Content uploaded by Jyrki Luukkanen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jyrki Luukkanen on Jun 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Turku University]
On: 20 January 2014, At: 02:01
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Sustainable Development &
World Ecology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20
Relationships of the dimensions of sustainability
as measured by the sustainable society index
framework
Jari Kaivo-ojaa, Juha Panula-Onttoa, Jarmo Vehmasa & Jyrki Luukkanena
a Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, Yliopistonkatu 58 D, 33100
Tampere, Turku, Finland
Published online: 21 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Jari Kaivo-oja, Juha Panula-Ontto, Jarmo Vehmas & Jyrki Luukkanen , International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology (2013): Relationships of the dimensions of sustainability as measured by
the sustainable society index framework, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2013.860056
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.860056
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Relationships of the dimensions of sustainability as measured by the sustainable society index
framework
Jari Kaivo-oja, Juha Panula-Ontto*, Jarmo Vehmas and Jyrki Luukkanen
Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, Yliopistonkatu 58 D, 33100 Tampere, Turku, Finland
(Received 10 July 2013; final version received 22 October 2013)
This article presents a study of the interrelationships between the different dimensions of sustainability as measured by the
sustainable society index framework. We examine the statistical relationships between the four indices making up the
sustainable society index framework. The analysis uses the complete existing data set provided by Sustainable Society
Foundation for the years 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 and for 151 countries. While the time period where data are available is
quite short, we can make some preliminary observations about the apparent trends in the interrelationships of the different
dimensions of sustainability. This study shows that the three dimensions of sustainability are far from all being synergic and
positively correlated. There is a strong negative correlation between human well-being and environmental well-being. This
is problematic from the point of view of the Brundtland Commission’s three-pillar definition of sustainability. However, the
trade-off relationship between economic and environmental development measured by the economic well-being index and
environmental well-being index is decreasing and the dimensions are becoming more de-linked. This trend is promising
from the sustainability perspective.
Keywords: sustainability; indicators; sustainable society index; sustainability dimensions; sustainability measurement
1. Introduction
Sustainability is one of the most important goals of the
world’s policy agenda. All efforts to make society and its
processes more sustainable obviously require measurement
of sustainability. This paper looks into the set of indicators
developed by Sustainable Society Foundation (SSF) for the
evaluation of different aspects of sustainability. We analyse
the interconnectedness of four indices of the sustainable
society index framework: the human well-being index,
environmental well-being index, economic well-being
index, and the composite sustainable society index (SSI).
Thetimeperiodfortheanalysisis2006–2012. The country
ranking data used are provided by the SSF.
The SSF is a non-profit organisation which was estab-
lished in 2006 to further develop the SSI and disseminate
it at 2-year intervals. SSI is based on the already men-
tioned three sets of indices measuring human, environ-
mental and economic well-being. Its utility is to show at
a glance the level of sustainability of 151 countries (SSF3
2013) and the direction and speed of change in the sus-
tainability performance in different sectors.
In this study, we analyse the relationships between
these four sustainability indices in the 151 countries for
which the SSI has been calculated: Spearman rank correla-
tion coefficients are presented for these indices. The stu-
died time period is 2006–2012. We use all the available
data for the mentioned indicators, provided by the SSF for
the years 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012. We observe the
level and direction of correlation, and the trends of change
in these correlations.
In addition to the data set covering years 2006, 2008,
2010 and 2012 for 151 countries, the SSI indicators have
been retro-calculated for a longer time period (1975–2008)
for Finland and the Netherlands (van de Kerk & Manuel
2010). The SSI system allows for many interesting bench-
mark studies and country comparisons, of which the com-
parison of Finland and Netherlands is a good example.
Our study has a different approach: we focus on the trends
of the relationships of the different dimensions of sustain-
ability, measured with the SSI indicator set, on the global
scale.
