Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the State of Selangor, Malaysia

Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304 This article is also available online at: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the State of Selangor, Malaysia Adnan A. Hezria,*,1, M. Nordin Hasanb,2 a

Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia b Academy of Sciences Malaysia, 902-4 Jalan Tun Ismail, 50482 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Accepted 19 August 2004

Abstract The perception that better information on environment and development is the determinant of effective rational decision- and policy-making processes provide the impetus for global interest in the use of sustainable development indicators (SDIs). Accordingly, proposals for SDIs are framed either on organisational goals or on disciplinary and multidisciplinary theories— aiming to reduce uncertainties in choosing the best alternative among a set of options concerning sustainability. Despite the fact that many SDI initiatives are explicitly aimed at improving policy-making, it is not apparent that political settings and organisational realities are taken into consideration in designing the framework for sustainability assessment. Ignoring the realities of policy-making dynamics can result in poor institutionalisation of the SDI development process, and therefore reduced impact of indicators. Linkage of SDIs to policy processes must also take into account the complex role of information in policy processes. The importance of societal values, cultural contexts and behaviour of bureaucracies must be understood and used to assist the assessment of progress towards sustainability using SDIs. Essentially, objective knowledge must be tampered with pragmatism in governance. This paper highlights the case of SDI development in the state of Selangor where the notion of instrumental rationality is balanced with the ‘incrementalism’ of the policy process that provided the foundation for institutionalising the reporting and use of SDIs. The ideals and paradoxes of participatory decision-making, the principles of the rational model and decision-making processes within a state government are critically examined. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable development indicators; Policy processes; Selangor; Malaysia; Rationality

* Corresponding author. Present address: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (CRES), Institute for Advanced Studies, Hancock Building West (Bldg.43), The Australian National University, ACT 0200 Canberra, Australia. Tel.: +612 6125 6773; fax: +612 6125 0757. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.A. Hezri), [email protected] (M.N. Hasan). 1 Tel.: +603 8921 4144; fax: +603 8925 5104. 2 Tel.: +603 2694 9898; fax: +603 2694 5858. 1470-160X/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2004.08.002

288

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

‘‘. . . a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity’’. –Niccolo` Machiavelli, The Prince, (1998: p. 52)

1. Introduction The advent of the sustainability idea has elevated the agenda of assessing socio-economic and environmental dimensions of development to new heights. Consequently many programmes to design sustainable development indicators (SDIs) and related variants have flourished worldwide to the extent that they have been regarded by some as the ‘indicator industry’ (King et al., 2000; Nix, 1996). Governments and society demonstrate optimism in the formulation of SDIs as a solution to inadequacies in the decisionmaking process that results in development that is not sustainable (HMSO, 1996; LESTARI, 1999; LGMB, 1995; PCSD, 1998; SERI, 1999; States of Guernsey, 2003). Scholars from different branches of learning have proposed ways of measuring progress towards sustainability reflecting their own disciplinary inclinations (e.g., Afgan et al., 2000; Asheim, 1997; de Montgolfier, 1999; Wiggering and Rennings, 1997). The earlier impetus for SDI development and use was provided by Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 which stated that ‘‘indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to a self-regulatory sustainability of integrated environment and development systems’’ (United Nations, 1992). Though many initiatives realised that SDIs are not the only ends to this means, the perception that information is the primary determinant of better decision-making is prevalent. From the rapid growth of the ‘indicator industry’, it is evident that indicators have been perceived to be indispensable in the craft and science of rational1 policy-making within all levels of governance. There 1

The lexical definition of ‘rational’ in Oxford English Dictionary is ‘exercising ones reason in a proper manner; having sound judgment; sensible; sane’.

is a tacit assumption in SDI programs that individuals and organisations are rational decision-makers who will use information to guide decision and action consequentially, as it becomes available—i.e., ‘use’ is dependent on the characteristics of indicators for instance timely, relevant, and comprehensible. Such tendency is demonstrated in buoyant statements declaring, ‘‘there will be no indicators without policies and no policies without indicators’’ (Flood, 1997, p. 1640) and ‘‘what cannot be measured will not be done’’ (Deputy Secretary General of the OECD quoted in Peterson, 2001: p. 55). Although the idea that indicators could drive policy is attractive, it neglects the fact that changes in any policy direction are determined by more than the mere production of indicators (for a critique see McCool and Stankey, 2004). The aim of implementing ‘logic and truth’ is less important compared to the main goal of a policy-making process that is to reconcile interests in consensus negotiation (Weiss, 1977). The situation is exacerbated when dealing with ‘wicked’ and complex policy problem such as sustainability (see Dovers, 1997). For that reason, our understanding of the nature of information as an instrument of power must enable us to discount the assumption of a perfectly rational world. The dictum from Machiavelli’s The Prince (quoted in the beginning of this article) serves as a reminder that knowledge and information is by no means impervious to manipulation and abuses (for example, on indicators see Block and Burns, 1986; Ribaudo et al., 2001). The failure of social indicators to shape policy action in the past has been attributed to ‘an overly simplistic view’ of the conditions and mechanisms of how knowledge influences policy (Innes, 1989: p. 430). Save for a few emerging work that hints at the linkages between policy and SDI systems (e.g., Astleithner and Hamedinger, 2003; Bell and Morse, 2001; Bosch, 2002; Dhakal and Imura, 2003; Gudmundsson, 2003; Journel et al., 2003), the literature deals mostly with the scientific aspects of the design and prescription of indicator sets rather than how they are or might be used. The foregoing should not be construed to suggest that there is a flaw in the existing literature on SDI systems. Rather, as the techno-scientific facets of SDIs are at present relatively well developed (McCool and Stankey, 2004), more thinking is needed to promote a

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

wider purchase of and a more enduring presence of SDI systems in policy-making processes as preconditions for utilisation and policy learning (Hezri, forthcoming). In this article, we wish to report on a project where the prescription of indicator sets is preceded with the question of user’s needs. By highlighting the casestudy of the State of Selangor in Malaysia, we aim to communicate how the integration of monitoring, policy assessment and management was conceptualised through first analysing the existing meta-policy and governance structure of the State Government of Selangor—which includes policy-making culture and the ‘rules of the game’. Grounded in field experience and post hoc reasoning, we found that the literature on theories of policy processes provides a sound explanation of why the translation of Western models of indicator designs would compromise the possibility of success in democracies such as Malaysia. This together with the consideration of the behaviour of information in policy processes are the focus of Section 2. In Section 3, we expand the spectrum of decisionmaking to encompass rational and political processes to propose a typology of different ways of how indicators could be used. Section 4 provides the context of the case-study while Section 5 presents an analysis of the elements of irrationality in governance in Selangor which necessitates a different concept and design for indicators to be used. Before reiterating key points in a conclusion, we explain the SDI system that has been proposed for adoption by the State Government of Selangor which is the focus of Section 6.

