scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)
sustainability
Article
Screening Indicators for the Sustainable Child
Development Index (SCDI)
Ya-Ju Chang *, Annekatrin Lehmann and Matthias Finkbeiner
Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin,
Germany; [email protected] (A.L.); [email protected] (M.F.)
*Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-79564
Academic Editor: Helmut Haberl
Received: 21 December 2016; Accepted: 24 March 2017; Published: 29 March 2017
Abstract:
Since children are the key stakeholders supporting and being affected by sustainable
development, the framework for the Sustainable Child Development Index (SCDI) was proposed.
It addresses social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development by
considering seven relevant themes of child development, i.e., health, education, safety, economic
status, relationship, environmental aspects and participation. However, an indicator set for initiating
the SCDI is still missing. In this study, indicators for the themes, subthemes and criteria of SCDI are
identified from literature and then analyzed regarding data availability. Sixty-six indicators with
statistical data covering at least 100 countries are selected as the indicator set for the SCDI. The results
indicate that data availability is best for indicators describing the themes of health and education,
and worst for indicators addressing the themes of relationship and participation. Furthermore,
21 subthemes and 50 criteria described by indicators with limited data availability are identified
for future indicator and data development. By providing an initial indicator set and screening
the indicators with regard to data availability, the practicality of the SCDI framework is expected.
Furthermore, the indicator set can serve as a potential indicator pool for other child and sustainable
development related studies.
Keywords:
sustainable development; sustainability assessment; Sustainable Child Development
Index (SCDI); child development; indicator set; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
1. Introduction
Children are the stakeholders inheriting and shaping future society. The International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource [
1
] claimed that “we have not inherited the Earth from
our parents, we have borrowed it from our children”. This claim emphasizes the important relationship
between inter-generational equity, children and sustainable development (SD). Child development
(CD) is affected by external circumstances, and children are more vulnerable to violence, diseases and
environmental pollution than adults [
2
]. Furthermore, children’s basic rights such as to express their
own opinions and to have access to education can be impeded by adults [
2
,
3
]. Disregarding and
violating these basic rights can lead to irreversible and severe effects on CD and consequently on
future society.
Many studies on CD are available and many schemes and indexes for assessing CD have
been developed. The Handbook of Child Well-Being [
4
] indicates that the studies related to CD
and well-being have undergone some relevant movements: multi-dimensional topics (for example,
child rights) are increasingly addressed and new themes (for example, participation) are included.
Accordingly, several indexes for CD were developed [
5
,
6
]. One famous example, the Child
Development Index (CDI) [
7
,
8
], was proposed to evaluate countries’ performance on CD considering
health, education and nutrition. It was designed to mirror the Human Development Index (HDI) [
9
]
Sustainability 2017,9, 518; doi:10.3390/su9040518 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 2 of 19
with particular focus on children. Other government-supported institutions and NGOs proposed
alternative indexes focusing more on well-being by considering additional topics, such as relationships
with family, school and community, safety, or social engagement [
10
–
14
]. However, though these
indexes are advanced compared to former ones focusing on single topics only, some limitations still
remain. For instance, they do not address topics related to environmental aspects, such as water
availability or resource consumption. Generally, a consistent classification of topics as well as a
description of interdependencies between different topics is still a challenge.
1.1. The SCDI Framework and Potential Application
To address some of those gaps, for example, lack of considering environmental aspects,
inconsistent classification scheme, and missing description of interdependencies between topics,
Chang et al. [
15
] proposed the Sustainable Child Development Index (SCDI) framework in the context
of SD. This index is designed to be an aggregated score that presents countries’ performance with
regard to SD by considering relevant topics and indicators addressing environmental, economic and
social dimensions. The performance can be treated as the potential towards SD by emphasizing
intergenerational equality and the completed picture of SD. In addition, the SCDI can compare the
performance for countries on CD and monitor the trends on improvements and declines of the
performance for countries as well as specific topics by continuously updating the indicators over a
defined time frame (e.g., on a four-year basis, such as done for CDI [
7
,
8
]). Therefore, the SCDI can
support decision makers to formulate or adjust strategies on child as well as sustainable development
policies, and, similar to HDI, is a communication tool in order to inform the condition on CD to
policy makers, communities, academies, public and private organizations. As all indexes, the SCDI
aims at summarizing a large amount of information from the included indicators to a manageable,
meaningful message [16,17].
The SCDI framework considers seven themes, which, based on a literature review, were identified
as relevant for CD: health, education, safety, economic status, relationship, and participation plus
environmental aspects. Each theme is specified by subthemes and criteria. Figure 1displays the
overall structure of the SCDI. For example, the theme health includes 17 subthemes like child
mortality, nutrition and risk behavior. Subthemes are further described by criteria, which are
measured by indicators. The subtheme child mortality contains three criteria, such as neonatal-, infant-,
and under-five mortality. The criterion under-five mortality is assessed by the indicator under-five
mortality rate. As an index for SD, the SCDI also reflects the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
SDGs were adopted in 2015 by 193 countries and target at holistically tackling development needs,
eradicating poverty in all its forms, improving human rights and gender equality, and considering SD
in environmental, social and economic dimensions [
18
,
19
]. There are some links between SDGs and
the identified relevant topics in the SCDI framework [
15
,
18
]. For example, the goal “ensure healthy
lives and promote well-being for all” is associated with the subthemes child mortality, mental health,
maternal mortality, immunization, etc.; the goal “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable
and modern energy for all” links to the subtheme renewable energy consumption; and the goal
“ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” relates to the subthemes
gender equality, access to all levels of education, and provision for vocational training.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 3 of 19
Sustainability 2017, 9, 518 3 of 18
Figure 1. The structure of the SCDI (exemplary criteria and indicator are presented for the subtheme
child mortality, adapted from Chang et al. [15]).
