Environment, Development and Sustainability (2006) 8: 425443

DOI 10.1007/s10668-005-8505-6

Springer 2006

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

COULD MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS BE USED TO SOLVE THIS
DICHOTOMY?

NOLBERTO MUNIER
TEAMIC Internacional Canada-Spain
(e-mail: nmunier@telefonica.net; tel.: +34-954-427-1626)
(Received 20 August 2004; Accepted 5 June 2005)

Abstract. This paper presents a multicriteria method to treat dicult EIA problems where several
alternatives or options are to be gauged through many dierent types of criteria. To illustrate the method a
case example for an urban road project is proposed involving 14 criteria and comprising government,
public opinion, social, environment, infrastructure and economic issues, and in accordance with a chosen
objective. This example tries to demonstrate that equilibrium can be reached between economic growth
and sustainable development. Although the proposed example as a whole does not depict a real life
application, its components have been tested in actual situations and in dierent countries.
Key words: carrying capacity, criteria, economic growth, sustainable development, thresholds.

1. Problems denition
Economic growth and sustainable development are seen by many as two concepts
that cannot take place at the same time. As in a coin, where it is either head or tails,
they consider that both concepts cannot coexist and therefore, economic growth
cannot be achieved without deterioration of the environment, and also many argue
that the expression sustainable development involves opposite terms such as re
and water, or that it constitutes a metaphorical expression where antonyms terms are
combined, as in the sound of silence.
If this is true, then, in the future, humankind can have a great economic growth
but the environment as it is known now, will have changed for worse. The author
does not think that this bleak scenario is realistic, and he cannot help but remember
that something similar occurred in the XVIII century when the economist Thomas
Malthus (17661834), developed his theory of Natural Selection, and predicted the
end of the world because arable land was not keeping pace with population growth.
Of course, at that time he could not have envisioned articial irrigation, the use of
fertilizers and advanced mechanical devices for farming.
Dichotomy: Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions.
Readers should send their comments on this paper to: BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

426

N. MUNIER

Some scholars believe that economic growth should take preference, while other
see that sustainability must be a limiting factor for the economic growth, and one to
which growth has to adhere. It is not known which if these criteria are right, and
there is also a third line of thought that states than economic growth and sustainable
development can co-exist.
There are also two dierent approaches to this problem considering who is analyzing it. Environmental economists want to put a price (with market intervention
and without it) to the environment, since they think it should be treated as a commodity, and also deem that some part of the natural world can be substituted by manmade options. This last statement has to be taken with caution since many services
provided by the environment cannot be replicated by men, such as a beautiful sight,
or the majesty of a snowed mountain, at least with today technologies.
Environmentalists abhor the thought of treating the environment as a commodity
(Bartelmus, 1999), and as a consequence they maintain that there is no price for the
environment, being irrelevant if there is or not a market for it. It is argued that the
environment has an ecological component and a social property that cannot be
valued. In order to sustain their point of view they have developed indicators and
concepts linked with the sustainability of the environment, such as for instance, its
carrying capacity, that is the limit or threshold of stress in the environment that can
still support population and ecosystems in a sustainable manner.
It is obvious that any project, whatever its nature, is going to change the environment and perhaps its ecology. Consider for instance the state of the environment
in the XVIII century of course cities were dirty and unhealthy but the air was
clean, the water streams crystalline, the land uncontaminated and the sea completely
unpolluted. People lived simpler and mostly in rural areas.
Since the industrial revolution and when projects materialized in factories, steel
works, railways, automobiles and chemical products, humankind has managed very
eciently in contaminating the air, the land and the water, in destroying forests, and
even were careless enough as to change the world climate, so there is not doubt that
economic growth brought a degradation to the environment, and which consequences are now humankind paying (the ozone hole, the melting of glaciers, etc.)
Fortunately, and in many cases, economic growth really worked for the population well-being and was the engine of large benets such as cheaper transportation,
better education, improved standard of living, better housing, an impressive
enhancement in public health, and the disappearance of child labor, just to mention
a few. However, it also created a consumer market for a myriad of unnecessary
things and triggered some very detrimental practices such as the indiscriminate use of
fossil fuels, the excessive water consumption, and the burning of forests. These are
just some examples conrming the complete lack of concern for the environment.
If the condition of the environment about the rst half of the XX century is
considered, progress was synonymous with smokestacks belching dark fumes, with
very busy and very dirty harbors, with rivers contaminated with sewage, with
chloride compounds being daily spewed by the tons into the atmosphere, and
with the sea being used as a dump site for domestic garbage.

