A Novel Approach to Evaluating Sustainable Development

Radojicic, Z.; Isljamovic, S.; Petrovic, N.; Jeremic, V.

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

A Novel Approach to Evaluating Sustainable Development

Autorzy

Radojicic Z. , Isljamovic S. , Petrovic N. , Jeremic V.

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Nowe podejście do waloryzacji rozwoju zrównoważonego

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Sustainable development is a difficult issue to measure and there is no one method agreed upon. In this article a statistical method, which synthesizes many indicators into one quantitative indicator is proposed. 27 member states of the European Union has been analyzed. The results have demonstrated that Sweden and Denmark are the two top EU countries concerning sustainable development. On the other hand, the newest EU members, such as Latvia, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia, remain at the bottom of the ranking. It is a challenge for the EU, since it has the ambition to take a lead on sustainable development on the global level. It should be emphasized, that the proposed statistical method can be applied to all other regions of the world and can provide useful information as to whether the world is actually moving towards the goals of sustainable development.

Rozwój zrównoważony jest zagadnieniem trudnym do zmierzenia, tym bardziej, że nie ma jednej uniwersalnej metody takiego pomiaru. W tym artykule proponujemy metodę statystyczną, która sprowadza wiele wskaźników w jeden wskaźnik ilościowy. Przeanalizowano uwarunkowania rozwoju zrównoważonego w 27 krajach Unii Europejskiej. Rezultaty pokazują, że najbardziej zaawansowanymi we wdrażaniu tego rozwoju są Szwecja i Dania. Na drugim końcu skali znajdują się nowi członkowie UE, kraje takie jak Łotwa, Węgry, Estonia, Litwa i Słowacja. To wyzwanie dla Unii, jeśli chce ona odgrywać wiodącą rolę we wdrażaniu rozwoju zrównoważonego w perspektywie globalnej. Należy podkreślić, że proponowaną metodę można zastosować w stosunku do wszystkich innych regionów, a poprzez to uzyskać informacje pozwalającej określić, czy świat zmierza w kierunku realizacji celów zrównowa-żonego rozwoju.

Słowa kluczowe

sustainable development I-distance method ranking of countries

rozwój zrównoważony metoda I-distance ranking krajów

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2012

Tom

Vol. 7, nr 1

Strony

81--85

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 41 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Radojicic Z.

autor

Isljamovic S.

autor

Petrovic N.

autor

Jeremic V.

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Laboratory for Statistics, Jove Ilica 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, jeremicv@fon.rs