The SCDI framework provides a consistent classification scheme for topics relevant for CD and
includes environmental aspects, which was not yet considered in previous studies on CD but
relevant in SDGs. Furthermore, the subthemes and criteria are allocated to the outcome and the
contextual level. The outcome level considers topics reflecting the status of CD, such as the subtheme
school attainment. The contextual level considers topics, such as the subtheme parents’ educational
qualification, which can potentially affect the outcomes. For instance, growing up in a relatively low
parents’ educational qualification family may, but does not inevitably, lead to negative effects on
children’s school attainment. This indicates the topics on contextual level are connected with the
topics on outcome level, but should not be considered as direct measures of the outcome. Thus, this
two-level differentiation reveals the interdependency between subthemes and criteria. This is crucial
to avoid overstressing or neglecting the outcomes and the influences of contexts on CD [15].
This SCDI framework was the first step for developing a SCDI (illustrated in the first three
blocks in Figure 1) and was discussed in detail in Chang et al. [15]. The second step—the main task
of this paper—is to provide an indicator set for constructing the SCDI to measure CD on country
level and to screen the data availability for indicators for the identified topics. It is illustrated in the
fourth block in Figure 1 and further explained in Section 1.2. The development of normalization and
aggregation approaches needed for determining the SCDI is a topic for the future research (see also
discussion). The SCDI is planned to be designed as the arithmetic average of normalized indicators
for each of the relevant themes. By normalization, indicator scores measured on different scales are
adjusted to a common scale, i.e., the units of indicators are removed. Therefore, an aggregation of
different indicators to their corresponding subthemes and thus themes is possible. Finally,
arithmetic average scores of the themes are calculated for summarizing the relative CD performance
of countries.
The Sustainable Child
Development index (SCDI)
Health Education Safety
Economic
status
Relationship
Participation
Environmental
aspects
Themes
Risk behavior Nutrition ……
Child mortality
Under-five mortality
Infant mortality Neonatal mortality
Criteria
Subthemes
Under-five
mortalit
y
rate
Infant mortality
r
ate
Neonatal mortality
rate
Indicators
(1) Relevant topics
(2) An
indicator set
(3) Normalization, weighting
& A
gg
re
g
ation
Figure 1.
The structure of the SCDI (exemplary criteria and indicator are presented for the subtheme
child mortality, adapted from Chang et al. [15]).
The SCDI framework provides a consistent classification scheme for topics relevant for CD
and includes environmental aspects, which was not yet considered in previous studies on CD but
relevant in SDGs. Furthermore, the subthemes and criteria are allocated to the outcome and the
contextual level. The outcome level considers topics reflecting the status of CD, such as the subtheme
school attainment. The contextual level considers topics, such as the subtheme parents’ educational
qualification, which can potentially affect the outcomes. For instance, growing up in a relatively low
parents’ educational qualification family may, but does not inevitably, lead to negative effects on
children’s school attainment. This indicates the topics on contextual level are connected with the topics
on outcome level, but should not be considered as direct measures of the outcome. Thus, this two-level
differentiation reveals the interdependency between subthemes and criteria. This is crucial to avoid
overstressing or neglecting the outcomes and the influences of contexts on CD [15].
This SCDI framework was the first step for developing a SCDI (illustrated in the first three blocks
in Figure 1) and was discussed in detail in Chang et al. [
15
]. The second step—the main task of this
paper—is to provide an indicator set for constructing the SCDI to measure CD on country level and to
screen the data availability for indicators for the identified topics. It is illustrated in the fourth block
in Figure 1and further explained in Section 1.2. The development of normalization and aggregation
approaches needed for determining the SCDI is a topic for the future research (see also discussion).
The SCDI is planned to be designed as the arithmetic average of normalized indicators for each of
the relevant themes. By normalization, indicator scores measured on different scales are adjusted
to a common scale, i.e., the units of indicators are removed. Therefore, an aggregation of different
indicators to their corresponding subthemes and thus themes is possible. Finally, arithmetic average
scores of the themes are calculated for summarizing the relative CD performance of countries.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 4 of 19
1.2. Research Objective
Currently, many indicators related to CD are available in the literature and considered in existing
indexes. However, according to Fernandes et al. [
20
], who reviewed the leading research on the
measurement of CD and well-being through indexes, common classification of indicators used in
the indexes is lacking. One indicator can be classified into different topics. For instance, the school
enrolment indicators were assigned to address education in many indexes [
13
,
14
,
21
], but were allocated
to participation in some other indexes [
22
,
23
]. Consequently, allocating an indicator to a specific topic
is not always straightforward. That indicates a robust classification system needs to be developed.
Moreover, some studies did not clarify the data availability of indicators, or did not specify the
indicators needed for measuring the topics [
10
,
24
–
28
]. Consequently, such indexes may not be applied
in practice, as data for one or more indicators are simply not available on country level. To foster
the implementation of the SCDI, developing an indicator set based on sufficiently available data
is necessary.
