 1997. The
values of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
Dahl, A.L., 2012. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indicat.
17, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032.
Dale, V.H., Efroymson, R.A., Kline, K.L., Langholtz, M.H., Leiby, P.N., Oladosu, G.A.,
Davis, M.R., Downing, M.E., Hilliard, M.R., 2013. Indicators for assessing
socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: a short list of practical measures.
Ecol. Indicat. 26, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014.
Daly, H., Farley, J., 2004. Economia Ecol� ogica: princípios e aplicaç~ oes. Instituto Piaget.
Divis~ao Editorial, Lisboa, Portugal.
DesRoches, C.T., 2018. What is natural about natural capital during the anthropocene?
Sustainability 10 (3), 806–816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030806.
Ekins, P., 2003. Identifying critical natural capital: conclusions about critical natural
capital. Ecol. Econ. 44, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00278-1.
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., Groot, R., 2003. A framework for the practical
application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol.
Econ. 44, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00272-0.
Espinoza, V., 2001. Indicadores y generaci� on de datos para un studio comparativo de
capital social y trayectorias laborales. In: John Durston e Francisca Miranda (org),
Capital social y políticaspúblicasen Chile, vol. I Santiago de Chile, Naciones Unidas/
CEPAL, Serie Políticas Sociales, vol. 55, pp. 23–31. https://repositorio.cepal.org/h
andle/11362/6015.
Fernandes, V., Malheiros, T.F., Philippi JR., A., Sampaio, C./A.C., 2012. Metodologia de
avaliaç~ao estrat�egica de processo de gest~ao ambiental municipal. Saúde e Sociedade
(USP. Impresso) 21, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-
12902012000700011.
Flora, C., Flora, J., 2013. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, fourth ed. Westview,
Boulder, CO.
Gallego-Alvareza, I., Galindo-Villardon, M.P., Rodriguez-Rosa, B.M., 2015. Evolution of
sustainability indicator worldwide: a study from the economic perspective based on
the X-STATICO method. Ecol. Indicat. 58, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.05.025.
Guimaraes, R.P., Feichas, S.A.Q., 2009. Desafios na construç~ ao de Indicadores de
Sustentabilidade. Ambiente Sociedade XII, 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S1414-753X2009000200007.
Harris, J.E., 1999. Capitalization and depreciation of infrastructure by state and local
governnmental entities. Public Budg. Finance 19, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1046/
j.0275-1100.1999.01177.x.
IBGE, 2015. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Indicadores de
Desenvolvimento Sustent� avel. Minist�
erio do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gest~ ao.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro. https://biblioteca.ibge.
gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv94254.pdf.
Islam, M., Yamaguchi, R., Sugiawan, Y., Managi, S., 2019. Valuing natural capital and
ecosystem services: a literature review. Sustain. Sci. 14 (1), 159–174. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-018-0597-7.
Jacobi, P.R., Sinisgalli, P.A.A., 2012. Governança ambiental e economia verde. Ci^ encia
Saúde Coletiva 17, 1469–1478. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-
81232012000600011.
Joumard, R., Nicolas, J.-P., 2010. Transport project assessment methodology within the
framework of sustainable development. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 136–142. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.002.
Joumard, R., Gudmundsson, H., Folkeson, L., 2011. Framework for assessing indicators
of environmental impacts in the transport sector. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Trans. Res.
Board 2242, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.3141/2242-07.
Kajikawa, Y., 2008. Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci.
3, 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-008-0053-1.
Kline, C., McGehee, N., Delconte, J., 2018. Built capital as a catalyst for community-
based tourism. J. Travel Res. 58 (6), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287518787935.
J. Silva et al.
Lehtonen, M., 2004. The environmental–social interface of sustainable development:
capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol. Econ. 49, 199–214. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019.
Li, F., Liu, X., Zhang, X., Zhao, D., Liu, H., Zhou, C., Wang, R., 2017. Urban ecological
infrastructure: an integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable urban
systems. J. Clean. Prod. 163, S12–S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.02.079.
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K.,
Gleick, P., Kremen, C., Li, S., 2015. Systems integration for global sustainability.
Science 347 (6225). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832, 1258832-1:9.
Lou, B., Qiu, Y., Ulgiati, S., 2015. Emergy-based indicators of regional environmental
sustainability: a case study in Shanwei, Guangdong, China. Ecol. Indicat. 57,
514–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.017.