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

427

It appears that things have fortunately improved (or starting to improve), materialized in sound environmental polices and regulations such as treating waste,
establishing a limit for air pollution produced by cars, the enforcement of recycling
policies, improvement in energy eciency, etc. Therefore, from this point of view,
growth also brought positive changes in the environment, when related with the
immediate past.
As a matter a fact there is a curve, called the Kuznets curve which depicts
environmental degradation in the vertical axis and economic growth, or may be its
equivalent, income per capita, in the horizontal one. This curve has approximately
the form on an inverted U, which means that with increasing growth there is an
escalation in the environmental degradation, which reaches a top limit and then
begins to descend, suggesting that after a certain limit, increasing economic growth
corresponds to a diminishing environmental degradation. There have been dierent
explanations of why this could happen; especially considering that it appears that
there is some empirical evidence supporting this curve, although some researches
believe that there was not a decreasing in environment deterioration but a wrong
interpretation of results.
This apparent improvement in environment issues in relationship with economic
growth can be somehow understood when one thinks that advanced nations, with a
higher standard of living, also have more stringent environmental laws and because
they have the economic means to do that (California and its laws about car emissions
is an example), they exact very hefty penalties for contaminating water sources, or
have very tough regulations regarding the execution of new projects. Besides, these
countries, adducing economic reasons, are closing their manufacturing plants and
establishing new ones in other regions, which is the case of Mexico, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. So in reality they are exporting their contamination to other
areas and thus not aecting their own territory, which without doubt improves their
environment.
Statistical data produced by Peter Bartelmus in his article Sustainable Development Paradigm or Paranoia? (see References Bartelmus P.), states a physical
index of material intensity, when he mentions that the ows of materials
(throughput) through the economy, can be considered as a proxy for pressure on the
environment.
The time series that depict the evolution of this index, prepared by United Nations
Statistics Division (UNSD) data bases, Environment and Development Economics
2, 1997, show that considering a period from 1970 to 1992, this index has a sharp
decline in industrialized countries. Both, the indexes for developing countries and
newly industrialized countries, show by contrast, a steady increase, especially for new
industrialized countries, which is in line with what was mentioned above.
The evolution of this index would appear to corroborate that developing countries
and new industrialized countries are in the rst stage of the Kuznets curve
(increasing leg of the curve), while industrialized countries nd themselves in the
second stage of the Kuznets curve (decreasing leg of the curve). Of course, as
Bartelmus states, these gures have to be taken with caution for dierent reasons,

428

N. MUNIER

one of them being the arbitrary selection of only a handful of materials that were
considered for the analysis.
As it can be seen the issue of economic growth and sustainable development is a
dicult one, and has not been dened yet, involving also measuring both economic
growth and changes in the environment. To more complicate things it is necessary to
take into account that sustainable development has three dimensions, which are its
social, economic and ecologic components. Each one of them has dierent problems
and solutions from the others, and more often that not with dierent units of
measure.
Figure 1 illustrates these three dimensions and their interaction, which is conned
to the area abc where the three of them overlap. Then, it is easy to see that any
solution complying simultaneously with the three components has to be contained
within this area. However, even if this common area could be known or determined,
it is necessary to reckon that there can be thousands of dierent solutions, but only
one of them being the optimum.
Assume now that there is a set of projects producing economic growth and
encompassing one or more areas, how can be the projects examined regarding the
way they comply with these three dimensions? The answer is that one can compare
them because the existence of trade-os, and a proper analysis of these trade-os
allows for the selection of the best combination of projects.
To do this it is necessary to establish criteria for the dierent components of the
environment. Consequently, there will be criteria regarding the social aspects, others
for the ecology sector and another for the economics of the projects. These criteria
are then used to gauge the contribution of each project to reach the nal goal and in
accordance with the purpose of each criterion.
As an example, in a large project such as the construction of a surface gas pipeline,
most probably there will be a set of construction alternatives according to many

Figure 1. Superimposing the three dimensions.

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

429

dierent facts and areas. Some alternatives oer the shortest route which translates
in low construction costs but disturbing ecological sensitive regions, for instance by
traversing an ecologically rich swamp area. Another can recommend a route
favoring social and environmental issues, but involving substantial engineering
works such as the construction of tunnels and bridges which increase costs. Another
could propose a route that runs into desert areas, so the environment is not aected,
but with high risks because the geological nature of the ground. There could also be
another route that is convenient from dierent points of view but that pass through
agricultural land and forests.
These alternatives have to be examined by a set of criteria. Each criterion can
impose a threshold or a pair of them, which must be met by the diverse construction
alternatives, but with usually dierent cardinal values. There exists most likely a
common ground for some of the alternatives, considering the interaction of tradeos, and consequently, it is necessary to nd a method that could identify this
common ground for all of the initial projects or alternatives proposed. Once this
common area is identied the next step is to select the best alternative.
To illustrate this point let us assume a project consisting in the construction of a
high speed train link between two cities involving hundreds of kilometers. In its total
extension the railway can run through mountains, cross rivers, traverse desert areas,
pass near urban settlements, cut agricultural land, intersects roads, pass through
protected wilderness and forests, etc.
Costs, political reasons, geopolitical borders, geological problems, or the need to
serve in-between urban areas can aect the original straight route between both ends,
and as a consequence, there could be several alternative routes.
The project will bring considerable economic benets not only to both terminal
cities because it will increase growth in reducing the travel time and encouraging
persons movement, but also along its length since it will create job opportunities
during the construction period, more job opportunities during its operation, and
greatly improving connectivity between the towns and cities along the line. So,
there will be benets in the social and economic components. This is one aspect of
the issue. Which is the other one? The degradation of the environment and the
alteration of the social fabric. According to the area it traverses, the project will
produce:

From the ecological point of view

Destruction of some part of the wilderness, considering the need of logging
thousands of trees to make room from the tracks;
Alteration of the aesthetics because the necessity to build in some parts elevated
concrete structures to support the tracks.
Migration of natural species of birds due to noise produced during the construction and the operation period.
Increased air pollution created by the generation of electricity to feed the electried railway, unless energy is provided from a hydropower utility.

