Assessing The Worlds Transportation System

Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya
Seoul National University
Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System
Ruben Angel Rodriguez Enginyeria Industrial Superior SNU CEE / UPC - ETSEIAT December 2011
ngel, R (2011)
"Given the nature and magnitude of the challenge, national action alone is insufficient. No nation can address this challenge on its own. No region can insulate itself from these climate changes. That is why we need to confront climate change within a global framework, one that guarantees the highest level of international cooperation."
Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, opening address of the High-Level Event on Climate Change, 24 September, 2007
ngel, R (2011)
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 6 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1 2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 9 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................10 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................11 SUSTAINABILITY ...........................................................................................................................11 SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT...........................................................................................................12 THE KYOTO PROTOCOL................................................................................................................13 METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................15
4.1 SELECTED COUNTRIES ..................................................................................................................15 4.2 SUSTAINABILITY MEASUREMENT: INDICATORS AND THEIR FUNCTION.....................................18 4.2.1 INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY (ESI) 19 4.2.2 INDEX OF SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY (SSI) 20 4.2.3 GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) 21 4.2.4 VALUES OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICES 22 4.2.5 TRANSPORTATION DATA 23 5 DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................26
5.1 CORRELATIONS .............................................................................................................................26 5.2 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ...........................................................................................................29 5.2.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SSI AND TRANSPORT INDICATORS 29 5.2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESI AND TRANSPORT INDICATORS 29 5.2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GDP AND TRANSPORT INDICATORS 31 5.2.4 GDP VS. EMISSIONS OF CO2 AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION (TRANSPORT) 32 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................37
6.1 GROUP 1 ........................................................................................................................................37 6.1.1 SPAIN 37 6.1.2 SOUTH KOREA 38 6.2 GROUP 2 ........................................................................................................................................39 6.3 GROUP 3 AND GROUP 4................................................................................................................41 7 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................46
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .........................................................................................................................48 APPENDIX A. .........................................................................................................................................49 7.1 7.2 ACRONYMS USED ..........................................................................................................................49 DATA SOURCES..............................................................................................................................49
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................50 7.3 WEBSITES ......................................................................................................................................50
ngel, R (2011)
7.4
BOOKS, REPORTS & PAPERS........................................................................................................51
ngel, R (2011)
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY, SOCIETY. FIGURE 2. WORLD MAP BY QUARTILES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX IN 2011 (SOURCE:
HTTP://HDR.UNDP.ORG/)
11 16 22 28 32 33 40 44
FIGURE 3. WORLD MAP SHOWING COUNTRIES ABOVE AND BELOW THE WORLD GDP (PPP) PER CAPITA,
CURRENTLY $10,700. SOURCE: IMF (INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND).
FIGURE 4: FOUR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CORRELATION VALUES. FIGURE 5. CO2 (TRANSPORT EMISSIONS) VS. GDP PER CAPITA FIGURE 6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION (TRANSPORT EMISSIONS) VS. GDP PER CAPITA FIGURE 7.. TRANSPORT GROWTH IN SELECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL ROAD FEDERATION) FIGURE 8. RETAIL PRICES OF DIESEL AND GASOLINE - NOVEMBER 2008 (IN US CENTS/LITER). COUNTRIES ORDERED BY GDP PER CAPITA.
ngel, R (2011)
List of Tables
TABLE 1. QUANTIFIED EMISSION LIMITATION OR REDUCTION TARGETS AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX B TO
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
13 17 22 25 27 29 30 31 38 42 49
TABLE 2. THE WORLDS THIRTY MOST POPULATED COUNTRIES TABLE 3. SUSTAINABILITY INDICES TABLE 4. TRANSPORT INDICATORS TABLE 5: CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SELECTED INDICES. TABLE 6. CORRELATION BETWEEN TRANSPORT INDICATORS AND SSI TABLE 7. CORRELATION BETWEEN TRANSPORT INDICATORS AND ESI INDICES TABLE 8. CORRELATION BETWEEN TRANSPORT INDICATORS AND GDP TABLE 9. VEHICLE OWNERSHIP BY YEAR IN SOUTH KOREA (SOURCE: LEE ET. AL, 2001) TABLE 10. PASSENGER TRAVEL AND SUSTAINABILITY: USA VS. GERMANY (SOURCE: METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM, APRIL 2009) TABLE 11. ACRONYMS USED
ngel, R (2011)
Abstract
Mobility is very important in todays world. It enables swift exchanges, and solidifies social relationships. It impacts the economy, the social structure and the environment of every country. While many have praised the contribution of the transportation infrastructure to economical development, its environmental impacts, from global warming to urban sprawl, have also been well documented. The general agreement is that the current transportation system in its actual state is completely unsustainable. The question is about how to move towards a more sustainable future, especially given the many interest groups involved, the complexity of urban systems and the fragmented nature of decision-making in most urban regions. The objective of this report is to globally evaluate the sustainability of the current transportation system by comparing CO2 emissions of various at a countrys level in comparison to its stage of economical development. This has been done using correlations between relevant indices representing the economy, the society and the environment from a sample comprised of the 30 most populated world countries. First, possible relationships between the social, economical and environmental sustainability and transport development were investigated. Then, the existence of the Environmental Kutznet Curve (EKC) was examined. It was found that although in the first stages of development (developing and emerging stage) the transportation sector was emitting more CO2 with increasing economical power, a decrease in C02 emissions would usually occur once the country attains a specific economical level. The turning point was found to be around 18000 GDP per capita. This is an important finding corroborating the fact that economical development does not have to be in direct opposition with environmental concerns. Nonetheless, a very disturbing fact is that very few countries have reached this level (15%). Therefore, it is expected that most of the countries of the world will continue to grow while emitting more CO2. Such an outcome would be devastating for the planet. Fortunately, some lessons can be learnt by analyzing the EKC curve and constrasting transportation between countries. This study contains several
recommendations based on such analyses that will lower the EKC curve and make the worlds transportation more sustainable. Among those practices are ride shares, various mode of transportation and pedestrian friendly streets and should be encouraged for progress toward a more sustainable transportation system.
ngel, R (2011)
Keywords: Sustainability, Global transport, CO2 emissions, Environmental Kuznets Curve, GDP, Transport indicators, Sustainable indices
ngel, R (2011)
1 Background
The Earths climate is changing, and human beings are one of the causes. Throughout our planets history, the climate has changed in dramatic ways. What makes this point in time different from the past is the human influence on this change, and the rate at which this change is occurring (IPCC report, 2009). Climate Change is having significant impacts on the worlds physical, biological and human systems, and it is expected that these impacts will become more severe (increasing temperatures, causing more extreme floods, and droughts; extinction of species; alteration of the seasons). Because of this, Climate Change has a primordial role at present, being a major challenge for most nations. The commitment to sustainable development that allows to satisfy the needs of today's society without compromising the welfare of future generations is a primary goal of many institutions, organizations and companies in the private and public sphere, in international, national and local wide (UN Rio de Janeiro 1992 Earth Summit, the 1995 European Conference of Ministers of Transport, and the 1997 Kyoto Convention on Climate Change). This commitment means an integrated treat of economic, social and environmental issues in order to face key challenges of modern society such as climate change and energy model, sustainable transport, conservation and management of natural resources and society cohesion. A first step in finding solutions is to quantify the extent of the problem in an integrated manner that considers societal, economical and environmental impacts. Scientific evidence shows us that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased approximately 30% since pre-industrial times (The Global Carbon Project, 2009). Human activities such as excessive burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and waste generation exacerbate this situation. The effects of these actions can be seen in various forms around the globe: melting of ice caps, rising sea levels, unpredictable rainfall patterns, heat waves are just a few. It has been found that future effects will be more frequent in developing countries (GIZ, 2009). Most of these countries rapidly deplete their natural resources and are increasingly imitating the consumptive attitude of developed countries. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transport sector also play an important role in the climate change issue. Worldwide emissions from the transportation sector account for about 15% of the total greenhouse gases (International transport forum, 2010). Carbon dioxide (CO2), a GHG, from the transport sector has risen by the
ngel, R (2011)
fastest rate in the past three decades. From 1990 to 2004, CO2 emissions from the transport sector rose by 36.5% (German International Cooperation, 2007). In 2005, the transport sector alone, according to the World Resources Institute (2005), accounts for 24.1% of CO2 emissions worldwide. In developing countries especially China and India (the two more populated world countries) and other countries of Asia the change in lifestyles is driving people to increased automobile usage. This has increased the demand for fossil fuels and automobile oriented infrastructure, fact that becomes a problem since urban improvements are slower than the rise of automobile usage. As a result of this, urban mobility problems have reached a critical stage. The exponential increase in urban traffic (without enough sustainable transport measures) leads to reduce mobility and to produce a measurable increase in carbon dioxide emissions, affecting peoples health and contributing to global warming and climate change.
2 Research Objectives
The primary objective of this report is to globally evaluate the sustainability of the current transportation system by analyzing CO2 emissions at a countrys level in comparison to its economic development stage. Doing so will help identify countries that are on the right track and others where substantial change is needed in order to become relatively more sustainable at the global scale. Thanks to the differentiation between countries that the emission analysis makes possible, and once transport polices of each country are evaluated, this report will have wide-ranging powers to suggest which measures work and which is the best track to follow to reach a sustainable transport system. This research begins by defining sustainability, sustainable transportation and Kyoto Protocol (section 3.1, 3.2 and 3,2), then presents in section 4 the methodology employed in the study, collects the data in and reports the results in section 5, discusses the most important findings in section 6 and concludes with recommendations to lower the impact of the transportation on the environment in section 7.
10
ngel, R (2011)
3 Literature Review
3.1 Sustainability
Since the 1980s the term of sustainability has been used in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). This definition has been widely accepted, for instance by the UK Government in its 1999 Sustainable Development Strategy (DETR, 1999). At the 2005 World Summit it was noted that this requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability represented in Figure 1 (UN Assembly, 2005). None of the three pillars is enough by itself to guarantee sustainability. They are interdependent and must work together to provide a stable base for sustainable development. Although researchers and institutions have pointed out in recent years that culture must be included in this development model (Jon Hawkes, 2001; UNESCO, 2005), this assessment is based on the three pillars owing to a lack of data related to culture.
SUSTAINABILITY
Figure 1. The three pillars of Sustainability: Environment, Economy, Society.
11
ngel, R (2011)
3.2 Sustainable Transport

