Covid-19 and sustainable development in Europe: a temporal comparison

Covid-19 y desarrollo sostenible en Europa: una comparación temporal

Marianna Bartiromo

marianna.bartiromo@sdabocconi.it 0000-0001-6843-3134

Channel & Retail Lab, SDA Bocconi School of Management,

Via Roberto Sarfatti, 10. 20136 Milano, Italia.

1. Introduction

The recent Covid-19 pandemic has underscored all the weaknesses of the current development model and highlighted all the criticalities of the globalization phenomenon. The latter phenomenon, globalization, in fact had already shown several criticalities over the years, criticalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In order to understand how the pandemic has affected globalization, it is first necessary to define and analyze this phenomenon. Globalization is defined as a “set of processes that intensify social interdependence” (Steger, 2017). This increasing interdependence has led to the occurrence of numerous effects, both positive and negative. Steger (2017), in fact, classifies the effects of globalization into 4 macro areas: economic, political, cultural, and environmental. Regarding the former, the increasing linkages between countries born with globalization have meant that a crisis born in one country goes to affect other countries more easily bringing disastrous effects especially for small economies. While on the political side, globalization has led to the rise of supra-territorial institutions and associations held together by common norms and interests. Global interdependence has also caused cultural effects including a decrease in the number of languages and the emergence of the so-called “globish,” an increase in migration due to high urbanization, and the rise of extremist ideologies easily transmitted through networks created on the Internet. Finally, globalization has caused many devastating environmental effects. It has led to an increase in CO2 emissions, a gradual and steady rise in temperatures, and the loss of biodiversity.

The cure to all these problems posed by globalization is the phenomenon of sustainable development. Sustainable development is defined as “that development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Sustainable development, born in the second half of the last century, is an extremely complex concept. In fact, it can be defined as a complex system, within which several components or pillars interact. In fact, “sustainable development involves not one but four complex systems. It has to do with a global economy that now encompasses the entire world; it focuses attention on the social interactions of trust, ethics, inequality, and social solidarity networks in the community [...]; it analyzes changes in complex earth systems, such as climate and ecosystems; and it studies governance issues, including the performance of governments and businesses”(Sachs, 2014). From this definition, the 3 dimensions of sustainable development emerge: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.

The first dimension, economic growth, covers all those strategies, perfectly coordinated with a country’s development needs, aimed at building a strong and competitive economy. The second dimension, on the other hand, concerns all those measures aimed at supporting local communities and improving health, social and cultural well-being. Finally, environmental sustainability is a dimension that cuts across the previous two and concerns the contribution that all of us citizens have to make in protecting and improving the natural environment (Steinbrink, 2019).

In order to better implement the 3 dimensions of sustainable development in 2015, the United Nations promulgated the 2030 Agenda, in which seventeen goals-the so-called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-and one hundred and sixty nine subgoals (targets) were defined. The seventeen goals are as follows: 1. Eradicate poverty; 2. End world hunger; 3. Good health; 4. Quality education; 5. Gender equality; 6. Clean water and sanitation; 7. Renewable energy; 8. Good jobs and economic growth; 9. Innovation and infrastructure; 10. Reduce inequality; 11. Sustainable cities and communities; 12. Responsible consumption; 13. Fighting climate change; 14. Aquatic flora and fauna; 15. Terrestrial flora and fauna; 16. Peace and justice; 17. Partnership for the goals.

These 3 dimensions are in turn based on 3 different pillars: governance, civil society, and stakeholders. Indeed, without effective governance and the contribution of both business and citizens achieving sustainable development is impossible (Sachs, 2014). Figure 1 schematizes the complexity of the sustainable development system. Underlying the system are all those measures, such as the 2030 Agenda, aimed at achieving sustainable development goals. Resting on them are the 3 pillars on which the dimensions of sustainability are based: governance, civil society and stakeholders. Indeed, without a joint effort it becomes difficult to achieve effective and efficient results. Finally, resting on these 3 pillars are the 3 dimensions of sustainable development analyzed: economic growth, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.

Along with the three dimensions of sustainable development, the fundamental concept of intragenerational and intergenerational equity emerges in the Brundtland Report (Giovannini, 2018). The latter is defined as the moral duty of current generations to ensure equal growth opportunities for future generations. Therefore, each generation must conserve and maintain biodiversity, preserve the quality of the planet, and ensure access to a wealth of natural and cultural resources in a way that guarantees freedom of choice for future generations. The concept of intragenerational equity, on the other hand, aims to ensure that all people of the same generation have the same opportunities. This concept is twofold: a) internationality, i.e., ensuring equity between more developed and less developed countries; b) intragenerationality, i.e., the integration of minorities.

