Developing key indicators of green growth
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.
Keywords: Finland; co-creation; green growth; indicators; participation; resource efficiency;
sustainability
Lyytimäki Jari, Antikainen Riina, Hokkanen Joonas, Koskela Sirkka, Kurppa Sirpa, Känkänen Riina, Seppälä Jyri (2018). Developing key indicators of green growth. Sustainable
Development 26(1): 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1690
Introduction
Greening the economy has been emphasized recently as a new strategy for social transformation, simultaneously reducing environmental pressures, promoting economic growth and enhancing social well-being (COM, 2010, 2015; OECD, 2014). Green growth is a relatively novel concept, and there are various definitions but no well-established metrics for its monitoring (Bowen and Fankhauser, 2011; Antikainen et al., 2013; Loiseau et al., 2016). Here, green growth is defined as the process of transition towards a low-carbon and resource-efficient society with economic development that safeguards the functioning of ecosystems and enhances human well-being and social equality. Such transition aims to allow us to further develop our wealth and well-being, whilst maintaining the value of products, materials and resources in the economy for as long as possible and reducing the levels and impact of our resource use. The concept of green growth includes elements of eco-efficiency (UNEP and WBCSD, 1996), resource efficiency (COM, 2011;
OECD, 2016) and circular economy (COM, 2015).
The concept of green growth also relates to the concept of sustainable development (WCED, 1987). Both concepts are normative ones. If viewed from the perspective of the three pillars model (Hopwood et al., 2005), green growth connects closely with the economic and
environmental pillars of sustainable development while paying less attention to the socio-cultural pillar. Green growth is largely consistent with the conception of weak sustainability, assuming a possibility of full or nearly full substitution between different forms of capital (Neumayer, 2013).
The value positions behind the green growth approach can be characterized as liberal or neo- liberal, putting much emphasis on market behaviour and economic growth (Davidson, 2014).
Indicators of green growth provide interesting examples of new evidence-based approaches aimed at widening the knowledge base used in societal decision-making. Various organizations and research groups have proposed such indicators, composite indicators and indicator sets. A key international initiative is the Green Growth Knowledge Platform, which was established as a collaborative forum for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank (GGKP, 2015). The OECD suggested a common set of indicators with the aim of describing green growth in industrialized countries, and presented the first country comparisons in 2011 (OECD, 2014).
The indicators of green growth have high expectations to live up to: in addition to giving a
comprehensive and reliable picture of the key biophysical and socio-economic trends, they should also serve as easy-to-understand and effective tools for moving societies towards sustainable paths. It has been argued that indicators are needed, in particular by policy-makers, to focus attention on relevant issues, provide essential information for decision-making and enable
evaluation of the outcomes of decisions. For example, the European Union (EU) action plan for the circular economy states that ‘[i]n order to assess progress towards a more circular economy and the effectiveness of action at EU and national level, it is important to have a set of reliable indicators’ (COM, 2015, p. 20).
This article examines the challenges and opportunities for developing a concise green growth indicator set integrating national, sub-national and sectorial perspectives. The article aims to (1) describe and evaluate the process of developing a new set of key indicators of green growth for Finland and (2) identify potential ways to improve the indicator production and communication processes in terms of societal impacts. The aim is also to complement the existing literature focusing on the conceptual and methodological issues of indicator selection (e.g. Geng et al., 2012;
OECD, 2014; Sironen et al., 2015) with an analysis directing attention more widely to the societal impacts and policy relevance and usefulness of the proposed indicators.
The article is based on data from workshops, documents and self-evaluation of experiences from the indicator development process. The following section presents the research approach,
followed by a description of the preparation process for the Finnish indicator set and presentation
of the proposed indicators. The wider implications are discussed based on insights from knowledge brokerage and indicator use literature.
Context, Material and Methods The Finnish Context
For the development of national green growth indicators, the Finnish context provides an
interesting case of an affluent economy with relatively advanced environmental policies but high material and energy consumption (Putkuri et al., 2013). Finland has scored highly in several international indicator-based comparisons of environmental performance and societal progress (e.g. van de Kerk and Manuel, 2014; EPI, 2016; Sachs et al., 2016). At the same time, the country has been characterized by having the world's 15th largest per capita ecological footprint (GFN, 2016), poor attractiveness for renewable energy investments (RECAI, 2015) and rather
unambitious climate policies.
Such contradictions have been highlighted and reflected in various national-level sustainability indicator sets over the past decades. Finland has been one of the forerunners of sustainable development indicator work (Rosenström, 2009; Rouhinen, 2014), with the Finnish National Commission for Sustainable Development (FNCSD) established in 1993. The first set of Finnish sustainable development indicators was prepared in the late 1990s and published in 2000 (Rosenström and Palosaari, 2000). Several subsequent frameworks and applications of
sustainability indicators have been proposed, prepared and published, with the focus shifting from science-driven to participatory and user-driven approaches (Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007;
Lyytimäki and Rosenström, 2008; Lyytimäki, 2014). However, the utilization of the sustainability indicators in national level decision-making has remained limited (Rosenström, 2009; Rinne et al., 2013). Novel concepts such as green growth are one potential avenue to reach the attention of key stakeholder groups and to create wider awareness of sustainability issues.
