8.0
Choosing a Set of Core Indicators
Many authors have discussed the fact that differences in data collection practices and capacities across local, regional, national and international scales, as well as the lack of agreement, in many cases, on how to address environmental health issues and set priorities, and the jurisdictional differences to do so, makes the selection of a single, universally applicable set of indicators unrealistic and undesirable. Further, regional differences in many of the factors influencing good indicator development and selection need to be considered and respected in multi-regional monitoring programs. It is for these reasons and others that the CDC has proposed the development of “core” indicators for environmental and health surveillance programs along with the addition of “optional” indicator sets allowing regions to addresses specific differences and meet specific needs. As defined by the CDC (2001): Core indicators: are likely to be available at a state level and should be part of a basic environmental health program; Optional indicators: states may choose to use them depending on individual needs, priorities, data availability, or which may be indicators with environmental components but which may already be under the jurisdiction of other programs in state health departments. As
an example, a two staged process for indicator identification and selection
used by Gosselin et al. (1991) in their “Indicators for Sustainable
Society” is presented here. A
process was followed in which the first set of indicators were selected
based on:
1.
Previously published or selected
by individuals in workshops or interviews; and
2.
Acceptable comparative ability
between countries and regions. The
second set was then selected based on:
1.
High synthetic value (incorporation
of the key elements of the problem as defined by the working group);
2.
High symbolic value (level of
cultural significance and ease of understanding for general public). |