How to approach the sustainable information society? Criteria and indicators as useful tools

Progress in Industrial Ecology

Volumn 2, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 303-328

  Heinonen, Sirkka ^a   Hietanen, Olli ^a   Lyytimäki, Jari ^a   Rosenström, Ulla ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

amaterialisation; dematerialisation; digital balance; eco efficiency; ICT; immaterialisation; indicators; sustainable development; sustainable information society

Indexed keywords

EID: 32444436763     PISSN: 14768917     EISSN: 14788764     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/pie.2005.007813     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Atkinson, G. and Hamilton, K. (1996) ‘Accounting for progress: indicators for sustainable development’, Environment, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.16–20.
2. Bell, S. and Morse, S. (1999) Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable, London: Earthscan.
3. Bell, S. and Morse, S. (2003) Measuring Sustainability. Learning from Doing, London: Earthscan.
4. Denisov, N. and Christoffersen, L. (2001) ‘Impact of environmental information on decision making processes and the environment’, Occasional Paper 01-2001, Arendal, Norway: UNEP and GRID-Arendal.
5. van Dijk, J. and Hacker, K. (2003) ‘The “digital divide” as a complex and dynamic phenomenon’, The Information Society, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.315–326.
6. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class – and How it's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York: Basic Books.
7. Hietanen, O. (Ed.) (2002) ‘Indications of sustainable development’, Futura, The Finnish Society for Future Studies, Helsinki, February, p.149.
8. Heinonen, S., Hietanen, O., Härkönen, E., Kiiskilä, K. and Ruohonen, L. (2003b) SWOT Analysis of a Sustainable Information Society, (in Finnish with abstract in English), Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finnish Futures Research Centre, Turku: Tutu Publications, April, p.45.
9. Heinonen, S., Hietanen, O., Kiiskilä, K. and Ruohonen, L. (2003a) Is the Information Society Sustainable? Conceptual Analysis with Some Preliminary Evaluations, (in Finnish with abstract in English), The Finnish Environment 603. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki.
10. Heinonen, S., Hietanen, O., Manninen, J., Suvinen, N. and Viherä, M.L. (2003c) Digital Balance and Services Bridging Up Old and New Technology and Services, TeliaSonera, Finland: Information Society Unit, Publications, February, p.66.
11. Heinonen, S., Jokinen, P. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2001) ‘The ecological transparency of the information society. Futures’, The Journal of Forecasting, Planning and Policy, Elsevier Science, Vol. 33, Nos. 3-4, pp.319–337.
12. Hietanen, O., Heinonen, S., Kiiskilä, K., Lyytimäki, J. and Rosenström, U. (2004) Indicators of Sustainable Information Society, (in Finnish with an extensive abstract in English), Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku: Tutu Publications, http://www.tukkk.fi/tutu/etieto/.
13. Hukkinen, J. (2003) ‘Sustainability indicators for anticipating the fickleness of human-environmental interaction’, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 5, Nos. 3-4, pp.200–208.
14. Jokinen, P., Malaska, P. and Kaivo-oja, J. (1998) ‘The environment in an “information society”: a transition stage towards more sustainable development? Futures’, The Journal of Forecasting, Planning and Policy, Elsevier Science, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.485–498.
15. Keenan, M., Loveridge, D., Miles, I. and Kaivo-oja, J. (2003) Handbook of Knowledge Society Foresight. Prepared by PREST and FFRC for European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Final Report, Dublin.
16. Kuusi, O. (Ed.) (1996) Innovation Systems and Competitiveness, VATT A22, ETLA B 125, VATT, Helsinki.
17. Laskowski, S.L. and Kutz, F.W. (1998) ‘Environmental data in decision making in EPA regional offices’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 51, Nos. 1-2, pp.15–21.
18. Malaska, P., Vehmas, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Luukkanen, J., Hietanen, O., Aarras, N. and Peltonen, K. (2003) ‘Thematic analysis report on information age sustainability. Terra 2000, Deliverable Final Report, D14.1.
19. Mitchell, G. (1996) ‘Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators’, Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, pp.1–11.
20. Moffat, I. (1994) ‘On measuring sustainable development’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.97–109.
21. Moldan, B. and Billharz, S. (1997) ‘Sustainability indicators. report of the project on indicators of sustainable development’, SCOPE 58, John Wiley and Sons.
22. Morrone, M. and Hawley, M. (1998) ‘Improving environmental indicators through involvement of experts, stakeholders, and the public’, Ohio Journal of Science, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp.52–58.
23. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environment and Development, The United Nations.
24. Robertson, D.P. and Hull, R.B. (2003) ‘Public ecology: an environmental science and policy for global society’, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.399–410.
25. Rosenström, U. (2002) ‘The potential for the use of sustainable development indicators in policy-making in Finland’, Futura, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.19–25.
26. Rosenström, U. and Palosaari, M. (Eds.) (2000) Signs of Sustainability. Finland’s Indicators for Sustainable Development 2000, Finnish Environment, Environmental Policy, Helsinki.
27. Slaughter, R. (1995) The Foresight Principle, Cultural Recovery in the 21st Century, Adamantine Press.
28. United Nations (UN) (2001) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies – 2001, United Nations, New York.
29. Vehmas, J., Malaska, P., Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Hietanen, O., Vinnari, M. and Ilvonen, J. (2003) Europe in the Global Battle of Sustainability: Rebound Strikes Back? Advanced Sustainability Analysis, Series Discussion and Working Papers, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, July, p.110.
30. Välimäki, J. (2002a): Information for Sustainability, (in Finnish with abstract in English), The Finnish Environment 556, Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, p.69.
31. Välimäki, J. (2002b): ‘The information society and the use of sustainable development indicators’, Futura, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.69–75.
32. http://www.tukkk.fi/tutu/etieto/english.htm.
33. The boundaries of designing the system as a cohesive whole must also be recognised. The existence of numerous stakeholders in the development of a sustainable information society contains in itself possible elements for competition, decentralisation, and conflicts of interest. In addition, the challenge of tackling the issues of various dimensions of sustainable development while maintaining harmonious balance is immense, since the dimensions are qualitatively different.
34. See http://www.environment.fi and http://www.stat.fi. Besides environmental statistics and state of the environment reports, information is also given in expert journals.
35. Simultaneously with the diversification of technology, there is another tendency towards convergence and standardisation in technological development.
36. The dimensions are ecological, economic, cultural, social and environmental policy. The first four dimensions are the main dimensions of digital balance. The fifth dimension – environmental policy – was relevant because the purpose of the research was to develop environmental policy making; it is also important to have indicators for policy making.
37. It must be noted that here some ambiguity may arise. A more careful consumer use of a car could also be seen as a further reflection of dematerialisation, since the physical object still exists. However, the immaterialisation approach is based on the eco-friendlier consumption of driving as a service. For example, through better planning, trips can be linked and kilometres otherwise travelled can be left undriven.