How Sustainable is Santiago?

  • Jürgen Kopfmüller
  • Jonathan R. Barton
  • Alejandra Salas


The objective of this chapter is to measure the performance of the Santiago Metropolitan Region and to demonstrate how the Helmholtz Integrative Sustainability Concept and a set of indicators can serve as a tool to support decision-making by public, private and civil society actors for sustainable development. The chapter combines results for selected headline indicators with those of sustainability performance in the various fields presented in more detail in Chaps. 6–13 of this volume. The exercise of setting target values as necessary reference lines to identify existing strengths and weaknesses is clearly an incentive to goal-oriented policy and planning. The analysis reveals positive trends for some of the indicators, which deserve continued support, but also tremendous challenges in others bearing negative trends. The chapter concludes with a synthesis of the sustainability challenges ahead. This includes reflections on the conceptual and methodological dimensions of this exercise, and suitable institutional responses.


Santiago de Chile Sustainability indicators Sustainability performance Sustainable development Urban and regional planning 


  1. Barton, J., & Reyes, F. (2008). Una década de gobernanza para el desarrollo sustentable: evaluando el impacto de la política ambiental para el desarrollo sustentable (1998). In V. Duran et al. (Eds.), Desarrollo Sustentable: gobernanza y derecho. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  2. Barton, J., Jordán, R., León, S., & Solis, O. (2007). ¿Cuán sustentable es la Región Metropolitana de Santiago? Metodologías de evaluación de la sustentabilidad. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environment, 6(3), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco, H., Wautiez, F., Llavero, A., & Riveros, C. (1997). Indicadores regionales de desarrollo sustentable en Chile: ¿Hasta qué punto son útiles y necesarios? EURE, 27(81), 85–95.Google Scholar
  5. Clert, C., & Wodon, Q. (2001). The targeting of government programs in Chile. In E. Gacitúa-Marió, & Q. Wodon (Eds.), Measurement and meaning. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods for the analysis of poverty and social exclusion in Latin America. (pp. 43–68). World Bank Technical Paper No. 518, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  6. Gallopin, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  7. Gudmondsson, H. (2003). The policy use of environmental indicators – Learning from evaluation research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 2(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  8. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ministry of Health Department of Health Statistics and Information (2008). Mortalidad por grupos programáticos. Accessed May 2010.
  10. Ministry of the Interior (2009). Informes anuales de estadísticas delictuales Accessed May 2010.
  11. Ministry of Planning (2008). Región Metropolitana de Santiago - Evolution of income inequality 1990–2006. CASEN Survey. SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Ministry of Planning (2006). Encuesta CASEN: educación. Accessed May 2010.
  13. Ministry of Planning (2006). Encuesta CASEN: vivienda. Accessed May 2010.
  14. Ministry of Planning (2004). Encuesta CASEN: ingresos. Accessed May 2010.
  15. National Statistical Institute (2009). Serie empalmada población de 15 años y mas por situación en la fuerza de trabajo. Accessed May 2010.
  16. National System of Municipal Information (2009). Selección de búsqueda. Accessed May 2010.
  17. Pintér, L., Hardi, P., & Bartelmus, P. (2005). Sustainable development indicators: Proposals for a way forward. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  18. Quiroga, R. (2001). Indicadores de sostenibilidad ambiental y de desarrollo sostenible: estado del arte y perspectivas. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  19. Reid, W., et al. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  20. Renn, O., Deuschle, J., Jäger, A., & Weimer-Jehle, W. (2007). Leitbild Nachhaltigkeit. Eine Normativ-Funktionale Konzeption und ihre Umsetzung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  21. Rogers, P., Jalal, K., & Boyd, J. (2008). Introduction to sustainable development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  22. Romero, H., & Vásquez, A. (2005). Evaluación ambiental del proceso de urbanización de las cuencas del piedemonte andino de Santiago de Chile. EURE, 31(94), 97–118.Google Scholar
  23. Schushny, A., & Soto, H. (2009). Guía metodológica: diseño de indicadores compuestos de desarrollo sostenible. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
  24. Undersecretariat of Telecommunications (2010). Estadísticas de Servicio de Acceso a Internet.'9.Co_Rg_D'!A1. Accessed 5 Nov 2010.
  25. UNDP – United Nations Human Development Programme. (2009). Human development report 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  26. United Nations (n.d.). Millennium Development Goals Chile.,-metric-tons-of-co2-per-capita-(cdiac).html#G, Accessed May 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Kopfmüller
    • 1
  • Jonathan R. Barton
    • 1
  • Alejandra Salas
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)Eggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations