c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
SECRETARIA DE I
MEDIOAMBIENTEY
RECURSQS NATURALESI
Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA600/R-06/015
April 2006
www.epa.gov/border2012
Strategy for
Indicator
Development
Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico
Environmental Program Report
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Please make all necessary changes on the below
label, detach or copy, and return to the address
in the upper left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports
CHECK HERE Q]; detach, or copy this cover, and
return to the address in the upper left-hand corner.
Recycled/Recyclable Primed wilti vagetatMe-based ink on paper that contains
a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber content processed chlorine free-
-------
EPA/600/R-06/015
April 2006
Strategy for Indicator Development
Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program
by
Sandra Duque
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Information
Environmental Analysis Division
Washington, DC 20460
Rebecca Daniels
Kirstin Crowder
Association of Schools of Public Health
Fellows at the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Iris Jimenez
Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources of the United States of Mexico
Office of Statistics and Environmental Information
Mexico, DF, Mexico 14210
The report is available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/border2012/indicators.htm
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency through cooperative agreement X3-830850 with the Association of Schools
of Public Health. It has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Abstract
This report is intended to guide the coordinating bodies of the Border 2012 program in the
development of indicators for the U.S.-Mexico border region. It explains how the Border
Indicators Task Force (BITF) defines indicators and proposes six general steps to delineate the
indicator development process. The Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
conceptual framework, which encompasses both environmental and human health information,
and ranked criteria for the selection of indicators were chosen for the Border 2012 program.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Border 2012 Border Indicators Task Force, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Information, the Secretariat of
Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico, the EPA Office of International Affairs, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health,
the Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy, Steve Young (EPA),
Salvador Sanchez Colon (SEMARNAT), Hal Zenick (EPA), Raquel Sabogal (CDC), Albes
Gaona (EPA), Mike Hadrick (EPA), Sally Edwards (PAHO), Judith Qualters (CDC), Danelle
Lobdell (EPA), Debbie Combs (CDC) and Heather Case (EPA) for contributing their experience
with indicators and the U.S.-Mexico Border to the drafting of this document.
in
-------
IV
-------
Contents
NOTICE iii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND 2
III. PROCESS FOR INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT 3
1.DEFINE THE INFORMATION NEED 3
2.SELECT A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 4
Indicator Definitions 7
3.IDENTIFY POTENTIAL INDICATORS 8
4.EVALUATE POTENTIAL INDICATORS ON THE BASIS OF SELECTION CRITERIA 8
Tier 1: Core Criteria 8
Tier 2: Data Availability Criteria 9
Tier 3: Media-specific Criteria 10
5.ADOPT/DEVELOP/IMPLEMENT INDICATORS 10
6.REVIEW INDICATORS 11
V. CONCLUSION 12
VI. REFERENCES 14
-------
VI
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BITF Border Indicators Task Force
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
DPSIR Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAHO Pan American Health Organization
PSR Pressure-State-Response
SCERP Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy
SEMARNAT Mexico's Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
WHO World Health Organization
Equipo de Trabajo de Indicadores Fronterizos
Centra para el Control y la Prevention de Enfermedades
Fuerza Motriz- Presion-Estado-Impacto-Respuesta
Agencia de Protection Ambiental de los EE.UU
Organization para la Cooperation y el Desarrollo Economico (OCDE)
Organization Panamericana de la Salud (OPS)
Presion-Estado-Respuesta (PER)
Centra de Investigation y Politica Ambiental del Suroeste
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
Programa de la Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA)
Organization Mundial de la Salud (OMS)
VII
-------
Border 2012 Organization Chart
National Coordinators
EPA
SEMARNAT
Regional
Workgroups
California-Baja California
Arizona-Sonera
New Mexico-Texas-
Chihuahua
Texas-Coahui la-Nuevo Leon-
Tamaulipas
Border-wide
Workgroups
Environmental Health
Emergency Preparedness
and Response
Cooperative Enforcement
and Compliance
Policy
Forums
Air
Water
Hazardous and Solid
Waste
Border-wide Taskforces: Indicators and Communication
Local Taskforces
Coordinating bodies refers to regional and border-wide workgroups, policy fora, and local taskforces.
Stakeholders refer to coordinating bodies and partners at a minimum; a more comprehensive term.