Lugo-Morin, D.R., 2013. El capital social en los sistemas territoriales rurales: avance para
suidentificaci�on y medici�on. Estud. Sociol. XXXI, 167–202. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/23622258.
Mattar Neto, J., Kruger, C.M., Dzeidzic, M., 2009. An� alise de indicadores ambientais no
reservat�orio do Passaúna. Eng. Sanit� aria Ambient. 14, 205–214. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S1413-41522009000200008.
Meadows, D., 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. A
report to the balaton group. Hartland: Hartland: the sustainability institute. htt
p://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/IndicatorsInformation.pdf.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth. A
Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe
Book, New York. http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-
Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf.
Moreno-Pires, S., Fidelis, T., 2012. A proposal to explore the role of sustainability
indicators in local governance contexts: the case of Palmela, Portugal. Ecol. Indicat.
23, 608–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.003.
NEW SCIENTIST, 2008. The folly of growth: how to stop the economy killing the planet.
Special Issue. October. http://www.unice.fr/sg/resources/docs/Economy-kill-pla
net_b.pdf.
OECD, 2003. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Environmental
Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use. Organization for Economic Co-
Operation and Development. Reference Paper. http://www.oecd.org/enviro
nment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf.
OECD, 2008. Organisation for economic Co-operation and development. Handbook on
constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide. OECD and joint
research centre (JRC). https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf.
O’Connor, M., 2000. Natural Capital. Environmental Valuation in Europe. Police
Research Brief, n. 3. Cambridge Research for the Environment, pp. 3–22. https://cl
ivespash.org/eve/PRB3-edu.pdf.
Pandit, A., Minn�e, E.A., Li, F., Brown, H., Jeong, H., James, J.C., Newell, J.P.,
Weissburg, M., Chang, M.E., Xu, M., Yang, P., Wang, R., Thomas, V.M., Yu, X., Lu, Z.,
Crittenden, J.C., 2017. Infrastructure ecology: an evolving paradigm for sustainable
urban development. J. Clean. Prod. 163, S19–S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.09.010.
Patten, B.C., 2006. Network perspectives on ecological indicators and actuators:
enfolding, observability, and controllability. Ecol. Indicat. 6, 6–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.002.
P�erez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M.L., V� azquez, G., Equihua, M., 2013. Using for capitals to
assess watershed sustainability. Environ. Manag. 51, 679–693. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-012-9972-9.
Picone, F., Buonocore, E., D’agostaro, R., Donati, S., Chemello, R., Franzese, P.P., 2017.
Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: a case study in
the Mediterranean sea. Ecol. Model. 361, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2017.07.029.
Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., Sostero, M., 2014. Constructing the FEEM sustainability
index: a Choquet integral application. Ecol. Indicat. 39, 189–202. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.12.012.
Pinsky, V.C., Moretti, S.L.A., Kruglianskas, I., Plonski, G.A., 2015. Inovaç~ ao sustent�
avel:
uma perspectiva comparada da literatura internacional e nacional. Revista de
Administraç~ ao e Inovaç~ao 12 (3), 226–250. https://doi.org/10.11606/rai.
v12i3.101486.
Pissourios, I.A., 2013. An interdisciplinary study on indicators: a comparative review of
quality-of-life, macroeconomic, environmental, welfare and sustainability
indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 34, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2013.06.008.
Portugal-Perez, A., Wilson, J.S., 2012. Export performance and trade facilitation reform:
hard and soft infrastructure. World Dev. 40, 1295–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2011.12.002.
Prescott-Allen, R., 2001. The Wellbeing of Nations: a Country-By-Country Index of
Quality of Life and the Environment. International Development Research Centre.
Island Press. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/7942.
Ramaswami, A., Weible, C., Main, D., Heikkila, T., Siddiki, S., Duvall, A., Pattison, A.,
Bernard, M., 2012. A social-ecological-infrastructural systems framework for
interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (6), 801–814.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00566.x.
Raworth, K., 2017. Doughnut Economics: 7 Ways to Think like a 21st Century Economist.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
10
Journal of Environmental Management 260 (2020) 110147
Raynaut, C., Zanoni, M., Lana, P.C., 2018. O desenvolvimento sustent� avel regional: o que
proteger? Quem desenvolver? Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente 47, 275–289. https://doi.
org/10.5380/dma.v47i0.62452.
Rinne, J., Lyytimaki, J., Kautto, P., 2013. From sustainability to well-being: lessons
learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level.
Ecol. Indicat. 35, 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.023.
