Local Agenda 21 indicators

Environmental Framework Programme Series• Nº 1. November 2000. “Economic Impact of Environmental Spending and Investment of the Basque

Public Authorities”

• Nº 2. May 2001. “Ecology Barometer 2001”

• Nº 3. October 2001. “The Environment in the Basque Country”

• Nº 4. January 2002. “European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development”

• Nº 5. February 2002. “Inventory of Hazardous Waste in the Basque Country (Outline)”

• Nº 6. April 2002. , “Cycling Towards Fume-free Cities”

• Nº 7. May 2002. “Total Material Requirement of the Basque Country. TMR 2002”

• Nº 8. July 2002. “Transport and the Environment in the Basque Country. TMA Indicators 2002”

• Nº 9. August 2002. “Sustainable Development in The Basque Country”

• Nº 10. October 2002. “Environmental Indicators 2002”

• Nº 11 November 2002. “Inventory of GHG Emissions in the Basque Country 1990-2000”

• Nº 12 November 2002. “Environment & Competitiveness in Business”

• Nº 13 December 2002. “Industrial Ecology Barometer 2002”

• Nº 14 January 2003. “Cities, Children & Mobility”

• Nº 15 January 2003. “Climate Change”

• Nº 16 January 2003. “Educating for Sustainability. School Agenda 21: a Guide for Schools” (CEIDA)

• Nº 17 February 2003. “6th Environmental Action Programme of the European Community”

• Nº 18 February 2003. “Environmental Tax Reform in the Basque Country”

• Nº 19 April 2003. “The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg”

• Nº 20 May 2003. “Methodological Guide to Calculating Local Sustainability Indicators in the BasqueCountry. Local Agenda 21 Indicators”

Basque Government WebSite on sustainable development in the Basque Country

Published by:Basque Government Department of Land Use and the EnvironmentIHOBE -Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental

Designed byDual XJ. Comunicación & Diseño

Basque Translation:Elhuyar

English Translation:Chris Pellow

Registration nº:BI-1372-03

Printed entirely on recycled paper

The Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020 sets out over 200 undertakingsthat directly or indirectly affect municipalities and the application of municipal policies. Onesuch undertaking, specifically aimed at municipal councils, is that all municipalities in the Bas-que Country with more than 5000 inhabitants should have their own or a shared district-levelLocal Agenda 21 scheme designed by 2006.

The Strategy is accompanied by a monitoring system that comprises 22 environmental indica-tors to measure the progress made towards sustainability in our country. If we transfer thatneed to measure progress at Basque Country level to municipal level sustainability, it beco-mes clear that common local sustainability indicators are needed. The set of 12 common indi-cators presented here will enable all Basque municipalities regularly to gauge their progresstowards better quality of life for their residents, and to compare their situation with that of othermunicipalities involved in Local Agenda 21 schemes in their own local area and internationally.

This guide has been drawn up by the Basque Government Department of Land Use and theEnvironment to facilitate the calculation of these common sustainability indicators. Along withthe common indicators, a number of specific indicators have also been included, which can beadopted by municipalities at need and adapted to their own individual circumstances.

The efforts that most Basque municipalities are making to attain local sustainability throughthe design and implementation of Local Agenda 21 schemes will surely be rewarded in the formof improvements in the quality of life of all Basque residents in the medium term.

3

Presentation by the Basque Govt. Minister

Sabin IntxaurragaBasque Govt. Minister forLand Use and the Environment

Introduction 5

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING 7

Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas and services in the municipality 8

Indicator 2: Sustainable Land Use 12

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT 17

Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport 18

Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the Municipality Given Over to Transport Infrastructures 22

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES 25

Indicator 5: Water Consumption 26

Indicator 6: Energy Consumption 29

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE 33

Indicator 7: Production & Management of Waste 34

Indicator 8: Discharges into Water 37

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTOTHE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY 41

Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality 42

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 45

Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion 46

Indicator 11: Unemployment Rate 48

Indicator 12: Level of Satistaction of Local Residents with their Community 50

Proposal for Specific Indicators 52

Definition 54

4

ÍNDEX

Monitoring and assessing Local Agenda 21 schemes calls for a system of sustainability indi-cators that can:

1. obtain specific data to facilitate monitoring of the state of the municipality and thedegree of success of the plan of action implemented;

2. help obtain information quickly and efficiently;3. determine how deeply involved the various players are in the plan of action;4. help in the management of municipal affairs and in the taking of policy decisions;5. provide an overall view of the prevailing interests in the municipality; and6. inform the various players in the municipality of the progress made.

It is also interesting to be able to draw comparisons with other municipalities involved in LocalAgenda 21 schemes. This requires common indicators, i.e. they must all measure the samethings in the same ways. This guide presents 12 common local sustainability indicators forall Basque municipalities, based on international indicators.

This methodological guide has been drawn up by the Basque Government Department of LandUse and the Environment to help municipalities set in place these common sustainability indi-cators. It presents a set of methodological “file cards” grouped on the basis of thematic areas,including the following points for each indicator:

• a definition of the indicator; • its connection with the goals and undertakings of the Basque Environmental Sustainabi-

lity Strategy (in the case of environmental indicators) and the plan of action for Local Agen-da 21 in each municipality;

• technical points such as units of measurement, frequency of monitoring, desired trends,difficulty of calculation and significance (*** High, ** Medium, * Low);

• graphs (as examples, with fictitious figures);• analysis of results; • calculation methods.

Each Basque municipality is distinct from all the others, so a number of specific indicators arealso presented that may be adopted by municipalities as necessary.

To facilitate calculation of these specific indicators the Basque Government Department ofLand Use and the Environment offers personalised technical assistance through its environ-mental management company IHOBE, S.A.

5

Introduction

LA 21 INDICATORS

• Indicator 1• Indicator 2

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas andservices in the municipality

Indicator 2: Sustainable land use

Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas and servicesin the municipality

Open public areas and service areas help raise the quality of life of local residents. The proxi-mity of services is also a key factor in reducing the need for people to make journeys.

