Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited
Erling Holden
a,*, Kristin Linnerud
b, David Banister
caDepartmentofCivilandTransportEngineering,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,7491Trondheim,Norway
bCICERO,CenterforInternationalClimateandEnvironmentalResearch–Oslo,0318Oslo,Norway
cTransportStudiesUnit,SchoolofGeographyandtheEnvironment,OxfordUniversity,SouthParksRoad,OxfordOX13QY,England,UnitedKingdom
1. Introduction
‘‘AnythingonwhichJohnMajor,GeorgeBushandFidelCastro allagreecan’treallymeananything,canit?’’
Whitelegg(1997,p.101) Sustainabledevelopmentisincreasinglybeingpresentedasa pathwaytoallthatisgoodanddesirableinsociety.Someofthe proposednationalindicatorsofsustainabledevelopmentfromthe United States, the United Kingdom, and Finland illustrate this point.Theyincludesuchfactorsascrimerate;participationof14- year-olds in social organizational work; teacher capabilities;
workforceskilllevel;thenumberof19-year-oldsintheUKwith Level 2 qualifications, classes taught in a minority language, children in public care, daily smokers, and internet users;the mannerinwhichchildrengettoschool;obesityrates;andR&D expenditures(Banister,2008;Holden,2007;HoldenandLinnerud, 2007).Andthelistgrowslongeryearly.
Thus, the sustainable development concept has become so comprehensiveandcomplexthatitisnolongerusefulinguiding policymaking.Notsurprisingly,anumberofscholarshaveargued
thatthesustainabledevelopmentconceptisindangerofbecoming irrelevant(e.g.,Hopwoodetal.,2005;Redclift,2005).
Even though there is not yet any political or scientific agreementonadefinitionofsustainabledevelopment,itremains remarkably persistent as an ideal political concept, similar to democracy, justice, and liberty (Meadowcroft, 2007). Indeed, sustainabledevelopment‘‘isnowlike‘democracy’:itisuniversally desired,diverselyunderstood,extremelydifficulttoachieve,and won’tgoaway’’(Lafferty,2004,p.26).
Unquestionably,sustainabledevelopmentstillisanimportant concept, which was clearly illustrated at the United Nations ConferenceonSustainableDevelopment(Rio+20),heldinRiode JaneiroinJune2012.Oneoftheconference’smainoutcomeswas theagreementbymemberstatestosetupsustainabledevelop- mentgoals,whichcouldbeusefultoolsinachievingsustainable development. Thus, achieving sustainable development is still highontheinternationalandnationalagendas25yearafterthe concept was launched with the publication of Our Common Future,commonlyreferredtoastheBrundtlandReport(WCED, 1987).
However,tobecomeausefultool,theconceptmustbeclearly defined.Thisarticleattemptstodosobygoingbacktoitsorigin, theBrundtlandReport. Wesuggest anassessment methodthat involvesfourequallyimportantprimarydimensionsmentionedin theBrundtland Report,and thendefine suitable indicators and assignminimum/maximumthresholdsforeachindicator.
GlobalEnvironmentalChange26(2014)130–139
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received22April2013
Receivedinrevisedform1March2014 Accepted8April2014
Availableonline14May2014
Keywords:
Sustainabledevelopment Humandevelopment Ecologicalfootprint Equity
Renewableenergy
ABSTRACT
Nocleardefinitionofsustainabledevelopmentexiststoguidepoliticiansinsolvingchallengesatthe globalorregionallevels.Rather,theconcept’susehasincreasinglyreflectedsociallydesirableattributes ofsolutionstolocal-andproject-levelproblems,buttheseignoretheglobalchallengesthattheconcept wasmeanttoaddress.Wereturntotheoriginaldefinitionofsustainabledevelopmentusedinthe BrundtlandReportandsuggestanassessmentmethodtodeterminewhethercountriescurrentlymeet thethresholdvaluesoffourequallyimportantprimarydimensions:safeguardinglong-termecological sustainability,satisfyingbasicneeds,andpromotingintragenerationalandintergenerationalequity.We alsodefineindicatorsandthresholdvaluesforeachofthesedimensions;inaddition,weshowhow167 countriescompareinmeetingthesethresholdvalues.Currently,nocountrymeetsallfourthresholds.
Evenso,weproposethat,withtheuseoftechnologyandbehaviouralchanges,itwillbepossibletoreach thethresholdvaluesby2030.
ß2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
* Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+4773595000.
E-mailaddresses:erling.holden@ntnu.no(E.Holden),
kristin.linnerud@cicero.uio.no(K.Linnerud),david.banister@ouce.ox.ac.uk (D.Banister).
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Global Environmental Change
j ou rna l hom e pa ge : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c om/ l o ca t e / gl oe n v cha
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006
0959-3780/ß2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Some scholars argue that there is a difference between
‘‘sustainabledevelopment’’and‘‘sustainability’’,forexample:that sustainabilityreferstotheenvironmentaldimensionofsustain- able development, or that sustainability refers to a process whereas sustainable development refers to the product (end state).Tousthetwoconceptsentailthesamedimensionsandthe samepolicyimplications.Thus,weusetheminterchangeably.
2. Sustainabledevelopment’sprimarydimensions
FourprimarydimensionshavebeenderivedfromtheBrundt- land Report: safeguarding long-term ecological sustainability, satisfying basic humanneeds, and promotingintragenerational and intergenerational equity. These dimensions are what Daly (2007)referstoas‘‘fundamentalobjectivevalues,notsubjective individualpreferences.’’Thus,theyarenotnegotiable.
