Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics

Abstract

Despite the fact that it has been well over a decade since Agenda 21 first called for sustainable development indicators, there is no consensus regarding the best approach to the design and use of SDI models. It is important, therefore, to question the effectiveness of SDIs in an effort to continue advancing sustainability.

This paper addresses one aspect of this question by exploring whether our global SDI metrics are sending a clear message to guide us towards sustainable development. Six global SDI metrics are compared by relative ranking in colour coded tabular format and spatially in map format. The combined presentation of results clearly illustrates that the different metrics arrive at varying interpretations about the sustainability of nations. The degree of variability between the metrics is analyzed using correlation analysis. The variability in findings draws attention to the lack of a clear direction at the global level in how best to approach sustainable development. Canada is presented as a case study to highlight and explain the discrepancies between SDI measures.

Introduction

The global adoption of sustainable development, symbolized by the United Nations World Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), marked the beginning of a new era in development. It was recognized that the needs and aspirations of people needed to be balanced with healthy ecological systems. The pursuit of development, as such, could no longer be justified in economic terms without consideration of the broader environmental impacts.

Accompanying this dramatic shift in the focus of development was a demand for information and direction by which to achieve “sustainable development.” One approach to satisfy this demand has been to adopt new indicators of progress that complement traditional barometers of development which were typically economic in design. Sustainable development indicator (SDI) frameworks are designed to collect, process, and use information with the goal of making better decisions, directing smarter policy choices, measuring progress, and monitoring feedback mechanisms. In essence, their goal is to ensure that development is sustainable.

The impetus for the development and use of SDIs was articulated in Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 which stated: “indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid bases for decision making at all levels and to contribute to a self-regulatory sustainability of integrated environment and development systems” (United Nations, 1992). Since then a range of environmental, social and economic SDI methodologies concerning human activities have been suggested (Bell and Morse, 2004, Heuting and Reijnders, 2004).

The abundance of SDI initiatives and metrics has flourished to the extent that they are now considered part of an “indicator industry” (Herzi and Nordin Hasan, 2004). While SDIs have been embraced politically, organizationally, and publicly ranging from community to global applications, it is questionable as to how effective they have been at operationalizing sustainability. Furthermore, there is no consensus regarding the best approach to the design and use of SDI models.

Despite the fact that it has been well over a decade since Agenda 21 first called for sustainable development indicators, SDIs are not yet fully matured. It is important, therefore, to question the effectiveness of SDIs in an effort to continue advancing sustainability. There is strong reason to believe that globally we have not advanced any closer to sustainability. The recently released United Nations “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” (UNEP, 2005, p. 27), which was conducted over 5 years drawing on the input of over 2000 authors and reviewers, concluded that the degradation of ecosystem services could become significantly worse during the first half of this century posing a significant barrier to achieving the millennium development goals. The study further concluded that the current direct drivers of ecosystem change will remain constant or are growing in intensity in most ecosystems.

It is increasingly clear that economic measures and standard sustainability measures fall short in their ability to deal with global ecological problems (Heuting and Reijnders, 2004). Too many activities undertaken with a sustainability agenda in mind continue to threaten environmental integrity often further stressing systems that are near or beyond their capacity to function healthily. It is therefore relevant to ask if SDIs have been effective at facilitating sustainable development.

This paper will address a critical aspect of this question by exploring whether predominant global SDI metrics convey a consistent message towards sustainable development.

The catalyst stimulating this paper was a response to being perplexed after reviewing a series of global sustainability indicator metrics by what appeared to be a lack of consistency in assessments of “sustainability”. Our compasses of sustainability, it appeared, instead of presenting a consistent direction to more sustainable development, suggested a multitude of directions which in many cases conflicted.

It is therefore, imperative to ask ourselves: how can this be happening? Possible explanations include the following three answers:

• There is not a collective consensus of what sustainability means and of what constitutes sustainable development. The development solution to global environmental problems while described under one name ‘sustainable development’ is understood and defined in different ways.

• Our compasses of sustainability are inadequate; indicator frameworks are deficient tools to direct sustainable development. Methodological problems inherently make them ineffective and possibly counter productive if methodologically weak tools are used to justify political agendas.

• Indicator metrics provide effective direction; however the direction is largely ignored or simply misunderstood and is therefore not appropriately used.

This analysis investigates the perception that competing indicator messages frustrate attempts to make significant strides towards sustainability by examining global metrics which can be considered proxy barometers of sustainable development. In this analysis we are not judging the merits of the different metrics but highlighting the amount of inconsistency among measures which are well recognized and capable of influencing sustainable development decision making.

More specifically this paper:

• Compares and contrasts global metrics by quintile ranking to help users discern variability between metrics across countries.

• Presents global SDI metrics on maps to help users appreciate the spatial distribution of each index, as well as the variability between the metrics.

• Quantifies the degree of variability among the global metrics through scatter plots and correlations.