2. Theoretical framework on policy processes The public policy-making of government is often seen as a process. A simple definition is offered by Sabatier (1991: p. 144), by describing a policy process as ‘the factors affecting policy formulation and implementation, as well as the subsequent effects on policy’. The use of the term ‘process’, argued Burch and Wood (1990: p. 13), denotes two propositions: ‘first, an activity taking place over time, and second, and activity that changes and transforms an entity in the course of handling it’. In addition to those, policy process has also been discussed within the context of policy cycles which can be broken into

289

discrete stages and sub-stages with specific activities taking place in each stages (see, e.g., Bridgman and Davis, 2000; Howlett and Ramesh, 2003). The decision-making stage is one of the key sub-stages. The nature of the decision-making stage has been described through various models inter alia comprehensive rationality, bounded rationality, incrementalism, mixed-scanning, and the garbage-can model (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003). We risk simplifying a very complex and inconclusive literature by discussing only three of these models below, i.e., comprehensive rationality, bounded rationality and incrementalism. In addition, we explore the implications each will bear on information in general and indicators in particular. 2.1. Comprehensive and bounded rationality decision-making The comprehensive rationality model is often linked to ‘the economic man’ theory originating from welfare economics and systems analysis (Carley, 1980). Rooted in the enlightenment rationalism and positivism philosophy, both are based on the assumption that humans are entirely rational beings. In economic thought, to be rational is to select from a group of alternative courses of action, which maximises output for a given input, or minimises input for a given output (Green and Shapiro, 1994). In essence, the model asserts that decision-making is very much ‘a search for maximising solutions to complex problems in which policy-relevant information is gathered and then focused in a scientific fashion on the assessments of policy options’ (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003: p. 166). The model has been described as ‘scientific’, ‘engineering’ and ‘managerialist’ in nature for its neutral approach to problem solving (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003: p. 168). In operational terms the rational model emphasises the positive utilisation2 of information in policymaking and it poses two closely related problems. Firstly, it assumes that information gathered will be used for making decisions if it is precise, reliable, and relevant (Rich and Oh, 2000: p. 176). Secondly, it does 2 Acquiring, disseminating, and utilising information is assumed to be a positive activity that is in the interest of all possible stakeholders. Those who do not seek and use information are perceived as not acting on a rational basis.

290

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

not distinguish between the different interrelated stages of information processing by decision-makers and further assumes that there is a one-to-one relationship between information acquisition and use, ignoring the processes involved. It has been further argued that, in order to be rational, one also has to be comprehensive. This view assumes that rational analysis must involve the collection of all data relevant to a problem and the ordering of all human goals and subsequent objectives to facilitate proper comparison of consequences of alternative strategies. Indisputably, many earlier efforts to develop SDIs are based on such premises, and in aiming for comprehensiveness, propose extensive lists of indicators to address the multiple dimensions of sustainability. In a recent study of sustainable transport policy and indicators, Gudmundsson (2003: p. 210) noted the difficulty in balancing between the requirements for comprehensiveness through data input and being comprehensible for policy output needs. Another central tenet of the comprehensive rationality model is that a human being is seen as always engaging in the process of ‘‘optimising’’ their expected utility. This utility advances a definition of decision-making which is described by Scott (1971) as consisting of a process with the following components: (i) A search process to discover goals; (ii) The formulation of objectives; (iii) The selection of alternatives (strategies) to accomplish objectives; and (iv) The evaluation of outcomes. This model prescribes procedures for decisionmaking inasmuch as analysing and evaluating alternatives for sustainability require the availability of relevant information—a point when SDIs become central to decision-making with its role in reducing uncertainty and in choosing among a set of policy alternatives. In practice, these procedures could be useful especially when indicators are linked to objectives and clear targets to be fulfilled as exemplified by performance-based type of indicators. However, Smith and May (1980) characterised two inadequacies of the comprehensive rationality approach—too narrow in scope and utopian as a

goal. The rationalistic approach is seen as a utopian goal as most of policy decisions have numerous unanticipated consequences. This is further aggravated in sustainability because issues such as biodiversity, pollution and climate change have the element of pervasive uncertainties built into them (Dovers and Handmer, 1995). In the real world, as Smith and May (1980) pointed out, ‘ends are not that clear, decisions are not that neat and evaluations are not that systematic’. For instance, without a detailed historical analysis, the Malaysian policy to affirmatively redistribute wealth to the economically disadvantaged groups could have been seen as a prejudice (and irrational) agenda in relating means to ends that does not conform to ideals of sustainability. However, inter-ethnic economic parity is a precondition to political sustainability as the country learns its lesson from the 1969 episode of racial violence (see, e.g., Singh, 2001). The recognition that ambiguity and uncertainty is an inherent feature of policies of relevance to sustainability would require a rather different design of an assessment system for sustainability. Dissatisfied with the comprehensive rationality model, Herbert Simon developed the theory of bounded rationality (Simon, 1955). He argued that while choices are rational, there are specific hurdles, for example, time, information and cognitive constraints, which bind decision-makers from achieving pure rationality. Due to the sheer number of potential alternatives, the information needed to evaluate them is so vast that even an approximation of objective rationality is difficult to achieve. This is especially true in the sustainability debate as descriptions and findings, however comprehensive, can only provide a partial basis for policy decisions (Paehlke, 1999: p. 258). One major difference between comprehensive and bounded rationality theories is apparent when the component of decision-making is being examined. A decision-maker operating as described in the rational model would seek to maximise, that is to collect and evaluate all information about possible alternatives and solutions simultaneously. With bounded rationality, a decision-maker would seek to satisfice involving the selection of satisfactory and sufficient alternatives rather than the best alternative in objective terms (Simon, 1955). This theory acknowledges the

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

limitations of humans when it comes to processing information as well as to time and cost constraints. Based on this, SDI development can inform decisionmakers only on limited number of alternatives. Consistent with this, many SDI efforts recognise the need for cost-effective information often resulting in the selection of proxy indicators within a small set of SDIs. 2.2. Political decision-making: incrementalism An alternative assumption about policy-making views decision-making as an inescapably political activity into which perceptions and interests of individual actors enter at all stages. This view fostered the emergence of the incremental model, featuring policy processes characterised by bargaining and compromise strategies among individual actors (Braybrook and Lindblom, 1963; Lindblom, 1959, 1979). Consideration of power as a key concept distinguishes this from both the comprehensive and bounded rationality models. Power is exercised to achieve ends not just in the sense of formal authority, but also in the form of possession of technical expertise and access to information (Browne, 1993). Thus, there is no guarantee that the available information will be put to use in a rational manner. The economist John Maynard Keynes was once cited asserting that ‘there is nothing a government hates more than to be well informed for it makes the process of arriving at decisions much more complicated and difficult’ (Minogue, 1983), implying decision-making to be a less technical and more political activity. In reality, political variables limit the extent of choice available to decision-makers. Decision-makers are usually not free to consider all possible options concerning sustainability and often they are compelled to shortlist even choices they are not able to justify as appropriate. In Malaysia, even localised environmental management issues such as the granting of an effluent discharge licence for a polluting factory belonging to the small and medium-scale industry (SMIs) or a logging licence for a small area of the Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR), is often fraught with scientific (and political) uncertainties, hence complicating the job of a decision-maker. In such situations, the decision made depends largely on the outcome of political bargaining, or as coined by Goulet (1986), on

