Sustainable development--do the numbers add up? Peter Jones, Daphne Comfort and David Hillier...

THE SEEMINGLY all-pervasive political consensus on the importance of sustainable development is not matched by agreement about how to define the concept. This 'persistent definitional ambiguity' (1) generates major challenges for the measurement of sustainable development. Nevertheless, one of the

The publication by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of a 'booklet' entitled Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket 2006 (3) in July 2006 offers an opportunity to review progress in seeking to 'deliver a better quality of life through sustainable development', (2) and to discuss some of the issues raised by the use of sustainable development indicators.

Indicators

The Government indicators cover a wide range of environmental, economic and social issues, embracing greenhouse gas emissions; electricity generation; carbon dioxide and other emissions; resource use; waste; natural resources; society; employment and poverty; education; health; mobility and access; social justice/environmental equality; UK international assistance; and well-being; as well as a number of measures of economic growth, productivity, investment, demography and households and dwellings.

These indicators 'are first and foremost intended to communicate and highlight progress in key issues for sustainable development', and are meant 'to help to identify where action is required'. The booklet targets two sets of audiences, in that it looks to 'be a useful and accessible reference for experts' and aims 'to help illustrate the breadth and challenges of sustainable development to those less familiar with the concept'.

While the Government's original commitment was to report on 68 indicators, there is some variation within the booklet concerning the number of indicators. A number of the 68 are made up from more than one 'indicator measure', and in total some 127 such measures are employed. At the same time the booklet also reports on 20 'UK framework indicators' (for example, greenhouse gas emissions, fish stock sustainability, employment, workless households, and walking and cycling) which are seen to cover key impacts and outcomes. The majority of the data used to compile the various indicators have been drawn from Government sources, and while the data and information on sources are publicly available there is little explicit mention of any independent data auditing.

In presenting the various indicators, the accent is upon change over time, but there is some variation in the time series. The principal focus is on using 1990 and 1999 as base years and comparing each of the indicators with the most recent data, which, in turn, varies in origination from 2001 to 2005. However, a three-year average constructed around the chosen baseline years has been employed in an attempt to reduce the possible impact of a single year that may be unrepresentative of a more general trend. Some of the indicator data are for the earliest available year after 1990, a small minority date back to the 1970s, in at least one case data are projected forward to 2010, and in some cases there is insufficient (or insufficiently comparable) data to allow changes to be charted through time.

There is also variation in the geographical coverage of the indicators, and while the aim was to include all the UK, some of the indicator data are restricted to England, some to England and Wales, and some England, Wales and Scotland.

Finally, the booklet also reports that a number of Government departments are also currently working on the definition of a number of additional data indicators--for example, covering well-being, social justice and environmental equality.

The booklet aims to simplify the reading of changes in the indicator data over time by using a system of 'traffic lights', in which green indicates 'clear improvement', amber suggests 'little or no change' (and is used when the indicator data have changed by less than 3 per cent) and red indicates 'clear deterioration'--while white indicates 'insufficient or no comparable data'. Changes in each of the 68 headline indicators are presented in a graphical format, along with the traffic light assessments and some brief narrative commentary.

Patterns of change

Before presenting the data for each of the 68 indicators the booklet provides a review of changes in the 'four priority areas'--namely sustainable consumption and production; climate change and energy; protecting our natural resources; and creating sustainable communities and a fairer world. These changes are summarised in Table 1 above, which gives the number of indicators that show improvement, deterioration, little of no change of insufficient data since 1990 and 1999 for each priority area. A number of the data indicators contribute to the assessments of more than one of the priority areas.

The 30 indicators for sustainable consumption and production include emissions, resource use and waste. Here, the overall picture appears quite positive, with 60 per cent of the measures showing improvement since 1999. The messages about the protection of natural resources and the enhancement of the environment and about the creation of sustainable communities and a fairer world are also generally positive. In the former, 15 of the 24 indicator measures show improvement since 1999 and only one shows deterioration; and in the latter the corresponding figures are 26 (of 52) and seven. The summary for climate change is much less positive, with 50 per cent of the measures revealing a deterioration since 1999.

The data for each of the 68 individual indicators provide a complex and varied message, and a few selected examples provide some illustration of this variation. While the traffic lights indicate little change in the emission of greenhouse gases since 1999, the picture on carbon dioxide emissions is much less positive. Here, the indicator data for both domestic and transport sources have shown a deterioration since 1999, although emissions from the industrial, service and public sectors have declined fairly consistently since 1990. At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled between 1990 and 2004.