2. Measuring sustainability
Definition and measurement of sustainable development
at operational level is one of the major challenges of
contemporary environmental, social and economic poli-
cies. Several attempts to measure sustainability have been
made by scientists (environmental), non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and national states and interna-
tional organisations. These attempts include related indi-
cator frameworks and indicator systems, more focused on
the performance evaluation procedures, and aggregated
indices of sustainable development or related phenomena
such as environmental performance, human development,
happiness, etc. The general challenge of measuring sus-
tainability is to include all relevant dimensions of sus-
tainability in the evaluation process.
According to Hezri and Dovers (2006, p. 87), main
approaches to develop sustainability indicators are as
*Corresponding author. Email: juha.panula-ontto@utu.fi
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.860056
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
follows: (1) extended national accounts, (2) bio-physical
accounts, (3) weighted indices, (4) eco-efficiency and
dematerialisation approaches and (5) indicator sets. There
are many ways to classify sustainability indicators. In this
article, our research interest is focused on country-level
indices in the world. In this paper, emphasis is on the
indicator sets and its associated indices. The indicator
sets are focused on key dimensions of sustainability.
There is no consensus on whether sustainability eva-
luation should provide only one super-aggregated figure or
not. For politicians, this kind of a generic sustainability
index would be quite attractive. However, if environmen-
tal sustainability refers to the state of the environment,
social sustainability to well-being and happiness, and
economic sustainability to affluence, the sustainability
dimensions are incommensurable. Moreover, all these
dimensions mean different things for different people,
and there is a large variation in the preferences that how
these dimensions should be weighted in defining sustain-
able development. Thus, sustainability assessment always
includes a normative judgement what sustainability is, and
this judgement is reflected by what is assessed and what is
not (van Zeijl-Rozema et al. 2011). Very often data
availability is decisive when a sustainability index is
constructed.
The most successful attempts to measure sustainable
development have been made in regard to environmental
sustainability. One of the most known and visible indica-
tors of the state of the environment is the ecological
footprint measuring the area of bio-productive land and
sea available (on the Earth or in a national state), and how
much of this area is appropriated for human use (Kitzes
et al. 2007). In the field of material flow accounting
(MFA), a relatively early attempt to measure environmen-
tal performance of human activities was the material input
per service (MIPS) unit which focuses on the amount of
materials used only (Schmidt-Bleek 1994). The major
problem with this kind of one-sided indicators is their
limited capability of taking into account the large variety
of different environmental impacts.
Another way to measure sustainable development is to
calculate monetary estimates of environmental costs and
benefits of human activities, as a response to critique
towards the use of GDP as an indicator of human well-
being. Examples of this kind of GDP modification include
‘green GDP’calculations such as Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare (ISEW) which has been further devel-
oped and renamed as Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)
(Cobb et al. 1995; Cobb 1989). These indices have been
applied to several countries, and, e.g. for Finland, time
series have been constructed for comparison of the results
(Hoffrén 2001). These indicators assume commensurabil-
ity between all sustainability dimensions by integrating
them in monetary terms, which can be seen as a problem
of economic reductionism.
The social dimension of sustainable development is
highlighted in indicators such as human development
index (HDI) or human sustainable development index
(HSDI) which have been developed to reflect the level of
development more comprehensively than the GNP per
capita alone could reveal. The UNDP has published the
HDI report since 1990. Like the previous indexes, also
HDI has been subjected to a certain amount of scrutiny in
the literature (Noorbakshs 1998). A special feature of HDI
is that it has a maximum value (1.00) and annual values
cannot necessarily be compared so time series cannot be
constructed. This is problematic because an important
character of an index describing development is that
changes over time could be recognised. There is ongoing
discussion about the possible improvements in HDI and
indices complementing HDI have also been suggested
(Jain & Jain 2013; Türe 2013).
The European Union (EU) and its member states have
had activities related to the development of sustainable
development indicators (SDIs). A community-level set of
SDIs has been introduced in the 2000s by Eurostat
1
and
national indicator sets by several member states have been
presented. A major problem of these indicator sets is that
their use has been conceptual and legitimising but not
instrumental, so their role is not directly connected to
actual policy-making (Rosenström 2009).