Bibliografia

1. A-LAGILLI S., JEREMIC V., SEKE K., JER-EMIC D., RADOJICIC Z., 2011, Evaluating the health of nations: a Libyan perspective, in: Libyan Journal of Medicine, vol. 6, article 6021, doi: 10.3402/ljm.v6i0.6021.
2. BRUNI M.E., GUERRIERO F., PATITUCCI V., 2011, Benchmarking Sustainable Development via Data envelopment Analysis: an Italian case study, in: International Journal of Environmental Research, vol. 5, no 2, p. 47-56.
3. DURBIN P. T., Humanitarian Motives for Sustainable Development in a Global Economy: An Essay, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 5, no 1, p. 9-13.
4. EU ENERGY POLICY, 2010, http://www. energy.eu/renewables/eu-charts/RE-in-final.html (31.08.2011).
5. EUROSTAT, 2010, http://epp.eurostat.ec.euro pa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/indicators/ (8.06.2011).
6. DAVIDSON E.A., You can’t eat GNP: Economics as if ecology mattered, Peresus, Cam-bridge 2000.
7. GREENWOOD D., 2004, A Foucaultian analysis of environmental education: Toward the socioecological challenge of the Earth Charter, in: Curriculum Inquire, vol. 34, no 1, p. 71-107.
8. HU J., XIAO Z.B., ZHOU R.J., DENG W.J., WANG M.X., MA S.S., 2011, Ecological utilization of leather tannery waste with circular economy model, in: Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no 2-3, p. 221-228.
9. IVANOVIC B., A method of establishing a list of development indicators, United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, Paris 1973.
10. IVANOVIC B., Classification Theory, Institute for Industrial Economic, Belgrade, 1977.
11. IVANOVIC B., FANCHETTE S., Grouping and ranking of 30 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, Two distance-based methods compared, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris 1973.
12. JEREMIC V., RADOJICIC Z., 2010, A New Approach in the Evaluation of Team Chess Championships Rankings, in: Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports., vol. 6, no 3, article 7, doi: 10.2202/1559-0410.1257.
13. JEREMIC V., BULAJIC M., MARTIC M., RADOJICIC Z., 2011a, A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities, in: Scientometrics, vol. 87, no 3, p. 587-596, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0361-6.
14. JEREMIC V., ISLJAMOVIC S., PETROVIC N., RADOJICIC Z., MARKOVIC A., BULAJIC M., 2011b, Human development index and sustainability: What’s the correlation?, in: Metalurgia International, vol. 16, no 7, p. 63-67.
15. JEREMIC V., VUKMIROVIC D., RADOJICIC Z., DJOKOVIC A., 2011c, Towards a framework for evaluating ICT infrastructure of countries: a Serbian perspective, in: Metalurgia International, vol. 16, no 9, p. 15-18.
16. JEREMIC V., MARKOVIC A., RADOJICIC Z., 2011d, ICT as crucial component of socioeconomic development, in: Management, vol. 16, no 60.
17. JEREMIC V., SEKE K., RADOJICIC Z., JEREMIC D., MARKOVIC A., SLOVIC D., ALEKSIC A., 2012, Measuring health of countries: a novel approach, in: HealthMED, vol. 6, no 1.
18. KRAS E., 2011, The Deep Roots of Sustainability, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no 1, p. 11-30.
19. MIHAILOVIC N., BULAJIC M., SAVIC G., 2009, Ranking of banks in Serbia, in: YUJOR, vol. 19, no 2, p. 323–334, doi: 10.2298/ YUJOR0902323M.
20. MIHCI H., MOLLAVELIGIU S., 2011, An Assessment of Sustainable Agriculture in the OECD Countries with Special Reference to Turkey, in: New Medit, vol. 10, no 2, p. 4-17.
21. MITCHELL R.B., 2006, The effectiveness of international environmental regimes – problem structure, institutional design, and the relative effectiveness of international environmental agreements, in: Global Environmental Politics, vol. 6, no 3, p. 72-88.
22. MOFFAT I., HANLEY N., WILSON M.D., Measuring and Modeling Sustainable Development, The Parthenon Publishing Group, Bristol 2001.
23. MUNDA G., NARDO M., 2009, Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting, in: Applied Economics, vol. 41, no 12, p. 1513-1523.
24. NESS B., URBEL-PIIRSALU E., ANDERBERG S., OLSSON L., 2007, Categorizing tools for sustainability assessment, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 60, p. 498-508.
25. PAWŁOWSKI A., 2009, The Sustainable Development Revolution, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 4, no 1, p. 65-76.
26. PETROVIC N., ISLJAMOVIC S., JEREMIC V., 2010, Zero waste as a new concept for sustainable development, in: Management, vol. 15, no 57, p. 39-45.
27. PETROVIC N., ISLJAMOVIC S., JEREMIC V., VUK D., SENEGACNIK M., 2011a, Ecological Footprint as indicator of students environmental awareness level at Faculties of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade and University of Maribor, in: Management, vol. 16, no 58, p. 15-21.
28. PETROVIC N., DRAKULIC M., VUJIN V., DRAKULIC R., JEREMIC V., 2011b, Climate changes and green information technologies, in: Management, vol. 16, no 59, p. 35-43.
29. PITT C., GRECO G., POWELL JACKSON T., MILLS A., 2011, Countdown to 2015: assessment of official development assistance to maternal, newborn, and child health, 2003-08, in: Lancet, vol. 376, no 9751, p. 1485-1496.
30. POLIMENI J.M., 2011, Factor Five: Transforming the Global Economy Through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 70, no 6, p. 1240-1241.
31. POPE G,. ANNANDALE D., MORRISON-SAUNDERS A., 2004, Conceptualising sustainability assessment, in: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 24, p. 595-616.
32. REDCLIFT M. R., 2009, Sustainable Development (1987 – 2005) – an Oxymoron Comes of Age, in: Problemy Ekorozowju/ Problems of Sustainable Development vol. 4, no 1, p. 33-50.
33. ROPKE I., 2005, Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 55, no 2, p. 262-290.
34. STEINBERGER J.K., KRAUSMANN F., EISENMENGER N., 2010, Global patterns of materials use: A socioeconomic and geophysical analysis, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 69, no 5, p. 1148-1158.
35. QUENTAL N., LOURENCO J., NUNES DA SILVA F., 2011, Sustainable Development Policy: Goals, Targets and Political Cycles, in: Sustainable Development, vol. 19, p. 15-29.
36. The Earth Charter, 2008, http://earth charteri-naction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html (28.V.2011).
37. TUZIAK A., 2010, Socioeconomic aspects of sustainable development on global and local level, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, vol. 5, no 2, p. 39-49.
38. UNDSD – United Nations Division for Sustainable Development, 2008, National Sustainable Development Strategies: the Global Picture, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/ nsds/nsds_map2008.pdf (12.05.2011).
39. UNEP – United Nations Environment Program, Global Environment Outlook 4: Environment for Development, Progress, Valletta 2007.
40. WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987.
41. ZHONG W., YUAN W., LI S.X., HUANG Z.M., 2011, The performance evaluation of regional R&D investments in China: An application of DEA based on the first official China economic census data, in: Omega, vol. 39, no 4, p. 447-455.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPL2-0028-0083