Master’s Thesis, 60 ECTS
Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development Master’s programme 2015/17, 120 ECTS
Measuring
Sustainable Development Goals - A Social-Ecological Perspective
Sophie Gripenberg
ABSTRACT
The 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals provide benchmarks for global sustainable development. However, there may be trade-offs between goals if they are not treated as interlinked components of a larger system. The achievement of these goals then relies on countries’ ability to monitor and measure them consistently and interdependently. This study compares seven measures of development and welfare that goes beyond Gross Domestic Product in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals. The aim of this study is to clarify which measures are suitable for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals. This is done by assessing measure indicators similarities with the indicators suggested by the United Nations for each goal. The study utilises a social-ecological framework emphasising the three dimensions of sustainability: the economy, the society and the biosphere. The result of this study indicates that measures, such as the Social Progress Index and Sustainable Society Index are the most suitable for measuring the Sustainable Development Goals. However, none of the chosen measures exhibit similarities with all the goals. The goals belonging to the society are most covered, whereas goals belonging to the economy and biosphere being least covered. This study suggests three possibilities for these results: First, measures that goes beyond Gross Domestic Product view the progress of human prosperity from the dimension of society.
Secondly, measures are shaped and shape development issues where knowledge and trends lead
to bases of frameworks and indicators used, where certain topics, such as sanitation, is
overrepresented and infrastructure and technology underrepresented. Finally, measures
inclusion of the biosphere is based on human needs and direct interaction with ecosystems and
not the condition of ecosystem per se. This study propose that measures need to be
complemented from a social-ecological system perspective, to be useful for the achievement of
the Sustainable Development Goals.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
One year ago, I was convinced that I would never write any of my master thesis at all.
Sometimes life does not go as planned and suddenly you are facing challenges you never thought you would encounter. When you do not have the ability to work or write as you normally would, because all your effort needs to be placed somewhere else, a master thesis seems to be not very important. However, with the break I took, and with the love of my classmates and those I hold dear, I keep on going. I started my project without true aspiration to finish it. I did it day by day and in environments I enjoyed. I got a wonderful supervisor, Anne-Sophie Crépin, who was flexible and supportive to my needs. My project gave me back the motivation, in the very best way I can, to make this world a better place.
The world nations have spoken and we need to find a way to make our common Sustainable Development Goals come true. In my case my goal, to have a master degree, became my method to again find life enjoyable.
Special thanks to those of you who have helped me with the language and most thanks to my
wonderful siblings, Marcus Gripenberg, Caroline Gripenberg and Louise Gripenberg, I have
the most honourable and important work in the world as your older sister.
ACRONYMS
EPI Environmental Performance Index GNHI Gross National Happiness Index GPI Genuine Progress Index
IWI Inclusive Wealth Index
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SES Social-Ecological System SPI Social Progress Index SSI Sustainable Society Index
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNU-IHDP United Nations University - International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Environmental Change
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 7
AIM AND OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS ... 9
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ... 10
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK - THE WEDDING CAKE ... 10
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ... 12
METHODS ... 13
SELECTION OF MEASURES ... 13
SEARCHING FOR SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SDGS AND MEASURES ... 15
Criteria for similarities ... 15
MEASURES DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY ... 16
EXTENT OF COVERAGE ... 16
MOTIVATION OF THE APPROACH AND METHOD ... 17
LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS OF THE STUDY ... 18
RESULTS ... 19
MEASURES SIMILARITIES WITH THE SDGS ... 19
SDGS EXHIBIT MOST SIMILARITIES ... 20
MEASURES DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY ... 22
MEASURES COVERAGE OF THE SDGS ... 24
DISCUSSION ... 27
SUITABLE MEASURES FOR THE SDGS ... 27
A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE ... 28
CONCLUSION ... 30
LITERATURE CITED ... 31
APPENDICES ... 34
A1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SDGS ... 34
A2 CLASSIFICATION AND CONCEPTUALISATION OF MEASURES ... 35
A3 DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES AND LIST OF ITS INDICATORS ... 37
Genuine Progress Indicator ... 37
Inclusive Wealth Index ... 39
Environmental Performance Index ... 40
Gross National Happiness Index ... 42
Sustainable Society Index ... 44
Social Progress Index ... 46
Better Life Index ... 48
A4 UNITED NATIONS WEBSITES ABOUT THE SDGS ... 51
A5 EXAMPLES OF MATCHING INDICATORS ... 52
A6 EXAMPLE OF RELATED INDICATORS ... 52
A7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SDGS INDICATORS FROM 2016 AND THE REVISITED 2017 ... 53
LITERATURE CITED APPENDICES ... 59
LIST OF FIGURES ... 63
LIST OF TABLES ... 63
A8 FINAL LIST OF PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL INDICATORS ... 64
INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the United Nations (UN) adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (see A1), which places sustainability and resilience at the heart of global development frameworks.
In particular, the Agenda focuses on achieving 17 ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UNDP 2015).
The main criticism of the adopted goals concerns the possibility of trade-offs if the SDGs are treated separately and not as inter-linked components of a larger system. Research suggests that some SDGs may be contradictory, inconsistent or can be poorly synchronized (Pogge and Sengupta 2015, Allen et al. 2016, Spaiser et al. 2016, International Council for Science 2017).
Action to achieve one goal can hinder the achievement of other goals. For example, lifting people out of extreme poverty (SDG1) tends to be correlated with immediate health benefits (SDG3). Investing in fossil fuel power plants could be a low cost and relative rapid way of improving both of the aforementioned goals but the use of fossil fuels may impinge on SDG13, incorporating climate change action and adaption (Spaiser et al. 2016).
Another concern is potential contradictions between some of the goals with SDG8, which involves a target of 7% annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth for least developed countries (Hedlund-de Witt 2014, Death and Gabay 2015, Hickel 2015, Tkacik 2015, Salleh 2016, Ward et al. 2016). While GDP growth has typically been used as a proxy for welfare (Tkacik 2015), it tends to correlates with environmental degradation. Environmental changes, on the other hand, can adversely affect long-term development by being associated with more frequent and stronger flooding, droughts or rapid sea level changes (Turner 2008, Victor 2010, Costanza et al. 2015). Another potential issue with GDP growth as a SDG target is that it implies an increase in production and consumption (Hickel 2015), while current level of these activities is beyond the planet’s sustainable capacity (Meadows et al. 2005). Leaders of poor countries face the challenge of achieving the SDG growth target without impairing their ability to achieve the SDGs related to conservation and restoration of the planet’s ecosystems. Hence, a framework is required to go beyond the independent objectives of each SDG.
One way to ensure consistent and synchronized monitoring of the SDGs could be to measure
them in a social-ecological system (SES) framework, where humans and nature are seen as an
integrated whole with multiple and complex connections (Folke et al. 2016). This approach
could reconnect people with the biosphere and recognize the interactions and the
interdependencies of the goals (Norström et al. 2014). Indeed, the 2030 Agenda itself reflects a willingness to find alternative ways for measuring development, stating that ‘we are committed to developing broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product’ (UN General Assembly 2015).
There have been few attempts to develop measures for the SDGs. Sachs, Schmidt-Traub and Durand-Delacre (2016) propose a SDG Index and SDG Dashboard. Their method aggregates different variables, based on SDG indicators, into a single index (Sachs et al. 2016). Their index and the dashboard rank countries across the SDGs with the purpose to help countries identify most urgent priorities. Likewise, Costanza et al (2016) propose an aggregated measure Sustainable Wellbeing Index as a motivator and guide for change. Their index is based on the following sustainable wellbeing sub-indices: Net Economic Contribution, Ecosystem Services Contribution and Community Contribution, and an improvement in Sustainable Wellbeing Index is best achieved if these three variables improve simultaneously (Costanza et al. 2016).
Aggregators of SDGs have several limitations. One example is their ability to compare between different forms of capital. While converting different forms of capital to a present monetary value facilities comparison, it assumes that human capital is exchangeable with natural capital (UNECE/Eurostat/OECD 2013), hence, ignoring that there are natural limits to natural capital reduction (Rockström et al. 2009).
Another way would be investigating already suggested measures, such as Genuine Progress
Indicator and Human Development Index, for the achievement of the SDGs. The advantage of
this approach is that it builds on vast stock of existing research and data on development
(Goossens et al. 2007, Stiglitz et al. 2009, Ragnarsdóttir et al. 2014, Schoenaker et al. 2015,
Neri et al. 2017). However, no study encountered explore existent measures possibilities as a
framework to monitor the SDGs from a SES perspective.
Aim and objective of the thesis
The aim of this thesis is to assess the usefulness of existing measures for sustainable development for monitoring the SDGs from a SES perspective. The objective is to identify suitable measures of the achievement of SDGs that incorporate all three dimensions of sustainability, the economy, the society and the biosphere, and compare these to the SDGs.
Suitability is further characterized by the following research questions:
• Which of the chosen measures exhibit similarities with the SDGs and how many of the SDGs do they cover?
• Are those similarities distributed on the economy, the society and the biosphere
dimension according to a SES framework?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Social-ecological systems
Using the concept of SES helps us understand the interplay between different SDGs and whether specific measures view ecosystems as fundamental parts of human wellbeing and societal development (Norström et al. 2014). The ‘social’ component relates to the human dimension, including the economy, politics, technology and culture. The ‘ecological’
component relates to the thin layer of planet Earth where there is life - the biosphere. This includes all living beings and their relationships, including humans, and their dynamic interaction with the atmosphere, water cycles, biogeochemical cycles, and the dynamics of Earth’s system as a whole (Folke et al. 2016).
Socio-ecological systems emerge of subsystem dynamics that are multileveled (Berkes and Folke 1998). An important component is the adaptive dynamics and feedback processes between their components (Cote and Nightingale 2012). Key drivers or changes, such as climate change, could lead a SES on a new trajectory or rapid transition into qualitatively different situations and configurations. Such systems also have self-reinforcing mechanisms that prevent shifts into other trajectories (Walker et al. 2002).
Analytical framework - the wedding cake
There are several analytical frameworks conceptualising SES (Binder et al. 2011). A recent novel approach reframes the SDGs in the, so-called, wedding cake (Folke et al. 2016). The framework emphasises the importance of the biosphere for sustainable development by placing SDGs belonging to the dimension of the economy as a subsystem of the SDGs belonging to the dimension of society, which is a subsystem of the SDGs belonging to the biosphere (Folke et al. 2016). The foundation of the biosphere is based on the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’.
There are nine planetary boundaries, which define a safe operating space for humanity, as
precondition for global sustainable development (Rockström et al. 2009). For this study, a
suitable measure has an SES outlook when including goals belonging to each of the three
Figure 1. The wedding cake. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals categorised in relation to the, from the bottom, the biosphere, the society and the economy. Redrawn from Folke et al. (2016) based on the presentation of Rockström and Dukadev (2014) at the 2016 EAT Forum (http://eatforum.org/event/eat-stockholm-food-forum-2016/#program) (Folke et al. 2016). The logos under the wedding cake are from Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform of United Nations, communication materials
(http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/news/communications-material/)
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The 17 SDGs include 169 targets, some of these relate to means of implementation. Each SDG has about 5 to 12 targets (UN General Assembly 2015). To monitor these targets, the Inter- Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) have developed an indicator framework, where the 2016 version consists of 241 indicators. The total amount of indicators are 230 though some are repeated for different goals (see A8) (IAEG- SDGs 2016) .
