Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the normative underpinnings of popular sustainability indicators and country rankings. Attempts to quantify national sustainability in the form of composite indicators and rankings have increased rapidly over past decades. However, questions regarding validity and interpretability remain. This article combines theoretical and statistical tools to explore how input variables in five popular sustainability indicators can be related to different theoretical paradigms: weak and strong sustainability. It is shown that differences in theoretical interpretations affect input variable selection, which in turn affects indicator output. This points towards the risk of indicators becoming a sort of ‘circular argumentation construct’. The article argues that sustainability indicators and country rankings must be treated as theoretical just as much as statistical instruments. It is proposed that making underlying normative assumptions explicit, and making input variable selection more clear in a theoretical sense, can enhance indicator validity and usability for policy makers and researchers alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The EPI 2012 was used in this analysis. An updated version of the EPI was released in 2014.

  2. The Brundtland definition of sustainability implies that a sustainable society is a society that (a) meets the needs of the present generation; (b) does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and (c) in which each human being has the opportunity to develop itself in freedom. To this has been added: “within a well-balanced society and in harmony with its surroundings”.

  3. This is only the Ecological Footprint of Consumption (excluding bio-capacity). This is the most commonly cited ecological footprint account, often just called Ecological Footprint.

  4. Admittedly, variables measuring emissions per unit of GDP were the most difficult to classify, as they relate both to national environmental conditions, level of socio-economic development and technology. However, as they are commonly interpreted as a measure of intensity of emissions, I classified them here as part of the technology (efficiency) dimension (for a discussion on emissions intensity and efficiency, see e.g. Baumert et al. 2005). In the analysis below, the specific classification of these variables has little impact on overall results.

References

  • Babcicky, P. (2013). Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measurement: The limitations of Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). Social Indicators Research, 113, 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, K. A., Herzog, T., & Pershing, J. (2005). Navigating the numbers. Greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. US: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B. (1997). Sustainability assessment: A review of values, concepts and methodological approaches. Washington DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainable assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 1573–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. (2010). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. New York: ME Sharpe Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer, C., & Jochem, P. (2006). Measuring the immeasurable: A survey of sustainability indices. Discussion Paper, Center for European Economic Research.

  • Bravo, G. (2013). The Human Sustainable Development Index: New calculations and a first critical analysis. Ecological Indicators, 37, 145–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckner, M., Polzin, C., & Giljum, S. (2010). Counting CO 2 emissions in a globalized world. Producer versus consumer-oriented methods for CO 2 accounting. Discussion Paper, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.

  • Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. R. (2013). Appraising weak and strong sustainability: Searching for a middle ground. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(1), 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Kerk, G., & Manuel, A. (2012). Sustainable Society Index SSI-2012. The Netherlands: Sustainable Society Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 617–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drexhage, J., & Murphy, D. (2010). Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background paper prepared for consideration by the high level panel on global sustainability at its first meeting, 19 Sep 2010. United Nations Headquarters, New York.

  • Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., & De Groot, R. (2003). A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44, 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. W., Hsu, A., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D. C., & Jaiteh, M. (2012). Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage: London.

  • Freudenberg, M. (2003). Composite indicators of country performance: A critical assessment. OECD science, technology and industry working papers 2003/16, OECD Publishing.

  • Global Footprint Network. (2010). Ecological footprint atlas 2010. Oakland, Global Footprint Network. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2014.

  • Gudmundsson, H., Lehtonen, M., Bauler, T., Sébastien, L., & Morse, S. (2009). Process and results of analytical framework and typology development for POINT, (EU-FP7 project POINT, theme SSH-2007-6.1.1: “Current Use of and Emerging Needs for Indicators in Policy”. http://www.point-eufp7.info).

  • Hair, J. S., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., & Woodward, R. (1995). Environmental indicators: A systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development. Washington: World Resource Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hezri, A. A., & Dovers, S. R. (2006). Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 60, 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman, N. (2009). Incorporating local sustainability indicators into the structure of local governance: A review of the literature. Local Environment, 14(4), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornborg, A. (2001). The power of the machine: Global inequalities of the economy, technology and environment. England: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, M. (2012). Indicators as an appraisal technology: Framework for analysing the policy influence of the UK energy sector indicators. In A. von Raggamby & F. Rubik (Eds.), Sustainable development, evaluation and policy-making: theory, practise and quality assurance (pp. 175–206). Northampton, MA: Evaluating Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, M., Sébastien, L., & Bauler, T. (2016). The multiple roles of sustainability indicators in informational governance: Between intended use and unanticipated influence. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leukhardt, F., & Allen, S. (2013). How environmentally focused is the German sustainability strategy? A critical discussion of the indicators used to measure sustainable development in Germany. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L., & Ramos, T. B. (2014). Exploring the self-assessment of sustainability indicators by different stakeholders. Ecological Indicators, 39, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D., Meadows, D., & Randers, J. (2004). Limits to growth. The 30 year update. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

