Search

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) aim to provide humanity with a global roadmap to sustainability. Official SDG indicators have been intensively developed, and they have a prominent and pronounced role as a key monitoring and policy instrument. Furthermore, various complementary or alternative indicator sets have been introduced at the global, regional and national levels. This article focuses on the risks related to the national indicators. The analysis is based on experiences from the preparation processes of sustainable development indicators in Finland and insights from indicator professionals and stakeholders in Finland and Germany. The risks related to overuse, nonuse and misuse of indicators are analyzed from the perspectives of indicator contents, processes of production and communication and external context factors. Opportunities for avoiding different risks and improving the desired societal impacts and influences of indicator usage are discussed. The concept of risk is helpful in terms of empirical diagnosis and for formulating mitigation recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Greening the economy has been widely discussed as a new strategy for simultaneously reducing environmental pressures, promoting economic growth and enhancing social well‐being. Indicators are one tool that can be used to describe the development of green growth. This paper presents and evaluates the process of attempting to build a set of policy‐relevant key indicators of green growth for Finland. The challenges of developing a cross‐scale indicator set integrating different sectors and levels of society are identified and discussed. It is argued that both the experts preparing the indicators and the potential users will benefit from a collaborative process that aims not only to build a shared awareness of the key issues of green growth but also to foster a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the indicator approach. Key challenges include data availability, right balance between different indicator selection criteria, systemic understanding of the relationships between indicators, and the variable usage contexts of the indicators. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Indicators describing sustainability and, more recently, well-being have raised considerable interest throughout the world. Much conceptual and empirical research exists focusing on the criteria for sustainability and development of indicators, while relatively few studies examine the actual use and influence of indicators. Employing document analysis and interviews of key actors, we explore the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level and draw forth lessons relevant for topical discussion of the measurement of human well-being. We apply a conceptual model of three main types of indicator use: instrumental, conceptual, and political. The results indicate that the use of sustainability indicators is mainly confined to the ‘indicator circuit’ formed by indicator-developers themselves and actors obliged to use the indicators. The results suggest that direct instrumental use of indicators shows limited potential, whereas conceptual use is the key for enhanced indicator influence in the long term. Political use of indicators cannot be controlled by the indicator-developers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Indicators are commonly used as tools to identify and highlight socio-economic and ecological trends and to assess progress towards sustainability. Different quality criteria can be considered for indicators. This paper focuses on the timeliness of indicators used in the evaluation of sustainable development strategies. The analysis is based on indicators included in four assessment reports of the sustainable development strategy of the European Union and three assessment reports of the national strategy of Finland. Furthermore, a web-based national level indicator portal is analysed. The results show that the timeliness of indicators has generally not improved during the past decade and that indicators used in strategy evaluations have a time lag of approximately two years. It is suggested that more attention should be given to efforts to improve the timeliness of indicators in order to increase the effectiveness of the evaluations. More generally, it is suggested that greater emphasis should be put on the empirical research on actual use of indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]