Countries are committed to provide a systematic review every year and follow the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at national and regional levels (United Nations Economic Council 2016). To foster statistical capacity building and partnership, High-level Group for Partnership, Coordination and Capacity Building of the 2030 Agenda has been established, representing 23 national statistical officers. Relevant international stakeholders and organisations will help to plan for improvement in availability and quality of sectoral data (UN Statistics Division Statistical Services Branch). Further, a progress report based the proposed UN indicators will be annually reported built on high-level political forums prepared by Secretary-General in cooperation with UN systems (United Nations Economic Council 2016).
However, Resolution 70/1 is not a legal binding document. The implementation of politics aimed at achieving the SDGs is guided by the purpose and principles of the Charter of the UN with full respect for national law and other international declarations such as the one on Human Rights (UN General Assembly 2015). The goals are considered as highly negotiated and compromised with large effort on solidarity and financial support to be able to achieve them.
They form rather universal agreed upon values (Gaffney 2015).
A suitable measure could help countries with accountability by providing a way to demonstrate
progress through relevant quantifiable indicators and with a framed analysis highlighting
challenges and constraints, comparable among countries (Elgin-Cossart and Chandran 2016)
METHODS
Selection of measures
To answer the research questions useful measures were searched for through the web and search engine of Stockholm University Online Library and Google Scholar. The search words were;
welfare, economic welfare, well-being, social development, measuring welfare, measuring development, sustainable development, measures for sustainable development, alternative measures, conceptualise sustainable development, sustainable development indicators, sustainability indices, index for sustainability, beyond GDP, replacing GDP and measures beyond GDP. The literature review encountered 26 measures for development. A conceptualisation of measures (see A2) was done to identify measures suitable for this study.
Three general categories of measures were identified:
• Economic measures – are monetary and comparable to GDP
• Well-being measures – seek to capture social factors
• Environmental measures – seek to capture environmental factors
The purpose was to create a baseline to find suitable measures, where categorisation facilitated a diversity of measures aim. Nevertheless, measures only related to one dimension of sustainability, such as the biosphere, were excluded. The measures were selected on the following criteria’s:
• National applicable – indicators are fit for national scales
• Available information – measures have complete lists of indicators
• Inclusion of the three sustainability dimensions; the economy, the society and the biosphere.
The methodology of the measures; if it is an aggregated single indices or not, if it measures
stock or flow, or, if it is subjective or objective were not included in the criteria. The SDGs
respective targets and indicators vary in this regard. Seven measures fulfilled the criteria and
were set up for the comparison: Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), Inclusive Wealth Index
(IWI), Environmental Performance Index (EPI), Gross National Happiness Index (GNHI),
Sustainable Society Index (SSI), Social Progress Index (SPI) and Better Life Index (BLI) (see
A3).
Table 1. The chosen measures. The column to the left presents the measures (Measures), the middle column how they have been categorised in this study (Categorisation) and the column to the right explains why the measures were chosen for the study (Criteria met).
Measures Categorisation Criteria met Genuine Progress
Indicator
Economic measure GPI complements GDP by including environmental and social costs, such as cost of crime and cost of water and air pollution ( Anielski, M. and J. Rowe. 1998).
Inclusive Wealth Index
Economic measure IWI measures a country’s productive base by its human and natural capital. It includes indicators related to society, for example educational attainment, and the biosphere, in terms of natural capital like forest resources (UNU-IHDP and UNEP 2014)
Environmental Performance Index
Environmental measure EPI measures the well-being of the environment and its relationship with human health. The EPI does not cover economic performance to a large extent. It is chosen since it covers such a wide range of the SDGs (Hsu, et al. 2016) Gross National
Happiness Index
Well-being measure GNHI is subjective and includes several aspects covering social issues and ecology, such as standard of living and ecological diversity (Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Reserach 2015).
Sustainable Society Index
Well-being measure SSI covers a wide range of social indicators and some related to the environment, like biodiversity. It measures
sustainability based on human-, environmental- and economic well-being (van de Kerk et al. 2014).
Social Progress Index
Well-being measure SPI has several social indicators and some related to the environment with focus on measuring health and wellness achieved in a society (Stern et al. 2016).
Better Life Index Well-being measure BLI indicators is based on what contributes to quality of life and material living. Compared to the other selected measures it includes economic indicators such as income and
employment (OECD Better Life Index 2017).
Information about the chosen measures and their indicators were collected from official websites of organisations, institutions and universities related to each measure (see A3).
Information about the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, was collected from official UN websites
Searching for similarities between SDGs and measures
To answer research question one, two measures, called matching and relating, has been produced, along with associated criteria, to assess similarities between SDGs and a given measure. The measures were then ranked, where measures having more matches and relating’s with the SDGs, got a higher rank.
A matching occurred when a measure and the SDG used at least one common indicator. Some variations in units, characteristics and timespan were allowed within the matching. The technical concepts used within the SDG indicator did not need to have a clear definition. For example, the SDG indicator 3.1.1 Maternal mortality ratio belonging to target 3.1, By 2030, reduce the global material mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births, matched with SPI indicator of Maternal mortality rate, since the SPI indicator were useful for the 3.1 target despite the 3.1.1 indicator measuring ratio and not rate (see A5) (IAEG-SDGs 2016).
When a measure indicator was relating, it related to the target of the SDG. To only compare indicators, would have been too strict in search for similarities. If measures indicators related to the target, it is still useful for monitoring the SDG even though variables measured could differ. For example, the GPI indicator Cost of water pollution and the SDG indicator 6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services, measure different things, thus both addresses healthy waters. If the measures indicator could be useful for achieving the target, in this case 6.1. By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all, it classified as related. (see A6) (IAEG-SDGs 2016).
Criteria for similarities
Only one indicator from a measure needed to be matched with one SDG indicator, to make that
measure a total match towards the SDG. Similarly, only one indicator from a measure needed
to be related with one target to make that measure related to the overall SDG. Some measures
indicators might relate to more than one target within the same SDG, however the amount of
related within one SDG did not change their ranking. One indicator from a measure could also
relate to more than one SDG. In this case, a relating occurred even though the indicator was
used for several SDGs. A measure could also have indicators matching and relating within the
same SDG, in that case matching was ranked first though similar indicators in this study were
considered more suitable for monitoring and measuring the SDGs. Comparing indicators
sometimes meant that measures indicators had similarities that did not deliver to the goal. In that case those indicators were not seen as matchings since they did not fulfil the SDG.