First of all is important to clarify that this report uses transport and transportation indistinctly, as a synonyms. The term of Sustainable Transport emerges in the immediate wake of the Brundtland report, with Replogles (1987) paper at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board on sustainable transportation strategies for the developing world, explicitly making the link between transportation, basic human needs, and environmental effects. Since then, it has been an ever-increasing number of efforts searching to define, design, and measure sustainable transport (e.g., UN DSD, 1992; OECD, 1996; World Bank, 1996; WBCSD, 2001; Kennedy et al, 2005; Goldman & Gorham, 2006; etc.). The European Union Council of Ministers of Transport defines a sustainable transportation system as transport which: Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations. Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development Limits emissions and waste within the planets ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses nonrenewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while minimizing the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise. Although in recent years, the countries of the world, especially in Europe and North America, have increasingly recognized the need to improve the social, environmental, and economic impacts of transport, most countries are far from achieving the goal of transport sustainability (Banister, 2005, Banister et al., 2007). The main cause of unsustainable transport is the rapidly increasing reliance on the private car for daily travel (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999, Vuchic, 1999, Low and Gleeson, 2002, Tolley, 2003). The lack of sustainable transport policies that avoid this raise leads most of the worlds countries to the wrong direction. This report will quantify the relative level of sustainability of transportation of several countries and identify policies that will help improve the current situation.
12
ngel, R (2011)
3.3 The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement between more than 150 countries to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are suspected to be the cause of global warming. The agreement was first adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005, linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting Climate Change. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (UNFCCC, 2005). The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so. Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it not only encourages the member countries to reduce GHG emissions, but also it sets binding targets, indicated in table1, for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.
Table 1. Quantified emission limitation or reduction targets as contained in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol Parties Emission limitation or reduction (expressed in relation to total GHG emissions in the base year or period inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 8%
13
ngel, R (2011)
Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America (Country which has declared its intention not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol) Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland Croatia New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine Norway Australia Iceland 6% 5% 0 +1% +8% +10% 7%
14
ngel, R (2011)
4 Methodology
In order to globally analyze the sustainability of the transportation sector, a sample comprised of the thirty most populated countries will be used. This sample size of thirty is usually acceptable for most statistical analyses and analyzing only the countries that are the most populated ensures that transportation will be a key factor in those countries to the extent that ample data are available. Then using each of those countries, indices representative of the sustainability of the transportation system as well the economy, the environment and the society will be collected. This ensemble of data is then used to detect any potential causal relationship between the sustainability of transportation and any of those indices. This is done to ensure that a holistic view of the sustainability of transportation can be achieved.
4.1 Selected Countries

To find empirical evidence of relationship between sustainable indices and indicators, it is needed a sufficient and adequate sample that represents in an appropriate way how our planet behaves. For this reason the analysis is based on the 30 most populated world countries. Table 1 contains a list of those countries, their level of development, their population size (the last actualizations of each one, between 2010 and 2011) and the percentage in terms of world population. Within this frame, to simplify and clarify the results of the analysis, it is useful to split up the sample in 3 subgroups: Developed Countries Developing Countries Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC)
Since there is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas neither in the United Nations (UN) system nor in the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is used the Human Development Index (HDI) to classify the countries, which combines an economic measure, national income, with other measures, indices for life expectancy and education. The UN HDI is a statistical measure that gauges a country's level of human development. While there is a strong correlation between having a high HDI score and a prosperous economy, the UN points out that the HDI accounts for more than income or productivity. Unlike GDP per capita
15
ngel, R (2011)
or per capita income, the HDI takes into account how income is turned into education and health opportunities and therefore into higher levels of human development. The used version for this assessing is the latest index that was released on 2 November 2011 and covers the period up to 2011. The UN HDI criterion considers that the 47 countries in the top quartile are the classified as possessing a "Very high human development", thus the developed countries. Besides, following the UN HDI criterion, the countries witch are in the last three are all grouped in developing countries. Figure 2 shows this classification.
Very High human development High human development Medium human development Low human development Data unavailable
Figure 2. World map by quartiles of Human Development Index in 2011 (source: http://hdr.undp.org/)
Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth. However, within this last group, there are some countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. These countries are called newly industrialized countries (NIC) by political scientists and economists (Pawe Boyk, 2006). NIC is a socioeconomic classification applied to several countries around the world. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC. In many NICs, social upheaval can occur as primarily rural, or
16
ngel, R (2011)
agricultural, populations migrate to the cities, where the growth of manufacturing concerns and factories can draw many thousands of laborers. NICs usually share some other common features, including: Increased social freedoms and civil rights. Strong political leaders. A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector. An increasingly open-market economy, allowing free trade with other nations in the world. Large national corporations operating in several continents. Strong capital investment from foreign countries. Political leadership in their area of influence. Lowered poverty rates.
Therefore, once clarified the classification, the sample is showed in the Table 1.
Table 2. The Worlds Thirty Most Populated Countries Development Level NIC NIC Developed Developing NIC Developing Developing Developing Developing Developed NIC NIC Developing Developing Developed Developing Developing NIC NIC Developing World Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 China, People's Republic of India United States Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Nigeria Bangladesh Russia Japan Mexico Philippines Vietnam Ethiopia Germany Egypt Iran Turkey Thailand Congo, Dem. Rep. of the 1339724852 1210193422 312392000 237556363 190732694 177463000 158423000 151406000 142914136 127950000 112336538 94013200 87375000 82101998 81751602 80937000 75720000 73722988 67041000 65966000 19.23% 17.37% 4.48% 3.41% 2.74% 2.55% 2.27% 2.17% 2.05% 1.84% 1.61% 1.35% 1.25% 1.18% 1.17% 1.16% 1.09% 1.06% 0.96% 0.95% Country Population % World population
17
ngel, R (2011)
Developed Developed Developed NIC Developed Developing Developing Developed Developing Developing
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
France United Kingdom Italy South Africa South Korea Myanmar Colombia Spain Ukraine Tanzania
65821885 62435709 60626442 50586757 48988833 47963000 46191000 46125154 45670036 43187823
0.94% 0.9% 0.87% 0.73% 0.7% 0.69% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.62%
4.2 Sustainability measurement: indicators and their function