Hence, the objective of this study is to transparently provide an initial indicator set for developing
the SCDI and to screen the indicators for the identified topics of the SCDI framework with regard to
data availability. Such an analysis of the indicators is needed because the SCDI is designed to assess
countries’ performance on CD in the context of SD and the assessment can be only implemented if
data are available. Indicators that already have available data are proposed as an initial indicator
set to put the SCDI in practice. The indicator set is the basis for further development of the SCDI,
facilitating a quantitative assessment of the relevant topics of sustainable child development and thus
the implementation of the SCDI. In addition, according to the analysis of the indicators, the topics
described by indicators with limited data are underlined for future indicator and data development.
Moreover, the indicator set can serve as a basic indicator pool to support decision makers and
researchers for formulating or adjusting development indexes related to child as well as sustainable
development policies and studies.
The succeeding sections present the research materials and methods (Section 2), results, including
the provision of the indicator set and the analysis of the indicators for the topics with regard to data
availability (Section 3), followed by research discussion (Section 4) and conclusion (Section 5).
2. Materials and Methods
For identifying an initial indicator set for the SCDI framework, a review and analysis of
indicators were conducted. The approach started with collecting indicators that reflected the identified
subthemes and criteria of the SCDI framework. It was checked if statistical data were available on
country level. Then, the data availability for the indicator was classified in different data availability
levels—depending on the number of countries for which data were provided. Through this indicator
analysis, indicators with sufficient data availability (at least medium data availability, further explained
in the following paragraphs) were selected as an initial indicator set. The subthemes and criteria
described by indicators with limited data availability on country level are identified. The result was an
initial indicator set, which now allows assessing CD in the context of SD on country level. An overview
of the research approach is shown in Figure 2. A detailed description is provided in the following.
Indicators for the defined subthemes and criteria of the SCDI framework were collected
from seven peer-reviewed publications [
13
,
28
–
33
], three book sections [
22
–
24
], five studies from
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) specialized in CD research [
8
,
10
,
14
,
27
,
34
], as well as
14 reports from government-supported institutes [
11
,
12
,
21
,
26
,
35
–
44
] and 11 international databases
established by government-supported institutions [
45
–
55
]. For example, the reports and database
of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) [
50
] and the United Nations Children
'
s
Fund (UNICEF) [
45
] were used as the key references of the theme safety. By considering studies and
databases from an academic, organizational and governmental background, a comprehensive set of
indicators can be provided.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 5 of 19
Sustainability 2017, 9, 518 5 of 18
Figure 2. Research approach of the study.
After completing the indicator collection, it was checked if statistical data were available for the
indicators on country level in the international, accessible databases or studies that are highly
involved in development research, such as United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World
Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank. In this study, these international databases and
reports are considered as the fundamental data sources because they frequently update statistics
and clearly provide the data sources and calculation methods. As the statistical data were taken
from these renowned references, a high data quality is assumed and thus the data are suitable for
investigating data availability further. We established a scheme to describe different data
availability levels and to define a level considered as sufficient for initiating the SCDI. For the
scheme, the number of countries considered in the UNICEF database (195) was taken as a reference:
if one indicator had statistical data for all 195 countries, the indicator was classified into the top data
availability level. In total, seven data availability levels were defined: top, very high, high, medium,
low, very low and no available statistical data (on country level). The defined data availability levels
are listed in Table 1. For example, an indicator with statistical data covering 160 countries was not
classified to the top and very high data availability level, but included in the high data availability
level. If an indicator has no available statistical data at country level (e.g., on regional level) from
international databases, then the indicator is assigned to the no available statistical data level.
Table 1. Scheme of data availability levels of indicators.
Data Availability Level
Top Very High High Medium Low Very Low No Available
Statistical Data
Numbers of
covered
country
195 195 > N ≥ 175 175 > N ≥ 150 150 > N ≥ 100 100 > N ≥ 50 50 > N ≥ 1 0
The data availability level scheme provided an overview on the data availability of the
indicators identified for the subthemes and criteria of the SCDI framework, and indicated which
subthemes and criteria could currently be assessed in all countries or in just a few. These results
were used for proposing an initial indicator set for the SCDI framework. In concrete terms, we
proposed to consider those indicators, which were allocated to at least the medium data availability
level (from top to medium data availability levels). It implied that data for the indicators are
available at least in 100 countries, representing more than 50% of the countries listed in the UNICEF
database. The subthemes and criteria described by indicators with low and very low data
Collecting indicators for the identified subthemes and criteria of the
SCDI framework proposed by Chang et al. [15]
Analyzing if statistical data are available on country level in
international o
p
en-source data
b
ases
Classifying the indicators to defined data availability levels
Proposing an initial indicator set
(indicators with at least medium data availability)
Initial indicator set for the SCDI framework
Figure 2. Research approach of the study.
After completing the indicator collection, it was checked if statistical data were available for
the indicators on country level in the international, accessible databases or studies that are highly
involved in development research, such as United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health
Organization (WHO) and World Bank. In this study, these international databases and reports are
considered as the fundamental data sources because they frequently update statistics and clearly
provide the data sources and calculation methods. As the statistical data were taken from these
renowned references, a high data quality is assumed and thus the data are suitable for investigating
data availability further. We established a scheme to describe different data availability levels and to
define a level considered as sufficient for initiating the SCDI. For the scheme, the number of countries
considered in the UNICEF database (195) was taken as a reference: if one indicator had statistical
data for all 195 countries, the indicator was classified into the top data availability level. In total,
seven data availability levels were defined: top, very high, high, medium, low, very low and no
available statistical data (on country level). The defined data availability levels are listed in Table 1.