430

N. MUNIER

From the economic point of view

Destruction of agricultural areas, since for high speed there is a need for
straight track sections and this could mean to cut across cultivated areas;
Since both terminal cities, as well as intermediate cities are served by buses,
there will be a loss of jobs, for people will prefer to travel the faster trains
instead of riding the buses;
Loss of business in the intermediate cities because the reduction of bus
passengers.

From the social point of view

Crime in nearby urban areas during the construction period;
Displacement of whole families with houses and properties in the right of way;
People losing their land and the need to be relocated, with a loss of familiar
cohesion.
However, there also will be benets to the environment materialized by:
Less air pollution caused by discontinuing the operation of the existing passenger service which use buses between both terminal cities;
Less air pollution because a considerable decrease in the number of fuel tankers
on the road transporting fuel to supply fuel stations along the route;
Therefore, it can be seen that in this elemental example are present all the components above mentioned and as a consequence there is economic growth and social
benets on one side and environmental and social changes on the other. Here
decisions have to be made considering the market, such as establishing prices for the
service, salaries, wages, capital costs, etc., but on the other hand it is also necessary
to base these decisions in non-market intangibles, or externalities (i.e. exterior to the
market), such as peoples opinions about the project, value that people put in
changes of the environment, problems caused to people when moving to another
location because the project, appreciation and/or loss of value of properties because
now they will be near the railway, etc.
Therefore, there are quantitative and qualitative elements interacting, and the
problem consists in determining how these interactions can be measured. National
accounts are used to evaluate economic growth and indicators can be employed to
measure degradation of the environment and in society in any of its components.
Therefore, wrapping up these concepts it looks that it is necessary to determine the
trade-os in order to put an economic value to the environmental changes and
introduce these values in the equation for a cost-benet analysis.
For externalities there are methods or techniques that can be used to put a dollar
value to some non-markets issues, using what is called the willingness to pay
(WTP), and the willingness to accept (WTA).
The rst one involves asking people about their goodwill to pay to keep a sustainable environment for their descendents to use and enjoy (sustainability between

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

431

generations) for instance a pristine mountain lake, through the construction of a

costly water treatment plant in order not to pollute the lakes water and maintain its
biodiversity.
Willingness to accept implies asking people about their agreement in being compensated for something intangible they loose, such a modied view of the nearby
mountains because the construction of a highway (such as the highway built in San
Francisco harbor). If these two concepts are accepted then there are tools that allow
us to put an economic value to non-market goods.

2. Proposing a tool
Insofar the fundamentals of a complex problem have been sketched, and now is the
time to talk about how to solve it. Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM), appears
to be the methodology of choice since it can incorporate in a single framework all the
factors above mentioned. A tool called SIMUS which is the acronym of
Sequential Interactive Model for Urban Sustainability is proposed here, as a
multicriteria tool to tackle this problem. It is based on Mathematical Programming
(MP) methods and can solve situations with hundreds of alternatives and criteria.

SIMUS works with four main elements

The denition of an objective;

A listing of alternatives or options;
A listing of criteria which will qualify the alternatives in meeting the objective;
A listing of levels, limits, thresholds or norms for each one of the criteria.

The model works nding the trade-os between all the above components,
determines the common space to them all, as mentioned above in Figure 1, and nds
the best solution amongst them which is compatible simultaneously with all criteria,
which can be quantitative and qualitative. It is based in mathematical programming
techniques which are used daily by thousands of dierent rms around the world.
A very simple example can help in the understanding of this technique.
Assume that there are three alternatives for a road project, such as route A, route
B and route C. Suppose now that the criteria used to gauge these alternatives are
length, in kilometers, hectares of wetland crossed by each alternative, hectares of
maize crop traversed by each option and annual revenue in euros produced by the
toll fees. Then a Table can be constructed as follows:
Cost [million of euros]

Route A
36.9

Distance
Wetlands
Maize crop
Revenue

249 A
678 A
186 A
2.6 A

Route B
37.7
+
+
+
+

301 B
0B
351 B
3.5 B

Route C
38.1
+
+
+

202 C
601 C
427 C
3.9 C

<
<
<
>

301 [km]
678 [ha]
427 [ha]
2.6 [million of euros]

