Social Indicators Research

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 73–116 | Cite as

The Ex-Ante Evaluation of Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

  • Lorenza Campagnolo
  • Carlo Carraro
  • Fabio Eboli
  • Luca FarniaEmail author
  • Ramiro Parrado
  • Roberta Pierfederici


This paper describes the methodology and main results from an overall assessment on future achievement of sustainable development goals. The proposed approach consists of a model-based, looking forward composite sustainable development index—FEEM sustainability index—projected to the future. It represents a first experiment to reproduce the future dynamics of sustainable development indicators over time and worldwide and to assess future sustainability under different scenarios. The assessment presented here is relevant under different viewpoints. First, it has a very broad nature in terms of both geographical coverage and meaningfulness: it considers the multi-dimensional structure of sustainable development by combining relevant indicators belonging to economic, social and environmental pillars for the whole world. Second, the modelling framework to compute future trends of indicators relies upon a recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium model. This is an ideal tool to look simultaneously at the development of many indicators, their potential interactions and trade-offs, and more in general to the consequences of economic development and/or policies aiming to increase performance in one or more indicators; it allows measuring the overall sustainability under alternative scenarios, across countries and over time. Finally, regarding the construction of the composite indicator, the application of fuzzy measures and Choquet integral increases substantially the model capability allowing taking into account the interactions that exist among the three main pillars of sustainability and the considered indicators.


Computable general equilibrium model Sustainable development goals Composite index Fuzzy measures Choquet integral 


