Sustainable Development (Sd) Performance Measurement in the Mauritian Context.
Sustainable Development (SD) Performance Measurement in the Mauritian context. PROBLEM STATEMENT We want to measure Sustainable Development (SD) Performance in the Mauritian context. Today we have reached a point where it not very clear if Mauritius has a weak sustainability or a strong sustainability.
Due to the intensity of economic (boom in the Business Process Outsourcing sectors leading to construction of more buildings, industrial developments and increase in use of IT equipment), social (change in lifestyle, unemployment rate) and environmental related activities in the country; there has been a direct impact in fields like the resource consumptions, waste production, environmental degradation and social problems.
Some crude examples are the total energy requirement has increased by 5. 8 % that is from 1,347 Ktoe in 2009 to 1,425 Ktoe in 2010 ; there has been a decrease in the amount of rainfall from 2,397 mm in 2009 to 1, 806 in 2010 , also the carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion activities has increased from 59. 4 % in 2009 to 60. 2 % in 2010 . The Gross Domestic Product at basic prices was +3. 1 in 2009 and +4. 4 in 2010 .
It is very important to evaluate the progress or drawbacks of Sustainable Development, so that we can choose appropriate measures to remedy the situation if it is not good, or to maintain the situation if it is good and eventually to work towards the ideal theoretical state more efficiently and rapidly. We will use the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model to map our indicators so as to measure and locate its sustainability state making its actual condition evident and hence more understanding. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The Government of Mauritius has taken a series of steps in order to promote the idea of Sustainable Development in the country. One of the major initiatives is the famous Maurice Ile Durable (MID) which is considered as a long term vision. However, in the long run, it becomes difficult to deduce if the steps taken are genuinely contributing towards Sustainable Development or the projects are being deviated away from their main purpose. Presently, the assessment of sustainable development with a single metric n a holistic manner is extremely difficult and may consequently provide results which may lead to misconceptions. Many past researches deduce that the measurement of sustainable development is a multidimensional evaluation which involves large set of indicators categorised in three main groups namely social, economic and environmental. In the attempt of finding if Mauritius is developing towards or away from sustainability, we would be using the Multi Criteria Decision Analysis. In order to achieve this objective, it is important to assess and measure the sustainability development of the country.
Sustainable Development is a process which has no end, static goals or ways to achieve them. It is a process that requires dynamic thinking in a holistic manner. METHODOLOGY Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which resonates in a holistic way is presented as an appropriate methodology to handle sustainability issues. In the process of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), values of different indicators are projected on a common scale so that it becomes comparable. The Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) can be summarised into 3 major steps: 1.
Determination of indicators Indicators were chosen from a wide range of data available from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) the official organisation responsible for collection, compilation, analysis and dissemination of the official statistical data relating to the economic, environmental and social activities of the country. The most convenient indicators are as follows: * Environmental indicators * Energy consumption * Water use * Greenhouse Gas emissions * Waste Generation * Air quality * Social indicators * Population statistics * Education * Economic indicators Housing condition * Gross Domestic Product (GDP) * Population Density 2. Projection The values of the chosen indicators are then projected onto an ordinal scale respectively and normalised between an upper and a lower limit. 3. Aggregation Each normalised value is then aggregated into one figure known as sustainability value, taking into account their weighted averages relative to their importance. There are only 2 possible outcomes: * Weak sustainability In weak sustainability, the sum of the natural capital and the man made capital has a constant value.
Also, that natural and man made capital can be interchanged. * Strong sustainability In strong sustainability the value of both natural and man made capitals have constant values. Furthermore, these 2 values can be interchanged to a limited extent as the productivity of former value is dependent upon the availability of the latter value. The two above mentioned outcomes, that is: weak sustainability and strong sustainability, will be used in order to evaluate and deduce if the chosen indicators are deviating towards or away from sustainability.
REFERENCES 1. Republic of Mauritius (2011). Digest of environmental statistics 2010. [internet] Available from <http://www. gov. mu/portal/goc/cso/report/natacc/envi10/digest. pdf> [Accessed 1 February 2012] 2. Republic of Mauritius (2011). Digest of Public Finance Statistics 2010. [internet] Available from<http://www. gov. mu/portal/goc/cso/report/natacc/finance10/digest. pdf > [Accessed 1 February 2012] Pg64 3. Diakoulaki, D. and Grafakos, S. (2004). Multicriteria Analysis. [internet] Available from <http://www. xterne. info/expolwp4. pdf> [Accessed 1 February 2012] 4. Consultative workshop (2011). Maurice Ile Durable. [internet] Available from <http://www. gov. mu/portal/sites/mid/file/final-WG4. pdf> [Accessed 1 February 2012] 5. Measuring sustainable development performance: Possibilities and issues (2009) [editorial] Accounting Forum, 33, 189-193 6. Xing, Y et Al (2009). A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. Accounting Forum, 33, 209-224 7. Gasparatos, A. Et Al (2009).
The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum, 33, 245-256 8. Russell, S. L. and Thompson, I. (2009). Analysing the role of sustainable development indicators in accounting for and constructing a sustainable Scotland. Accounting Forum, 33, 225-244 9. Boggia, A. And Cortina, A. (2010). Measuring development using a multi-criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2301-2306 10. Hjorth, P. And Bagheri, A. (2006).
Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38, 74-93 11. Doruk, E et Al (2011). A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregatingindicators- Reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement. Renewable and sustainable Energy reviews, 15, 2385-2396 12. Moussiopoulos, N. Et Al (2010). Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: A system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities, 27, 377-389 13. Singh, R. K. et Al (2009).
An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators, 9, 189-212 14. Joseph, C. and Taplin, R. (2011). The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence. Accountign Forum, 35, 19-31 15. Jones, M. J. (2010). Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting, Accounting Forum, 34, 123-138 16. Farneti, F. And Guthrie, J. (2009). Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report. Accounting Forum, 33, 89-9
Get access to
Guarantee No Hidden