54
5.2.2 Monitoring Sustainable
Communities
In pursuit of the balanced and integrated approach
that SCD and the SDGs advocate, communities
are challenged by the difficulties of addressing
multiple objectives and monitoring their progress
while setting priorities at a higher level of
decision- making. They face the complexity of
sustainability goal setting and the challenge of
navigating the variety of local agendas grounded
in diverse theoretical backgrounds or stakeholder
interests (Roseland and Spiliotopoulou 2017).
They also need to meaningfully engage citizens
in a broad range of decision-making processes
and collect data efficiently and consistently to
allow for effective progress monitoring and
assessment (Caprotti et al. 2017; Moreno Pires
et al. 2017).
One way to address these challenges is by
adopting sustainability planning and assessment
frameworks and tools that inform and mobilize
citizens and their governments. The assessment
of plans through sustainability frameworks is
considered an effective tool that follows implementation in order to gauge success and measure
performance in ecological, social, and economic
terms (Roseland 2012). Despite the abundance of
tools and agendas, not all of them promote a
whole-systems approach or assist in concrete
implementation and effective monitoring (Joss
et al. 2015). Successful SCD monitoring and
assessment entails tackling issues such as stakeholder engagement, place-specific context, political credibility, and adoption of a shared and
practical vision.
The research foundation of the pilot projects
we present here is the Community Capital
Framework (CCF). Its purpose is to support
decision- making not only as a planning toolkit
but also as a performance and progress assessment instrument. The CCF has been designed
with a systems thinking perspective: each form of
community capital is a subsystem of the larger
whole community system. Since the early 2000s,
we have used the CCF in various communities
(big, small, rural, urban, developed, developing)
around the world with success (e.g., in North
America, Latin America, and Eastern Europe).
Built upon the CCF, the Community Capital
Tool (CCT) is an SCD monitoring and assessment tool and the product of collaboration
between the Centre for Sustainable Development
at Simon Fraser University in Canada and Telos,
the Brabant Center for Sustainable Development,
Tilburg University, Netherlands (Roseland 2012).
In this context, the term “community capital”
includes natural, physical, economic, human,
social, and cultural forms of capital (see also
Fig. 5.1) (Roseland 2012):
1. Natural Capital: Living within ecological limits, conserving and enhancing natural resources,
using them sustainably, using cleaner production methods, and minimizing waste
2. Physical Capital: Community assets such as
public facilities, water and sanitation provision, efficient transport, diverse housing, adequate infrastructure, and telecommunications
3. Economic Capital: Circulating money within
a community, producing locally, trading
fairly, and developing community financial
institutions
4. Human Capital: Focus on health (including
food, shelter, and safety), education, family
and community cohesion, and enhanced training and improved workplace dynamics
5. Social Capital: Effective and representative
local governance, participatory planning,
access to information, capacity building,
safety, and collaboration and partnerships
6. Cultural Capital: Attention to traditions and
values, heritage and place, the arts, diversity,
and local history
The Tool’s six capitals are broken down into a
set of smaller stocks (or categories) used to measure capital capacity and sustainability progress.
These stocks are universal and were chosen based
on their ability to accurately represent the health
of each capital. Within each stock is a set of
requirements that are adaptable to the local context, needs, and priorities of the community or
the context of the specific initiative being
measured. Lastly, the status of each requirement
is “indicated” by one or more specific, measurable indicators. The CCT then shows the final
results as graphics that report on the health of
M. Spiliotopoulou and M. Roseland
5.2.2 Monitoring Sustainable
Communities
In pursuit of the balanced and integrated approach
that SCD and the SDGs advocate, communities
are challenged by the difficulties of addressing
multiple objectives and monitoring their progress
while setting priorities at a higher level of
decision- making. They face the complexity of
sustainability goal setting and the challenge of
navigating the variety of local agendas grounded
in diverse theoretical backgrounds or stakeholder
interests (Roseland and Spiliotopoulou 2017).
They also need to meaningfully engage citizens
in a broad range of decision-making processes
and collect data efficiently and consistently to
allow for effective progress monitoring and
assessment (Caprotti et al. 2017; Moreno Pires
et al. 2017).
One way to address these challenges is by
adopting sustainability planning and assessment
frameworks and tools that inform and mobilize
citizens and their governments. The assessment
of plans through sustainability frameworks is
considered an effective tool that follows implementation in order to gauge success and measure
performance in ecological, social, and economic
terms (Roseland 2012). Despite the abundance of
tools and agendas, not all of them promote a
whole-systems approach or assist in concrete
implementation and effective monitoring (Joss
et al. 2015). Successful SCD monitoring and
assessment entails tackling issues such as stakeholder engagement, place-specific context, political credibility, and adoption of a shared and
practical vision.
The research foundation of the pilot projects
we present here is the Community Capital
Framework (CCF). Its purpose is to support
decision- making not only as a planning toolkit
but also as a performance and progress assessment instrument. The CCF has been designed
with a systems thinking perspective: each form of
community capital is a subsystem of the larger
whole community system. Since the early 2000s,
we have used the CCF in various communities
(big, small, rural, urban, developed, developing)
around the world with success (e.g., in North
America, Latin America, and Eastern Europe).
Built upon the CCF, the Community Capital
Tool (CCT) is an SCD monitoring and assessment tool and the product of collaboration
between the Centre for Sustainable Development
at Simon Fraser University in Canada and Telos,
the Brabant Center for Sustainable Development,
Tilburg University, Netherlands (Roseland 2012).
In this context, the term “community capital”
includes natural, physical, economic, human,
social, and cultural forms of capital (see also
Fig. 5.1) (Roseland 2012):
1. Natural Capital: Living within ecological limits, conserving and enhancing natural resources,
using them sustainably, using cleaner production methods, and minimizing waste
2. Physical Capital: Community assets such as
public facilities, water and sanitation provision, efficient transport, diverse housing, adequate infrastructure, and telecommunications
3. Economic Capital: Circulating money within
a community, producing locally, trading
fairly, and developing community financial
institutions
4. Human Capital: Focus on health (including
food, shelter, and safety), education, family
and community cohesion, and enhanced training and improved workplace dynamics
5. Social Capital: Effective and representative
local governance, participatory planning,
access to information, capacity building,
safety, and collaboration and partnerships
6. Cultural Capital: Attention to traditions and
values, heritage and place, the arts, diversity,
and local history
The Tool’s six capitals are broken down into a
set of smaller stocks (or categories) used to measure capital capacity and sustainability progress.
These stocks are universal and were chosen based
on their ability to accurately represent the health
of each capital. Within each stock is a set of
requirements that are adaptable to the local context, needs, and priorities of the community or
the context of the specific initiative being
measured. Lastly, the status of each requirement
is “indicated” by one or more specific, measurable indicators. The CCT then shows the final
results as graphics that report on the health of
M. Spiliotopoulou and M. Roseland