The sustainability measurement denotes the measurements used as the quantitative basis for the informed management of sustainability. The metrics used for the measurement of sustainability (involving the sustainability of environmental, social and economic domains, both individually and in various combinations) are still evolving: they include indicators, benchmarks, audits, indexes and accounting, as well as assessment, appraisal and other reporting systems. They are applied over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Indicators attempt to convey a broader image than the underlying statistics would suggest. The principal objective of sustainability indicators is to inform public policymaking as part of the process of sustainability governance. Sustainability indicators can provide information on any aspect of the interplay between the environment and socioeconomic activities. Indicators can be classified as descriptive indicators that describe the current situation, performance indicators that show whether or not the goal is being reached, efficiency indicators indicating whether or not there is improvement regarding sustainability, policy effectiveness indicators indicating whether or not policies are working and total welfare indicators indicating whether on or we are generally better off. Relationships between the transport data and those indicators (or their subcomponents) will be sought in order to identify the most influential elements of the sustainability of the transportation system.
The Sustainable Indices that are used are the following: 1- The Index of Environmental Sustainability (ESI)
18
ngel, R (2011)
2- The Index of Sustainable Society (SSI) 3- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita
An indicator generally deals with just a few simple questions: what is happening? (descriptive indicators), does it matter and are we reaching targets? (performance indicators), are we improving? (efficiency indicators), are measures working? (policy effectiveness indicators), and are we generally better off? (total welfare indicators). 4.2.1 Index of Environmental Sustainability (ESI) It was a composite index published from 1999 to 2005 that tracked 21 elements of environmental sustainability covering natural resource endowments, past and present pollution levels, environmental management efforts, contributions to protection of the global commons, and a society's capacity to improve its environmental performance over time. This index was published between 1999 to 2005 by Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy in collaboration with Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), and the World Economic Forum. The 21 tracked elements can be gathered into 5 groups: Environmental Systems: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that its vital environmental systems are maintained at healthy levels, and to the extent to which levels are improving rather than deteriorating. Reducing Environmental Stresses: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable if the levels of anthropogenic stress are low enough to engender no demonstrable harm to its environmental systems. Reducing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Stresses: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that people and social systems are not vulnerable to environmental disturbances that affect basic human wellbeing; becoming less vulnerable is a sign that a society is on a track to greater sustainability. Societal and Institutional Capacity to Respond to Environmental Challenges: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable to the extent that it has in place institutions and underlying social patterns of skills, attitudes, and networks that foster effective responses to environmental challenges.
19
ngel, R (2011)
Global Stewardship: A country is more likely to be environmentally sustainable if it cooperates with other countries to manage common environmental problems, and if it reduces negative transboundary environmental impacts on other countries to levels that cause no serious harm.
In addition to ESI, it is used the 5 groups explained above to be more precise in the analysis. The values of each category are ranked between 0 and 100, where 100 is the best score. 4.2.2 Index of Sustainable Society (SSI) The Sustainable Society Index (SSI) shows at a glance the level of sustainability of each of the 151 assessed countries. It shows in a simple way the distance to full sustainability for each of the 24 indicators that build up the SSI. The SSI has been developed by the Sustainable Society Foundation in order to provide the public at large as well as politicians and authorities, with a transparent and easy tool to measure how sustainable a society is. The SSI is one of the very few indices which includes all three wellbeing dimensions: Human, Environmental and Economic Wellbeing. The first two dimensions are goals to be achieved: full sustainability for Human and Environmental Wellbeing. It is not one or the other, it is both. Human Wellbeing without Environmental Wellbeing has no perspective. Mankind would not be able to survive very long. And Environmental Wellbeing without Human Wellbeing makes no sense, at least not from an anthropocentric point of view. On the other hand, Economic Wellbeing is not a goal. It is necessary to enable progress on the way towards sustainability and to achieve full sustainability. So all three dimensions of wellbeing have to be included. The SSI is based on the well-known Brundtland definition and is built up by 24 indicators. These can be aggregated into 8 categories, the 3 wellbeing dimensions and finally into one overall index. The SSI measures the actual level of sustainability of 151 countries and the distance of each country to sustainability. It monitors progress over time on the way towards sustainability. This assessment is based on the third edition (2010) of the SSI that shows that the world at large is way behind sustainability. The average score of all 151 countries is 5.9 (in a 0-10 rank). This is 40% below the required level. Moreover the
20
ngel, R (2011)
world makes little progress over the past four years since the first edition of the SSI in 2006: the overall SSI-score increased from 5.8 in 2006 to 5.9 in 2010. At this pace, it would take 160 years to achieve full sustainability. The score of 5.9 is an average score, calculated from the 24 indicators. Since the SSI assessment only shows the 10 top and the 10 bottom countries of each 24 indicators, and only shows the entire ranking of the total SSI score, this analysis only uses the global SSI index. 4.2.3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Gross domestic product (GDP), concept that was first developed by Simon Kuznets for a US Congress report in 1934, refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. This assessment uses the GDP per capita which is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living. GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should, in principle, give the same result. The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. This method consists of three stages: 1. Estimating the Gross Value of domestic Output in various economic activities. 2. Determining the intermediate consumption, i.e., the cost of material, supplies and services used to produce final goods or services. 3. Deducting intermediate consumption from Gross Value to obtain the Net Value of Domestic Output.
Within each country GDP is normally measured by a national government statistical agency, as private sector organizations normally do not have access to the information required (especially information on expenditure and production by governments). GDP per capita is not a measurement of the standard of living in an economy. However, it is often used as such an indicator, on the rationale that all citizens would benefit from their country's increased economic production. Similarly, GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. GDP may increase while real incomes for the majority decline. The major advantage of GDP per capita as an indicator of standard of living is that it is measured frequently, widely, and consistently. It is measured frequently in that most countries provide information on GDP on a quarterly basis, allowing trends to be seen quickly. It is measured widely in that some measure of GDP
21
ngel, R (2011)
is available for almost every country in the world, allowing inter-country comparisons. It is measured consistently in that the technical definition of GDP is relatively consistent among countries.
Blue above world GDP per capita Orange below world GDP per capita
Figure 3. World map showing countries above and below the world GDP (PPP) per capita, currently $10,700. Source: IMF (International Monetary Fund).
4.2.4 Values of Sustainability Indices The next table shows all the Sustainability Indices used in the assessment and the correspondent values.
Table 3. Sustainability Indices

