Identifying indicators of sustainable development using the global sustainability quadrant approach

Advances in information technology and global data availability have opened the door for assessments of sustainable development at a truly macro scale. It is now fairly easy to conduct a study of sustainability using the entire planet as the unit of analysis; this is precisely what this work set out to accomplish. The study began by examining some of the best known composite indicator frameworks developed to measure sustainability at the country level today. Most of these were found to value human development factors and a clean local environment, but to gravely overlook consumption of (remote) resources in relation to nature’s capacity to renew them, a basic requirement for a sustainable state. Thus, a new measuring standard is proposed, based on the Global Sustainability Quadrant approach. In a two‐dimensional plot of nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) vs. their Ecological Footprint (EF) per capita, the Sustainability Quadrant is defined by the area where both dimensions satisfy the minimum conditions of sustainable development: an HDI score above 0.8 (considered ‘high’ human development), and an EF below the fair Earth‐share of 2.063 global hectares per person. After developing methods to identify those countries that are closest to the Quadrant in the present‐day and, most importantly, those that are moving towards it over time, the study tackled the question: what indicators of performance set these countries apart? To answer this, an analysis of raw data, covering a wide array of environmental, social, economic, and governance performance metrics, was undertaken. The analysis used country rank lists for each individual metric and compared them, using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation function, to the rank lists generated by the proximity/movement relative to the Quadrant measuring methods. The analysis yielded a list of metrics which are, with a high degree of statistical significance, associated with proximity to – and movement towards – the Quadrant; most notably: Favorable for sustainable development: use of contraception, high life expectancy, high literacy rate, and urbanization. Unfavorable for sustainable development: high GDP per capita, high language diversity, high energy consumption, and high meat consumption. A momentary gain, but a burden in the long‐run: high carbon footprint and debt. These results could serve as a solid stepping stone for the development of more reliable composite index frameworks for assessing countries’ sustainability.

A COMPARISON OF PIXEL-BASED VERSUS OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS OF LANDSLIDES USING HISTORICAL REMOTE SENSING DATA

With recent advances in remote sensing processing technology, it has become more feasible to begin analysis of the enormous historic archive of remotely sensed data. This historical data provides valuable information on a wide variety of topics which can influence the lives of millions of people if processed correctly and in a timely manner. One such field of benefit is that of landslide mapping and inventory. This data provides a historical reference to those who live near high risk areas so future disasters may be avoided. In order to properly map landslides remotely, an optimum method must first be determined. Historically, mapping has been attempted using pixel based methods such as unsupervised and supervised classification. These methods are limited by their ability to only characterize an image spectrally based on single pixel values. This creates a result prone to false positives and often without meaningful objects created. Recently, several reliable methods of Object Oriented Analysis (OOA) have been developed which utilize a full range of spectral, spatial, textural, and contextual parameters to delineate regions of interest. A comparison of these two methods on a historical dataset of the landslide affected city of San Juan La Laguna, Guatemala has proven the benefits of OOA methods over those of unsupervised classification. Overall accuracies of 96.5% and 94.3% and F-score of 84.3% and 77.9% were achieved for OOA and unsupervised classification methods respectively. The greater difference in F-score is a result of the low precision values of unsupervised classification caused by poor false positive removal, the greatest shortcoming of this method.