Abstract
Over the past decades, sustainable development has emerged as one of the most prominent issues at all levels of society, from the global to the local level. To achieve a better balance between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in all countries of the world, starting from underdeveloped countries to developed countries, the right implementation of the sustainable development principles has a strategic significance that shapes the future of the countries. In this respect, measurement of sustainable development performance of countries is necessary in order to apply right sustainable development strategies, track the process, investigate the interactions between sustainability aspects, etc. The main purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate a new approach for measuring sustainable development levels of the countries using a cumulative belief degree approach. The approach enables the use of an incomplete data that is one of the critical problems in measuring sustainability of countries. Twenty-seven indicators for measuring 20 themes are selected based on the recommendations of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and data availability. Finally, the proposed approach is applied to rank 138 countries according to their sustainable development performances based on the most recent data available.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acosta, L. A., Eugenio, E. A., Enano, N. H, Jr., et al. (2014). Sustainability trade-offs in bioenergy development in the Philippines: An application of conjoint analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 64, 20–41. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.015
Adamisin, P., Vavrek, R., & Pukala, R. (2015). Cluster analysis of central and Southeast Europe countries via selected indicators of sustainable development. In SGEM2015 Conference Proceedings (pp. 135–140).
Agenda 21. (1992). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, New York.
Blancard, S., & Hoarau, J.-F. (2013). A new sustainable human development indicator for small island developing states: A reappraisal from data envelopment analysis. Economic Modelling, 30, 623–635. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2012.10.016
Boggia, A., & Cortina, C. (2010). Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2301–2306. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.009
Bolcárová, P., & Kološta, S. (2015). Assessment of sustainable development in the EU 27 using aggregated SD index. Ecological Indicators, 48, 699–705. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.001
Country Sustainability Ranking | RobecoSAM. (2015) .http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-sustainability/country-sustainability-ranking/. Accessed May 4, 2016.
FAO. (2016). Food security indicators. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.Vyk0-nqvjB5. Accessed May 3, 2016.
Frini, A., & BenAmor, S. (2015). A TOPSIS multi-criteria multi-period approach for selecting projects in sustainable development context. In 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) (pp. 1–9).
Golusin, M., & Ivanović, O. M. (2009). Definition, characteristics and state of the indicators of sustainable development in countries of Southeastern Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 130, 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.018
Gustavson, K. R., Lonergan, S. C., & Ruitenbeek, H. J. (1999). Selection and modeling of sustainable development indicators: A case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecological Economics, 28, 117–132. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00032-9
Hao, W., Xiaoling, C., Ying, H., et al. (2006). Modeling indicator systems for evaluating environmental sustainable development based on factor analysis. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 11, 997–1002. doi:10.1007/BF02830200
Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development.
Healy, T. (2001). Health promotion and social capital. Galway: National University of Ireland.
Hsu, A., Rosengarten, C., Schwartz, J. D., & Alexandre, N. (2016). 2016 Environmental performance index. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Iddrisu, I., & Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2015). Sustainable energy development index: A multi-dimensional indicator for measuring sustainable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 513–530. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.032
ILO. (2016). LABORSTA internet: Main statistics (annual)—Hours of work (E). http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/c4e.html. Accessed May 3, 2016.
Ivanovic, O. D. M., Golusin, M. T., Dodic, S. N., & Dodic, J. M. (2009). Perspectives of sustainable development in countries of Southeastern Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 2079–2087. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.03.004
Kabak, Ö., Cinar, D., & Hoge, G. Y. (2013). A cumulative belief degree approach for prioritization of energy sources: Case of Turkey. In F. Cavallaro (Ed.), Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems (pp. 129–151). London: Springer London.
Kabak, O., & Ruan, D. (2011a). A cumulative belief degree-based approach for missing values in nuclear safeguards evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23, 1441–1454. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2010.60
Kabak, Ö., & Ruan, D. (2011b). A comparison study of fuzzy MADM methods in nuclear safeguards evaluation. Journal of Global Optimization, 51, 209–226. doi:10.1007/s10898-010-9601-1
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science.
Lomas, J. (1998). Social capital and health: Implications for public health and epidemiology. Social Science and Medicine, 47, 1181–1188. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00190-7
Meadows, D. H., Club of Rome. (Eds.). (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.
Munda, G. (2005). “Measuring Sustainability”: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 117–134. doi:10.1007/s10668-003-4713-0
Nationen, V. (Ed.). (2015). Work for human development. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.
Nordhaus, W. D., & Tobin, J. (1973). Is growth obsolete? In NBER Chapters (pp. 509–564).
Parris, T. M., & Kates, R. W. (2003). Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 559–586. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551
Riabacke, M., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2012). State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Advances in Decision Sciences, 2012, 1–24. doi:10.1155/2012/276584
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a
Schwab, K., & Sala-i Martín, X. (Eds.). (2015). World economic forum’s global competitiveness report, 2015–2016.