Country ES RS RH GS SI ESI GDP/ Capita SSI
China, People's Republic of India United States Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Nigeria Bangladesh Russia Japan Mexico Philippines Vietnam Ethiopia
31
42
55
39
29
38,6
4344
6,16
23 60 33 66 28 35 33 73 32 41 29 36 36
50 27 59 58 45 57 58 61 37 47 46 45 56
46 74 56 62 39 38 20 71 64 62 20 34 5
51 78 41 62 32 31 33 37 89 47 55 44 36
66 38 59 66 63 66 77 26 78 37 67 55 57
45,2 53 48,8 62,2 39,9 45,4 44,1 56,1 57,3 46,2 42,3 42,3 37,8
2530 32483 2926 6755 1714 891 1553 7997 24491 7945 3758 2165 622
5,9 6,21 5,56 6,18 5,25 5,45 6,09 6,15 6,66 5,87 6,47 6,34 5,3
22
ngel, R (2011)
Germany Egypt Iran Turkey Thailand Congo, Dem. Rep. of the France United Kingdom Italy South Africa South Korea Myanmar Colombia Spain Ukraine Tanzania
39 44 33 37 37 53
35 41 59 51 49 56
77 40 56 70 52 10
85 44 29 53 55 37
65 54 19 25 64 62
57 44 39,8 46,6 49,8 44,1
24010 3435 6214 5869 6592 586
6,86 5,65 5,72 6,07 6,44 4,64
45 39
36 29
78 71
78 85
55 42
55,2 50,2
23765 23573
6,81 6,7
36 45 31 51 69 31 48 39
37 43 22 63 53 36 54 61
75 54 56 49 56 76 75 33
71 54 75 36 61 79 29 52
47 38 54 60 54 32 18 64
50,1 46,2 43 52,8 58,9 48,8 44,7 50,3
23524 9124 15574 1800 5899 19362 4759 531
6,65 5,53 6,52 5,35 6 6,44 6,29 5,66
4.2.5 Transportation Data Indicators are variables selected and defined to measure progress toward an objective. Transport Indicators used: Emissions of CO2 per Capita [Kg of CO2/person] referred in the table as CO2: Emissions of CO2 from transport contain emissions from the combustion of fuel (coal, oil and gas) for all transport activity, regardless of the sector, except for international marine and aviation bunkers. (Year 2004) Emissions of GHG: Emissions of GHGs from transport correspond to the emissions from the combustion and evaporation of fuel for all transport activity, regardless of the sector. This assessment has into account this aspect but it cannot be analyzed due to leak of data (only available for European countries). Electricity for Transport Sector [Kwatt-hour (GWh)/person] (El): Gross electricity production is measured at the terminals of all alternator sets in a station; it therefore includes the energy taken by station auxiliaries and losses in transformers that are considered integral parts of the station. The difference between gross and net production is generally estimated as 7% for conventional thermal stations, 1% for hydro stations, and 6% for nuclear, geothermal and
23
ngel, R (2011)
solar stations. Production in hydro stations includes production from pumped storage plants. (Year 2007) Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector [Tons of Oil Equivalent (TOE/person)] (ETT): The road transport sector includes all fuels used in road vehicles (including military) as well as agricultural and industrial highway use. Excludes motor gasoline used in stationary engines, and diesel oil for use in tractors that are not for highway use. The Transport sector includes all fuels for transport except international marine bunkers [ISIC Divisions 60, 61 and 62]. It includes transport in the industry sector and covers road, railway, air, internal navigation (including small craft and coastal shipping not included under marine bunkers), fuels used for transport of materials by pipeline and non-specified transport. Fuel used for ocean, coastal and inland fishing should be included in agriculture. For many countries, the split between international civil aviation and domestic air appears to allocate fuel use for both domestic and international departures of domestically owned carriers to domestic air. (Year 2007) Energy Consumption for Road Transport Sector [Tons of Oil Equivalent (TOE/person)] (ERT): The transport sector includes all fuels for transport except international marine bunkers [ISIC Divisions 60, 61 and 62]. It includes transport in the industry sector and covers road, railway, air, internal navigation (including small craft and coastal shipping not included under marine bunkers), fuels used for transport of materials by pipeline and non-specified transport. (Year 2007) Railways Lines - Total Route [meters/person] (RL): Rail lines are the length of railway route available for train service, irrespective of the number of parallel tracks. (Year 2009) Transport Sector Diesel and Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita [Liters/person] (TSD and TSG): Transport sector fuel consumption is the average volume of fuel consumed per capita in the transport sector. (Year 2006)
The next table reports the values of those elements for the countries selected in the study. 24
ngel, R (2011)
Table 4. Transport Indicators Country China, People's Republic of India United States Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Nigeria Banglades h Russia Japan Mexico Philippines Vietnam Ethiopia Germany Egypt Iran Turkey Thailand Congo, Dem. Rep. France United Kingdom Italy South Africa South Korea Myanmar Colombia Spain Ukraine Tanzania 83,398 435,150 2317,607 676,592 57,887 0,000 1,234 86,634 230,020 0,000 0,0272 0,1574 0,8390 0,2707 0,0233 0,0264 0,1512 0,7288 0,1761 0,0233 DNA DNA 0,3216 0,4793 DNA 19,160 83,440 708,300 70,180 19,880 8779,000 89,890 184,800 119,200 6276,000 1998,415 50,175 0,6170 0,5672 0,0694 363,200 170,800 1980,984 820,373 171,608 69,999 0,6822 0,3159 0,6456 0,2866 0,2749 0,4841 479,500 135,800 252,100 198,300 2063,144 2054,914 189,116 132,200 0,6926 0,7181 0,6479 0,6466 0,4480 0,2596 590,500 426,800 190,900 352,200 1458,218 1975,772 1101,156 270,175 228,898 32,886 1979,166 394,134 1225,568 496,453 814,427 12,127 606,280 147,354 10,584 1,138 4,944 0,000 199,384 0,000 2,272 12,683 2,133 0,000 0,6473 0,6440 0,4527 0,0922 0,0897 0,0140 0,6746 0,1494 0,4661 0,2164 0,2713 0,0057 0,2889 0,5713 0,4269 0,0852 0,0833 0,0140 0,6272 0,1368 0,4659 0,1907 0,2690 0,0043 0,5889 0,1567 0,2373 DNA 0,0360 DNA 0,4146 0,0642 0,0959 0,1180 DNA 0,0552 118,700 251,700 150,600 52,570 46,620 13,080 373,800 88,130 238,900 134,200 206,600 57,710 230,300 405,900 335,400 35,380 37,610 2226,000 312,300 49,180 330,500 44,100 93,100 28,350 329,606 711,991 161,160 153,387 25,098 0,000 8,258 0,045 0,000 0,000 0,1026 0,3056 0,0624 0,0465 0,0108 0,0942 0,2804 0,0607 0,0463 0,0079 DNA 0,1546 0,0439 0,0223 0,0189 49,550 167,300 46,810 8194,000 8695,000 68,860 87,020 8420,000 51,990 2331,000 81,061 5733,181 9,750 26,163 0,0337 2,0346 0,0306 1,7217 0,0523 0,6139 23,050 548,600 9844,000 1470,000 CO2 229,375 El 20,575 ETT 0,1038 ERT 0,0706 RL DNA TSD 48,300 TSG 44,750
25
ngel, R (2011)
5 Data Analysis
In this section, relationships between the transportation variables and the sustainability variables are sought. Correlation Analysis is first used in order to identify the transportation variables that are best correlated to the sustainability indices.
5.1 Correlations
The base of the analysis is the correlation between transport indicators and sustainability indices. Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence. This assessment uses the most common correlation coefficient, the Pearson's product-moment coefficient or Pearsons Correlation. It is obtained by dividing the covariance of the two variables by the product of their standard deviations. The population correlation coefficient X,Y between two random variables X and Y with expected values X and Y and standard deviations X and Y is defined as:
)(
Where E is the expected value operator, cov means covariance, and, corr a widely used alternative notation for Pearson's correlation. However, one seldom has the entire population but only a subset of the population called sample. In this case, the population correlation is estimated by the sample correlation as follows:
Where SXY is the sample covariance matrix: ( )( )
And SX and SY are the standard deviation of X and Y calculated as follows:
( (
) )
26
ngel, R (2011)
The correlations are calculated to detect relationships between the indices and any influence on transport indicators. Table 4 reports the results of the correlation analysis. Several authors (A. Buda and A.Jarynowski, 2010; Cohen, 1988) have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly (Cohen, 1988). The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors.
Table 5: Correlation between the selected indices. Sustainable Indices Transport Indicators Emissions of CO2 per Capita Electricity (Transport Sector) Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector Energy Consumption for Road Transport Railways Lines Total Route Transport Sector Diesel Fuel Consumption per Capita Transport Sector Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita -0,211 0,259 -0,257 -0,241 0,314 -0,109 -0,298 -0,370 -0,157 0,192 -0,259 -0,238 0,312 -0,110 -0,153 -0,072 0,431 -0,371 0,673 0,380 -0,495 0,394 0,653 0,387 0,184 -0,692 0,632 0,692 -0,278 0,368 0,905 0,510 0,263 -0,645 0,642 0,645 -0,326 0,388 0,880 0,496 0,397 -0,076 0,505 0,171 -0,344 0,389 0,362 0,396 0,217 -0,685 0,628 0,681 -0,274 0,381 0,902 0,513 ES RS RH GS SI ESI GDP/c SSI
One can observe 4 different levels of correlation values, which are shown in Figure 3. What is clear is that the blue level has to be rejected as the correlations are quite low. That fact leads to take 3 different positions: 27
ngel, R (2011)
Strict position where only correlations greater than 0.8 are considered significant (orange bars) Intermedium position where correlations greater than 0.6 are considered significant (orange and red bars) Permissive position where all correlation above 0.4 is considered significant (orange, red and green bars)
Although, if one were to use a statistical test to assess the significance of the correlation coefficient, a value lower than 0.4 would be acceptable, this study prefers to consider a coefficient of correlation above 0.6 as significant as more than 35% of the variation in the dataset is explained and that it represents a stronger relationship.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Figure 4: Four different levels of correlation values.
28
ngel, R (2011)
5.2 Analysis of the results

This section analyses the correlation coefficients in order to detect any causal relationships and to assign some meaning to the results. 5.2.1 Relationship between SSI and Transport Indicators
Table 6. Correlation between Transport Indicators and SSI
The correlation coefficients relevant to the SSI indicator are reported in Table 6. Taking a look at this table, one cannot find empirical evidence of relationship between Transport Indicators and the Sustainable
Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector 0,496 Transport Indicators Emissions of CO2 per Capita 0,513 Sustainable Index SSI
Electricity (Transport Sector)
0,396
Society Index. This indicates that the overall sustainability of a country is not impacted to a large extent by transportation and fuel consumption. However, it is
Energy Consumption for Road Transport
0,510
Railways Lines - Total Route
0,387
Transport Sector Diesel Fuel Consumption per Capita
-0,072
important to note that the transport indicators having the highest
correlation with the Sustainable Society Index are: Emissions of CO2 per capita and Energy
Transport Sector Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita
-0,370
Consumption for Road Transport which indicates that they may have some impact and that it is important to watch those measures if a country would like to be sustainable. 5.2.2 Relationship between ESI and Transport Indicators The correlations relevant to the ESI indicator are reported in Table 7. In the table below, one cannot find empirical evidence of relationship between Transport Indicators and the Index of Environmental Sustainability. However, the results of the correlation between the ESI components and the Transport Indicators show that some relationship exists.
29
ngel, R (2011)
Table 7. Correlation between Transport Indicators and ESI Indices Sustainable Indices Transport Indicators Emissions of CO2 per Capita Electricity (Transport Sector) Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector Energy Consumption for Road Transport Railways Lines - Total Route Transport Sector Diesel Fuel Consumption per Capita Transport Sector Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita -0,211 0,259 -0,257 -0,241 0,314 -0,109 -0,157 0,192 -0,259 -0,238 0,312 -0,110 0,431 -0,371 0,673 0,380 -0,495 0,394 0,184 -0,692 0,632 0,692 -0,278 0,368 0,263 -0,645 0,642 0,645 -0,326 0,388 0,397 -0,076 0,505 0,171 -0,344 0,389 0,217 -0,685 0,628 0,681 -0,274 0,381 Environ. System Reduce Stresses Reduce Human Vul. Global Stewardship Social and Institutional Capacity ESI
If the components of the ESI are analyzed separately, it is possible to reach the next conclusions: Reducing Environmental Stresses: With more emissions and energy
consumption, the less likely a country is to reduce its environmental impact and stresses. Reducing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Stresses: The table shows that the higher CO2 emissions, Energy consumption for Transport and Railway lines, the better a country supports vulnerability to Environmental Stresses. This could be due to high development of a country leads to high use of electricity as well as to be more prepared to face environmental disturbances. Global Stewardship: The more emissions than the more a country tends to cooperate with its neighbors to manage common environmental problems, and to reduce negative transboundary environmental impacts on other countries to levels that cause no serious harm. This can also be explained with the level of development of a country. Moreover, as it is possible to observe in Figure 2 (World map by quartiles of Human Development Index in 2011), a country is
30
ngel, R (2011)
very likely to be surrounded by countries with similar level of development, which facilitates the cooperation.
5.2.3 Relationship between GDP and Transport Indicators

Table 8. Correlation between Transport Indicators and GDP
In the previous section, environmental and societal sustainability indicators were related to the transportation
Transport Indicators Emissions of CO2 per Capita Electricity (Transport Sector) Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector Energy Consumption for Road Transport Railways Lines - Total Route Transport Sector Diesel Fuel Consumption per Capita Transport Sector Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita -0,298 0,905 0,653 -0,153 0,902 0,362 0,880 Sustainable Indices GDP/ Capita
indicators. It was found that overall transportation sustainability indicators are related to the environmental
sustainability indicators but not to the societal sustainability indicators. In this section, economical sustainability
indicators are analyzed. Table 8 reports the correlations found between the economical sustainability and the
transportation indices. High correlations between GDP and electricity in transport
sector, energy consumption for road transport, railways lines and transport sector diesel fuel consumption per capita are observed. This result is a clear consequence of how development increases those transport indicators. This would mean that the more developed a country is the more CO2 emissions and the more energy it consumes. Although not surprising, this finding is a concern for the sustainability of the transportation system as sustainability decreases with economical development. However, for a better interpretation of the results it is needed to represent some correlations in a graphic by looking for the existence of possible turning points where countries would have a change of behavior with decreasing emissions with greater economical development. In the next section the relationship between GDP and emissions of CO2 and energy consumption for total transport sector are going to be analyzed.
31
ngel, R (2011)
5.2.4 GDP vs. Emissions of CO2 and Energy Consumption (Transport) 5.2.4.1 Global vision Figure 4 and Figure 5 represent respectively Emissions of CO2 vs. GDP per capita and energy consumption for total transport sector vs. GDP per capita. Note that USA is not taken into account for the regression line due to being extremely out of range and is considered as an outlier not representative of the general behavior of the world. The results that one could expect, is that CO2 emissions and energy consumption for total transport sector will grow indefinitely together with GPD. Yet one can observe that the relationship between GDP per capita and both Emissions of CO2 and energy consumption for total transport sector describe a curve. What is observable is that those transport indicators increase over time while a country is developing, and then after a certain average of GDP is attained, indicators begin to decrease. A similar concept was studied and developed by Simon Kuznets, who also invented the GDP concept. Kuznets developed a hypothesis that economic inequality increases over time while a country is developing, and then after a certain average income is attained, inequality begins to decrease. The graphical representation of this hypothesis is the Kuznets Curve, an U-shaped function. Because of the resemblance of the graphics above to the pattern of inequality and income described by Kuznets, this pattern of pollution and income can be labeled as Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), where the environmental impact indicator is an inverted U-shaped function of income per capita, or a similar concept as GDP.
Emissions of CO2 from Transport [Teragrams of CO2 per person] 6000 5000 4000 3000
Spain
2000
Russia
South Korea Iran Mexico Thailand Ukraine Brazil South Africa Turkey Colombia China
Japan Germany France Italy United Kingdom
R = 0.9351 R = 0.9515
1000 0 0
R = 0.9512 25000 30000 35000
5000
10000
15000 20000 GPD/Capita
USA
Rest of Countries
Polynomial 3
Polynomial 2
Polynomial 4
Figure 5. CO2 (transport emissions) vs. GDP per capita
32
ngel, R (2011)
Energy Consumption for Total Transport Sector - Total (IEA) [Tons of Oil Equivalent (TOE)/Person]
1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 GPD/Capita Polynomial 3 25000 Polynomial 2 30000 35000
Iran Brazil Ukraine Russia Mexico Spain South Korea Japan Germany France Italy United Kingdom
R = 0.9071 R = 0.9167
South Africa Thailand Turkey Colombia China
R = 0.9162
USA
Rest of Countries
Polynomial 4
Figure 6. Energy Consumption (transport emissions) vs. GDP per capita
The Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC) have a particular behavior, in the early stages of economic growth degradation and pollution increase, but beyond some level of income per capita (which will vary for different indicators) the trend reverses, so that at high-income levels economic growth leads to environmental improvement. Panayotou (2003) suggests the following 3 reasons for the inversion of pollution: 1) Pollution increases at the early phase of a countrys industrialization due to the setting up of rudimentary, inefficient and polluting industries. When industrialization is sufficiently advanced, service industries will gain prominence. This will reduce pollution further. 2) When a country begins industrialization, the scale effect will take place and pollution increases. Further along the trajectory, firms switching to lesspolluting industries results in the composition effect, which levels the rate of pollution. Finally, the technique effect comes into play when mature companies invest in pollution abatement equipment and technology, which reduces pollution. 3) The last reason is also an important concept to take into account: the turning point. Following the definition of Panayotou, the turning point for pollution is the result of more affluent and progressive communities placing greater value on the cleaner environment and thus putting into place institutional and non33
ngel, R (2011)
institutional measures to affect this. In Mathematics, it is also called stationary point and is an input to a function where the derivative is zero.
Several polynomial fitting models from order 2 to order 4 were tried. The results are reported in Table 9 and Table 10 for the CO2 emissions and energy consumption for road transport respectively. For each regression, the coefficients are reported as well as their p-values in parentheses. A p-value lower than 0.05 indicates that this coefficient (and therefore the corresponding variable) is significant at a 5% significance level. The coefficient of determination (R2) and the adjusted coefficient (Radj2) indicate how well does the considered polynomial equation fits the data. Based on those parameters, a polynomial regression of order 3 was found to provide the best fit for the CO2 emissions and the Energy consumption. The equations found were respectively:
CO2 Turning point: 19971,39 (GDP/capita)
Energy Turning point: 19446,94 (GDP/capita)