Some SDGs targets are means of implementation making them less comparable with measures indicators. For this study, these targets and their respective indicators were included. The reasons for their inclusion was: 1.) They were presented in line with other targets without minor distinction when communicated by the UN 2.) They contained new areas, maybe not traditionally seen as development issues. An example would be the indicator 9.c.1 Proportion of population covered by a mobile network, by technology. Other goals did no cover accessibility to technology (IAEG-SDGs 2016).
Measures distribution among the three dimensions of sustainability
To answer research question two, the wedding cake framework served to categorise the SDGs, based on whether they focused on the economy, the society or the biosphere:
• The economy includes SDG 8, 9, 10 and 12.
• The society includes SDG 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 and 16.
• The biosphere includes SDG 6, 13, 14 and 15.
Each measures performance regarding matching and relating was divided between the three dimensions. The objective was to identify measures that covering all three. These were ranked higher and seen as more suitable for the achievement of the SDGs. Among these measures, the measure covering more SDGs within one dimension were ranked higher and in cases where measures covered all three dimensions and had similar amount of covering goals, the ones matching compared to related were ranked higher.
Extent of coverage
A summary of measures combined coverage of all SDGs, categorised according to the
economy, the society and the biosphere, was made to identify to what extent measures capture
the SDGs. This summery provides credibility to measures suitability. The purpose is that the
of coverage from both matching and relating, matching indicators were represented by their specific target, for example target 8.1 represents indicator 8.1.1. Each target was only calculated once even if several measures related to it. Even though measures might exhibit high degree of similarities, the extent of coverage revealed how many of the 169 SDG targets the chosen measures were covering.
Motivation of the approach and method
Another approach, such as a literature review of expert’s opinion of measuring sustainable
development, could have provided understanding of the complexities when measuring the
SDGs. However, the time-frame of this study and the research gap found when analysing
previous studies, provide this study’s approach some advantages 1.) It can provide incentives
for countries to move beyond GDP, since data and information already exist, making it a cost-
effective and instant way to measure development. 2). Experts opinion and literature reviews
on this issue rely on subjective interpretations, complicating universal national assessments. 3.)
Existing measures needs to be tested and lunched within the global sustainable development
framework, if ever being adapted on a larger scale. Additional, the method to compare
indicators created a tangible comparison with the purpose to easily demonstrate the SDGs
inclusion in measures.
Limitations and concerns of the study
The lack of comprehensive lists of indicators was a limitation when choosing and comparing measures with the SDGs. Some measures were not chosen though information was lacking. In some cases, the chosen measure was lacking an updated official list of indicators, hence, latest list where used and sometimes complemented by reports or studies from governmental bodies or institutions. This motivates for a future update of the study (see A3.)
Another limitation was that some measures had several indicators similar to indicators within one specific SDG. This study did not to address each specific measure coverage of each SDG.
In other words, some measures might be more suitable for a specific SDG compared to other SDGs. This study took a holistic approach in search for similarities and therefore lager in-depth analyses were not possible.
The SDGs indicators, used in this study, have been revisited since the official published list of
indicators were launched in March 2016 (E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1) (see A8). The total number of
indicators has only changed from 230 to 232. Most changes refer to language, specification in
characteristics, such as numbers, or referring’s to UN programmes, which the SDG target deals
with. These changes, based on a comparison analysis, did not seem to impact the results of this
study, however revised indicators published by UN could motivate for a future update of this
study (see A7).
RESULTS
Measures similarities with the SDGs
The measure exhibiting most similarities with the SDGs is SPI. It matches 11 out of 17 goals.
EPI, GNHI and SSI, match five goals each. GPI and GNHI relate with most SDGs, 10 goals each, while SSI and SPI, relate to 9 goals each. When aggregating measures matching and relating to the SDGs, the most suitable are SPI covering 14 goals, SSI covering 13 goals and GNHI covering 12 goals. In cases where a measure both matches and relates to one SDG, only the matching is calculated for (Table 2).
Table 2. Measures matching and relating with the SDGs. The column to the left rank measures matching with SDGs (Matching), the column in the middle ranks measures relating to the SDGs (Relating) and the column to the right ranks measures aggregated matching and relating to the SDGs. Note that when a measure being matched and related to the same SDG, only the match has been calculated for, therefore, the right table is not the sum of measures numbers in the left and middle column (Matching and Relating).
Matching Relating Matching and relating
Measure Number
of SDGs
Measure Number
of SDGs
Measur Number
of SDGs Social Progress
Index
11 Genuine Progress Indicator
10 Social Progress Index 14
Environmental Performance Index
5 Gross National Happiness Index
10 Sustainable Society Index
13
Gross National Happiness Index
5 Sustainable Society Index
9 Gross National Happiness Index
12
Sustainable Society Index
5 Social Progress Index 9 Genuine Progress Indicator
10
Better Life Index 4 Better Life Index 6 Better Life Index 8
Inclusive Wealth Index
1 Inclusive Wealth Index 4 Environmental Performance Index
7
Genuine Progress Index
0 Environmental
Performance Index
3 Inclusive Welfare Index
5
SDGs exhibit most similarities
The SDG that exhibit the most matches with measures are SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation and SDG15 Life on land, with four matches each. Three SDGs, 1 No Poverty, 7 Affordable and Clean Energy, and 16 Peace Justice and Strong Institutions, exhibit three matching with measures. SDG4 Quality Education, has five relating measures and one match. SDG10 Reduced Inequalities, relates to five measures, SDG13 Climate Action relates with four and they exhibit no matches with measures. SDG3, No Hunger and SDG11 Sustainable Cites and Communities, exhibit three relating’s, with none match each. The SDGs that have the fewest similarities with the measures are SDG17 Partnership for the goals, only matching with SPI and relating to SSI, and SDG9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, matching SPI and relating to IWI (Table 3, 4 and 5).
