DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2019, 11(2):101-120 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2019.018

Comparative Analysis of the Sustainable Development Strategies and Indicators of the V4

Dorottya Edina Kozma
University of Pannonia, 10 Egyetem Street, Veszprém, H-8200

Keywords: Visegrád Four, EU, sustainable development, indicator, indicator system

With the explosive growth of mankind and as a result of the escalating migration wave the European Union attaches greater importance to sustainable development and sustainability. In my study within the European Union, I examine the countries of the Visegrád Four in terms of sustainability. The Visegrád countries (also known as V4) have gone through great changes during the last two decades in case of economic, social and environmental perspectives equally. Incorporating these factors into their sustainable development strategy and their indicator system has been implemented in different ways which can be seen from the year of the development of the strategies. The four countries are investigating great power in sustainable development, so it is essential to examine how the V4 countries could incorporate and apply the goals of sustainable development (EU SDG) and its indicators into the lives of the citizens and in the policies. The most important goal of my study is to identify the similarities and differences in the application of the sustainable development framework strategy and indicator system of the surveyed countries. Do we find any difference from the EU indicators or they are the same in one? I apply a comparative analysis to the illustration that is best able to show the intended purpose. My hypothesis is the following: none of the surveyed Visegrád countries has taken over the European Union's Sustainable Development Indicator System or the SDG indicators. In the first part of the study the EU and country strategies are analyzed while the second part is the analysis of the indicators/indicator systems. The information which is required for the comparison is provided by the European Union, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia's Statistical Offices.