Inadditiontotheprimarydimensions,Høyer(2000)presentsa number of secondary dimensions, which include preserving nature’sintrinsicvalue,promotingprotectionoftheenvironment, promotingpublicparticipation,andsatisfyingaspirationsforan improvedstandard ofliving(orqualityoflife).Thesesecondary dimensions are subordinate to the primary dimensions. Thus, preservingnature’sintrinsicvalue(asecondarydimension)must givewaywheneverbasichumanneeds(aprimarydimension)are threatened.Correspondingly,satisfyingaspirationsforabetterlife (a secondarydimension)shouldbesubordinatetosafeguarding long-termecologicalsustainability(aprimarydimension).
Followingthislogic,wecontendthateconomicgrowthisnot oneoftheprimarydimensionsofsustainabledevelopment.This argumentrunscontrarytothepopular‘‘triplebottomline’’model focusing on the balance between environmental, social, and economic issues (Elkington, 1997, 2004; see also Holden, 2007:11),a modelthatpresentlydominates thepoliticaland to someextenttheacademicdebateonsustainabledevelopmentUN, 2012;Rogersetal.,2008).However,aspiringforeconomicgrowth maybeequivalenttoaspiringforanimprovedstandardofliving farbeyondwhatcanbeconsideredecologicallysustainableinthe long term. The Brundtland Report claims that: ‘‘Sustainable development clearly requireseconomicgrowthinplaceswhere such [human] needs are not being met. Elsewhere, it can be consistentwitheconomicgrowth,providedthecontentofgrowth reflectsthebroadprinciplesofsustainabilityandnon-exploitation ofothers.Butgrowthbyitselfisnotenough’’(WCED,1987,p.44).
Thus,weargue,economicgrowthisapotentialmeanstofacilitate thefulfilmentofthefourprimarydimensionsandnotaprimary dimensioninitsownright(WCED,1987;Daly,2007;OECD,2002).
Anotherpossiblycontroversialaspectofourargumentisthat ourfourprimarydimensionsdonotincludetheparticipationofor acceptancebystakeholders(thoughweregarditasasecondary dimension).Thisargumentrunscontrarytoanumberofrecent studies,whichconsiderparticipationandacceptanceascrucialto achieving sustainability (Amekudzi et al., 2009; Castillo and Pitfield, 2010; Shiftan et al., 2003). Although we agree that stakeholder participation and acceptance are vital to ensure efficientimplementationofsustainablepoliciesandmeasures,we disagreethatthechoiceofsustainabledimensions,indicators,and thresholdvaluesshouldbewhateveragroupoflocalstakeholders choosestoagreeupon.Ofcourse,theremustbeglobalagreement, andourbasisforthisagreementistheBrundtlandReportandthe extensivedebatesthathavetakenplaceaspartofthesubsequent UNprocesses(Biermannetal.,2012).
Finally,bysettingexplicitminimumandmaximumthreshold values,ourapproachrunscontrarytothosefocusingonrelative changes. For example, suggesting that sustainability can be achievedbydemonstratingapositive‘‘rateofchange’’(Amekudzi etal.,2009)foracountryorregionisnotsatisfactory.Changingan
unsustainablestatetoalessunsustainablestateisgood,butthe resultcannotbeconsideredsustainable.
2.1. PrimaryDimensionNo.1:safeguardinglong-termecological sustainability
Theterm‘‘sustainability’’hasitsorigininecologicalscience.It wasdevelopedtoexpresstheconditionsthatmustbepresentfor the ecosystem to sustain itself over the long term. In the BrundtlandReport,thereareseveralreferencestothenecessity ofecologicalsustainability,suchas:‘‘Ataminimum,sustainable developmentmustnotendangerthenaturalsystemsthatsupport lifeonEarth:theatmosphere,thewaters,thesoils,andtheliving beings’’(WCED,1987,p.44),and‘‘Thereisstilltimetosavespecies and their ecosystems. It is an indispensable prerequisite for sustainabledevelopment.Ourfailuretodosowillnotbeforgiven byfuturegenerations’’(WCED,1987,p.166).
TheBrundtlandReportgivestworeasonsforsettingminimum requirementsforecologicalsustainability.First,ifbasichuman needsaretobemetonasustainablebasis,theEarth’snaturalbase must be conserved. Human development tends to damage ecosystems, whichreduces thenumber of species.The loss of plantandanimalspeciescangreatlylimittheoptionsoffuture generations. Therefore, the Brundtland Report argued that
‘‘sustainable development requires the conservation of plant and animal species’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 46). Second, the report arguedthat‘‘thecasefortheconservationofnatureshouldnot rest only with the development goals. Itis part of our moral obligationtootherlivingbeingsandfuturegenerations’’(WCED, 1987,p.57).
2.2. PrimaryDimensionNo.2:satisfyingbasichumanneeds Satisfyingbasichumanneedsisatthecoreofthedevelopment partofsustainabledevelopment.Indeed,theconceptofneedis embedded in the definition of sustainable development: ‘‘It [sustainabledevelopment] contains [...]theconceptof ‘needs,’
in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priorityshouldbegiven’’(WCED,1987,p. 43).Thus, satisfyingbasichumanneedsandassuring long-termecological sustainabilityconstitutenecessarypreconditionsforsustainable development.
