Enhancing the Sustainability Narrative through a Deeper Understanding of Sustainable Development Indicators

Abstract

Different sustainability indicators tend to reflect different or even converse outcomes in terms of countries. A careful comparative study is needed to clarify whether these indicators are actually coherent with each other. We analyze and compare five sustainable development indicators. Pearson correlation was used to make a comparative study among them. Within the two groups, the indicators are positively correlated. The Sustainable Development Index (SDI) of the second group also shares a negative correlation with the Human Development Index. On the other side, the Emergy Sustainability Index was negatively correlated with the Environmental Performance Index, and had little or no correlation with the Environmental Sustainability Index. Furthermore, when examining the scores obtained from the different SDIs, the results demonstrate that they might present somewhat conflicting findings, if not considering their complementarity. This, from one side, depends on the fact that Human Development Index (HDI), Environmental Performance Index (EPI), and Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) provide a short-term local perspective on "sustainability", while the Emergy-based Sustainability Index (EmSI) and Surplus Biocapacity are more long-term and global in their perspective. HDI, EPI, and ESI have a more social and economic focus, including indicators whose dynamics are disjoined from the natural one. The emerging differences might be explained through the analysis of the individual sub-indicators for each of the SDIs.

Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Decision Support for Informing Global Sustainable Development: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach

“…At this juncture, instead of totally trusting the counterfactual results generated by the AI, it would be an example of an opportunity where AI-Thinking can be educed. As a suggestion, sustainability analysts might like to consider asking further questions by perusing the works of other sustainability researchers (e.g., see [59][60][61][62][63]). To simulate the worst-case scenario, hard evidence was applied to the node Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI), so that 100% of the countries is at the low level (defined as, e.g., 56.7) compared to the original 25.19%; 0% is at the mid-level (defined as, e.g., 71.2) compared to the original 48.31%; and 0% is at the high level (defined as >71.2) compared to the original 26.49%.…”

Evaluation of Oasis Sustainability Based on Emergy and Decomposition Analysis

“…While developing its economy, it should also protect the fragile ecological environment in the oasis. The ESI index has limitations, and different interpretations tend to reflect different or even converse outcomes [55,56]. Therefore, we used LMDI to analyze the driving forces of emergy utilization.…”

A Global Assessment of Sustainable Development Based on Modification of the Human Development Index via the Entropy Method

“…In research into sustainable development, researchers in different disciplines have different perspectives and emphases [21]. Ecologists and environmentalists study sustainable development from the aspects of ecological environment pollution, biodiversity, and ecosystem optimization, and they focus on the long-term and healthy survival of human beings as well as the sustainability of ecosystems and the regional environment (e.g., [10,11,[22][23][24][25]). Economists reveal the root causes of population, poverty, environment, energy, and growth problems, and use economic theories and methods to explore how to activate economic power to promote sustainable development-Ranis et al [26], Bilbao-Ubillos [27], Bolcárová and Kološta [14], Zhang et al [28] worked from this perspective.…”