In addition to the mentioned differences in the defini-
tion of sustainability, the selected approach of measuring it
and the dimensions considered, the sustainability measure-
ment tools also have a geographical or spatial focus, that
ranges from a focus on a single organisation to national
accounts and to country cluster-level focus, as in the EU
SDI set. The SSI strives to also measure the development
of sustainability at the global level.
3. Sustainability indices as stepping stones in
transition management
Significant interest exists in the concept of sustainable
development among the scientists, planners, policy-makers
and the public. Considerable efforts and expenditures have
been made at local, national and international levels to
promote a more sustainable society. Until ‘green account-
ing’and similar systems are implemented and made avail-
able, the sustainability indicator systems will be one of the
most effective tools available for monitoring progress
towards a more sustainable society (Mitchell et al. 1995).
Moffatt (1994) argued that a programme of detailed theo-
retical and empirical research is needed to develop a series
of measures or indicators of sustainable development for
strategic decision-making and detailed environmental
management. Actually, in this study we are following
this kind of recommendation to develop a series of mea-
surements and statistical analyses.
Many authors have emphasised the role of transition
management as a mode for managing processes of co-
evolution towards sustainable development. As presented
by Kemp et al. (2007), transition management is a multi-
level model of governance which shapes processes of co-
evolution using visions, transition experiments and cycles
of learning and adaptation. Transition management also
2J. Kaivo-oja et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
helps societies to transform themselves in a gradual and
reflexive way through guided processes of variation and
selection, the outcomes of which are stepping stones for
further change (Kemp et al. 2007).
The empirical analyses of sustainable development
presented in our article can be connected to the idea of
transition management. We need information about current
stepping stones, which provide empirical evidence for
further change towards sustainability. If we do not use
such pieces of information in transition management, we
do not have stepping stones ‘pathways’or our pathways
are vague.
We can claim that transition management should be
based on some hard empirical evidence, which can be
connected to the idea of stepping stones. Evidence-based
transition management and evidence-based policy are
obviously very smart ideas in the navigation towards sus-
tainable development. The results and findings of this
study can help global and national decision-makers to
find stepping stones of transition management.
4. The framework of the SSI
The SSI framework is based on three welfare dimensions
(human welfare, environmental welfare and economic
welfare). These dimensions are based on 21 indicators in
8 categories altogether. The dimensions comprising the
human well-being index are basic needs, health and social
development; the dimensions comprising the environmen-
tal well-being index are nature and environment, natural
resources and climate and energy; and the dimensions
comprising economic well-being index are transition and
economy. Figure 1 describes the framework of the com-
posite SSI indicator.
The SSI’s three-pillar approach follows the Brundtland
Commission’s logic and so is quite conventional: it fol-
lows what is perhaps the most widely accepted approach
in thinking about sustainability. SSI has been audited by
the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in
2012 (SSF3 2013) and improved further by the recom-
mendations of this audit. It strives to be a comprehensive
indicator system and is provided for 151 countries. The
methodology of SSI has been audited by the Joint
Research Centre and revised according the recommenda-
tions of this audit (SSF1 2013). The data provided for the
time period 2006–2012 has been recalculated according to
the revised methodology and the data for different years
are uniform in terms of calculation methodology even after
the revisions.
The selection of the ‘right’indicators to best describe the
status of each of the three dimensions can obviously be
debated ad nauseam. For recent discussion about the pro-
blems of indicator selection, see e.g. article by Fredericks
(2012). The three-pillar logic of the Brundtland Commission
can be called into question as well, as the pillars are not
necessarily completely exclusive (Hansmann et al. 2012).
Thefocalpointofthisanalysisisnotthediscussiononthe
optimal indicator set for the operationalisation of the three
pillars or dimensions of sustainability. We start from the
assumption that the SSI composite index in its present form
is a reasonably good and general measure of sustainability
and it embodies much of the discussion, debate and state-of-
the-art on the measurement of sustainability. When the spa-
tial coverage and coverage of human population are consid-
ered, there are no real alternatives for the SSI. In our view, it
is the best indicator set choice for observing the statistical
relationships of the dimensions of sustainability.