Vlll
-------
I. Introduction
Border 2012 is a binational environmental program coordinated and managed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mexico's Secretariat of Environment and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAT). Its mission is to "protect the environment and public health in the
U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development."
Possessing adequate information is essential to protecting the environment and public health;
recognizing this, the National Coordinators of the Border 2012 program agreed to "measure
program progress through development of environmental and public health-based indicators,"
"achieve concrete, measurable results" and "strengthen capacity of local community residents
and other stakeholders to manage environmental and environmentally-related public health
issues."1 The purpose of this strategic document is to provide Border 2012 coordinating bodies
(regional and border-wide workgroups, policy fora and local taskforces) with a foundation for
the identification, development, and use of a set of environmental and performance indicators.
The Border Indicators Task Force (BITF) defines an indicator as a single variable or
output value from a set of data that describes the state of the border region in a way that is
meaningful for stakeholders. Therefore, indicators developed will present available information
regarding the state of the environment and public health along the U.S.-Mexico border, creating
a basis for tracking, evaluating, and associating changes. These indicators should also help to
monitor the effectiveness of the U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 program and measure progress toward
achieving its goals and objectives. Collectively, indicators will provide information that both
policy-makers and the public can understand, enabling them to make well informed decisions.
This strategic document outlines an indicator development process, which includes the
identification of a conceptual framework, criteria for indicator selection, and a context for
understanding border indicators. As a result, it should also improve communication and foster
cooperative work between and within the coordinating bodies of the Border 2012 program. The
border indicators effort builds upon previous indicator works and strengthens partner
relationships in order to address the needs of the local communities, the target audience of
Border 2012 program. Ultimately, the development and maintenance of sound indicators that are
applicable binationally will benefit border stakeholders.
-------
II. Background
The U.S.-Mexico border region is influenced by rapid population and economic growth
that could contribute to further impacts on the environment and health of border communities.
These driving forces have resulted in events such as unplanned development, increased demand
for land and energy, traffic congestion, increased waste generation, and overburdened or
unavailable waste treatment and disposal facilities.2 There is a documented relationship between
these environmental conditions and health problems such as waterborne and respiratory diseases
in border residents.3 These issues underscore the need for, and pose a challenge to, timely and
adequate development of environmental and health infrastructure and capacities to effectively
manage issues at local and regional levels. Consequently, since the 1983 La Paz Agreement,1 the
United States and Mexico governments have undertaken cooperative initiatives implemented
through multi-year binational programs to improve and protect the environment and public
health of the border region.
Consistent with worldwide indicator trends, interest in the development and use of U.S.-
Mexico border indicators started increasing in the mid-1990s. Border XXI (1996 to 2000)
preceded the Border 2012 program and marked the first binational attempt to develop
environmental indicators for the border region, making tangible contributions to understanding
the quality of the environment and its likely impact on public health. The Border 2012 program
uses indicators to track trends, monitor program progress, and plan next actions. This aligns with
indicator uses at international organizations (including the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)), federal and state governments of countries across the
world, as well as non-governmental organizations.
The current binational agreement, Border 2012, sets goals and objectives through the year
2012 to be accomplished by the coordinating bodies. This program emphasizes a bottom-up
approach and includes local decision-making, priority-setting, and project implementation. The
Border 2012 goals encompass aspects of air, water, and land contamination; environmental
health; chemical exposure via accidental release and terrorism; and compliance, enforcement and
environmental stewardship. More information about the program can be found at the Border
2012 Web site www.epa.gov/border2012/.
To ensure that these goals are met and to increase overall capacity to respond to
environmental and health problems at the border, the Border Indicators Task Force was
established in December 2003. Border 2012 mandates that indicators be developed and used to
measure real and meaningful results. The role of the BITF is to collaborate with all Border 2012
coordinating bodies in order to define a set of indicators as well as prepare protocols for the
collection, analysis, and quality control of the data necessary for the calculation and
interpretation of those indicators. Ongoing review of these indicators will provide local
Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area
-------
communities, partners, and decision-makers with informative tools that can help shape research
and public health and environmental policy priorities.
Various stakeholders will be involved in the development and use of indicators. In
addition to the federal environmental agencies - the EPA and SEMARNAT - federal health
agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in particular its Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Mexican Secretariat of Health (Secretaria de
Salud) participate in the Border 2012 program. The state and local health and environmental
departments on both sides of the border are also instrumental in this process, as well as
international organizations such as the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP).