Case Study: Key Indicators of Green Economy
This article builds on the results and experiences of the indicator development project ‘Key indicators for green growth and resource and material efficiency’. The key motivation for the project was the need to clarify the societal debate around green growth, to improve the use of indicators and to find ways to support various Government actions and strategies guiding Finland and, at the same time, economic sectors and regions towards a more eco-efficient path. National- level interest in green growth was partly heightened by the European Union's 2020 strategy emphasizing energy and resource efficiency issues (COM, 2010).
The project involved a diverse set of actors capturing much of the know-how in the field in Finland (Table 1). However, the resources available remained relatively small, not allowing for labour- intensive tasks such as data collection or development of completely new sustainability indicators.
The proposed indicator set has been described in detail in a separate document published in Finnish (Seppälä et al., 2016a). This article presents the indicator set to an international audience and critically discusses the lessons learned during the preparation and publication.
Table 1. Key participants and their roles in indicator development
Organization Type of organization Role and main expertise
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
government research institute focusing widely on environmental issues
project lead, environmental indicators, decision analysis Natural Resources
Institute Finland (Luke)
government research institute focusing widely on natural resources
project co-lead, natural resources indicators
Ramboll Finland private consultancy firm project coordination, firm-level
indicators Motiva Group state-owned expert company promoting efficient
and sustainable use of energy and materials
firm-level indicators
Oulu Business School at the University of Oulu
multidisciplinary research institute under a university
economic indicators, natural resources indicators
Statistics Finland national statistical office data provision, connections to international statistics organizations
This article is based on a qualitative case study approach with the aim of creating a rich picture of the relevant factors influencing certain processes (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Various data sources were utilized, including systematic observations of the indicator production process by the researchers themselves, document analysis and expert and stakeholder workshops (Table 2). The aim of the document analysis and observations by the researchers was to provide an overview of the
indicator development process, while the analysis of the data from workshops focused on gaining an in-depth picture of the factors forestalling or enhancing the use of indicators.
Table 2. Key materials
Type of data source Description of data units
Statistical data national statistical data and international data sources (especially OECD, Eurostat)
Public documents government strategies and other national and international (especially EU) policy documents related to green growth
Ethnographic observations self-observations by the researchers during the whole project lifecycle Internal workshops, unpublished meeting
materials and other project correspondence
minutes and other material from four internal indicator workshops, other internal meetings and correspondence
Interactive stakeholder workshops participation, comments and responses from interactive seminars participated in by 51 researchers, representatives of different ministries, industry organizations and NGOs
Theoretical Background
The analysis and evaluation of the indicator development process is based on theoretical insights from indicator and knowledge brokerage literature. The framework of three general-level
attributes for indicator production and use is adopted as a starting point (Parris and Kates, 2003;
Maxwell et al., 2015). First, credibility relates to indicator factors such as the technical quality of the measurement system and scientific robustness of the indicator set. Second, salience refers to the visibility and accessibility of the indicators to decision makers or the wider public. Salience is largely determined by social context and policy factors such as administrative culture and institutional regime (Bauler, 2012; Morse, 2015). Third, legitimacy refers to the social trust that the sustainability indicators aim for, advancing commonly agreed and acceptable goals, and that they are not overly dominated by the vested interests of any single party (Parris and Kates, 2003).
Legitimacy is closely connected to user factors such as individual roles and positions, beliefs, values and interests. In this conceptualization, relevance is understood as the result of legitimacy and credibility (cf. Heink et al., 2015).
Sustainability indicators are tools commonly used in knowledge brokerage, with the aim of facilitate the exchange of relevant information in a given context (Saarela et al., 2015; Martinuzzi and Sedlacko, 2016). Techniques and strategies of knowledge brokerage have been widely studied in fields such as health communication (Bornbaum et al., 2015) and impact assessment (Lyytimäki et al., 2015). Based on the knowledge brokerage literature, we emphasize the idea of various types of knowledge creation and exchange processes with different levels of interaction between the actors involved (Table 3). We make a distinction between three main types of knowledge brokerage repertoire, including supplying information, bridging the gaps between different types of actor and types of knowledge and facilitating social learning and knowledge creation (Michaels, 2009; Turnhout et al., 2013; Saarela and Rinne, 2016). These three repertoires illustrate how indicators can serve different purposes ranging from one-way dissemination to co-production of knowledge.
Table 3. Typology of potential roles for indicators based on different knowledge brokerage (KB) repertoires in relation to key indicator criteria
Perspective of indicator development criteria*
Perspective of KB repertoire†
Credibility Salience Legitimacy
Supplying indicators providing reliable information on selected key issues
indicators increasing the visibility of selected key issues
indicators recognized as authoritative and trustworthy by key audiences
Bridging indicators synthesizing different information sources and types of reliable information
indicators giving attention to the systemic relations of key issues
indicators creating
awareness of and tolerance for different viewpoints Facilitating indicators enhancing joint fact-
finding
indicators enabling and activating key audiences to share their understanding
indicators facilitating interaction and common trust creation
* Adapted from Parris and Kates, 2003; Maxwell et al., 2015. † Adapted from Saarela and Rinne, 2016; Turnhout et al., 2013; Michaels, 2009.
