Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks and Initiatives

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, Production Economics,

Measuring the immeasurable: a survey of substainability indices

Sustainability indices for countries provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country?s development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. This paper reviews the explanatory power of various sustainability indices applied in policy practice. We show that these indices fail to fulfill fundamental scientific requirements making them rather useless if not misleading with respect to policy advice. --Sustainability Indices,Composite Indicators,Sustainability,Indices

A review of the National Performance Framework in light of the Stiglitz Report recommendations

Contents: A review of the National Performance Framework in light of the Stiglitz Report recommendations -- Annex 1: A national performance framework (Chapter 8 of 'Scottish budget spending review 2007') -- Annex 2: The capabilities approach (reproduced from Sen and Alkire in the Stiglitz Report, p. 151) -- Annex 3: The equality measurement frameworkThis report is based on the 'Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress' (Stiglitz Report, 2009) and 'More than GDP : measuring what matters' (2011).The aim of this paper is to review the structure of the Scottish National Performance Framework (NPF) against the 12 recommendations set out in the Stiglitz Report.Publisher PD

Additional measures of progress for Scotland : an analysis of the issues and problems associated with aggregate/composite measures of sustainability

the purpose of this paper is to consider the broad set of issues and problems associated with adopting aggregate measures of sustainability. We do this by first considering what we mean when we talk about 'sustainable development' in a policy context and the role that we want sustainability indicators to play. Two broad types of sustainability are identified and we argue that the role of sustainability indicators depends on which type we are concerned with. This also proves to have a bearing on many of the problems and issues commonly associated with composite or aggregate indicators. In order to consider these problems and issues systematically we initially abstract from examination of any specific candidate. Of course GDP is an aggregate measure, involving valuing output at prices that, in perfect markets, reflect the valuations of individuals. indicators. However, in the latter stages of the paper we illustrate our analysis with a number of candidate measures of sustainability

SEEA Revision: Accounting for Sustainability?

The 1993 United Nations System for integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) aimed at measuring the - environmental - sustainability of economic performance and growth in terms of produced and natural capital maintenance. To this end it advanced "greened" economic indicators, notably Environmentally-adjusted net Domestic Product (EDP) and Capital Formation (ECF). A revised (draft) version of the 1993 handbook, entitled "Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003" (IEEA), is now available on the web site of the United Nations Statistics Division. Despite its extensive discussion of sustainable development, the IEEA 2003 fails in measuring overall sustainability as it shuns monetary valuation of environmental impacts in a modular framework for physical, hybrid and - selective - monetary accounts. The revision thus missed an opportunity to bridge the persisting dichotomy between ecological and economic sustainability analysis. Future work should explore and test the capability of material flow and environmentally adjusted economic indicators to capture the elusive notions of strong and weak sustainability of economic activity.environmental accounting, sustainability, capital maintenance, dematerialization, green GDP, valuation

Carbon Free Boston: Social equity report 2019

OVERVIEW: In January 2019, the Boston Green Ribbon Commission released its Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report, identifying potential options for the City of Boston to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. The report found that reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 requires three mutually-reinforcing strategies in key sectors: 1) deepen energy efficiency while reducing energy demand, 2) electrify activity to the fullest practical extent, and 3) use fuels and electricity that are 100 percent free of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Summary Report detailed the ways in which these technical strategies will transform Boston’s physical infrastructure, including its buildings, energy supply, transportation, and waste management systems. The Summary Report also highlighted that it is how these strategies are designed and implemented that matter most in ensuring an effective and equitable transition to carbon neutrality. Equity concerns exist for every option the City has to reduce GHG emissions. The services provided by each sector are not experienced equally across Boston’s communities. Low-income families and families of color are more likely to live in residences that are in poor physical condition, leading to high utility bills, unsafe and unhealthy indoor environments, and high GHG emissions.1 Those same families face greater exposure to harmful outdoor air pollution compared to others. The access and reliability of public transportation is disproportionately worse in neighborhoods with large populations of people of color, and large swaths of vulnerable neighborhoods, from East Boston to Mattapan, do not have ready access to the city’s bike network. Income inequality is a growing national issue and is particularly acute in Boston, which consistently ranks among the highest US cities in regards to income disparities. With the release of Imagine Boston 2030, Mayor Walsh committed to make Boston more equitable, affordable, connected, and resilient. The Summary Report outlined the broad strokes of how action to reach carbon neutrality intersects with equity. A just transition to carbon neutrality improves environmental quality for all Bostonians, prioritizes socially vulnerable populations, seeks to redress current and past injustice, and creates economic and social opportunities for all. This Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report provides a deeper equity context for Carbon Free Boston as a whole, and for each strategy area, by demonstrating how inequitable and unjust the playing field is for socially vulnerable Bostonians and why equity must be integrated into policy design and implementation. This report summarizes the current landscape of climate action work for each strategy area and evaluates how it currently impacts inequity. Finally, this report provides guidance to the City and partners on how to do better; it lays out the attributes of an equitable approach to carbon neutrality, framed around three guiding principles: 1) plan carefully to avoid unintended consequences, 2) be intentional in design through a clear equity lens, and 3) practice inclusivity from start to finish

Local sustainable development and well-being/quality of life. An application of the capability approach at regional level

This paper has a twofold aim: the former is to focus on the concept of well-being/quality of life and its relationships with local sustainable development and the latter is to apply the capability approach at regional level. More specifically, one wants to analyse if sustainable development at a local level serves to better understand both the formation of well-being and/or quality of life. The instrument which will allow us to verify the operational value of the capability approach is the building of a multidimensional synthetic index of sustainability. This index will consists of aggregating a set of variables of different nature from the socio-economic to the environmental ones. It may be considered an alternative to the conventional indices, which are normally founded on GDP, and will be applied to the Italian regions. After having standardised each variable so to make them homogeneous, the methodology proposed, which will allow us to gather and compare the Italian regions according to the higher or lower level of quality of life, is the Wroclaws Economic School taxonomic method. The results obtained may represent an information tool for targeting and zoning sustainable development measures which aim at improving well-being/quality of life at a local level.

Recommendations of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report: A few illustrations

In September 2009 the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission submitted its report on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. The report is based on a large body of applied research work conducted in recent years in various fields of the economic and social sciences. Some of this research work proposes composite well-being indicators more appropriate than GDP. A parallel trend rather favours the construction of dashboards, i.e. sets of indicators designed to provide an understanding of the several facets of economic performance and quality of life. Without neglecting the interest of constructing composite indicators, the commission strongly emphasized the multidimensional nature of well-being. To address this multidimensional nature, it did not propose its own ready-made dashboard. The report must rather be read as providing guidelines to be followed for constructing such a dashboard. This dossier outlines the main lessons to be learned from a comparison between France and a few other countries with the same level of development, as measured against the criteria used by the Stiglitz Commission. The use of alternative standard of living indicators involves a few reclassifications across countries but without really calling into question the apparent advance of the United States. However, living conditions indicators do show far more marked contrasts in the areas of health, education, the risks of unemployment and poverty, and security. Contributions to the problem of climatic sustainability can be up to three times greater from one country to the next. As for economic sustainability, the indicator proposed by the commission suggests that this sustainability remains warranted, although with a fairly small safety margin in several countries.Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report, measurement of well-being, international comparison, quality of life, sustainable development, economic growth