The Brundtland Report mentionsemployment, food, energy, housing,watersupply,sanitation,andhealthcareasbasichuman needs. The Brundtland Reportdoes not,however, refer only to basicneeds.Peopleare,accordingtothereport,entitledtoaspireto morethanjustcoveringtheirbasicneeds:‘‘Sustainabledevelop- mentrequiresmeetingthebasicneedsofallandextendingtoall theopportunitytosatisfytheiraspirationsforabetterlife’’(WCED, 1987,p.44).
TheBrundtlandReportarguesthatlivingstandardsthatprovide formorethanbasicneedscanbesustainable,butonlyifsuchliving standards assure long-term ecological sustainability. Thus, not everyaspirationfor abetterlife iscompatible withthegoalof sustainabledevelopment.Accordingly,theaspirationforabetter lifeisdefinedasasecondarydimension,whereassatisfyingbasic humanneedsisdefinedasaprimarydimension.
2.3. PrimaryDimensionNos.3and4:promotinginter-and intragenerationalequity
TheminimumrequirementtoconservetheEarth’secosystems hasledseveralauthorstoconcludethattheconceptofsustainable development shouldbeunderstoodaspertaining exclusivelyto physical sustainability(Wetlesen,1999). Laffertyand Langhelle (1999),however,claimthattheBrundtlandReportdismissessuch
aconclusion.Theybasetheirclaimonapassageinthereportthat statesthatevenphysicalsustainability‘‘cannotbesecuredunless development policies pay attention to such considerations as changesinaccesstoresourcesandinthedistributionofcostsand burdens’’(WCED,1987,p.43).
Hence, in the opinion of Lafferty and Langhelle, even the narrowestdefinitionofphysicalsustainability–astheminimum requirement for a sustainable development – must take into accountsocialequity,whichimpliesthatthepresentgeneration mustmeetitsneedswithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuture generationstomeettheirs.TheBrundtandReportputsitthisway:
‘‘We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generationsdonotvote;theyhavenopoliticalorfinancialpower;
theycannotchallengeourdecisions’’(WCED,1987,p.8).
Furthermore,theBrundtlandReportclaimsthatsocialequity betweengenerations‘‘mustlogicallybeextendedtoequitywithin each generation’’ (WCED, 1987, p. 43, ouritalics). Thus, social equity as anintegral partof sustainable development has two dimensions,timeandspace(LaffertyandLanghelle,1999).From thisperspective,sustainabledevelopment hasconsequences for equity within and between generations both globally and nationally.
2.4. Broadandnarrowsustainability
Towhatextentisthereahierarchyoftheprimarydimensions andwhatarewetodoifconflictsarisebetweenthem?Likeseveral authors, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss interprets the concept of sustainable development in the following way:
‘‘developmentis notsustainableifit isnotecologicallysustain- able’’(Næss,1991,p.37).Thisapproach,whichalsowasdominant in the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980), places great emphasis on long-term ecological sustainability, and is often referred to as ‘‘narrowsustainability.’’ The World Conservation Strategycoinedtheterm‘‘sustainability’’in1980.Butitwasonly withthe publicationof Our CommonFuture(WCED, 1987)that sustainability, coupled to the notion of development, become knownassustainabledevelopment.
TheBrundtlandReportidentifiesamuchbroaderspectrumof issues to be covered by sustainable development, including political,social,economic,andculturalissues.Thus,sustainability includes more than environmental sustainability, and this approachisthereforeoftencalled‘‘broadsustainability.’’
AsLaffertyandLanghelle(1999)pointout,noneoftheabove definitionssaysanythingabouthowpossibleconflictsbetweenthe goals should be resolved. Consequently, there is no hierarchy among theprimary dimensions. In fact, theyargue that thisis exactlytheintentionoftheBrundtlandReport:‘‘Developmentis only sustainable when it takes into consideration both human needs and long-term ecological sustainability. The point then becomesspecificallyoneofnotestablishingahierarchyofvalues betweenthetwodimensions[thatis,ourfourdimensions],butone of excluding development paths which do not take both into consideration’’(LaffertyandLanghelle,1999,p.13).Thisisinline with ourunderstandingof the conceptof sustainable develop- ment.
2.5. Strongvs.weaksustainability
In1991,Victor(1991)remarkedthatoneofthecontributions thateconomistshavemadetothesustainabledevelopmentdebate hasbeentheideathatthedepletionofenvironmentalresourcesin thepursuitofeconomicgrowthissimilartolivingoffcapitalrather than profit. Victor defines sustainable development as the maximum development that can be achieved without running downthecapitalassetsofanation,whichareitsresourcebase.
Included in the resource base are man-made capital, natural capital,humancapital,andmoralandculturalcapital.Thereare, however, differing views regarding the relation between these typesofcapital(Neumayer,2013).Turner(1993)arguesthatthe spectrumofviewsrangesfrom‘‘veryweaksustainability’’to‘‘very strongsustainability.’’Turnertracesthesetwoopposingpositions tothetechno-optimistsandtheirtechno-centricperspective(very weaksustainability),andthedeepecologistsandtheireco-centric perspective(verystrongsustainability),respectively.
Theruleinveryweaksustainabilityisthattheoverallstockof capitalassetsshouldremainconstantovertime.Thisruleallows forthereductionofanassetprovidedthatanothercapitalasset(or assets)isincreasedtocompensateforsuchareduction.Thus,every reductionofnaturalcapitalmustbeoffsetbyanincreaseinsome otherformorformsofnaturalorman-madecapital.