5. Results
5.1. Coefficient and correlation analyses
In this section, we report the results of Spearman’s corre-
lation calculation and associated test results. Spearman’s
coefficient, like any other correlation calculation, is appro-
priate for both continuous and discrete variables, including
ordinal variables. An alternative name for the Spearman
rank correlation is the ‘grade correlation’, which is still in
use in many scientific reports. In this case, the ‘rank’of an
Sustainable society index
Human well-being
Basic needs
Sufficient food
Sufficient to drink
Safe sanitation
Health
Healthy life
Clean air
Clean water
Personal & social
development
Education
Gender equality
Income distribution
Good governance
Environmental
well-being
Nature &
environment
Air quality
Biodiversity
Natural
resources
Renewable water
resources
Consumption
Climate &
energy
Renewable energy
Greenhouse gases
Economic
well-being
Transition
Organic farming
Genuine savings
Economy
GDP
Employment
Public debt
Figure 1. The framework of sustainable society index (SSF1 2013).
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 3
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
observation is replaced by the ‘grade’. In continuous dis-
tributions, the grade of an observation is, by convention,
always one-half less than the rank. Hence, the grade and
rank correlations are the same in this special case.
The statistical interpretation of the Spearman correla-
tion is the following. The sign of the Spearman correlation
indicates the direction of association between variable X,
the independent variable and variable Y, the dependent
variable. If variable Y tends to increase when X increases,
the Spearman correlation coefficient is positive. If variable
Y tends to decrease when variable X increases, the
Spearman correlation coefficient is negative. If a
Spearman correlation is zero, it indicates that there is no
tendency for variable Y to either increase or decrease
when variable X increases. When variables X and Y are
perfectly monotonically related, the Spearman correlation
coefficient becomes 1.
The relationships of the different dimensions of the
SSI system have been examined before by the SSF
(SSF2 2013). This previous study differs from our study
in that it is briefer and only looks at the statistical relation-
ships of the different sub-indices for the year 2010. It does
not examine the trend of change in the relationships.
In Tables 1–4, we present the Spearman rank correla-
tions between the composite SSI and its sub-indices that
have been calculated from the complete available data set
of 151 countries (SSF3 2013) In Table 1, Spearman rank
correlations between human well-being, environmental
Well-being and SSI are reported for the year 2006.
Table 1 reveals that in 2006 correlation coefficient was
highest between human well-being and economic well-
being (0.750). It was quite high also between human
well-being and environmental well-being with negative
correlation (–0.685). Lowest correlation (the smallest
absolute value in the correlation coefficients) was between
economic well-being and SSI (0.239). All correlation coef-
ficients in Table 1 are statistically significant at the 0.01
level (two-tailed test).
In Table 2, Spearman rank correlations between human
well-being, environmental well-being and SSI are reported
with the indices of year 2008. The results of Table 2
follow the logic of Table 1. Also, here all the coefficients
are statistically significant.
In Table 3, Spearman rank correlations between human
well-being, environmental well-being and SSI are reported
with the indices of year 2010. The results of Table 3
follow the logic of Table 1. Also, here all the coefficients
are statistically significant.
In Table 4, Spearman rank correlations between human
well-being, environmental well-being and SSI are reported
Table 1. Spearman rank correlations between human well-being, environmental well-being and sustainable
society index in 2006. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries has been used.
2006 Human
well-being
2006 Environmental
well-being
2006 Economic
well-being
2006 Sustainable
society index
2006 Human well-being 1 −0.685** 0.750** 0.442**
2006 Environmental well-being −0.685** 1 −0.463** 0.239**
2006 Economic well-being 0.750** −0.463** 1 0.640**
2006 Sustainable society index 0.442** 0.239** 0.640** 1
Note: **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).