Process of Developing and Communicating the Indicators
The indicator development project was initiated during spring 2015 and finalized in spring 2016.
The scoping phase included identification of the key quality criteria for indicators, taking into account the expected use of the indicators, primarily at national but also international and
regional levels and in sectors or companies (Hák et al., 2007; Lyytimäki et al., 2013; Maxwell et al., 2015; Lehtonen et al., 2016). In our case, we used the following criteria for the selection of
indicators.
• Avoidance of redundancy: different indicators should not describe the same issue.
• Acceptability: indicators should be based on data commonly considered valid and trustworthy.
• Comparability: indicators should be capable of tracking trends over time, regions and societal sectors.
• Maximum number of international linkages: indicators used internationally should be taken into account in the determination of a national indicator set.
• Measurability: reliable data for an indicator should be readily available and the data should be updated at a reasonable cost.
• Minimum number of indicators: only the selected key issues should be highlighted.
• Relevance: indicators should be useful and relevant for the potential target group.
Different types of indicator proposed elsewhere were reviewed based on various data sources, including national strategies related to natural resources and green economy, corporate environmental reports and research literature. The scoping phase was largely founded on the wide-based expertise of the consortium members and their professional networks. The aim was to build a shared common understanding, bringing together different results and providing different perspectives for sustainability indicators, gained using statistical, research and consultancy
approaches.
During the second phase, indicators already in existence were charted, selected and organized into a set, suggesting several potential key indicators. The framework of green growth indicators produced by the OECD (2014) served as a central reference. Preliminary suggestions for nationally adapted indicators were discussed based on three themes: (1) environmental and resource
productivity, (2) functional ecosystem capacity and (3) economic opportunities and policy responses, as well as socio-economic context.
The purpose of the third phase was to compile the first proposal for a set of key indicators and to identify the areas where new indicators might be needed. A key consideration was the potential usability of the indicators in strategic planning across various levels and sectors of society. In addition to criteria used in the scoping phase, the capacity an indicator has to describe the different dimensions of sustainability and potential win–win situations between environmental and economic development was used as an additional selection criterion. The capacity an indicator has to describe rapid structural changes of society was also taken into account. As a result, approximately 100 potential key indicators were identified. This set was discussed critically in a half-day workshop including face-to-face discussions in subgroups and with a subsequent comments round involving 51 researchers and stakeholders from different ministries, regional authorities, research institutions, NGOs, consultants, municipalities, funding organizations, companies and industry associations.
The proposal for the final set of indicators was formulated based on responses received and information needs identified. The number of potential indicators was reduced considerably and just over 20 indicators were selected for closer examination in order to avoid overlaps between the indicators. Current and future data availability was evaluated for each of the proposed
indicators, and the refined set was sent to the participants of the expert workshop for comments.
Based on the responses and additional analysis by the researchers several modifications were made.
The final set consisted of 19 indicators organized under three main themes and nine goals for green growth and resource efficiency (Figure 1). The three themes aimed to provide a general framework capturing both key dimensions of green growth (Antikainen et al., 2013; OECD, 2014) and national priorities. In particular, compatibility with the OECD green growth indicator
framework was considered essential (OECD, 2014). In order to improve the usability of the indicator set we used a hierarchical presentation for structuring indicators. The structuring was carried out by following the idea of a value tree as used in decision analysis (e.g. von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986). Structuring in the context of indicator determination means that measurable indicators have been classified according to themes and goals. A theme describes an important area of green growth and it covers different goals. Indicators measure the degree of goals.
Figure 1. Suggested key indicators for green growth for Finland and their categorization into themes and goals. Green growth focuses on the interaction between the environment and the economy as a basis of human well-being. (adapted from Seppälä et al., 2016a).
The presentation of indicators was guided by a hierarchical typology differentiating between international and national, regional and sector-based and firm-level indicators. The main focus of the key indicators is at a national level. Capacity to describe development at regional and firm levels was considered important for enhancing the use of indicators and thus supporting
stakeholders in their efforts to achieve better green growth. Sub-national-level information was available for most of the indicators, describing areas defined by administrative borders or bio- physical characteristics (such as watershed areas). Due to problems related to data availability and confidentiality at individual company or social sector level, not all indicators could be applied there.
In addition to key indicators, the set includes several background indicators categorized under key indicators (Table 4). Background indicators give additional or more nuanced information and they can be used to complement the messages of the key indicators (Seppälä et al. 2016a). Several of
them were originally suggested as key indicators but were considered as less relevant during the preparation process.
