An attempt to evaluate the level of sustainable development in European Union countries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2021.023Keywords
sustainable development, European Union, level of sustainable development, taxonomic methodAbstract
Motivation: Sustainable development is a concept of development that arouses keen interest of various entities, is unprecise in many of its assumptions, undoubtedly applicable for the contemporary civilisation as well as the future generations, with effects difficult to measure and interpret, and constitutes a considerable research challenge. The research on the sustainability level of particular countries or regions have still been insufficient, as well as, due to varying research methods and research scopes, difficult to compare and causing difficulties in clear determination of the scale and progress in implementing the assumptions of this concept of development.
Aim: To evaluate the level of sustainable development in European Union countries in 2009 and 2018 with the application of the taxonomic method.
Results: In the vast majority of European Union countries, the value of the synthetic sustainable development indicator was higher in 2018 as compared to 2009. Only in the case of three countries the value decreased. The improvement of the indicator was driven mainly by the economic aspect. When evaluating the sustainable development level of European Union countries in 2009 and 2018, it may be claimed that each time the majority of countries noted a low level of sustainable development: a low and very low synthetic sustainable development indicator was demonstrated by 67% and 56% respectively of the entities under evaluation. In the group of countries with a very high aggregate indicator, the changes in 2018 as compared to 2009 were not significant; only the Netherlands and Slovenia were in the group of countries with a high synthetic sustainable development indicator (in 2018 — with a very high indicator). Certainly, it should be seen as positive that the group of countries with a very low aggregate indicator shrank considerably: from 17 in 2009 to eight in 2018. Among the countries representing that group in 2018 were only those which belonged to it also in 2009. As results from the conducted analysis, the countries which have attained a very high or high level of sustainable development maintain this status.
References
Balcerzak, A., & Pietrzak, M. (2017). Sustainable development in the European Union in the years 2004–2013. In M.H. Bilgin, H. Danis, & U. Can (Eds.), Regional studies on economic growth, financial economics and management (pp. 193–213). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54112-9_12.
Bazarnik, J., Grabiński, T., & Wojdacki, K.P. (1992). Taksonomiczne metody analizy przestrzennej struktury konsumpcji. In S. Mynarski (Ed.), Badania przestrzenne rynku i konsumpcji: przewodnik metodyczny (pp. 117–160). PWN.
Drastichová, M. (2014). Measuring sustainable development in the European Union using the adjusted net saving. In I. Honová, M. Hon, L. Melecký, & M. Staníčková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on European integration, 2, 87–101. Technical University of Ostrava.
EEA. (2019a). Air quality in Europe: 2019 report. Retrieved 09.03.2020 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2019.
EEA. (2019b). The European environment: state and outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. Retrieved 09.03.2020 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2020.
Eurostat. (2019a). Ageing Europe: looking at the lives of older people in the EU. https://doi.org/10.2785/811048.
Eurostat. (2019b). Energy, transport and environment statistics. https://doi.org/10.2785/660147.
Eurostat. (2019c). Eurostat review on national accounts and macroeconomic indicators, 2. Retrieved 09.03.2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/content/eurona_en.
Eurostat. (2019d). Sustainable development in the European Union: monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. https://doi.org/10.2785/44964.
Eurostat. (2020). Retrieved 11.08.2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
Georgescu, M.-A., & Herman, E. (2019). Productive employment for inclusive and sustainable development in European Union countries. Sustainability, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061771.
Głodowska, A. (2016). Sustainable development strategy and the effectiveness of its implementation in the European Union. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, 17(10), 71–83.
Grzelak, K. (2020). Ranking najbardziej przyjaznych środowisku państw: Dania na pierwszym, Polska — 37. Retrieved 15.08.2020 from https://www.focus.pl/artykul/ranking-najbardziej-przyjaznych-srodowisku-panstw-dania-na-pierwszym-polska-37.
IRME. (2017). Budownictwo ekologiczne wyczarowane z drewna. Retrieved 17.08.2020 from https://irme.pl/budownictwo-ekologiczne-wyczarowane-z-drewna.
Klonowska-Matynia, M., & Sasin, M. (2015). Zrównoważony rozwój krajów Unii Europejskiej: typologia krajów w kontekście Strategia Europa 2020. Annual Set The Environment Protection, 17, 771–791.
Kotosz, B. (2012). Measuring sustainable development at macro level. In I. Zentkova (Ed.), Global commodity markets: new challenges and the role of policy (pp. 707–712). Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra.
Kovačič, A. (2017). European Union and sustainable indicators. Management of Sustainable Development Sibiu, 9(2), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/msd-2017-0018.
Kozar, Ł. (2016). Ranking krajów UE pod względem poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie: Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, 16(31), 186–198.
Krzyminiewska, G., & Pondel, H. (2016). Sustainable development of rural municipalities of the Wielkopolska Voivodship: an attempt at evaluation. Economic and Environmental Studies, 16(2), 191–206.
Łogwiniuk, K. (2011). Zastosowanie metod taksonomicznych w analizie porównawczej dostępu do infrastruktury ICT przez młodzież szkolną w Polsce. Economy and Management, 1, 7–23.
Martin, C.J., & Carnero, C. (2019). Evaluation of sustainable development in European Union countries. Applied Sciences, 9(22), 4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224880.
Nowak, L. (2003). Metody taksonomiczne. In H. Mruk (Ed.), Analiza rynku (pp. 203–211). PWE.
Olejnik, I. (2006). Wielowymiarowa analiza zróżnicowania przestrzennego rozwoju handlu w Polsce. In J. Mikołajczyk (Ed.), Handel: znaczenie we współczesnej gospodarce (pp. 195–202). Wyższa Szkoła Handlu i Usług.
Prorok, L. (2015). Doświadczenie północnoeuropejskie a polska polityka społeczna: uwagi na temat książki W. Anioła Szlak Norden: Modernizacja po skandynawsku. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 64(2), 187–199.
Raś, K. (2020). Polityka klimatyczna Łotwy. Retrieved 15.08.2020 from https://www.pism.pl/publikacje/Polityka_klimatyczna_Lotwy.
Zimniewicz, K. (2016). Zrównoważony rozwój: wizja bez szans na realizację. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 3(58), 62–72.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Hanna Pondel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 595
Number of citations: 0