Proposal and application of a Sustainable Development Index

Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

Proposal and application of a Sustainable Development Index Adrián Barrera-Roldán∗ , Américo Sald´ıvar-Valdés Competencia de Estudios Ambientales, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lázaro Cárdenas 152, Mexico, D.F., 07730, Mexico

Abstract This work shows the methodology used to design a Sustainable Development Index (SDI), and its application to a region within the Coatzacoalcos river basin. This region is one of the more highly industrialized zones in Mexico, and is located in the State of Veracruz, about 800 km southeast of Mexico City. The SDI was formed within the framework of the driving forces, state, and response (DSR) philosophy. Within this framework we have included an indicator about environmental accounting in order to determine the monetary value of losses due to depletion and deterioration of natural resources. At the same time we use the Multi-Attribute Decision Theory methodology along with 21 indicators; most of them were designed and calculated specifically for this work. The indicators represent the environmental, economic, and social characteristics of the region. The utility functions that were designed for grading the region in each attribute used international and national parameters of performance. The SDI was applied to seven municipalities. The Figure of Merit obtained by each municipality served to rank them in terms of their closeness to a Sustainable Development. The results of the analysis also identified and prioritized the most urgent problems that need to be solved in order to obtain an improvement in the development of the municipalities in accordance to sustainability and resource management criteria. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable Development; Indicators; Utility function; Resource management

1. Introduction All over the world—in Mexico as well—the deterioration and rapid exhaustion of natural resources is a concern. The imbalance is evident due to the agricultural and cattle-raising border stride; irrational ways of agricultural/farming and forestry exploitation; a non-weighted introduction of exotic species; smuggling; the expansion of urban zones; soil/air/water pollution, as well as non-regulated growth of services infrastructure and production processes in general. All this has the potential to modify natural ecosystems in a chaotic, indiscriminate way, thereby compromising ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52-55-3003-8494; fax: +52-55-3003-8484. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Barrera-Rold´an), [email protected] (A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es).

survival not only of many wild species of flora and fauna, but of the very human population itself. To fight this problem in Mexico, a strategy has been outlined that seeks to solve ecological and environmental problems, and that is not subordinated to economic growth. Said strategy is set forth in the General Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection Act, where new environmental policy guidelines and principles are closely linked under Sustainable Development criteria (SEMARNAP, 1997). It is noteworthy that these procedures have incorporated environmental policy tools that privilege prevention and preservation criteria above control and mitigation ones. In this vein, chapter 40, Agenda 21 (UNSDC, 1997) urges the development of indicators for Sustainable Development (SD). Especially, it asks countries—at the national level—and governments and non-government organizations—at the international

1470-160X/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 4 7 0 - 1 6 0 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 8 - 4

252

A. Barrera-Rold´an, A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es / Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

level—to formulate the SD indicator concept, in order to identify such indicators (UN, 1993). In turn, in the first session of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) emphasis was placed on the urgent need for such indicators, pointing out that these should be achieved by a program spanning several years of work. In the context of Agenda 21, progress regarding said indicators has been discussed during sessions held in late 1996, and in April and June of 1997 (UNSDC, 1997).

2. Criteria for choosing indicators During the research the following questions were raised: What were we measuring, and what was the meaning of using an index in order to know the level and degree of Sustainable Development? Was it possible to make comparisons between regions and communities of similar level of economic development? Which definition of Sustainable Development, the “strong” one or the “weak” one, were we talking about? And what did it mean? To answer these questions, we needed a clear definition of Sustainable Development itself. Second, it was necessary to know the scope of this work, and the problems and advantages of using such an index. According to proposals of Agenda 21 and OCDE methodology, we selected a battery of a core, main and relevant indicators in accordance with the following criteria: • availability and reliability of the source of information data; • the most current statistical data; • representatives in the analysis of the three systems: natural, social and economic, as well as the regional importance of the selected seven municipalities; • a holistic approach that included qualitative and quantitative terms. This work presents a methodology to outline and evaluate Sustainable Development Indicators that, if applied to different regions, would be able to compare and rank these regions in terms of their closeness to a Sustainable Development. For that purpose we have chosen national and international parameters

that are desirable to either reach or surpass in order to get closer to a path of sustainability. A concrete SDI application is presented for the Coatzacoalcos river’s lower basin, taking as reference and case study the municipalities of: Coatzacoalcos, Minatitlán, Cosoleacaque, Nanchital, Ixhuatlán del Sureste, Oteapan and Zaragoza. These municipalities add up to one thousand square kilometers, with a total population of 588 000 inhabitants (INEGI, 1995). All these municipalities are characterized by a heavy, chaotic and constant processes of urbanization and industrialization during the last three decades. Before the industrialization boom, this region was characterized by agricultural, cattle and fishing activities with very rich soils and abundant water resources. This region is located in the most northern end of the tropical forest.