Weak sustainabilityrepresents a slight modification of very weaksustainability.Theimplicationofthismodifiedsustainability thinkingseemstobethatthereisaneedfortheformulationofa sustainabilityconstraintthatwillimposesomedegreeofrestriction onresource-usingeconomicactivities.Suchrestrictionwouldnot result from concern for the ecosystems themselves; rather, it would result from concern for theecosystems’ abilityto meet humanneeds.Thus,eventhoughtherewouldbesomerestrictions, therewouldstillbeahighdegreeofsubstitutabilitybetweenall formsofcapitalresources.Boththeweakandveryweakversions of sustainabilityare consistent withdeclining levels of natural capitalaslongasthelossesareoffsetbygainsinotherformsof capital.
Thoseadvocatingstrongsustainabilityclaimthatjustprotect- ingtheoverallamountofcapitalisinsufficient;rather,theyclaim thatnaturalcapitalmustalsobeprotectedbecausesomecritical naturalcapitalcannotbereplacedbyotherformsofcapital.The rationaleforthisstrongviewisbasedonacombinationoffactors:
uncertaintyaboutecosystemfunctions,theirreversibilityofsome componentsofnaturalcapitalifdamaged,andtheaversionfeltby manypeopleaboutenvironmentaldegradation.
Theverystrongsustainabilityperspectiveconcentratesonthe scaleofhumandevelopmentrelativetoglobalcarryingcapacity.
Accordingtothisview,whenhumandevelopmentreachesglobal carrying capacity, noforms ofnatural capital are substitutable.
Thus,thereareabsolutelimitstohumandevelopment.
The approach we take is based on an understanding of sustainabledevelopmentinthestrongsustainabilitysense,which accordingtoDaly(2005),isinlinewithmostecologicaleconomists whosuggestthatnatural andman-madecapitalaremoreoften complementstoeachotherratherthansubstitutesforeachother.
LikeTengstro¨m(1999)suggests,goodargumentsexisttosupport claimsthatthereis(critical)naturalcapitalthatcannotbereplaced by other natural capital or by man-made capital. Certain ecosystemsandtheglobalclimateareexamplesofsuchnatural capital.Wedonot,however,advocatetheverystrongsustainabil- ityapproachbecauseitimpliestheprimacyofsafeguardinglong- term ecological sustainability over the safeguarding of other primarydimensions,whichisnotconsistentwithourunderstand- ingofsustainabledevelopment.
3. Thesustainabledevelopmentspace
Foreachofthefourprimarydimensions,wechooseappropriate indicators and assign threshold values that needto bemet for developmenttobedeemedsustainable.Allthresholdvaluesshould bemetassoonaspossible.Thefourthresholdvaluesformafour- dimensionalspace,which wecallthe ‘‘SustainableDevelopment Space’’. Amekudzi et al. (2009)uses the concept ‘‘sustainability footprint’’,theWorldWideFundforNature(WWF,2010)usesthe concept‘‘sustainabilitybox’’,andtheUnitedNationsDevelopment E.Holdenetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange26(2014)130–139
132
Programme uses the concept‘‘sustainable human development’’
(UNDP,2013)forsimilarconstructions.
Thesustainabledevelopmentspaceisinaccordancewiththe literature that develops and assesses sustainable indicators.
However, we argue that the primary indicators (one for each dimension)andtheirthresholdvaluesrepresentequallyimpor- tant targets and that each must be fulfilled. This approach excludesthepossibilityoftradingoffunderperformanceinone indicatoragainsttheoverperformanceinanother.Consequent- ly, we argue against reducing sustainability to one composite index(e.g.,theInternationalHumanDimensionsProgrammeon GlobalEnvironmentalChange’sInclusiveWealthIndex).Onthe other hand, we have not chosen the other extreme, namely specifying a very long list of indicators (e.g., the list of 96 indicators suggested by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development(UNCSD,2007)),whichcontainsamixofprimary and secondary dimensions). Thus, our approach adopts four distinct compositedimensions.
Ultimately, sustainability should be addressed globally.
Humansarepartofasinglenatural(global)systemwhoseparts interact is complex ways. Still, although national territories, economies, and societies constitute only one level of system organization, it is perhaps the most significant level because governance is presently strongest at the national level (Dahl, 2012).Thus,thesustainabledevelopmentspaceispresentedatthe nationallevel,but isdefinedaccordingtoglobalchallengesand limits. Assessingsustainabilityat aregionalorlocallevel could resultindifferencesfortheecologicalfootprint(andbiocapacity) butnot,inaccordancewithstrongsustainabilityrequirements,for irreversibledamagetothenaturalenvironment.
3.1. Indicatorsandthresholdvaluesforthefourprimarydimensions Dimension1:Weusetheecologicalfootprintasanindicatorfor safeguarding long-term ecological sustainability.The ecological footprint tracks humanity’s demands on the biosphere by comparinghumanity’sconsumptionagainsttheEarth’sregenera- tive capacity, or biocapacity. This comparison is carried out throughcalculatingthearea,measuredinglobalhectares,required toproducetheresourcespeopleconsume,theareaoccupiedby infrastructure,andtheareaofforestrequiredforsequesteringCO2
notabsorbedbytheocean(WWF,2012).
