Ecological Indicators (Nov 2021)
Hidden patterns of sustainable development in Asia with underlying global change correlations
Abstract
As the most populous continent, and its dominant role in the global economy, Asia is arguably the most important region for understanding global change. To evaluate and guide humanity’s growth toward a more sustainable future, indicators and their composite indices have been adopted as key tools resulting in a paralyzing amount for decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers to choose from. Although research has improved understanding of development metrics for evaluating and monitoring global change, making progress toward sustainability remains as open as ever. Building from previous work, 44 Asian nations were studied using four guiding research questions: (i) What are the hidden dimensions within a collection of known sustainable development indices, and what differentiates winning locations from losing ones? (ii) Are the three major divisions of sustainability (economic growth, social equity, environmental integrity) equally supported by these development measuring initiatives? (iii) How do common global change indicators statistically respond to the canonical development dimensions? (iv) Do recent population growth and urbanization trends move humanity closer to planetary sustainability? Those questions were explored using four amassing methodological stages. First, six hidden development dimensions (factor axes) were revealed while maintaining over 80% of 35 known sustainable development indices’ variation. The dimensions expressed: (F1) human well-being synergies; (F2) environmentally efficient happiness; (F3) ecological integrity to economic performance trade-off; (F4) peace, prosperity, and natural resources protection; (F5) economic and political liberty; and (F6) generosity. Second, a mega-index of sustainable development (MISD) was created by combining the six latent dimensions. Third, spatial patterns of the hidden development axes, MISD, and nine common global change metrics were explored. Fourth, using global and local inferential tests, associations between the canonical development dimensions, MISD, and global change indicators were made. The human well-being synergies dimension (F1) explained over one-third of the total variance, and positively clustered in northern Asia and negatively in southern Asia. The MISD ranked Singapore best, followed by Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Kyrgyzstan, and Malaysia; Afghanistan ranked worst, then China, Syria, Russia, Turkmenistan, and India. Overall, improved sustainable development position came through increased population density, decreased country area, lower latitude, and a greater proportion of urban land cover. This cross-country analysis reiterates an underrepresentation of biogeochemical (ecosphere) conditions across development indices; moreover, spatial patterns of favorable development were rarely found simultaneous. Trade-offs and the lack of spatial concordance will make achieving sustainability a very difficult task in an urbanizing world without limits.