For example, an indicator with statistical data covering 160 countries was not classified to the top and
very high data availability level, but included in the high data availability level. If an indicator has no
available statistical data at country level (e.g., on regional level) from international databases, then the
indicator is assigned to the no available statistical data level.
Table 1. Scheme of data availability levels of indicators.
Data Availability Level
Top Very High High Medium Low Very Low No Available
Statistical Data
Numbers
of covered
country
195 195 > N ≥175 175 > N ≥150 150 > N ≥100 100 > N ≥50 50 > N ≥1 0
The data availability level scheme provided an overview on the data availability of the indicators
identified for the subthemes and criteria of the SCDI framework, and indicated which subthemes
and criteria could currently be assessed in all countries or in just a few. These results were used
for proposing an initial indicator set for the SCDI framework. In concrete terms, we proposed
to consider those indicators, which were allocated to at least the medium data availability level
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 6 of 19
(from top to medium data availability levels). It implied that data for the indicators are available at
least in 100 countries, representing more than 50% of the countries listed in the UNICEF database.
The subthemes and criteria described by indicators with low and very low data availability, and no
available statistical data (hereafter defined as limited data availability) are concerned as the topics that
need more development of indicator and data (e.g., data collection and methodological improvement
for indicators) before being considered in the SCDI.
3. Results
In total, 154 indicators were collected for the subthemes and criteria of the SCDI. For 139 indicators,
statistical data were found on country level in international open-source databases. For the other
15 indicators, statistical data were not found on country level (e.g., regional level) or were not accessible
in international open-source databases. A detailed list of all the 139 indicators identified for the topics
as well as all the corresponding data coverage (and data sources) are provided in the Supplementary
Materials, Table S1. The following sections provide the results of the analysis of the data availability of
these 154 indicators. Based on the results, an initial indicator set for the SCDI and the topics concerned
with limited data availability are stated. An initial indicator set is proposed (in Section 3.1). A detailed
description of the findings of the data availability analysis is given in Section 3.2.
3.1. Selection of the Initial Indicator Set
According to the results of the indicator collection, Table 2summarizes the accumulative
numbers of indicators, criteria, subthemes, and themes structured in different data availability levels.
The accumulative numbers of indicators and topics for a specific data availability level cover the
indicators and topics considered in the better data availability level(s). For example, the at least high
data availability level includes the indicators from top, very high, to high data availability level. Table 2
shows that only a few (seven) indicators have top data availability; that is, the data are available for
195 countries. It also shows that only a few topics are covered by these seven indicators with top
data availability. A trade-off between the data availability for the indicators for the SCDI framework
and its comprehensiveness (regarding the considered topics) is revealed in Table 2. If all themes
and subthemes identified in the SCDI framework should be considered in developing a future SCDI,
the data availability would be low, meaning that data of many indicators measured in a SCDI would
only be available for few countries. On the other hand, if good data availability would be a criterion
for selecting indicators considered in the SCDI, only few indicators would be used and thus only few
subthemes and themes would be addressed. For example, if the criterion for including an indicator
in a SCDI is, that data should be available in all countries (the top data availability level), the SCDI
would only consider two themes (health and safety), three subthemes, child mortality, immunization
coverage, and violence and crime, and the respective seven criteria (neonatal mortality, infant mortality,
under-five mortality, Measles containing vaccine (MCV) immunization, Diphtheria tetanus toxoid and
pertussis (DTP3) immunization, Polio (Pol3) immunization, and criminal victimization).
To develop an initial indicator set for the SCDI framework, a compromise between data availability
and coverage of topics is needed. It is proposed to consider indicators with at least medium data
availability for the proposed indicator set; that is, data cover at least 100 countries. In addition,
it means that more than 50% of all subthemes and criteria identified in the SCDI framework are
included. For example, 29 out of 50 subthemes, and 59 out of 109 criteria are taken into account.
Furthermore, all seven themes are considered. As a result, 66 indicators are proposed for the initial
indicator set of SCDI. This indicator set is presented in Table 3.
Moreover, the identified relevant topics in the SCDI are associated with some SDGs.
The corresponding SDGs and SDG targets for the initial SCDI indicator set are listed in the
Supplementary Materials, Table S2. Moreover, the overlap between the initial SCDI indicator set
and the SDG indicator set is checked and presented in Table S2 as well. The results show that 39
out of the 66 SCDI indicators (59%) are also considered as SDG indicators. That indicates the SCDI
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 7 of 19
indicator set has compatibility with the SDG indicator set. Nonetheless, the results do not imply
that the indicators of the initial SCDI indicator set which are not suggested as SDG indicators have
low relevance of SD. These SCDI indicators respond to SDGs and SDG targets. Besides, the SDG
indicators are classified into three tiers with regard to data availability and the level of methodological
development [
56
]. This classification can also serve as a reference to support the data availability
we analyzed for the initial SCDI indicator set. In the SDG framework, Tier I considers the indicators
that have clear established methodologies, and data regularly produced by countries. Tier II includes
the indicators that have clear established methodologies, but data are not regularly produced by
countries. Tier III addresses the indicators that have no firmly established methodologies. Among the
39 indicators (both considered in the initial SCDI indicator set and the SDG indicator set), 30 (77%)
are assigned to Tier I, and the other nine are categorized to Tier II. None of the indicators of the initial
indicator set are classified as Tier III indicators. That shows the indicator set provides indicators
that have both good data availability and sound methodological development. As revealed in the
SDG indicator classification, further research for indicator and data improvement is needed for those
indicators without regularly updated data at country level and firmly established methodologies.