3. Methodology The purpose of this effort is to show the methodology for the design and formulation of an Index of Sustainable Development, as well as the possibility of its regional/national application. For this, we have considered the Sustainable Development approach proposed by United Nations. The first step was to organize the main indicators and variables according to a special framework defined as driving forces, state, and response (DSR) (EC, 1996), as well as those indicators proposed by Agenda 21 for assessment and evaluation. The DSR model is based on a logic and holistic framework of action–response relationships between the economy, society, and environment, and responds to the following questions: What environmental impacts exist? What is the current status of the environment? What is being done to mitigate and solve environmental and socioeconomic problems as well? Fig. 1 shows the indicator classification that was developed according to the DSR philosophy. On the other hand, the research offered a number of core indicators dynamically embracing, integrating, and correlating the natural, economic, and social subsystems. Supported by those available relevant indicators, and in accordance with the Commission on Sustainable Development, we propose that the number of core indicators should be flexible, and determined

A. Barrera-Rold´an, A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es / Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

253

Fig. 1. Indicator classification according to the driving forces, status, response framework.

in accordance with the level of information and the specific situation of the region under study, as well as the country’s conditions. To integrate these indicators a modified multiattribute decision theory methodology was chosen. Within the philosophy of the methodology a tree was formed with 21 indicators representing the production, social and natural systems of the studied region (main branches or general attributes). The number of indicators used was defined by the availability of data and by their potential to represent an important characteristic of the region. The tree obtained is shown in Fig. 2. According to the methodology for each of the indicators or attributes a utility function was designed. The role of the utility function was to relate the different variables having different units with a dimensionless scale from 0 to 1. In this scale 0 represented the lowest grade in terms of achieving a Sustainable Development. To define utility functions we used international parameters for comparison and/or official standards (for example Mexican air quality standards). As examples of utility functions we present one for

each of the three general attributes: for the economic general attribute the per capita gross domestic product (GDP); for social the one related to poverty; and for natural, the air quality one. The three are shown below: Economic,  0    GDP − GDPmin IGDP = GDP max − GDPmin    1

if GDP ≤ GDPmin if GDPmin < GDP < GDPmax if GDP ≥ GDPmax

where IGDP is the indicator for the per capita gross domestic product; GDP per capita GDP of the region; GDPmin 5711 USD; GDPmax 17210 USD; GDPmin was defined as the 1993 world average of the per capita GDP (PNUD, 1996); GDPmax was defined as the 1993 per capita GDP of the United Kingdom (PNUD, 1996). Social,     1 − EP3 AIEP3 if EP3 > 0 EP MW3 Ip =   1 if EP3 = 0

254

A. Barrera-Rold´an, A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es / Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

Fig. 2. Tree representing the Sustainable Development Index considering 21 indicators.

where Ip is the indicator for poverty; EP employed population; EP3 employed population making less than three minimum wages; AIEP3 average income of the employed population making less than three minimum wages; MW3 three minimum wages. Three minimum wages was chosen as the threshold defining poverty because even though by definition minimum wage is the minimum income needed to satisfy family needs, in fact for this region three minimum wages were needed for this purpose (UNAM, 1997).

Natural,  0    ACI − ACIstd IAQ = ACI max − ACIstd    1

if ACI ≤ ACImax if ACIstd < ACI < ACImax if ACI ≥ ACImax

where IAQ is the indicator for air quality; ACI air concentration measured in IMECA of the pollutant with the highest concentration on annual basis; ACIstd 100 IMECA; ACImax 250 IMECA.

A. Barrera-Rold´an, A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es / Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

IMECA is the Mexican air quality metropolitan index, which is dimensionless and was developed by the Mexican government to inform population about air quality (INE, 2000). This index is used for the regulated atmospheric pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, total suspended particles, suspended particles smaller than 10−6 m, and lead (SS, 1994). It was designed in a way that 100 IMECA was set equal to the air quality standard for each of the mentioned pollutants and linear as a function of concentration. A complete version of the final utility functions would be too long to include here, however it can be found elsewhere (Barrera-Roldán et al., 1998b), (Barrera et al., 1998a). Once all the utility functions were designed, the Sustainable Development Index (SDI) was defined as (Figure of Merit): 1  1 SDI = WGCj AGji 100 nj 3

3

j =1

i=1

where WGCj is the weighting factor of the jth general criterion; AGj i grade obtained by the evaluated region corresponding to the ith attribute under the jth general criterion; nj number of attributes under the jth general criterion. As a first approach, the three systems: production, social, and natural were considered equally important within the Sustainable Development philosophy, thus the WGCj for the general criterion representing them were defined as 33, 34, and 33, respectively.

4. Results and conclusions Clearly our definition of Sustainable Development (SD) belongs to the so called “weak sustainability”, as is explained by Pearce and Atkinson (1993)1 . Our resulting index shows the general situation of the ecology within urban and semi-urban communities 1 Briefly, it means a situation where both natural and human made capital, have a high degree of substitution or are interchangeable; e.g. rate of savings, minus amortization of human made capital, minus rate of depletion and degradation of natural resources, all taken as a percentage (share) of the GDP. See, (Pearce and Atkinson, 1993).