Ecological footprint covers a wide range of current major environmental issues(UNDP, 2011;WWF, 2012;EEA, 2012).It comparesconsumptionagainsttheEarth’sregenerativecapacity andillustratestheextenttowhichwemaybeoverusingnatural resources (WWF,2012).Ecologicalfootprint fits wellwiththe conceptofstrongsustainability(UNDP,2011),thusreflectingour
notion that there should be no trade-offs in meeting the thresholds of the four primary dimensions. The concept and methodologyarewellestablished,andecologicalfootprintisone of only two measures of long-term ecological sustainability availableforalargenumberofcountriesoverareasonablylong period (the World Bank’s adjusted net savings is the other measure)(UNDP,2011).FollowingthelogicofBrundtland’slow- energyscenario(WCED,1987),wearguethattheyearlypercapita thresholdvaluemustbemaximum2.3globalhectares(seeTable1 fordetails).
Dimension 2: We use the United Nations Development Programme’s(UNDP)HumanDevelopmentIndexasanindicator to measure whether basic human needs are satisfied. Human development index is a composite index measuring average achievementinthreebasicdimensionsofhumandevelopment–a longandhealthylife,knowledge,andadecentstandardofliving (UNDP,2011).We contendthatthe minimumhumandevelop- mentindexthresholdvalueshouldbesetat0.630(Table1).
Dimension 3: We use theGini coefficient as an indicatorof intragenerationalequity.TheGinicoefficientisthemostpopular andwidelyusedmeasureofinequality(UNDP,2010).Itmeasures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution in a country(forexample,levelsofincome).AGinicoefficientofzero expresses perfectequality(forexample,whereeveryonehasan exactlyequalincome).AGinicoefficientofonehundredexpresses maximal inequality(forexample,where onepersonhasall the income).UsingthetargetlevelsetbytheUnitedNationsHuman SettlementsProgramme(UN,2010),wesetthethresholdvalueto 40(Table1).
Equity(asrequiredbytheBrundtlandReport)isnotthesameas equality(asmeasuredbytheGinicoefficient).Equityreferstothe qualitiesofjustness,fairness,andimpartiality,whereasequality refers toequal sharingof something.Thus, equality represents quantity,whereasequityrepresentsquality.Evenso,accordingto Amartya Sen (2009, p. 291) ‘‘every normative theory [and
‘sustainabledevelopment’ isindeeda normativeterm]of social justice[orequity]demandsequalityofsomething–somethingthat isregardedasparticularlyimportantin thattheory.’’Hence,we consider the distribution of income (indeed an important something) as measured by the Gini coefficient, to be a good measureofequityinasociety.
Dimension 4:We usetheproportionof renewableenergy to totalprimaryenergy productionas anindicatorofintergenera- tional equity. Intergenerational equity requires that future generations be able to meet their needs. Although we do not know thesefuture needs, it isunlikelythat future generations’
needscanbemetwithoutaccesstosomesortofenergy.Expecting thatfossilfuelwillbecomemorescarceandcostly,theBrundtland
Table1
Primarydimensions,indicators,andsuggested2030thresholdvaluesforsustainabledevelopment.
Dimension Indicator 2030Threshold
(1)Safeguardinglong-termecologicalsustainability Yearlypercapitaecologicalfootprint Maximum2.3ghapercapitaa
(2)Satisfyingbasichumanneeds HumanDevelopmentIndex Minimum0.630b
(3)Promotingintragenerationalequity Ginicoefficient Maximum40c
(4)Promotingintergenerationalequity Theproportionofrenewabletototalenergyinprimaryenergyproduction Minimum27%d
a BasedonBrundtland’slow-energyscenario:The1985globalenergyconsumptionof9.9TWisallowedtoincreaseto14.4TWby2030(WCED,1987).Adjustedforglobal populationgrowth,thisincreasecallsfora15%percapitareductioninenergyconsumptionby2030.Becauseecologicalfootprintisstronglycorrelatedwithenergy consumption,weusethesame15%rateofreductiontoreduceits1985levelof2.7globalhectares(gha)percapita(WWF,2008)to2.3ghapercapitain2030.Interestingly, Brundtland’slow-energyscenariocomparestotheIPCC’slowestimateforscenariogroupB1inwhichglobalenergyconsumptionin2030scenariosvariesfrom16to28TW (IPCC,2000).
b UNDP(2011)classifiescountriesintogroupsaccordingtohumandevelopment–veryhigh,high,medium,andlow–accordingtotheirlevelsonthehumandevelopment index.Humandevelopmentindexclassificationsarerelativeandbasedonquartilesofhumandevelopmentindexdistributionacrosscountries.Wetaketheviewthatthe measureofthemediumgroupreflectstheminimumrequirementacountrymustmeettoensureitsinhabitants’basichumanneeds.For2009,thehumandevelopmentindex ofcountrieswithamediumhumandevelopmentwas0.630(UNDP,2011).
c ThisthresholdvalueequalsthetargetlevelsetbyUN-HABITAT(UN,2010).Itissometimescalledtheinternationalalertline.
d Thisthresholdreflectstheproportionneededby2035tobeconsistentwitha450ppmCO2eqstabilizationlevelasrecommendedbytheIPCC(2011);weapplythis proportionforour2030thresholdvalue.IPCCdataarebasedontheIEA’s‘‘450PolicyScenario’’(IEA,2010).
Reportemphasizesthat‘‘everyeffortshouldbemadetodevelop the potential for renewable energy, which should form the foundationoftheglobalenergystructureduringthe21stCentury’’
(WCED, 1987, p. 144). Thus, we argue that the proportion of renewableenergytototalenergyinprimaryenergyproductionisa goodindicatorofintergenerationalequity,andthattheproportion of renewable energy to total energy in total primary energy productionmustbeaminimumof27%by2030(Table1).