432

N. MUNIER

That is: Route A is 249 km long, route B has a length of 301 km, and C is 202 km
long. Obviously, the selected route should have a length equal or lower than the
maximum distance, that is 301 (since there is not a route longer that this), and this is
expressed with the sign <
The second row of the Table says that route A will disturb 678 ha of wetlands,
route B will not aect them, and the route C will have an impact on 601 ha. Clearly,
the selected route should aect less that the maximum possible amount of land that
is should be less than 678 ha.
Route A will aect 186 ha of maize crop, while route B 351, and route C 427 ha.
Consequently the selected route should aect less that the maximum, which is
427 ha.
Finally route A will produce a revenue of 2.6 million euros, route B 3.5 million
euros, and route C 3.9 million euros. It is then desired to maximize this revenue,
which means that the selected route should have as a minimum a revenue of
2.6 million euros. The sign > is used.
The goal is to minimize the operation considering the cost of each route as
depicted in the cost row. So, there is a functional or goal z = 36.9A +
37.7B + 38.1C (minimum)
It can be seen that route C is the best alternative from the point of view of
distance, however is the worst considering number of hectares of maize crop to be
destroyed, and is again the best from the point of view of revenue. On the other hand
is the most expensive.
Alternative B is the best from the point of view of wetlands since it will not
aect a single hectare, and it also has a large value for the revenue, but it is the
worst from the distance point of view, and because its large invasion of maize
crops land.
Route A has an intermediate distance, traverses a lot of wetlands, and has the least
inuence on the maize crop, but it also produces the lowest revenue, and it also has
the lowest cost.
As can be seen, even in a very elemental problem like this, the selection can be
quite complicated.
This problem can be graphically illustrated in a three dimensional space. In here, a
plane is the graphical representation of a row, consequently there will be four planes
enclosing a common area, which is called polyhedron of solutions, and which
contains all the solutions of the problem. The functional z is used to nd which of the
points of the common space corresponds to the optimal solution. This solution is
found where the functional plane tangents the polyhedron of solutions.
Each variable represents a dimensional space, so a 10 alternatives problem will
work in a 10 dimensional space, impossible for us to visualize, but permissible in
algebra. For this reason the model uses mathematical algorithms that solve the
problem rapidly and without errors.
After solving the problem, in this example the actual solution is Route B. Observe
that the problem called for a minimization of costs, however it selected route B
which is not the cheapest. Why? Because the model also took into account the other

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

433

restrictions imposed by the criteria, and found that route B is the best compromise
considering all these restrictions.
In real life situations problems are of course more complicated. It is necessary
to select criteria which is not an easy task and assign the corresponding
values in the cells at the intersection of each column (project or alternative) and
each row (criterion) as shown in the above example. Many of the criteria are
qualitative, that is they have a non-dimensional value, resulting from public
consultation and expert opinion, on issues such as public assessment about the
project from the economical point of view, expected losses to be produced in the
local retail industry along the line, people feeling about the risks that the project
might bring, etc.
However, many criteria have quantitative values. As seen in the above example,
these units could be hectares of wilderness aected for a particular option, or may
be noise measured in decibels for that option which has a bearing with birds
migration, or number of people to be displaced because the construction of that
alternative, etc.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear in mind that a mathematical model like this is
designed to represent reality as close as possible, but of course, since it is only a
mathematical representation there are subjective issues which it does not take into
account. As an example, the model is able to select a certain option for a specied
project, but it cannot consider the emotional stress that it can cause to a particular
sector of the population. This is the case for instance when the project involves the
construction of a dam that will ood houses in a nearby village. For this reason,
SIMUS produces a solution which is not a denitive one, for it can be discussed with
interested parties, modied if necessary, and the model run again. In this way a feedback process takes place which considers through public consultation and technical
discussions aspects that the mathematical model did not assume initially. The
model can treat simultaneously any kind of criteria, involving social, environment,
economic and sustainable points of view.
The goal of the mathematical solution is to nd the alternative that produces an
optimization of the trade-os, considering gains from one alternative along with
losses from another. From this point of view, it can consider projects related with
economic growth and compare its benets and losses regarding the social and
environment areas. Since all areas are represented through the criteria, the model
nds a solution that is the best compromise between all intervening parts. However,
a solution which is feasible from the commercial point of view could not be selected
because it uses human and natural resources in a greater amount than available, or
because it produces eects in such an extent that are beyond the limits established by
thresholds.
SIMUS works with a database in a spreadsheet such as Excel. This spreadsheet
will contain all the elements needed to solve the problem. We must start dening the
objective, or purpose. It could imply for instance the minimization of the total cost, or
the maximization of the number of people to be beneted with the project, or may be
the goal could be to produce the least damage to the environment.

