Moving away from the theoretical frameworks that underpin this study, I will now review the literature that contributes to a full understanding of the practical and contextual realities of the phenomenon of SE in New Orleans. Before exploring the contemporary context of the region, I will address concerns that arise in the use of an assessment tool based in indicators. Given that a major component of this study is based in an indicator-based sustainability monitoring tool, it is necessary to understand how indicator frameworks are best used in community research. In the following section, I will briefly review the emergence of indicator-based approaches to monitoring local sustainability and derive a handful of best practices from recent studies in this field.
The sustainability indicator approach was first used by natural scientists to assess ecological systems without involving the people affected by them. The first sustainability indicator approaches were developed in expert-led projects such as the United Nations Working List of Sustainable Development Indicators, technical methods such as Multicriteria Analysis (MCA), and projects such as Soft Systems Analysis, the Natural Step, and the Resilient Communities Project (Reed et al., 2006). Indicator frameworks began to enter social and economic discourse in the 1960s and 1970s during mounting objections to strictly scientific indicators with no community input (Voogd, 1983). Ever since the first indicator frameworks emerged, there has been desire among communities and researchers for more participatory ways of evaluating sustainability (MacKendrick & Parkins, 2004). Many communities have designed their own methods for measuring progress towards sustainable development, choosing their own social, economic, and cultural factors into indicator frameworks (Bell & Morse, 2008). These frameworks are beneficial to communities in a number of ways, such as increasing awareness of local goals and needs, enhancing agency and empowerment, and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to fulfill community objectives (MacKendrick & Parkins, 2004; Bell & Morse, 2008; Reed et al., 2006;
Whitmore, 1998).
However, an inherent dilemma exists in sustainability indicator frameworks. On
be involved throughout the design, application, data collection, and evaluation of indicator frameworks. On the other hand, the realities of many communities imply that practical limitations inhibit the full participation of community members in crafting indicators to evaluate local sustainability initiatives. Additionally, many frameworks are adaptable enough to be employed in a number of community contexts. However, despite the need for indicator frameworks to reflect the values of residents, it may be more feasible for some communities to borrow externally designed frameworks. This dilemma forces communities to face the difficult questions of how much of a framework to design from the bottom up and how much to import from top-down projects. A full consideration of the resources and possibilities of the community requires that evaluations choose some point on this continuum.
2.3.1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Top-down and Bottom-up Indicator Frameworks
However, both bottom-up and top-down sustainability indicator frameworks have their strengths and weaknesses. Top-down sustainability indicator projects employ frameworks designed outside of the communities in which they are used with little or no adaptation to local values and goals. In the meantime, bottom-up projects design all goals, indicators, and other elements based on community input without the ability to benefit from effective existing frameworks. To demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, I will briefly review three case studies and their best practices.
The first case is a relatively top-down indicator framework. Parkins, Varghese &
Stedman (2004) developed a set of sustainability indicators in the Robson Valley of British Columbia. One of this study’s main objectives was to “strike a balance between relying on locally obtained information and information obtained from the social science literature” in indicator design and monitoring (Parkins et al., 2004, p. 2). The researchers employed the New Rural Economy (NRE) framework to measure economic, social, human, and natural capital in the region (Parkins et al., 2004). They evaluated their framework using 14 sustainability criteria based on Hart (1999). The authors’ use of a relatively top-down approach demonstrates both best practices and areas for improvements. Allowing the NRE principles to guide most aspects of their research, they
demonstrated the versatility of the framework (Parkins et al., 2004). However, the study was not very participatory, with community input only occurring in the initial survey design process. Workshops and interviews were used to identify locally defined quality of life, but this step did not significantly impact the monitoring tool. The study’s statistical analysis and positivist assumptions give a simple and clear ranking of each indicator but sacrifice the depth that qualitative research could give. Overall, this study is moderately helpful for identifying best practices and also shows some important pitfalls to avoid.
The next case study exemplifies a more bottom-up indicator design. Natcher &
Hickey (2002) provide an example of original indicator design in their study of the Little Red River Cree Nation (LRRCN). Initially based on the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) indicator framework, the researchers decided to abandon the majority of the framework and design a new system with community members (Natcher & Hickey, 2002). This study offers several best practices. The decision to abandon most external indicators and design original ones kept the framework sensitive to local values. The study allowed for a high amount of flexibility during the interviewing process, allowing continual revision of indicators and other elements. The researchers also ensured tangible community development outcomes from the project, such as training programs for community members (Natcher & Hickey, 2002). However, the study’s scope was so broad that its process almost took on the size of a full-scale community planning exercise, which is not very practical or focused.
The final case study is that of Fraser, Dougill, Mabee, Reed, & McAlpine (2005), which was carried out in three communities in Botswana. The researchers used the Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA), which guided a methodology of semi-structured interviews with residents and generated an initial list of over 200 indicators for ecological criteria (Fraser et al., 2005). This study shows a very effective balance top-down and bottom-up design. Its open-ended interview format and focus groups for condensing indicators successfully engaged both expert and community knowledge and achieved scientific objectivity in the final indicators while keeping them relevant to community priorities. The study offers multiple practices, such as open-ended community polling for indicators, a process that respects both expert and local knowledge, relying on focus
These are only a few approaches that communities have carried out using sustainability indicator tools. However, these case studies have a handful of implications for this study. The best practices from these three cases include the techniques that each study took to ensure a high level of community participation; cultural appropriateness; a clear choice on the range of indicator design versus importation; an interdisciplinary balance between natural science, social science, and other disciplines;
the flexibility of the research design; relevance, clarity, and simplicity of the framework;
the empirical accuracy of findings; and the use of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. These case studies show the strengths and weaknesses of indicator frameworks that are designed by both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
They show various best practices that can occur across a range of community participation and demonstrate that elements of externally designed sustainability indicator tools can be imported into community and regional assessments of sustainable development while effectively capturing local values and priorities.