The picture on electricity generation is varied, in that while the contribution that renewable electricity generation makes to total electricity generation has increased steadily, it still accounts for less than 5 per cent of total output; and since 1999 the indicator data for the percentage of electricity generated from fossil fuels and for emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides have shown a deterioration. While the indicator data for the areas of sensitive habitats affected by nitrogen showed a deterioration between 1999 and 2005, there was an improvement in the areas affected by acidity during the same period.

On resource use, 'domestic material consumption', defined as 'the total mass of materials directly consumed by the economy', showed little change between 1990 and 2005, despite a 40 per cent increase in GDP during the same period, but the indicator data on household wastes arising have shown a deterioration. In a similar vein, while UK construction output rose by some 20 per cent between 1999 and 2004, stone, sand and gravel extraction declined by 23 per cent. At the same time, while the traffic lights show little change in both total water abstractions and domestic water consumption since 1999, there is a deterioration in the indicator data for water leakages over the same period.

Additionally the traffic lights show an improvement in the length of rivers of good biological and chemical quality during the period 1990-2004, while there is insufficient data to judge changes in the number of properties at risk of flooding.

More positively, within the agricultural sector fertiliser input declined and the amount of farming land covered by environmental stewardship schemes increased during the period 1999-2005.

There are also marked variations in the messages conveyed by the socio-economic data indicators. In presenting the indicator data for 'society', for example, the traffic lights for active community participation, crimes against vehicles and burglary and the fear of crime all show an improvement, but there has been an increase in robberies. Similarly, the traffic lights for 'employment and poverty'--which, for example, includes employment, workless households, people who are economically inactive, childhood poverty and pensioner poverty--generally show either an improvement or little change. On health, the data indicators for death rates from circulatory diseases and cancer showed an improvement, but corresponding indicators for infant mortality differences between social groups and for childhood obesity showed deterioration.

The traffic lights indicate that personal mobility remains dominated by the use of private motor vehicles, and the average number and the percentage of trips people make by cycling and/or walking declined between 1990 and 2004.

By way of an overall summary, the booklet reports that 53 of the 101 indicator measures show an improvement since 1999, 24 show little or no change, and 17 show a deterioration, with insufficient data being available for a further seven. While it may be desirable to use the indicator data and measures to gain an overall impression of the progress in attaining the Government's sustainable development goals, it is deemed "not practicable or meaningful to combine all disparate indicator measures into a single index of sustainable development', for it is argued that "aside from the technical difficulties involved, some of the indicator measures are more important or challenging than others and key messages would be lost'.

Capturing the complexity?

Sustainable Development in Your Pocket 2006 certainly provides a wealth of information on many, but certainly not all, of the components frequently associated with sustainable development, and a number of issues merit discussion.

One of the primary aims in publishing the booklet is to communicate progress in moving towards the goal of sustainable development. Broadly, this goal might, in the words of the Prime Minister, be seen as 'a future that is fairer, where we can all live within our environmental limits'. (2) More specifically, the goal could be seen as focused around the four priority areas of sustainable production and consumption; climate change and energy; the protection of natural resources; and the creation of sustainable communities and a fairer world. Taken at face value the indicator data provide a mixed picture, but as the indicators showing improvement outnumber those showing deterioration by roughly 3:1 it might be reasonable to conclude that the UK is making some progress.

However, such a positive reading begs the question of how well the indicator data capture and operationalise either the UK Government's overall concept of sustainable development or the four key priority areas. The current set of indicators is the third to be developed in the UK since 1994, and while they are now seen as 'core components of the overall policy approach', (4) there are dangers that they report what is currently measured and measurable rather than what is important and scientifically and socially relevant in capturing the complexities of sustainable development.

The individual indicators embrace a diverse and disparate set of environmental, economic and social phenomena, and while they do reflect the UK Government's approach to sustainable development, the sheer number of indicators clouds rather than clarifies the picture. Moreover, none of the indicators is given preferential status or accorded priority, and thus the factors that they seek to measure might each be seen as making an equal contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. It might be argued, for example, that ultimately it is the earth's finite resource base that provides both the raw materials and the living envelope for all economic and social activities and that this, in turn, might suggest the need to privilege environmental over economic and social factors.