Few collected SCDI indicators (e.g., Number of people covered by health insurance or a public health
system per 1000 population) were found as Tier III indicators due to the lack of statistical data at
country level. This outcome points out that the ongoing SDG indicator development with regard to
Tier III indicators could also be beneficial for the future SCDI indicator development.
Table 2. Accumulative numbers of covered indicators and topics in different data availability levels.
Data Availability Level Covered Indicators Covered Topics
Top data availability 7
2 themes,
3 subthemes,
7 criteria
At least very high data availability
34
5 themes,
19 subthemes,
29 criteria
At least high data availability 44
5 themes,
22 subthemes,
41 criteria
At least medium data availability 66
7 themes,
29 subthemes,
59 criteria
At least low data availability 84
7 themes,
33 subthemes,
70 criteria
At least very low data availability 139
7 themes,
46 subthemes,
98 criteria
No statistical data at country level 154
7 themes,
50 subthemes,
109 criteria
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 12 of 19
3.2. Analysis of Indicators for the SCDI
The key messages gained from the analysis of indicators for the SCDI are summarized in the
following bullet points, and are then explained in detail.
•
The data availability of indicators differs among the different topics, for example data availability
for the theme health is high, but for the theme relationship is low.
•
The share of indicators differs for the different topics of the SCDI framework, for instance most
indicators are available for the theme health.
It is shown that data availability varies significantly for the topics of the SCDI framework.
Figure 3shows the results of the analysis of data availability for the 154 indicators collected for
the seven themes of the SCDI framework, such as health, safety, relationship. It is displayed that
only for six indicators in the theme health and one indicator in the theme safety, data are available
for all countries, that is, on top data availability level. In general, health and education are the
themes that have most indicators with better data availability. For example, Figure 3displays that for
the themes health and education, there are large shares of the indicators from top to medium data
availability levels. On the other hand, the indicators for the themes relationship and participation
are mainly considered in the medium, low, very low data availability levels. This finding indicates
that the indicators of the themes relationship and participation have a worse data availability to
evaluate CD. Thus, the development of data collection of theme relationship and participation shall
be noticed and further improved. Besides, some indicators of the theme health, economic status
and relationship show worse data availability because their associated data source are especially
limited to certain countries, for example Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OCED) and European countries [
12
,
38
,
41
,
49
,
51
]. The themes health, education, relationship include
many indicators that have no statistical data at country level. For example, the indicators that
assess chronic diseases, disability and illicit drug use have statistical data only on regional level
from international databases. In addition, some indicators were conceptually proposed for the SCDI
framework for addressing subjective-evaluated topics, e.g., reading pleasure and satisfaction to family,
without collecting data in practice. A detailed list of numbers of indicators for different themes in
different data availability levels is shown in the Supplementary Materials, Table S3.
It is also shown that most indicators are available for the theme health. The theme health covers
over one third of the collected indicators (37%). The key reason may be that health was the main
theme in early CD related studies, having more indicators developed than other themes. That indicates
the indicators are concentrated on the theme health. While measuring CD, it shall be noticed not to
overuse the indicators of the theme health. Education is another theme of large share of the indicators
(20%). The themes economic status (12%), relationship (11%) and participation (5%) obtain minor
share of indicators. This reveals a need for further indicator development of the three themes. Besides,
currently, only two indicators are selected for the theme environment aspects. As the theme was newly
proposed in Chang et al. [
15
] for assessing CD in the context of SD, more indicators associated to
resource accessibility are needed for a more comprehensive coverage of environmental aspects in the
SCDI framework.
Besides, the theme health holds the largest share of the initial indicator set (43%) followed by the
theme education (26%). Other themes, for example relationship, participation, and environmental
aspects, individually represent 1–3% of the indicator set. It indicates that though the identified
seven themes are covered in an initial indicator set, the portion of themes relationship, participation,
and environmental aspects is relatively small. The minor share of these themes shall be considered
when implementing and interpreting the SCDI. Besides, the result also responds to the fact that health
and education are the themes that have the most indicators with sufficient data availability; that is,
at least medium data availability (also shown in Figure 3).
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 13 of 19
Sustainability 2017, 9, 518 12 of 18
Figure 3. Numbers of the indicators in different data availability levels, by themes of the SCDI
framework
As described in Section 2, the indicators for the SCDI topics were screened with regard to data
availability. An overview of the themes and subthemes of the SCDI framework including their data
availability is provided in Figure 4. In Figure 4, bold wording and bullet correspondingly indicate
the themes and subthemes. Superscripts note the highest data availability level that indicators have
in each subtheme. T, VH, H, M, L, VL, and N corresponding to top, very high, high, medium, low,
very low data availability level, and no statistical data on country level, respectively. The detailed
lists of corresponding criteria of the subthemes are provided in the Supplementary Materials, Table
S4. The subthemes and criteria which are described by indicators with limited data availability are
identified and recommended to conduct further indicator and data development, e.g., data
collection and methodological improvement of indicators. Four subthemes and 11 criteria were
recognized as the topics described by indicators lacking statistical data available on country level
from international databases. The four subthemes are chronic diseases, disability, other
participation in education, as well as debt and financial difficulty. The 11 criteria are depression,
emotional and behavior difficulty, maternal smoking, health insurance coverage, family smoking,
illicit drug use, parents reading to children, reading pleasure, extracurricular subjects, satisfaction
of family, and satisfaction of community. Additionally, 17 subthemes and 39 criteria only have
indicators assigned to low and very low data availability levels. These subthemes and criteria are
also provided in Table S1. In total, 21 subthemes (marked with superscripts L, VL, and N in Figure
4) and 50 criteria described by indicators with limited data availability are considered in the SCDI
framework, but for now are not included in the initial indicator set in order to facilitate
implementation of the SCDI. The challenge of data availability shall be noticed and addressed by
indicator and data development measures, such as methodology development and data collection.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Health Education Safety Economic
status
Relationship Participation Environmental
aspects
Numbers of indicator
Theme
No statistical data on country level Very low Low Medium High Very high Top
Figure 3.
