No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force
... A multitude of ES-related indices appears in the relevant literature and the Web (the interested reader is referred to Tambouratzis (2016) for a representative list), with most of them focusing upon the three pillars -economic, environmental and social -of ES (Elkington, 1994). In this piece of research, the environmental sustainability index (ESI) 2002(Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002 is used for guiding any interested country -either participating or with data that is consistent with that of the participating countries -towards the attainment of maximal ES. The specific index has been selected as it constitutes the first complete version of the ESI, a methodology that has become a landmark of ES-related indices and continues to be updated and published biennially to this day in the form of the environmental performance index (EPI, Hsu & Zomer, 2016). ...
... 1. The variable construct -listed in the leftmost column of Table 1 -is only partly available 3 , whereby it cannot be employed for expressing the level of ES attained by the participating countries, let alone for guiding any country towards maximizing its ES. 2. The indicator construct -listed in the second column of Table 1 -constitutes "The basic unit of comparison ... a set of 20 environmental sustainability indicators", which were "identified on the basis of a careful review of the environmental literature, expert advice, statistical analysis as well as peer review comments and critical assessments of the 2001 ESI" (Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002). The ESI was "calculated as an unweighted average of the indicator scores" (UWAI) (Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002) denoting that the indicators are instrumental in recreating (a) the equal-coefficient linear relationship between the ESI 2002 data and (b) the reported ESI scores of the participating countries 4 . ...
... The variable construct -listed in the leftmost column of Table 1 -is only partly available 3 , whereby it cannot be employed for expressing the level of ES attained by the participating countries, let alone for guiding any country towards maximizing its ES. 2. The indicator construct -listed in the second column of Table 1 -constitutes "The basic unit of comparison ... a set of 20 environmental sustainability indicators", which were "identified on the basis of a careful review of the environmental literature, expert advice, statistical analysis as well as peer review comments and critical assessments of the 2001 ESI" (Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002). The ESI was "calculated as an unweighted average of the indicator scores" (UWAI) (Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002) denoting that the indicators are instrumental in recreating (a) the equal-coefficient linear relationship between the ESI 2002 data and (b) the reported ESI scores of the participating countries 4 . Given that "each indicator, in turn, was associated with a number of variables that are empirically measured" (Samuel-Johnson, Esty, Levy et al., 2002) and in order to permit ESI score evaluation from incomplete data, the problem of missing variables for the various countries was resolved as follows: "Indicators were calculated by averaging the standardized values (z-scores) for each variable in the indicator. ...
A country-oriented methodology for attaining absolute environmental sustainability (ES) is proposed and demonstrated on the environmental sustainability index (ESI) 2002. The optimal means of deriving the ES levels/scores of the participating countries from the various ESI 2002 constructs is established and, subsequently, encoded in a real-valued evolution strategy (EvS) for the viable and flexible country-specific ES improvement towards maximal ES. The EvS employs: (a) constraints concerning the number and combinations of constructs that can be concurrently improved; (b) limited and progressively decreasing construct improvements expressing the escalating difficulty of improving any construct as the construct and/or overall ES approach(es) maximum. Demonstrations on countries with diverse characteristics and comparisons with alternative optimization methodologies highlight the versatility and applicability of the proposed procedure to any country with data that is compatible to that of the participating countries.
... Very recently ( January 2001) an important attempt has been made to introduce some intellectually respectable measurement into the sustainability literature. This is the "environmental sustainability index" (referred to below as "ESI"), which was produced by a team under the direction of Dan Esty, of Yale University and involving the collaboration of teams at the Yale and Columbia Universities (Esty 2001). 21 It is an attempt to produce an internationally comparative index of "environmental sustainability" in 122 countries. ...
... These five items are referred to as the core components of environmental sustainability." (Esty 2001) But then, later, the report goes on to say that "Environmental Sustainability can be measured…The Index creates a series of comparative benchmarks of environmental conditions in different countries" (Esty 2001, our italics). So it is not really an index of environmental sustainability after all. ...