III. Process for Indicator Development
Developing indicators using a systematic method, standardized to all Border 2012
coordinating bodies, is important as a common approach will allow for continuity between
partners and efforts. The development process for Border 2012 indicators can be broken down
into six distinct steps:4
1. Define the information need
2. Select a conceptual framework
3. Identify potential indicators
4. Evaluate potential indicators on the basis of selection criteria
5. Adopt/develop/implement indicators
6. Review indicators
1. Define the information need
The Border 2012 program identifies six goals, each representing binational
priority areas: (1) water, (2) air, (3) land, (4) environmental public health, (5) emergency
preparedness and response, and (6) cooperative enforcement and compliance. Available
data is needed about each area to develop quality indicators that measure changes in
environmental and health conditions of the border region and progress towards achieving
program goals and objectives.
Indicators are more than just any given measurement; they are the interpretation
of available data. The 2003 United Nations World Water Development Report stated that
"an indicator, comprising a single datum (a variable) or an output value from a set of data
(aggregation of variables), describes a system or process such that it has significance
beyond the face value of its components. It aims to communicate information on the
system or process."5
-------
Both environmental and performance indicators are necessary to track
environmental changes and program actions in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
Border 2012 program. Although the two indicator types should not be used
interchangeably, the use of an integrated set of indicators will provide representative,
meaningful information that will aid decision makers. Definitions and further discussion
on indicator types are explained in the following section.
2. Select a conceptual framework
Indicators become useful, informative tools when they are related to a conceptual
framework that holistically describes the interactions within a system. Hence, a
conceptual framework of the border region system assists the Border 2012 program by
helping to:6
Systematically conceptualize information from many different sources
Incorporate new information as a result of the framework's flexible and dynamic
characteristics
Establish a shared knowledge base and thereby improve communication and
participation of stakeholders
Increase understanding and transparency of program goals and objectives
Strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to manage environmental and environmentally-
related public health issues
In the previous Border XXI program, the Pressure-State-Response (PSR)
conceptual framework was used to conduct indicators work.7 This primarily linear model
follows the logic that a Pressure causes a change in State, which then evokes a societal
Response. However, the PSR framework is limited in its application, since it does not
account for complex ecological processes and human-environment interactions. More
specifically, it provides no explanation for impacts that may result from changes in State,
nor does it provide a means for Responses to affect the system in a dynamic, cyclical
manner. The Border 2012 program requires a more comprehensive conceptual
framework that provides context for events and accounts for outcomes within the border
region.
After a thorough review by the Border Indicators Task Force, the Driving
Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) conceptual framework, an extended
PSR model, was selected as most suitable for the needs of the Border 2012 program.
DPSIR is also favorable as it builds on the previous indicator framework of Border XXI.
Similar to PSR, DPSIR is based on the idea that anthropogenic activities impact
the environment, and that adverse environmental activities or impacts induce humans to
curtail or manage factors affecting any stage of the system (see Figure I).8 However, this
framework introduces two additional concepts: 1) "Driving forces," which account for
how economic pressures and society's behavior affect the environment and thus, human
-------
and ecological well-being; and 2) "Impacts," which show that human well-being is
related to environmental quality.9 Therefore, in the DPSIR framework, societal Driving
forces lead to anthropogenic Pressures, which lead to a State, which generates Impacts
that evoke Reponses. The "Responses" compartment feeds back into every other
compartment, showing that interventions can occur at each point along the causal
spectrum.
It is possible to divide "Impact" into two different components: "Exposure" and
"Effect." This accounts for traditional considerations of health frameworks, but does not
preclude the importance of ecological outcomes. Exposure refers to the intersection
between people and hazards inherent in the environment, while Effect refers to the health
effects caused directly by exposure to environmental hazards. With this modification,
there is a directional path from State to Exposure to Effect, before finally linking to
Response. Further explanation and examples of each compartment are given below.
s
» Health-Based -
/ Environmental »
\ \ Indicators only •
\ iV--^ y
Effect
1
( Impact >v *__
\^^ ^/ « / Exposure \ /
^~— \\ I
'^ s "
I
Figure 1: Modified DPSIR Conceptual Framework (Source: Edwards, 2004; see Reference 8)
-------
Driving Forces
Driving Forces are socio-economic factors that cause or influence environmental
change which positively or negatively influence pressures on the environment.
