From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level

Rinne, Janne; Lyytimäki, Jari; Kautto, Petrus

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.023

Cited by 103 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While such obstacles have to date limited the direct influence of sustainability and wellbeing indicators as inputs into specific policy and decision outcomes-i.e., "instrumental use"-some researchers highlight the possibility of indirect pathways of influence over a longer term through "conceptual use," in other words, by introducing new ideas and reshaping frameworks of thought and mental models [37,39,[41][42][43]. Another key category is "political use," in which indicators serve as "ammunition" to support users' positions-including legitimizing predetermined positions-and persuade others to see problems in a particular way.…”

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although difficult to show precisely, indirect impacts may occur over time through "conceptual use" [37,39,[41][42][43], as the GPI initiative introduced new ideas and thought models. One interviewee suggested that the GPI is perhaps "less of a tool to drive precise changes in policy and more of a lens for elected leaders .…”

Section: Conceptual Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another key category is "political use," in which indicators serve as "ammunition" to support users' positions-including legitimizing predetermined positions-and persuade others to see problems in a particular way. There is also "tactical" use of indicators as a "delaying tactic, as a substitute for action or to deflect criticisms" and "symbolic use" that gives "ritualistic assurances that those who make the decisions hold appropriate attitudes towards decision-making" [42]-which can be grouped under "political" use [37,39]. We draw on the concepts of instrumental, conceptual and political use to understand Maryland's GPI experience.…”

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One issue has been the need for more emphasis on linking indicators to policy action and effectively embedding them in decision-making processes [35,38]. Another is that policy-making in practice rarely lives up to the rationalist-positivist vision of indicators serving as tools that lead directly to "evidence-based policymaking" and better decisions [37,40,41]. Influences on policymakers include ideology, interests, information and institutional constraints-information being only one of four "I's" [36].…”

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet research has so far struggled to find evidence of direct policy impacts, not only for recent beyond-GDP wellbeing measurement initiatives [30][31][32]34,35] but also for the sustainable-development indicators that proliferated globally after the 1992 Earth Summit [36][37][38][39]. Much effort has gone into designing and improving indicators but even if well-constructed technically and policymakers are aware of them, policy impact is not guaranteed [36].…”

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”

Hayden¹,

Wilson²

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gross Domestic Product's (GDP) limitations as a prosperity indicator are now widely recognized, leading to a search for "beyond-GDP" alternatives. The US state of Maryland has calculated one such alternative, the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), since 2010. What effect is Maryland's GPI having in practice? Is there any evidence to date that the GPI has shaped policy and public priorities in ways that live up to its supporters' hopes-whether for a transformative shift beyond the economic-growth paradigm or simply better policymaking? What key obstacles exist to fulfilling those goals? This article draws on semi-structured interviews with elite respondents-including Maryland's former governor, senior public servants, academics, non-governmental organization employees and foundation leaders-involved in producing, advocating and using the GPI, along with analysis of relevant documents. Although significant impacts on policy are not yet evident and a change of governor has removed high-level support, the GPI initiative has revealed innovative possibilities for more environmentally and socially minded policymaking and introduced new ideas with potential long-term impacts. However, various challenges remain, including strengthening the political constituency behind the GPI, more deeply embedding it into the policymaking process and addressing the GPI's own limitations in supporting a beyond-GDP economic narrative.

show abstract

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beyond-gdp and Sustainability Indicators: Literature On Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”

Hayden¹,

Wilson²

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An Overview of Sustainable Issues Associated with Bio‐Assisted Power Generation Systems

Muthukrishnan,

Kamaraj,

Sánchez‐Cárdenas

et al. 2024

Photosynthesis‐Assisted Energy Generation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable Development in EU Countries: Concept and Rating of Levels of Development

Grzebyk

Stec

2015

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable development is indeed a complex phenomena, thus making the comparison and valuation of advances of EU-member states in the implementation of its objectives specifically difficult. The authors attempted to establish a synthetic measure of the level of sustainable development taking into account simultaneously three components: economic, social and environmental. It was aimed to compare particular countries by the mentioned measure and then grouping them. Relying on basis of content aspects the basics of research were "headline indicators" of sustainable development, sourced from the 2005-2012 research period formed the premise of the study. The study results demonstrate ongoing gradual advances being made in the implementation of concepts of sustainable development in EU-member states. Although there can be visible a gradual convergence of EU-member states in respect of their levels of sustainable development, nonetheless majority of countries still post indicators of sustainable development below the EU average, especially those which recently became members of the European Union.However, in respect of indicator X7share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption -EU countries were strongly differentiated in 2005, with the coefficient of variation almost reaching 90%. Leading countries in this case were Sweden (40.5%), Latvia (32.3%) and Finland (28.9%). The mean indicator level for the countries studied was 11.6%. The share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption in most EU countries was below the mean (right-handed asymmetry).Sweden, Latvia and Finland, in 2012, maintained their leadership position in the use of renewable energy sources. The lowest level of the X7 indicator was observed in Malta, Luxembourg and the UK, similar to the 2005 figures. The mean level of the indicator was 16.9% for the countries covered, while the EU countries continue to be strongly differentiated, with a coefficient of variation of about 70%.The lowest value of the X8 indicatorprimary energy consumptionfor 2005 was obtained in Malta, Cyprus and Latvia, while the highest was in Germany, France and the UK. EU countries were very strongly differentiated in terms of the values of the indicator, with a coefficient of differentiation of about 135%.The 2012 mean level for the primary energy consumption indicator for EU countries declined when compared with 2005, although neither the leading nor the bottom countries in the rating changed their positions as far as the X8 factor is concerned. The next headline indicator of sustainability in EU countries is X9energy consumption of transport relative to GDP (2000 = 100). Low levels of this indicator in 2005, when compared with 2000, were obtained in 16 EU countries. The leaders in this regard are Malta, Germany and the UK. The countries of Slovakia, Luxembourg and Austria occupied bottom positions in the national rating. When compared with 2000, low levels of indicator X9 were, in 2012, obtained in 21 EU countries. Greece, Ireland and Malta came out leaders ...

show abstract

From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level

Cited by 103 publications

References 31 publications

Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”

Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”

An Overview of Sustainable Issues Associated with Bio‐Assisted Power Generation Systems

Sustainable Development in EU Countries: Concept and Rating of Levels of Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About