291

navigation to reach the opposite ‘shores of choices’ by the various stakeholders. With the above realism, Charles Lindblom has proposed disjointed incrementalism as an analytic method and political incrementalism as a mode of action (Lindblom, 1959, 1979). Given the irrational conditions in which policy operates, Lindblom argues that we can steer away from haphazard change by limiting analysis to ‘any calculated or thoughtfully chosen set of stratagems to simplify complex policy problems’ (Lindblom, 1979). The central tenet of the analytic method of incrementalism model can be summarised as the following (ibid: p. 517; see also Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992): (i) Limitation of analysis to a few somewhat familiar policy alternatives; (ii) Greater analytical preoccupation with ills to be remedied than positive goals to be sought; (iii) A sequence of trials, errors, and revised trials; (iv) Analysis that explores only some, not all, of the important possible consequences of a considered alternative; (v) Fragmentation of analytical work among many partisan participants in policy-making, each attending to their piece of the overall problem domain. Termed as ‘the science of muddling through’, political incrementalism is the practice of making and changing policies through relatively small steps. This is consistent with observations of real policy processes. It also implies that only a restricted number of policy alternatives are reviewed in policy processes and consequently only a limited number of consequences is envisaged and evaluated for any given alternative (Lindblom, 1979). An example was the long-standing struggle for the adoption of Malaysian National Environmental Policy which had to wait for six years for Cabinet approval. The proposed policy is not adopted mainly because many of its principles and recommendations would risk the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and affect their exports. As such, regulation of industrial environmental protection is improved only in small steps in the absence of a clear guiding policy. The incremental model is not without flaws and has been criticised on many grounds inter alia: lack of goal

292

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

orientation; inherent conservativism and discouragement of large-scale change and innovation; undemocratic and favouring bargaining within a select group of elite decision-makers; and undermining the search for promising new alternatives by discouraging systematic analysis and planning (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003: p. 172). These shortcomings can be addressed by fusing the political realism espoused by incrementalism, with the theories and practice of adaptive management which continuously seek to comprehend the cause-and-effect relationships between socio-political and biophysical systems (see Gunderson et al., 1995; Lessard, 1998; Walters and Holling, 1990). The sequence of trial-and-error can be pursued more intelligently by continuously improving the knowledge base by readjusting to changes viz. action-based planning, research, and combined ecological and policy monitoring. The SDI literature has only recently begun to acknowledge the connection of indicator programs with broader political systems. For instance, in an empirical study of the benefits of urban sustainability indicators in three Canadian and four American cities, Holden (2001: p. 227) suggested that incremental changes ‘can cause fewer ripples throughout the system and raised less unrest’. Moreover, a showcase of how the design of indicator systems takes into account the broader link to political system in a society has also been demonstrated in the conception of Policy Performance Index (Jesinghaus, 2002). However, a robust and consistent understanding of policy systems and the way in which indicators are used within policy is needed before institutionalisation could take place. The following section describes an approach for better understanding of the linkage between indicators and policy.

3. Typology of indicator use Dynamic factors in policy- and decision-making such as inter-organisational politics, culture and the existence of policy networks definitely influence the use of information in decision-making on sustainability. Inevitably, indicators too are embedded within a web of administrative, organisational and political activities. Based on the literature on public policy (Browne, 1993; Feldman and March, 1981), knowl-

edge utilisation (Weiss, 1979, 1980), and social indicators (Biderman, 1966; Henriot, 1970), we can conceptualise a typology of indicator uses defined by the degree of rationality exercised in the policy process on them (see Hezri, 2003): Instrumental use occurs when there is a direct link or linear relationships between indicators and decision outcomes (use for action). Fluctuations of indicator values provide empirical evidence that will induce corresponding policy and management responses. Conceptual use (or use for enlightenment) occurs when indicators sensitise or change a user’s understanding of a problem or situation. Over time, conceptual use may subsequently induce decision outcomes. Tactical use of information occurs when indicators, or the process of collecting information, are used either as a delaying tactic, as a substitute for action or to deflect criticisms. This use has little relevance to the substance that the indicator carries. Symbolic use of indicators is the process of gathering indicators to give ritualistic assurances that those who make the decisions hold appropriate attitudes. In other words, indicators are used as a sign or symbol of some other reality. Political use of indicators, where the content of indicators becomes ammunition to support a predetermined position that a user finds congenial and supportive. It is about persuading others to a particular view of the problem and ways to solve it for varying reasons of ideology, interest or intellect. Both the constructive and unconstructive uses of information in policy as demonstrated above suggests that SDI developers should extend their understanding beyond the rationality model in designing a policyresonant sustainability assessment system. Accordingly, strategies to promote the use of SDIs in an ‘Instrumental’ and ‘Conceptual’ mode must be formulated in a manner sensitive to the needs of users. We propose that an alternative philosophy should be of ‘fitness-for-purpose’ indicators rather than a definitive set of indicators (see Hezri and Nordin, 2004; Levett, 1998). To be of use SDIs must be developed together with policy-makers. Fitnessfor-purpose SDI are based on the objectivity of rational model, but adjusted to the context provided by

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

the political model of decision-making. The next section describes such a process in the state of Selangor, Malaysia.

4. Sustainable development in the state of selangor: a contextual introduction 4.1. The research background The conceptual development of SDIs for the State of Selangor was carried out by the authors in three major phases: definition of sustainable development; identification of potential available indicators; and definition of the SDI concept and management framework. A detailed explanation of each of these phases, which were carried out from January 1999 to October 2001, is presented elsewhere (Hezri and Nordin, 2004). This research became the foundation for sustainability assessment and reporting framework in the Sustainable Development Strategy and Agenda 21 for Selangor official outputs, i.e., Agenda 21 Selangor (Selangor, 2001) and Guideline for Implementing Agenda 21 in Selangor (Selangor, 2002). The former presents a brief description of relevant concepts of SDIs before suggesting a list of possible indicators that the state government can use to track sustainability at their respective agencies as well as of governance in the state. The list was a preliminary ‘thought starter’ for linking the various action plans suggested in the report to the process of implementation and monitoring. The latter output recommends a possible process that would enable stakeholders to design and utilise appropriate indicators. Both efforts were precursors to the establishment of a comprehensive system of collecting and reporting indicators of relevance to sustainable development in the state (see Section 6). 4.2. The State of Selangor Selangor is a state in Peninsula Malaysia located between longitudes 1018 to 1018 30 East and latitudes 288380 to 308500 North. With a total area of 7955 km2, it is divided into nine administrative districts. According to data gathered from a population census in 2000, Selangor has a population of 3,947,527 or 17.8% of the total population in Malaysia. Population