Table 2. Spearman rank correlations between human well-being, environmental well-being and sustainable
society index in 2008. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries has been used.
2008 Human
well-being
2008 Environmental
well-being
2008 Economic
well-being
2008 Sustainable
society index
2008 Human well-being 1 −0.695** 0.742** 0.421**
2008 Environmental well-being −0.695** 1 −0.434** 0.249**
2008 Economic well-being 0.742** −0.434** 1 0.662**
2008 Sustainable society index 0.421** 0.249** 0.662** 1
Note: **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).
Table 3. Spearman rank correlations between human well-being, environmental well-being and sustainable
society index in 2010. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries has been used.
2010 Human
well-being
2010 Environmental
well-being
2010 Economic
well-being
2010 Sustainable
society index
2010 Human well-being 1 −0.687** 0.713** 0.366**
2010 Environmental well-being −0.687** 1 −0.420** 0.314**
2010 Economic well-being 0.713** −0.420** 1 0.629**
2010 Sustainable society index 0.366** 0.314** 0.629** 1
Note: **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).
4J. Kaivo-oja et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
with the indices of year 2012. The results of Table 4
follow the basic logic of Table 1. Also, here all the
coefficients are statistically significant.
On the basis of the results presented in this section, we
can conclude that all key indices of SSI system are at least
somewhat correlated either positively or negatively. Only
SSI is positively correlated with all the other indices
(human well-being, environmental well-being and eco-
nomic well-being). This more or less follows from the
fact that the SSI composite index is calculated on the
basis of each country’s measured sustainability perfor-
mance on the three dimensions.
First relevant observation is that there is a quite strong
and consistent negative correlation between human well-
being and environmental well-being. Correlation coeffi-
cients between human well-being index and environmental
well-being index varied between –0.687 and –0.695 for
the time period 2006–2012. Second relevant finding is that
the highest positive correlation was found between human
well-being and economic well-being. Correlation coeffi-
cients between human well-being index and human well-
being index varied between +0.694 and +0.750 for the
time period 2006–2012. Third interesting and policy-rele-
vant observation is that the correlation coefficient between
environmental well-being and SSI is quite low, varying
between the values of +0.249 to +0.315. As a policy tool,
it can be said that the SSI is not particularly driven by
environmental considerations but a more holistic view on
societal issues.
5.2. Trends in sustainability indices correlations in
2006–2012
In this section, we report the observed trends in relation-
ships of the four sustainability indices in 2006–2012 for
the 151 countries available in the SSF data set. First, in
Figure 2, we have plotted the correlations of human well-
being index and the other studied indices. Figure 2 reveals
that the correlation of human well-being with economic
well-being and SSI has decreased in 2006–2012.
Correlation between human well-being and environmental
well-being has remained stable.
Figure 3 reports trends in the correlations between
environmental well-being and the other studied indices.
Environmental well-being is positively correlated only
with the SSI. Environmental well-being is negatively
correlated with human well-being index and economic
well-being index. The trends observed on the basis of
Figure 3 are that the positive correlation between SSI
and environmental well-being index has clearly
increased in 2006–2012 and that the negative correlation
between environmental well-being and economic well-
being has decreased and the two indicators have become
more de-linked. Negative correlation coefficient between
environmental well-being and human well-being has
remained stable.
In Figure 4, we have plotted the trends in the correla-
tions of economic well-being index to the other indices.
The correlation coefficient between economic well-being
Table 4. Spearman rank correlations between human well-being, environmental well-being and sustainable
society index in 2012. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries has been used.
2012 Human
well-being
2012 Environmental
well-being
2012 Economic
well-being
2012 Sustainable
society index
2012 Human well-being 1 −0.687** 0.694** 0.359**
2012 Environmental well-being −0.687** 1 −0.387** 0.315**
2012 Economic well-being 0.694** −0.387** 1 0.654**
2012 Sustainable society index 0.359** 0.315** 0.654** 1
Note: **Statistically significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed test).