Table 4. Suggested background indicators for key indicators
Key indicator Suggested background indicators
A1 Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland, CO2-eq/GDP (€) Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland by sector
Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland, emission-trading and non-emission-trading sectors Consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions in Finland, CO2-eq/capita
A2 Intensity of final energy consumption, PJ/GDP (€) Final energy consumption in a region
Final energy consumption by sector (PJ/sector) Final electricity consumption
A3 Proportion of fossil fuels in transport fuels
A4 Raw material intensity
Raw material consumption (RMC) by sector
The ratio of raw material consumption (RMC) to population A5 (No background indicators defined)
A6 The ratio of material consumption to output value in a sector/company (€) A7 Land use categories and sectoral land use (national level)
Land use categories and sectoral land use (regional level)
A8 Forest stock regionally and composition by tree species (national level) Forest stock regionally and composition by tree species (regional level) Total wood consumption in Finland
Wood consumption and trends in wood consumption A9 Yields of agricultural crops (national level)
Yields of agricultural crops (regional level)
Nutrient balances of agricultural soil (national level) Nutrient balances of agricultural soil (regional level) A10 Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (national level)
Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (drainage basins) Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (sector/enterprises) A11 (No background indicators defined)
A12 Emissions of particulate matter in Finland (PM10 and PM2.5) A13 Protected areas in hectares and as a percentage of total area
Mean volume of decayed and other dead trees on forest land, m3/hectare
Key indicator Suggested background indicators
A14 Government R&D budget related to environment (% of total government R&D budget) A15 Structure and volume of environment-related patents
A16 Environmental goods and services sector output (M€), export (M€) and employment A17 Proportion of bioeconomy in output, export and employment (national level)
Bioeconomy in output (M€) and employment (regional level) Bioeconomy in output (M€), export (M€) and employment (sectors) A18 Allocation of environmental protection investments
A19 (No background indicators defined)
Furthermore, in order to connect the green growth concept with wider socio-economic development, indicators of social change were identified. This set included 16 commonly used indicators based on readily available data. They describe changes in the economic growth and structures of society, competitiveness, productivity, employment, education and income. It was recommended that they are used in parallel with the key indicators of green growth.
Several other indicators were analysed during the preparation process and indicators for further development were identified. Such potential future key indicators do not yet meet the
methodological requirements and lack reliability or have inadequate data availability. Examples include indicators of energy efficiency or private investments advancing green growth. Some of the suggested indicators were discarded because they were considered as not relevant. For example, use and reuse of water was not considered as a priority issue in the Finnish context because of the abundant water resources.
All the key indicators, as well as background and social change indicators, were produced as graphical time series, in order to test and ensure the data availability (Seppälä et al., 2016a).
Figure 2 presents an example of the time series of one of the indicators (A4) focusing on the development of resource efficiency in Finland. The example illustrates the difficulties in collating reliable and detailed long-term time series that also show the most recent developments. The most recent data available in late 2016 were from 2013. The reliability and validity of the data describing material use was intensively debated during the preparation process. The main concern was that the indicators do not explain the reasons behind relatively high use of materials by the Finnish economy.
Figure 2. Key indicator A4: Raw material consumption in Finland. Indicators are published in the Lynet web portal in Finnish. The portal utilises Tableau software allowing the user to customise the appearance of the indicator (Sources: Seppälä et al., 2016a; Lynet, 2017).
In addition to the extensive working report detailing the suggested indicator set (Seppälä et al., 2016a), a policy brief summarizing the proposed indicator set was published (Seppälä et al., 2016b). At the end of the project the future of the indicator set remained open. Due to state budget austerity, resources to support the further development, maintenance and continuous updating of the indicators are hard to find (Lyytimäki, 2014). Therefore, indicators based on well- established data sources were prioritized. After the end of the project, an online version of key indicators was published by the Lynet network (Finnish Partnership for Research on Natural Resources and the Environment; Lynet, 2017). It is a network of the seven largest research institutes in the sectors of natural resources and the environment in Finland. The suggested indicators were also utilized in the preparation of new national set of sustainable development indicators in early 2017.
Discussion
General Lessons from the Indicator Development Process
Our case demonstrated that it is possible to reach a consensus on a limited number of potentially useful key indicators of green growth. Such indicators may be utilized in the implementation of circular economy, bioeconomy and cleantech, for example, and more widely in the national sustainable development work being carried out with the aim of achieving the goals outlined in the Agenda 2030 framework by the United Nations (cf. Sachs et al., 2016). The indicators are also potentially suitable for supporting the development of the OECD's green growth indicator concept and the monitoring and updating of the EU's strategies promoting green growth and circular economy (OECD, 2014; COM, 2015). If they work as supposed, they can identify the areas in which changes must happen, concretize the contents of societal roadmaps and strategies, support decision-making and implementation, and monitor and assess progress.
However, there are several caveats. Our case illustrated that project-based indicator development carries a high risk of indicators being forgotten and abandoned soon after the end of the
development project. Building permanent structures for updating and communicating the indicators requires strong ownership and actors with adequate resources to carry on the
development (Rosenström, 2009; Lyytimäki, 2014). In our case the Lynet network adopted the key indicators but resources for long-term updating and maintenance are highly uncertain.