A provocative critique of Western progress from a scientific perspective. In this compelling and cogently argued book, Tom Wessels demonstrates how our current path toward progress, based on continual economic expansion and inefficient use of resources, runs absolutely contrary to three foundational scientific laws that govern all complex natural systems. It is a myth, he contends, that progress depends on a growing economy. Wessels explains his theory with his three Laws of Sustainability: (1) the law of limits to growth, (2) the second law of thermodynamics, which exposes the dangers of increased energy consumption, and (3) the law of self-organization, which results in the marvelous diversity of such highly evolved systems as the human body and complex ecosystems. These laws, scientifically proven to sustain life in its myriad forms, have been cast aside since the eighteenth century, first by western economists, political pragmatists, and governments attracted by the idea of unlimited growth, and more recently by a global economy dominated by large corporations, in which consolidation and oversimplification create large-scale inefficiencies in material and energy usage. Wessels makes scientific theory readily accessible by offering examples of how the Laws of Sustainability function in the complex systems we can observe in the natural world around us. He shows how systems such as forests can be templates for developing sustainable economic practices that will allow true progress. Demonstrating that all environmental problems have their source in the Myth of Progress's disregard for the Laws of Sustainability, he concludes with an impassioned argument for cultural change.
Especially in recent years, the attention to sustainability is even more felt in the tourism sector where the consequences of indiscriminate behavior in the exploitation of resources on the environment, on human beings and on their economic activities have become increasingly evident (Jaremen, Nawrocka, & Żemła, 2019). Tourism is often considered as a source of natural and cultural resources’ exploitation, but it also contributes to GHG emissions, being one of the main reasons that pushes the world population to move. On the other hand, tourism-related activities, when correctly designed, can be a strong source of sustainable development. Indeed, tourism products should be sustainable as they depend on local area resources: they are complex products which, on the one hand, should use local resources as a differentiation strategy, on the other hand, hey should factor in the needs of several territory’s stakeholders. Researchers and institutions have developed many tools to assess tourism environmental impacts focusing both on the local area as a whole or on a given product. For the tourism sector, social and environmental impacts, responses and indicators fall into five categories (Buckley, 2012): population, peace, prosperity, pollution and protection. Moreover, these tools and measures have not been able to increase sustainability of tourism products and the industry is not yet close to sustainability. In this chapter, we proposed an approach, built around Elkington’s three pillars model (1994), to assess sustainability (Lehtonen, 2004) of tourism products; we focus on products design processes to create a model that help entrepreneurs in assessing if their products are sustainable and where they are their main weaknesses. In order to show how such a simple model can be used to evaluate sustainable tourism initiatives and highlight their weaknesses we have used a multiple case studies approach and we have analyzed three different cases.
Interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research involves the use of a combination of principles from various disciplines: engineering, economics, finance, etc. This particular approach makes a lot of sense; otherwise, all the research will become compartmentalized, and researchers from one discipline will not know what researchers from other disciplines are doing and how those principles can be applied to their own disciplines. One way to create a common base connecting all these disciplines is to use the concept of composite indicators (CI), which is an emerging field of study. The use of composite indices, as part of an emerging method, for research problems in various fields allows for greater understanding of research problems and provides a visionary approach to solve such problems. This paper first states the existing methods for calculation of composite indicators in the literature and then suggests a new method.
An eco-city could not be self-denominated, or be nonobjective with only concepts, Therefore, comparable indicators for monitoring progress in urban ecologically sustainability need to be constructed. All of the indicators used in the world have their weaknesses in theory and practice, so it is necessary to monitor sustainability from multi-faceted approaches. Several cities are took as case study in our research, five representative models are introduced to measure urban sustainability as follows: two monetized models from economics - Approx Environmental-Adjusted Net Domestic Product and Genuine Saving Rate; a physical model from ecology - Eco-Footprint; two models from social politics - Genuine Progress Indicator and Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare. The results of these five models can be used to monitor and evaluate the status quo and trends of urban ecologically sustainability in cases city, and provide decision-making support for municipal governments. Based on the analysis of actual conditions provided by the five models and the investigation and in case city, our research constructed a set of practicable and normative indicators through indicators filtration and comparison, and established comprehensive evaluation method to bring forward Urban Ecologically Sustainable Development Indicators (UESDI). The UESDI is basically suitable to the conditions of case city, which can make policy choices to move toward Sustainable development and provide a sense of direction for decision makers when they choose among policy alternatives.