Usingecologicalfootprintasanindicatorforlong-termecological sustainability and the proportion of renewable energy as an indicator for intergenerational equity raises some concern (e.g., Singetal.,2011;Gasparatosetal.,2009;HeinkandKowarik,2010;
van den Bergh and Grazi, 2010). The ecological footprint only includes consumption and emissions that requireland areas, in someformoranother.Importantenvironmentalissuesrelatingto emissions of heavy metals, persistent organic and nonorganic materials,radioactivesubstancesetc.arethereforenotincluded.
Theseissues should thereforebeincluded within the secondary dimensionsinourapproach.Moreover,theideaofaggregatingmany differentlandcategoriesintoasinglenumberisproblematic.Sofar theansweris‘landproductivities’;theproductivityofdifferenttypes oflandcanbedeterminedbyreferringtothe reportedyieldsof various plant and animal produce. Even though this makes it possible tosummarize the differentlandareas, it represents an inevitable methodologicalweakness.Finally,the ecological foot- printdependsheavilyonGHGemissionsandtotalenergyuse,which wethuscouldchooseasalternativeindicators.Nevertheless,the ecologicalfootprintcapturesmoreenvironmentalissuesthanother measuressuchasGHGemissionsandenergyuse.
Usingtheproportionofrenewableenergyasanindicatorto promoting intergenerational equity raisestwo concerns. First, renewableenergyproductionisupto1000timesmorespatially demandingthanfossil energyproductionis(TwidellandWeir, 2005),meaningthatsignificantlandareasmustbereserved.Thus,
a high proportion of renewable energy in a high-energy consumptionsocietywouldalmostcertainlynotbesustainable, becausethepotentiallossofbiodiversitycouldseriouslythreaten long-termecologicalsustainability.However,amaximalthresh- oldvalueonecologicalfootprint(asrequiredbythefirstprimary dimension)preventsthisscenariofromhappening.Second,the ecologicalfootprintalreadyaccountsforrenewableenergyuse, whichopensupfordoublecountingoftheecologicalsustainabil- itydimension.Still,weregardtheproportionofrenewableenergy an importantindicatorfor intergenerationalequity,becauseit explicitly reflects a necessary long-term transition into a renewable-energyregime.
Inspiteofthemethodologicalweaknesses,allfourindicators and thresholds are based on high quality, scientifically based sources,andweregardthemtoberelevantandrobust.
4. Countrydata
This section presents 167 countries’ data on the suggested indicatorsforthefourprimarydimensions.Themainsourcesare theWorld WideFundfor Nature’s LivingPlanetReport (WWF, 2012) and UNDP’s Human Development Report (UNDP, 2011).
Threshold valuesindicating thesustainable development space boundariesareshownineachofthesixfigurespresentedinthis section.Theshadedareaineachfigurerepresentsthesustainable developmentspaceacrossthetwodimensionsshown.
4.1. Ecologicalsustainabilityandbasicneeds
Currently, 23 countries are in the sustainable development space on dimensions 1 (ecological footprint) and 2 (human development index) (Fig. 1). Thefigure lendslittle support for theEnvironmentalKuznetsCurve(EKC)hypothesis,whichstates thataspercapitaincomegrows(incomecorrelatesstronglywith
Fig.1.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions1(ecologicalfootprint)and2(humandevelopmentindex).SDSisinthelowerrightquadrant(shaded).
Countrydataarefor2008/2009(N=154).
Sources:UNDP(2011)andWWF(2012).
E.Holdenetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange26(2014)130–139 134
human development index), environmental impacts rise, hit a maximum, and then decline, implying an ‘‘inverted U-shape’’
(Hanleyetal.,2001).Theobservedpatterndoesnotresemblean invertedU-shape,andtheregressionlineinFig.1indicatesthatper capita ecological footprint increases exponentially as human developmentindexincreases.
4.2. Ecologicalsustainabilityandintragenerationalequity
Currently, 38 countries are in the sustainable development space on dimensions 1 (ecological footprint) and 3 (Gini coefficient) (Fig. 2).The regression line in Fig. 2 indicatesthat thereisanegativecorrelationbetweenecologicalfootprintandthe Gini coefficient. Thus, there seems to be a sort of mismatch between thetwodimensions–countrieshavenotsucceededin performingwellonbothdimensions.Thisresultrunscontraryto the finding of Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), who suggest that societies havinglowlevelsof inequalityscorebetterona wide range of positive features, such as community life and social relations,mentalhealthanddruguse,andphysicalhealthandlife expectancy. It is, however,hard tosee any causalrelationship between ecological footprint and the Gini coefficient; thus, it shouldbepossibletoreduceecologicalfootprintwithoutcausing anincreaseininequity(i.e.,increasingtheGinicoefficient).
4.3. Ecologicalsustainabilityandintergenerationalequity
Currently, 38 countries are in the sustainable development space on dimensions1 (ecological footprint)and 4 (renewable energy)(Fig.3).TheregressionlineinFig.3indicatesthatcountries having a high proportion of renewable energy in their energy production have lower ecological footprints than do countries havingalowproportionofrenewableenergy.Thisfindingmight notcomeasasurprise.Manydevelopingcountriesrelyheavilyon
bioenergytofulfiltheir energyneeds;thus,theirlowecological footprintvaluescouldresultfromlowlevelsofdevelopmentrather thanahighproportionofrenewableenergyintheirtotalprimary energy production. However, multivariate regression analyses showthat theproportionof renewableenergyhasa significant negative effect on ecological footprint even when level of developmentiscontrolledfor(datanotshown).