Definition:

This indicator assesses what percentage of the population of a municipality (town centre andconsolidated built-up areas in rural districts) live less than 300 m from an open public area(greater than 5.000 m2 and of any size) and from basic services. This indicator can also be cal-culated for distances of 150 and 500 m.

1. For the purposes of this indicator, “open public spaces” means:• Public parks, gardens and open spaces for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists.

Traffic islands, central reservations and cemeteries are excluded unless the local autho-rity classes them as recreational or natural areas, or as sites of special historical or cul-tural significance.

• Open-air sports facilities for use free of charge.• Privately owned areas open to the public without charge for most of the year, e.g. private

parks and farmland used for leisure and open-air activities (e.g. farmhouse schools).

2. “Services” means:• Primary public health-care services (GP’s, pharmacies, hospitals, primary health centres

and other public health facilities).• Public transport lines with a minimum running frequency (30 minutes), distinguishing bet-

ween bus stops and taxi ranks.• State schools (compulsory education and publicly-owned nursery schools).• Food stores, points of sale of foodstuffs & bakery products.• Recycling services or facilities: selective collection bins, collection centres, green-dot faci-

lities.• Banks.• Sports areas.• Cultural amenities: cultural centres, libraries, civic centres, museums, exhibition halls, the-

atres, cinemas, etc.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental SustainabilityStrategy 2002-2020:

■ To promote more attractive design and improvement in quality of life in urban areas.■ To promote the integration of natural elements into the urban landscape as a means of

improving it aesthetically, increasing its biodiversity and providing solutions that increaseenvironmental quality by increasing climate comfort (shaded areas, temperature modula-tion, increased humidity, air circulation, etc.), reduce noise levels, generate opportunitiesfor leisure, etc.

■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban land uses and activities that incre-ase demand for motorised transport.

8


Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See LocalAgenda 21 plan of action.

Technical points:

Graphs by way of example:

1. Availability of public open areas greater than 5.000 m2

2. Availability of public open areas of any size

Units Frequency Desired trend European Difficulty Significance

% Two or Upward Yes ✵ ✵✵

four yearly Ecobarometer

1. AVAILABILITY OF OPEN PUBLIC AREAS AND SERVICES IN THE MUNICIPALITY

9

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997 1999 2001 2003

%

Public open areas

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997 1999 2002 2003

%

Public open areas

NB: *** High**Medium* Low

3. Availability of basic services

Analysis of results:

Calculation method:

■ Data are gathered from a four-yearly survey performed by IHOBE (“Municipal Eco-barometerSurvey”)

■ If data are available on the location of the various services and open areas they can becross-referenced with population and housing data to calculate an annual indicator. It isadvisable to use GIS (Geographical Information Systems) for this calculation. The calcula-tion procedure is as follows:

i) Draw up a list for each service indicating all the units that provide the service and theirlocation. For state schools the list would take the following form:

ii) Situate the various units on a plan of the municipality and trace circles with a 300 metreradius centred on each of them to determine their areas of influence.

Service unit Location

1. Ramiro de Maeztu state primary school C/ Albeniz, 2

2. Pío Baroja high school C/ G. Zumalakarregi, 12

3. Koldo Mitxelena high school C/ Horacio Etxebarria, 31

4. Miguel Unamuno state primary school C/ Nagusi, 8


10

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997

%

Health

Foodstuffs

1999 2001 2003

Public transport

Recycling

Education

The percentage of residents in the municipality that have open public areas within 300 m has increasedover the past four years from 25% in 1999 to 51% in 2002.Similarly, availability of basic services (health, public transport, education, foodstuffs and recycling)has increased.

iii) Next estimate how many people live in the area of influence of the full set of serviceunits. If the area outside the areas of influence is greater than that inside them, the num-ber of people outside those areas can be calculated and subtracted from the total popu-lation of the municipality. In either case, data from the municipal population register canbe used.

iv) Finally, calculate the indicator according to the following formula:

or the following if the population outside the area of influence is to be calculated:

v) For open public areas the calculation procedure is very similar, except that:

• A single list of all open public areas is drawn up, and those greater than 5000 m2 aremarked.

• Trace perimeters 300 m outside the edge of each open area to determine their areasof influence (round off corners for greater precision):

Open public area Location > 5.000 m2

1. New park C/ G. Zumalakarregi etc. Yes

2. Basketball court C/ Pío Baroja, 13 No

3. Athletics track C/ Sagasti, 9 No

Population outside area of influence of state schools

Total population of municipalityx 1001 –( )

Population in area of influence of state schools

Total population of municipalityx 100

1. AVAILABILITY OF OPEN PUBLIC AREAS AND SERVICES IN THE MUNICIPALITY

11

Indicador 2: Sustainable Land Use

Land is a vital resource that has many key functions for environmental, economic, social andcultural life. Rational use of land is essential if balanced, environmentally friendly growth ofsociety is to be ensured.

Definition:

This indicator covers a number of points that provide an all-round picture of the degree of sus-tainability in land use. The factors analysed include:

1. Artificialised land: percentage (%) of total land in the municipality considered as artificiali-sed. Expectations of growth (developable land) may be included separately.

2. Disused and potentially polluted land: surface area of disused land (m2) and potentiallypolluted (m2).

3. Intensity of land use:• 3.1. Nº of inhabitants per km2 of artificialised land.• 3.2. Nº of inhabitants on residential urban land per km2 of residential urban land.

4. 4. New development: distribution of new constructions:• 4.1. Greenfield land (%): land never previously built on (normally re-zoned land formerly

classed as rural).• 4.2. Disused and polluted land recovered (%).• 4.3. Other land (%).

5. Restoration of urban land areas1:• Complete and partial rehabilitation of buildings (m2 of total surface area and total nº,

including nº of buildings whose exteriors have been rehabilitated).• Disused land (m2 of surface area and total nº) recovered for new urban uses (including

green belts).• Polluted land recovered (m2 & total nº).

6. Percentage (%) of total land in municipality classed as protected.


■ To maintain rehabilitation and regeneration work every year on degraded areas.

■ To carry out urban renovation work, demolition of industrial ruins and recovery of 75 hec-tares by 2006.