International comparability was highlighted in the early stages of the development of the Finnish indicator set. The OECD (2014) green growth and resource efficiency indicators were taken as a key starting point. However, towards the end of the preparation process and with the involvement of the domestic stakeholders the capacity of the indicators to describe the national context was emphasized to an increasing extent. Several stakeholders highlighted that the primary purpose of a national indicator set is to focus attention to context-specific issues that may not be properly covered by cross-national indicator sets. In particular, issues related to the structure of the energy - intensive and material-intensive Finnish economy, sparse habituation and northern location were emphasized by some stakeholders as issues that should be described by the indicators.
In order to maximize the usefulness at national or local level, the indicators must resonate with locally relevant user needs, but taking the national context into account easily leads to indicators that are not fully internationally compatible (Morse, 2015; Schoenaker et al., 2015). Our case supports earlier results (Rosenström and Kyllönen, 2007; Rametsteiner et al., 2011; Mascarenhas et al., 2015; Moreno Pires et al., 2017) regarding the importance of stakeholder involvement and a participatory indicator preparation process for finding the right balance between international comparability and local contexts.
In order to fulfil the numerous expectations, the indicators must be based on timely and reliable information (Lyytimäki, 2012). In our case this basic requirement turned out to be a challenging one, despite the extensive databases available in Finland. In particular, the assessment of the economic dimension of green growth was challenging as there were insufficient statistical data about workplaces, companies, turnover, innovations or new technologies and services related to green growth (Seppälä et al., 2016a). Additionally, the implications of economic development for social matters and human well-being were difficult to measure directly. Data at the regional level were typically more limited than data at the national level. Due to data limitations, the original goal to produce an indicator set comprehensively integrating indicators for national, regional, local and sectorial and organizational scales turned out to be too demanding.
Our case showed that, because of data limitations, several innovative suggestions for indicators had to be discarded, with conventional and well-established ones selected as key indicators instead. For example, indicators focusing on cleantech enterprises or harmful environmental subsidies were discarded. This may create communication challenges, since novelty is a key news criterion, as well as being important in social media debates. However, even old and familiar indicators can be re-framed and linked to topical public and policy debates, especially if the indicators show a significant change or lack of progress.
The indicator set created represents the current consensus view of the central themes and key indicators of green growth and is based on currently available data. During the development process several overlaps between the three dimensions of green growth selected were identified, highlighting the difficulties of finding an unambiguous and widely agreed definition for green growth (Bowen and Fankhauser, 2011). Importantly, the current indicator set has only a limited capacity to measure system transitions and cause–effect relationships between different issues.
Therefore, the monitoring of green growth requires continuous improvements in the quality, coverage and availability of statistical data. New opportunities for indicators may arise from different applications of citizen science, open data and digitalization (Bela et al., 2016; Moreno Pires et al., 2017).
The Indicator Development Process from the Knowledge Brokerage Perspective
In our case, the credibility of indicators as determined by data availability emerged as the most prominent concern emphasized by indicator developers with a background in research or statistics in particular. Stakeholders representing potential users also acknowledged the importance of data availability, even though their main concern was the appropriate choice of individual indicators.
The stakeholders generally emphasized the choice of indicators from the perspective of legitimacy.
They also emphasized that many sectors already collect and compile indicator-type information in their own context, for instance in order to satisfy the requirements of their foreign export business relations. Salience remained a secondary criterion of relatively low importance for all parties.
Legitimacy issues were brought up, especially by stakeholders representing private business and environmental NGOs. The representatives of ministries occasionally highlighted both legitimacy and salience related to how Finland performs in international comparisons in relation to other countries. Table 5 summarizes the key issues highlighted during the preparation process.
Table 5. Key issues highlighted during the indicator preparation and publication process according different indicator criteria and knowledge brokerage (KB) repertoires
Perspective of indicator development criteria Perspective of
KB repertoire
Credibility Salience Legitimacy
Supplying high concern:emphasized especially by indicator developers focusing on availability of reliable data
low concern:low overall salience of indicator set occasionally mentioned
medium concern:legitimacy of individual indicators potentially misdirecting the debate was raised, especially by stakeholders Bridging medium concern:emphasized
especially by indicator developers focusing on the right balance between indicators
medium concern:risk of some indicators overemphasized in relation to others
medium concern:legitimacy of non-transparent indices was questioned, especially by researchers
Facilitating not a concern:opportunities for social learning or fact-finding were not emphasized
not a concern:
the capacity of indicators to engage and activate people not discussed
low concern:
the capacity indicators have to facilitate interaction leading to increased social trust not discussed
In addition to data availability and choice of indicators, several other concerns were brought up during the preparation process. The timeliness of the data was discussed, especially regarding environmentally oriented indicators such as the data from the nationwide biodiversity assessment (updated approximately once every 10 years) or water quality indicators requiring extensive data- gathering and analysis.