293

growth rate of Selangor from the period 1991 to 2000 was estimated at 6.02% making it the highest in Malaysia (Department of Statistics, 2001). As a state within the Malaysian Federation, development in Selangor mirrors almost every aspect of development seen in all other parts of Malaysia. In this context, development in Selangor can be discussed within the context of a general Malaysian perspective3. Nevertheless, as the most developed state in Malaysia, Selangor shows some distinctive development characteristics not apparent in the other 13 states. This includes the structure of its economy and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of rapid development. Considering its standing as the economic powerhouse of Malaysia, Selangor aims to lead the nation in achieving Vision 20204—by achieving it 15 years earlier via Vision 20055 for Selangor. The impetus driving this target is based on the analyses that Selangor’s basic socio-economic accomplishment as a state surpasses national achievements in many ways (refer Table 1). Most of Vision 2005 for Selangor is in synergy with the Malaysian Vision 2020. Nevertheless it differs in two aspects: firstly the target for the achievement is much earlier than that of Vision 2020 and secondly, Selangor will emphasise on becoming an advanced industrial state with 60% of state’s GDP coming from the manufacturing sector. In general, the population of Selangor enjoys a high standard of living. Excellent infrastructure and basic amenities such as extensive and high quality road networks, schools, community halls, electricity and water supplies were built following rapid industria3 Malaysia gained her independence from the British in the year 1957. 4 Vision 2020 is a grand scheme for economic, social and cultural development to achieve a ‘fully-developed country’ status by the year 2020 as proposed by Malaysian former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamed. The goal inter alia aims to build a united nation with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full control of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. 5 Selangors version of Vision 2020 but differs in two aspects: firstly the target for the achievement is 15 years earlier than the Vision 2020 and secondly, the practical emphasis will be on becoming an advanced industrial state with 60% of states GDP coming from the manufacturing sector.

294

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

Table 1 Selected socio-economic indicators comparing Selangor and Malaysia Socio-economic indicators

Performance Selangor

Telephone line per 1000 population Literacy rates Population supplied with piped water Toddler mortality rates per 1000 population Road length covered with tar for every 10 km2

Malaysia

1990

1995

1990

1995

154.9

229.1

89.3

164.2

91.3

96.8

85.1

89.3

90.6

99

80.1

89.1

11.9

8.0

13.1

9.9

8.1

9.5

1.2

1.5

Source: State Secretary Office of Selangor, 1999.

lisation in the 70s and 80s. Such accomplishment is also reflected in household income statistics, which increased to a figure of RM3135 per month in 1997 from RM1558 in 1995. The poverty rate in the state also decreased from 8.9% in 1987 to 2.5% in 1995 (State Secretary Office of Selangor, 1999). Nonetheless, boom and bust economic development in Selangor has changed the social fabric and altered ecosystems to a greater extent than in the other states in Malaysia. Such social and environmental impacts bear close resemblance to the trends observed in the industrialised countries of the North during rapid industrialisation. For instance, 14% of mangrove forests in Selangor had been converted to other land use over the last 30 years (Saiful Arif, 2001). Moreover, statistics on child and other family abuse cases indicate a worsening of conditions within family institutions in Selangor. For example, during the period from 1998 to 1999 there was a 39% increase in the number of reported cases of child abuse in Selangor (Selangor, 2001). As negative impacts of development became more apparent, it was recognised that Selangor has reached a point where development activities must be carried out in a more holistic way. In line with this consciousness, the Selangor State Planning Committee (SPC) in 1998 commissioned the project Formulation of Sustainable Development Strategy and Agenda 21 of Selangor—a pioneering state government initiative to prepare a blueprint for sustainability

at the state level. The project was divided into three main phases in which the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) of Selangor assumed the role of project coordinator with the Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI) of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia providing the research and technical inputs (Selangor, 2003). It was recognised in this project that land approval for physical development projects needed to incorporate a new perspective that would allow integration of environmental, social and economic policy objectives. An environmentally sensitive area (ESA) policy was developed at the state level. This has since been incorporated into the 8th Malaysia Plan (Malaysia, 2001) for implementation at the national level. The first output of the project, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas report laid the foundation for this policy (Selangor, 1999), which extended from the state government to the federal government level and became national policy–a totally unexpected outcome of the project. Sustainable Development Strategy and Agenda 21 of Selangor, the two other outputs from the Project provided the home-grown intellectual basis that defined what sustainability meant for the state of Selangor (Selangor, 2000, 2001). The strategies and action plans to bring Selangor towards sustainability it contained were formulated based on consensus derived from multi-stakeholders consultative meetings that involved decision-makers, subject matter experts, and community representatives.

5. Constraints in measuring sustainable development for the State of Selangor 5.1. Federalism and its influence on sustainability In Malaysia, the legislative powers are shared between the Federal and State governments. To ensure minimal overlap of power and responsibilities, the Constitution of Malaysia provides the formal definition of the federal design by specifying the extent of power between the Federal and State governments (Shafrudin, 1987, 1988), and the division of federal and state executive powers follows the division of legislative powers (Harding, 1996). By constitutional design, the Federal government possesses more

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

legislative and executive powers relative to the states. Within this framework of federalism, the state government of Selangor has a limited financial and administrative capacity in manoeuvring its policy direction towards sustainability. The implication is that, for most issues, the state governments will only be involved in the implementation of programmes and projects decided by the Federal governments. Likewise, the Federal government has minimal control over exploitation of natural resources (e.g., minerals, water, and timber) in the state. The agency responsible for socio-economic development in Selangor planning is the State Economic Planning and Development Unit. The agency largely responsible for environmental protection is the Department of Environment (DoE) Selangor, which is a branch office of the Federal DoE. This institutional set-up occasionally complicates the coordination of programme implementation with respect to environment and development issues. As an illustration, the decision to approve any physical development projects, including those which can be environmentally sensitive, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore, will not require informational inputs from the DoE unless the project falls within the gazetted list of ‘prescribed activities’ which invoke Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be undertaken. In this context of federalism, a definitive set of indicators that does not take into account the limited powers of the State and Federal governments on matters related to the environment will hamper its effectiveness for tracking the sustainability of development in Selangor. 5.2. Participatory decision-making and cultural values Although the concept of partnership has taken on various meanings, it is widely recognised in policymaking circles that participatory models of decisionmaking have become sine qua non for good and effective governance (Boyer, 2000). Moreover, in the developed world, participation in SDI projects is often linked around the issue of political power which, amongst others, necessitates a greater involvement from the public in government decision-making (Bell and Morse, 2001: p294). The justification is that, if indicators are made public, the transparency can bring

295

political feedback that encourages decision-makers to connect the decisions to the information in the indicators. However, in Malaysia, any proposals to promote participatory decision-making have to be mindful of the nature of relationships between the state and society. Apart from descriptions of its political system as being pseudo-democratic (Case, 2001), semidemocratic (Case, 1993), quasi-democratic (Zakaria, 1989), or even a repressive-responsive semi-authoritarian regime (Crouch, 1996), Malaysia is also frequently described as a primarily consociational democracy, that is, a system of government based on inter-communal elite accommodation. The defining principles of such system, according to (Singh 2001: p. 48), includes, inter alia, ‘a grand coalition comprising political elites representing the subcultures, decisionmaking based on ethnic proportionality, compromises, consensus and mutual veto’. Also, decision-making authority in Malaysia concentrates in the hands of the elected executive and the bureaucracy. One key determinant of the nature of the relationships between the state and society is the legal provision that influence the freedom of information in Malaysia—the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972 and the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82) (ISA)6. The OSA is based on the one that existed in Britain which functions to protect governmental documents from falling to the hands of enemies. While Britain relinquished the Act decades ago to enable open and transparent governance, it continues to be operational in Malaysia. The raison d’etre of the Act is not an issue here, as misuse of this power often materialises at the implementation level. The design and attribute of this act are said to be the problem. The authority to categorise information as ‘classified’ is bestowed in the hands of politicians and government officials and this serves to limit active participation of the public in governmental planning. Likewise, the basis for the ISA is also not suspect since it was effective in dealing with the Communist Party of Malaya insurgency7. Indirectly, judicial 6

Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82) is a statutory act inherited from the colonial days. Its provisions include preventive detention without trial, for the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organized violence against person and property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental thereto. 7 The Communist Party of Malaya surrendered their fight to the government in 1989.

