5.The tool must be accessible. The makeup, use, and end product of the tool needs to be user friendly,visually pleasing, and concise. Application of the tool should be efficient regarding cost, forusers with different financial and human resource abilities can utilize it.
The design of the tool should be accessible given the knowledge, volume, and organizational makesof the utilizers. 6.The tool must be adaptable. The tool should be adaptable to and adequate for the specificdemands and needs of the users, and to their specific context. The toolshould be able to reflect different scales, cultures, and values of the groupthat is using it, and will vary to what they are trying to accomplish. The tool needs to be able toinclude a variety of spatial and temporary stages as necessary by thenature of the campus environment. 7.Participatory process in tool development and use.
The makeup of the tool needs toutilize the viewpoint and values of the communities that will be using it.Those who will use or be affected by the use of the tool should be activelyengaged in the application and use of the tool on-site. Eachof the 2 existing sustainability assessment tools was reviewed carefullyaccording to these 7 criteria. These were reviewed separately from the campusspecific sustainability assessment tools in order to widen our range ofliterature reviewed to some other leading edge tools from other sectors. 3.
3.Indicator Selection Anindicator of sustainability is defined as a package of data in order to simple define, measure, andcommunicate complex and ornate information for use by decision-makers, policy-shapers,and the public. Atthis thesis, the literature was used to develop “indicator selection criteria”.Our specific indicator set was developed using the experience, values, andexpertise of the sustainable experts. The set of criteria was developed to usein determining a “good indicator” was that it is: Based on accurate, available and accessible data of known quality. Can high-quality data be found and accessed? Representative of the phenomena being measured.
Does the indicator actually represent the larger phenomenon that it is attempting to paint a picture about? Relevant to users, decision-makers, local and global sustainability challenges. Does the indicator help decision-makers to be proactive and take action? Does it without a doubt describe a phenomenon? Does it make sense in terms of reaching local and global sustainability? Does it inspire action? Understandable to the university and broadercommunities. Does the indicatorclearly describe a particular phenomenon in a method that is attainable to the communitiesthat