Published: July 31, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kozma, D.E. (2019). Comparative Analysis of the Sustainable Development Strategies and Indicators of the V4. DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 11(2), 101-120. doi: 10.32725/det.2019.018
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bartus, G. (2013). A fenntartható fejlődés fogalom értelmezésének hatása az indikátorok kiválasztására [Impact of the concept of sustainable development on the choice of indicators - In Hungarian]. Statisztikai Szemle, 91(8-9), 842-869.
    2. Bartus, G. & Szalai, Á. (2014). Környezet, jog, közgazdaságtan. Környezetpolitikai eszközök, környezet-gazdaságtani modellek és joggazdaságtani magyarázatok [Environment, Law, Economics. Environmental policy tools, environmental economics models and legal economics explanations - In Hungarian]. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem, Jog- és Államtudomány Kara.
    3. Brokeąová, Z. & Vachálková, I. (2016). Macroeconomic environment and isurance industry development: The sace of Visegrad group countries. Ekonomická Revue. Central European Review of Economic Issues, 19, 63-72.
    4. Central Statistical Office (2011). Sustainable Development Indicators for Poland. Katowice: Central Statistical Office.
    5. Eurostat (2015). Sustainable Development in the European Union. 2015 Monitoring report of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    6. Eurostat (2017). Sustainable development in the European Union. Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGS in an EU context. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
    7. Fischer, J., Helman K., Kramulová, J., Petkovová, L., & Zeman, J. (2013). Sustainable Development Indicators at the Regional Level in the Czech Republic. Statistika, 93(1), 5-18.
    8. European Council Göteborg (2001). Conclusions of the Presidency - Göteborg. Retrieved August 6, 2017, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/conclusions/pdf-1993-2003/g%C3%96teborg-european-council-presidency-conclusions-15-16-june-2001/
    9. Government Council for SD, Ministry of the Environment (2009). Progress Report on the Czech Republic Sustainable Development Strategy. Prague: EnviTypo.
    10. Griggs, D., Stafford Smith, M., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G....Shyamsundar, P. (2014). An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecology and society, 19(4) Art. 49. Go to original source...
    11. Havasi, É. (2007). Az indikátorok, indikátorrendszerek jellemzői és statisztikai követelményei [Characteristics and statistical requirements of indicators, indicator systems - In Hungarian]. Statisztikai Szemle, 85(8), 676-689.
    12. Izakovičová, Z. & Oszlányi, J. (2009). Reflection on the concept of Sustainable Development: Progress in the Slovak Republic. In Mather, A. & Bryden, J. (Ed.), Area Studies - Europe. Regional Sustainable Development Review (pp. 430-463). Oxford: EOLSS Publishers/UNESCO.
    13. Káposzta, J. & Nagy, H. (2015). Status report about the progress of the Visegrád countries in relation to Europe 2020 targets. European Spatial Research and Policy, 22(1), 81-99. Go to original source...
    14. Kis-Orloczki, M. (2014). National Sustainable Development Strategies in the Visegrad Four. Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference, Virtual Conference. 160-163. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.academia.edu/10502987/National_Sustainable_Development_Strategies_in_the_Visegrad_Four
    15. Koločány, F. (2014). Sustainable development in Slovakia in post-2000 period. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from http://www.sd-network.eu/pdf/conferences/2014_rome/presentations/session%205/Frantisek%20Kolocany.pdf
    16. Korsós-Schlesser, F. & Marselek, S. (2016). Fenntarthatósági indikátorok változásainak elemzése Magyarországon, tekintettel a klímaváltozásra [Analysis of changes in sustainability indicators in Hungary with regard to climate change - In Hungarian]. Acta Carolus Robertus, 6(1), 105-116.
    17. KSH (2017). A fenntartható fejlődés indikátorai Magyarországon, 2016 [Indicators of sustainable development in Hungary, 2016 - In Hungarian]. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
    18. Láng, I. (2001). Stockholm-Rió-Johannesburg. Lesz-e új a nap alatt a környezetvédelemben? [Will it be new in the environment protection during the day? - In Hungarian]. Magyar Tudomány, 46(12), 1415-1422.
    19. Lyytimäki, J., Rinne, J., Kautto, P. & Assmuth, T. (2011). Using indicators to assess sustainable development in the European Union, Finland, Malta and Slovakia. The Finnish Environment, 4, 1-78.
    20. Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége (2005). Az Unió fenntartható fejlődési stratégiájának végrehajtása és felülvizsgálata. Budapest: Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége.
    21. Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic (2010). The Strategic Framework for Sustainable Development in the Czech Republic. Prague: Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.
    22. NFÜ (2007). Nemzeti Fenntartható Fejlődési Stratégia [National Sustainable Development Strategy - In Hungarian]. Budapest: Magyar Köztársaság Kormánya.
    23. NFFT (2013). Nemzeti Fenntartható Fejlődési Keretstratégia [National Sustainable Development Framework Strategy - In Hungarian]. Budapest: Nemzeti Fenntartható Fejlődési Tanács Titkára.
    24. Office of the Government of the Czech Republic (2006). Interim Report on the Czech Republic Strategy for Sustainable Development. Prague: Office of the Government of the Czech Republic.
    25. Puşcaciu, V., Puşcaciu, F. D. & Puşcaciu, R.-M. (2016). Symmetries and Assymmetries in the Sustainable Development of European Union versus Romania. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Economica, 12(2), 245-254.
    26. Rosta, I. (2008). A tudománytörténetéből - világproblémák, globalizáció. A Római Klub három jubileuma 2008-ban [From the history of science - world problems, globalization. The Three Anniversaries of the Club of Rome in 2008 - In Hungarian]. Magyar Tudomány, 169(12), 1516-1522.
    27. Ruotsalainen, A. (2005). Review of National strategies for sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region. Stockholm: Nordregio Working Paper.
    28. Schmuck, E. (2002). Társadalmi vélemény és részvétel az EU-stratégia tervezési folyamatában [Social opinion and participation in the planning process of the EU strategy - In Hungarian]. In Faragó, T. (Ed.) Nemzetközi együttműködés a fenntartható fejlődés jegyében és az Európai Unió fenntartható fejlődési stratégiája. Budapest: Fenntartható Fejlődés Bizottsága.
    29. Stă nciulescu, G. & Bulin, D. (2012). Indicators of Sustainable Development - A Comparative Analysis between Bulgaria and Romania in European Context. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 2(2), 91-98.
    30. ©treimikiene D., Mikalauskiene A. & Mikalauskas I. (2016). Comparative Assessment of Sustainable Energy Development in the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Slovakia. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(2), 31-41. Go to original source...
    31. Urbaniec, M. (2015). Sustainable Development Indicators in Poland: Measurement and System Evaluation. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(1), 119-134. Go to original source...
    32. WCED (1987). Our Common Future. London: Oxford University Press.
    33. Zolcerova, V. (2016) From Stockholm or Rio to New York and Slovakia. Sustainable development agenda - Agenda 2030. Comenius Management Review, 10(1), 23-32.
    34. Zuzek, D. (2007). Economic and social aspects of the Sustainable Development Strategy for Poland up to 2025. Management and Sustainable Development, 17(2), 56-59.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content