4.4. Basicneedsandintragenerationalequity
Currently, 61 countries are in the sustainable development spaceondimensions2(humandevelopmentindex)and3(Gini coefficient)(Fig.4).TheregressionlineinFig.4suggestsanegative relationbetweenhumandevelopmentindexandGinicoefficient.
Thus,countrieswithlowlevelsofinequalityarebetterpositioned to safeguard their inhabitants’ basic needs. This finding is in accordance withWilkinsonand Pickett (2009),who foundthat health and social problems – which prevent societies from providing theirinhabitants’ basicneeds– aremorecommonin countriesthathavehighlevelsofinequality.Moreover,Wilkinson and Pickett argue that therelationship between highlevels of health and socialproblemsontheonehandand highlevelsof inequalityontheotherissuchthatthelattercausestheformer.
Thus, reducing a country’s level of inequality (i.e., the Gini coefficient) wouldsubsequently leadtofewerhealthand social problems, thereby improving the country’s ability to meet its inhabitants’basicneeds.
4.5. Basicneedsandintergenerationalequity
Currently, 15 countries are in the sustainable development space on dimensions 2 (human development index) and 4 (renewableenergy)(Fig.5).Theregression lineinFig.5 shows that as human development index increases,theproportion of
Fig.2.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions1(ecologicalfootprint)and3(Ginicoefficient).TheSDSisinthelowerleftquadrant(shaded).Countrydata arefor2008/2009(N=152).
Sources:UNDP(2011)andWWF(2012).
renewableenergyintotalprimaryenergyproductionfallssharply.
Thus,richcountriestendtohavealowproportionofrenewable energy,whichisquiteplausiblebecausemostdevelopedcountries havebuilttheirwealthoneasyaccesstofossilenergysourcessuch
ascoal,oil,andgas.Thereareafewnotableexceptionsthough, where countries (e.g., Iceland and Norway) have managed to combine very high levels of human development and a high proportion ofrenewable energy use.In these cases, thehigher Fig.3.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions1(ecologicalfootprint)and4(renewableenergy/totalenergy).TheSDSisinthelowerrightquadrant (shaded).Thecountrydataarefor2008/2009(N=128).
Source:UNDP(2011).
Fig.4.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions2(humandevelopmentindex)and3(Ginicoefficient).TheSDSisinupperleftquadrant(shaded).Country dataarefor2008/2009(N=155).
E.Holdenetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange26(2014)130–139 136
renewableenergiescanbeexplainedbythesecountries’abundant access todomesticrenewableenergy sources.Apartfromthese few exceptions, no country hasyet managed to create a high humandevelopment indexwithouthavingaccess tosignificant fossilenergysources.
4.6. Intragenerationalequityandintergenerationalequity
Currently, 20 countries are in the sustainable development space ondimensions 3 (the Gini coefficient) and 4 (renewable energy) (Fig.6).The regression line in Fig. 6 shows a positive Fig.5.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions2(humandevelopmentindex)and4(renewableenergy/totalenergy).TheSDSisintheupperrightquadrant (shaded).Countrydataarefor2008/2009(N=132).
Source:UNDP(2011).
Fig.6.Thesustainabledevelopmentspace(SDS)fordimensions3(Ginicoefficient)and4(renewableenergy/totalenergy).TheSDSisintheupperleftquadrant(shaded).
Countrydataarefor2008/2009(N=130).
correlation between the Gini coefficient and the proportion of renewableenergyintotalprimaryenergyproduction.Countries withhigherlevelsofsocialandeconomicinequalityhaveahigher proportion of renewable energy in total primary production.
However, the correlation is weak and there may be no clear relationshipbetweenthetwo.
5. Discussionofresults
Nocountrymeetsthethresholdsforallfourdimensions;thatis, nocountryhascurrentlyachievedsustainabledevelopment,and somecountriesarefaroffthetarget.Thus,thethoughtofactually achievingsustainabledevelopmentmayseemoverwhelming.Itis thereforereasonabletoask,arethechangesnecessarytoachieve sustainable development socially desirable, and if so, are they withinreach?Assumingthat theanswertothefirstpartofthe questionisyes,wenowexamineeachthresholdvaluetoevaluate itsreasonabilityinthecontextofcurrentconditionsandpredicted changesinthefuture.
First, consider the maximum threshold value for daily per capitaecologicalfootprintof2.3globalhectares.Nohigh-income country currently meetsthis threshold, and the average is 5.6 globalhectares.AnumberofcountriesclassifiedbytheUNDPas having‘‘veryhighhumandevelopment’’havepercapitaecological footprints close to 4.0 global hectares (e.g., Japan,Hong Kong, Israel, Latvia, and New Zealand (WWF, 2012)). These countries must reducetheir percapitaecologicalfootprintby about40%, which is a manageable task using current knowledge and technologies (IEA, 2012). Thus, achieving very high human development(whichiswhatmostcountriesareaimingfor)and achieving a sustainableper capitaecologicalfootprint are both possible,althoughsomecountriesmayfindit hardertoachieve themsimultaneouslythanothers.
