Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGIAMPIETRO Marioen_GB
dc.contributor.editorSALTELLI Andreaen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-17T01:09:06Z-
dc.date.available2015-04-07en_GB
dc.date.available2016-01-17T01:09:06Z-
dc.date.created2014-12-04en_GB
dc.date.issued2014en_GB
dc.date.submitted2014-11-12en_GB
dc.identifier.isbn978-92-79-44003-8en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1831-9424en_GB
dc.identifier.otherEUR 26917en_GB
dc.identifier.otherOP LB-NA-26917-EN-Nen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC92579-
dc.description.abstractThe terms of reference of the contract define two contributions: (i) a theoretical analysis addressing the epistemological challenges posed by quantitative indicators for sustainable growth (Part 1); and (ii) an applied analysis of the ongoing work on a composite indicator for monitoring Environmental Pressure in the EU at the national level (G03 collaboration with Environment Directorate-General) and the Environmental Pressure Index developed in collaboration with Yale and Columbia University (Part 2). Building on the wisdom of George E.P. Box, “all models are wrong, some are useful”, the report first shows why all models are necessarily wrong and individuates the factors determining the usefulness of wrong models. Practical examples of food and energy accounting demonstrate that quantitative analysis of environmental pressure generated by socio-ecological systems always demands the simultaneous consideration of multiple space-time scales and multiple dimensions of analysis. Based on these epistemological premises, a critical appraisal is then provided of two ongoing efforts aimed at quantifying environmental impact - the Environmental Performance Index and the Composite Index of Environmental Pressure - with the goal to strengthen the usefulness (political relevance) of these protocols. Observations on the Environmental Performance Index include: (i) Excessive concern for rigorous data handling hides the neglect of the discussion about the relevance of what should be measured; (ii) The implications of the DPSIR framework (Drivers, Pressure,States, Impact, Response) are not properly addressed; (iii) The environmental pressure externalized to other countries through imports is not considered; (iv) The inclusion of outcome-oriented indicators, for measuring the effect of policies (Response), makes the whole assessment shaky by mixing numbers relevant for different purposes. As regards the Composite Index of Environmental Pressures: (i) The conceptual issue of cross-country data comparability is not properly addressed; (ii) It is impossible to use quantitative assessments of pressure without making reference to state and impact. Therefore, rather than grouping indicators into five themes (air, water, land, climate, chemicals) without providing an external referent, it is recommendable to refer to the potential impact on structural elements, such as terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic funds (such as aquifers), agricultural soils and the atmosphere, at the global (for GHG emissions) and local scale (inhabited areas; to account for those indicators that exert pressure.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJRC.DDG.01-Econometrics and applied statisticsen_GB
dc.format.mediumOnlineen_GB
dc.languageENGen_GB
dc.publisherPublications Office of the European Unionen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJRC92579en_GB
dc.titleMono-dimensional accounting and multidimensional measures of sustainable growthen_GB
dc.typeEUR - Scientific and Technical Research Reportsen_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.2788/244356en_GB
JRC Directorate:Joint Research Centre Corporate Activities

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
lbna26917enn.pdf19.48 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.