Sustainable Society Index

[kristopher]

Is a sustainable modern culture possible? This article covers the difficulty of defining what is meant by "sustainability" and gives a set of parameters with which to judge our status as we attempt to move in that direction. There is frequent discussion on this topic here that might benefit from the structured perspective of the article. - K.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sustainable_Society_Index

Abstract

When we were looking for a suitable yardstick to measure the level of sustainability of a country a suitable instrument could not be found. Although the main existing indexes were examined we had to conclude that none of them seem to fit our needs completely. The main shortcomings are a limited definition of sustainability, a lack of transparency or high complexity and an absence of regular updates. For this reason, a new index – the Sustainable Society Index (SSI) – has been developed. The SSI integrates the most important aspects of sustainability and quality of life of a national society in a simple and transparent way. Consisting of only 22 indicators, grouped into 5 categories, it is based upon the definition of the Brundtland Commission, extended to the Brundtland+ definition by explicitly including the social aspects of human life.

Using data from public sources, the SSI was initially developed for 150 countries and published in 2006. In 2008 the first of two-yearly updates was published with results for 151 countries for which the SSI could be calculated. The resulting SSI scores on a scale of 0 to 10 allow a quick comparison between countries as is shown on the world map.

[izquierdista]

1. Too much data

Indices like these end up cramming too much data into one number so that the final result, a distance in some multi-multi-multi-dimensional space, ends up having no meaning. One ends up with an odd combination of countries at the top and bottom, and if the arbitrary weightings were to be arbitrarily re-skewed, completely different combinations would result. It is a great human failing to want to make judgments by a single number, as if the length of one's member was all that was important.

[kristopher]

2. Can you suggest something better?

What is usually trotted out in most discussions is closer to 'truthiness' than reality. While I can agree to some extent with your criticism of boiling it all down to a single number, it does offer a point of departure for seeking more information; and I'd argue that the structure behind that number is well organized, comprehensive and does much to inform.

[izquierdista]

3. Report cards

Rather than let people get lulled by a single number, report cards that have 'grades' in several areas, like 5-7, force people to pay a little more attention. They get more drawn in and make comparisons between categories. Just like parents who say "you need to do as well in history as you did in English", people will compare the progress in one area to another and decide that more effort is required in on area. A single number allows progress in one area to make up for growing problems in another area, just so long as the overall result is positive.
If the structure is well organized and comprehensive and the information is useful, why hide it behind a single number?

[kristopher]

4. You didn't even look at the paper...

[izquierdista]

7. I did

I like all the polar maps of how the continents rank in terms of sustainability. It gives one pause to think about what a sustainable lifestyle is. Those graphs are the thousand words that are missing in the one number "Index" that everything gets boiled down to.

[GliderGuider]

5. The devil is, as always, in the details.

The first problem is that the index rolls up objective and subjective measures into the same number:

For a number of indicators, the sustainability value can be determined objectively. For instance, the number of undernourished people has to be 0 (indicator 2), or the percentage of people with access to safe drinking water has to be 100 (indicator 3). This reasoning applies for indicators 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 and 22. However, some might question why the gender equality has to be 1. So even in this rather obvious case, some subjectivity is included.

For the remaining indicators the sustainability value is less obvious and probably cannot be determined in an objective manner. When is population growth sustainable? If the number of inhabitants stays constant? Or only when it declines? And at which percentage does it have to decline to be sustainable? Or when is income inequality sustainable? Moreover, the sustainability value of an indicator may vary over time. For instance population growth: currently our planet seems to be rather overpopulated. However, it can very well be that our view on this issue will change in the future.

For indicators 18, 20 and 21 an educated guess of the sustainability value could be made, as explained in the next paragraph. If even an educated guess is not reasonably possible, the highest value (best case) of the 151 assessed countries for that indicator is considered the sustainability value, while the lowest value (worst case) is assumed to represent no sustainability at all.

The second problem follows from the first: this single number is then presented as authoritative. Those who disagree with the structure or objective of the index will point to this conflation to discredit the entire index, including those parts that are objectively incontrovertible.

I much prefer the idea of a multi-element report card, with the objective and subjective components clearly broken out.

On edit: I don't disagree with the overall effort -- having a measure of sustainability is always a good thing for public awareness. This is similar to the "ecological footprint" concept. It's useful in much the same way, but suffers from many of the same shortcomings.

[kristopher]

6. Presented as authoritative???

That statement is fiction on your part. It certainly isn't supported by the article: "The resulting SSI scores on a scale of 0 to 10 allow a quick comparison between countries as is shown on the world map. The underlying data, some of which are included in this article, allow in-depth analysis of the differences between countries." (abstract)

This criticism is as silly when you repeat it as it was when it was first made. The final rating is clearly labeled for what it is and the "report card" you say you prefer is just as clearly accomplished with the underlying data.

[GliderGuider]

8. Sorry, my quick typing led to a lack of clarity

I didn't mean they were presenting the single index as authoritative. I meant that the availability of a single-number index will cause others (i.e. the media) to present it as authoritative, because it's easier than presenting a set of criteria. You know the drill:

Benin Overtakes Latvia as the most Sustainable Country on Earth, with a Sustainability Index of 7.35 (Details on page D27)