Transparency of the indicators was discussed, especially in relation to composite indicators or indices integrating data describing different and potentially contradictory trends. The use of such composite indicators was criticized, as they may hide important trajectories from public scrutiny. It was also emphasized that such composite indicators may convey misleading messages, because the target audience is typically unaware of the underlying assumptions and detailed
methodologies used in indicator calculation. However, the potential for employing such indicators as tools of social learning was not raised, despite the availability of indices such as the Sustainable Society Index giving ample opportunities for country comparison (van de Kerk and Manuel, 2014;
Sironen et al. 2015). Likewise, the potential of composite indicators to serve as tools for
communication was not emphasized, even though other studies have suggested that composite indicators may be the most salient ones (Sébastien and Bauler, 2013; Morse, 2016). In particular, the debate over the need to develop indicators substituting or complementing the gross national product as the key measure of economic and societal progress was largely absent, even though it has been one of the core questions of indicator debates (Stiglitz et al., 2009; Helne and Hirvilammi, 2015).
Designing More Impactful Indicator Sets
Because of the dominant role of the researchers in the indicator development process, concerns related to data availability and indicator credibility framed the whole indicator development process to a significant degree. Indicator relevance was another factor which was brought up, addressed primarily as the capacity of an indicator to describe relevant issues from the
perspective of green growth. Credibility holds a prominent place in the listings of the criteria of a good indicator and it has been emphasized in indicator initiatives (Hák et al., 2007; Rosenström, 2009; Hák et al., 2016). Placing too much emphasis on credibility as the key criterion may divert attention away from other crucial criteria.
A science-driven indicator development process, focusing on the indicator credibility issues, easily leads to over-ambitious indicator frameworks that are too technical, difficult to comprehend or not timely enough (Lyytimäki, 2012; Bauler, 2012). Parris and Kates (2003) even assert that indicator developers often demonstrate political naivety by focusing on what can be reliably measured rather than on policy targets that should be monitored.
Expert-driven indicators focusing on credibility may also hide values, assumptions and interests that will surface as soon as the indicator set is put into use. As noted by Maxwell et al. (2015), using indicators becomes complicated when stakeholder values are diverse and passionately defended and the costs and benefits of reaching a target are disputed. This is especially likely when issues described by the indicators involve multidimensional and complicated issues such as green growth, resource efficiency or sustainability.
Our case of green growth indicators confirms that the development of socially relevant indicators should be seen not as an expert task isolated from policy debates but as a process of co-tailoring science-based information in collaboration with representatives of potential users. Indicator developers should identify potential users and begin to interact with them in the early phases of the indicator development process. Interaction with potential users and other stakeholders may help to find policy-relevant indicators and provide genuine learning opportunities for all parties involved.
An interactive and participatory development process can also help to improve the communicative effectiveness of indicators. Implementation of a communication strategy with the aim of
delivering key messages to the key target groups is a central part of the indicator development process. However, communication does not guarantee the desired impact, or even any impact at all (Lyytimäki et al., 2013; Lehtonen et al., 2016). Experiences from earlier indicator initiatives suggest a risk that the use of indicators will remain low and that the impact will be limited to a certain core of actors obliged to use the indicators (Rosenström, 2009; Rinne et al., 2013).
Too little stakeholder involvement easily leads to indicators that were not used or that are used only in a ritualistic manner without any effect on decisions (Lehtonen et al., 2016). However, participation is not a panacea: too much involvement of potential users and interest groups creates a risk of biased indicators. Participation may also bring to the surface controversies that complicate or paralyse the indicator preparation and selection process. The key challenge is not avoiding the collision of science-driven and policy-driven approaches with indicator development,
but modifying such collisions so that they form a constructive encounter between different perspectives.
Moreover, the indicator preparation process should be responsive to different types of potential user and uses of indicators. Previous research has highlighted various uses of indicators and the multiple societal roles that indicators can play (Hildén and Rosenström, 2008; Rametsteiner et al., 2011; Gudmundsson and Frederiksen, 2013). Indicators are often seen from the perspective of instrumental use, emphasizing one-way communication and direct uptake and utilization of
indicators (Lehtonen et al., 2016). Conceptual use emphasizing wider knowledge generation, social learning and long-term, often indirect, influences of indicators may provide more fruitful avenues for increasing the desired societal impact of indicators.
Conclusions
Our case showed that developing a cross-scale indicator set integrating different sectors and levels of society is a very challenging task requiring considerable resources. However, it is possible to reach a widely shared understanding of the key indicators of green growth at a national level, fulfilling multiple quality criteria. Reaching a consensus is likely to require the selection of
somewhat conventional and well-established indicators, possibly leading to low public and policy interest in the indicators. This creates extra challenges for the knowledge brokerage and
communication processes aimed at involving stakeholders and disseminating key messages to key audiences. Avoiding such problems probably requires that more emphasis is given to their salience as key criteria of indicator development. Future research should analyse how this can be achieved without compromising the credibility and legitimacy of indicators. A key lesson from our study is that, even though credibility is important, it should not be seen as the most important indicator selection criterion. Our results suggest that there is no universally applicable formula for the right balance between credibility, salience and legitimacy. Instead, their relative importance is
dependent on the specific context of the indicator production and use.
Indicators can play a major role in different knowledge brokerage repertoires, ranging from one- way dissemination to interactive and collaborative processes of co-creation. Indicator production should be seen as a part of the knowledge brokerage process, taking into account both fact-based and value-based considerations. The indicator development process should be able to bridge different perspectives and facilitate social learning among actors with varying interests and knowledge bases. Combining the indicator-based approach with other communication and interaction techniques such as visualizations provides an interesting avenue for future research (Bell et al., 2016). Both the experts preparing the indicators and the potential users of such indicators will benefit from a collaborative preparation 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 more generally.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful suggestions for improvement of the paper.
References
Antikainen R, Mickwitz P, Seppälä J, Virkamäki V, Leppänen M, Hujala T, Riala M, Nummelin T, Paavilainen L, Vihinen H, Kurppa S, Kitti L 2013. Vihreän Kasvun Mahdollisuudet, Prime Minister’s Office Reports 4/2013, Prime Minister’s Office: Helsinki.
Bauler T 2012. An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecological Indicators 17: 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.013
Bela G, Peltola T, Young JC, Balázs B, Arpin I, Pataki G, Hauck J, Kelemen E, Kopperoinen L, Van Herzele A, Keune H, Hecker S, Suškevičs M, Roy HE, Itkonen P, Külvik M, László M, Basnou C, Pino J, Bonn A 2016. Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conservation Biology 30: 990–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12762
Bell S, Berg T, Morse S 2016. Rich pictures: sustainable development and stakeholders – the benefits of content analysis. Sustainable Development 24(2): 136–148.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1614
Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC 2015. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implementation Science 10: 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012- 015-0351-9
Bowen A, Fankhauser S 2011. The green growth narrative: paradigm shift or just spin? Global Environmental Change 21(4): 1157–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.007 COM 2010. Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Communication from the Commission COM(2010) 2020, European Commission: Brussels.
COM 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, Communication from the Commission COM(2011) 571, European Commission: Brussels.
COM 2015. Closing the Loop – an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, Communication from the Commission COM(2015) 614/2, European Commission: Brussels.
Davidson K 2014. A typology to categorize the ideologies of actors in the sustainable development debate. Sustainable Development 22(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.520
Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2016. Environmental Performance Index, Yale University:
New Haven, CT http://www.epi.yale.edu [26 August 2016.
Flyvbjerg B 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):
219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Geng Y, Fu J, Sarkis J, Xue B 2012. Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China:
an evaluation and critical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1): 216–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.005
Global Footprint Network (GFN) 2016. Ecological Wealth of Nations, GFN
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ecological_footprint_nations/ecological_per_capita.html [26 August 2016.
Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP). 2015. Green Growth Knowledge Platform.
http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/researchprogram/green-growth-metrics-indicators [26 August 2016].
Gudmundsson H, Frederiksen P 2013. Policy use and influence of indicators. Ecological Indicators 35: 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.016
Hák T, Janoušková S, Moldan B 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators 60: 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003 Hák T, Moldan B, Dahl A (Eds) 2007. Sustainability Indicators: a Scientific Assessment, SCOPE 67, Island: Washington, DC.
Heink U, Marquard E, Heubach K, Jax K, Kugel C, Neßhöver C, Neumann R, Paulsch A, Tilch S, Timaeus J, Vandewalle M 2015. Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating
the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities. Science and Public Policy 42(5): 676–689. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu082
Helne T, Hirvilammi T 2015. Wellbeing and sustainability: a relational approach. Sustainable Development 23(3): 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1581
Hildén M, Rosenström U 2008. The use of indicators for sustainable development. Sustainable Development 16(4): 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.375
Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches.
Sustainable Development 13(1): 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244
Lehtonen M, Sébastien L, Bauler T 2016. The multiple roles of sustainability indicators in
informational governance: between intended use and unanticipated influence. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 18: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.009
Loiseau E, Saikku L, Antikainen R, Droste N, Hansjürgens B, Pitkänen K, Leskinen P, Kuikman P, Thomsen M 2016. Green economy and related concepts: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 139: 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.024
Lynet. 2017. Vihreän Kasvun Avainindikaattorit. http://www.lynet.fi/fi-
FI/Lynet/Lynet_koordinoi/Vihrean_kasvun_indikaattorit/Vihrean_kasvun_avainindikaattorit%2841 178%29 [25 March 2017].
Lyytimäki J 2012. Evaluation of sustainable development strategies and policies: the need for more timely indicators. Natural Resources Forum 36(2): 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-
8947.2012.01447.x
Lyytimäki J 2014. Communicating sustainability under increasing public budget constraints. Latin American Journal of Management for Sustainable Development 1(2/3): 137–145.
https://doi.org/10.1504/LAJMSD.2014.065476
Lyytimäki J, Rosenström U 2008. Skeletons out of the closet: effectiveness of conceptual frameworks for communicating sustainable development indicators. Sustainable Development 16(5): 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.330
Lyytimäki J, Söderman T, Turnpenny J 2015. Knowledge brokerage at the science–policy interface:
new perspectives on tools for policy appraisal. Environmental Science and Policy 51: 313–315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.007
Lyytimäki J, Tapio P, Varho V, Söderman T 2013. The use, non-use and misuse of indicators in sustainability assessment and communication. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 20(5): 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.834524
Martinuzzi A, Sedlacko M 2016. Knowledge Brokerage for Sustainable Development: Innovative Tools for Increasing Research Impact and Evidence-Based Policy-Making, Greenleaf: Shipley, UK.