  1. Adelle, C., & Pallemaerts, M. (2009). Sustainable development indicators—An overview of relevant framework programme funded research and identification of further needs in view of EU and international activities. European Communities.
  2. Armington, P. S. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production (pp. 159–176). IMF: International Monetary Fund Staff Papers.Google Scholar
  3. Boehringer, C., & Loeschel, A. (2006). Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status quo and prospects. Ecological Economics, 60, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burniaux, J.-M., & Truong, T.P. (2002). GTAP-E: An energy environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP technical paper n. 16.Google Scholar
  5. Campagnolo, L., Carraro, C., Davide, M., Eboli, F., Lanzi, E., & Parrado, R. (2016). Can climate policy enhance sustainability?”. Climatic Change, 137, 639–653. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carraro, C., Campagnolo, L., Eboli, F., Giove, S., Lanzi, E., Parrado, R., et al. (2013). The FEEM sustainability index: An integrated tool for sustainability assessment. In M. G. Erechtchoukova et al. (Eds.), Sustainability appraisal: Quantitative methods and mathematical techniques for environmental performance evaluation, EcoProduction. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32081-1_2.Google Scholar
  7. Eboli, F., Parrado, R., & Roson, R. (2010). Climate change feedback on economic growth: Explorations with a dynamic general equilibrium model. Environment and Development Economics, 15(5), 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farnia, L., & Giove, S. (2015). Fuzzy measures and experts’ opinion elicitation—An application to the FEEM sustainable composite indicator. Smart Innovation, System and Technologies, 37, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farnia, L., & Silvestri, A. (2015). 2015 ICCG climate think tank ranking. Available:
  10. GGKP. (2013). Moving towards a common approach on green growth indicators—green growth knowledge platform scoping paper.Google Scholar
  11. Grabisch, M., Nguyen, H.T., Walker, E.A. (1995). Fundamentals of uncertainty calculi with applications to fuzzy inference. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabisch, M. (1996). The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grabisch, M. (1997). k-order additive discrete fuzzy measures and their representation. Fuzzy sets and systems, 92(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grabisch, M., & Roubens, M. (2000). Application of the Choquet integral in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy measures and integrals – theory and applications (pp. 348–374). Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Hertel, T. (1997). Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications, center for global trade analysis. Purdue University.Google Scholar
  16. Horridge, M. (2008). SplitCom: Programs to disaggregate a GTAP sector. Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  17. IPCC. (2000). Special report on emissions scenario. In N. Nakicenovic, R Swart (Eds.) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ishii, K., & Sugeno, M. (1985). A model of human evaluation process using fuzzy measure. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 67, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, H.L. (2008). The combustion-based CO2 emissions data for GTAP version 7 data base. West Lafayette: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  20. Marichal, J.-L. (2000a). Behavioral analysis of aggregation in multicriteria decision aid. Preferences and Decisions under Incomplete Knowledge, 51, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marichal, J.-L. (2000b). An axiomatic approach of the discrete Choquet integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. The IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8(6), 800–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marichal, J.-L. (2004). Tolerant or intolerant character of interacting criteria in ag-gregation by the Choquet integral. European Journal of Operational Research, 155, 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marichal, J.-L. (2007). K-intolerant capacities and Choquet integrals. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1453–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marichal, J.-L., & Roubens, M. (2000). Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set. European Journal of Operational Research, 124, 641–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDougall, R.,& Aguiar, A.H. (2008). Energy data. Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, P., & Roubens, M. (2005). Choice, ranking and sorting in fuzzy multiple criteria decision aid. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 471–506). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mori, T., & Murofushi, T. (1989). An analysis of evaluation model using fuzzy measure and the Choquet integral. In 5th fuzzy system symposium (pp. 207–212). Kobe (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  28. Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murofushi, T. & Soneda, S. (1993). Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (III): interaction index. In 9th fuzzy system symposium (pp. 693–696). Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
  30. Narayanan, B. G., Aguiar, A., & McDougall, R. (2012). Global trade, assistance, and production: The GTAP 8 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  31. OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide.
  32. OECD. (2011). Health at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/health_glance-2011-en.Google Scholar
  33. OECD. (2012). Inclusive green growth. For the future we want.
  34. Parrado, R., & De Cian, E. (2014). Technology spillovers embodied in international trade: Intertemporal, regional and sectoral effects in a global CGE framework. Energy Economics, 41(2014), 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 559–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1993). Capital theory and measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of “weak” sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8(2), 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., & Sostero, M. (2014). Constructing the FEEM sustainability index: A Choquet-integral application. Ecological Indicators, 39, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pintér, P., Ardí, P., & Bartelmus, P. (2005). Indicators of sustainable development: Proposals for a way forward. Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, New York, 13–15 Dec 2005.
  39. Ragwitz, M., Held, A., Resch, G., Faber, T., Haas, R., Huber, C. (2007). OPTRES. Assessment and optimisation of renewable energy support schemes in the european electricity market. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verl.Google Scholar
  40. Rose, S.K., & Lee, H.L. (2008). Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions data for climate change economic analysis. GTAP Working Paper No. 43.Google Scholar
  41. Saltelli, A., Jesinghaus, J., & Munda, G. (2007). Well being stories, beyond GDP conference. EU Parliament, Brussels, 19–20 Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  42. Singh, R. K., Murty, H., Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Solow, R. (1993). Sustainability: An economist’s perspective. In R. Dorfman & N. S. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics of the environment (pp. 179–187). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  44. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress.
  45. Thomas, H., Bozec, Y., Elkalay, K., De Baar, H. (2004). Enhanced open ocean storage of CO2 from shelf sea pumping. Science, 304, 1005–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UN CSD—United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. (2012). Current ideas on sustainable development goals and indicators, Rio 2012 Issues Briefs n. 6.
  48. UN CSD—United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. (2012). Report of the united nations conference on sustainable development.
  49. UN DESA—United Nations Department on Economic and Social Affairs. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies, 3rd Ed. Oct 2007.Google Scholar
  50. UN DESA—United Nations Department on Economic and Social Affairs. (2012). A guidebook to the green economy issue 1: Green economy, green growth, and low-carbon development—history, definitions and a guide to recent publications.
  51. UNDP—United Nations Development Programme. (1990). Human development report.
  52. UN OWG—United Nations Open Working Group. (2014). Open working group proposal for sustainable development goals.
  53. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development.
  55. WCED—World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. published as annex to general assembly document A/42/427, development and international co-operation: Environment. Aug 2, 1987.Google Scholar
  56. Yale and Columbia Universities. (2010). Environmental performance index—Summary for policymakers.
  57. YCELP—Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (Yale University), Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)/Columbia University and World Economic Forum, and Joint Research Centre (JRC)/European Commission. (2005). Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).

Data Sources

  1. EC—European Commission, EU SDSEuropean union sustainable development strategy. Last access: Feb 2013.
  2. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Aquastat: Last access: Sept 2013.
  3. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, ResourceSTAT: Last access: Sept 2013.
  4. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IIASA—International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Global Agro-Ecological Zones. Last access: Sept 2013
  5. IEA—International Energy Agency, Country profiles. Last access: July 2013.
  6. IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red list of threatened species. Last access: Sept 2013
  7. OECD—Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development, Main science and technology indicators.,3343,en_2649_34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html. Last access: July 2013.
  8. REN 21—Renewable energy policy network for the 21st century. Last access: July 2013.
  9. United Nations Population Division, World population prospectThe 2010 revision, Last access: May 2013.
  10. World Bank, WDIWorld development indicators. Last access: July 2013.
  11. WHO—World Health Organization, Health financing: Health expenditure ratios. Last access: Sept 2013.
  12. WRI—World Resources Institute, CAITClimate analysis indicators tool, version 3.0: Last access: June 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiVeniceItaly
  2. 2.ECIPCentro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti ClimaticiVeniceItaly
  3. 3.Ca’Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations