The ideal tool includes all the components that were discussed in our research. We believe that the conventional GDP does not take the social and environmental aspects into account in a sufficient manner. In our indicator, we would like to apply more weight to these aspects. Therefore we have decided on the following weights:
| Subpart | Weight |
| Economic | 25% |
| Social | 35% |
| Environmental | 40% |
Each of these three different aspects has subcomponents. We have attempted to rank the different subcomponent to reflect what we would like to highlight in a greener indicator.
The economic subcomponents with weights:
| Subpart
|
Weight |
| 1. Inflation rate | 6.25% |
| 2. Purchasing power parity | 6.25% |
| 3. Unemployment rate
|
3.75 %
|
| 4. Number of people below poverty line per capita income | 3.75 % |
| 5. Interest rates | 2.5% |
| 6. Public deficits | 2.5% |
Within the economic aspect it is good to remember that especially inflation rate and incomes and purchasing power are linked. Number of people below poverty line per capita income is not included in existing GDP. However, in our indicator we also want to emphasize the social aspects such as the distribution of wealth within a country. Deficits are included in the indicator with a smaller weight as this component does not affect the daily life of people directly.
Social subcomponents with weights:
| Subpart | Weight |
| 1. Life expectancy at birth | 7% |
| 2. Infant mortality rate | 7% |
| 3. Health quality | 5.25% |
| 4. Education level | 5.25% |
| 5. Crime rate | 1.75% |
| 6. Suicide rate | 1.75% |
| 7. Property level | 1.75% |
| 8. Full-time/Part-time jobs | 1.75% |
| 9. Relationship status | 1.75% |
| 10. Size and strenght of social networks | 1.75% |
The three most important subcomponents of the social aspect are about the standard of living. Health quality depends on how governments spend on public health infrastructure. In the social aspect the subcomponents are indicators often used to compare the well-being in countries. However, we have also included indicators that are seldom seen but still significant such as property level, suicide rate and size and strength of social networks.
Environmental subcomponents with weights:
| Subpart | Weight |
| 1. Ecological Footprint | 20% |
| 2. Water Accessibility & Quality | 10% |
| 3. Air Quality | 6% |
| 4. Energy consumption component | 4% |
The ecological footprint is given the most weight in our indicator because it is the most comprehensive indicator that encompasses all the different types of energy consumption. The water accessibility and quality in addition to air quality are important indicators that are linked to health issues. Even though it is sometimes difficult to monitor these two subcomponents, we hope that by including them to the indicator we will encourage interest in these fields as they still are significant.
| Components | Weight |
| Purchasing power parity | 0,125 |
| Inflation rate | 0,125 |
| Expected years on schooling children by years | 0,0315 |
| Number of people who get tertiary diploma | 0,0315 |
| Health quality | 0,07 |
| Crimes rate | 0,028 |
| Life expectancy | 0,0805 |
| Infant mortality | 0,0805 |
| Suicide rate | 0,028 |
| Ecological footprint | 0,2 |
| Air pollution | 0,06 |
| Water consumption | 0,1 |
| Energy consumption | 0,04 |
| Total | 1 |
List of the components we keep in the simplified indicator:
Number / proportion of people under the poverty line
The way of calculating:
We will create a table in which all the previous components are listed. Then, we will allocate a weight to each component according to their importance for wellbeing. The total must be equal to 1. The highest the weight is, the more important is the component.
For each country and each component we will give a figure between 1and 5, 5 is the best. Finally, we multiply the weight by the score for each component to have the total. The best country is the one which has the better score.
Let see the example of country X:
| Components | Weight | Score | Total |
| Suicide rate | 0.25 | 1 | 0.25 |
| Ecological footprint | 0.25 | 5 | 1.25 |
| Air quality | 0.5 | 3 | 1.5 |
| Total | 1 | 9 | 3 |
Here, the more important component is the air quality. The suicide rate is average, so not very good. However, the ecological footprint is high, so there is in this country a real respect of the environment. The total is 3. It has to be compared with those of the other countries.
How to allocate scores for each component?
We will use the figures given by the OECD. The more recent are those of 2009. Their table gives each national currency per US dollar. Concretely, it means that one dollar in the USA is equal to x$ in another country.
For example, the PPP in Australia in 2009 is 1, 50$. In other words, what you buy for 1$ in the USA, you buy it for 1, 50 $ in Australia. Consequently, people in Australia have less purchasing power.
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0<PPP<2* | 3<PPP<5* | 6<PPP<10* | 11<PPP<20* | ppp<21* |
* In dollar.1
We still base our analysis on the figures of the OECD. Their table provides data on inflation rate in percentage change over previous period. Hence, the figures of 2010 give the percentage of inflation compared to 2009.
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| -1 or +1* | -2 or +2* | -3 or +3* | -4 or +4* | Every rate under -5 and +5* |
* In points of percentage.2
As in the HID, we take into account the expected years of schooling of children by years.3
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| +17 years | 16-14 | 13-10 | 9-3 | -2years |
And we will also take the number of people who get tertiary diploma. We take the percentage of graduates divided by the population at the typical age of graduation.4
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| +60% | 59-40% | 39-30% | 29-21% | 20% |
Source: OCDE 2007. It gives the public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP. For instance, in 2007 the percentage in Belgium is 7.3. it means that Belgium spent 7.3% of its GDP in social expenditures.5
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| +7* | 6-7* | 4-5* | 2-3* | -2* |
* In percentage of the GDP.