Mascarenhas A, Nunes LM, Ramos TB 2015. Selection of sustainability indicators for planning:
combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production 92: 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.005
Maxwell SL, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG, Knight AT, Bunnefeld N, Nuno A, Bal P, Earle S, Watson JEM, Rhodes JR 2015. Being smart about SMART environmental targets. Science 347(6226): 1075–
1076. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1451
Michaels S 2009. Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 994–1011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.05.002
Moreno Pires S, Magee L, Holden M 2017. Learning from community indicators movements:
towards a citizen-powered urban data revolution. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417691512
Morse S 2015. Developing sustainability indicators and indices. Sustainable Development 23(2):
84–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1575
Morse S 2016. Measuring the success of sustainable development indices in terms of reporting by the global press. Social Indicators Research 125(2): 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014- 0847-8
Neumayer E 2013. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability, 4th ed., Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. OECD 2014.
Green Growth Indicators 2014, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD: Paris.
OECD 2016. Policy Guidance on Resource Efficiency, OECD Publishing: Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257344-en
Parris TM, Kates RW 2003. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28(13): 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105551
Putkuri E, Lindholm M, Peltonen A 2013. The State of the Environment in Finland 2013, SYKE Publications 1, Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki.
Rametsteiner E, Pülzl H, Alkan-Olsson J, Frederiksen P 2011. Sustainability indicator development – science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators 11(1): 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.06.009
Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (RECAI). 2015. Renewable Energy Country
Attractiveness Index. Issue 45. http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Power---Utilities/Renewable- Energy-Country-Attractiveness-Index [26 August 2016].
Rinne J, Lyytimäki J, Kautto P 2013. From sustainability to well-being: lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators in national and EU level. Ecological Indicators 35: 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.023
Rosenström U 2009. Sustainable Development Indicators: Much Wanted, Less Used? Monographs of the Boreal Environmental Research No 33, Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki.
Rosenström U, Kyllönen S 2007. Impacts of a participatory approach to developing national level sustainable development indicators in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 84(3): 282–
298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.008
Rosenström U, Palosaari M 2000. Kestävyyden Mitta. Suomen Kestävän Kehityksen Indikaattorit 2000, Suomen ympäristö 404, Ympäristöministeriö: Helsinki.
Rouhinen S. 2014. Matkalla Mallimaaksi? Kestävän Kehityksen Juurtuminen Suomessa.
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 88. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-61-1596-2 [26 August 2016].
Saarela S-R, Rinne J 2016. Knowledge brokering and boundary work for ecosystem service indicators. An urban case study in Finland. Ecological Indicators 61: 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.016
Saarela S-R, Söderman T, Lyytimäki J 2015. Knowledge brokerage context factors – what matters in knowledge exchange in impact assessment? Environmental Science and Policy 51: 325–337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.09.001
Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Durand-Delacre D, Teksoz K 2016. SDG Index and Dashboards – Global Report, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York http://sdgindex.org/ [26 August 2016].
Schoenaker N, Hoekstra R, Smits JP 2015. Comparison of measurement systems for sustainable development at the national level. Sustainable Development 23(5): 285–300.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1585
Sébastien L, Bauler T 2013. Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level. Ecological Indicators 35: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.014 Seppälä J, Kurppa S, Savolainen H, Antikainen R, Lyytimäki J, Koskela S, Hokkanen J, Känkänen R, Kolttola L, Hippinen I 2016a. Vihreän Kasvun Sekä Materiaali- ja Resurssitehokkuuden
Avainindikaattorit, Valtioneuvoston Selvitys- ja Tutkimustoiminnan Julkaisusarja 23/2016,
Valtioneuvoston Kanslia: Helsinki http://tietokayttoon.fi/julkaisu?pubid=11312 [26 August 2016].
Seppälä J, Kurppa S, Savolainen H, Antikainen R, Lyytimäki J, Koskela S, Känkänen R, Hokkanen J, Kolttola L, Hippinen I. 2016b. Key Indicators for Green Growth and Material and Resource Efficiency in Finland. Article series of Government’s analysis, assessment and research
activities. Policy Brief 6/2016. http://tietokayttoon.fi/julkaisu?pubid=11502 [26 August 2016].
Sironen S, Seppälä J, Leskinen P 2015. Towards more non-compensatory sustainable society index.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 17(3): 587–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668- 014-9562-5
Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P 2009. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, CMEPSP http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/documents.htm [26 August 2016].
Turnhout E, Stuiver M, Klostermann J, Harms B, Leeuwis C 2013. New roles of science in society:
different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy 40: 354–365.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 1996. Eco-efficiency and Cleaner Production: Charting the Course to Sustainability, UNEP–WBCSD: Geneva.
van de Kerk G, Manuel A 2014. Sustainable Society Index 2014, Sustainable Society Foundation:
The Hague http://www.ssfindex.com/ssi2014/wp-content/uploads/pdf/SSI2014.pdf [26 August 2016].
von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press: New York.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987. Our Common Future, WCED–
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