296

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

provisions of both the OSA and ISA reduce the right to information by the public. The much-needed justification for the doctrine of the freedom of access to information that emanates from Western ideals of democracy is not universally applicable, especially in polities with ‘authoritarian’ forms of government such as that of Malaysia. The idea of a fully-fledged public participation in decision-making is a questionable approach in a country that upholds ‘Asian values’ which does not guarantee individual freedom of speech and, in effect, weakens civil society (for arguments favouring Asian Values, see Anwar Ibrahim, 1996; Mahathir Mohamed, 1999). This is where the notion of cultural values—encompassing the issue of attitudes, work orientation, concepts of power and hierarchy, and attitudes towards authority—comes into play in the Malaysian policy-making process. A definitive set of indicators for all agencies to adopt would be a doubtful prospect as indicators are information, which is closely related to the issue of power. By the same token, a definitive multi-purpose SDI set which includes the interests of the public as the user, runs counter to the political reality in Malaysia and Selangor, and would compromise the potential for these indicators to be utilised for decision-making. It is argued, therefore, that a more pragmatic approach is needed in suggesting appropriate forms of ‘public participation’ in the Malaysian context.

6. Sustainable development indicators for the State of Selangor Descriptions of policy processes definitely influence prescription for remedies. Cognizant of limitations described in the previous section, it was recommended that the state government of Selangor adopts a ‘fitness-for-purpose’ indicator development strategy. A three-tier SDI system was proposed comprising indicators for state sustainability, indicators for sectoral sustainability and indicators for the assessment of sustainability at the local government level. In line with the disjointed incrementalism approach, this SDI system proposes the fragmentation of analytic work to many partisan participants in policy-making, each attending to their piece of the overall sustainability problem domain. It is not a

panacea, but an approach that takes into account the elements of irrationality by consciously designing a matching system for reporting integrating, monitoring, assessment and management. This system is expected to encourage the utilisation of indicators categorised for (Instrumental) and (Conceptual) use. Fig. 1 illustrates the structure of this system and the following sub-sections give a brief account of the system. 6.1. Indicators for state sustainability Sustainability reporting at the State level serves several purposes. Four categories of indicators are proposed to meet the different needs that are: (i) Indicators for Policy Accounting, Compliance, and Auditing; (ii) Headline Indicators; (iii) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA); and (iv) Capabilities Indicators. For pragmatic reasons, a high priority for data availability determines the main criteria for selection for indicators belonging in the category of accounting, compliance, and auditing. From the field study, we have identified a preliminary set of indicators that are readily available at the state government level (see Table 2). These indicators belong to the category of descriptive indicators and are useful as retrospective indicators. Collectively, they provide information that is useful in accounting for social, environmental and economic changes that follow the implementation of broad sets of public policies in Selangor over time. They also help determine whether the public and businesses are in compliance with standards and procedures imposed by the legislatures and regulatory agencies in Selangor. Additionally, these indicators are useful in auditing whether resources and services intended for certain target groups and beneficiaries (individuals, families, and municipalities) have actually reached them. However, these indicators will form a large set which can complicate understanding and communication of sustainable development issues. To simplify information for easy assessment of sustainable development, a core set of indicators highlighting key issues on sustainable development was proposed for adoption—the Headline Indicators. In essence the functions assigned to the Headline Indicators are three-fold: to inform state-level decision-makers on sustainability issues; to focus the state towards

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

297

Fig. 1. SDI system for the State of Selangor.

sustainability goals; and to highlight sustainability issues to the public. In its initial stage, this set will comprise readily available indicators even though they are poor surrogates. It was also proposed to the state government that these indicators be incorporated into existing state-planning documents such as the FiveYear Plans and Annual State Economic Report. Elements of disjointed incrementalism are inherent in monitoring the sustainability of the state of Selangor. One example is the precedence given on existing indicators to be released as Headline Indicators for public consumption performing the function of information communication. Within this context, its use can be described as belonging to the conceptual category as applied to the public, while serving the function of tactical and symbolic use for the governments. Unlike many SDI initiatives, which concentrate on developing complex and non-existing indicators that will require a pervasive institutional change, the approach adopted in Selangor advocated incrementalism by limiting the sustainability analysis to areas which is only marginally different from the status quo, allowing the state government to govern

within its capacity. However, a mechanism to allow a sequence of intelligent trial-and-error is made possible with the prescription of over 700 action items (shortmiddle- and long-term) as detailed out in Selangor Sustainable Development Strategy document (Selangor, 2000). The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) indicators are currently under their initial stage of conceptualisation and will be utilised mainly for resource and physical development planning by administrators. The state has almost complete statutory control over land management which includes sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining, housing, irrigation and drainage, and wildlife protection—areas with potential application of performance indicators that will require the coupling of action plans development with the determination of benchmarks and quantitative targets. According to the state ESA policy, benchmarks and reference values for sensitivity indicators for Heritage Value (e.g., biodiversity, historical and archaeological artefacts), Hazard Risk (e.g., areas affected by soil erosion and landslide, flood-prone areas, ex-mining lands), and Life Support

298

Table 2 Initial set of sustainable development indicators for Selangor Sustainability class

Code

Element

Descriptor

Indicator

Unit

Economy

Ec1 Ec2

Production increase Manufacturing Investment

Ec4

Gross domestic product per capita Trend of labour cost per unit value added per labour cost Ratio of foreign investment to local investment Rate of poverty

RM ‘000 RM

Ec3

Ratio with population Growth productivity in labour cost unit Local versus foreign contribution Trend of change

Natural resource

Ec5

Share in Total GDP

Share of natural resource intensive

En1

Air quality

Air pollution index

Adverse air quality incidences

En2

Freshwater quality

Extent of clean rivers

Percent of clean rivers

En3

Floods occurences

Trend of houses affected by flood

En4

Environmental hazards Hazardous waste

Offences fined

En5

Solid waste

Generation, disposal and recycling

Extent of non-compliance in scheduled waste regulation Extent of solid waste generation, disposal and recycling

