This repetition is important for a long

term assessment (Mc Cool and Stankey, 2004, Breton, 2006 and Ballinger et al., 2010). To assess whether repetitions make sense, we compared the present result of the in-depth application in Warnemünde with an application based on data of the late 1990s. Only a few indicators had different scores for 1990 and today. The systematic changes as reflected INCB018424 mw in the aggregated scores are minor when compared to the multiple major methodological uncertainties. First, the SUSTAIN ‘scoring through ranges’ approach hides small to medium changes, as most data stays in the same class and therefore receives the same score in the present and in the past. For example, the employment in primary, secondary and tertiary sector in a traditional Ribociclib mw seaside resort like Warnemünde changed only to a very limited degree during the last decade, with the scores

remaining in the same classes. It is unlikely that in the future the changes between these three sectors of employment will cause differences in scores, because the classes are relatively broad. Second, due to data availability, the score always reflects a longer time period rather than a single year, and this reduces differences between results from two spaces in time. Our experience shows that the indicator set does not allow a reliable comparison of different decades at one study site. Over a long period of several decades, systematic changes might become visible, but only if the quality of data remains stable and the same person carries out the evaluation. There are several reasons for differences in the results between the groups, including misinterpretations due to insufficient or imprecise indicator descriptions, misunderstandings due to language barriers (the German and Lithuanian groups Cepharanthine used the English indicator description and application manual), and the lack of suitable and sufficiently resolved data combined with the need to estimate certain values. However,

subjectivity, perception, and the cultural background of the evaluator also play an important role. This is a known phenomenon even within one country (Ballinger et al., 2010), but become very obvious when groups with very different backgrounds from different countries are involved. Comparative indicator applications between countries involving local evaluators seem hardly reasonable. The SUSTAIN indicator set has been developed for local municipalities as well as for district and regional authorities, to allow a self-assessment. Local evaluators have the advantage of often bringing good knowledge of the site being assessed and good access to available local data.