A quantitative approach to determine and evaluate the indicated level and nature of global ecological sustainability

Abstract

The question of global sustainability is concerned with the nature of the environment-human relationship. However, evaluations of global sustainability have been based predominantly on subjective or professional judgement. In this paper, a mathematical model is applied to the data of the 2004 Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) conducted by SOPAC to obtain indicative weighted levels of ecological sustainability (SEc) at the global level. The paper uses and evaluates the results obtained within the context of four influencing factors: population size, population density, GDP and Human Development Index (HDI). The paper also determines whether there is a statistical relationship between SEc-levels and each of the influencing factors. The results highlight a significant quantitative and statistical relationship between population density and obtained levels of SEc, as well as a relationship between GDP and SEc. Furthermore, while HDI and SEc produced a non-statistical curvilinear relationship, it is suggested that this may be indicative of a 'tipping point' scenario as countries develop socioeconomically to the detriment of the environment and consequently sustainability. Based on the mean average of obtained weighted values of global SEc, the indicated global SEc-value is in the range of 0.261-0.299 with an error of ±0.060-0.094, indicating weak sustainability, depending on the inclusion of the most significant or all of the influencing factors evaluated.

The spatial distribution of development in Europe and its underlying sustainability correlations

“…However, there is a lack of empirical justification for discrediting a reductionist approach to measuring sustainable development that leads to holistically accurate, justifiably simple, and operational indices. Phillips (2015) recently supported this idea by stating that evaluations of global sustainability have been based predominately on subjective or professional judgment, rather than quantitative approaches.…”

An initial study of the dynamic influences and interactions upon levels of sustainability at the global spatial scale

“…The MMS obtains three fundamental values at the specified spatial-temporal scale: (i) E – the Environment; (ii) HNI – Human Needs and Interests; and (iii) S – Sustainability/Unsustainability. Obtained values of E and HNI occur within the defined range of [0 ⩽ x ⩽ 1.000], and obtained S -values occur within the defined range of [−1.000 ⩽ S ⩽ +1.000] (Phillips, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2020a). The indicated nature of sustainability ( S -level) occurring is determined by the S -value ranges shown in Figure 5b, Step 6.…”

“…The SDF is a holistic quantitative framework which was developed to conceptually and operationally determine and evaluate the indicated levels, nature and fundamental dynamics of sustainability occurring, at any specified spatial-temporal scale or in relation to a specified case study. The SDF mathematically integrates and expands upon the theories of Rules of Weak and Strong Sustainability (RWSS) (Pearce and Atkinson, 1998), Earth System Analysis (ESA) (Schellnhuber, 1998), the Anthropocene Equation (AE) (Gaffney and Steffen, 2017) and the Mathematical Model of Sustainability (MMS) (Phillips, 2010, 2015, 2016) (re: Phillips, 2020a). Phillips (2020a) provided a full discussion of the conceptual and operational aspects of the SDF, the salient features of which are provided in Figures 1 to 3 for context and reference.…”

A mega-index for the Americas and its underlying sustainable development correlations

“…This example exposes the difficulties in trying to understand and justify tradeoffs among indicators of development across space and time. Therefore, important ethical, applied, and policy research remains for implementing and monitoring consumption, pollution, and other population-related limits to avoid reaching "thresholds" (Dearing et al, 2014) or surpassing "tipping points" (Phillips, 2015) of Earth's life-supporting biogeophysical systems. It is without question that many people will suffer greatly if Earth's natural systems are left to determine its optimal human carrying capacity.…”