Numbers of the indicators in different data availability levels, by themes of the
SCDI framework
As described in Section 2, the indicators for the SCDI topics were screened with regard to data
availability. An overview of the themes and subthemes of the SCDI framework including their data
availability is provided in Figure 4. In Figure 4, bold wording and bullet correspondingly indicate
the themes and subthemes. Superscripts note the highest data availability level that indicators have
in each subtheme. T, VH, H, M, L, VL, and N corresponding to top, very high, high, medium, low,
very low data availability level, and no statistical data on country level, respectively. The detailed
lists of corresponding criteria of the subthemes are provided in the Supplementary Materials, Table S4.
The subthemes and criteria which are described by indicators with limited data availability are
identified and recommended to conduct further indicator and data development, e.g., data collection
and methodological improvement of indicators. Four subthemes and 11 criteria were recognized as
the topics described by indicators lacking statistical data available on country level from international
databases. The four subthemes are chronic diseases, disability, other participation in education, as
well as debt and financial difficulty. The 11 criteria are depression, emotional and behavior difficulty,
maternal smoking, health insurance coverage, family smoking, illicit drug use, parents reading
to children, reading pleasure, extracurricular subjects, satisfaction of family, and satisfaction of
community. Additionally, 17 subthemes and 39 criteria only have indicators assigned to low and
very low data availability levels. These subthemes and criteria are also provided in Table S1. In total,
21 subthemes (marked with superscripts L, VL, and N in Figure 4) and 50 criteria described by
indicators with limited data availability are considered in the SCDI framework, but for now are not
included in the initial indicator set in order to facilitate implementation of the SCDI. The challenge of
data availability shall be noticed and addressed by indicator and data development measures, such as
methodology development and data collection.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 15 of 19
To be noticed, addressing economic status as a purely contextual theme is a modification of the
SCDI framework proposed by Chang et al. [
15
]. The indicators for the theme economic status refer to
the background of economy in which children grow up and live with. For instance, housing quality,
macroeconomic situation, and household income poverty are the factors to influence development of
children, but not the direct performance acted by children. Thus, the theme economic status shall be
allocated only on contextual level. The subthemes and criteria of the theme economic status separated
on the two levels in the original SCDI framework are put together on contextual level. To sum up,
the SCDI framework contains seven themes, 50 subthemes, and 109 criteria. It includes five themes
(health, educational, safety, relationship, and participation) addressing the outcome level and seven
themes (the previous five themes, economic status, and environment aspects) addressing the contextual
level (see Figure 4).
4. Discussion
This study provides an initial indicator set for the SCDI and identifies the SCDI topics described by
indicators with limited data availability. This contribution can serve as the basis for further developing
the SCDI in the context of SD to allow a comparison of countries in terms of their relative performance,
and for fostering indicator and data development for the topics with limited data availability.
Nevertheless, some research challenges remain, such as the limited consideration of indicators
in specific themes, such as environmental aspects and participation, and inconsistent reference years
of statistical data for the indicators. For instance, among all 154 identified indicators, there are only
eight for the theme participation, and two for the theme environmental aspects. The limited inclusion
of indicators may lead to insufficient and biased evaluation of sustainable child development. Since
participation is a relatively new topic in evaluation of sustainable child development, existing indicators
with available data are few. The theme environment aspects was newly proposed in Chang et al. [
15
] for
assessing CD in the context of SD. Freshwater vulnerability and renewable energy consumption were
selected as the two relevant subthemes for the theme environmental aspects in the SCDI framework;
nevertheless, other potential topics (such as soil quality and erosion) that are specifically related to
resource accessibility and intergenerational equality usually have limited statistical data on country
level. The databases need to be developed and more indicators addressing resource accessibility need
to be considered in the SCDI framework for a more comprehensive coverage in order to emphasize
intergenerational equality.
Besides, reference years of statistical data for the indicators are not identical. Statistical data of
indicators for most of the subthemes (e.g., child mortality and attendance of education) are updated
annually. On the other hand, indicators for few subthemes (e.g., renewable energy consumption
and mental health) are updated on a four-year basis. Considering the indicators with lower update
frequency, the SCDI is thus suggested being updated on a four-year basis (i.e., over a longer period
than one year). This suggested updating period is also in line with the CDI. As the SCDI is designed
for assessing and monitoring the improvements or declines of CD for countries, this arrangement for
updating frequency could be also reasonable as longer time frames may be needed to make the trend
of the country’s performance regarding sustainable child development visible.
Currently, there are no commonly used or widely suggested methods to normalize and aggregate
multi-dimensional indicators for computing one index. In order to construct a SCDI, defining proper
normalization and aggregation methods as well as weighting choices is the next step for this research
(also see Figure 1). Sensitivity analysis will also be conducted to test the robustness of a SCDI.