–0.8
–0.6
–0.4
–0.2
0
0.2
0.4
2006 2008 2010 2012
Correlation coefficient
Environmental well-being
Human well-being
Economic well-being
Sustainable society
index
Figure 3. Correlations of environmental well-being index with
SSI and its other sub-indices. The complete SSF data set for 151
countries has been used.
–0.8
–0.6
–0.4
–0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2006 2008 2010 2012
Correlation coefficient
Human well-being
Environmental
well-being
Economic well-being
Sustainable society
index
Figure 2. Correlations of human well-being index with SSI and
its other sub-indices. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries
has been used.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 5
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
index and environmental well-being index has decreased,
but correlation coefficient between economic well-being
and human well-being has increased. We can also observe
stable correlation coefficient line between economic well-
being and SSI for the time period 2006–2012.
In Figure 5, correlations between SSI and its sub-
indices are presented. As noted earlier, all indices will
inevitably have a positive correlation with the SSI. One
trend seems to be alarming from global environmental
policy view. Correlation between SSI and human well-
being index is decreasing in the world. The SSI composite
index has become quite de-linked with human well-being.
We may interpret increasing positive correlation between
SSI and environmental well-being as a positive signal.
Correlation between the SSI and economic well-being
has remained quite stable in 2006–2012.
In general, we have been able to analyse the dynamics
between key indices of the SSI system. First, we can note
that some of the correlations between indices have sub-
stantially changed over the observed period of 6 years.
Second, we can also find some stable trends for correla-
tions between the indices. Such stable correlations were
observed between the following variables: (1) human well-
being and environmental well-being, (2) economic well-
being and human well-being and (3) the SSI and economic
well-being. Other sustainability indices had more unstable
trends for correlations in 2006–2012.
6. Discussion
In this article we have presented correlation analyses
between the sustainability indices of the SSI system. The
data set used to calculate the SSF sustainability indices
covers the global development in the three dimensions of
sustainability as measured by 21 indicators in 151 coun-
tries between the years 2006 and 2012. The analysis
provides many new interesting observations and findings.
Especially, the strong negative correlation between human
well-being and environmental well-being (ranging from –
0.685 to –0.695 during the examined period) is a surpris-
ing result. On the other hand, the negative correlation at
the global level between economic well-being and envir-
onmental well-being (ranging from –0.387 to –0.463 dur-
ing the examined period) can be thought to be quite
unsurprising at this stage of the development of the
‘green economy’.
The study of the relationships of the indicators reveals
that economic well-being, human well-being and environ-
mental well-being are not all positively correlated at this
point, which would be required for sustainable develop-
ment in the classical meaning of Brundtland Commission
report. However, we observed that the trade-off relation-
ship between economic and environmental development
measured by the economic well-being index and environ-
mental well-being index is decreasing and the dimensions
appear to be becoming de-linked: the negative correlation
coefficient between the indices is smaller in 2012 than it
was in 2006. This trend is positive from sustainability
perspective. Negative correlation coefficient between
human well-being and environmental well-being has not
changed noticeably in 2006–2012. This strong negative
correlation is an obvious challenge from sustainability
point of view and for global decision-makers. From a
normative perspective, a great challenge is to think of
measures to develop synergy between human well-being
and environmental well-being.
This study has looked into the general relationships
and possible synergies and trade-offs between the different
dimensions of sustainability using all the countries in the
data set, with the aim to get an overall picture about the
relationships on a global level. Obviously the countries
have vast differences in terms of level of economic devel-
opment, climate, natural resources etc. While outside the
scope of this paper, an important topic for further study
would be the classification of the countries in the SSI data
set to different categories and examining if the trends in
the relationships of the sustainability dimensions are simi-
lar in the different groups over time. However, it is not
trivial to say on what basis the countries should be classi-
fied, and the logic of classification would likely have an
impact on the result.
