There's a new set of sustainability rankings out from SustainLane.com. The rankings are based on a set of 16 indicators of sustainability, from water supply and land use to traffic congestion and green building practices. The complete methodology, including data sources, can be found here.

I'm not charmed by ranking systems in general, and a weighted index doesn't really get my heart pumping. Too much subjectivity posing as objectivity. But I really, really liked the site's openness in providing not only the methodology (including the indicators and the weights, with some rationale for the reasons for the weighting), but also the data sources used (and additional reading/resources where applicable).

This particular ranking was brought to my attention by the reactions of people in my community (Jacksonville, Florida) to their placement in the rankings. Local environmentalists, on seeing Jacksonville ranked 23rd out of 50, were "not ecstatic" (see article in The Florida Times-Union.) Apparently the ranking gave credit for good intentions -- policies enacted -- before the results of a cleaner environment were measurable (or even much had been done.) While we've been pretty pleased to see the policies put in place (and have had a hand in doing so -- see the followiing studies: 2007: Air Quality: Energy, Environment and Economy; 2006: River Dance: Putting the River in River City ; and 2002: Making Jacksonville a Clean City), we want to see the positive outcomes as well.

Take a look at the rankings, and see if your city is there. Then let me know -- did they get it right? And did you get any good ideas for better indicators/data sources in the process?

A few years ago I had the opportunity to work with Audrey Danner of Yampa Valley Partners on a Civic Indicators project for the National Civic League, and I think she's one of those really good people that you get to meet every now and then if you're both really good and pretty lucky.

That being said by way of introduction, I was a little disappointed in the Routt County Commission's decision not to remain as a financial partner in the work of Yampa Valley Partners. However, the discussion about the funding decisions and the desirability of government buy-in to local community indicators work is spot on, and I thought I'd draw your attention to this news article describing the situation.

We all face funding issues from time to time, especially as local governments struggle with multiple priorities and considerable needs. (Ironically, it's often our community indicators work that points out where those needs are and how significant they are to the community, which makes it bittersweet when those needs are prioritized ahead of the research/planning functions we provide -- if only we were less competent at placing these issues on the community agenda!)

But this response by Audrey Danner is right on message:

Audrey Danner, Yampa Valley Partners executive director, said her board plans to continue its services despite its funding setback. The most discouraging issue, she added, is losing Routt County as a partner, not its money.

“Our local government funding is very important, and it’s discouraging we will not have Routt County funding us next year,” Danner said. “It is not only about funding, though. It is about partners coming together for their communities … and being effective as a regional group when we make decisions.”

If you're in the Yampa Valley region in Colorado, please consider supporting Yampa Valley partners. (Audrey doesn't know I'm saying this.) Even if you're not, pay attention to what they're doing -- they're a shining light showing how a rural area can come together around shared issues for the community good.

We've discussed metadata and data integrity issues before -- see especially this blog post for the drunks+lamppost analogy -- and have been advocating for better metadata standards generally.

Now Swivel launches a discussion of the authenticity of data that reminds us why this topic is so important. On their site, less than a third of the data is from an "official" source -- 69 percent is entered in by various site users. Hopefully, each user has entered in a data source along with the data, and I would hope no one would use Swivel as a primary data source anyway (any more than citing Wikipedia as a primary source.) Swivel is a great place to find interesting data and then chase it down to its source, but any site that aggregates other information shouldn't be your primary resource anyway.

The article on Swivel's blog points to Technorati Authority numbers as a way of looking at data reliability -- if lots of people cite it, it must be good, right? While I appreciate the attempt to point out an emerging rating standard on the internet (this blog's authority number as of today is 9, I was surprised to discover), the strength-of-numbers argument is remarkably not compelling.

So how do we establish a better standard for pointing to the integrity of data and the authenticity of the information presented? Any ideas?

Check this out -- a news article about a community indicators project that is part one of a 26-part, nine-week series all on community indicators.

Pretty cool, huh?

The report is the 2008 Sonora Area Foundation's Tuolumne County Profile Community Indicators Project. You can click here: Community Indicators Project for a summary of the entire 2008 Tuolumne County Profile.

What kind of relationship do you have with your media? How well do they cover your community indicators project? Any tips to pass on?

We've talked about the good work of Sustainable Seattle before, but I thought you might be interested in seeing this person's reaction to their model of sustainability.

And it's a good time to mark your calendars for the upcoming launch of B-Sustainable, coming in October 2008.