Our groups included young scientists with local knowledge who were introduced to the indicators

and had the possibility to discuss problems in the group. Discussions within the group very likely stabilised the results and reduced subjectivity. Therefore, it is unlikely that one local person alone and without access to group feedback will produce a more stable, reproducible, and reliable result than our test groups. To what extent does the time available for indicator application GSK2126458 datasheet affects the quality of the result? Our groups had to base the indicator scoring mainly on information and statistics available through the Internet. Official statistics and long-term monitoring programs are considered as the most reliable data sources and therefore very suitable for indicator applications (Hoffmann, 2009). The time available for phone interviews and additional literature search was limited and done only for a few indicators. Compared to this, our in-depth application carried out by a young scientist utilised much more knowledge from local experts, unpublished literature, and planning documents. We did not observe systematic differences in quality between a fast screening, done by a single person

within one week (40 h), compared to Selleck Androgen Receptor Antagonist an in-depth indicator application taking 80 h (two weeks full-time) stretched out over six weeks (Fig. 2). The benefit of investing more time resources into the application process does not improve the result to a degree that it can be regarded as

cost-effective. We recommend a restriction of the indicator application to one working week. As mentioned before, the cultural, educational, and disciplinary background of the person carrying out the application has significant impact on the results. On the other hand, local stakeholders with knowledge of the situation and its history as well as suitable contact networks are extremely important (Hoffmann, 2009). However, we also recommend the involvement of an experienced external expert in the local application process. A neutral expert can beneficial for a critical view on non-desired development and current local practices (Lyytimäki, 2011). The SUSTAIN indicator sets (core and optional) were developed by a European project involving 12 partners from different European click here countries. The sets should be suitable for all regions in Europe, and a major criterion for the choice of core indicators was their applicability across Europe and the availability of data collected according to various European Directives (SUSTAIN partnership, 2012b). This approach implies that the results allow a comparison of e.g. different municipalities within one country and between different countries. Does the core indicator set allow cross-regional comparisons between municipalities? To test this, we compared the results from our two study sites (Fig. 3).