Search

The complicated task of measuring environmental sustainability has often led to comparative evaluations of national performance using ranking lists and generic policy targets. In this paper, a set of national environmental indicators is determined through the deployment of a five-stage methodology, which includes the use of focus group research and formation of an expert team to guide the process, selection of an initial pool of pre-existing indicators, establishment of criteria to guide the selection process, and setting of appropriate policy or trend-based targets given the nation-specific context. The nations of Iceland and Norway are used as case studies to demonstrate an effective means of communicating indicator outcomes over time. National performance is first evaluated on an indicator-by-indicator basis and then summarised overall through a system of traffic lights and radar charts for trend and target-based indicators respectively. Via this analytical process, it also becomes clear that data shortages partially constrain the extent to which a nation’s environmental sustainability performance can be deciphered. Improved data collection is necessary connected to the measurement of several environmental issues on a national scale, particularly the sustainability of fisheries, soil erosion and biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• EF's CF data is largely based on estimates. • Uncertainty in data makes it impossible to assert that CF is any specific number. • This is rarely made clear in EF's dissemination. • Institutions equally focused on research and politics run the risk of bias. Since the UNCED's call for the creation of sustainability indicators many such have been put forth in the literature. One of the more successful ones, in terms of popularity, is the Ecological Footprint (EF). Much criticism has been directed at the EF, not least the carbon uptake component (CF). The CF typically makes up around 50% of global EF and is the sole cause for its overshot – i.e. results indicating unsustainable consumption. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the data used for the calculation of CF. The study finds that the data is lacking in accuracy to the point that stating that CF or EF is any given number at any given time is misleading. The reasons for this uncertainty are identified as use of estimates and averages for the calculations as well as discrepancy between data collected locally and data from international databanks. CF or EF results should thus always be prefaced with caveats regarding the uncertainty involved in the estimation. The lack of caveats in EF dissemination is worrying and has led to the most serious criticism of the method to date, that of it fulfilling the criteria for pseudo-science for failing to disclose uncertainties in calculations and results. This study suggests that the reason for this failure may be traced to the Global Footprint Network (GFN) being both a think tank actively promoting the use of EF, and the world's largest research unit into the methodology. This can lead to uncertainties being down played in dissemination not to confuse current users of the method or dissuade new ones. The study further raises questions about the accuracy of GHG estimates in general since they are often based on the same IPCC default emission factors and activity data as used by the GFN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]