Table 9: Summary Characteristics of the regression lines for the CO2 emissions. intercept Order 2 -193.8 (0.0308) -31.94 (0.7365) -2.799 (0.983) Coef1 0.1847 (10-09) 0.0792 (0.0693) 0.050 (0.613) Coef 2 -3.8e-06 (0.0002) 10-05 (0.0528) 1.6e-05 (0.422) -4e-10 (0.0082) -8.1e-10 (0.531) 9e-15 (0.741) Coef 3 Coef4 R2 0.9351 Adj-R2 0.9302 TC 24960
Order3
0.9512
0.9454
19971
Order 4
0.9515
0.9434
20272
34
ngel, R (2011)
Table 10: Summary Characteristicis of the regression lines for the Energy Consuption from Road Transport. intercept Order 2 -0.0542 (0.058) -0.0138 (0.6696) -0.0189 (0.675) Coef1 5.8e-5 (1.7e-8) 3.1e-5 (0.038) 3.6e-5 (0.287) Coef 2 -1.19e-9 (0.0002) 2.12e-9 (0.199) 1.1e-9 (0.874) -e-13 (0.047) -2.5e-14 (0.956) -1.5e-18 (0.870) Coef 3 Coef4 R2 0.9295 Adj-R2 0.9241 TC 24153
Order3
0.94
0.933
19446
Order 4
0.94
0.93
20121
One can observe that the turning points in both graphic are very close to the point representing Spain. Those turning points are lower than what other research studying other sustainability indices such as Bagliani et al. (2008) who reported a turning point between 25000 and 85000 for the ecological footprint. However Kaufmann et al. (1998) who studied sulfur emissions (SO2) found a much similar turning point (~12000 GDP/capita). It is interesting to observe the proximity of both turning points. This is a clear evidence of the validity of this curve, and the value of the turning point. Therefore, from an approximate value between 19622 and 19971 of GDP per capita the energy consumption for total transport and the emissions of CO2 will tend to decrease. The turning point, as a prediction, means that if Spain follows the EKC is going to decrease both emissions of CO2 and energy consumption for total transport in the next years, as long as this country increases GDP. Near Spain is it possible to observe South Korea, country that nowadays has a GDP per capita of 15574 and allegedly is going to suffer an increase of CO2 and energy consumption for total transport GDP until reaches the turning point. The sustainable polices of Spain and South Korea are going to be exposed in the next section (Group 1). There are 22 countries, some of them above the EKC and another below, situated behind Spain and South Korea, which as long as they continue the way to development are going to suffer a considerable increase of CO2 emissions. This fact will lead Earth to an unsustainable state. Although is it necessary the development of these countries it is oxymoronic that irreversible damage is to be accepted in return for future improvement, which will definitely not be able to restitute the environment to its primary state. To soften this future impact, sustainable measures are required. If a correct sustainable polices are carried out is possible to change the
35
ngel, R (2011)
situation of the turning point (Group 2). One can observe another group consisted of Japan, United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany, all of them developed countries, which have overtaken the turning point and nowadays are reducing levels of CO2 emissions (Group 3). Finally the huge CO2 emissions and energy consumption for transport set USA apart from the rest proving that the EKC behavior of most countries is not automatic and in some instances may not be followed due to cultural impairments, which will be described in the next section (Group 4).
36
ngel, R (2011)
6 Discussion and Recommendations

6.1 Group 1
point. 6.1.1 Spain As it has been observed in the last section, Spain is very close to the turning point and requires measures to reduce emissions and non-renewable energy consumption, and follow the path of countries like Japan or the United Kingdom. The current percentual increase of GHG emissions in comparison to 1990 (aggregated by sector) has increased in a much higher rate than the commitments established by Spain with the European Union about the compliment of the Kyoto Protocol. At the beginning, these commitments established not exceed 15% of emissions of the base year. Subsequently, on 20 July 2007 the Government of Spain reported on the Spanish Strategy for Climate Change and Clean Energy. Horizon 2012-2020. This Strategy defines the framework to be addressed by public authorities in Spain to ensure the compliance of its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In particular, the threshold for the increase of greenhouse gas emissions was extended to a realistic value of +37% for the five years 2008-2012 compared to base year (1990). The current situation and projections of the Spanish Office of Climate Change indicates an increase of 50% over the base year. The Spanish Government has launched important initiatives aimed at saving energy, increasing energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy sources that contribute to meeting the Spanishs commitments about of greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding transport, the implementation of Strategic Plan for Infrastructures and Transport, 2005-2020 (Ministerio de Fomento, 2005), estimates that Spain will reduce 30 million tons of CO2 in 2020 by developing measures in infrastructure and services. However, this is not sufficient for the compliance of the objectives established in the National Plan for the Allocation of Emissions Rights 2008-2012 (up to 37% increase). This goal means the establishment of additional measures to achieve the objective: annual reductions of 27.1 million tons of CO2 equivalent. Formed by Spain and South Korea, the closest countries to reach the turning
37
ngel, R (2011)
In the next years, Spain will show the world if the country is ready to achieve his goals and will be able to follow the steps of the 5 countries that are at the forefront of sustainability. 6.1.2 South Korea Although South Korea is a member of UNFCCC and signed the Kyoto Protocol in September 1998 (and confirmed the acceptance in November 2002), this country has no specific reduction commitment of GHG. Moreover since July 2005 South Korea is a member of The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development & Climate, which aim is to use new technology to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, though, this agreement does not contain emissions reduction targets either. Therefore it is difficult to judge this country from a point of view targets vs. achievements. As it is observed in the figure 4 and 5, South Korea follows Spain in the EKC curve. The rate of transport CO2 emission in South Korea has increased a 128% between 1990 and 2003 (rest of the world average: 31%; OECD countries average: 26%) (http://www.ltaacademy.gov.sg, 2009). The main reason for this exorbitant rise in CO2 emissions is that this country has experimented an incredible increase in vehicular ownership and transport demand during the past two decades, which has made the transport sector become the principal source of air pollution in many cities in the Republic of Korea. Moreover, as it is showed in table 9, vehicle ownership will continue increasing. This fact is clearly not compatible with sustainable development. The huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from transport activities need to be contained. The table 9 shows a prediction about vehicle ownership in South Korea.
Table 11. Vehicle Ownership by year in South Korea (source: Lee et. al, 2001) 1995 Population (thousands) GDP per capita Vehicle number per person Vehicle registered (thousands) 45,093 8,368.3 0.1275 8,469 2000 47,300 9,141.9 0.1727 12,059 2005 49,123 11,740.1 0.2109 15,611 2010 50,900 15,076.7 0.2521 19,442 2015 51,677 18,237.5 0.2936 22,606 2020 52,500 22,061.0 0.3282 25,121
As it can be observed, the GDP per capita could reach a value of 22,061 in 2020. This facts means that South Korea will reach the turning point (value obtained in the section 3.2.4, witch is situated between 19622 and 19971) in not more than 10 years,
38
ngel, R (2011)
and following the predictions of the table above, if government does not pursued mitigation policies, including technological improvement, regulations and measures to manage transport demand, the problem will not be correctly addressed and, therefore, the theoretical turning point will not be a CO2 emission inflexion point for South Korea. Several measures can be introduced to mitigate the transport effect in GHG emissions. On the one hand, it is estimated that an annual fuel price increase of 5 per cent for eight consecutive years could decrease total vehicle ownership by 7.8 per cent, leading to a reduction in CO2 emissions in the transport sector by 4.7 per cent. On the other hand, the effectiveness of the proposed government transport polices for infrastructure development and modal change in the freight transport sector to reduce CO2 emissions, based on economic incentives and an environmentally friendly infrastructure development program, is estimated that it would be able to reduce transport demand and energy consumption, causing a reduction of CO2 emissions by 6,54% by 2020, compared with the situation if no such development takes place (Sungwon Lee, 2001). However, the country should not be over-confident since these transport policy measures imply prompt and radical movements by the Government.
6.2 Group 2
Consisted of the developing countries: South Africa, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, Iran, Colombia, Turkey, Ukraine, China, Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Congo and Tanzania. These 22 countries are expected to grow in the recent future. The United Nations predicts that more than 80 percent of population growth in the next years will occur in the urban areas of developing countries, which will lead Earth to an incredible augment of GHG emissions. Thus sustainable transport is a major prerequisite for both economic growth and human welfare in all of those urban areas. However, in many developing countries, pollution, congestion, and questionable safety are resulting in serious environmental, economic, and social consequences for the fastest-growing regions of the world. The consequences of that development are serious problems as traffic congestion. As it can be observed in figure 7, the growth of number of vehicles is much higher than the increase of road network, which means that vehicles are added to roads more quickly than new roads are built.
39
ngel, R (2011)
Brazil India Indonesia Mexico Nigeria Pakistan 0% 200% 400% 600% Total Growth 1980-2000 800% Road Network (kilometers) Number of Vehicles
Figure 7: Transport Growth in Selected Developing Countries (source: International Road Federation)
According World Bank, vehicle ownership is rising 15 to 20 percent annually in much of these developing countries due to increasing urban wealth. The problem is that most countries have not matched this growth with parallel expansion of transportation infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and traffic management systems. As a result, traffic congestion is severe and overall mobility is declining in most cities, which leads to a reduction of demand and quality of public transport (long wait times, overcrowding, and irregular stops). Furthermore, non-motorized transportation, such as biking or walking, becomes slower and more dangerous with the presence of motor vehicles. Urban road accidents cause over one million deaths and 15 million injuries each year in developing countries, over half of which involve pedestrians or bicyclists (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004). The increase of vehicles also relies heavily on pollution and human health. Vehicle emissions are particularly high in developing countries due to the prevalence of fuelinefficient technologies and practices such as two stroke engines, high average vehicle age, poor vehicle maintenance, low-quality fuels, and the commented traffic congestion. As a consequence these countries not only increase pollution, contributing to global warming, but also increment the number of premature deaths (World Health Organization, 2005). In many cities including Bangkok, Manila, So Paulo, and Shanghai, downtown weekday traffic speeds average 15 kilometres per hour (9 miles per hour) or less (World 40
ngel, R (2011)
Bank, 2002), where, in most of them, the economic cost of congestion has reached over 3% of GDP, urban road accidents cost developing countries US$65 billion each year, and in the most heavily polluted cities, economic losses from air pollution reach 10% of GDP (Earthtrends 2006), which means disastrous economic consequences for these countries. Creating sustainable transportation solutions in developing countries will require reducing local and global air pollutants, mitigating traffic congestion, improving road safety, and removing mobility barriers for the urban poor. These goals may be achieved through a combination of policies that introduce new technologies, enforceable standards and strategic improvements to transportation infrastructure, where good examples to follow are the next commented group 3 countries.
6.3 Group 3 and Group 4