■ To avoid consuming land with low-density development by introducing higher building densi-ties in the most appropriate areas in line with land use management instruments.


12

1 Surface area of rehabilitated buildings is measured as total surface area, and that of recovered land as ground area.


Technical Points:


1. Percentage of municipal land artificialised

2. Disused and potentially polluted land


%: 1, 4, 6 Two or Upward: : 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, Yes ✵✵✵ ✵✵✵m2: 2, 5 four yearly 4.3, 5, 6

Inhab./Km2: 3 Downward: 1, 2, 4.1

2. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

13

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997 1999 2001 2003

%

Artificialised land

1.000

800

600

400

200

01997 1999 2001 2003

m2

Disused land

Potentially polluted land

NB: The desired trend in sub-indicator 3 will depend largely on the initial intensity.

3.1. Intensity of use of artificialised land

4. Distribution of new constructions

5. Restoration of urban surface areas


14

100

80

60

40

20

01997 1999 2001 2003

hab./Km2

Intensity of use of artificialised land

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997 1999 2001 2003

%

Other land

Disused & potentially polluted land

Greenfield land

1.000

800

600

400

200

01997 1999 2001 2003

m2

Rehabilitation of buildings

Recovery of disused land

Recovery of polluted land

NB: There is no need for a graph showing the total number of buildings rehabilitated and sites recovered, but these data maybe mentioned in the analysis of results.

NB: The graph for sub-indicator 3.2 is similar to that for 3.1, and they could be represented together on a single graph.

6. Percentage of land in the municipality classed as protected


Calculation method:

The variables and data sources needed to calculate these indicators are:

■ Artificialised land: this includes all land that is no longer classed as natural (urban & indus-trial land, roads, etc.), and therefore included in the category of “artificial surfaces” inCORINE Land Cover2. Dept. of Urban Planning or photo interpretation (GIS).

■ Total surface area of the municipality: all areas under the administration of the municipalauthorities. EUSTAT or Dept. of Urban Planning.

■ Disused land: artificialised land with no productive use (housing, industry or services).Dept. of Urban Planning.

■ Potentially polluted land: IHOBE (Inventory of Potentially Contaminated Soil Areas).

■ Inhabitants: municipal register.

■ Residential urban land: Dept. of Urban Planning.

■ Inhabitants on residential urban land: municipal register.

2. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

15

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1997 1999 2001 2003

%

Protected area

Artificialised land stands at 50% and the trend is alarming. Intensity of land use has dropped to 50inhabitants per km2, indicating reduced efficiency in land use.The increasing percentage of new constructions on greenfield sites is cause for concern.

Since 1999 the percentage of the land area of the municipality classed as protected has remainedunchanged.

In the past four years the surface are of buildings rehabilitated and that of disused and polluted landrecovered have increased. This has led to a drop in the amount of such land in the municipality.

2 http://www.mfom.es/ign/teledeteccion/telede_corine/nomenclatura.htm.

■ New constructions on greenfield land (corresponding to all CORINE Land Cover categoriesexcept “artificial surfaces”). Dept. of Town Planning.

■ New constructions on other types of land: Dept. of Urban Planning.

■ Rehabilitation of buildings: total surface area (sum total of surface area on all floors) & nºof buildings rehabilitated (including exteriors). Dept. of Town Planning.

■ Recovery of disused land for new uses: surface area of disused artificialised land and nº ofsites recovered. Dept. of Urban Planning.

■ Recovery of polluted land: IHOBE.

■ Protected areas: areas where vegetation or landscape is under specific protection and who-se future development is limited. Dept. of Urban Planning.

The formulae for calculating sub-indicators 1, 3, 4 & 6 are:

1. Artificialised land:

3. Intensity of land use:

3.1. Intensity of use of artificialised land:

3.2. Intensity of use of residential land:

4. New developments3:

4.1. Greenfield land:

4.2. Disused & polluted land recovered:

4.3. Other land types:

6. Superficie protegida respecto del total de la superficie del municipio:

Protected surface area

Total surface area of municipalityx 100

Remaining built-up surface area

Total built-up surface areax 100

Built-up surface area on disused & polluted land recovered

Total built-up surface areax 100

Greenfield land built on

Total surface area built onx 100

Nº of inhabitants on residential urban land

Total de suelo urbano residencial

Nº of inhabitants

Total artificialised land

Total artificialised land

Total land area of the municipalityx 100


16

3 Note that the sum of the sub-indicators for new development is 100%, so if two of the variablees are known the third can becalculated automatically.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport

Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the MunicipalityGiven Over to Transport Infrastructures

• Indicator 3• Indicator 4

Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport

Increasing mobility and decreasing accessibility are threatening the quality of the environment,social welfare and the economic viability of cities. Major contributing factors include big incre-ases in traffic and a radical change in the modes of transport used, with increasingly wides-pread use of private cars to the detriment of walking, cycling and public transport. Action mustbe taken at municipal level as necessary to reverse this trend.

To attain sustainable mobility directive must be introduced to improve accessibility and travel.The main aim of urban transport policies should be to blend accessibility, economic develop-ment and environmental protection.

Definition:

This indicator covers the mobility of the people in the municipality. It includes numerous pointswhich can help draw up a general mobility model for local people:

1. Average number of journeys per inhabitant per day (nº of journeys per inhabitant).

2. Average distance travelled per day by each inhabitant (km. per inhabitant).

3. Average travel time per inhabitant (minutes per inhabitant).

4. Reason for journeys and frequency during the week, enabling journeys to be classed assystematic or non systematic (% of systematic journeys vs. % of non systematic journeys).

5. Modes of transport used to make journeys and distances of each journey (relative % for eachmode of transport considered). The following modes of transport can be included:• Walking• Bike• Motor-cycle• Private car• Taxi• Bus• Metro• Tram• Combined.


■ To redirect the distribution of modes of transport to encourage collective & non motorisedmodes.

■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban planning activities & uses that willincrease demand for motorised transport.

■ To encourage intermodality in passenger transport as a way of increasing efficiency in envi-ronmental and energy terms.

■ To encourage flexibility of schedules in those activities in which this is possible.