Common examples of Driving Forces are income, population size and make-up, use
of resources, and education levels (e.g., per capita income, number of inhabitants, or
household energy consumption).10
Pressures
Pressures are natural or anthropogenic factors that directly influence the state of the
environment. As the OECD describes, Pressures "change [the environment's] quality
and quantity of natural resources."11 Common examples are the level of output from
sources and the amount of resource loss (e.g., the number of carbon dioxide-emitting
vehicles on the road, the amount of effluent released from point-sources into rivers, or
the amount of forest harvested).
State
State refers to measures of the quality of the environment and the quantity of natural
resources, as influenced by Pressures. A typical example is the concentration of a
particular pollutant in a medium (e.g., concentration of ozone-damaging pollutant in
the air or count of fecal coliform in water).12
Impacts
Impacts are the results of the condition of the environment on people, animals, and
ecological processes. For health-based environmental indicators, Impacts can be
further separated into both Exposure and Effect. A common example is exposure to
environmental contaminants in biological populations (e.g., incidence of gastro-
intestinal disease in a county).
Responses
Responses are the efforts undertaken by society to respond to environmental changes
and issues. As targeted action measures, Responses are typically expressed as
program activities (e.g., number of farm workers trained on pesticide risks or stricter
laws for wastewater discharge).
DPSIR is able to provide a comprehensive and unified conceptual framework for
the diverse, binational coordinating bodies of Border 2012, thereby facilitating
communication and cooperation. It is a resilient model that can be tailored to fit the
needs of specific programs by emphasizing the indicator compartments of interest.
Finally, DPSIR is well suited to the Border 2012 program because it allows for the
identification and analysis of relationships between border-specific development actions
and the effects produced on the environment and human health. The enhanced
-------
understanding of these relationships will allow policy-makers to develop the region in a
sustainable manner, aware of potential environmental and human health consequences.
In addition, while this framework serves to systematically guide the development of
indicators, coordinating bodies should not be limited by it. Specifically, indicators do not
have to be identified for all of the compartments.
Indicator Definitions
For the purpose of the Border 2012 program, indicators will be identified as either
environmental or performance indicators, and further classified according to the
DPSIR framework. These two types of indicators are defined in the following
manner:
Environmental indicators communicate information regarding the region's
environmental and health conditions. They aid in:
• Measuring progress toward meeting Border 2012 outlined goals and objectives;
• Assessing conditions and trends in the Driving Forces, Pressures, State, or
Impacts compartments of DPSIR in order to show improvement or deficiencies in
the system; and/or
• Understanding the relationship between the different compartments in order to
make predictive associations between two compartments of DPSIR and formulate
policy. Associations should be quantitative (when available), and either
correlative or causative.
Performance indicators communicate information regarding environmental
management activities and targeted response measures. They aid in:
• Measuring progress toward meeting Border 2012 outlined goals and objectives;
and/or
• Understanding the relationship of response actions (the Response compartment)
on another DPSIR compartment and/or on influencing the overall DPSIR system
in order to evaluate the program.
Indicators are therefore able to serve the many needs of the Border 2012 program,
including describing an environmental factor at a given moment, showing trends, or
measuring progress towards a given goal. Indicators can also gauge program
accomplishments and can significantly aid in planning and management processes.
Moreover, a set of indicators helps to describe the overall system, increasing
understanding of the border region, assisting in highlighting data gaps, and providing a
basis on which to make well informed decisions.
-------
3. Identify potential indicators
The previous Border XXI program initiated the binational indicator development
process, thus facilitating the identification of potential environmental and public health
indicators for the Border 2012 program. Indicator efforts conducted by partner
organizations such as SCERP and PAHO, and by the state and federal governments of the
U.S. and Mexico, serve as additional resources for the identification of indicators. Input
is necessary from all stakeholders, particularly with regards to identifying indicators that
are representative of actions implemented to improve the environmental and health
conditions of the border region. The outcome will be a binational set of potential Border
2012 indicators, which should then be evaluated on the basis of selection criteria.