Soubbotina, T. P. (2004). Beyond economic growth: An introduction to sustainable development (2nd ed.). Washington: The World Bank.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
UNECE. (2014). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development. New York: Geneva. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/2013/CES_SD_web.pdf
United Nations. (Ed.). (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies (3rd ed.). New York: United Nations.
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: A bird’s eye view. Sustainability, 3, 1637–1661. doi:10.3390/su3101637
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, BC; Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
World Bank. (2016). World development indicators 2016. http://data.worldbank.org. Accessed May 4, 2016.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (Ed.). (1987). Our common future. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, 183–190. doi:10.1109/21.87068
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Sustainable Development Performance of Countries
Appendix: Sustainable Development Performance of Countries
Rank | Country | Aggregated score (AS) | s3 level (rank) | Rank | Country | Aggregated score (AS) | s3 level (rank) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Norway | 2.754 | 0.619 (2) | 70 | South Africa | 1.523 | 0.136 (83) |
2 | Sweden | 2.702 | 0.65 (1) | 71 | Rwanda | 1.520 | 0.126 (88) |
3 | Finland | 2.642 | 0.607 (3) | 72 | Sri Lanka | 1.514 | 0.118 (93) |
4 | Denmark | 2.416 | 0.489 (4) | 73 | Italy | 1.506 | 0.235 (33) |
5 | Panama | 2.375 | 0.394 (12) | 74 | Bhutan | 1.489 | 0.144 (74) |
6 | Iceland | 2.225 | 0.404 (10) | 75 | Cabo Verde | 1.475 | 0.182 (48) |
7 | Ireland | 2.200 | 0.446 (6) | 76 | Bolivia | 1.475 | 0.132 (85) |
8 | New Zealand | 2.159 | 0.336 (15) | 77 | Ukraine | 1.467 | 0.177 (52) |
9 | Switzerland | 2.146 | 0.429 (8) | 78 | Colombia | 1.456 | 0.148 (67) |
10 | United Kingdom | 2.134 | 0.42 (9) | 79 | Namibia | 1.453 | 0.098 (118) |
11 | Costa Rica | 2.130 | 0.267 (24) | 80 | Bulgaria | 1.427 | 0.121 (91) |
12 | Luxembourg | 2.094 | 0.472 (5) | 81 | Dominican Republic | 1.419 | 0.099 (117) |
13 | Austria | 2.081 | 0.4 (11) | 82 | Zambia | 1.419 | 0.056 (138) |
14 | Chile | 2.064 | 0.263 (26) | 83 | Indonesia | 1.416 | 0.159 (59) |
15 | Trinidad and Tobago | 2.053 | 0.275 (23) | 84 | Iran, Islamic Rep. | 1.415 | 0.144 (73) |
16 | Netherlands | 2.043 | 0.433 (7) | 85 | Nepal | 1.414 | 0.13 (87) |
17 | Estonia | 2.004 | 0.304 (21) | 86 | Morocco | 1.410 | 0.116 (96) |
18 | Malta | 1.984 | 0.333 (16) | 87 | Cambodia | 1.409 | 0.133 (84) |
19 | Australia | 1.967 | 0.325 (18) | 88 | Peru | 1.398 | 0.15 (64) |
20 | Mongolia | 1.950 | 0.194 (43) | 89 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1.397 | 0.103 (109) |
21 | Canada | 1.950 | 0.264 (25) | 90 | Kuwait | 1.392 | 0.17 (53) |
22 | Uruguay | 1.938 | 0.241 (31) | 91 | Cameroon | 1.381 | 0.146 (70) |
23 | Malaysia | 1.937 | 0.243 (30) | 92 | Macedonia, FYR | 1.378 | 0.102 (113) |
24 | Singapore | 1.934 | 0.321 (19) | 93 | Uganda | 1.372 | 0.1 (116) |
25 | Mauritius | 1.932 | 0.166 (58) | 94 | Senegal | 1.367 | 0.103 (111) |
26 | Oman | 1.931 | 0.298 (22) | 95 | Algeria | 1.366 | 0.19 (46) |
27 | United Arab Emirates | 1.927 | 0.34 (14) | 96 | Vietnam | 1.361 | 0.122 (90) |
28 | Belgium | 1.894 | 0.329 (17) | 97 | Gabon | 1.333 | 0.104 (107) |
29 | France | 1.884 | 0.259 (27) | 98 | Malawi | 1.331 | 0.138 (80) |
30 | Germany | 1.868 | 0.356 (13) | 99 | Lebanon | 1.330 | 0.149 (66) |