255

Table 1 Sustainable Development Index for the seven municipalities along with the general attribute grades Municipality

Prod

Soc

Nat

SDI

Coatzacoalcos Minatitl´an Cosoleacaque Nanchital Zaragoza Oteapan Ixhuatl´an del Sureste

0.30 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.22 0.14

0.23 0.17 0.13 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.12

0.20 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.18

0.73 0.62 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.49 0.44

Dimensionless units (1.0 is the highest and the best grade).

as well as the socioeconomic situation of the population in the studied areas. In other words, the search for a sustainable balance between ecology and human settlements, constitutes one of the major findings and advantages of our SD Index. Furthermore, it provides policy makers with sound information to protect and restore the welfare both of the environment and of the population. The results of the application of the methodology to the seven municipalities within the lower Coatzacoalcos river basin are shown in Table 1, Fig. 3. From the analysis of the results shown in Fig. 3, it can be seen that in general for all the municipalities the social system presented the worst numbers, followed by the natural one and finally the production system. Low grades for the social system stem from the lack of adequate infrastructure for population (sewage, drinking water, health care, etc.). On the other hand the higher numbers observed in the production system are explained basically by the influence of the petroleum industry in this area. The municipality with the lowest SDI is Ixhuatlán del Sureste, mainly because of the low grades it obtained in the social and production systems. In particular, within the social system the biggest problem is the lack of domestic sewage infrastructure. Only 51% of all the houses had this infrastructure (Barrera-Roldán et al., 1998c). In this case the use of the methodology helped to identify one of the biggest problems of this municipality. It is important to recognize that this methodology does not give an absolute number of how close the region being studied is to a Sustainable Development, or when it will reach this goal. Nevertheless the application of this methodology to several regions can tell

256

A. Barrera-Rold´an, A. Sald´ıvar-Vald´es / Ecological Indicators 2 (2002) 251–256

Fig. 3. Graph of the Sustainable Development Index for the seven studied municipalities, showing the three general criteria grades.

us which are closer to a SD, and what are the problems they face in order to obtain this type of development. Furthermore, if this methodology is applied to a region in different years it can tell us whether or not the region is moving towards a SD and, once again, the principal problems that have to be solved to reach this objective. Thus this methodology can be used as an important tool in the decision making process for planning regional development.

Acknowledgements This work was made within the project “Ordenamiento ecológico de la microrregión de la cuenca baja del r´ıo Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz” supported by the Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo & Petróleos Mexicanos.

References Barrera, A., Sald´ıvar, A. y Correa, J. 1998b. Propuesta metodológica para la elaboración de un ´ındice de desarrollo sustentable. In: De la econom´ıa ambiental al desarrollo sustentable. In: A. Sald´ıvar (Ed.), UNAM, México, D. F., pp. 181–281. Barrera-Roldán, A., Sald´ıvar-Valdés, A., Correa, A., 1998a. Propuesta metodológica para la elaboración de un Índice de Desarrollo Sustentable. Internal Report, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, México, pp. 16–63.

Barrera-Roldán, A., Sald´ıvar-Valdés, A., Correa A., 1998c. Propuesta metodológica para la elaboración de un Índice de Desarrollo Sustentable. Internal Report, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, México, p. 82. EC, Environment Canada, 1996. Canada’s National Environmental Indicators Series. Environment Canada, Canada. INE, Instituto Nacional de Ecolog´ıa, 2000. Gestión de la Calidad del Aire en México. Logros y Retos para el Desarrollo Sustentable 1995–2000. Instituto Nacional de Ecolog´ıa, México, p. 12. INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica, Geograf´ıa e Informática, XI Censo General de Población y Vivienda, conteo 1995. México. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., 1993. Capital Theory and Measurement of Sustainable Development, an Indicator of “weak” Sustainability. Ecological Economics 8. PNUD, Programa Nacional de Unión para el Desarrollo, 1996. Informe de Desarrollo Humano 1996. In: Mundi-Prensa (Eds.), Madrid, España, 250 pp. SEMARNAP, Secretar´ıa de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca, 1997. Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente. In: Porrua (Ed.), Mexico, pp. 77–79. SS, Secretar´ıa de Salubridad, 3 de diciembre de 1994 SS, Secretar´ıa de Salubridad, 3 de diciembre de 1994. Normas de calidad del aire. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México. UN, United Nations, 1993. The Global Partnership: for Environment and Development. United Nations, New York. UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1997. “Tiempo de trabajo que requiere laborar un trabajador para adquirir la canasta obrera indispensable, 1987–1997”. Reporte de Investigación, Centro de Análisis Multidisciplinario, Facultad de Econom´ıa, UNAM, México, pp. 3–10. UNSDC, United Nation’s Sustainable Development Commission. In: Proceedings of the First Session on Agenda 21, April and June 1997, New York, USA.