En6

Transportation

Road traffic

Trend of road traffic

NRI NR2

Domestic water Agriculture

Consumption by population Land for food and its yield

Per capita domestic water consumption Agricultural land dedicated to food production and its yield

NR3

Forest cover

Sustainable utilisation of permanent forest reserve

NR4

Renewable energy

Consumption by population

NR5

Minerals

Productivity of mining land

NR6

Mangrove

Disappearance of mangrove forest

Permanent of forest reserve as a percent of total area pressure to the pfr by development Sustainable renewable energy consumption per capita Gross value of mining output per hectare of mining land Percent of mangrove forest of total land area

Percentage of population under poverty line Percentage of total GDP Frequency of unhealthy days per year Clean rivers as percentage of total rivers monitored Number of houses affected by flood per year Number of fines issued Percentage of recycling; percentage of wasted generated collected; percentage of waste disposed in sanitary field Number of registered motor vehicles per km road used Cubic metre per person Percentage of agricultural land of total land use, Yield of metric tonne per hectare per year Percentage of PFR out of total land area, percentage of PFR De-gazetted KWH used per capita RM ‘000 per hectare Perecentage of mangrove forest of total land area

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

Environment

Distribution of wealth Natural resource

RM ‘000 000

Social

Health

Disease trend

Incidence of modern and traditional disease

S2

Housing

Balance in policy for the lower income

Ratio of low/medium cost to high cost houses

S3

Employment

Level of education in the workforce

Employment and educational status

S4

Marginalized people

S5

Major groups

Commitment in securing original lifestyle Organized women

S6

Educational democratisation

Levels of technological understanding

Percent of land gazetted for Orang Asli Trend of numbers of profesional women Quality of science and mathematics and overall MCE results

S7

Cultural

Gazetted heritage sites

S8

Corruption

S9

Family cohesion

S10

Social integration

Prevalence as a threat to social capital Status of marriage institution Extent of crime

S11

Social integration

Rate of arrests

Rate of juveniles’ involvement in crime

S12

Urbanisation

Urbanisation trend

Urbanisation rate

S13

Public safety

Extent of public road and fire safety

Fire breakouts and rate of life threatening road accidents

Number of heritage site belonging to Selangor Number of corruption cases investigated and prosecuted Divorce rate in Selangor Rate of crime (violent, trade and property)

Incidence rate of communicable diseases per 100 000 population, number of deaths in government hospitals related to heart diseases, pulmonary circulation and respiratory system Perecntage of supply for low and medium low cost houses in relation to the specified target for year 2000. Percentage distribution of Labour Force in Selangor aged between 15–64 by levels of education attained Area of gazetted land (ha) and land approved for gazetting (ha) Numbers of female professionals as percentage of total female population Percentage of MCE candidates passed the examination percentage of students who obtained Grade l versus percentage of students who failed and obtained General Certificate Number of gazztted artefacts versus total number of artefacts Number of corruption cases investigated and number of cases prosecuted Divorces as a percentage of population aged 20–54 Violent, property and trade crime per 10 000 population; Homicide per 100 000 population Number of juveniles arrested per 10 000 juveniles Percentage of urban population versus total population Fire breakouts per 100,000 population; Number killed or injured in road accidents per 100,000 population

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

S1

299

300

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

Value (e.g., clean water, food, energy, and construction materials) could be developed with inputs from relevant stakeholders. In the beginning, the ESA indicators set will be designed for state and departmental officials as the users. However, as the set matures, they will be incorporated in the list of Headline Indicators for wider dissemination. The Sustainable Development Strategy document outlined areas where further research is needed to enable the state government to address the goal of sustainability which are beyond the grasp of existing policy abilities. It is envisaged that these research activities will generate indicators that must eventually be transformed into usable formats that can inform policy-making and management. The initial list of this set, termed as Capability Indicators for they are charged to assess latent issues of sustainability for the state, will be identified from gaps in the present data and information on sustainability. Functions of Capability Indicators include: to develop more integrative second generation indicators (see Peterson, 2001); to initiate data collection on strategic sustainability issues for the state; and to mediate between Federal and Selangor Government preferences. Among sample of areas of strategic area for the creation of capabilities indicators are the interlinkages between state development and energy requirements (energy is a Federal responsibility), the synergy between urbanisation policy and conservation strategies; and land-use implementation and location of industrial estates. Upon maturation, indicators from this set can become a component of Headline Indicators. This system allow for a sequence of trials, errors and revised trials in generating a suite of indicators that are relevant to policies in the state. 6.2. Indicators for sectoral sustainability Reporting progress is not a straightforward exercise for a bureaucracy. Most of the literature on the machinery of government assumes that, when an activity is delegated to a bureaucracy, it will either carry out the rules and regulations or make decisions in the public interest regardless of whether it benefits them or not (Tullock, 1976). In reality, a bureaucracy does try to improve its own utility, for instance with motivations to improve working conditions, organisational redesign and budget increment (Dunleavy,

1991). Hence, by virtue of these motivations, voluntary reporting of inefficiency in implementing agency duty (such as in addressing sustainability issues) is an unlikely event since not many agencies would highlight their shortcomings. Recognising the possible bias in bureaucracy, all agencies in Selangor (State as well as Federal) are encouraged to define sustainability from their own perspectives and propose their own indicators relevant to their respective sectoral goals. This flexibility in approach when implementing the state’s SDI programmes is anticipated to result in a more instrumental and conceptual use of indicators by the agencies. Technical agencies such as the Department of Environment and Public Works Department could then utilise frameworks such as the pressure–state– response (PSR) to reflect their technical efficiency, whereas the use of thematic and hierarchical SDI frameworks can be pursued by the non-technical agencies. Routinely collected administrative data can be used as a basis for indicator set development. 6.3. Indicators for local governments’ sustainability The Federal Town and Country Planning Department of Malaysia has recently introduced a set of 53 urban sustainability indicators to be used by all local governments in Peninsular Malaysia (Sham Sani, 2001). As these indicators are meant for national comparison, some of the more localised issues peculiar to the different local governments might not be included in the set. Such additional issues could serve as a platform for a participatory process of identifying relevant indicators for each local authorities’ jurisdiction. These indicators could help to fill in the gaps in sustainability challenges at a local level while at the same time serving to highlight certain issues to the State and Federal governments. 6.4. Muddling through: the sustainable development unit of Selangor In Selangor, the question of a coordination mechanism remains, given the complex and fragmented approach in its SDI initiative. In other countries, the coordinative function is made possible by adopting a whole-of-government approach such as the estab-

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

lishment of Councils for Sustainable Development (see Connor and Dovers, 2004). The State Planning Committee of Selangor has in 2002 approved the formation of a unit named the Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) of Selangor. By design, this unit will be in charge of all matters concerning sustainability in Selangor, with policy supervision from a proposed Selangor Council for Sustainable Development chaired by the Chief Minister. The SDU will function as a processing unit, and so will determine the coherence of SDIs reported by agencies and local governments. The unit will also manage the collection of new information relevant for tracking sustainability in Selangor—and has the authority to direct and empower agencies in Selangor to initiate new indicator development such as those belonging to ESA and Capabilities indicators. However, the plan to establish SDU has only just begun to materialise recently (i.e., 2004) when the State Planning Committee approved the appointment of a few sustainable development officers who will begin implementing activities and programs as outlined in the Selangor Sustainable Development Strategy.