Moreover, the indicators were collected based on the identified relevant subthemes and criteria
summarized in Chang et al. [
15
]. Thus, the SCDI framework and indicators will have to be continuously
revised and updated when additional literature and statistical data with regard to sustainable child
development become available. In accordance with the indicator analysis considering data availability,
the subthemes (e.g., family relationship and parents’ educational qualification) that have indicators
only with limited data availability (see Figure 4) have priority in indicator and data development.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 16 of 19
The ongoing SDG indicator development is also beneficial and can be taken as reference for supporting
SCDI indicator development.
In addition, the SCDI and the proposed initial indicator set will be tested in exemplary case
studies to investigate the validity and potential to be integrated into existing sustainability assessment
approaches. Since the indicator set is proposed considering good data availability and reliable data,
it can serve as a supplementary indicator pool to support researchers for developing or adjusting
development indicators and indexes related to child as well as sustainable development policies and
studies (e.g., the HDI families and CDI).
5. Conclusions
In total, 154 indicators are identified for the topics of the Sustainable Child Development Index
(SCDI) framework with statistical data on country level and then analyzed regarding data availability.
Among the collected indicators, 66 indicators with statistical data covering at least 100 countries
are proposed as an initial indicator set. The indicator analysis also shows that the theme health
has the largest share of collected indicators and obtains many indicators with good data availability.
On the other hand, most of the indicators of the themes relationship and participation have limited
data availability. Moreover, 21 subthemes and 50 criteria described by indicators with limited data
availability at this point of time are underlined to call on indicator and data development.
The contribution of this paper is the provision of an indicator set for initiating the SCDI that can
clearly measure the relevant topics of sustainable child development and has available statistical data
to support a quantitative assessment. Therefore, the practicality of the SCDI framework is expected.
Such a detailed analysis is required to transparently describe the development of the SCDI. In addition,
the individual indicators of the set can also serve as a basic indicator pool for being applied and
adapted in other CD and SD related studies. It is expected to support decision makers to draw
up strategies on child as well as sustainable development policies, and serve as a communication
tool to stakeholders. The next steps will focus on the development of calculation methods such as
normalization and aggregation for the SCDI.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/518/s1,
Table S1: 139 indicators collected for Sustainability Child Development Index, Table S2: The relation of the
initial indicator set of the SCDI to the SDG indicator development, Table S3: Numbers of indicators of the themes
in different data availability levels, Table S4: Subthemes and criteria of the SCDI framework.
Acknowledgments:
We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access
Publication Funds of Technische Universität Berlin.
Author Contributions:
Ya-Ju Chang is the leading author of the article. The research including literature and
indicator analysis was completed by Ya-Ju Chang. Annekatrin Lehmann and Matthias Finkbeiner provided
substantial contribution to the design of the study. All authors proofread and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource. World Conservation Strategy—Living
Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development; International Union for Conservation of Nature Resource:
Gland, Switzerland, 1980.
2.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). A Post-2015 World Fit for Children—Sustainable Development Starts and
Ends with Safe, Healthy and Well-Educated Children; United Nations Children’s Fund: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
3.
Halleröd, B.; Rothstein, B.; Daoud, A.; Nandy, S. Bad governance and poor children: A comparative analysis
of government efficiency and severe child deprivation in 68 low- and middle-income countries. World Dev.
2013,48, 19–31. [CrossRef]
4.
Ben-Arieh, A.; Casas, F.; Frønes, I.; Korbin, J.E. The Handbook of Child Well-Being—Theories, Methods and
Policies in Global Perspective, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 17 of 19
5.
Ben-Arieh, A. From Child Welfare to Children Well-Being: The Child Indicators Perspective. In From
Child Welfare to Child Well-Being—An International Perspective on Knowledge in the Service of Policy Making;
Kamerman, S.B., Phipps, S., Ben-Arieh, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 1,
pp. 9–22.
6.
Ben-Arieh, A. The child indicators movement: Past, present, and future. Child Indic. Res.
2008
,1, 3–16.
[CrossRef]
7.
The Save the Children Fund. The Child Development Index—Holding Governments to Account Children’s
Wellbeing; The Save the Children Fund: London, UK, 2008.
8.
The Save the Children Fund. The Child Development Index 2012—Progress, Challenges and Inequality; The Save
the Children Fund: London, UK, 2012.
9.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Human Development Report 2014; UNDP: New York, NY,
USA, 2014.
10. Children’s Society. The Good Childhood Report 2013; Children’s Society: London, UK, 2013.
11.
Foundation for Child Development. Child and Youth Well-Being Index (CWI); Foundation for Child
Development: New York, USA, 2011.
12.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries; UNICEF:
Florence, Italy, 2007.
13.
Bradshaw, J.; Hoelscher, P.; Richardson, D. An Index of Child Well-being in the European Union.
Soc. Indic. Res. 2007,80, 133–177. [CrossRef]
14.
The Annie E Casey Foundation. The New KIDS COUNT Index; The Annie E Casey Foundation: Baltimore,
MD, USA, 2012.
15.
Chang, Y.-J.; Schneider, L.; Finkbeiner, M. Assessing Child Development: A Critical Review and the
Sustainable Child Development Index (SCDI). Sustainability 2015,7, 4973–4996. [CrossRef]
16.
Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.
Ecol. Indic. 2012,15, 281–299. [CrossRef]
17.
Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Startiene, G. Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators and indices for
sustainable development assessment. Eng. Econ. 2009,63, 33–40.