434

N. MUNIER

Alternatives are the dierent options considered in the project. It could be for
instance the several alternative routes for a highway project, or that there are
several options such as hydro-power, wind-power, biomass, etc, for a renewable
energy project. In this last case, one could even select not a single option but a
combination of them. Which combination? That one producing the optimization of
the objective.
Regarding criteria, they are used to gauge the contribution of each alternative to
the attainment of the objective. Since the project must be sustainable, it has to take
into account not only technical aspects, such as length and cost of each alternative,
but also has to consider social outcomes, such as the creation of employment, and
the economic impact like the utilization of agricultural land. As a consequence, there
are many diverse kind of criteria and pertaining to dierent elds. Public participation has to be reected through these criteria expressing the degree of approval or
disapproval of people regarding dierent issues.
It is also necessary to introduce as criteria some measure of risk for each alternative. For instance, in an oil pipeline project there could be a sabotage risk and
maybe with dierent probability for each alternative, since warring factions in a
certain territory can blow up the line. There could also be risks considering the
geological characteristics of each route, or environmental risks due to the potential
of a leak into the ground. Risks are usually expressed as a mean value, for instance
one can say: 6 persons in 1000 could be aected, so this is the estimate. But
sometimes a value like this it is not known and only lower and higher limits can be
established, and consequently, these pair of values must be incorporated in the
database.
Because criteria are used it is also necessary to establish limits, values or
thresholds to each one. For instance in a project involving the construction of an
aluminum plant a criterion has to be established regarding the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the atmosphere, also considering its spatial
impact, i.e. how the contamination, whatever its degree, will diuse around the
plant. Establishing limits or thresholds, is extremely important especially from the
sustainable point of view in the sense that with them it is possible to set up some
sort of limit for the carrying capacity of the environment, i.e. a value is needed to
inform us that we can not extract more than say 3.8 m3/sec of water from an
aquifer, because otherwise it will be depleted. In this case this value expresses de
carrying capacity of the aquifer.
The criteria have also to show available resources. As an example, if a project calls
for the construction of a new large housing development, it is necessary to take into
account if the city water treatment plant will have enough capacity to treat the
additional load of sewage that will be generated by the new development, and the
same for the potable water supply and other services.
A spreadsheet can manage all this information. Naturally, the hardest part of
the process is getting it; however, one has to remember that this information needs
to be gathered anyway for a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment,
therefore, the only dierence is that it will be now better organized. Any type of

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

435

units of measure can be used, provided that they are consistent on the same row. It
means that if one wants to compare dierent projects using a criterion such as
water contamination, the projects impacts have to be expressed in the same units
for all of them.

3. Case study: Increasing an urban highway capacity

3.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

E-98 is a main highway across a city. At the time of this study there was a heavy
trac with an average of 22% of trac jams over a 24 h period, which is well above
the national standards, so a solution had to be implemented to solve the problem. It
was thought that the improvement of the road would bring growth but at the same
time could create disturbances in society and in the environment. There were technical,
economic and environmental feasibility studies executed and the following four
alternatives were selected:
A.
B.
C.
D.

Maximum upgrading of the highway involving some structural modications.

Minimum upgrading.
Construction of a second level lane.
Building a new road.

To evaluate these alternatives 14 dierent criteria were used, as depicted in

Table I, with indication of sources of information. The three mentioned aspects of
sustainable development were examined (social, environment and economics), as
well as peoples opinions, and of course, construction costs. Criteria numbered as: 1,
2,3,4,12,13 and 14 are considered to represent the impact over the environment and
ecology and are valued according to peoples preferences.
Further, to evaluate alternatives, criteria values or coecients were developed
using a ranking system (1100) representing degrees of dissatisfaction for those nontechnical criteria. These points were obtained through citizens surveys, polls, expert
opinion, stakeholders consultation, meetings with people representatives, technical
data, etc. See Table II (the database).
This step allows analysts to have an indication of the environmental impact
produced by each alternative, which can be considered as of some sort of
demerit, harmful points, or may be an environmental cost incurred by each
alternative (in italics), and therefore, the higher the value the greater the damage
or impact.
Values for the other criteria were obtained using technical data with dierent types
of unit of measure. All this information was prepared for each alternative and
grouped in the database as a performance table (Table II).

436

N. MUNIER
TABLE I. Criteria, areas and sources.

Number Criteria
1

Area the criterion Information

belongs to
obtained from:

Opinion and needs according to of

Government
City Hall and regional policies;
Citizens opinions. For this criterion
Social
several factors were considered namely:
noise, landscape, safety, access to
facilities, people mobility, trac jams,
recreational facilities, air pollution, etc.
Environmental and landscape issues
Environment

Economic issues

Economics

5
6
7

Trac volume
Trac ow
Trac safety

Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

8
9
10
11

Urban trac
Regional trac
Direct economic benets
Indirect economic benets

Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Economics
Economics

12

Air quality

Environment

13

Noise production

Environment

14

Areas aected by alternative

Environment

City Hall plans

Surveys, polls, meetings with
stakeholders, citizens
representatives

People, technical information

about impacts
People, technical information
about impacts
Trac analysis
Trac analysis
Trac analysis Available
statistics
Trac analysis
Trac analysis
Economic analysis Forecasting
Economic analysis Forecasting
Multiplying eect
People, technical information
about impacts
People, technical information
about impacts
People, technical information
about impacts

Explanation of some values of Table II

Demerit factors: The highest values for each option (the least desirable options),
have been underlined.
Examples For criterion Citizens opinions: According to survey with the
population the best alternative is D (the lowest value or least unfavorable opinion)
and the worst B (the highest value or most unfavorable opinion).
For criterion Economic issues: Population feels that the construction of a second level lane alternative C will bring the maximum economic benets, while
alternative B Minimum upgrading will bring the least benets.
Technical coecients: As their name imply these coecients correspond to technical aspects. Thus trac gures depicted in Table II come from actual measures on
the volume and the trac ow and from their projections. Trac safety was easily
obtained because records exist about the number of accidents, their causes and
number of fatal and non-fatal consequences.
Direct and indirect economic benets were projected using economics techniques
as well as population habits.
Table III shows the result of these values when multiplied by the corresponding
criteria weights (shown in Table II) which come from expert opinion.