In this paper we aimed to facilitate discussion about potential interventions for reducing human exposure to indoor air pollution in low-income countries within a conceptual framework that may be applied to a wide variety of interventions. Potential interventions are assessed according to three subsystems of the household energy system: the source (emissions), the local environment (concentrations) and the user (exposure). Eight criteria are identified that may be used to assess potential interventions -either the benefit of the intervention or the restrictions preventing greater use. These criteria are Exposure level, Cost, Local environmental impact, Regional and global environmental impacts, Safety concerns, Impact on local employment, Acceptance and suitability, and Market readiness. These critera are applied to 23 possible interventions. Based on the evaluation it appears that the most effective interventions and most beneficial to the user and society as a whole would be a shift from wood or charcoal to kerosene, LPG, biogas or grid electricity. Other more progressive alternatives such as ethanol (gel) fuel, or possibly biomass gasification, could not be effectively evaluated, but should be considered in greater detail in the future. Another intervention that appears to offer promising benefits is the use of a cooking window. This intervention, which is a form of hood built into a window (thus without a chimney), needs further investigation and evaluation. Of particular concern is the applicability of the cooking window to a range of different housing types. User based interventions were the most difficult to evaluate are relevant data is scarce. It was evident from the analysis that further attention should be given to the collection and compiling of data so that informed decisions may be made. The authors emphasize a number of elements to guide the formulation of policy for any particular policy context. It is in analysing and understanding the social aspects of the policy context that specific policy instruments may best be developed and refined. In general policies that emphasize an integrated approach, aim at empowering people and encourage local participation, avoid unnecessary subsidies but address market failures where necessary should be developed.
While the literature on environmental regime effectiveness has focused on particular regimes considered in isolation, the overall effects of the system of regimes are more relevant. First, regimes are connected because they often share institutional architecture, deal with different aspects of the same problem, frame issues using similar legal and policy principles, and are subject to attempts to coordinate across issues by groups of nations, NGOs and international agencies. Thus, the network of regimes has social capital that can be applied to particular issues. Second, owing to ecological interconnectedness, regimes can have both positive and negative side-effects on environmental issues that they do not explicitly deal with. Allowing for political interconnectedness using concepts drawn from social network theory and for ecological interconnectedness using broad measures of sustainability, this article argues that nations more central to the network of environmental regimes should score higher on measures of sustainability. This is because the social capital in the regime network can more easily be brought to bear on centrally placed nations to make them cooperate and because they are more likely to be aware of negative regime side-effects. Measures of network centrality do, indeed, positively impact on nations’ performance on four sustainability indicators. The analysis also finds that a nation's position in the general international system further positively impacts on its sustainability scores. This leads to the suggestion that the environmental regime network is supported by social capital in more general international networks.
After brieèy reviewing some conceptual underpinnings of sustain- able cities, this paper analyses and compares sustainable cities initiatives in 24 US cities. The central question addressed in the paper is why some cities seem to take sustainability more seriously than others. Numerous demographic, socioeconomic and other characteristics of the cities are correlated with an Index of Taking Sustainability Seriously, which is a composite of some 34 different variables indicating whether each city engages in speciéc sustainability programmes, policies or activities. Many of the standard explanations, such as the income and wealth of the community, the liberalness of the city and the growth pressures placed on the city, are found to exhibit no correlation with the seriousness of the sustainability effort. What do correlate with the Index are: reliance on manufacturing, where having more residents employed in manufac- turing industries is associated with less seriousness; and, the age of the population, where cities with older populations take sustainability more seri- ously. This has three implications for the future development of sustainable cities. First, some of the cities that might be said to need sustainability programmes the most—cities with heavy manufacturing that are more prone to pollution production—are the least likely to take such programmes seriously. Secondly, as cities' manufacturing bases decline, they should énd it increasingly feasible to engage in sustainability initiatives. And, thirdly, as the populations of cities age, policy-makers should also énd it easier to support, develop and take seriously sustainability programmes.
Sustainability indicators based on local data provide a practical method to monitor progress towards sustainable development. However, since there are many conflicting frameworks proposed to develop indicators, it is unclear how best to collect these data. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the literature on developing and applying sustainability indicators at local scales to develop a methodological framework that summarises best practice. First, two ideological paradigms are outlined: one that is expert-led and top–down, and one that is community-based and bottom–up. Second, the paper assesses the methodological steps proposed in each paradigm to identify, select and measure indicators. Finally, the paper concludes by proposing a learning process that integrates best practice for stakeholder-led local sustainability assessments. By integrating approaches from different paradigms, the proposed process offers a holistic approach for measuring progress towards sustainable development. It emphasizes the importance of participatory approaches setting the context for sustainability assessment at local scales, but stresses the role of expert-led methods in indicator evaluation and dissemination. Research findings from around the world are used to show how the proposed process can be used to develop quantitative and qualitative indicators that are both scientifically rigorous and objective while remaining easy to collect and interpret for communities.
Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human-environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human-environment systems is presented.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.