• Discusses the nature and possible sources of the discrepancies between the indices.

Since Agenda 21, a suite of different measures of development have emerged to measure the sustainability of the nation state. Those included in this analysis are: the ecological footprint (EF), the surplus biocapacity measure (SB), the environmental sustainability index (ESI), and the wellbeing index (WI). Each of these measures was designed to assess the relative sustainability of countries against a given sustainability standard and to provide cross-national comparisons of sustainability and/or sustainability progress in a quantitative fashion. As a result, countries are ranked according to how they perform against their corresponding sustainability standard and against one another. The gross domestic product (GDP) and the human development index (HDI) are also included in this analysis as they are two widely endorsed measures of developmental progress. While not typically characterized as measures of sustainability, the HDI and the GDP were selected to be included in this study as these metrics are consistent with a more traditional position of what drives sustainable development. The HDI represents a strong social metric based on the philosophy that sustainable development is contingent upon high human development. The GDP represents a metric where economic growth is considered the ultimate driver of sustainable development (Beckermann, 1992, CEC, 2001, OECD, 2001). Including the GDP furthermore reflects the neo-liberal economic position that more growth is the best development strategy to improve environmental health (Economist, 2000).

While these metrics all broadly speak to the degree of sustainability of the nation state, it is critical to recognize that the metrics only assess a part of sustainability. The emphasis of what drives or constitutes sustainability differs among metrics.

The ecological footprint (EF) measures the demands humans place on nature. It provides a quantitative assessment of the biologically productive area (the amount of nature) required to produce the necessary resources (food, energy, and materials) and to absorb the wastes of a given population (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). If the human load exceeds the productive capacity of the biosphere then consumption patterns are clearly not sustainable given current circumstances. The human load can vary depending on population, technology, and eco-efficiency. The ecological footprint therefore, ultimately measures the sustainability of human consumption patterns.

The concept of the ecological footprint was developed by Rees and Wackernagel (1996). Global results were released as part of Living Planet Report in 2000, 2002 and 2004. An update was also released in 2004 by the environmental think-tank Redefining Progress as part of their Footprint of Nations report. Data used for this study were based on findings from that update. The global ecological footprint accounts are currently maintained by the Global Footprint Network. Updates are released annually as part of the Living Planet Report series.

Similar to the aforementioned ecological footprint metric, the surplus biocapacity (SB) measure also assesses the sustainability of consumption patterns. Specifically, the SB is the difference between a country's ecological footprint and its domestic production area of ecologically productive land and water. The SB accounts for sustainability using the nation state as a unit of analysis. In this regard, the amount of consumption that is sustainable is a function of ecological space, consumption and population. Surplus biocapacity was reported in both the Footprint of Nations report and in the Living Planet reports. Data used for this study were based on findings from the 2004 Footprint of Nations update.

The environmental sustainability index (ESI) is a composite index targeting environmental, socio-economic, and institutional indicators as a means to assess sustainability. The ESI incorporates 20 indicators, each of which combines two to eight variables, for a total of 68 underlying datasets. The core components of the ESI include: environmental systems, reducing stresses, reducing human vulnerability, social and institutional capacity, and global stewardship (World Economic Forum et al., 2002).

The environmental sustainability index was first developed in 1999 by the World Economic Forum's Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, the Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP), and the Columbia University Centre for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). Subsequent updates were released in 2001, 2002 and 2005. Data used for this study were based on the 2002 update.

The wellbeing index (WI) is a composite index evaluating human and ecosystem wellbeing. This metric is based upon the philosophy that assessing the combination of these two elements offers insight into how close a country is to becoming sustainable. The WI is an equally weighted average of the human wellbeing index (HWI) and ecosystem wellbeing index (EWI). Both consist of five dimensions, the former comprising health and population, household and national wealth, knowledge and culture, community, and equity, while the latter consists of land, water, air, species and genes, and resource use (Prescott-Allen, 2001).

The WI was developed by Robert Prescott-Allen in collaboration with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the World Conservation Union. Comprehensive results for 180 countries were released in 2001. Data used for this study were based on these results.

The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) is one of the most widely recognized measures of development, measuring three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living (UNDP, 2004). The human development index (HDI) was first developed in 1990 and has been released annually thereafter. Data used for this study are from the 2004 Human Development Report entitled Cultural Liberty in Today's Diverse World. It is used as a proxy of sustainability based on the rationale that high human development facilitates sustainable development.

The gross domestic product (GDP) is commonly used as a broad measure of economic productivity. The GDP measure is considered to be a proxy with which to assess economic performance and progress. Specifically, the GDP is:

“the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Purchase power parity (PPP) GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States” (World Bank, 2005, technical definitions).

GDP figures for the year 2002, reported in US dollars purchase power parity (US$ PPP) are used in this study. These figures were published in the 2004 Human Development Report (UNDP, 2004).