Indicator Frameworks for Sustainability
Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Indicator Frameworks for Sustainability
Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
The IFC-PJSI adapts UN SDGs to India, focusing on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Using datasets like NCRB and NJDG, it creates a localised framework, rescaling indicators on a 0-100 scale. Results are displayed in a colour-coded format, making it intuitive for creating interventions towards sustainable development.
MADE BY
K. R. Hari Krishna
Backdrop
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 global objectives established by the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Designed to replace the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs apply universally to all countries, irrespective of their development status, and seek to address a broad range of interconnected global challenges, including poverty eradication, environmental sustainability, social equity, and economic growth, under the guiding principle of “leaving no one behind.”
Each goal is further divided into specific targets—totalling 169—and measured by 232 unique indicators to track progress. However, progress has been uneven and faces significant obstacles, such as rising inequality, climate change, biodiversity loss, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. One major obstacle is the relevance of indicators to all countries.
Some goals sometimes are not really sustainable for a country based on the contexts. An example on how the goals are not really relevant would be how India reliance on Coal for Energy. Despite significant investments in renewable energy, coal remains the cornerstone of India’s electricity generation, accounting for over 70% of the energy mix. A shift to other sources overnight would render millions jobless and stranded without proper sources of energy, shutting down business and crashing the economy.
Localising the SDGs thus cannot be limited to translating and integrating the global goals into local development and investment plans but must integrate and extend to creating incentives for public and private stakeholders to collaborate, innovate, and co-design solutions which work in regional contexts.
Through this project, I intend to create a localised indicator framework for India, viable till the District level for Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, using national public datasets such as the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) to create a localised framework.
Methodology
To make the data comparable across indicators, each variable was rescaled from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting worst performance and 100 describing the optimum. Re-scaling is sensitive to the choice of limits and extreme values (outliers). The latter may become unintended thresholds and introduce variability in the data. Consequently, the choice of upper and lower bounds can affect the relative ranking of countries in the index
Normalising Indicators and Defining the Bounds
While the lower bound was defined at the 2.5th percentile of the distribution, the upper bound for each indicator was determined using the following decision tree:
Use the absolute quantitative thresholds of the SDGs and targets: e.g., zero poverty, universal school completion, universal access to water and sanitation, full gender equality.
Where no explicit SDG target is available, apply the principle of “Leave-No-One-Behind” to set the upper bound to universal access, or zero deprivation.
Where science-based targets exist that must be achieved by 2030 or later, use these to set the 100% upper bound (e.g., zero greenhouse gas emissions from CO₂ as required by no later than 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5°C, 100% sustainable management of fisheries).
For all other indicators, use the average of the top five performers.
Weighting the Indicators and the Targets for calculating the Final Score.
The Indicators after being processed and normalised are then combined with other indicators under the same Target to compute the value of the target. This is done by calculating the average of the lowest 3 indicators in the target.
When we assess development by focusing on the lowest-performing indicators, the society’s uneven progress is to be shown better for highlighting areas for development. This approach is inspired from Amartya Sen’s approach to development, that true development means expanding all fundamental capabilities and freedoms. When we focus on the bottom 3 indicators, we’re essentially identifying where these capabilities are most limited.
When considering the overall score based on the target scores, the overall score should average all Target scores rather than just the bottom 3. The target level already shows the distinct issues in critical areas and considering the process again will just filter the values again making it not a fair assessment. The targets themselves are distinct domains, which cannot be compensated by other domains unlike the indicators, making it more sensible to consider a simpler average methodology.
These principles in total, interpret the goals as “stretch targets” and focus attention on those indicators where a country is lagging behind.
Indicators
The Indicators are chosen from above mentioned datasets ranging from IPC/SLL Crimes to Cases pending in Indian Courts. Each indicator score is colour-coded with a gradient, with states and indicators coloured in:
green (goal/target achieved/ on the route of success),
yellow (some challenges remaining),
orange (significant challenges remaining), or
red (major challenges remaining).
These Indicators focus on Peace
These focus on Justice
And these focus on Strong Institutions
Here is a detailed view with all indicators
Analysis
We see India scores relatively well, as the national average is around the average, but with the scores vary from the high 30s to the high 80s, there is a bit of variation and uneven implementation of peace and security measures.
We see that North East as a whole seems to perform well in these metrics. For example Nagaland which scores 85%.
Meanwhile, Delhi, Haryana and the North seem to score comparatively low. Delhi scores only 40% while Haryana scores only 32%.
Inspecting the heatmap, we see an abundance of values between the 0-50 range, suggesting that most do not perform well in these metrics with many significant challenges remaining in many core themes.
Many states in Northern India, score very low. Haryana, for example, ranks the lowest in ending violence and related deaths with the other states and UTs following closely behind.
Other Indian States like Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, meanwhile seem to perform somewhat well, hogging up most of the mid-table areas, but score very low in some indicators as well.
Through this exercise, this helps India better align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically in the areas of Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions using already available national data from sources.
One key insight is that India needs to improve in many crucial areas. States and UTs need to focus on balanced development rather than excelling in isolated indicators. The data suggests that even well-performing states have significant gaps in certain areas.
Limitations
One limitation is to address is the relatively low number of indicators in Target 2, 5 and 7 which will be addressed in a future update.
Further studies need to be done to find the actual rate of crimes compared to the reported crimes.
Future implementations will explore on the interactivity and the ability to drill down data to view districts for better insights.
Ultimately, the IFC-PJSI measures progress and helps guide action. It can give policymakers, government bodies, and stakeholders clear data and insights for better decisions, confirming efforts towards achieving true development and a better future.
1. End all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
2. End the illicit and unlawful usage of arms and explosives
3. End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence and torture against women and children
4. Promote and enforce non-discriminatory practices for all
5. Provide timely and non-discriminatory judicial services to all
6. End all forms of offences against property and related documentation
7. Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions for all
8. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for all
