ByKhondokar Sabera Hamid,

United International University,Dhaka,Bangladesh.

Sustainable Seattle: The

Indicators of Sustainable
Community

 Sustainable Seattle is a volunteer citizens network

committed to establishing indicators for measuring

progress towards sustainable development in the Seattle
area.
This work is intended to improve the regions long-term
well-being.
Sustainable Seattle developed and produced two reports
on indicators of Sustainable Community between 1991
and 1995.

 Seattle, Washington, situated in the North- West corner

of the United States, has the reputation of an

economically prosperous city that is clean and green.
Despite its image, Seattle struggles with the same
questions that many communities around the globe do1. How do they balance concerns for social equity, ecological
integrity and economic vitality?
2.How do they create a livable community for them and their future
generation?

 This question brought over 70 community leaders together for a

one day forum in November 1990. Sponsored by the Washington,

DC, based Global Tomorrow Coalition (GTC), the forum was one of
several which GTC organized in American cities that might be open
to the message of sustainability.
Locally the forum was organized by a small team of people who

were brought together by Kay Bullitt, a local environmental

advocate and visionary.
At this public forum people representing diverse affiliation, from

church groups to government, discussed definitions of

sustainability. Sustainability was a relatively new concept to most
of the people in Seattle and around the country.

 Sustainable Seattle sets its main task to define, research

and publish
Community.

set

of

Indicators

of

Sustainable

Between November 1990 and May 1991 Sustainable

Seattle concentrated on carving out its identity, creating

an organizational structure and developing a definition of
sustainability by a consensus process: long term health
and vitality- cultural, economic, environmental and social.

By January 1992, Sustainable Seattles Indicators Task

Team, comprised of people with diverse backgrounds

produced a draft list that proposed 150 indicators divided
into categories of primary, secondary and provocative.

 In April 1992 the Sustainable Seattle Civic Panel was

formed. Individuals from business, environmental groups,

government, the religious community, social activism and
academia participated in a dialogue on the meaning of
sustainability.
Their objective was to collectively determine what aspects

of the community were important to measure and which of

the 150 indicators were the most appropriate to use.

 The Civic Panel continued to work through 1992. The public

participation process was invaluable in providing depth and a

range of knowledge about community life. Participants gave
serious thought to all the dimensions of sustainability; providing
critical thinking about the best indicators of sustainability
cultural, economic, environmental and social.

Sustainable Seattle sent invitations to 300 citizens leaders in

grassroots, professional, government, technical, and social

groups. Effort was made to equally involve men and women, and
to include active citizens of different ages, cultures, and
lifestyles. Ultimately, 150 people participated in a process of
determining indicators.

Between April and December 1992, four workshops were held,

and resulted in developing consensus recommendations for key

sustainability indicators.

Steps in the Indicator Development Process:

Workshop #1: Civic Panel Orientation
The first meeting of the Civic Panel appropriately coincided with

the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development, familiarly referred to as the Earth Summit.
Citizens gathered at the workshop to discuss cultural,
economic, environmental and social challenges and hopes for
the Seattle area.
The Indicators Task Team spent from May 1991 to March 1992

working towards a draft list of indicators. At this June workshop

it was eager to introduce the Indicators of Sustainable
Community project to a broad audience and invite their
participation and creativity into the process.
Each workshop participant received the potential list of 29 key

indicators and 121 secondary and provocative ones, and a sixpage feedback survey. For the remaining part of the workshop,
participants formed small groups and discussed perceptions
and visions of a sustainable future.

 Between July and August 1992, Civic Panelists reviewed the first

draft list of indicators and recorded their comments via the

written feedback survey. Some attached extra sheets of
typewritten comments to explain their ideas.
The Indicators Task Team studied and synthesized the written

feedback. In preparation for the next workshop, the Civic Panel

divided into topic areas (according to their interest and
knowledge), and developed a draft set of revised key indicators,
in addition to framing comments and discussion questions.

Workshop #2: Topic Groups Develop Key Indicators:

The Sustainable Seattle Civic Panel met for the second time in

September 1992 where the Civic Panel members divided into the
ten topic groups:
1.Resource Consumption,
2. Education,
3. Economy,
4. Transportation,
5.Natural Environment,
6.Health,
7.Social Environment ,
8.Culture & Recreation,
9. Population,
10.Community Participation.

Then with a list of draft indicators as their starting point, each

group worked to select and refine a list of 10 potential
indicators for each topic area.

Workshop #3: Towards Consensus on Key Indicators

The goal for the Civic Panels October 1992 workshop was for

agreement on the three to five best key indicators for each topic
area.
Topic groups then reduced their indicators list down using criteria
for good indicators that were developed from the Sustainable
Seattle goals. The organizers set some overall criteria to guide
selection. Indicators needed to be:
1. Reflective of trends that were fundamental to long term
cultural, economic, and environmental health
2. Statistically measurable, with data preferably available for one
to two decades
3. Logically or scientifically defensible
4. Attractive to the local media and
5. Comprehensible to the average person.
By the end of this workshop, each group reported their results to the

Civic Panel and shared ideas on how to publish and use these
indicators in the community. The workshop produced 99 indicators.

Workshop #4: 99 Indicators, Priorities, and Celebration:

In December, 1992 the Civic Panel held its final workshop

to review the proposed Indicators of Sustainable

Community. All 99 indicators were displayed in large print
on a wall.

Civic Panelists participated in a green dot game in which

they each selected five indicators from the menu of 99 that

seemed most useful in providing a snapshot of community
sustainability.Wild Salmon, originally considered a
provocative indicator, received the most green dots,
indicating a high preference. Next, the Civic Panel
considered how the indicators were linked to one another.
They worked in pairs and small groups to develop chains of
causation between key indicators.

Panelists set to work on brainstorming strategies for

putting the indicators to work in business, education, the

media, communities, and policy-making.

Research and Data Collection:

The Indicators Task Team worked until March 1993

narrowing the list to 40 indicators that would represent a

'whole system or whole city snapshot of movement
towards or away from sustainability.
The intent was to collect data extending back 10 to 20

years and establish long term trends. For indicators that

had never been measured, Sustainable Seattle would be
creating a baseline for the future.
Sustainable Seattle defines itself as a volunteer network,

and more than 200 volunteers were involved in the

indicators process. From 1991 to mid 1995, Sustainable
Seattle operated with only a quarter time staff person,
with all other activities conducted by volunteers. In 1995,
Sustainable Seattle moved to a full-time staff person to
expand and co-ordinate the range of activities in which it
is engaged.

Total budget:
The total budget for the two years of indicators development,

1992-1993, was approximately $20,000, which was funded by

small grants from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, the New Road Map Foundation, and The Boeing
Corporation. An additional $30,000 was spent in 1994 and 1995
on developing the second publication, much of which was
funded from the sale of the reports.