Furthermore, the use of individual indicators might not capture the complex interactions within environmental ecosystems and between these systems and human activity systems. However, there is, of course, no universally agreed ideal set of indicators.

Aggregating data indicators in an attempt to measure progress in each of the four priority areas might also result in a lack of clarity in identifying the core issues. For example, the overall summary for sustainable production and consumption clearly suggests that progress is being made, in that 18 of the 30 wide-ranging indicator measures (which include economic growth, greenhouse gas emissions, domestic material consumption, sand and gravel extraction, river quality, water resource use, fish stocks and single-person households) for this priority area show improvement since 1999 and only six show a deterioration. However, such a suggestion would seem to be at odds with recently reported findings from The Open University and the New Economics Foundation (5) which suggest that the UK's ecological footprint has risen steadily from 1961 through to 2006.

While the primary purpose in publishing the indicator data booklet is to communicate progress on sustainable development, more generally such measures have also been linked to decision-making and management and policy development. (1) Pinter, Hardi and Bartelmus, (6) for example, have argued that the widespread dissemination of indicator data should 'raise the profile of priority policy issues', but that in the UK they are seen to have been 'less successful ... in directly driving policy development'. (4) At present the indicators clearly have an important role to play in policy monitoring, (2) but Hall (4) has expressed doubts about whether the indicators can be integrated into policy, about whether too much is expected of them beyond their basic communication role, and about whether the indicators are sufficiently detailed to be directly related to policy-making.

A clear picture?

Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket charts the changes that have occurred in a wide range of indicators seen as linked to the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy. Its publication (and its availability on the internet) makes some interesting and thought-provoking information available to a potentially large and diverse audience, and it could play an important role in raising awareness about environmental, economic and social change. At the same time, the large number of indicators included makes it difficult to gain a clear picture of how well the UK is moving towards sustainable development goals, and there is little indication of how--if at all--the indicators are contributing to policy formation and development.

Peter Jones and Daphne Comfort work in the Business School at the University of Gloucestershire, and David Hillier is Head of Geography at the University of Glamorgan.

Notes

(1) T.M. Parris and R.W. Kates: 'Characterising and measuring sustainable development'. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 2003, Vol. 28, pp.521-558

(2) Securing the Future. The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy. Cm 6467. HM Government. TSO, London, 2005. Available online at http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ publications/uk-strategy/index.htm

(3) Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket 2006. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 2006. Available online at http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk/progress/ indicators/documents/sdiyp2006_a6.ppdf

(4) S. Hall: Indicators of Sustainable Development in the UK. Paper prepared for the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, New York, USA, 13-15 Dec. 2005. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 2005. Available online at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/egmIndicators/crp8.pdf

(5) The UK Interdependence Report. The Open University and New Economics Foundation, 2006. Available online at http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/ f2abwpumbrlwp055y2110s5514042006174517.pdf

(6) L. Pinter, P. Hardi and P. Bartelmus: Sustainable Development Indicators: Proposals for a Way Forward. Paper prepared for the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development Expert Group Meeting on Indicators of Sustainable Development, New York, USA, 13-15 Dec. 2005. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada, 2005. Available online at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/measure_indicators_sd_way_forward.pdf

Table 1 Changes in priority area indicators since 1990 and 1999

                                             Since 1990

                                     Improvements     Deterioration

Sustainable consumption and               20                6
  production
Climate change and energy                  8                5
Protecting our natural resources          12                1
  and enhancing the environment
Creating sustainable communities          18                7
  and a fairer world

                                      Little or       Insufficient
                                      no change           data

Sustainable consumption and               1                 3
  production
Climate change and energy                 1                 0
Protecting our natural resources          3                 8
  and enhancing the environment
Creating sustainable communities          5                22
  and a fairer world

                                             Since 1999

                                     Improvements     Deterioration

Sustainable consumption and               18                6
  production
Climate change and energy                 7                 7
Protecting our natural resources          15                1
  and enhancing the environment
Creating sustainable communities          26                7
  and a fairer world

                                      Little or       Insufficient
                                      no change           data

Sustainable consumption and                5                1
  production
Climate change and energy                  0                0
Protecting our natural resources           4                4
  and enhancing the environment
Creating sustainable communities          15                4
  and a fairer world