IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i20p9033-d1501789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constituents over Correlation: Indicators and Arctic Urban Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob D. Tafrate

    (Department of Geography and Environment, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • Kelsey E. Nyland

    (Department of Geography and Environment, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • Robert W. Orttung

    (Sustainability Research Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

Abstract

Arctic city mayors influence municipal sustainability outcomes, navigating decisions on waste management, social service funding, and economic development. How do mayors make these decisions and to what extent do they integrate sustainability indicator data? Interviews with the mayors of Fairbanks, Alaska, Yellowknife, Canada, and Luleå, Sweden, revealed indicators are used on a case-by-case basis to track trends but lack systematic integration into decision-making. Constituent concerns drive agendas rather than indicator trends. Based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines, 128 indicators grouped into 19 sustainability themes were compiled from 2000 to 2019 for the study cities. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to examine the utility of ISO indicators as a guiding factor for sustainability trend tracking, identifying key themes for each city. Results show that indicator trends are too inconsistent and interconnected to be useful as an independent form of guidance for mayors. For Arctic municipalities, sustainability indicator datasets are useful in specific circumstances, but they do not provide the same kind of decision-making heuristic that mayors receive from direct constituent interaction. Findings emphasize the importance of more robust data collection and the development of management frameworks that support sustainability decision-making in Arctic cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob D. Tafrate & Kelsey E. Nyland & Robert W. Orttung, 2024. "Constituents over Correlation: Indicators and Arctic Urban Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:20:p:9033-:d:1501789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/9033/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/20/9033/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George C. Homsy, 2020. "Capacity, sustainability, and the community benefits of municipal utility ownership in the United States," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 120-137, July.
    2. Izac, A-M. N. & Swift, M. J., 1994. "On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 105-125, November.
    3. Cornwall, Andrea & Jewkes, Rachel, 1995. "What is participatory research?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(12), pages 1667-1676, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    2. Caroline Patsias & Anne Latendresse & Laurence Bherer, 2013. "Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 2214-2230, November.
    3. Lauren Arundell & Kate Parker & Jo Salmon & Jenny Veitch & Anna Timperio, 2019. "Informing Behaviour Change: What Sedentary Behaviours Do Families Perform at Home and How Can They Be Targeted?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Mike Kesby, 2007. "Spatialising Participatory Approaches: The Contribution of Geography to a Mature Debate," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(12), pages 2813-2831, December.
    5. Ines Testoni & Irene Nencioni & Maibrit Arbien & Erika Iacona & Francesca Marrella & Vittoria Gorzegno & Cristina Selmi & Francesca Vianello & Alfonso Nava & Adriano Zamperini & Michael Alexander Wies, 2021. "Mental Health in Prison: Integrating the Perspectives of Prison Staff," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Zemadim, B. & McCartney, Matthew & Langan, Simon & Sharma, Bharat, 2013. "A participatory approach for hydrometeorological monitoring in the Blue Nile River Basin of Ethiopia," IWMI Reports 201009, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Franks, Jeremy & Frater, Poppy, 2013. "Measuring agricultural sustainability at the farm-level: A pragmatic approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(4), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Lisa M. Vaughn & MaryAnn Lohmueller, 2014. "Calling All Stakeholders," Evaluation Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 336-355, August.
    9. Ana Luiza Fontenelle & Erik Nilsson & Ieda Geriberto Hidalgo & Cintia B. Uvo & Drielli Peyerl, 2022. "Temporal Understanding of the Water–Energy Nexus: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Azad, Md Javed & Pritchard, Bill, 2022. "Financial capital as a shaper of households' adaptive capabilities to flood risk in northern Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    11. Ebitu, Larmbert & Avery, Helen & Mourad, Khaldoon A. & Enyetu, Joshua, 2021. "Citizen science for sustainable agriculture – A systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    12. Stephens, William & Hess, Tim, 1999. "Systems approaches to water management research," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 3-13, March.
    13. San Sebastián, Miguel & Hurtig, Anna Karin, 2005. "Oil development and health in the Amazon basin of Ecuador: the popular epidemiology process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 799-807, February.
    14. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Lonergan, Katherine Emma & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2022. "Business structure of electricity distribution system operator and effect on solar photovoltaic uptake: An empirical case study for Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Theresia Krieger & Sandra Salm & Antje Dresen & Anna Arning & Kathrin Schwickerath & Andrea Göttel & Stefanie Houwaart & Holger Pfaff & Natalia Cecon, 2022. "Optimizing Patient Information Material for a New Psycho-Oncological Care Program Using a Participatory Health Research Approach in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Manlay, Raphael J. & Ickowicz, Alexandre & Masse, Dominique & Feller, Christian & Richard, Didier, 2004. "Spatial carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus budget in a village of the West African savanna--II. Element flows and functioning of a mixed-farming system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 83-107, January.
    18. Schaeffer, Y. & Dissart, J.-C., 2018. "Natural and Environmental Amenities: A Review of Definitions, Measures and Issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 475-496.
    19. Ligorio, Lorenzo & Caputo, Fabio & Venturelli, Andrea, 2022. "Sustainability disclosure and reporting by municipally owned water utilities," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. Bessell, Sharon, 2019. "Money matters…but so do people: Children's views and experiences of living in a ‘disadvantaged’ community," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 59-66.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:20:p:9033-:d:1501789. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.