Table 3. A comparison between the SDGs and the measures. The yellow colour represents a relating between the SDG and the measure, the green colour represents a match and the red colour stands for no match or relating between the SDG and the measure. Note that some measures being matched, green colour, could also have indicators being related to the same goal.
SDG GPI IWI EPI GNHI SSI SPI BLI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Table 4. Ranking table of most matched, related and both matched and related SDGs.
Most matched SDG Most related SDG Most matched and related SDG
6 4 6
15 10 4
1 13 15
7 3 2
16 11 3
Table 5. Ranking table of least matched, related and both matched and related SDGs.
Least matched SDG Least related SDG Least matched and related SDG
10 17 17
12 9 9
13 5 5
17 7 12
Measures distribution among the three dimensions of sustainability
SPIs exhibit most similarities with goals belonging to the society, six out of eight possible SDGs has been matched. Three goals, 6 Clean Water and Sanitation, 14 Life below Water, and 15 Life on Land address the biosphere and only one goal, SDG9, in this case indicator 9.c.1 Proportion of population covered by a mobile network, by technology, concerns the economy.
The goals SPI further relates to share the same representation among the three different dimensions of sustainability. The related goals are: 10 Reduced Inequalities (economy), 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities (society) and 13 Climate Action (biosphere). The goals that SPI do not cover are associated with poverty (SDG1), work and economic growth (SDG8) and responsible consumption and production (SDG12) (Figure 2a).
SSI also share a similar distribution among the three dimensions of sustainability. It matches society with SDG2 No Hunger and SDG7 Affordable and Clean Energy, economy with SDG8 Decent Work and Economic Growth and biosphere with SDG6 and SDG15. SSI relates to four more goals in the society, two in the economy and SDG13, Climate Action, in the biosphere (Figure 2b).
Most measures, GNHI, EPI, BLI and IWI, do not match with goals belonging to all three dimensions of sustainability, only with one or two of them. EPI and GNHI lack matches with economic goals (Figure 2c, d) while BLI lacks matches with biosphere goals (Figure 2g). When similarities are searched for, where measures can match and relate, the exhibit similarities toward goals are distributed among the three dimensions. GNHI and BLI then addresses all three dimensions but only one goal in the biosphere being similar (Figure 2c, g), SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation, with indicators including quality of water use and safe drinking water.
EPI, has similarities with all the biosphere goals but lacks economic goals (Figure 2d). IWI
relating’s are distributed among the three dimensions even if it is similar to six SDGs (Figure
2f), while GPI ten relating’s are also distributed among the three dimensions (Figure 2e).
Figure 2. Each measure illustrated in the wedding cake framework. The top of the wedding cake indicates the measure. The first level is the measure similarity with the economic dimension. The second level is the measure similarity with the society dimension and the base of the wedding cake is the measure similarity with SDGs belonging to the biosphere. Each piece of the cake represents a SDG illustrated in the wedding cake framework (see page 11, figure 1). The red colour are SDGs where the measure has no similarities, the yellow colour are SDGs where the measure is related and the green colour are SDGs where the measure has a match.
a b c
d e f
g
Measures coverage of the SDGs
The goals mostly covered belongs to the social dimension of sustainability (Table 6, red rows).
The SDG mostly covered, by 60%, is goal 7 Affordable and Clean Energy (Table 6 and Table 7). Examples of similarities are target 7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable reliable and modern energy services and 7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. Measures similarities with SDG1 No Poverty, cover 57% of its targets. Indicators being matched with EPI, GNHI and BLI are 1.4.1 Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services and 1.4.2 Proportion of adult population with secure tenure rights to land (..). Targets 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 are related to GPI and IWI, dealing with reduced extreme poverty and social protection systems. SDG2, No Hunger, has half of its targets covered. The goal concern people’s access to sufficient food, sustainable food production systems and doubling agriculture productivity and farmers. SDG4, Quality Education, also covered with 50%, consist of indicators such as 4.1, ensure girls and boys complete free primary and secondary education, and 4.2, ensure girls and boys access to quality early childhood development (Table 6 and Table 7).
The SDGs that have the highest percentage of their targets matching, are all associated with the biosphere, except goal 7. These are SDG6 Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG15 Life on Land and SDG14 Life below Water (Table 5). Most of the measures cover the same indicators for goal 14 and 15, which deal with marine pollution, marine protected areas, fishery stock and forest cover. The SDGs belonging to the economy are the ones that have the fewest of their targets covered. An example is SDG8, covered by 23.52%. The indicators that matched concern annual growth rate, average hourly earnings and unemployment rate. The least covered SDGs are goal 17 Partnership for the goals, goal 12 Responsible Consumption and Production and goal 13 Climate Action (Table 8). The measures that relate to goal 13, EPI, SSI and SPI, measure greenhouse gas emissions while no indicator in that SDG do so.
When summarising to what extent the measures cover the SDGs, according to the wedding cake
framework, they cover economy by 32.50%, the society by 48.63% and the biosphere by
29.41%.
Table 6. Measures combined coverage of SDGs indicators and targets in percentage. Matched indicators, second column from the left, list indicators for each SDG being matched by measures. Matched indicators in percentage, the third column form the left, shows the percentage of indicators being match within each SDG. Related targets, second column from the right, list targets that the measures relate to. Related indicators in percentage, right column, is the percentage of targets for each SDG that the measures relate to. The background colours represent the different dimensions of sustainability: yellow for economic goals, red for social goals and green colour for environmental goals. Goal 17 is neutral and has a white background colour.