31 | Mexico | 1.866 | 0.137 (82) | 100 | El Salvador | 1.326 | 0.117 (94) |
32 | Israel | 1.858 | 0.315 (20) | 101 | United States | 1.308 | 0.182 (49) |
33 | Latvia | 1.835 | 0.183 (47) | 102 | Tunisia | 1.306 | 0.121 (92) |
34 | Nicaragua | 1.825 | 0.191 (44) | 103 | Serbia | 1.303 | 0.091 (123) |
35 | Kazakhstan | 1.803 | 0.238 (32) | 104 | Liberia | 1.301 | 0.104 (108) |
36 | Czech Republic | 1.793 | 0.232 (34) | 105 | Paraguay | 1.281 | 0.153 (62) |
37 | Philippines | 1.768 | 0.124 (89) | 106 | Armenia | 1.251 | 0.107 (103) |
38 | Guyana | 1.768 | 0.117 (95) | 107 | India | 1.248 | 0.06 (136) |
39 | Argentina | 1.733 | 0.243 (29) | 108 | Georgia | 1.246 | 0.107 (102) |
40 | Slovenia | 1.716 | 0.205 (38) | 109 | Tanzania | 1.240 | 0.076 (130) |
41 | Lithuania | 1.712 | 0.166 (57) | 110 | Moldova | 1.234 | 0.111 (101) |
42 | Korea, Rep. | 1.694 | 0.217 (36) | 111 | Ethiopia | 1.211 | 0.111 (100) |
43 | Jordan | 1.678 | 0.168 (54) | 112 | Albania | 1.196 | 0.057 (137) |
44 | Portugal | 1.663 | 0.145 (71) | 113 | Gambia, The | 1.195 | 0.114 (97) |
45 | Turkey | 1.662 | 0.19 (45) | 114 | Myanmar | 1.185 | 0.167 (56) |
46 | Russian Fed. | 1.649 | 0.142 (77) | 115 | Pakistan | 1.178 | 0.061 (135) |
47 | Honduras | 1.641 | 0.196 (42) | 116 | Madagascar | 1.172 | 0.09 (125) |
48 | Thailand | 1.640 | 0.139 (79) | 117 | Burkina Faso | 1.147 | 0.106 (104) |
49 | Japan | 1.623 | 0.251 (28) | 118 | Azerbaijan | 1.146 | 0.102 (112) |
50 | Slovak Republic | 1.622 | 0.15 (65) | 119 | Benin | 1.136 | 0.094 (119) |
51 | Spain | 1.619 | 0.2 (40) | 120 | Kyrgyz Rep. | 1.115 | 0.103 (110) |
52 | Montenegro | 1.609 | 0.142 (76) | 121 | Bangladesh | 1.096 | 0.102 (114) |
53 | Lao PDR | 1.605 | 0.151 (63) | 122 | Yemen, Rep. | 1.089 | 0.086 (127) |
54 | Saudi Arabia | 1.602 | 0.168 (55) | 123 | Zimbabwe | 1.086 | 0.101 (115) |
55 | Cyprus | 1.596 | 0.229 (35) | 124 | Mali | 1.075 | 0.106 (105) |
56 | Brazil | 1.593 | 0.177 (51) | 125 | Mozambique | 1.044 | 0.089 (126) |
57 | Jamaica | 1.588 | 0.143 (75) | 126 | Lesotho | 1.039 | 0.091 (124) |
58 | Venezuela, RB | 1.577 | 0.156 (60) | 127 | Greece | 1.018 | 0.113 (98) |
59 | Ecuador | 1.576 | 0.137 (81) | 128 | Swaziland | 1.007 | 0.093 (120) |
60 | Guatemala | 1.573 | 0.208 (37) | 129 | Guinea | 1.006 | 0.105 (106) |
61 | Suriname | 1.571 | 0.132 (86) | 130 | Cote d’Ivoire | 0.997 | 0.079 (128) |
62 | Ghana | 1.562 | 0.146 (68) | 131 | Nigeria | 0.946 | 0.091 (122) |
63 | Kenya | 1.549 | 0.092 (121) | 132 | Egypt | 0.921 | 0.063 (133) |
64 | Poland | 1.542 | 0.2 (41) | 133 | Burundi | 0.904 | 0.112 (99) |
65 | China | 1.539 | 0.204 (39) | 134 | Sierra Leone | 0.870 | 0.144 (72) |
66 | Hungary | 1.537 | 0.155 (61) | 135 | Angola | 0.796 | 0.077 (129) |
67 | Romania | 1.536 | 0.182 (50) | 136 | Chad | 0.772 | 0.068 (132) |
68 | Croatia | 1.527 | 0.146 (69) | 137 | Haiti | 0.756 | 0.07 (131) |
69 | Botswana | 1.524 | 0.142 (78) | 138 | Mauritania | 0.691 | 0.061 (134) |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ünlüçay, H., Ervural, B.Ç., Ervural, B., Kabak, Ö. (2017). Cumulative Belief Degrees Approach for Assessment of Sustainable Development. In: Kahraman, C., Sari, İ. (eds) Intelligence Systems in Environmental Management: Theory and Applications. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 113. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42993-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42993-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42992-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42993-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)