–0.6
–0.4
–0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
2006 2008 2010 2012
Correlation coefficient
Economic well-being
Environmental
well-being
Human well-being
Sustainable society
index
Figure 4. Correlations of economic well-being index with SSI
and its other sub-indices. The complete SSF data set for 151
countries has been used.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
2006 2008 2010 2012
Correlation coefficient
Sustainable society index
Human well-being
Environmental
well-being
Economic well-being
Figure 5. Correlations of sustainable society index with its sub-
indices. The complete SSF data set for 151 countries has been
used.
6J. Kaivo-oja et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge that this article is based on a work
supported by the Academy of Finland under the project
‘China and EU in the context of global climate change –
Analysis of changing economic structures and related policies’
(CHEC).
Note
1. The current SDI set includes more than 100 indicators.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/
indicators
References
Cobb CW. 1989. The index of sustainable economic welfare. In:
Daly HE, Cobb J, Cobb CW, editors. For the common good.
Boston (MA): Beacon Press; p. 401–455.
Cobb CW, Halstead T, Rowe J. 1995. The genuine progress
indicator. San Francisco, (NC): Redefining Progress.
Fredericks SE. 2012. Justice in sustainability indicators and
indexes. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 19: 490–499.
Hansmann R, Ha M, Frischknecht P. 2012. Principal sustainability
components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three
pillars of sustainability. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 19: 451–459.
Hezri A, Dovers S. 2006. Sustainability indicators, policy and
governance: issues for ecological economics. Ecol Eco. 60:
86–99.
Hoffrén J. 2001. Measuring the eco-efficiency of welfare genera-
tion in a national economy: the case of Finland. Helsinki:
Tilastokeskus.
Jain P, Jain P. 2013. Sustainability assessment index: a strong
sustainability approach to measure sustainable human devel-
opment. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 20: 116–122.
Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J. 2007. Transition management as
a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sus-
tainable development. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 14: 78–91.
Kitzes J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Wackernagel M. 2007. Current
methods for calculating national ecological footprint
accounts. Sci Env Sust Soc. 4: 1–9.
Mitchell G, May A, McDonald A. 1995. PICABUE: a methodo-
logical framework for the development of indicators of sustain-
able development. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 2: 104–123.
Moffatt I. 1994. On measuring sustainable development indica-
tors. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 1: 97–109.
Noorbakshs F. 1998. A modified human development index.
World Dev. 26: 517–528.
Rosenström U. 2009. Sustainable development indicators: much
wanted, less used? Monographs of the Boreal Environment
Research, 33.Finland: Finnish Environment Institute.
Schmidt-Bleek F. 1994. Wieviel umwelt braucht der mensch?
MIPS. Das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften. München:
DTV.
SSF1: Calculation methodology [Internet]. 2013. The Hague:
Sustainable Society Foundation [cited 2013 Oct 18]. Available
from: http://www.ssfindex.com/ssi/calculation-methodology/
SSF2: Correlations between the wellbeing dimensions [Internet].
2013. The Hague: Sustainable Society Foundation [cited
2013 Jul 2]. Available from: http://www.ssfindex.com/
wellbeing-dimensions/
SSF3: Data [Internet]. 2013. The Hague: Sustainable Society
Foundation [cited 2013 May 15]. Available from: http://
www.ssfindex.com/data/
Türe C. 2013. A methodology to analyse the relations of ecolo-
gical footprint corresponding with human development
index: eco-sustainable human development index. Int J Sust
Dev World Ecol. 20: 9–19.
Van de Kerk G, Manuel A. 2010. Development towards a sus-
tainable society: the Netherlands 1975–2008. The Hague:
Sustainable Society Foundation. [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct
21]. Available from: http://www.ssfindex.com/cms/wp-con-
tent/uploads/pdf/SSI1975-2008.pdf
van Zeijl-Rozema A, Ferraguto L, Caratti P. 2011. Comparing
region-specific sustainability assessments through indicator
systems: feasible or not? Ecol Econ. 70: 475–486.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 7
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 02:01 20 January 2014