Sachs, I., 2008. Desenvolvimento: Includente, Sustent� avel, Sustentado. Garamond, Rio de
Janeiro.
Sartori, S., Latr^
onico, F., Campos, L.M.S., 2014. Sustentabilidade e desenvolvimento
sustent�avel: uma taxonomia no campo da literatura. Ambiente Sociedade XVII (1),
1–22. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/asoc/v17n1/en_v17n1a02.pdf.
S�ebastien, L., Bauler, T., 2013. Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable
development at the EU-level. Ecol. Indicat. 35, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2013.04.014.
Sehnem, A., Macke, J., 2015. Fatores explicativos do capital social no extremo oeste
catarinense. Organizaç~ oes e Sociedade 22, 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-
9230741.
Shen, L., Jiang, S., Yuan, H., 2012. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of
infrastructure projects to coordinated urban and rural development in China. Habitat
Int. 36, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.003.
Silva, J., 2017. Avaliaç~ao integrada de Sustentabilidade hídrica em bacias hidrogr� aficas
com forte pegada Urbana. Doctorate thesis (environmental management),
universidade positivo. https://servicos2.up.edu.br/Aplpublicacoes/Visualiza
Publicacao.aspx?p¼1208&f¼DOUTORADOAMB.
Silva, J., Rauen, W.B., 2016. A conceptual model for sustainable development
assessments. SBE16 Brazil & Portugal - international sustainable built environment
conference series, Vitoria. https://sbe16.civil.uminho.pt/app/wp-content/uploads/
2016/09/SBE16-Brazil-Portugal-Vol_2-Pag_829.pdf.
Silva, J., Fernandes, V., Limont, M., Dziedzic, M., Andreoli, C.V., Rauen, W.B., 2020.
Water sustainability assessment from the perspective of sustainable development
capitals: conceptual model and index based on literature review. J. Environ. Manag.
254, 109750 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109750.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indicat. 15, 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2011.01.007.
Sukhdev, P., 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Interim Report of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. European Communities, Cambridge, United
Kingdom. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/t
eeb_report.pdf.
Torres, O.U.D., Ayuso, I.C.A., Barreta, L.E.M., Gonzalez, R.V., 2009. Indicador de
infraestructuras productivas por entidad federative en M�exico, 1970-2003. Gesti� on y
Política Pública XVIII. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/gpp/v18n2/v18n2a5.pdf,
379–438.
UN, 2005. Millennium Project – Investing in Development: a Practical Plan to Achieve
the Millennium Development Goals. United Nations, New York. http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTTSR/Resources/MainReportComplete-lowres%5B1%5D.pdf.
UN, 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, third
ed. United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conten
t/documents/guidelines.pdf.
UN, 2019. United Nations sustainable development knowledge platform. https://sustain
abledevelopment.un.org/topics. (Accessed 18 September 2019).
UNESCO, 2006. Indicators of Sustainability: Reliable Tools for Decision Making. Unesco-
Scope, Policy Briefs. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000150005.
Uwasu, M., Yabar, H., 2011. Assessment of sustainable development based on the capital
approach. Ecol. Indicat. 11, 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2010.06.002.
Veiga, J.E., 2010. Indicadores de sustentabilidade. Estud. Avançados 24, 39–52. https://
doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142010000100006.
Venturelli, R.C., Galli, A., 2006. Integrated indicators in environmental planning:
methodological considerations and applications. Ecol. Indicat. 6, 228–237. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.023.
Waas, T., Huge, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Capistros-Benites, F., Verbruggen, A., 2014.
Sustainability assessment and indicators: tools in a decision-making strategy for
sustainable development. Sustainability 6, 5512–5534. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su6095512.
Wang, Y., Lam, K., Harder, M.K., Ma, W., Yu, Q., 2013. Developing an indicator system to
foster sustainability in strategic planning in China: a case study of Pudong New area.
Shanghai. Ecological Indicators 29, 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2013.01.007.
WCED, 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development. Report Our
Common Future. United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.
org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.
Wong, R., 2019. What makes a good coordinator for implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals? J. Clean. Prod. 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.117928.
Wu, C., Li, J., Wang, C., Song, C., Chen, Y., Finka, M., La Rosa, D., 2019. Understanding
the relationship between urban blue infrastructure and land surface temperature.
Sci. Total Environ. 694 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117928.
Zhang, S., Liu, B., Zhu, D., Cheng M. Explaining Individual Subjective Well-Being of
Urban China Based on the Four-Capital model. Sustainability, 2018, 10 (10), 34-80.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103480.