1 / 14

EU27 case study – aims and methods 1/2

Grouping and ranking the EU27 countries by their sustainability performance measured by the Eurostat sustainability indicators. Francesca Allievi and Juha Panula-Ontto Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku www.tse.fi/tutu. EU27 case study – aims and methods 1/2 .

ziva
Télécharger la présentation

EU27 case study – aims and methods 1/2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grouping and ranking the EU27 countriesbytheirsustainabilityperformancemeasuredby the Eurostatsustainabilityindicators Francesca Allievi and Juha Panula-OnttoFinland Futures Research Centre, University of Turkuwww.tse.fi/tutu

  2. EU27 case study – aims and methods 1/2 • Aim of this study is to group EU27 countries in terms of their sustainability levels. Developed within the FP7 project SMILE. • The grouping of the countries is carried out by applying hierarchical agglomerative clustering: partitions of the data are created by fusing together individuals or groups of individuals that are most similar • Clustering on normalizeddistancematrices: City BlockDistance 1. Compute the distancesbetweenallindicators 2. Normalizeindicatordistances (dividingbymaximumdistance) 3. Assembledistances in a single distancematrix and divideby the number of contributingfactors

  3. EU27 case study – aims and methods 2/2 • Countrieshavealsobeenranked on the basis of theirsustainabilityperformance • For eachindicatora weight and ranking logic wasselected. Weight measures the relative importance of the indicator in respect to the other indicators in the same dimension. Normal ranking logic means higher score for greater value, reversed ranking logic means higher score for smaller value. • For each indicator, the best performing country has been given the number of points equal to the weight of the indicator. The worst performing country has been given a score of zero for the indicator and the other countries have received a linearly scaled score according to their relative performance in respect to the best performing country. • It is thereforeobviousthat the analysispresentedheregivesonly the performance of the EU27 countries in relation to eachother

  4. EU27 case study: indicators and weightsused 1/3 • Social dimension

  5. EU27 case study: indicators and weightsused 1/3 • Environmental Dimension

  6. EU27 case study: indicators and weightsused 3/3 • Economic dimension

  7. Clusteringresults – overview for 2005

  8. Clusteringresults 1/3 Social dimension (2005) • Cluster 1: Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania • Cluster 2: Poland, Slovakia • Cluster 3: Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania • Cluster 4: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, France, Germany • Cluster 5: Ireland, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Cyprus • Cluster 6: Malta, Portugal • Cluster 7: Italy, Spain

  9. Clusteringresults 2/3 Environmental dimension (2005) • Cluster 1: Estonia, Greece, Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Sweden • Cluster 2: Hungary, Lithuania, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Malta • Cluster 3: Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia • Cluster 4: Cyprus, Ireland • Cluster 5: Denmark, Finland, Austria • Outlier: Luxembourg

  10. Clusteringresults 3/3 Economic dimension (2005) • Cluster 1: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia • Cluster 2: Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Malta • Cluster 3: Czech Republic, Slovenia, Ireland, Spain • Cluster 4: Austria, Germany, France, Belgium • Cluster 5: Netherlands, United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden • Outliers: Denmark, Luxembourg

  11. Ranking results– social dimension (1997-2005)

  12. Ranking results – environmental dimension (1997 -2005)

  13. Ranking results – economic dimension (1997-2005)

  14. Conclusions • Thisshouldbeconsideredsolely as an example of whatcanbedone to studysustainability in EU27 with the data currentlyavailable • Data lackwas a relevantissue, in somecasesindicatorshad to beleft out because of this • Furtherdevelopmentscouldinclude a moreaccuratesensitivityanalysis and, ifforecasted data wasavailable, the creation of futurescenarios • The finalresultsareheavilydependent on the choices made: in order to seethe effects of a different selection, the tool created for this purpose can be used and new results can be obtained rather quickly.

More Related