City Hall and regional policies

Citizens opinions
Environment and landscape issues
Economic issues
Trac volume
Trac ow
Trac safety
Urban trac
Regional trac
Direct economic benets
Indirect economic benets
Air quality (Nox)
Air quality (SO2)
Areas aected by alternative

Criteria
(Includes preferences and technical criteria)

0.1
0.1
0.08
0.02
0.09
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.15
0.05

Criteria
weights

Costs

B
13,900,563

A
15,231,462

C
15,996,324

Second level
lane

9
30
23
25
10,000
3000
200
6500
2500
12
9
50
65
18

5
38
27
42
7200
2000
260
6500
1500
19
20
61
69
15

9
24
35
23
11,000
3200
320
4500
14,000
12
9
59
68
8

Demerit factors and technical coecients

Minimum
upgrading

Maximum
upgrading

Alternatives

TABLE II. Performance table (The database).

10
15
19
26
12,500
4200
175
1200
13,000
11
8
44
49
56

D
16,098,241

New
road

120 Points
1100 Points
1100 Points
1100 Points
Number of cars
Cars/hour
Accidents/year
Number of cars
Number of cars
Million of dollars
Million of dollars
1100 Points
1100 Points
1100 Points

Units

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

437

438

N. MUNIER
TABLE III. Values aected by weights.
Alternatives

Criteria
City Hall and regional policies
Citizens opinions
Environment and landscape issues
Economic issues
Trac volume
Trac ow
Trac safety
Urban trac
Regional trac
Direct economic benets
Indirect economic benets
Air quality (Nox)
Air quality (SO2)
Areas aected by alternative

Maximum
upgrading

Minimum
upgrading

Second
level lane

New
road

0.90
3.00
1.84
0.50
900
300
10
130
50
0.72
0.99
2.50
9.75
0.90

0.50
3.00
2.16
0.84
648
200
13
130
30
1.14
2.20
3.05
10.35
0.75

0.90
2.40
2.80
0.46
990
320
16
90
280
0.72
0.99
2.95
10.20
0.40

1.00
1.5
1.52
0.52
1,125
420
8.75
24
260
0.66
0.88
2.20
7.35
2.80

It can be seen that there is a large discrepancy in the magnitude of the dierent
values, for instance between 0.50 for alternative A and criterion economic issues,
and 1,125, for alternative D and criterion trac volume. For this reason and in
order to compare values, these gures have to be normalized, and it is done for
each criterion relating each value to the largest value on that row.
The result of this normalization is shown in Table IV, indicating then rows of
percentages, which allows for the consolidation of all dierent units of measure. This
Table IV, which is the SIMUS Table, also incorporates a costs row per alternative
and a column for threshold values for each criterion, and has all the information
needed for the computation.
Explanation of Table IV: Row Environmental damage shows the penalty values
obtained as a sum of values from peoples preferences (values in italics). Figures in
the threshold column equal the smaller value in the corresponding row if the greater
than sign > is used. Its rational is that whatever the value calculated by the
software, in the Values from computation column, it cannot be less than the
minimum value in that row. For instance for criterion Economic issues the corresponding resulting gure from the Values from computation column, is 0.74,
which is, as it should be, higher than the minimum value for that criterion row which
is 0.55, which also is, as explained, the threshold for that row.
Consider now a criterion such as Trac ow; if we want that the resulting
selected alternative be able to handle trac uidly, then it is necessary to establish an
upper limit in order to avoid trac jams. For this reason the threshold column shows
1 (corresponding to the 420 car/h value in Table III, for alternative D), which is
the maximum value for this criterion, and the less than < sign, because as a
maximum, one wants this ow of trac. But most probably somebody will say, this

Cost per alternative

Normalized cost
(as a percentage of the largest value)
Criteria
City Hall and regional policies
Citizens opinions
Environment and landscape issues
Economic issues
Trac volume
Trac ow
Trac safety
Urban trac
Regional trac
Direct economic benets
Indirect economic benets
Air quality (NOx)
Air quality (SO2)
Areas aected by alternative
Environmental damage
Normalized environmental damage
(as a percentage of the largest value)
RESULT

13,900,563
0.86

0.50
1.00
0.77
1.00
0.58
0.48
0.81
1.00
0.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.27
5.54
1.00
0

0.90
0.79
0.66
0.60
0.80
0.71
0.63
1.00
0.18
0.63
0.45
0.82
0.94
0.32
5.02
0.91

15,231,462
0.95

Minimum upgrading

Maximum upgrading

Alternatives

0.90
0.63
1.00
0.55
0.88
0.76
1.00
0.69
1.00
0.63
0.45
0.97
0.99
0.14
5.17
0.93

15,996,324
0.99

Second level lane

TABLE IV. SIMUS Table.

