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]

Various expectations are placed on national‐level sustainability indicators. Ideally, they should serve as efficient tools for transformations, leading societies to sustainable paths by creating a comprehensive, reliable, timely, and easy‐to‐understand picture of the key ecological, socio‐cultural, and economic trends. Most, if not all, indicator initiatives so far have been unable to meet such grandiose expectations. This has evoked criticism of and scepticism towards the indicator approach, but has also motivated improvement of indicator sets and knowledge brokerage processes. This article discusses the role of sustainability indicators in societal transition by examining the experiences gained from the preparation and launch of a sustainable development indicator set specifically aimed at supporting national‐level policymaking in Finland. It is concluded that better recognition of the tensions between attempts to improve the quality of indicators and attempts to enhance their use in policy is key to meeting the expectations placed upon sustainability indicators. [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]

Finland is one of the forerunners in sustainable development reporting, with abundant long term statistics on environmental, social and economic issues. In this article, we introduce the Finnish experience on producing and disseminating sustainable development indicators. We describe four indicator initiatives prepared and published during the last decade and discuss the role of different conceptual frameworks for preparing and presenting the indicators. The requirements for a good conceptual framework are reviewed and the effectiveness of different frameworks for different purposes is discussed based on the cases presented. We conclude by stressing the importance of paying more attention to indicator set frameworks instead of individual indicators and using specifically tailored frameworks for specific uses. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental indicators were developed mainly to improve information flows from scientists to policy-makers. This article discusses the importance of timely environmental data and investigates the influence of indicator-based reporting on the data timeliness of environmental reports by international organizations. Timeliness of information contributes to the quality and appeal of the reports, and to their role as early warning tools, and increases their usability by decision-makers in short-term decision cycles. The results of an analysis of 11 international reports by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) show a considerable time lag of three years on average, with only minor development towards more timely reporting. The results suggest that the introduction of environmental indicators has not improved the timeliness of reporting. In order to overcome these problems, the article recommends some methods for improving timeliness. These include better choice of indicators in smaller sets, use of preliminary data and outlooks, development of new indicators, publishing on the internet and more effective use of internet databases to avoid intermediate levels in data collection. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]