Abstract
This analysis lies in the stream of research related to the quantitative assessment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations at the end of September 2015. We assemble a composite multi-dimensional index and a worldwide ranking of current sustainability. This makes it possible to assess the strengths and weaknesses of today’s socio-economic development, as well as environmental criticalities worldwide. The methodology goes through the following steps: screening of indicators capable of addressing the UN’s SDGs; data collection from relevant sources; organization into three pillars of sustainability (economy, society, and environment); normalization to a common metrics; aggregation of the 26 indicators into composite indices by pillars as well as in a multi-dimensional index. The final ranking includes 139 countries. Sweden, Norway and Switzerland are at the top of the ranking.
References
Carraro C., Campagnolo L., Davide, M., Eboli F., Lanzi E., Parrado R. (2016). Can Climate Policy Enhance Sustainability?. Climatic Change, Volume 137, Issue 3–4, pp 639–653 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1701-6Search in Google Scholar
Cobham A., Sumner A. (2013). Putting the Gini Back in the Bottle? “The Palma” as a Policy-Relevant Measure of Inequality. King’s College London. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.365.4686Search in Google Scholar
Cobb C.W., Halstead T, Rowe J. (1995). The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. Redefining Progress.Search in Google Scholar
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (2009). Report of the Commission on the Economic and Social Progress. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/118025/118123/Fitoussi+Commission+reportSearch in Google Scholar
Dunning C.,Jared K. (2016). SDG Indicators: Serious Gaps Abound in Data Availability. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/sdg-indicators-serious-gaps-abound-data-availabilitySearch in Google Scholar
EC. 2010. EUROPE (2020). A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. European Commission. COM(2010) 2020 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDFSearch in Google Scholar
Farnia L. and Silvio G. (2015). Fuzzy Measures and Experts’ Opinion Elicitation. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 37: 229–241. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-18164-6_2210.1007/978-3-319-18164-6_22Search in Google Scholar
Grabisch M., Nguyen H.T., Walker E.A. (1995). Fundamentals of Uncertainty Calculi with Applications to Fuzzy Inference. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-015-8449-4Search in Google Scholar
Grabisch M. (1996). TheAapplication of Fuzzy Integrals in Multicriteria Decision Making. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00176-X10.1016/0377-2217(95)00176-XSearch in Google Scholar
Grabisch M.(1997). K-order Additive Discrete Fuzzy Measures and their Representation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92: 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00168-110.1016/S0165-0114(97)00168-1Search in Google Scholar
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. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Application-of-the-Choquet-Integral-in-Multicriter-Grabisch-Roubens/593af054b8587aaa368f2cb2cf2a528ff8514ac6Search in Google Scholar
Hamilton, K. (2000). Genuine Saving as a Sustainability Indicator. Environment Department papers;no. 77. Environmental economics series. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/908161468740713285/Genuine-saving-as-asustainability-indicatorSearch in Google Scholar
Ishii K., Michio S. (1985). A Model of Human Evaluation Process Using FuzzyM. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 22: 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(85)80075-410.1016/S0020-7373(85)80075-4Search in Google Scholar
Marichal J.-L. (2000a). Behavioral Analysis of Aggregation in Multicriteria Decision Aid. Preferences and Decisions under Incomplete Knowledge, 51, 153–178. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-7908-1848-2_910.1007/978-3-7908-1848-2_9Search in Google Scholar
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. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3335921_Marichal_JL_An_axiomatic_approach_of_the_discrete_Choquet_integral_as_a_tool_to_aggregate_interacting_criteria_IEEE_Transactions_on_Fuzzy_Systems_86_800-80710.1109/91.890347Search in Google Scholar
Marichal J.-L. (2004). Tolerant or intolerant character of interacting criteria in aggregation by the Choquet integral. European Journal of Operational Research, 155(3), 771–791. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221702008858Search in Google Scholar
Marichal J.-L. (2007). K-intolerant Capacities and Choquet Integrals, European Journal of Operational Research. 177(3), 1453–1468. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221705003668Search in Google Scholar
Marichal J.-L., Roubens M. (2000). Determination of Weights of Interacting Criteria from a Reference Set. European Journal of Operational Research, 124(3), 641–650. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722179900182410.1016/S0377-2217(99)00182-4Search in Google Scholar
Meyer P., Roubens M. (2005). Choice, Ranking and Sorting in Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, New York, 471–506.10.1007/0-387-23081-5_12Search in Google Scholar
Murofushi, T., Soneda, S. (1993). Techniques for Reading Fuzzy Measures (III): Interaction Index. In 9th Fuzzy System Symposium (pp. 693–696). Sapporo, Japan.Search in Google Scholar
Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Search in Google Scholar
SDSN-Bertelsmann Stiftung (2017). SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://www.sdgindex.org/Search in Google Scholar
UN (2015).Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
UN (2017). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. A/RES/71/313. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/313Search in Google Scholar
UNDP (1990). Human Development Report. www.undp.orgSearch in Google Scholar
UN IEAG (2017). Report of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. Economic and Social Council. E/CN.3/2017/2 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/48th-session/documents/2017-2-IAEG-SDGs-E.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
UN Women (2013). Violence against Women Prevalence Data: Surveys by Country. United Nations. http://www.endvawnow.org/uploads/browser/files/vawprevalence_matrix_june2013.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
UNDP (2015). Perspectives on Inequality Challenges in the Arab Region, Regional Coordination Mechanism (RCM), Issue Brief for the Arab Sustainable Development Report. United Nation Development Program. http://css.escwa.org.lb/SDPD/3572/Goal10.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Yale and Columbia Universities (2010). 2010 Environmental Performance Index, Summary for policymakers, retrieved at http://epi.yale.edu/Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Lorenza Campagnolo et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