18.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
sdgs (accessed on 17 June 2016).
19. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
20.
Fernandes, L.; Mendes, A.; Teixeira, A.A.C. A review essay on the measurement of child well-being.
Soc. Indic. Res. 2012,106, 239–257. [CrossRef]
21.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of
Well-Being 2013; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
22.
Land, K.C.; Lamb, V.L.; Meadows, S. Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of the Child and Youth
Well-Being Index. In The Well-Being of America’s Children—Developing and Improving the Child and Youth
Well-Being Index; Land, K.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 13–27.
23.
Land, K.C.; Lamb, V.L.; Meadows, S.; Zheng, H.; Fu, Q. The CWI and Its Components: Empirical Studies
and Findings. In The Well-Being of America’s Children—Developing and Improving the Child and Youth Well-Being
Index; Land, K.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 29–75.
24.
Lee, B.J. Mapping Domains and Indicators of Children’s Well-Being. In The Handbook of Child
Well-Being—Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective; Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., Korbin, J.E.,
Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 2797–2805.
25.
Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion. Measuring the Health of Infants, Children and Youth for
Public Health in Ontario: Indicators, Gaps and Recommendations for Moving Forward; Ontario Agency for Health
Protection and Promotion: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013.
26.
Köhler, L. A Child Health Index for the North-Eastern Parts of Göteborg; Nordic School of Public Health: Göteborg,
Sweden, 2010.
27.
Moore, K.A.; Mbwana, K.; Theokas, C.; Lippman, L.; Bloch, M.; Vandivere, S.; O’Hare, W. Child Well-Being:
An Index Based on Data of Individual Children; Child Trends.: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
28.
Lee, B.J.; Kim, S.S.; Ahn, J.J.; Yoo, J.P. Developing an index of child well-being in Korea. In Proceedings of the
4th International Society of Child Indicators Conference, Seoul, Korea, 11–15 February 2013.
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 18 of 19
29.
Niclasen, B.; Köhler, L. National indicators of child health and well-being in Greenland. Scand. J. Public Health
2009,37, 347–356. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Cho, E.Y.-N. A clustering approach to comparing children’s wellbeing accross countries. Child Indic. Res.
2014,7, 553–567.
31.
Erbstein, N.; Hartzog, C.; Geraghty, E.M. Putting youth on the map: A pilot instrument for assessing youth
well-being. Child Indic. Res. 2013,6, 257–280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32.
Hanafin, S.; Brooks, A.-M.; Carroll, E.; Fitzgerald, E.; GaBhainn, S.N.; Sixsmith, J. Achieving consensus in
developing a national set of child well-being indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007,80, 79–104. [CrossRef]
33.
Berger, M.; Van Der Ent, R.; Eisner, S.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation
(WAVE): Considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water
footprinting. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014,48, 4521–4528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34.
Child Trends. World Family Mapping: Family Change and Child Well-Being Outcomes; Child Trends: Bethesda,
MD, USA, 2014.
35.
Ministry of Social Development. Children and Young People: Indicators of Wellbeing in New Zealand 2008;
Ministry of Social Development: Wellington, New Zealand, 2008.
36.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Headline Indicators for Children’s Health, Development and Wellbeing
2011; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
37.
European Union Community Health Monitor Programme. Child Health Indicators of Life and Development;
Rigby, M., Köhler, L., Eds.; European Union Community Health Monitoring Programme: Luxemburg, 2002.
38.
WHO (World Health Organization) Regional Office for Europe. Social Determinants of Health and Well-Being
among Young People; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012.
39.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). The State of the World’s Children 2014 in Numbers: Every Child
Counts; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
40. WHO (World Health Organization). Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative; WHO: Luxembourg, 2014.
41.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). PISA 2012 Results in Focus; OECD:
Paris, France, 2013.
42.
WHO (World Health Organization). Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014; WHO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2014.
43.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. The Benefits of Vocational Education and Training;
Publications Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2011.
44.
Legatum Institute. The Legatum Prosperity Index 2016; The Legatum Institute Foundation: London, UK, 2016.
45.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). Childinfo: Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women.
Available online: http://www.childinfo.org/ (accessed on 11 March 2017).
46.
Malmö University. Oral Health Database. Available online: http://www.mah.se/capp/ (accessed on
25 August 2016).
47.
WHO (World Health Organization). Global Health Observatory (GHO) Data. Available online:
http://www.who.int/gho/en/ (accessed on 10 March 2017).
48.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). UIS.Stat. Available online:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/ (accessed on 11 August 2016).
49.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). OECD Family Database. Available
online: http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm (accessed on 21 October 2015).
50.
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Data and Analysis Statistics. Available online:
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/index.html (accessed on 12 March 2017).
51.
European Commission. Eurostat. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed
on 19 October 2015).
52.
World Bank. World Bank Open Data. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed on
11 March 2017).
53.
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). Sex Ratio at Birth. Available online: https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html (accessed on 20 March 2017).
54.
ITU (International Telecommunication Union). ITU—Statistics. Available online: http://www.itu.int/en/
ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx (accessed on 19 March 2017).
55.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Income Gini Coefficient. Available online: http://hdr.
undp.org/en/content/income-gini-coefficient (accessed on 11 March 2016).
Sustainability 2017,9, 518 19 of 19
56. UN (United Nations). Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
57.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). The State of the World’s Children 2016: A Fair Chance for Every
Child; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
58.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). The State of the World’s Children 2015: Reimagine the Future,
Innovation for Every Child; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).