4. Evaluate potential indicators on the basis of selection criteria
Each potential indicator should be evaluated on the basis of selection criteria,
which is organized into three tiers: core, data availability, and media-specific. Although
the final indicator criteria may vary slightly due to stringency or specificity of a
coordinating body's needs, there is a set of criteria that is fundamental to the Border 2012
program.
Tier 1: Core Criteria
Core criteria13 are of equal importance and should be met by all indicators developed for
the Border 2012 program.
Representative
All indicators should be representative of what they purport to describe in a binational
nature. Although the ideal indicator would be one measure that can be collected on
both sides of the border, it is also possible to have a matched pair of indicators
collected in both countries that are comparable in scope and have the potential to be
harmonized. This caveat is created specifically for situations in which it is not
feasible to collect data by the same method in each country.
Policy relevance
Indicators must provide relevant information to management and policy areas as well
as to society's concerns about ecological conditions and/or human health.
Specifically, indicators should provide useful and accurate information about the state
of the border's environment and health, and measure changes and trends in those
conditions. As a result, indicators should help clarify the relationship between the
natural environment and human activities, providing a useful tool for improved
decisions and policies. For Border 2012 indicators, "policy relevance" can be defined
as the ability of an indicator to address program objectives and goals and lead to
policy applications along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Scientific validity and methodological rigor
Technical and scientific accuracy are characteristics that support the reliability and
validity of an indicator. Ideally, indicators should be based on accurate
-------
measurements (or data) that describe the condition as adequately as possible. The
data must also be precise enough to produce consistent and reproducible results, and
therefore, the indicator development process must be well documented. Requiring a
quantifiable measure does not mean that indicators should be complicated. On the
contrary, it is important to keep indicators simple and easy to interpret.
Sensitive to change
Indicators must be flexible and responsive to changes in the border region. To
effectively measure changes that occur over time, indicators may require target or
baseline data. Sensitivity is needed to acknowledge the factors that can affect the
values represented by the indicators: errors of measurement or natural variability
(spatial or temporal).14 For this reason, the data of border indicators should be
collected and reviewed frequently enough for it to help reflect the true conditions of
the border region.
Public understanding and acceptance
Indicators play an important role in raising public awareness. Hence, indicators
should be transparent and simple enough to be understood by the border
communities. A well informed public is more likely to be involved in the Border
2012 program. Public acceptance of border indicators will depend on the active
participation of communities in identifying their own perceptions and interests
regarding their information needs. Ultimately, public acceptance will affect overall
policy performance.
Tier 2: Data Availability Criteria
After this first evaluation, potential indicators need to be assessed with regard to the
availability and compatibility of quality data.
Information availability
The availability of valid data is a fundamental consideration for an indicator. In most
cases, it is preferable to propose indicators derived from pre-existing data sets
because it may result in timelier indicator development and facilitate the
establishment of a baseline. On the other hand, a data gap should not prohibit the
development of an indicator if its potential uses are deemed sufficiently valuable.
The feasibility of collecting the necessary data should be determined. If development
of a particular indicator is not feasible at present or in the future, an alternate indicator
must be identified and used.
Information compatibility
Indicator data must be accessible by a variety of stakeholders in both countries to be
used for any given number of purposes. This means that datasets that easily serve
various Border 2012 indicator tasks will be more appealing than sources that are
singular or unique. The compatibility of data is particularly crucial since Border 2012
indicators will be used across national boundaries. Also, where feasible, indicators
-------
should be similar to or the same as the indicators used to report on national
environmental conditions respectively in the U.S. and Mexico.
Tier 3: Media-specific Criteria
Because the objectives of each Border 2012 coordinating body differ, additional criteria
should be introduced by the individual groups as necessary. A sample list of additional
criteria is included here.
Appropriate spatial and temporal scale
The consideration of scale brings up the aggregation or disaggregation of data: the
ability of data to be combined or separated to obtain relevant information. For
example, data gathered at a local spatial scale may not be applicable to the border
region. Alternately, data gathered with a specific temporal scale may not adequately
account for trends such as seasonality or concurrence with an environmental or health
event. Ideally, border indicators will be based on datasets that can be aggregated to a
regional spatial scale. However, this does not preclude the importance of developing
and reporting on specific local indicators.
Feasibility/cost effectiveness of implementation
Indicators must be developed with consideration of costs, logistics, and institutional
requirements, including administrative time. The development and maintenance of a
systematic and reliable database requires monitoring and updating that can be costly
enough to exceed the benefits of developing the indicators. The developers of
indicators should be able to predict that a net benefit will result from their investment.
