Search

The article devoted to analysis of sustainable development indicators (SDI) evolution and peculiarities of designing the set of SDI for Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and other countries. The paper provides an overview of evolution and application experience of sustainability measuring practice. Researchers analyze the directions of measurement approach progress. Modern trends of indicators' using are explored. Ways of overcoming the lack of harmonization in variety of conceptual and organizational frameworks which are used by different countries are viewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both the potential pitfalls of macro-economic policies focused on stimulating economic growth and the problems involved in using GDP as a measure of well-being or economic welfare have long been recognized by economists and researchers from other social sciences. Therefore, it is no surprise that alternative measures for policy-making have been developed and promoted since the early 1970s. Over the past 5 years, the development of these measures has gained momentum both politically and academically. However, most research efforts concentrate on the development and promotion of individual indicators, while paying less attention to the wide range of indicators already available and to theoretical insights. As a result, few classification schemes of alternative measures exist today to help policy-makers in selecting a proper set of indicators. This paper first looks into the different classification schemes available in the literature and outlines the weaknesses in each of these. Afterwards, an alternative classification scheme is introduced that draws on the notions of well-being, economic welfare and sustainability. A further sub-categorization is built on the different approaches that are used to quantitatively capture the notions. By focusing on the underlying concepts that the different measures aim to quantify, the alternative classification scheme overcomes the drawbacks of the existing schemes. Finally, 23 alternative measures for policy-making are reviewed and organized into the newly developed classification scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Revisiting the way society defines and measures progress has been identified as one of the key levers in tackling the root causes of unsustainable development. The recent economic and food crises exposed a critical weakness in the ability of currently mainstream indicators of progress to provide early warning and take adequate preventive action. Since the early 1990s a growing number of organizations have been involved in the development of indicator systems around the key socio-economic and environmental concerns of sustainable development within their own context. In order to provide guidance and promote best practice, in 1997 a global group of leading measurement and assessment experts developed the Bellagio Principles. The Bellagio Principles have become a widely quoted reference point for measuring sustainable development, but new developments in policy, science, civil society and technology have made their update necessary. The Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (BellagioSTAMP) have been developed through a similar expert group process, using the original Principles as a starting point. Intended to be used as a complete set, the new BellagioSTAMP includes eight principles: (1) Guiding vision; (2) Essential considerations; (3) Adequate scope; (4) Framework and indicators; (5) Transparency; (6) Effective communications; (7) Broad participation; and (8) Continuity and capacity. The paper provides the rationale for the revision of the principles, their detailed description and guidance for their application. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The paper builds up from a review of some expected, but other quite surprising results regarding country estimates for the year 2000 of genuine saving, a sustainability indicator developed by a World Bank research team. We examine this indicator, founded on neoclassical welfare theory, and discuss one of its major problems. Theoretical developments from ecological economics are then considered, together with insights from Georgescu-Roegen's approach to the production process, in search for an alternative approach. A model with potentially fruitful contributions in this direction is reviewed; it points the course efforts could take enable sustainability evaluations based on a more realistic set of interrelated monetary and biophysical indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]