7. Conclusion The links of indicators to policy processes, though a relatively new concern for SDI, has long been recognised mainly by scholars working on social indicators as a key factor in ensuring effective use (de Neufville, 1975). Referring to efforts to develop SDIs, Innes and Booher (2000: p. 175) aptly argue that only ‘little attention is paid to the process of indicator production or the ways in which the numbers might become influential in practice’. This article advocates a careful match between indicator system and the existing system of users. In countries such as Malaysia where the flow of information within the policy system is somewhat restricted, the institutionalisation of SDI is a complicated task. Prescribing a comprehensive SDI system would require the state to leap frog beyond what is within its capacity to address. By illustrating the case-study of Selangor, we highlight elements of irrationality that will influence and runs counter to the ideals of comprehensive rationality and ask how can irrationality be handled in designing sets of indicators?

301

First, we argue that rationality has to be balanced with recognition that the move towards a more sustainable State will have to be a political process. We have to deal with the current systems of governance that limits progress towards sustainability and has the propensity to maintain the status quo. For SDI to be useful, it must be seen as being influenced by both the rational and political elements in decision-making. These political realities must not only be acknowledged but must be coupled when prescribing policies and institutional design. Hence, the fitnessfor-purpose management framework was proposed for adoption by the state government of Selangor. Second, we also advocate the use of the concept of incrementalism, but combined with strategies for adaptive management, imbued with the principles of: persistence, purposefulness, information-sensitivity, inclusiveness and flexibility (Dovers, 2003). As action plans based on the bases of long-, immediate-, and short-term goals were spelt out in the Selangor’s Sustainable Development Strategy, the trial-and-error function will be purposive. The approach is also not linear but embraces complexity by linking together all these sets of indicators with agencies and units that ought to develop and use them. It is when these sets are not seen as too impractical that they will be used more readily and voluntarily. Incremental steps in establishing SDIs in Selangor should bring better results as compared to conventional methods of establishing ‘definitive’ set of SDIs. To paraphrase Lindblom, incremental steps ‘‘do not rock the boat, do not stir up the great antagonisms and paralysing schisms as do proposals for more drastic change’’ (Lindblom, 1979: p. 520). A realistic lowering of expectations must be injected into the design of SDI system to accommodate the difficult challenge of institutionalising indicators within policy processes.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Emeritus Professor Dr. Peter J. Peterson in framing the concept of sustainable development indicators for the State of Selangor, and Dr. Stephen Dovers for providing us with valuable comments on this article. However, responsibility for all errors rests with the authors. This research is made possible by research grant from the

302

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

State Government of Selangor to which we are grateful. A first draft of this article was presented at the STARTSARCS Workshop on Sustainable Development Indicators held at the National Central University, Chung-Li Taiwan in November 2001.

References Afgan, N.H., Carvalho, M.G., Hovanov, N.V., 2000. Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators. Energy Policy 28, 603–612. Anwar Ibrahim, 1996. The Asian Renaissance. Times Book, Singapore. Asheim, G.B., 1997. Adjusting green NNP to measure sustainability. Scand. J. Econ. 99, 355–370. Astleithner, F., Hamedinger, A., 2003. The analysis of sustainability indicators as socially constructed policy instruments: benefits and challenges of ‘interactive research’. Local Environ. 8, 627– 640. Bell, S., Morse, S., 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really cares about sustainability indicators. Local Environ. 6, 291–309. Biderman, A.D., 1966. Social indicators and goals. In: Bauer, R.A. (Ed.), Social Indicators. The M.I.T. Press, Massachussets, pp. 68–153. Block, F., Burns, G.A., 1986. Productivity as a social problem: the uses and misuses of social indicators. Am. Sociological Rev. 51, 767–780. Bosch, P., 2002. The European Environment Agency focuses on EU-policy in its approach to sustainable development indicators. Stat. J. United Nations ECE 19, 5–18. Boyer, B., 2000. Institutional mechanism for sustainable development: a look at national councils for sustainable development in Asia. Global Environ. Change 10, 157–160. Braybrook, D., Lindblom, C.E., 1963. A Strategy for Decision. The Free Press, New York. Bridgman, P., Davis, G., 2000. The Australian Policy Handbook. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Browne, M., 1993. Organisational Decision-making and Information. Ablex Publishing, New Jersey. Burch, M., Wood, B., 1990. Public Policy in Britain. Basil-Blackwell, Oxford. Carley, M., 1980. Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis. Heinemann Educational Books, London. Case, W., 1993. Semi-democracy in Malaysia: withstanding the pressures for regime change. Pac. Aff. 66, 183–205. Case, W., 2001. Malaysia’s resilient pseudodemocracy. J. Democracy 12, 43–57. Connor, R., Dovers, S., 2004. Institutional Change for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Crouch, H., 1996. Government and Society in Malaysia. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW. de Montgolfier, J., 1999. Indicators for sustainable development in forestry. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 12, 451–458.

de Neufville, J.I., 1975. Social Indicators and Public Policy: Interactive Processes of Design and Application. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York. Department of Statistics, 2001. Preliminary count report. Population and housing census 2000 (Online) http://www.statistics.gov.my/ English/page3.htm (3 February 2001). Dhakal, S., Imura, H., 2003. Policy-based indicator systems: emerging debates and lessons. Local Environ. 8, 113–119. Dovers, S., 2003. Processes and institutions for resource and environmental management: why and how to analyse. In: Dovers, S., Wild River, S. (Eds.), Managing Australia’s Environment. Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 3–14. Dovers, S.R., 1997. Sustainability: demands on policy. J. Public Policy 16, 303–318. Dovers, S.R., Handmer, J.W., 1995. Ignorance, the precautionary principle and sustainability. Ambio 24, 92–97. Dunleavy, P., 1991. Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. Harvester-Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead. Feldman, M.S., March, J.G., 1981. Information in organisations as signal and symbol. Administrative Sci. Q. 26, 171– 186. Flood, J., 1997. Urban and housing indicators. Urban Stud. 34, 1635–1666. Goulet, D., 1986. Three rationalities in development decision-making. World Dev. 14, 301–317. Green, D.P., Shapiro, I., 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven. Gudmundsson, H., 2003. Making concepts matter: sustainable mobility and indicator systems in transport policy. Int. Social Sci. J. 55, 199–217. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., Light, S.S. (Eds.), 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions.. Columbia University Press, New York. Harding, J., 1996. Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia. Malayan Law Journal, Kuala Lumpur. Henriot, P.J., 1970. Political questions about social indicators. West. Poli. Q. 23, 235–255. Hezri, A.A., 2003. Sustainability Indicators and Policy Processes: Experience from Malaysia. Paper presented at the ‘‘International Conference on Sustainability Indicators’’, Valetta, Malta, 6–8 November. Hezri, A.A., forthcoming. Sustainability indicators system and policy processes in Malaysia: a framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manage. (in press). Hezri, A.A., Nordin, M., 2004. Sustainable development indicators: application at the state level. In: Latiff, A., Pereira, J.J., Hezri, A.A., Aldrie, A. (Eds.), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Assessing Changes in Environmental Conditions. Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 15–30. HMSO, 1996. Indicators of Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s Statistical Office, London. Holden, M., 2001. Uses and abuses of urban sustainability indicator studies. Canadian J. Urban Res. 10, 217–236. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., 2003. Studying Public Policy: Policy Systems and Policy Subsystems, 2nd Edition Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Ontario.