1.00
0.39
0.54
0.62
1.00
1.00
0.55
0.18
0.93
0.58
0.40
0.72
0.71
1.00
4.99
0.90

16,098,241
1.00

New road

1.00
0.70
0.49
0.74
1.00
1.00
0.58
0.18
0.93
0.58
0.40
0.72
0.72
1.00

Values from
computation

>
>
>
>
<
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sign

0.50
0.39
0.54
0.55
1.00
1.00
0.55
0.18
0.11
0.58
0.40
0.72
0.71
0.14

Thresholds
values

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

439

440

N. MUNIER

is OK, but we also need that the alternative be able to handle as much a trac as
possible, and this is a legitimate concern. In this case the criterion is repeated (albeit
not shown in here), with the same coecients, but using as a threshold of 0.48
(corresponding to the 200 cars/hr in Table III, for alternative B), which is the
minimum value for this criterion, and the greater than > sign, because as a
minimum, one wants this ow of trac. This way a criterion can have a lower limit of
200 cars/h, and an upper limit of 420 cars/h.
As a last step, the mathematical optimization procedure detailed in the example
above was applied to identify the best alternative with the objective of minimizing
both, costs and environmental damage. The model selected the most appropriate
alternative and permitted a sensitivity evaluation to be performed. This mathematical procedure does not require any dedicated software since it uses an add-in that
comes with Excel, Quatro Pro and Lotus 123 software. Whatever the software it
takes the information from the database in a spreadsheet format, processes it using a
well known mathematical procedure, and delivers the results, back to the spreadsheet.

4. Result
Last shaded row of Table IV shows the result of the computation, indicating that the
model selected alternative A as the best one, and since this is a select or not select
scenario, the chosen alternative is indicated with a 1, and not selected with 0s.

5. Analysis of the result

From the economic point of view Table IV shows that that alternative B should be
chosen, since it is the least costly, and this is the result that SIMUS should have
shown in the absence of all environmental criteria.
From the environmental point of view, alternative D should be selected since it has
the lowest environmental damage value, and again this is the selection that SIMUS
would have made in the absence of all economic criteria.
However, alternative A chosen by SIMUS is neither the less expensive nor the
alternative with the lesser environmental points. It can be seen then that the model
has preferred an alternative that oers equilibrium between economic growth and
sustainable development.
Of course many more criteria could be added, may be in the order of the hundreds,
to consider aspects such as: kilometers of fences needed, kilometers of sound barriers
to be built, number of bridges necessary to cross rivers and creeks, number of
hectares of agricultural land to be used as a right of way, tunnels, etc.
Table V depicts another interesting computation that can be done, and it is to
compare the cost of each alternative with damage or demerits to the environment. In
this case we get:

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

441

TABLE V. Demerits/Costs Ratio.

Alternatives

Normalized costs
Normalized environmental damage
Costs/Environmental damage ratio

0.95
0.91
0.96

0.86
1.00
1.16

0.99
0.93
0.94

1.00
0.90
0.90

This analysis shows that the best environmental ratio is obtained with alternative
D because it produces the least amount of damage per dollar. The worst is alternative B with the greatest damage per dollar. It can be seen that the selected alternative A, has a ratio of 0.96 which is the closest to the average value of 0.99 for the
four alternatives. However, one has to remember that in the selection of the alternatives shown in Table IV it included the whole set of criteria and not only the
preference set of criteria.

6. Conclusion
Considering the prior discussion it is believed that there is indeed a dichotomy
between economic growth and sustainable development, but it is also concluded than
an equilibrium can be reached between both concepts, in other words that a balance
can be reached between the need of economic growth and also the necessity of
preserving the delicate ecosystem where humankind is immersed.
The word equilibrium is key in this discussion. Trying to preserve the environment disregarding economic growth is unfortunately a utopia, since as population
grows they strive for a better living, more resources are consumed, and even taken by
force, which is happening in places around the world, mainly in Indonesia, Mexico
and Brazil.
Trying to promote economic growth without too much concern about the environment, will cause that sooner or later humankind will run out of water, forests,
and land, and there will be a stopping or in the best of cases, a decrease of the
economic process. It is believed that the secret lies in promoting economic growth
but in such a manner that the ecology be sustained. It involves considering the Life
Cycle of a project in order to decrease its impacts into the environment, recycling
policies, improving industries to have a more ecient use of water, energy and raw
materials and decreasing the production of wastes, reengineering processes,
increasing the reuse of materials, better reforestation practices, a lower consumption
of raw materials, a rational use of the land, especially in cities, with adequate
guidelines about density, much more stringent regulations for motor vehicles exhausts, etc.
Even if a project calls for a damage that cannot be avoided, measures should be
taken to remediate as much as possible this situation. If the construction of a dam
swallows a forest on the shores of a river, reforestation will be needed when the dam

442

N. MUNIER

is complete and the water have reached its level, and for the same token, erosion have
to be monitored and contained through appropriate measures. In other words
humankind can sometimes substitute or remediate what it destroyed in order to
sustain the ecosystem.
From this point of view Environmental Impact Assessment is a tool that has to be
taken very seriously with a compromise to undertake all the recommended measures
as well as monitoring required. The outcome of all these remediation actions is of
course that their costs have to be introduced in the cost-benet analysis of a project,
so in some way this is like putting some economic value to the degradation of the
environment. The proposed tool briey explained here can help in reaching that
equilibrium and in so doing can select projects that are both economically feasible
and environmentally sustainable.
SIMUS has been applied in several countries for selection purposes in dierent
issues. The following list also details its diusion in international forums.