The table of Eurostats about crimes is very comprehensive. It gives the number of crimes recorded by the police during a year. We divide then this number by the number of inhabitants in order to balance it for each country, and we multiply the figure by 100.6
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| -2* | 2-5* | 6-9* | 10-20* | +20* |
* In percentage of population.
We use the figures of 2008, the last ones provided by the OCDE. Its table shows the number of year a newborn can expect to live in a given country if the living conditions do not change.7
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 81-90* | 71-80* | 61-70* | 51-60* | 0-50* |
* In years.
Source: OCDE, figures of 2008. Here is the number of children who died before the age of one /the total of newborns. The figure is given for 1000 births.8
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0-5* | 6-15* | 16-30* | 31-50* | +51* |
* In number of children.
Source: OCDE, figures of 2007. We have in this table the number of suicides per 100 000 population.9
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0-5* | 6-10* | 11-15* | 16-20* | +20* |
* In number of deaths.
Units: Hectares per Person, Source: Living Planet Report 200010
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0-3 | 4-5 | 6-8 | 9-10 | +10 |
The OECD gives the emissions per capita in kg of four traditional pollutants in 2005. We add the four figures to obtain the total amount of pollutants emitted per capita.11
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0-70 | 71-100 | 101-150 | 151-200 | +200 |
Here is the consumption of water by country in million m3. Source: OECD 200712
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 0-9.000 | 10.000-20.000 | 21.000-30.000 | 31.000-70.000 | +70.000 |
We measure the improvements made in the energy consumption between two years by calculating the variation rate according to the following formula:
A= energy consumption of year N / GDP of year N
B= energy consumption of year N+1/GDP of year N+1
E=Variation rate of the energy consumption= (B-A/A)*100
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| -15%<E | -14%<E<-5% | -4%<E<0 | 0<E<5% | 5%<E |
| Component | Weight | Score | TOTAL |
| Economical Components | |||
| Purchasing Power Parity | 0.125 | 5 | 0.625 |
| Inflation Rate | 0.125 | 4 | 0.5 |
| Social Components | |||
| Life Expectancy at Birth | 0.0805 | 4 | 0.322 |
| Infant Mortality | 0.0805 | 4 | 0.322 |
| Expected years on shooling children by years | 0.0315 | 4 | 0.126 |
| Number of people who get a tertiary diploma | 0.0315 | 3 | 0.0945 |
| Health quality | 0.07 | 5 | 0.35 |
| Crime rate | 0.028 | 4 | 0.112 |
| Suicide Rate | 0.028 | 4 | 0.112 |
| Environmental Components | |||
| Ecological footprint | 0.20 | 1 | 0.20 |
| Air quality | 0.10 | 1 | 0.10 |
| Water accessibility, consumption and quality | 0.06 | 1 | 0.06 |
| Energy consumption | 0.04 | 1 | 0.04 |
| TOTAL (maximum score: 5/5) | 100% | 2.96 |
| Component | Weight | Score | TOTAL |
| Economical Components | |||
| Purchasing Power Parity | 0.125 | 5 | 0.625 |
| Inflation Rate | 0.125 | 4 | 0.5 |
| Social Components
|
|||
| Life expectancy at birth | 0.0805 | 5 | 0.4025 |
| Infant mortality | 0.0805 | 5 | 0.4025 |
| >Expected years on schooling children by years | 0.0315 | 4 | 0.126 |
| Number of people who get a tertiary diploma | 0.0315 | 4 | 0.126 |
| Health quality | 0.07 | 5 | 0.35 |
| Suicide Rate | 0.028 | 3 | 0.084 |
| Crime Rate | 0.028 | 3 | 0.084 |
| Environmental Components | |||
| Ecological Footprint | 0.20 | 3 | 0.60 |
| Air Quality | 0.1 | 3 | 0.30 |
| Water Accessibility, Consumption, and Quality | 0.06 | 2 | 0.12 |
| Energy consumption | 0.04 | 3 | 0.12 |
| TOTAL (maximum score: 5/5) | 100% | 3.84 |
| Component | Weight | Score | TOTAL |
| Economical Components | |||
| Purchasing Power Parity | 0.125 | 3 | 0.375 |
| Inflation Rate | 0.125 | 2 | 0.25 |
| Social Components | |||
| Life expectancy at birth | 0.0805 | 4/td> | 0.322 |
| Infant mortality | 0.0805 | 4 | 0.322 |
| Expected years on schooling by years | 0.0315 | 3 | 0.0945 |
| Number of people who get a tertiary diploma | 0.0315 | 3 | 0.0945 |
| Health quality | 0.07 | 2 | 0.14 |
| Suicide Rate | 0.028 | 5 | 0.14 |
| Crime rate | 0.028 | 4 | 0.112 |
| Environmental Components | |||
| Ecological Footprint | 0.20 | 5 | 1 |
| Air Quality | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Water Accessibility, Consumption, and Quality | 0.06 | 1 | 0.06 |
| Energy consumption | 0.04 | 4 | 0.16 |
| TOTAL (maximum score: 5/5) | 100% | 3.37 |
From these tables, the following may be deduced:
This seems to be relatively faithful to the actual situation today, as long as more weight is given to the social/human and environmental dimensions.
In 2010, the International Monetary Fund ranked these countries on the basis of the GDP as follows:
Therefore our "sustainability index" disrupts the traditional rankings of countries.
There has been error in communication with booki server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.