1.
Jari Lyytimäki (jari.lyytimaki@ymparisto.fi), Hanna Salo (hanna.h.salo@ymparisto.fi),
Annukka Berg, Jyri Mustajoki, Juha Peltomaa, Salla Rantala, Emma Terämä
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
Risks (and opportunities) of
using indicators to monitor,
report and evaluate progress
towards sustainable
development goals
Strategic Research Scientific Conference: Solution pathways for wicked
problems in the management and governance of natural resources and
climate change
Oct. 29.-30. 2019
Folkhälsan, Helsinki, Finland

2.
2

3.
Towards Eco-Welfare State:
can SDG indicators effectively orchestrate
systemic transformation and tackle wicked
problems?
What kind of risks are involved when
indicators are used to monitor, report and
evaluate progress towards sustainable
development goals?

4.
Finnish SDG indicators Finnish national SD indicator baskets
Structure of the
indicators set
SDG framework, 169 targets
under 17 goals
10 baskets each containing 4-6
indicators
Status of
development
First version published Feb.
2019, ongoing updating
Launched between 2017-2019, update
Oct. 2019
Type of
indicators
Quantitative data and graphs, no
qualitative interpretation
Quantitative indicators, qualitative
interpretations, links to further
information, public online commenting
Main target
group
UN reporting system National policy makers, interested
stakeholders, the public
Organisation
responsible
National statistical office (Statistic
Finland) supported by expert
network
Government organ (Prime Minister’s
Office) supported by expert and
stakeholder network
Web page http://www.stat.fi/tup/kestavan-
kehityksen-yk-indikaattorit-
agenda2030_en.html
https://kestavakehitys.fi/en/monitoring
Case Finland: A tandem system of national
sustainability indicators

5.
● Risks related to use of indicators
• Siloed pursuit of indicator targets ignoring interlinkages
• Neglect of other types of information
• Lack of sensitiveness to local context
● Risks related to non-use of indicators
• Lack of data, lack of indicators
• Unfocussed and too wide-spanning approach
• Communication and interaction deficits
• Low resonance with key audiences
● Risks related to misuse of indicators
• Risk of selective use
• Information overflows
• Risk of distorting use
Risks identified from a group interview

6.
● Indicator factors
● What kind of content makes an indicator good or poor?
● Process & user factors
● Through what kind of processes information is collected,
modified and communicated?
● Context factors
● What kinds of external issues are influencing? Challenges
of a ”post-fact” society?
Risks related to:
Intensively
studied field of
indicator
research;
Relatively easy
to avoid risks
Less studied;
Difficult to avoid
risks

7.
Project web pages
● Towards Eco-Welfare State: Orchestrating for Systemic Impact (ORSI)
● PEER Research on Sustainable Development Goals: Tackling and managing risks with SDGs (PEER-TRISD)
Selected literature
● Berg A. et al. (2019). PATH2030 – An Evaluation of Finland’s Sustainable Development Policy. Publications
of the Government´s analysis, assessment and research activities 23/2019. Prime Minister’s Office,
Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-655-3
● Lyytimäki J. (in print) Thermostat or thermometer? A Finnish perspective on the overloaded role of
sustainability indicators in societal transition. Sustainable Development 2019; 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1941
● Lyytimäki J. (2019). Seeking SDG Indicators. Nature Sustainability 2: 646. Doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0346-7
https://rdcu.be/bJgyu
Further reading

8.
Thank you!