**1. Introduction**

*We made recommendations on adjustments to the city development plans, some of which were accepted. However, relations with the municipal administration have been a bit tense due to the poor results they obtained in our citizen perception surveys. This made them very upset.*

(Quote by the representative of an indicator initiative in Colombia; informant CO#3).

To improve a city's liveability and democratic governance, a strategy with much appeal in this digital, data-driven age involves tracking numbers on issues that many citizens and elected officials care about [1]: How is our city or neighbourhood doing (and comparing to others) with regard to, say, air quality standards, quality-of-life, municipal expenditure, and crime rates? Organizations dedicated to compiling and publicly reporting on local wellbeing or sustainability indicators at regular intervals have been called "urban observatories" or "community indicators"; in line with other studies [2], we label them "community indicator initiatives" in this article. Pioneers such as *Sustainable Seattle* were founded in the 1990s [3] and hundreds of other local projects were active at the turn of the millennium [4].

**Citation:** Niemann, L.; Hoppe, T. How to Sustain Sustainability Monitoring in Cities: Lessons from 49 Community Indicator Initiatives across 10 Latin American Countries. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 5133. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13095133

Academic Editor: Tan Yigitcanlar

Received: 2 April 2021 Accepted: 30 April 2021 Published: 4 May 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

In Bogotá in 1998, the Colombian capital's chamber of commerce, a reputed foundation, media firm, and university jointly created *Bogotá Cómo Vamos* ("Bogota, how are we doing" in Spanish). This organization's core mandate is to publicly report on the city's quality-oflife and sustainability on the basis of relevant indicator data obtained from official sources and supplemented with their citizen perception surveys. Inspired by this Colombian model, dozens of similar initiatives subsequently appeared across Latin America [5,6]. Many chose equivalent names (*Lima Cómo Vamos*, *Rio Como Vamos*, etc.) or variants often combining city names and plural first-person pronouns—in Brazil, *Nossa São Paulo* ("Our São Paulo" in Portuguese) was created in 2007 and emulated by namesake initiatives in Argentina such as *Nuestra Buenos Aires*. To exchange experiences and coordinate joint activities, they collectively created the *Latin American Network of Just and Sustainable Cities* in 2011 that comprised, in its heyday, some 60 like-minded initiatives from 10 countries [7].

Across Latin America, "community indicators" evidently proliferated in the previous decade, fuelled by substantial investments in time and money by civil society volunteers, private foundations, universities, journalists, and entrepreneurs. In several cities, international donors, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), co-financed the creation of a "civil society monitoring system" [8]. A quick internet search for key actors reveals that *Bogotá Cómo Vamos* (cf. www.bogotacomovamos.org (accessed on 1 April 2021)) and Colombian sister organizations continue to be active, just as *Nossa São Paulo* (www.nossasaopaulo.org.br (accessed on 1 April 2021)) and fellow initiatives in Brazil. However, *Rio Como Vamos* and *Nuestra Buenos Aires* no longer exist, the Latin American network became inactive in 2016, and in some countries, none of the original community indicator initiatives survived.

The rise (and fall) of community indicators in different countries triggers two fundamental questions: What do they achieve? Which contextual factors influence their achievements and survival? Various academic studies address the first question and point to several positive impacts, including gains in public awareness and sustainability-oriented decision-making [4]. In the literature on sustainability indicators at large (thus including their application at a national level, in industries, etc.), scholars have also identified the possibility of misuse (e.g., disinformation campaigns) but non-use appears to be the more prevalent risk [9]. Indeed, failure to achieve long-term usage seems to be a common ailment. According to a recent review by Wray, Stevens, and Holden [10] (p. 10), "not unlike the story in other realms of voluntary and community work, efforts in community indicators have been plagued by the short lifespan of many initiatives. All too often, the cycle is one of a burst of investment of, enthusiasm, dedication, skill, and resources, a hard slog to establish an initial reputation and reporting system, some small triumphs of media, community, and perhaps even political attention, followed by a series of disappointments in efforts to repeat, accelerate, or institutionalize the work, and ultimately by the decline or disappearance of the initiative".