■ To factor external transport costs (marginal costs) into charges for the use of infrastruc-tures.

18

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

■ To encourage those modes of transport that impact least on the environment via public pri-cing and/ or rating policies.

■ To give non motorised forms (walking & cycling) equal footing with motorised forms as recog-nised modes of transport.

■ To use smart transport systems to reduce overall demand and increase effectiveness.

■ To prioritise investment in infrastructures for more environmentally friendly modes of trans-port.

■ To work to reduce pollution due to roads, in line with the ceilings on emissions set by theEU.

■ To get passengers to switch from private to public transport as one of the objectives of thefuture Sustainable Transport Plan.

■ To increase the percentage of total passenger transport accounted for by collective modesin the main urban areas of the Basque Country by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006.


Technical Points:


1. Average nº of journeys per inhabitant per day


Journeys/ inhab.: 1 Four yearly Downward: 1, 2, 3 & Yes ✵ ✵✵✵

km./inhab.: 2 private journeys.Minutes/inhab.: 3 Upward: non motorised%: 4 & 5 & collective journeys..

3. LOCAL MOBILITY & PASSENGER TRANSPORT

19

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

01992 1996 2000 2004

Journeys./inhab.

Average nº of journeys

2. Average distance per inhabitant

3. Average journey time per day

4. Systematic vs. non systematic journeys

ENVIROMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

20

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

01992 1996 2000 2004

Km./inhab./day

Average distance per inhabitant

40

30

20

10

01992 1996 2000 2004

Minutes/inhab./day

Journey time

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1992 1996 2000 2004

%

Systematic journeys

Non systematic journeys

5. Nº of journeys per mode

NB: The various modes of transport may be grouped into categories to make this indicator easier to understand: non motorisedtransport (walking, bike), private transport (car, motor-cycle), public transport (remaining modes):

5. Nº of journeys per mode

NB: Sub-indicator 6 can be represented in the same way as sub-indicator 5.


Calculation method:

■ Data obtained from the four-yearly survey conducted by IHOBE (municipal eco-barometersurvey).

3. LOCAL MOBILITY & PASSENGER TRANSPORT

21

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1992 1996 2000 2004

%

Walking

Combined

Tram

Metro

Bus

Taxi

Car

Motor-cycle

Bike

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1992 1996 2000 2004

%

Public transport

Private transport

Non motorised transport

Mobility requirements of local residents continue to increase. The number of journeys, distancetravelled and time used have all grown since 1999. The percentage of systematic journeys is alsoincreasing.

Modal distribution of journeys has remained unchanged over the past 4 years: 50% non motorisedtransport, 30% public transport and 20% private transport.

Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the Municipality Given Overto Transport Infrastructures

The distribution in the municipality of land used for infrastructures is highly important in termsof influence on the mobility habits of local people. A distribution that prioritises non motorisedtransport over motorised forms will encourage the use of the former. Increasing the surfacearea given over to public transport will also encourage its use.

Definition:

This indicator assesses what percentage of land in the municipality is given over to transportinfrastructures, broken down by types of transport:

1. Surface area for pedestrians (reverse priority streets – shared with cars but pedestrianshave priority – and pavements).

2. Surface area given over to cycling (cycle lanes).

3. Surface area for collective public transport (bus lanes, tramways).

4. Surface area for motor vehicles (thoroughfares within the town, local roads and tracks),excluding the area reserved for collective public transport.


■ To redirect the distribution of modes of transport to encourage collective & non motorisedmodes.

■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban planning activities & uses that willincrease demand for motorised transport.

■ To encourage intermodality in passenger transport as a way of increasing efficiency in envi-ronmental and energy terms.

■ To give non motorised forms (walking & cycling) equal footing with motorised forms as recog-nised modes of transport.

■ To prioritise investment in infrastructures for more environmentally friendly modes of trans-port.


22

■ To increase the amount of Basque public sector investment in more environmentally friendlymodes of transport by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006, in detriment to investment in newroad infrastructures.

■ To increase the percentage of total passenger transport accounted for by collective modesin the main urban areas of the Basque Country by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006.


Technical Points:

Graph by way of example:

Distribution of land in municipality given over to transport infrastructures


% Two or Upward: 1, 2 & 3 No ✵ ✵✵

four yearly Downward: 4 Ecobarometer

4. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN THE MUNICIPALITY GIVEN OVER TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURES

23

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1996 1998 2000 2002

%

1. Pedestrians

2. Bikes

3. Public tansport

4. Motor Vehicles


Calculation method:

Three methods can be used to calculate this indicator:

■ Data obtained via the municipality’s digital cartography system (GIS).

■ Calculation of the surface area given over to each category using detailed maps of the muni-cipality.

■ Data obtained via field work.

The calculation formulae are:

Surface area for pedestrian use

Surface area in municipality given over to transport infrastructuresx 100

Surface area set up for cycling


Surface area for public transport


Surface area for motor vehicles



24

Sustainability levels in the land given over to transport infrastructures in the municipality have risensince 1999. The area for pedestrians and cyclists currently stands at 50%, compared to 30% in 1999.The percentage of infrastructures for public transport rose from 20% in 1999 to 30% in 2002. Allthis has been in detriment to the percentage of land given over to motor vehicles.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES

Indicator 5: Water Consumption

Indicator 6: Energy Consumption• Indicator 5• Indicator 6

Indicator 5: Water Consumption

Water is a relatively abundant resource in our world, but water cycles mean that there can berestrictions on its availability at some times and in some places. Human beings require a greatdeal of water to meet their basic needs for drinking, washing & cooking. Likewise, all ecos-ystems need water to remain healthy. Limitations on the availability of water and the differentuses for which it is needed may sometimes lead to water stress.

Definition:

This indicator examines various types of water consumption in the municipality:

1. Domestic consumption (l/inhab./day).

2. Total water demand (upstream supply) of the municipality (m3/year).

3. Sectoral breakdown of total water demand in the municipality (%). The sectors consideredare:• Domestic.• Services.• Industrial.• Municipal.• Agricultural.

4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total demand (%).


■ To encourage water saving.

