In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

241 any communities across the nation and world are instituting programs for indicators. Indicators, simply defined, are community-determined measurements of elements that are important to that particular place and those particular people. They are ways of seeing “how much” or “how many” or “to what extent” or “what size.” Indicators are the best way communities can measure whether they are progressing in the right direction for their given goals and the more general goals of community preservation and enhancement . The indicators movement started with groups working toward sustainability at the community level, and therefore reflects the tenets of sustainability—that the best municipal policies achieve the intersection of improvements to the local and global ecology, economy, and equity. The best indicators are locally meaningful and effective measures of the topic at hand. As described by Maureen Hart of the group Sustainable Measures: An indicator is something that points to an issue or condition. Its purpose is to show you how well a system is working. If there is a problem, an indicator can help you determine what direction to take to address the issue. Indicators are as varied as the types of systems they monitor. However, there are certain characteristics that effective indicators have in common: Effective indicators are relevant; they show you something about the system that you need to know. Appendix Indicators of Community Preservation Elisabeth M. Hamin Effective indicators are easy to understand, even by people who are not experts. Effective indicators are reliable; you can trust the information that the indicator is providing. Lastly, effective indicators are based on accessible data; the information is available or can be gathered while there is still time to act. (www.sustainablemeasures.com/ Indicators/Characteristics.html, 2004) Indicators are based on the awareness that what values we hold dear influence what data we collect, but also, what data we have at hand influences the policies we implement. A good example is economic data. If our primary local numbers tell us only how much property tax the economic activity in our town is creating, that is all we will be able to address. We will not be able to directly judge whether those businesses are creating jobs, whether they provide any money to other local businesses, how they affect the environment, and so on. Imagine instead if a community decides that the purpose of economic development is not just enlarging the tax base, but also encouraging local purchasing . This requires a different measure, one based on money that local businesses spend locally, and may suggest different targets for economic development activities. But if we have only the tax base data, we won’t know which existing companies to target for support. For this reason, developing an appropriate set of indicators should be a matter M 242 Appendix undertaken with great citizen participation, and should be based on goals developed during a visioning process (Hart 1996; Kline 1997; Tyler Norris Associates et al. 1997). A portfolio of indicators is used to benchmark, to measure , progress toward the goals identified in the comprehensive plan or other visioning document. The trends of specific indicators over time can suggest which policies are working, and which need to be adjusted, as the community evaluates its progress toward its goals. Indicators can suggest problems not foreseen in the comprehensive planning or visioning process, such as groups that are not being reached by local services. And the process itself requires a reevaluation of the goals of the comprehensive planning or visioning process, thereby creating a way to keep the process alive, to make adjustments along the way, and to test the validity of goals and programs over time. At their best, indicators projects draw the community together in efforts to measure and achieve community goals, and can publicize those efforts as well, thereby encouraging public support. One of the challenges of creating indicators is balancing the scientific value of the chosen indicators against their accessibility and the ability of local residents to get involved in doing the actual measurement. Unfortunately, there is often an inverse relationship, in that the most widely accepted measures for scientific accuracy are the least accessible to the public and require the most expertise and equipment. On the other hand, these measurements that are the most scientifically valid may not have the public punch, the media interest, and the ability to generate local enthusiasm that more publicly oriented measures might. An example may help to make this more understandable. In 1988, the town...

Share