  • Mol, A. P. J., & Sonnenfeld, D. A. (2000). Ecological modernization around the world: An introduction. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Pires, S., & Fidélis, T. (2012). A proposal to explore the role of sustainability indicators in local governance contexts: The case of Palmela, Portugal. Ecological Indicators, 23, 608–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Pires, S., & Fidélis, T. (2014). Local sustainability indicators in Portugal: Assessing implementation and use in governance contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production,. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, K., & Christodoulou, A. (2011). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a New City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S., & Fraser, E. (2005). Making ‘dirty’ nations look clean? The nation state and the problem of selecting and weighting indices as tools for measuring progress towards sustainability. Geoforum, 36(5), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2005). “Measuring sustainability”: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardo, M., & Saisana, M. (2008). OECD/JRC handbook on constructing composite indicators. Putting theory into practice. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/research_methodology/documents/S11P3_OECD_EC_HANDBOOK_NARDO_SAISANA.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2014.

  • Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Tools for composite indicators building. European Communities: Report for European Commission Joint Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms (2nd ed.). Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer, E. (2012). Human development and sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(4), 561–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New Economics Foundation. (2012). The Happy Planet Index: 2012 report. http://www.happyplanetindex.org/assets/happy-planet-index-report.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2014.

  • Niemeijer and de Groot. (2008). Framing environmental indicators: Moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, C. M. (2005). Sustainability indicators as discursive elements. In 6th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Libson (pp. 14–17).

  • Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 559–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rametsteiner, E., Pulzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economies leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinne, J., Lyytimäki, J., & Kautto, P. (2013). From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecological Indicators, 35, 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, J.C., & Linares, P. (2013). Strong versus Weak Sustainability Indexes in a conurbation context: A case example in Spain. Working Paper.

  • Saisana, M., & Philippas, D. (2012). Sustainable Society Index (SSI): Taking societies’ pulse along social, environmental and economic issues. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlör, H., Fischer, W., & Hake, J.-F. (2013). Methods of measuring sustainable development of the German energy sector. Applied Energy, 101, 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sezgin, Z. (2012). Ecological modernization: A viable option for a sustainable future? Marmara Journal of European Studies, 20(1), 219–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherbinin, A., Reuben, A., Levy, M., & Johnson, L. (2013). Indicators in practice: Hw environmental indicators are being used in policy and management contexts. New York: Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. H., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm.

  • Tasser, E., Sternbach, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2008). Biodiversity indicators for sustainability monitoring at municipality level: An example of implementation in an alpine region. Ecological Indicators, 8(3), 204–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiry, G., & Cassiers, I. (2010). Alternative indicators to GDP: Values behind numbers. Adjusted net savings in question. Discussion paper 2010–18, Institut de Recherches Èconomiques et Sociales de l’Université catholique de Louvain.

  • Togtogh, C., & Gaffney, O. (2010). Human Sustainable Development Index, United Nations University. http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-2010-human-sustainable-development-index. Accessed 3 May 2014.

  • Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2007). Abolishing GDP. Tinbergen institute discussion paper, Amsterdam. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.962343.

  • Waas, T., Hugé, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Benitez-Capistros, F., & Verbruggen, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability, 6, 5512–5534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., & Pelot, R. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7, 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2012). Worldwide governance indicators. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home. Accessed 27 March 2014.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the help from Kristine Kern, Steffen Ganghof, Detlef Sprinz and Ulrich Kohler, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for suggestions and comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Potsdam University, August-Bebel-Str. 89, 14482, Potsdam, Germany

    Kajsa Borgnäs

Authors
  1. Kajsa Borgnäs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kajsa Borgnäs.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Input variable description and coding
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borgnäs, K. Indicators as ‘circular argumentation constructs’? An input–output analysis of the variable structure of five environmental sustainability country rankings. Environ Dev Sustain 19, 769–790 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9764-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9764-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation