IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jmsjnl/v7y2017i4p51-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Sustainability of Countries at Worldwide

Author

Listed:
  • Janaina M. de A. Dias
  • Eduardo G. Salgado
  • Sandro Barbosa
  • Augusto D. Alvarenga
  • Jean M. S. Lira

Abstract

For the quantification and ranking of sustainablility reliable indicators are needed in the economic, social and environmental areas. For this, decision-making methods have been used to identify and rank the most important indicators. However, it is important to know which method to use, since this choice can modify the result. Therefore, two methods of multi-criteria decision making were evaluated: Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and TOPSIS with Hierarchical Analytical Process (AHP). It was observed a difference between the methods tested, where the TOPSIS-AHP method presented better performance as a function of the weights assigned by the specialists. The research results demonstrated which countries have a more balanced sustainable development in environmental, social and economic levels together. In this case, the three most sustainable countries are Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. Additionally this research shows which countries are more sustainable taking into account each indicator separately. It is expected that the results provide a basis in decision-making and it contribute to the best choices in all aspects of sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Janaina M. de A. Dias & Eduardo G. Salgado & Sandro Barbosa & Augusto D. Alvarenga & Jean M. S. Lira, 2017. "Assessment of the Sustainability of Countries at Worldwide," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(4), pages 51-64, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jmsjnl:v:7:y:2017:i:4:p:51-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/69984/38966
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/69984
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    2. Navid Hossaini & Bahareh Reza & Sharmin Akhtar & Rehan Sadiq & Kasun Hewage, 2015. "AHP based life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework: a case study of six storey wood frame and concrete frame buildings in Vancouver," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(7), pages 1217-1241, July.
    3. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Luzzati, T. & Gucciardi, G., 2015. "A non-simplistic approach to composite indicators and rankings: an illustration by comparing the sustainability of the EU Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 25-38.
    5. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    6. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    7. Distaso, Alba, 2007. "Well-being and/or quality of life in EU countries through a multidimensional index of sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 163-180, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maddalena Honorati & Sara Johansson de Silva & Natalia Millan & Florentin Kerschbaumer, 2019. "Work for a Better Future in Armenia," World Bank Publications - Reports 34412, The World Bank Group.
    2. Jing, Rui & Wang, Meng & Brandon, Nigel & Zhao, Yingru, 2017. "Multi-criteria evaluation of solid oxide fuel cell based combined cooling heating and power (SOFC-CCHP) applications for public buildings in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 273-289.
    3. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dušan M. Milošević & Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2020. "Implementation of Adjusted Fuzzy AHP Method in the Assessment for Reuse of Industrial Buildings," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Guido C. Guerrero-Liquet & Santiago Oviedo-Casado & J. M. Sánchez-Lozano & M. Socorro García-Cascales & Javier Prior & Antonio Urbina, 2018. "Determination of the Optimal Size of Photovoltaic Systems by Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Cheng Peng & Xunbo Wu & Yelin Fu & Kin Keung Lai, 2017. "Alternative approaches to constructing composite indicators: an application to construct a Sustainable Energy Index for APEC economies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 747-759, October.
    4. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    5. Chetan A. Jhaveri & Jitendra M. Nenavani, 2020. "Evaluation of eTail Services Quality: AHP Approach," Vision, , vol. 24(3), pages 310-319, September.
    6. Justyna Patalas-Maliszewska & Hanna Łosyk, 2020. "An Approach to Assessing Sustainability in the Development of a Manufacturing Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    8. Maranzano, Paolo & Cerdeira Bento, Joao Paulo & Manera, Matteo, 2021. "The Role of Education and Income Inequality on Environmental Quality. A Panel Data Analysis of the EKC Hypothesis on OECD," FEEM Working Papers 310225, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    10. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    11. Man Liang & Shuwen Niu & Zhen Li & Wenli Qiang, 2019. "International Comparison of Human Development Index Corrected by Greenness and Fairness Indicators and Policy Implications for China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 1-24, February.
    12. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    13. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    15. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    16. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Bedřich Moldan, 2018. "Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    17. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    18. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    19. Zhang, Yuhu & Ren, Jing & Pu, Yanru & Wang, Peng, 2020. "Solar energy potential assessment: A framework to integrate geographic, technological, and economic indices for a potential analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 577-586.
    20. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    multi-criteria decision making; Sustainability indicators; TOPSIS; AHP;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jmsjnl:v:7:y:2017:i:4:p:51-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.