References
ACTUAL APPLICATIONS
Urban Planning Guadalajara, Mexico
Urban Planning Cordoba, Argentina
Urban Planning Clarence-Rockland, Canada
Projects Selection (Name of city condential) Spain
Selection of urban locations for health Centers Cordoba, Argentina
Indicators Selection: Ministry of the Environment, Hull, Canada
Environmental Indicators Selection: Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Indicators Selection for Quality of Life Indicators: Leon, Mexico
Urban and peri-urban Indicators Selection: Aberystwyth, UK
INTERNATIONAL PRESENTATIONS
Title: Urban Development Study of the Extended Urban Zone of Guadalajara according to Indicators
of Sustainability
Event: International Conference (2000)
Sponsor: Stockholm Partnerships, Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.gda.itesm.mx/cca/zcg.html
Title: Public Participation, Decision-Making and Sustainability in Infrastructure Projects
Event: International Conference. Cost C8 Sustainable Urban Infrastructure, University of Trento,
Italy (2003)
Sponsor: European Commission Research Directorate General
http://www.unitn.it/events/costC8/download/program.pdf#search=
nolberto%20munier
Title: SIMUS, a Tool for Assessing Urban Sustainability
Event: International Meeting. COST 8 Meeting, Oslo, Norway (2002)
Sponsor: European Commission Research Directorate
http://www.vtt./rte/projects/yki4/cost/c8/oslominutes.pdf(search=nolberto%20munier
Title: Sequential Interactive Model for Urban Sustainability (SIMUS)
Event: Urban Development for Poverty Reduction: Towards a Research Agenda
The World Bank International Symposium, Washington, D.C., USA (2002)
Sponsor: The World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/symposium2002/docs/other/symposium-agenda.pdf(search=nolberto%20munier
Title: Asignacion de Recursos para Ciudades Sustentables
Event: Past, Present and Future of Urban Development in Jalisco (2000), Guadalajara, Mexico

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

443

Sponsor: Government of Jalisco

http://iit.jalisco.gob.mx/html/congresos/expo2000/temas2000.html
Title: Evaluation of Environmental Status in a Country and Impact Assessment
Event: 18th International Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand (1998)
Sponsor: International Association for Impact Assessment
https://www.iaia.org/Non_Members/Conference/iaia98/nal-program/set3timetable. html
Title: A Plan for Sustainable Cities and Impact Assessment
Event: 19th International Conference, Glasgow, Scotland (1999)
Sponsor: International Association for Impact Assessment
Title: An Approach to Determine Cities Sustainability and Policiers Impacts Assessment
Event: Joint Meeting between the Ministry of Environment, Canada and the Hong Kong Government
(1999)
Title: Planning of Urban Subdivisions in Urban Development Plans
Event: International Seminar on Integral Rehabilitation of Areas, Toluca, Mexico (2000)
Sponsor: Government of the State of Mexico
Title: Impact Assessment with Urban Sustainable Indicators
Event: 22nd International Conference, Den Haag, the Netherlands (2002)
Sponsor: International Association for Impact Assessment

Bibliography
Bartelmus, P.: 1999, Sustainable Development Paradigm or Paranoia? Wuppertal Papers, No 93, May
1999.
Crookes, W. and de Wit, M.: 2000, Environmental economic valuation and its application in
environmental assessment: an evaluation of the status quo with reference to South Africa. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal Beech Tree Publishing.
Dantzig, G.B.: 1951, Maximization of a linear function of variables subject to linear inequalities Activities
analysis of production ands allocation, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 339347.
Lindholm, O. and Halvorsen, K.: 2002, The sustainability of conventional versus nature based sewerage
systems. www.cf.ac.uk/research/bost8/case/watersewerage/conventionalnaturesewerage.html.
Morris, P. and Therivel, R.: 1994, Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vancouver, UBC Press.
Munier, N.: 2002, Impact assessment with urban sustainable indicators, 22nd IAIA02 Conference, Den
Haag.
Munier, N.: 2004, Multicriteria Environmental Assessment: A Practical Guide, The Netherlands, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Noorbakhsh, F. and Ranjan, S.: 1999, A model for sustainable development: integrating environmental
impact assessment and project planning. IAIA Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Beech
Tree Publishers, December.
OECD: 1995, The Economic Appraisal of Environmental Projects and Policies: A Practical Guide.
OECD, Paris.
Saaty, T.L.: 1990, Multicriteria Decision Making The Analytaic Hierarchy Process, Volume I, AHP
Series, New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Stolp, A., Groen, W., van Vliet, J. and Vanclay, F.: 2002, Citizen values assessment: incorporating
citizens value judgments in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal Beech Tree Publishing, March.
World Commision on Environment and Development: 1987, The Bruntland Report also Known as Our
Common Future. Oxford University Press.