The group 3, consisted of the leader countries in a sustainability frame: Japan, United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany, stand out in that they have seen their road CO2 emissions stabilize or decrease even before the recession of 2008-2009 despite economic and road freight growth over the same period. In contrast, group 4, the exception of developed countries and the only one not member of Kyoto Protocol, USA, moves free developing an unsustainable transport system, with total impunity The USA Surface Transportation system by itself emits more CO2 than the total for any nation in the world from all sources (except China), where highway vehicles generate the 72% of these emissions (USEPA, 2006). To explain and analyze the USA transport, it is useful to compare one sample of the Group 3, Germany, with USA. Table 10 compares the main transport features of both countries.
41
ngel, R (2011)
Table 12. Passenger travel and Sustainability: USA vs. Germany (Source: Metropolitan Policy Program, April 2009) United States Passenger Travel and Sustainability Car CO2 emissions per capita, in pounds, 2005 Miles per gallon, vehicle fleet, 2005 Energy use per passenger per year, in million British thermal units (BTU), 2004-2005 Energy use per passenger mile, in British thermal units (BTU), 2004-2005 Cars and Light Trucks Average Transit Bus Light Rail Heavy Rail Percent of household budget for transportation, 2003 Traffic fatalities per 100,000 population, 20022005 Cyclist fatalities per 100 million miles of cycling, 2002-2005 Pedestrian fatalities per 100 million miles of walking, 2002-2005 Car fatalities per billion miles of car travel, 2002-2005 Government transit subsidy as share of public transportation operating budgets, in percent, for all levels of government, 2006 Average number of trips per person per day Average trip distance, in miles Average distance traveled per person per day, in miles Car use and ownership Average miles of car travel per person per year, in miles Average vehicle miles of car travel per person per year, in miles Percent of all trips made by car Percent of short trips (less than a mile) made by car Cars per 1000 inhabitants 14,900 6,800 6,250 6,850 4,550 4,100 19 3,050 1,700 2,000 2,250 14 8,600 20 55 2,900 30 17 Germany
14.7
6.5
18.0
4.0
8.0
4.0
14.4
12.5
62 26
4.1 9.9 40
3.3 6.9 23
9,200
4,400
86 67
61 27
780
560
42
ngel, R (2011)
Public transportation ridership Annual linked public transportation trips per capita, 2005 Percent of all trips made by transit Non-motorized modes of transportation Percent of all trips made by bike Percent of all trips made on foot Private costs of owning and operating a car Per mile cost of owning and operating a similar car (Honda Accord), 2006 Sales tax on buying a new car, 2007 Driver licensing regulation and cost, 2007 $0.72 $1.09 1 9 9 23 21 133
~ 6 percent in most states ~$100 driver's licensing fee in most states (not all states mandate driving lessons)
19 percent average cost $2,250 per license(mandated on-road and in-class driving lessons) $ 3.6 per gallon 65 percent
Taxes on gasoline, 2006 Share of taxes in price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump, 2006
$ 0.42 per gallon 15 percent
Observing the Table 10 one can realize that the difference is mainly due to dissimilar transport and travel behavior in the two countries, which is partly the result of the different policies integrated in each one. From an environmental perspective, transportation related energy use and CO2 emissions per capita in Germany are only about 1/3 of the USA rate. That is mainly explained by more car use in the United States. In addition, the car and light truck fleet in the United States are 50 percent less energy efficient as in Germany. Even within the public transportation sector, German buses are four times as fuel-efficient as American buses on the basis of energy use per passenger kilometer, primarily due to more passengers per vehicle and more modern buses and trains. Part of the problem is the difference of fuel price. Figure 8 shows the retail prices of gasoline and diesel for the sample studied.
43
ngel, R (2011)
Retail prices of diesel and gasoline - November 2008 (in US cents/liter)

0 United States Japan Germany France United Kingdom Italy Spain South Korea South Africa Russia Mexico Brazil Thailand Iran Colombia Turkey Ukraine China, People's Republic of Philippines Egypt Indonesia India Vietnam Myanmar Pakistan Bangladesh Nigeria Ethiopia Congo, Dem. Rep. of the Tanzania 50 56 78 130142 156 145 152 144 165 163 157 128 123 140 151 100 150 200
54 64 3 10
8795 86 89 74 87 73 104 103
126
163
20
8896 101 99 81 91 49 4250
187
43 52
70 77 80 7784 70 97 89 92
109
117
59
121 123 111 130
Diesel
Gasoline
Figure 8. Retail prices of diesel and gasoline - November 2008 (in US cents/liter). Countries ordered by GDP per capita.
As it can be observed in the table 10, the gasoline taxes in Germany are 8,6 times bigger than in USA. Moreover, as it is showed in figure 8, retail prices of diesel and gasoline in Germany are about 3 times more of the USA rate, and approximately the same difference is observed between USA and the other developed countries. In USA, that devaluate price of fuel promote the use of private transport and implies that car manufacturers focus on powerful cars, leaving aside reduction of fuel
44
ngel, R (2011)
consumption and sustainable progress. A higher price could encourage the use of less polluting cars, driving at non-peak hours and more use of public transportation. Moreover the taxes collected would be dedicated to improvements in transport sector, especially in sustainability. On the other hand, as it can be observed in table 10, the German transportation system is safer than the U.S. system, as shown by the number of traffic fatalities. Total traffic fatalities per capita in the USA are 2.3 times higher. The differences in traffic safety are especially striking for U.S. cyclists, whose fatality rate per mile cycled is over four times higher. Pedestrian fatalities in USA are also higher, reaching the double. This fact is due to better and more extensive cycling and walking infrastructure in Germany (fact that allows cyclists and pedestrians to cover almost any trip either on completely separate lanes or on lightly traveled, traffic-calmed residential streets) as well as better motorist training, traffic calming of most residential neighborhoods, and traffic priority for non-motorized transportation. Better alternatives to the automobile and less car dependence also lead to greater economic sustainability of transportation in Germany. Although it is possible to analyze more aspects of table 10, all that points lead USA to behave sustainably worst than Germany. It is showed that German passenger transportation system is more sustainable than the American. Germans use more fuel efficient cars, buses, and light rail, they also drive less and safer. Consequently, they consume less fuel, spend less money on transportation, and have a smaller transportation carbon footprint. In conclusion to this comparison, following the recommendations of the Metropolitan Policy Program, for improving transportation sustainability through changes in travel behavior United States should give the right price to fuel and all the aspects that involves transportation, following the way of Germany. Furthermore USA should integrate public transport, cycling, and walking as viable and safety alternatives to the car, educating and informing people to make easier the way to behavior change and implementing polices in stages with a long term perspective. United States also should coordinate and integrate planning for land use and transportation to discourage car-dependent sprawl and promote transit-oriented development (Ralph Buehler et. al).
45
ngel, R (2011)
7 Conclusions
Planet Earth is being spoilt in the effort to achieve the highest possible level of Human Wellbeing. The main question is whether all together will ever be able to achieve a sustainable world. This is an effort that has to be carried out by both developed and developing countries. As it has been observed by analyzing CO2 emissions at a countrys level in comparison to its economic development stage, while developing countries achieve a level of development and consumption much closer to that of the rich countries, they also increase the exploitation of natural resources and the emission of contaminants to a comparable extent. This countries face the risk of depleting renewable resources such as water and forests as well as the challenges of funding investments in environmental protection and creating functioning institutions that permit economic growth and support appropriate regulation. The leak of regulation and sustainable measures is the main reason because of many people fear the consequences of the fast development of emerging countries. Thus the task of developed countries is vital. It consists not only in to improve itself in terms of sustainability but also to guide other countries, especially developing countries, by setting up a good example. To achieve this objective, developed countries must find ways to manage the environmental stresses of industrialization and consumption of natural resources, particularly those that are non-renewable. These sustainable solutions, which CO2 vs. GDP analysis has showed that have the desired effect in developed countries Japan, United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany, decreasing CO2 emissions, should be socially equitable, economically viable, ethically responsible, and consistent with the long-term ecological balance of the natural environment. Hence Therefore, with conclusions that one can reach by observing the evaluated countries this report can suggest a track that countries must follow to achieve a sustainable transportation system. These measures, following the actual example of Germany and looking for an improved future are: Reduce carbon in the atmosphere and conserve energy increasing the use of renewable fuels, incrementing fuel efficiency of vehicles and reducing their emissions and decreasing dependence on motor vehicles. Coordinate land-use and transportation in support of sustainability objectives by promoting the use of non-motorized transport and coordinating transportation
46
ngel, R (2011)
and land-use strategies intended to preserve fragile natural and human environments. Adopt environmental, social and economic objectives to assist in gaining recognition of and support for sustainable transportation goals. Respect and improve the natural, social, and built environments at the same time that countries develop the transportation system, minimizing and mitigating the caused harm by development process. Apply innovative, sustainable practices in the development and delivery of transportation projects and services by managing and operating existing transportation facilities and services, expanding transportation system capacity judiciously using sustainability principles and contextual solutions practices and improving network connectivity within and between modes.
47
ngel, R (2011)
Acknowledgment
This research was done by Ruben Angel Rodriguez, student of Industrial Engineering at Polytechnic University of Catalonia, in an exchange program at Seoul National University in the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, in collaboration with Professor Young-Oh Kim, Associate Professor at Seoul National University (department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) and Dr. Fredline Ilorme, Postdoctoral Researcher at Seoul National University, Phd graduate of Michigan Technological University.
48
ngel, R (2011)
Appendix A.
7.1 Acronyms Used
Table 13. Acronyms used
DNA EKC ESI GHG SI SSI TI UNFCCC
Data Not Available Environmental Kuznets Curves Index of Environmental Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Sustainability Index Sustainable Society Index Transports Indicators United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
7.2 Data Sources