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304 Innes, J.E., 1989. Dissappointments and legacies of social indicators. J. Public Policy 9, 429–432. Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2000. Indicators for sustainable communities: a strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Plan. Theory Pract. 1, 173–186. Jesinghaus, J., 2002. Indicators for decision-making and sustainable development. In: Hsian-Huang, M.H., Liu, C.-H., Tsai, H.-M. (Eds.), Sustainable Development for Island Societies: Taiwan and the World. Asia Pacific Research Programme Academia Sinica and SARCS Secretariat, Taipei, pp. 289–322. Journel, C.M., Duchene, F., Coanus, T., Martinais, E., 2003. Devising local sustainable development indicators: from technical issues to bureaucratic stakes. The Greater Lyons experience. Local Environ. 8, 615–626. King, C., Gunton, J., Freebairn, D., Coutts, J., Webb, I., 2000. The sustainability indicator industry: where to from here? A focus group study to explore the potential of farmer participation in the development of indicators. Aust. J. Exp. Agricult. 40, 631–642. Lessard, G., 1998. An adaptive approach to planning and decisionmaking. Landscape Urban Planning 40, 81–87. LESTARI, 1999. Potential indicators for inclusion as sustainable development indicators (SDIs) for Malaysia. A Report for the Economic Planning Unit on Strategic and Technical Support for the Development of Sustainable Development Indicators in Malaysia, Institute for Environment and Development (Lestari), Kuala Lumpur. Levett, R., 1998. Sustainability indicators—integrating quality of life and environmental protection. J. Royal Stat. Soc.: Series A 161, 291–302. LGMB, 1995. Sustainable Indicators Research Project: Indicators for Local Agenda 21—A Summary. Local Government Management Board, London. Lindblom, C.E., 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Rev. 19, 79–88. Lindblom, C.E., 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Rev. 39, 517–526. Machiavelli, N., 1998. The Prince. Oxford University Press, New York. Mahathir Mohamed, 1999. A New Deal for Asia. Pelanduk Publications, Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia, 2001. The Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001–2005. Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur. McCool, S.F., Stankey, G.H., 2004. Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environ. Manage. 33, 294–305. Minogue, M., 1983. Theory and practice in public policy and administration. Policy Polit. 11, 63–85. Nix, H. 1996. Information technology for ’tracking progress’: how useful are European initiatives in Australian context?. In: R., Harding (Ed.), Tracking Progress: Linking Environment and Economy Through Indicators and Accounting Systems. Proceedings of the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference on the Environment, University of New South Wales, 30 September–3 October. Paehlke, R., 1999. Towards defining, measuring and achieving sustainability: tools and strategies for environmental valuation. In: Becker, E., Jahn, T. (Eds.), Sustainability and the Social

303

Sciences: a Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into theoretical orientation. Zed Books, London, pp. 243–263. PCSD, 1998. Sustainable development in the United States: an experimental set of indicators. Final Report December 1998. President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Department of Interior, Washington DC. Peterson, P.J., 2001. Sustainable development indicators for rapidly industrialising countries. Second Generation Indicators. Vol. 4. Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. Ribaudo, M.O., Hoag, D.L., Smith, M.E., Heimlich, R., 2001. Environmental indices and the politics of the conservation reserve program. Ecol. Indicators 1, 11–20. Rich, R.F., Oh, C.H., 2000. Rationality and use of information in policy decisions: a search for alternative. Sci. Commun. 22, 173– 211. Sabatier, P.A., 1991. Political science and public policy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 144–146. Saiful Arif, A., 2001. Status and change of the forests area in Selangor: Short-term research report B/3/2000. Institute for Environment and Development (Lestari), UKM. Scott, W.G., 1971. Decision concepts. In: Castles, F.G. (Ed.), Decisions, Organisations and Society. Penguin Books, Harmondswoth, pp. 85–103. Selangor, 1999. Kawasan Sensitif Alam Sekitar (In Malay). Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. Selangor, 2000. Strategi Pembangunan Mampan Negeri Selangor (In Malay). Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. Selangor, 2001. Agenda 21 Negeri Selangor (In Malay). Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. Selangor, 2002. Guideline for the implementation of Agenda 21 in Selangor (In Malay). Lestari Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. Selangor, 2003. Agenda 21 Selangor: Selangor’s Commitment to Sustainable Development. Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor, Shah Alam. SERI, 1999. The Sustainable Penang Initiative: Penang People’s Report 1999. Socio-economic and Environment Research Institute, Penang. Shafrudin, B.H., 1987. The Federal Factor in the Government and Politics of Peninsular Malaysia. Oxford University Press, Singapore. Shafrudin, B.H., 1988. Between Centre and State: Federalism in Perspective. ISIS, Kuala Lumpur. Sham Sani, 2001. Developing Urban Sustainability Indicators for Malaysia. Lestari Public Lecture No. 3, Kuala Lumpur. Simon, H.A., 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 99–118. Singh, H., 2001. Ethnic conflict in Malaysia revisited. Commonwealth Comparative Polit. 39, 42–65. Smith, G., May, D., 1980. The artificial debate between rationalist and incrementalist models of decision-making. Policy Polit. 8, 147–161. State Secretary Office of Selangor, 1999. The economic report for Selangor: 1999. State Government of Selangor. States of Guernsey, 2003. Sustainable Guernsey: monitoring social, economic and environmental trends. Advisory and Finance Committee, Guernsey.

304

A.A. Hezri, M.N. Hasan / Ecological Indicators 4 (2004) 287–304

Tullock, G., 1976. The economic theory of bureaucracy. In: Hill, M. (Ed.), The Policy Process: A Reader. Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire, pp. 57–83. United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action From Rio. United Nations, New York. Walters, C.J., Holling, C.S., 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–2068. Weiss, A., Woodhouse, E., 1992. Reframing incrementalism: a constructive response to critics. Policy Sci. 25, 255–273. Weiss, C.H., 1977. Research for policy’s sake: the enlightenment functions of social research. Policy Anal. 3, 531–545.

Weiss, C.H., 1979. The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Rev. 39, 426–431. Weiss, C.H., 1980. Knowledge creeps and decision accretion. Knowl. Creation, Diffusion Utilisation 3, 381–404. Wiggering, H., Rennings, K., 1997. Sustainability indicators: geology meets economy. Environ. Geol. 32, 71–78. Zakaria, A., 1989. Malaysia: quasi-democracy in a divided society. In: Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M. (Eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries. Vol. 3. Lynene Rienner, Boulder, Colorado, 347–381.