g. municipalities can make improvements to improve their scores. An improved and more sustainable management has to be reflected in the result, otherwise it Luminespib is a mere descriptor of the state of the coast indicator. The SUSTAIN optional and core sets include several indicators which are beyond local control. Therefore, a revision is necessary to improve

their practical relevance. The aggregated values for pillars and the end results of an application exercise include many uncertainties, and in and of themselves have only very limited practical relevance. The result is less important, than the application process itself. The application process can initiate and guide municipal discussions about sustainability. Therefore, the major challenge is the organization, guidance, and maintenance of this process to ensure the participation of relevant decision-makers as well as to involve the public

(Mc Cool and Stankey, 2004). Stakeholder engagement and public participation is generally much higher during the early stages of development, particularly during issue identification, yet lacking in long term commitment (Ballinger et al., 2010). Important objectives include raising awareness about what sustainability means and identifying a path towards the creation of a future development vision. The question of how to adapt to climate change challenges is an excellent example of a discussion that could be guided by an indicator application exercise. The SUSTAIN partnership (2012a) created a core indicator set, which was applied in Warnemünde and Neringa, and additional optional indicators. Tofacitinib datasheet Optional indicators can be used by municipalities if they are relevant and access to the required Erastin data is possible. To tailor the indicator set to specific local needs is imperative to ensure a practical value. This approach has to go beyond the SUSTAIN sets, as municipalities need the freedom to contribute their own, specific additional indicators (Mc Cool and Stankey, 2004). Of course, this approach reduces the regional trans-comparability of the issue and pillar aggregated results even further, and might lead to imbalances in the representation of the four pillars of

sustainability within one municipality. The wish to compare the status of and progress towards sustainability between regions within one country (Sardã et al., 2005) or even across Europe is a major driver for the development of indicator sets (e.g. Breton, 2006 and Lyytimäki, 2011). The indicator set to measure the progress in integrated coastal management (Pickaver et al., 2004), for example, was initiated by EU DG Environment to get an insight to what extent sustainable management is implemented in different European regions countries and where deficits exist. Comparisons across Europe allow identifying deficits in monitoring and data availability (Breton, 2006). They also include the possibility of learning from other experiences (Moreno-Pires and Fidélis, 2012).