After assessing the potential indicators by the above criteria, those that meet the
criteria will be recommended for the Border 2012 program. Agreeing to track a common
set of indicators will make binational, border-wide analysis feasible. It is important to
note that the set of indicators may change over time to accommodate better indicators, or
to include more specific, localized indicators that have increased in border-wide
importance.
5. Adopt/Develop/Implement indicators
Once the set of indicators has been recommended, the next step is to reach border-
wide consensus in order to develop and implement these indicators. In developing the
indicators, caveats may surface such as a lack of sufficient or adequate data or a lack of
resources to gather and process data. Indicators that cannot be feasibly developed will
not be selected for the initial indicator set, but may be incorporated in the future. The
selection of an indicator to be implemented will require the consensus of program
stakeholders. The implementers should feel confident that the indicator is of high quality
10
-------
and, similarly, the regional work groups should feel confident that the indicator will
provide them with a valuable resource in addressing local issues. Through the consensus
of workgroup and policy forum co-chairs, the Border 2012 program will officially adopt
a set of indicators as the basis for tracking progress toward achieving the Program goals
and objectives, and for reporting on changes in border environmental and health
conditions.
6. Review indicators
Indicators can be used on either an ongoing basis or for a finite period of time.
Regardless of the length of data collection or indicator usage, a review process is
necessary to evaluate the performance and quality of the indicator. What may be a useful
indicator at the present may change with time, given the development of technology,
further improvements along the border, changing needs of the public or increased insights
in policy or science. The review should answer at least the following questions:
• Purpose - Why was the indicator developed?
• Data collection and management - What protocol was followed?
• Data reliability - Is the source reliable?
• Quality assurance - How accurate and precise are the data?
• Information - What does the indicator convey? Is it true to its purpose? How does
the information compare to the standard?
• Limitations - What are the outstanding gaps or limitations of the indicator?
• Conclusion - Are the data useful? Should the indicator continue to be used?15
The BITF proposes that a review occur two years after an indicator is first
implemented. However, ultimate decision lies with the National Coordinators, who will
periodically review the indicators and report the result to the workgroups, policy fora,
and the public.
IV. Strategy - Vision for Border 2012 Indicators
With the selection of a conceptual framework, indicator selection criteria, and defined
terminology, the Border Indicators Task Force hopes to provide a solid foundation for the
development of indicators. As this is a collaborative process, all coordinating bodies are
responsible for developing indicators and assuring that there is at least one candidate indicator
that meets each of the Border 2012 objectives.
As indicators are developed, it is important to remember that communication is key
between and among Border 2012 coordinating bodies. Both successes and lessons learned
should be shared widely, especially with the BITF and National Program Coordinators.
Additionally, indicators will only be successful if they are truly binational in nature, so it is
essential that final documents be made available in both languages. Indicators should also be
11
-------
transparent and simple to understand by the border communities in order to effectively evaluate
the outcomes of the Border 2012 program, assess and adjust policy, and ensure accountability.
Broad participation and representation in the Border Indicators Task Force is equally
important. Tribes, states, local community leaders, and program partners should be included in
all steps of development to ensure that the indicators selected and developed are relevant and
beneficial to border community needs.
V. Conclusion
The mission statement of the Border 2012 program commits to protecting the
environment and the health of the public in the border region, in the context of sustainable
development. Guided by the goals and objectives listed in the Border 2012 framework
document,16 this commitment has generated numerous programs and efforts to prevent or remedy
environmental degradation, and to document and improve human health outcomes. Since the
majority of the objectives listed in the framework document are performance measures,
stakeholders should strive to achieve these objectives, yet also reach beyond the guidelines of the
framework. This is important because fulfilling the mission will require a broad perspective,
careful research, and monitoring of progress.
The use of indicators has emerged as a promising tool that allows events in complex
systems to be monitored, modeled, and ultimately predicted. These capacities will provide
policy-makers tools with which to address the needs of the communities they serve. Because the
participants of the Border 2012 program represent many different interests, a common method of
documenting and analyzing border conditions and Program progress is necessary. The Border
Indicators Task Force has sought with this strategy document to provide a framework for a
common methodology and conceptualization of indicators.