■ To promote the modification of non sustainable water consumption habits.

■ To improve efficiency in water use.


Technical Points:


l/inhab./day: 1 Annual Downward No ✵✵ ✵✵

m3/year: 2, 4%: 3

26

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES


1. Domestic water consumption

2. Total water demand

3. Sectoral breakdown of total water demand

5. WATER CONSUMPTION

27

30

20

10

01999 2000 2001 2002

l/inhab./day

Domestic water consumption

3.000

2.000

1.000

01999 2000 2001 2002

m3/year

Total water demand

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Municipal

Industrial

Residential and services

NB: Total water demand by the agricultural sector can also be included if figures are available.

4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total demand


Calculation method:

The information sources for this indicator are:

■ For domestic water consumption (volume of water billed): water utility supplying the munici-pality.

■ For total water demand: water utility supplying the municipality (private water supplies mustbe included if figures are available, as must demand for water form the agricultural sector).

■ For the sectoral breakdown of water demand: water utility supplying the municipality, plusirrigation organisations working with agricultural consumers.

■ For nº of inhabitants: municipal register.


1. 1. Domestic water consumption:

3. Sectoral breakdown of consumption: divide water consumption in each sector by total demandless losses in the distribution network (thus allocating the right proportion of distribution los-ses to each sector).

The figures for the remaining sectors are calculated in the same way.

4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total water demand

Losses in distribution network

Total water demandx 100

Domestic water consumption

Total water demand – distribution lossesx 100

Volume of water supplied for domestic use

Total population of municipality/ 365

ENVIROMENTE: NATURAL RESOURCES

28

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Losses in distribution network

Domestic water consumption continues to increase year by year. Average water consumption in themunicipality is 27 litres per inhabitant per day.Similarly, total water consumption in the municipality has increased since 1999. The municipal sectorcontinues to be the biggest consumer, through its share of the total dropped from 50 to 35% from1999 to 2002 and the volume of water it consumed dropped from 1050 to 980 m3. The remainingsectors increased their share of total consumption in the municipality and the volume of water theyconsumed. .In 2002 300 litres of water was lost in the distribution network for every m3 distributed. .

Indicator 6: Energy consumption

Energy is essential for the well-being and economic development of society as a whole, but itis also a major source of impacts on the environment. Energy production, transmission, distri-bution and consumption all produce environmental impacts, the extent of which depends onthe type of energy and the technology used in each case.

Definition:

This indicator analyses the various types of consumption of electricity and natural gas in themunicipality.

1. Domestic consumption (tep/inhab./year).

2. Municipal consumption (tep/year).

3. Sectoral breakdown of consumption in the municipality into:• Domestic.• Services.• Industrial.• Municipal.• Transport.• Agricultural.

NB: Only electricity and natural gas are considered due to the difficulty of obtaining data on energy consumption from othersources. This means that comparisons between municipalities must be treated with extreme caution.


■ To promote improvements in energy efficiency in all sectors of activity

■ To encourage energy saving in all sectors.


Aspectos técnicos:


tep/inhab./year: 1 Annual Downward No ✵✵ ✵✵✵

tep/year: 2%: 3

6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION

29


1. Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption

2. Total electricity & natural gas consumption

3. Sectoral breakdown of electricity & natural gas consumption

ENVIROMENTE: NATURAL RESOURCES

30

10

5

01999 2000 2001 2002

tep/inhab./year

Electricity

Natural gas

10.000

5.000

01999 2000 2001 2002

tep/year

Electricity

Natural gas

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Residential

Transport

Municipal

Industrial

Services

Agricultural


Calculation method:

The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are:

■ For natural gas & electricity consumption: request for sectoral breakdown of data from utilities.



1. 1. Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption

Natural gas consumption is calculated in the same way.

3. The sectoral breakdown of electricity and natural gas consumption is obtained by dividingelectricity and natural gas consumption figures for each sector by the total consumption foreach energy source.

Electricity supplied for domestic use

Nº of inhabitants in the municipality

6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION

31

Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption has increased over the past 4 years, and in 2002reached 5.4 tep per inhabitant per year (detail types of energy).Total electricity and natural gas consumption in the municipality has performed similarly, with anincrease of 650 tep since 1999 (detail types of energy). All sectors have contributed to the increase,as energy consumption has increased in all of them.Transport and the municipal sector are the biggest consumers at 25% each. Industry and servicesaccount for 20% each, and domestic consumption for 10%.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

Indicator 7: Production & Management of Waste

Indicator 8: Discharges into water• Indicator 7• Indicator 8

Indicator 7: : Production & Management of Waste

The growth in consumption that has accompanied increases in per capita income is also linkedto high levels of waste production, and this in turn gives rise to high costs in monetary andenvironmental terms, including consumption of material & energy resources, land occupation,etc.

The environmental impact of waste depends ultimately on how that waste is treated. Recyclingis a way of minimising waste production, and increasing the percentage of waste recycled andvalorised must be a top priority at local level.

Definition:

This indicator analyses the volume of waste produced and how that waste is managed. Themain variables considered are:

1. MSW produced per inhabitant per day (kg./inhab./day).

2. MSW management: valorisation (recycling – selective collection & incineration – & dumping)(%).

3. Hazardous waste produced (mt./year).

4. Hazardous waste management: valorisation & disposal (%).


■ To stabilise MSW production per capita at 2001 levels by 2012.

■ To stabilise hazardous waste production at 2000 levels by 2006.

■ To reduce the proportion of MSW sent to landfills to 75% of the total by 2006.

■ To increase the proportion of hazardous waste valorised to 50% more than 2000 levels by2006.


Technical Points:


Kg./inhab./day: 1 Anual Downward: 1, 3, No ✵ ✵✵✵

%: 2 & 4 landfill & disposal.mt./year: 3 Upward: valorisation

34

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE


1. MSW production

2. MSW management

3. Hazardous waste production

7. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF WASTE

35

30

20

10

01999 2000 2001 2002

Kg./inhab./day

MSW production

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Landfilling

Incineration

Recycling

30

20

10

01999 2000 2001 2002

Mt./year

Hazardous waste production

4. Hazardous waste management


Calculation method:


■ For data on production & management of MSW: request data on collection (conventional,selective & green dot schemes) and MSW management from supra-local bodies (“Manco-munidades” in Gipuzkoa, “Cuadrillas” in Araba and “Garbiker” in Bizkaia). Breakdowns ofthese data by municipalities may not be available: in that case estimates may be made ona per capita basis.

■ For data on production & management of hazardous waste: request for data from the Bas-que Government (Environment Dept.) on how much hazardous waste is declared by industriesclassed as hazardous waste producers located in the municipality.



1. 1. MSW production:

2. MSW management:

4. Hazardous waste management:

Hazardous waste valorised

Hazardous waste producedx 100

Hazardous waste disposed of

Hazardous waste producedx 100

MSW sent to landfill

MSW producedx 100

MSW incinerated

MSW producedx 100

MSW collected selectively

MSW producedx 100

MSW collected

Total population of municipality/ 365

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

36

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Valorisation

Disposal

The municipality produces more waste each year. Per capita waste production in 2002 was 27 kg, upfrom 20 kg in 1999. The amount of hazardous waste produced in the municipality has also increasedsince 1999.

Although more and more waste is being produced, treatment is improving. In 1999 only 30% of MSWwas valorised (10% incinerated, 20% recycled), while in 2002 40% were valorised (15% incineratedand 25% recycled). Valorisation of hazardous waste was up from 20% in 1999 to 35% in 2002.

Indicator 8: Discharges into Water

How water can be used depends on its quality. Water for drinking, recreational activities, indus-trial use and agricultural use must be of an acceptable standard. Ecosystems also require acertain level of quality if they are to maintain themselves.

The many substances that can affect water quality if discharged into it include organic mate-rials, nutrients, heavy metals and pesticides. A great many such substances end up in wateras a result of human action, mainly through discharges from municipal networks, industry, far-ming and livestock businesses, etc. Waste water needs to be treated before it is returned tonatural water courses.

Definition:

This indicator analyses water quality from two points of view:

1. Quality of river water (BMWP Index) and shoreline and estuarine waters if any (biotic coeffi-cient).

2. Sewage and sewerage systems from residential homes in the municipality (%).• 2.1. Homes connected to the municipal sewerage network (%).• 2.2. Homes not connected to the municipal sewerage network but equipped with ade-

quate waste water treatment systems (%).

This indicator can be supplemented with data on accidental discharges into water.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy2002-2020:

■ To ensure that 80% of bodies of water are classed as environmentally and chemically goodor very good by 2012.

■ To reduce discharges of hazardous substances and pollutants.


Technical Points:


BMWP index Annual Upward: 1 No ✵✵ ✵✵✵

& biotic Upward: 2coefficient: 1%: 2

8. DISCHARGES INTO WATER

37


1. River water quality

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

38

RIVERS (Annual score as per BMWP index)

BMWP Biotic Index:

Very clean water

Non polluted water

Water with some effects of pollution

Polluted water

Very polluted water

Extremely polluted water

Estimates based on prior data

1

2

3

4

5

6

BasinIbaizabal

Inglares

KarrantzaLea

OiartzunOka

Omecillo

Oria

Urola

Urumea

Zadorra

RiverNerbioi

Inglares

KarrantzaLea

OiartzunGolako

Oka

Omecillo

Oria

Urola

Urumea

Aiuda

Zadorra

StationN-120N-258N-338N-520IN-175IN-235K-130L-040L-112L-196OI-102

OKGO-120OK-045OK-114OM-080OM-244OM-380O-262O-424O-490U-160U-210U-490

UR-320UR-434ZAY-018ZAY-372Z-060Z-160Z-336Z-576Z-828

199964653331213226334554663363354344

200064653431234136333555563253253455

200165663321245115114454565131253353

199864653432225335234354663243264354

RiverArtibai

Baia

GaldamesGoritza

MerkadilloBidasoaAtxispeButroe

Deba

EgoOñatiEga

AltubeArratia

Asua

ElorrioGalindoHerreríasIbaizabal

Kadagua

StationA-062A-202

BA-258BA-558

MGA-075MG-045M-190BI-555

BAT-060B-062B-226D-296D-460

DEG-068DO-095EG-146EG-370NA-260IA-120IA-222AS-045AS-160IE-140GA-095KAH-100

I-140I-160I-271I-394

KA-326KA-372KA-517

BasinArtibai

Baia

Barbadun

BidasoaButroe

Deba

Ega

Ibaizabal

200113261321315556343234463515656434

200034251323336556444346564515566434

199914262233211556443436454514556465

199824161312315556534434453514445464

NB: This table shows the changes in the quality of inland waters at all sampling stations in the Basque Country. Graphs can bedrawn up by selecting the figures for those stations that are representative for the municipality in question. Quality of coastaland estuarine waters can be included in the same way.

2.1. Homes in the municipality connected to the mains sewerage system


NB: An assessment of the BMWP index and biotic coefficient should be given along with the index itself.

Calculation method:

The sources of the data used to calculate this indicator are:

■ For river water (BMWP index), estuarine and coastal water (biotic coefficient) quality data:request sent to the Basque Government (Dept. of the Environment) for information fromsampling stations near the municipality. In some cases provincial councils may also be ableto provide these data.

■ For data on homes connected to the mains sewerage network: request sent to water utility.

■ For number of homes in the municipality: Urban Planning Dept.


2.1. Homes in the municipality connected to the mains sewerage network:

NB: Sub-indicator 2.2 is calculated similarly to 2.1.

Nº homes connected to mains sewerage network

Total nº of homesx 100

8. DISCHARGES INTO WATER

39

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Homes connected to mains sewerage system

90% of the residents in the municipality are connected to the mains sewerage network, as comparedto 70% in 1999.

NB: The graph for sub-indicator 2.2 can be produced similarly to that for 2.1.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTOTHE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY

Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systemsin the Municipality

• Indicator 9

Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality

Commitment to the environment in the municipality means being aware of the impact that thedifferent activities of local people can have and acting responsibly and competitively. It meansseeking to factor environmental variables into day-to-day management of companies, authori-ties and NGO’s, and seeing this as a challenge and an opportunity. To do this, mechanismsmust be set in place to prevent or minimise the impact that the activities of these organisa-tions has on the environment.

Definition:

This indicator analyses the extent to which environmental management systems are implemen-ted (ISO 14001, EMAS, Ekoscan, Sustainability Reports) in the various activities of the munici-pality:

1. Large companies and SME’s.

2. Public institutions (town hall, publicly owned organisations & companies).

3. 3NGO’s.


■ To encourage the monitoring of how legislation is applied by means of an EMAS environ-mental management system.

■ To encourage environmental management systems, environmental reports, etc.

■ To have 50 Basque firms holding EMAS certificates by 2006.

■ To have 10 Basque firms with GRI sustainability reports drawn up by 2006 and 40 by 2012.

■ To increase the number of firms with certified environmental management systems (EMAS orISO 14001) to 600 by 2006 and 1.000 by 2012.

■ To ensure that 50% of the public bodies in the Basque Country (Basque Government, pro-vincial councils, town halls, publicly-owned companies & other bodies) have certified envi-ronmental management systems by 2006.


Technical Points:


% Annual Upward Yes ✵ ✵✵

42

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THEACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY


Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality


Calculation method:


■ For large firms & SME’s with environmental management systems: IHOBE.

■ For public bodies with environmental management systems: town hall, IHOBE.

■ For NGO’s with environmental management systems: town hall, IHOBE.

■ For nº of large firms & SME’s, public bodies & NGO’s: town hall.


Nº of large firms & SME’s with environmental management systems

Total nº of large firms & SME’sx 100

Nº of public bodies with environmental management systems

Total nº of public bodiesx 100

Nº of NGO’s with environmental management systems

Total nº of NGO’sx 100

9. ENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE MUNICIPALITY

43

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Firms

Public bodies

NGO's

There is a clear commitment to the environment on the part of society. The percentage of firms,public bodies and NGO’s with environmental management systems is increasing as time goes by.

LA 21 INDICATORS

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion

Indicator 11: : Unemployment Rate

Indicator 12: Level of Satisfaction of Local Residentswith their Community

• Indicator 10• Indicator 11• Indicator 12

Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion

Poverty lies ate the root of many forms of marginalisation: the poorest people are on the mar-gins of many of the services offered by society. Many of those who live in the poorest condi-tions cannot afford to take part in cultural activities, play sports, further their education or keepup to date with the main events around which much of social life revolves.

Definition:

This indicator analyses the percentage of families in the municipality that receive “Basic Inco-me” benefit. The indicator can be supplemented with data from the EUSTAT Poverty and SocialInequality Survey or with data from the social services in the municipality.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda21 plan of action.

Technical Points:


Families Receiving Basic Income Benefit

Análisis de resultados:

Units Frequency Desires trend European Difficulty Significance

% Annual Downward No ✵ ✵✵✵

46


100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Families receiving Basic Income benefit

The percentage of families receiving Basic Income benefit doubled from 15% in 1999 to 30% in 2002.

Calculation method:


■ For nº of families receiving Basic Income benefit: Town Council Social Services Dept.

■ For total nº of families: Town council, EUSTAT


Nº of families receiving Basic Income benefit

Total nº of familiesx 100

10. POVERTY & SOCIAL EXCLUSION

47

IndicaTor 11: Unemployment rate

Work is both a means and an end for human beings: it provides them not only with materialwell-being but also with a sense of identity, an awareness of their position in society and a fee-ling of belonging.

Work – for themselves or for others – is essential if people are to achieve a dignified quality oflife. It provides them with food, clothing and housing, or at least with the income needed to pur-chase them. It is the main way of meeting the basic needs of human beings: an adequate stan-dard of living, enough to eat, an adequate home, clean water and a satisfactory health system.

Loss of employment can have many negative consequences in terms of security and equality.The loss of income it entails means a loss of purchasing power and can lead people to feel aloss of dignity and self-respect, thus wrecking their social relationships. Unemployment canalso result in a breakdown of family relations.

Definition:

This indicator analyses what percentage of the working-age population are unemployed. The infor-mation it provides can be supplemented by breaking down unemployment data by sex and agegroups.


Technical Points:


% Annual Downward No ✵ ✵✵


48


Unemployment rate


Calculation method:


■ For the unemployment rate: EGAILAN or EUSTAT.

11. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

49

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %1999 2000 2001 2002

%

Unemployment rate

11% of the working-age population of the municipality are unemployed. This figure is well up onthe 4% recorded in 1999.

Indicator 12: Level of satisfaction of local residents with theircommunity

There are many indicators that can be used to measure the well-being of the public: per capi-ta income, unemployment rates, access to housing, etc. These indicators are usually based onobjective criteria reflected in statistics. They are useful, but need to be supplemented by moresubjective indicators: in an analysis of people’s well-being it is a good idea to find out how wellthey themselves believe that they live.

Definition:

This indicator analyses the public’s perceived level of well-being by collecting data on levels ofsatisfaction (highly satisfied, fairly satisfied, fairly unsatisfied, highly unsatisfied or “non res-ponse”) in regard to the community in general and to a number of specific areas, i.e.:

01. The municipality in general as a place to live and work.

02. Standard, availability and affordability of housing.

03. Job opportunities.

04. Quality and quantity of natural environment (green areas, rivers, etc.).

05. Quality of built-up area (streets, public spaces, condition of buildings, etc.).

06. Standard of social & health services.

07. Standard of cultural, recreational and leisure services.

08. Standard of schools & colleges.

09. Standard of pubic transport services.

10. Opportunities to take part in municipal planning & decision-making processes.

11. Standard of public safety & security.


Technical Points:


% & average Four.-yearly Upward Yes ✵ ✵✵


50


1. General level of public satisfaction with the municipality

Graphs for variables 2 – 11 can be drawn up along similar lines.