Sustainable Development Goals
Matched indicators
Matched indicators in percentage
Related targets
Related targets in percentage
Total coverage in percentage
8 8.1.1, 8.5.2 11.76 8.4, 8.5, 8.10 16.66 23.52
9 9.c.1 8.33 9.2 12.50 25.00
10 10.1, 10.3, 10.7 33.33 30.00
12 12.2, 12.5,
12.8, 12.c
36.36 18.18
1 1.4.1, 1.4.2 16.66 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 42.85 57.00
2 2.1.1, 2.4.1 14.28 2.1, 2.3, 2,4 2.c 50.00 50.00
3 3.1.1, 3.2.1,
3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.9.1
19.23 3.3, 3.4, 3.9 23.07 46.15
4 4.6.1 09.09 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
4.7, 4.b
40.00 50.00
5 5.2.2, 5.3.1 14.28 5.2, 5.4, 5.c 33.33 44.44
7 7.1.1, 7.2.1 33.33 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
7.b
80.00 60.00
11 11.6.2 6.66 11.1, 11.3, 11.6 30.00 40.00
16 16.1.1, 16.1.3,
16.1.4, 16.b.1
17.39 16.1, 16.3, 16.5, 16.7
33.33 41.00
6 6.1.1, 6.2.1,
6.3.1
27.27 6.1, 6.3 25.00 37.50
13 13.2 20.00 20.00
14 14.4.1, 14.5.1 20.00 14.1, 14.3 22.00 40.00
15 15.1.1, 15.1.2,
15.4.1
21.42 15.1 8.33 16.66
17 17.8.1 4.00 17.4 5.26 10.52
Table 7. Ranking table of measures combined coverage of specific SDGs.
SDG most covered when matched
SDG most covered when related SDG most covered by matchings and relating’s
7 7 7
6 2 1
15 1 2
14 4 4
Table 8. Ranking table of measures combined least coverage of specific SDGs.
Least matched SDG Least related SDG Least matched and related SDG
13 17 17
10 15 15
12 9 12
17 13 13
DISCUSSION
Suitable measures for the SDGs
There is no perfect measure for the SDGs: choosing existing alternative ways to measure sustainable development implies missing some SDGs and their targets. However, the two measures that exhibit the most similarities with the SDGs and cover the three dimensions of sustainability are SPI and SSI. They are promising, but both have issues.
In particular, SPI currently does not cover SDGs related to poverty reduction, economic growth, decent work, and responsible consumption and production. Including these areas requires assessing whether they relate to Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Well-being or Opportunity, which form the SPI’s basic framework. This also means that each SDG’s performance must be embedded within these three dimensions of social progress. Hence, the measure does not distinguish between indicators’ distribution among the three dimensions of sustainability, decreasing the transparency reporting of the performance of each dimension. At the same time, the holistic properties of SPI have the advantage that indicators related to the economy, the society and the biosphere are all embedded within SPI. This is an advantage because, for example, neglecting biosphere indicators, for example, would generate a lower score in one of its bases. Taking a holistic approach to further develop SPI is probably necessary but increases the risk to use it from a social progress perspective with no focus on the underlying feedback mechanisms between goals based on a SES framework.
By contrast SSI, omits out goals 14, 11 and 9 (Marine Life, Sustainable Cities and Communities
and Industry, Innovation and Technology, respectively). It might, however, be easier to
complement SSI than SPI, using the wedding cake framework. This thesis suggests it could be
meaningful to complement SSI by applying indicators from goal 14 (a biosphere goal), for
Environmental wellbeing, goal 11 (a society goal) for Human wellbeing, and goal 9 (an
economic goal) for Economic wellbeing. Meanwhile, the three areas of wellbeing are
disaggregated and can be used to measure each of the three dimensions of sustainability
separately but not the inter-connections of the SDGs.
A system perspective
The combined coverage of similarities to measures among the three dimension varies. The SDGs belonging to society have more similarities with measures than other SDGs; biosphere SDGs have the fewest similarities, while economic SDGs claim the middle ground. There are some possible explanations for this:
• To select alternative measures implies leaving out economic topics. Measures were selected as alternatives to GDP with the criteria to cover several SDGs, therefore more focused on ‘well-being’ and/or ‘human needs’. Measures being alternatives to GDP seeks to complement economic welfare. As such, the measures might not have an economic framework, leaving out areas as technology and infrastructure belonging to SDG9. There are measures not covering general economic areas per se, however several indicators relate to economic costs. GNHI has five indicators related to target 12.5 and 12.8 and GPI eight indicators related to target 8.4.
• Measures are being shaped and shape development issues where knowledge and trends lead to bases of frameworks and issues to include. The major focus is societal, in particular poverty, hunger, education and energy, which are areas being discussed for decades when it comes to development of societies. This is also obvious from examining which type of societal targets that the measures are covering. SDG1 No Poverty, for example, has seven targets, of which four are related to measures. SDG5 is also one of the goals exhibit least similarities with the measures, however having a half of its targets covered. This indicates that measures differ regarding the inclusion of specific SDGs, where these measures having similarities with several topics related to gender equality.
Two of these measures, SPI and SSI, are relatively new. Contrarily, the goals belonging
to the economy are also development issues, however not reflected in measures, for
example goal 12 Consumption and Production. One explanation could be that
consumerism and production respectively recently started to be viewed as cause and
means for long-term sustainable development.
Sanitation and SDG15 Life on Land, in percentage, could be explained by well-known developed indicators. SDG6 interacts universally and directly with humans and is therefore considered a necessity for humans, and in some conceptualisations, even considered being a social goal. Additional, the SDG15 most matched indicator consist of forest area covered, which is viewed as an important component of economic welfare by some countries. Further, SDG13 Climate Action, mostly contain policy documents and adaptation and lack quantitative indicators, as carbon dioxide emissions, a common indicator among measures, resulting in measures being related instead of matched.
Indeed, measures are mostly focusing on human interaction with ecosystems, while the condition of the ecosystem per se is neglected.