Transport Indices and GDP: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Global Environment Outlook. Geodata Portal. Available at: http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/ Retail prices of diesel and gasoline - November 2008: Transport Police Advisory Service, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development of Germany Available at: http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/29957.htm Index of Environmental Sustainability: by Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy in collaboration with Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), and the World Economic Forum. Available at: www.yale.edu/esi Sustainable Society Index: Sustainable Society Foundation. Available at: http://www.ssfindex.com/
49
ngel, R (2011)
Bibliography
7.3 Websites
International Transport Forum: http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/10GHGTrends.pdf Land Transport Authority Academy of Singapore: http://www.ltaacademy.gov.sg/). Human development reports: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ Climate Change CONECTION: http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/ The Encyclopedia of Earth: http://www.eoearth.org/ Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/ University of Yale: http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf http://www.yale.edu/esi/b_countryprofiles.pdf International Monetary Found: http://www.imf.org/ Principal Global Indicators: http://www.principalglobalindicators.org/ Sustainable Urban Transport Project: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=947&Itemid=1&l ang=en Sustainable Transportation for America: http://www.transportationvision.org/docs/vision_Sustainable.pdf Earth Trends, World Resources Institute: http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/135 Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy: http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/WP179.pdf
50
ngel, R (2011)
7.4 Books, Reports & Papers

A Herce, M., 2009, Sobre la movilidad en la ciudad: propuestas para recuperar un derecho ciudadano. Revert A. Buda and A.Jarynowski, 2010, Life-time of correlations and its applications vol.1, Wydawnictwo Niezalezne: 521. ACCA, 2008, "Sustainability Accounting in UK Local Government". The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen, 2008, Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. Brock, W. and Taylor, M. S, 2005, Economic growth and the environment: a review of theory and empirics. In The Handbook of Economic Growth, ed. S. Durlauf and P. Aghion. Amsterdam: North Holland. BTS (annual reports), National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, CST, 2005, Defining Sustainable Transportation, Centre for Sustainable Transportation. Cohen, J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Cole, M.A., Rayner, A.J., and Bates, J.M., 1997, The Environmental Kuznets Curve: An Empirical Analysis Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum. Commerces Chamber of Barcelona, 2008. Sustainability and Lifes Quality. Annual report. D. Banister, J. Pucher, and M. Lee-Gosselin, 2007, Making Sustainable Transport Politically and Publicly Acceptable, in Rietveld, P. and Stough, R., eds., Institutions and Sustainable Transport: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Economies. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 17-50.
Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry, 2009, Sustainability Appraisal. A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. David I. Stern, 2003, The Environmental Kuznets Curve. Esty, Daniel C., Marc Levy, Tanja Srebotnjak, and Alexander de Sherbinin, 2005, 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007b): Climate Change, 2007, Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
51
ngel, R (2011)
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva
Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. Lee, Sungwon, Myungmee Lee et al., 2001, Macroeconomic Impacts Analysis of Environmental Regulations in the Transport Sector. The Korea Transport Institute. Internal Document. Luca Bertolini and Frank le Clercq, April 2003, Urban development without more mobility by car? lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region. Environment and Planning. Panayotou T., 2003, Economic Growth and The Environment, Spring Seminar of The United Nations Economic Commission For Europe, Geneva Pawe Boyk, 2006, "Newly Industrialized Countries". Globalization and the Transformation of Foreign Economic Policy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Sebastian Ebert, Dr Gerhard P. Metschies, Dominik Schmid , Armin Wagner, 2009, International Fuel Prices 2009, 6th Edition More than 170 Countries, Transport Police Advisory Service, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development of Germany. Sungwon Lee, 2001, Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific No.71: Sustainable transport development in the republic of korea: Policy measures to contain energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions through reduction in transport demand The Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1997. Available at: <http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ kyoto_protocol/background/items/1351.php>. Todd Litman, 2009, "Sustainable Transportation and TDM". Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. United Nations General Assembly, 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: Environment. United Nations General Assembly, 2005, 2005 World Summit Outcome, Resolution A/60/1, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. United Nations General Assembly, March 20, 1987, "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2:
52
ngel, R (2011)
Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1". United Nations General Assembly.
53

Assessing The Worlds Transportation System

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Assessing The Worlds Transportation System

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya

Seoul National University

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................50 7.3 WEBSITES ......................................................................................................................................50

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

BOOKS, REPORTS & PAPERS........................................................................................................51

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Figure 1. The three pillars of Sustainability: Environment, Economy, Society.

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

3.2 Sustainable Transport

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

3.3 The Kyoto Protocol

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

4.1 Selected Countries

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

4.2 Sustainability measurement: indicators and their function

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Table 3. Sustainability Indices

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

57 44 39,8 46,6 49,8 44,1

24010 3435 6214 5869 6592 586

6,86 5,65 5,72 6,07 6,44 4,64

50,1 46,2 43 52,8 58,9 48,8 44,7 50,3

23524 9124 15574 1800 5899 19362 4759 531

6,65 5,53 6,52 5,35 6 6,44 6,29 5,66

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Where SXY is the sample covariance matrix: ( )( )

And SX and SY are the standard deviation of X and Y calculated as follows:

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

5.2 Analysis of the results

Table 6. Correlation between Transport Indicators and SSI

Electricity (Transport Sector)

Energy Consumption for Road Transport

Railways Lines - Total Route

Transport Sector Diesel Fuel Consumption per Capita

important to note that the transport indicators having the highest

Transport Sector Gasoline Fuel Consumption per Capita

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

5.2.3 Relationship between GDP and Transport Indicators

transportation indices. High correlations between GDP and electricity in transport

Sustainability Assessment of the Worlds Transportation System

Japan Germany France Italy United Kingdom