Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators
1.1. The “Missing Pillar” of Sustainability: A Convergence of Perspectives
1.2. Ethical Values in International Sustainability Discourses
|Source||Values of Sustainability/Sustainable Development (SD)||How described|
|Earth Charter||Respect and Care for the Community of Life |
Social and Economic Justice
Democracy, Non-Violence and Peace
|“We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”  (p. 1)|
“…we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed”  (p. 1)
|UN Millennium Declaration (2000)||Freedom, Equality|
Respect for Nature
|“We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the twenty-first century.”  (Section 6)|
|“Global values” (1945–2006)||Equality (561)|
|This list contains the 16 most frequent “global values” identified through a content analysis of 22 international documents issued between 1945 and 2006 inclusive . Each word in the list represents a cluster of similar concepts or meanings (e.g., “Peace” represents “peace, non-violence, harmony, social cohesion”). The numbers in brackets refer to the number of times that the respective value cluster was mentioned in the 22 documents. Less frequently mentioned values were love, nurturing, privacy, confidentiality, informed/free consent, innovation, creativity, imagination, empowerment, generosity, gratitude, humility, wisdom, resilience, hope, stability, and reverence (i.e., for life and the environment). These values do not appear as lists in the original documents; their collation into list form has been done by De Leo.|
|Final Report from Rio + 10 (2002)||Freedom|
Respect for Nature
|“Some participants [in Round Table 3] highlighted links among environment, trade, peace accords, military arms reduction, the implementation of the Monterrey agreement and developing the values of democracy within a sustainable development framework. They supported adherence to the principles…”  (p. 127)|
|Final Report from Rio + 20 (2012)||None listed||“We reaffirm the intrinsic value of biological diversity, as well as the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity…”  (p. 38)|
1.3. Toward Ethical Values-Based Indicators
2. Are Values Measurable?
2.1. What Do We Mean by “Values”? Espousal Versus Enactment
2.2. The Theoretical Possibility of Measuring Values Enactment
2.2.1. Can Values Enactment be Objectively Defined?
“We can measure, for example, whether Pat actually puts the little bird back in its nest, visits the hospital on Christmas…or refuses to contribute to saving the whales. All of those behaviors exist, so we can measure them. But is Pat really compassionate? We can’t answer that question: we can’t measure compassion in any objective sense, because compassion doesn’t exist in the sense that those things I just described exist.”
2.2.2. Is Objective Definition a Prerequisite for Operationalization and Measurement?
3. Developing and Using Values-Based Indicators: An Illustrative Example
3.1. Background: The ESDinds Project
3.2. Measuring Values Enactment at the Project Level
4.1. Potential for the Further Development of Values-Based Indicators
4.2. Mitigating the Risk of Perverse Effects
4.3. Values-Based Indicators, Transdisciplinarity and Sustainability
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
- Establishing a manageable but meaningful consultation process with key stakeholder groups within the institutions tasked with developing SDGs, to ensure that appropriate indicators and assessment tools relating to ethical values (as a key element of the “missing pillar” of sustainability) are formulated in parallel with the goals themselves;
- Ensuring that projects initiated in support of SDGs are context-relevant and defined on the basis of consultation about local needs, priorities and values, rather than by the desire to improve national or global performance in relation to measurable indicators such as GDP;
- Facilitating or encouraging a funding mechanism to support rigorous research into indicators and assessment methodologies focusing on sustainability processes and outcomes that are less tangible, or more qualitative in nature, than those currently being measured, including studies of perverse effects and how they might be mitigated or avoided;
- Using values-based indicators to reflect on some of the complex barriers to success in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (e.g., reframing conflict as a failure to enact values such as equality and tolerance, overexploitation of finite environmental resources as a deficiency in “respect and care for the community of life”, or systemic corruption as a lack of trustworthiness and integrity), in order to identify timely measures that might be taken to address these issues from a values perspective;
- Investing in research that addresses the issue of sustainability assessment in general, and values-based indicators in particular, through the lens of transdisciplinarity.
Conflict of Interest
References and Notes
- Littig, B.; Griessler, E. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahl, A.L. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd in association with the Cultural Development Network (Vic): Victoria, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies. Available online: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=12762&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- UNESCO. Culture in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda: Why culture is key to sustainable development. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-development/hangzhou-congress/ (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- De Leo, J. Quality Education for Sustainable Development: An Educator Handbook for Integrating Values, Knowledge, Skills and Quality Features of EDUCATION for Sustainable Development in Schooling; UNESCO APNIEVE Australia Publishing: Adelaide, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kagan, S. Art and Sustainability: Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity. Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Woodley, E.; Crowley, E.; Dookie, C.; Carmen, E. Cultural Indicators of Indigenous Peoples’ Food and Agro-Ecological Systems; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Nurse, K. Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development; Commonwealth Secretariat: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- UN-PFII. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Fifth Session. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/ag253e/AG253E03.htm (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- Barkin, D.; Lemus, B. Understandig progress: a heterodox approach. Sustainability 2012, 5, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfahl, S. Institutional sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spangenberg, J.H. Institutional sustainability indicators: An analysis of the institutions in Agenda 21 and a draft set of indicators for monitoring their effectivity. Sustain. Dev. 2002, 10, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spangenberg, J.H.; Pfahl, S.; Deller, K. Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: Lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 2, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Commission on Environment and Development, Towards common action: Proposals for institutional and legal change. In Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 1987.
- Sustainable development indicators and national accounts. Available online: www.insee.fr/en/insee-statistique-publique/colloques/acn/pdf10/ravets.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- UN Division for Sustainable Development, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Core Set; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
- UN Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Policy Co-ordination and Sustainable Development Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodologies; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
- UN Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Policy Co-ordination and Sustainable Development Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development; Document UN/E/CN.17/1995/18; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
- Clugston, R. Ethical framework for a sustainable world: Earth Charter Plus 10 conference and follow up. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 5, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ECI Secretariat, Earth Charter Initiative Handbook; Earth Charter International Secretariat: San José, Costa Rica, 2010.
- Hedlund-de Witt, A. The rising culture and worldview of contemporary spirituality: A sociological study of potentials and pitfalls for sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1057–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute, Interreligious Statement Towards Rio + 20 and Beyond-A Turning Point in Earth’s History; Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute: Kalk Bay, South Africa, 2012.
- Oxford English Dictionary, Definition of “values”; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
- Bahm, A.J. Ethics: The Science of Oughtness; Rodopi B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, P.G.; Nycander, G. Sustainable neighbourhoods—a qualitative model for resource management in communities. Landscape Urban Plan. 1997, 39, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lele, S.; Norgaard, R.B. Sustainability and the scientist’s burden. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 354–365. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? Earthscan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- ECI Secretariat, Read the Charter; Earth Charter International Secretariat: San José, Costa Rica, 2000.
- United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Millennium Declaration; United Nations General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
- UNESCO, International Implementation Scheme for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2004.
- United Nations, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
- United Nations, The Future We Want: Outcome Document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro from 20–22 June 2012; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
- Koroneos, C.J.; Rokos, D. Sustainable and integrated development-a critical analysis. Sustainability 2012, 4, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M.Q. Process use as a usefulism. New Dir. Eval. 2007, 2007, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Testing the CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development, Interim Analysis: Testing Process, Indicators and Methodology Sheets; UNDESA: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
- McCool, S.; Stankey, G. Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitlin, S.; Piliavin, J.A. Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2004, 30, 359–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redclift, M.; Benton, T. Introduction. In Social Theory and the Global Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Goleman, D. Working with Emotional Intelligence; Bloomsbury: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Meglino, B.M.; Ravlin, E.C. Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 351–389. [Google Scholar]
- Schlater, J.D.; Sontag, M. Toward the measurement of human values. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 1994, 23, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stapleton, L.M.; Garrod, G. Policy preceding possibility? Examining headline composite sustainability indicators in the United Kingdom. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 87, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grainger, A. Forest sustainability indicator systems as procedural policy tools in global environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 2012, 22, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gudmundsson, H. The policy use of environmental indicators-learning from evaluation research. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud. 2003, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenström, U. Exploring the policy use of sustainable development indicators: Interviews with Finnish politicians. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud. 2006, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Baha’i International Community, Valuing Spirituality in Development: Initial Considerations Regarding the Creation of Spiritually Based Indicators for Development; Baha’i Publishing Trust: London, UK, 1998.
- Meadows, D. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development: Report to the Balaton Group; The Sustainability Institute: Hartland Four Corners, VT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S.; Morse, S. Sustainable development indicators: The tyranny of methodology revisited. Cons. J. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 6, 222–239. [Google Scholar]
- Rametsteiner, E.; Puelzl, H.; Alkan-Olsson, J.; Frederiksen, P. Sustainability indicator development: Science or political negotiation? Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Rokeach, M. Understanding Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? J. Soc. Issues 1994, 50, 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Basic Human Values: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Available online: http://www.francoangeli.it/Riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?idArticolo=30705 (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- Schwartz, S.H.; Bilsky, W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H.; Melech, G.; Lehmann, A.; Burgess, S.; Harris, M.; Owens, V. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2001, 32, 519–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allport, G.W.; Vernon, P.E.; Lindzey, G. A Study of Values; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, 1951; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, C.; Park, N.; Seligman, M.E.P. Assessment of character strengths. In Psychologists’ Desk Reference, 2nd; Koocher, G.P., Norcross, J.C., Hill, S.S.I., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 93–98. [Google Scholar]
- AMA, American Management Association 2002 Corporate Values Survey; AMA: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
- Davidov, E. Testing for comparability of human values across countries and time with the third round of the European Social Survey. Int. J. Comp. Soc. 2010, 51, 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Davidov, E.; Schmidt, P.; Schwartz, S.H. Bringing values back in: Testing the adequacy of the european social survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opin. Q. 2008, 72, 420–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Javidan, M.; Dorfman, P.W.; Gupta, V. Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Inglehart, R.; Baker, W.E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2000, 65, 19–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruys, M.L.; Stewart, S.M.; Goodstein, J.; Bing, M.N.; Wicks, A.C. Values enactment in organizations: A multi-level examination. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 806–843. [Google Scholar]
- Argyris, C.; Schon, D.A. Organizational Learning; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Lahire, B. From the habitus to an individual heritage of dispositions. Towards a sociology at the level of the individual. Poetics 2003, 31, 329–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste; Routledge: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Truth or Deception. Available online: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/publications/pamphlets/02_TruthOrDeception/TruthOrDeception.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- Hinkel, J. Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babbie, E.R. The Practice of Social Research, 12th ed; Thomson/Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, K.P.; Nisbett, R.E.; Wong, N.Y.C. Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychol. Methods 1997, 2, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torpe, L.; Lolle, H. Identifying social trust in cross-country analysis: Do we really measure the same? Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 103, 481–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machicado, C.A.; Davis, H. A values assessment application among Bolivian managers. J. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 128, 691–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cha, S.E.; Edmondson, A.C. When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lencioni, P.M. Make your values mean something. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 113–117. [Google Scholar]
- Crossley, N. Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Talamo, A.; Pozzi, S. The tension between dialogicality and interobjectivity in cooperative activities. Cult. Psychol. 2011, 17, 302–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podger, D.; Piggot, G.; Zahradnik, M.; Janousková, S.; Velasco, I.; Hak, T.; Dahl, A.; Jimenez, A.; Harder, M.K. The Earth Charter and the ESDinds initiative: Developing indicators and assessment tools for civil society organizations to examine the values dimensions of sustainability projects. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 4, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Burford, G.; Velasco, I.; Janousková, S.; Zahradnik, M.; Hak, T.; Podger, D.; Piggot, G.; Harder, M.K. Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating “intangible” values-related dimensions of projects. Eval. Prog. Plan. 2013, 36, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Podger, D.; Velasco, I.; Luna, C.A.; Burford, G.; Harder, M.K. Can values be measured? Significant contributions from a small civil society organization through action research. Action Res. 2013, 11, 8–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harder, M.K.; Burford, G.; Hoover, E. What is participation? Design leads the way to a cross-disciplinary framework. Design Issues 2013, 29. in press. [Google Scholar]
- ESDinds. Available online: http://www.esdinds.eu (accessed on 20 May 2013).
- Reed, M.S.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Dougill, A.J. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ECI Secretariat, Evaluation of e-GLO3 Earth Charter Global Learning Opportunity; Earth Charter International Secretariat: San José, Costa Rica, 2011.
- Hulme, M. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environ. Change 2010, 20, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environ. Change 2010, 20, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Morse, S.; Dougill, A.J. Integrating methods for developing sustainability indicators to facilitate learning and action. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S.; Dougill, A.J.; Baker, T.R. Participatory indicator development: What can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 1253–1269. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S.; Dougill, A.J. Participatory selection process for indicators of rangeland condition in the Kalahari. Geogr. J. 2002, 168, 224–234. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, E.D.G.; Dougill, A.J.; Mabee, W.E.; Reed, M.; McAlpine, P. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krank, S.; Wallbaum, H.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Perceived contribution of indicator systems to sustainable development in developing countries. Sust. Dev. 2013, 21, 18–29. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, H.J.; Feldman, D.C. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Acad. Manage. J. 1981, 24, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, R.J.; Katz, J.E. Social‐desirability bias and the validity of self‐reported values. Psychol. Market. 2000, 17, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, J. Limits to interdisciplinarity in problem oriented social science research. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud. 2002, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Burger, P.; Kamber, R. Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: Knowledge as a key notion. Integr. Stud. 2003, 21, 43–73. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. The New Production of Knowledge; SAGE: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Nicolescu, B. The transdisciplinary evolution of the university: Condition for sustainable development. In Bulletin Interactif du Centre International de Recherches et Études transdisciplinaires; Centre International des Recherches et Etudes Transdisciplinaires (CIRET): Paris, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Nicolescu, B. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity; State Univesity of New York (SUNY) Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Nicolescu, B. Transdisciplinarity-past, present and future. In Moving Worldviews-Reshaping Sciences, Policies and Practices for Endogenous Sustainable Development; Haverkort, B., Reijntjes, C., Eds.; COMPAS Editions: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 142–166. [Google Scholar]
- Microsoft Office. Clip art, photos and animations. Available online: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ (accessed on 20 May 2013).
© 2013 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 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; Harder, M.K. Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3035-3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5073035
Burford G, Hoover E, Velasco I, Janoušková S, Jimenez A, Piggot G, Podger D, Harder MK. Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators. Sustainability. 2013; 5(7):3035-3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5073035Chicago/Turabian Style
Burford, Gemma, Elona Hoover, Ismael Velasco, Svatava Janoušková, Alicia Jimenez, Georgia Piggot, Dimity Podger, and Marie K. Harder. 2013. "Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators" Sustainability 5, no. 7: 3035-3059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5073035