Calculation method:

■ The formulae for calculated the average scores are:

The formulae for calculated the average scores are:

Average score = MS + S + I + MIn + In

% of people highly satisfied

100x 5MS =

% of people satisfied

100x 4S =

% of people indifferent

100x 3I =

% of people unsatisfied

100x 2In =

% of people highly unsatisfied

100x 1MIn =

12. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS WITH THEIR COMMUNITY

51

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %1991 1995 1999 2003

%

Highly saisfied

Fairly unsatisfied

Fairly satisfied

Hihgly unsatisfied

Indifferent

The general level of public satisfaction with the municipality has increased since 1991. 50% of thepopulation currently declare themselves satisfied or highly satisfied with the municipality, as comparedto just 30% in 1991. The percentage of people who declare themselves unsatisfied or highly unsatisfiedhas dropped from 50% to 30% since 1991.The average score awarded to the municipality by the population rose from 2.75 (between unsatisfiedand indifferent) in 1991 to 3.4 (between indifferent and satisfied) in 2002.

52

Proposal for Specific Indicators

Environmnet

Desired trendUnitsDefinitionIndicator

Upward(Downward)

Upward

Upward

Upward

Upward

Downward

Downward

Downward

Downward

>1 & upward

Upward

Upward

Upward

Nº of days(%)

Nº of activitiesNº of participants

Nº of homes/buildings

%

%

Ha/inhab.

Nº vehicles/ day

Nº of vehicles per type.

%

Area planted/ area cutdown

%

tep

%

Nº of days when recorded air quality isclassed as “good”. The pollutants to beconsidered are SO2, NO2, PM10, CO &O3. (This can also be expressed as the% of the population exposed to highlevels of each pollutant).

Nº of environmental educationactivities in the municipality & nº ofparticipants.

Nº of homes/ buildings with energyefficiency certificates.

% of total consumption accounted forby products with eco-label andbiological or fair trade products.

% of current spending in municipalityallocated to the environment.

An informational indicator that showsthe nº of hectares per inhabitant ofecologically productive land (crops,grazing land, woodland & watersystems) needed to produce theresources used by a given populationwith a given standard of living,wherever that area may be.

Average density of traffic recorded atrepresentative points on the basicroad network.

Nº of vehicles by type (passenger cars,motor-cycles, etc.)

% of population exposed to noiselevels higher than recommended byWHO.

Ratio of woodland planted (withautochthonous species) to woodlandcut down (expressed preferably in nºof trees).

% of treated water re-used.

Total consumption (or production)renewable energy.

% of Basque speakers.

1. Urban air quality

2. Environmental education

3. Energy efficiency inhomes

4. Consumption of productsthat foster sustainability

5. Municipal spending onthe environment

6. Ecological footprint

7. Traffic density on basicroad network

8. Nº of vehicles

9. Urban noise levels

10. Woodland planted &cut down

11. Use of treated water

12. Use of renewableenergy sources

13. Knowledge of theBasque language

PROPOSAL FOR SPECIFIC INDICATORS

53

Desired trendUnitsDefinitionIndicator

Upward

Upward

Downward

Upward

Upward

Downward

Downward

%

%

%

Nº of people

Nº of meetings

Nº of crimes &misdemeanours

Nº of accidents

% of current municipal spendingallocated to social policies.

% of current municipal spendingallocated to co-operation forinternational development.

% of population aged 65 or more.

Nº of immigrants registered asresident in the municipality.

Nº of meetings of standing municipalbodies whose purpose is to increasepublic involvement, broken down bytopics (environment, social matters,etc.).

Nº of crimes & misdemeanourscommitted in the municipality per1000 inhabitants.

Nº of accidents per 1000 vehicles.

14. Municipal spending onsocial policies

15. Involvement of themunicipality in internationalsolidarity activities

16. Population ageing rate

17. Integration ofimmigrant population.

18. Public involvement

19. Public safety & security

20. Road safety


■ Municipal Environment Agency, Environment Dept., Environment Unit, Javier Celma, Carmen CebriánResultado de los Indicadores Europeos en la ciudad de Zaragoza. Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza. Zarago-za City hall, Zaragoza, 2002.

■ Pamplona City Hall. Pamplona Agenda 21 Local. Pamplona City Hall, Pamplona, 2002.

■ Ente Vasco de la Energía and Assocition of Basque Municipalities. Guía municipal de sostenibilidadenergética. EVE & EUDEL, 2003.

■ Vitoria-Gasteiz City Hall. Vitoria-Gasteiz hacia un desarrollo sostenible. Boletines 1998-1999-2000-2001-2002.http://www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/ceac/agenda21/default.htm

■ City of Helsinki. The Core Indicators for Sustainable Development in Helsinki.http://www.hel.fi/tietokeskus/en/tutkimuksia/keke02.pdf

■ Barcelona Provincial Council. Sistema Municipal d’Indicadors de Sostenibilitat. Barcelona ProvincialCouncil. Barcelona, 2000.http://www.diba.es/xarxasost/indi/home.asp

■ Provincial Council of Bizkaia, Dept. of the Environment and Territorial Action Sistema de Indicadores deSostenibilidad de los Municipios de Bizkaia.http://web.bizkaia.net/Ingurugiroa_Lurraldea/Jasangarritasuna/ca_indicadores.htm

■ European Sustainable Cities & Towns Campaign and the European Sustainable Cities Project. Towardsa Local Sustainability Profile - European Common Indicators.http://www.sustainable-cities.org/indicators/Indicator_total_november%202002.pdf

■ Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment. Medio Ambiente en la ComunidadAutónoma del País Vasco: Indicadores Ambientales 2002. Sociedad Pública de Gestión AmbientalIHOBE. Bilbao, 2002.http://www.ihobe.net/publicaciones/descarga/Indicadores_Ambientales.pdf

■ Basque Government. Programa Marco Ambiental de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (2002 -2006) Estrategia Ambiental Vasca de Desarrollo Sostenible (2002 - 2020). Sociedad Pública de Ges-tión Ambiental IHOBE. Bilbao, 2002.http://www.ihobe.net/publicaciones/descarga/PMA-Cast.pdf

■ United Kingdom Government. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Local quality of lifecounts.http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/local/localind/index.htm

54

References

Documents

Local Agenda 21 indicators