Second, considertheminimum threshold value of0.630 for humandevelopment index.In 1980, theworldaverage human development index was0.558; today it is 0.682, which is well abovethethresholdandrepresentsanannualgrowthrateof0.6%.
Theleastdeveloped countrieshave experiencedanevenhigher annualgrowthrateinhumandevelopmentindex(1.37%)overthe same period. Nevertheless, less developed countries have an averagehumandevelopmentindexof0.493,whichiswellbelow the threshold value (UNDP, 2011). If the pace of human development index growth continues, the average human developmentindexfortheworld’sleastdevelopedcountrieswill beabovethethresholdvaluewithin20years.Thus,meetingthis minimumthresholdvalueby2030seemswithinreach.
Third,considerthemaximumthresholdvalueof40fortheGini coefficient.Sadly,overthelasttwodecadesincomeinequalityhas increased in most countries and regions – with some notable exceptionsinLatinAmericaandsub-SaharanAfrica(UNDP,2011).
Morespecifically,detailedstudiesshowastrikingincreaseinthe wealthiest group’s share of income in much of Europe, North America,Australia,andNewZealand.From1990to2005,within- country income inequality increased23.3% in countries having very high human development indexs (UNDP, 2011). The gap betweentherichandthepoorwidenedoverthelasttwodecades in more than three-quarters of OECD countries and in many emerging-marketeconomies.Wealthhasbecomeconcentratedin fewer hands in China, India, and South Africa. In China, for example,theGinicoefficientrosefrom31in1981to42in2005 (UNDP, 2011).Thus, reducing wealthinequality seemsto be a seriouschallengetoachievingsustainabledevelopment.
Finally,considertheminimumrenewableenergyshareof27%.
According to IPCC (2011), deployment of renewable energy technologies has increasedrapidlyin recent years; ona global basis,renewableenergycurrentlyaccountsfor12.9%ofthetotal
primaryenergyproduction.Asignificantincreaseinthedevelop- mentofrenewableenergyby2030,2050,andbeyondisindicated inmostofthe164energyscenariosreviewedintheIPCCreport (ibid).Morethanhalfthescenariosshowa17%contributionfrom renewableenergytoprimaryenergysupplyin2030,risingtomore than27%in2050.Thescenarioswiththehighestrenewableenergy shares reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050.
Renewableenergy’sshareoftotalproductioncanbeexpectedto expandevenunderbaselinescenarios.
Moreimportantly,however,theIPCCreport(ibid)arguesthat theglobaltechnicalpotentialofrenewableenergysourceswillnot limitcontinuedgrowthintheuseofrenewableenergy.‘Technical potential’isdefinedinthereportastheproportionofrenewable energyoutputobtainablebyfullimplementationofdemonstrated technologiesorpractices.Moreover,it alsostates thatthereare few, if any, fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies tomeet a majority share of total energy demand in locations where suitable renewable energy resources exist or can be supplied. Even in regions withrelatively lowlevels oftechnicalpotential forany individualrenewableenergysource,therearetypicallysignificant opportunitiesforincreaseduseofrenewableenergy.Wetherefore considerachievinga27%renewableenergyshareby2030tobea realisticandachievablethreshold.
Under most conditions, however, increasing the share of renewable energy in the energy mix will require policies that stimulatechangesintheenergysystem.Thus,theactualrateof integrationandtheresultingsharesofrenewableenergywillbe influencedbyfactorssuchascosts,environmentalissuesandtheir socialaspects,publicacceptance,andinfrastructureconstraints.
6. Policyimplications
Ascanbeseenintheprevioussection,theproposedapproachto the measurement of sustainable development along thesefour independentdimensionspresentsasetofinterestingcomparisons thatcanbeusedbynationalandinternationalpolicymakersin theirdecisionsaboutsustainabledevelopmentfutures.Thevalue oftheapproachisinitssimplicityandthetransparencyofthefour dimensions that are seen as being non-tradable and equally important – so thefour dimensions cannot bereduced to one compositedimension.Theapproachisbuiltuponthedevelopment oftheindicatorsandthekeythresholdsthatneedtobereached.
Thelimitationsofsuchanapproacharerecognized,buttheneed forsuchapragmaticandoperationalapproachhasbeenjustified.
Thispaperraisestwoimportantquestionsfordecisionmakers.
Firstly, each of the four threshold values must be met. But, simultaneously meeting all thresholds raises a complex issue about how can we meet one particular threshold value (e.g., reducing ecological footprint) without simultaneously reducing thepossibilityofmeetinganotherthresholdvalue(e.g.,increasing humandevelopmentindex).Thekeytosolvingthisproblemisto decouplethepresentunwantedcorrelationsbetweenthedimen- sions, and this is one of the challenges presented to decision makers. Secondly, we must achieve sustainable development withoutcompromisingotherimportant principles, forexample, democraticandlibertarianprinciples,assustainabledevelopment isoneofmanykeypolicyobjectivesfacingsociety.
Underlying these questions is the fundamental issue being addressedhere,namelytheneedtomoveawayfromtheprimary concernofgovernmentsoverthepremisethateconomicgrowth willleadtosustainabledevelopment. Inthispaper,ithasbeen arguedthateconomicgrowthisonemeansbywhichsustainable developmentcanbeachieved,butthatitisnotoneoftheprimary dimensions.Secondly,thefourdimensionsandthemeasurement issues have been separated from some of the important E.Holdenetal./GlobalEnvironmentalChange26(2014)130–139
138