The three stated findings suggest that human systems are still the major focus when measuring development, while the earth systems which human depends on are neglected. Researchers, policy makers and stakeholders likely have more knowledge today regarding the interaction of several development issues, otherwise alternative measures and including frameworks as the SDGs would not have been developed. Still, the complexities SES face requires an approach where humans, the society and economic goals are embedded within the biosphere to remain in a safe operating space for humanity. Other areas mentioned by the SDG targets that do not have similarities with the measures, such as restoring degraded soil, action towards the degradation of natural habitat, and addressing the ocean acidification and inclusion of ecosystem values into national planning, need somehow to be components of development measures.
Going beyond GPI requires countries to be fearless in implementing other more promising
measures. Countries face several issues and opportunities in this task since no single unit
measure can cover all the complexities related to sustainable development. There are concerns,
such as availability of data, how to interpret the results for policy-making, availability of
financial resources to implement the measure, and so on. A future update of this study could
include an updated list of indicators and assessment of their respective methodologies to find
ways to inter-link their components in relation to the SDGs. A more in-depth SES analysis
would then be possible. This study highlights some strengths and weaknesses of a few selected
measures in comparison to the SDGs. A good starting point when measuring sustainable
development, could be as Costanza et al. 2015 frame it; 'it is better to be approximately right
than precisely wrong’.
CONCLUSION
This study compared seven measures regarding their potential use as measures of achievements
of the SDGs. This study suggests that SPI and SSI to be the most suitable for measuring the
achievement of the SDGs, though they reflect all three dimensions of sustainability according
to SES framework. That said, existing measures are not yet well integrated in a SES perspective
where achieving the goals belonging to the biosphere should be a precondition for long term
human prosperity. Furthermore, economic SDGs are not fully consistent with measures having
goals belonging to the society and the biosphere. For this reason, it remains important to assess
the SDGs with measure frameworks that treat them as integrated-linked areas for sustainable
development. This thesis has argued that a system’s perspective is crucial to understanding the
interactions of different aspects of development and provides a guide to measures from a
system’s perspective.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, C., G. Metternicht, and T. Wiedmann. 2016. National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools. Environmental Science & Policy 66:199–207.
Anielski, M. and J. Rowe. 1998. The 1998 U-S Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) - Summary Report. Redefining Progess. Washinton D.C.
Berkes, F., and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for buildning resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Binder, C., J. Hinkel, P. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2011. Comparison of Frameworks for Analyzing Social- ecological Systems. Ecology & Society 18(4):26.
Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Reserach. 2015. 2015 GNH Survey Report - A Compass Towards a Just and Harmonious Society. Centre for Bhutan Studies and Gross National Happiness Research. Thimphu.
Costanza, R., L. Daly, L. Fioramonti, E. Giovannini, I. Kubiszewski, L. F. Mortensen, K. E. Pickett, K. V.
Ragnarsdottir, R. De Vogli, and R. Wilkinson. 2016. Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics 130:350–355.
Costanza, R., I. Kubiszewski, E. Giovannini, H. Lovins, J. McGlade, K. E. Pickett, K. V. Ragnarsdóttir, D.
Roberts, R. De Vogli, and R. Wilkinson. 2015. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505:283–285.
Cote, M., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory - Situating social change in socio- ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475–489.
Death, C., and C. Gabay. 2015. Doing biopolitics differently? Radical potential in the Post-2015 MDG and SDG debates. Globalizations 12(4):597–612.
Elgin-Cossart, M., and R. Chandran. 2016. Designing better accountability mechanisms for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. Available at:
https://cpr.unu.edu/designing-better-accountability-mechanisms-for-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable- development.html.
Folke, C., R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, B. Reyers, and J. Rockström. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41.
Gaffney, O. 2015. 10 things to know about the Sustainable Development Goals - Road to Paris. International Council for Science (ICSU). Available at: http://roadtoparis.info/2015/09/16/10-things-to-know-about-the- sustainable-development-goals/.
Goossens, Y., A. Mäkipäa, P. Schepelmann, and I. van de Sand. 2007. Alternative progress indicators to gross domestic product (GDP) as a means towards sustainable development. Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy.
Hedlund-de Witt, A. 2014. Rethinking sustainable development: considering how different worldviews envision
“development” and “quality of life.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 6(11):8310–8328.
Hickel, J. 2015. The Problem with Saving the World. Jacobin:1–9.
Hsu, A., and e. al. 2016. Global Metrics for the Environment. New Haven.
IAEG-SDGs. 2016. Final list of global Sustainable Development Goal indicators. Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators. Available at:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Official%20List%20of%20Proposed%20SDG%20Indicators.pdf International Council for Science (ICSU). 2017. A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation.
Page International Council for Science. Paris.
van de Kerk, G., A. Manuel, and R. Kleinjans. 2014. Sustainable Society Index - SSI - 2014. The Hague, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.ssfindex.com/publications/
Meadows, D. H., J. Randers, and D. L. Meadows. 2005. Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. Taykor &
Francis, London.
Neri, L., A. D’Agostino, A. Regoli, F. M. Pulselli, and L. Coscieme. 2017. Evaluating dynamics of national economies through cluster analysis within the input-state-output sustainability framework. Ecological Indicators 72:77–90.
Norström, A., H. Wetterstrand, M. Schultz, T. Elmqvist, S. Cornell, M. C. Öhman, T. Daw, F. Moberg, A.
Persson, G. Peterson, J. Rockström, and E. H. Török. 2014. Issue Brief: Integrating social-ecological resilience, biodiversity and ecosystem services into the Sustainable Development Goals. A contribution of Stockholm Resilience Centre and ICSU (International Council for Science) for the 8th Session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, 4-8 February 2014. New York: Stockholm Resilience Centre and ICSU.
OECD Better Life Index. 2017. What’s the Better Life Index? Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/about/better-life-initiative/.
Pogge, T., and M. Sengupta. 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as drafted: nice idea, poor execution. Washington International Law Journal Association.
Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., R. Costanza, I. Kubiszewski, and H. Lovins. 2014. Beyond GDP. London: GeoScientist 24(9):12-17.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C.
Folke, and H. Joachim. 2009. Planetary Boundaries : Exploring the safe operating space for humanity.
Ecology & Society 14(2):32.
Sachs, J., G. Schmidt-Traub, D. Durand-Delacre, and K. Teksoz. 2016. SDG Index and SDG dashboards - A Global Report. Bertesmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Salleh, A. 2016. Climate, water, and livelihood skills: A post-development reading of the SDGs. Globalizations 13(6):952-959.
Schoenaker, N., R. Hoekstra, and J. P. Smits. 2015. Comparison of measurement systems for sustainable development at the national level. Sustainable Development 23(5):285–300.
Spaiser, V., S. Ranganathan, R. B. Swain, and J. T. David. 2016. The sustainable development oxymoron:
quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology:1–14
Stern, S. A. Wares, and T. Hellman. 2016. Social Progress Index 2016 Methodological Report. Washington DC:
Social Progress Imperative. Availiable at: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/SPI-2016-Methodological-Report.pdf
Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen, and J.-P. Fitoussi. 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Tkacik, J. 2015. Beyond GDP for Beyond 2015. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 16(4):619–
624.
Turner, G. M. 2008. A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality. Global Environmental Change 18(3):397–411.
UN General Assembly. 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assemly on 25 September 2015. Page 70/1.
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
UNDP. 2015. World leaders adopt Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Development Programme.
Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2015/09/24/undp- welcomes-adoption-of-sustainable-development-goals-by-world-leaders.html.
UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Task Force on Measuring Sustainable Development. 2013. Framework and suggested indicators to measure sustainable development. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Eurostat and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (May):179.
United Nations Economic Council (UNESC). 2016. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals - Report of the Secretary-General. United Nations Economic and Social Council. Available at:
http://ggim.un.org/docs/WG6/SG-SDG-Report-2016-EN.pdf
United Nations Statistics Division Statistical Services Branch (n.d.) Cape Town global action plan for Sustainable Development Data. United Nations Statistics Division Statistical Services Branch. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/hlg/Cape-Town-Global-Action-Plan/
UN Statistics Division Statistical Services Branch (n.d.) Cape Town global action plan for Sustainable Development Data. High-level Group for Partnership, Coordination and Capacity-Building for the 2030 Agenda. United Nations Statistics Division Statistical Services Branch. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/hlg/Cape-Town-Global-Action-Plan/
UNU-IHDP and UNEP. 2014. Inclusive Wealth Report 2014 Measuring progress toward sustainability. United Nations University – International Human Dimensions Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://mgiep.unesco.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/IWR2014-WEB.pdf
Victor, P. 2010. Questioning economic growth. Nature 468(7322):370–371.
Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach resilience management in social-ecological systems. Conservation Ecology 6(1):14.
Ward, James D., Paul C. Sutton, Adrian D. Werner, Robert Costanza, Steve H. Mohr, and Craig T. Simmons.
2016. Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible? PLoS ONE 11(10).
APPENDICES A1 Historical background of the SDGs
The first of January 2016 the 2030 Agenda its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) came into force. The Agenda are world countries benchmark for sustainable development for the upcoming fifteen years. The SDGs are built on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which targets were supposed to be met by 2015 (Sustainable knowledge platform of the United Nations). The MDGs were adopted in 2000 by 189 countries. The MDGs consisted of eight goals; eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduced child mortality,
improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and global partnership for development (UN MDGs). The MDGs have to some extent been met, world population living in extreme poverty has declined more than half, primary school enrolment rate in developing regions has reached 91%, the proportion of women in parliament has doubled and ozone-depleting substances have been eliminated (UNDP and World Bank 2016). The SDGs are broader and more inclusive then the MDGs (World Health Organisation 2015). The process of creating the SDGs differed form the process of creating the MDGs. The UN Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 (2012) launched a process to develop a set of SDGs written in the outcome document The Future We Want (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). The mandate to create a new development agenda was set by the Intergovernmental 30 member Open Working Group (OWG) of the UN General Assembly in 2013 (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). OWG promised to include relevant stakeholders from civil society, the scientific community and the UN organisations (Open Working Group 2013). Hence, the umbrella of UN System Task Team on the Post-2015
Brundtland Commission in1987 defined sustainable development as: ‘development that needs the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland 1987).
A new definition has been suggested:
‘development that meets the needs of thepresent while safeguarding Earth’s life support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends’ (Griggs et al. 2013) Box 1. Definition of Sustainable Development
A2 Classification and conceptualisation of measures
There are several scholars that have classified and conceptualised measures going beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Diener and Suh 1997, Boarini et al. 2006, Costanza et al. 2009, Bleys 2012). The following table summarises a few selected scholars’ classification of measures:
Table 9. Scholars classification of measures (Offer 2003, Goossens et al. 2007, Bleys 2012, Costanza et al. 2015). Criteria for classification, the second horizontal column, defines this study interpretation of scholar’s baseline for their classification.
Classification lists the scholar’s categorisation of measures. Examples of measures lists measures that scholars give as an example for their categorisation in their literature. In the table according to the above column classification.
Scholars Costanza et al.
2015
Offer 2003 Goossens et al.
2007
Bleys 2012
Criteria for classification
The method of the measures
The objective of the measures
The measures relation towards GDP
The measures relation towards definitions of welfare (with sub- categorisation) Classification Adjusted
economics
Extended economic accounts
Adjusting GDP Well-being
Subjective Social Indicators Replacing GDP Economic Welfare
Weighted Psychological indicators
Supplements GDP Sustainability
Examples of measures
Genuine Progress Indicator
Adjusted Net Domestic Product
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare
Happy Planet Index
World Values Survey
Human Development Index
Ecological Footprint
Index Adjusted Net Savings
Gross National Happiness Index
Happy Life Years Index
Happy Planet Index
Ecological Footprint