In that view, fizzling out over time seems to be the normal fate of indicator projects; moreover, unrealistic expectations on the side of practitioners appear to be more important than either the local or national context or the specific choices each initiative makes about its activities and organizational set-up. With regards to internal governance, some researchers offer specific recommendations. Extrapolating from a case study in Australia, Davern et al. [11] (p. 571) posit that "all indicator systems should include these best practice principles in their development and operation", which include the prescription to "include a balanced mix of government, business and community representation". The last point is remarkable since, in Latin America, virtually all initiatives operate at an arm's length from governments and have governance arrangements that explicitly exclude elected officials.

Therefore, it is fair to state that there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to map and evaluate community indicator initiatives in Latin America. Theoretically, various assumptions about the effectiveness and "best practice" of community indicators can be put to test, in particular, with regards to prescriptions about organizational governance. As this article shows, community indicator initiatives differ widely in the number of stakeholders

involved, their degree of cooperation with media firms, reliance on volunteers, indicator choices, dissemination methods, and other characteristics. Empirically, the Global South is under-researched, and a more representative selection of case studies is repeatedly called for by scholars of sustainability indicators [12]. Latin American initiatives operate in diverse environments, ranging from smaller towns to the world's largest cities, in countries showing differences in terms of public service levels, political violence, and access to information laws. This provides unique opportunities to open the "black box of contextual drivers" [13]. Responding to calls in the literature for comparative, longitudinal approaches, this study, therefore, sought to answer the following research question: atives operate in diverse environments, ranging from smaller towns to the world's largest cities, in countries showing differences in terms of public service levels, political violence, and access to information laws. This provides unique opportunities to open the "black box of contextual drivers" [13]. Responding to calls in the literature for comparative, longitudinal approaches, this study, therefore, sought to answer the following research question: *Which design and context factors are associated with the influence and long-term viability of* 

Therefore, it is fair to state that there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to map and evaluate community indicator initiatives in Latin America. Theoretically, various assumptions about the effectiveness and "best practice" of community indicators can be put to test, in particular, with regards to prescriptions about organizational governance. As this article shows, community indicator initiatives differ widely in the number of stakeholders involved, their degree of cooperation with media firms, reliance on volunteers, indicator choices, dissemination methods, and other characteristics. Empirically, the Global South is under-researched, and a more representative selection of case studies is repeatedly called for by scholars of sustainability indicators [12]. Latin American initi-

*Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

### *Which Design and Context Factors Are Associated with the Influence and Long-Term Viability of Community Indicator Initiatives in Latin American Cities? community indicator initiatives in Latin American cities?* Three research sub-questions help structure this article: How do city-level commu-

Three research sub-questions help structure this article: How do city-level community indicator initiatives function in different Latin American countries? What do they perceive as their objectives, barriers, and achievements? Which contextual factors, in combination with organizational strategies, are associated with their success and failure? nity indicator initiatives function in different Latin American countries? What do they perceive as their objectives, barriers, and achievements? Which contextual factors, in combination with organizational strategies, are associated with their success and failure? Through our theoretical and empirical contributions, we aim to strengthen the global

Through our theoretical and empirical contributions, we aim to strengthen the global body of knowledge on indicator initiatives and to provide insights to practitioners; the latter include civil society activists, donors, and decision-makers involved in the design of national transparency and accountability policies. We further expect that the research frameworks elaborated for this study, including the typology of context and design factors as well as effects, will inform future studies. Our approach and objectives are summarised in Figure 1. body of knowledge on indicator initiatives and to provide insights to practitioners; the latter include civil society activists, donors, and decision-makers involved in the design of national transparency and accountability policies. We further expect that the research frameworks elaborated for this study, including the typology of context and design factors as well as effects, will inform future studies. Our approach and objectives are summarised in Figure 1.


**Figure 1.** Outline of research issues, approach, and objectives. **Figure 1.** Outline of research issues, approach, and objectives.

This article is organized as follows. The next section contains an overview of essential literature on community indicators, with a view to guiding the elaboration of the conceptual model applied in this study. This is followed by a section describing the research This article is organized as follows. The next section contains an overview of essential literature on community indicators, with a view to guiding the elaboration of the conceptual model applied in this study. This is followed by a section describing the research population and methods and one presenting key results. The final section contains a discussion and conclusion. Further details and raw data are available as Supplementary Materials.