The BITF's goal is that Border 2012 indicators will be sustainable and well maintained,
so that they remain useful resources. Indicator development - as an ongoing, flexible process -
will continue to be adapted as data become available and conditions change.
The BITF expects that increasing understanding of border conditions, strengthening the
capacity of health professionals, environmental regulators, and policy makers to respond to
crises, and reporting accurately the strengths and weaknesses of Border 2012 projects will be the
outputs of the indicators project. These successes will provide the necessary evidence and
possible solutions to make lasting improvements in health and environmental quality in the
border region.
The United States and Mexico share problems in the border region; these countries must
learn to share solutions as well. The Border 2012 program will be at its strongest when its
members are able to work cooperatively. Likewise, the indicator program will function best
12
-------
when it has input from all stakeholders. Despite the challenges of binational work, the BITF
believes that indicator development will strengthen communication, data-sharing, technology
transfer, and scientific collaboration across the border. Working together will enable us to have
more complete sets of knowledge and resources to help create a healthy border region for
everyone.
13
-------
VI. References
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Secretaria de Media Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (SEMARNAT). Border 2012: US-Mexico Border Environmental Program EPA/160/R-03/001.
Washington, DC: EPA, 2003, 3. Available from http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/pdf/2012_english.pdf.
Accessed September 29, 2005.
2 Ibid, 5.
3 Button, RJ, et al. "Survey of Health and Environmental Conditions in Texas Border Counties and Colonias."
Austin, TX: Office of Border Health, 2000 Available from
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us^rderhealth/publications_reports.shtm. Accessed September 29, 2005.
4 Adapted from UNECE, 2003, 41-46.
5UNECE, 2003, 33.
6 Adapted from CSIR, Mzuri Consultants, HSRC. National Core Set of Environmental Indicators for State of
Environmental Reporting, South Africa Phase 1-Scoping Report, Volume 1 of 2. The Directorate: Environmental
Information and Reporting/National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2001, 25. Available from
http://www.environment.gov.za/soer/indicator/docs/Scoping_Report_Voll.pdf Accessed September 29, 2005.
7 EPA and SEMARNAT. United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators 1997, EPA/909/R-98/001. US-
Mexico Border XXI Program, EPA, 1997, 5. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/border2012/indica97/1997report.pdf Accessed September 29, 2005.
8 Edwards, Sally. Personal Communication. Pan American Health Organization - Field Office El Paso, February
2004.
9 European Environment Agency. "Conceptual Framework: Our Approach" Available from
http://org.eea.eu.int/documents^ochure2002/approach.html Accessed September 29, 2005.
10 Kasperson, JX; Kasperson, RE and BL Turner II, eds. Regions at Risk: Comparisons of Threatened Environments,
New York: United Nations University Press, 1995. Available from
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uul4re/uul4reOu.htm Accessed September 29, 2005.
11 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECT)). Environmental Monographs, N° 83: OECD
core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. OCDE/GD(93)179. Paris: OECD, 1993,6.
Available from http://lead.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Refer/gd93179.pdf Accessed September 29, 2005.
12 EPA and SEMARNAT. United States-Mexico Border Environmental Indicators 1997, 5.
13 Adapted from:
• OECD, 1993, 7.
• Briggs, D. Making a Difference: Indicators to Improve Children's Environmental Health, World Health
Organization, 2003, 15. Available from http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/cehl590599/en/index.html
Accessed October 5, 2005.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Environmental Public Health Indicators, Atlanta: CDC,
2005, 4. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/EPHI.pdf Accessed October 5, 2005.
• Gosselin, P; Furgal, C and A Ruiz. Environmental Health Indicators for the US-Mexico Border: Concept
Document, US-Mexico Border Field Office of the Pan American Health Organization, 2001, 15-17.
Available from http://www.fep.paho.org/english/env/Indicadores/IndSA.htm Accessed October 5, 2005.
14 Jackson, LE.; Kurtz, J and W Fisher, eds. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators, EPA/620/R-99/005.
Research Triangle Park: EPA, 2000.
15
Adapted from Niskar AS. "The development of a guide to evaluate the usefulness of data sources for
environmental public health surveillance." (dissertation) Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2003.
16 EPA and SEMARNAT. Border 2012: US-Mexico Border Environmental Program
14
------- |