We can now proceed to examine whether post-conflict globalization is in all respects classifiable as sustainable. With regard to intragenerational equity, it has been empirically demonstrated how there is a positive correlation between globalization and inequality. In fact, as globalization has increased over the past half century, distributional and income inequality has increased both within and between countries. This phenomenon has a simple explanation: globalization has a tendency to increase the rate of economic growth of countries, and therefore, as population growth varies more slowly and for exogenous reasons, the rate of growth of per capita income also increases. This only increases inequality since the allocation of resources takes time. This situation can be improved through redistributive interventions (Vercelli, 2003). In fact, in the period of Bretton Woods, thanks to its principles based on the welfare state, the sign of the net effect on disposable income changed sign thereby reducing inequality. In contrast, after the collapse of that system, distributional inequality started to rise again in most OECD countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. This is due to the sharp increase in the highest incomes and the inability of redistributive policies to respond to the natural tendency of inequality to grow. These implications of globalization have been further explored by Kuznets (1955) and proponents of this strand. Indeed, according to Kuznets, there is an empirical relationship between per capita income and inequality that can be translated as an inverted U-shaped curve.

As can be easily deduced if such a curve were to be verified at the general level, the globalization process would be sustainable in the long run. This hypothesis was initially confirmed by subsequent studies, but since the dissolution of Bretton Woods, the conditions for this to be valid no longer existed (Vercelli, 2003). Therefore, the current process of globalization cannot be considered sustainable from an intragenerational perspective. On the other hand, as far as intergenerational equity is concerned, there is no doubt that globalization has led to an increase in the production and consumption of products that are highly impactful on the ecological cycle. In addition, this phenomenon has increased the transportation of raw materials and food from one place to another causing the consumption of 0-kilometer products to decrease. As a result, increasing exports have also increased transportation and thus the demand for nonrenewable energy sources that play a key role in the input of pollutants such as CO2. This increasing input of pollutants has only worsened the greenhouse effect and more importantly has been the cause of the decrease in our planet’s biodiversity (Sachs, 2014). In addition, the increase in transportation has also increased the likelihood of accidents such as that of British Petroleum in 2010, accidents that, thanks to the spilling of tons of oil into the oceans and thus the ruining of marine ecosystems, demonstrate how globalization is the greatest threat to the environment. However, the consequences affect not only the marine ecosystem, but also the terrestrial ecosystem as more and more environmentally harmful chemicals have been used to produce more and cheaper. In addition, increased industrialization has caused the onset of two phenomena: deforestation and desertification (Sachs, 2014). As can be understood, globalization currently cannot be called sustainable because it is based on principles that are highly in conflict with those of sustainable development. However, it is the idea of many scholars that it could provide support for building a better economically feasible and environmentally friendly structure. Indeed, one of the principles of such a process, competitiveness, could push industries to take the lead in respecting the environment and thus encourage others to follow suit (Giovannini, 2018).

Moreover, globalization, as will be seen in detail in the following section, in addition to its unsustainability, creates a breeding ground for the spread of infectious diseases such as Covid-19. The loss of biodiversity, in fact, combined with increasing global integration constitutes fertile ground for the proliferation of pathogens. This increasing spread of infectious diseases in addition to posing a serious threat to the health of countries brings with it countless economic and social damages. For this very reason, the objective of this paper is to analyze the economic, social and environmental impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the levels of sustainable development achieved by some countries on the European Continent. To do so, trends that emerged from 2015, the year of the promulgation of the 2030 Agenda, and 2020, the year of the pandemic outbreak, will be analyzed. In addition, this study aims to provide a picture of the measures taken by countries at the national level and to identify what might be critical to the achievement of effective and efficient levels of sustainable development. Therefore, this study hopes to be taken into consideration when implementing effective policies at the sustainable level.

The structure of this paper is as follows: theoretical background, methodology, results and discussion, and conclusion. In theoretical background the main economic, social and environmental effects of Covid-19 on the 17 SDGs proposed by the 2030 Agenda will be analyzed. In methodology section the indicators chosen for the analysis and the underlying methodology will be analyzed. In results and discussion section the results obtained from the construction of the sustainability index will be presented with related analysis of the main measures adopted and the main critical issues. Finally, in the conclusion the sums of the work will be drawn, strengths and weaknesses will be presented, and possible future studies will be presented.

2. Theoretical background

The increasing global interconnectedness caused by globalization has significantly promoted the spread of infectious diseases such as Covid-19 (Shrestha et al, 2020). In fact, it combined with the loss of biodiversity and increasing urbanization (Das et al, 2021) promotes the spread of new pathogens. Globalization therefore constitutes an essential mechanism in the proliferation of diseases (Tatem et al, 2006). And it is for this reason, that a disease such as Covid-19 discovered in late 2019 was declared a health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020, a few months after its discovery (WHO, 2020a). Shortly after this declaration, moreover, the number of infected individuals increased exponentially worldwide: there were as many as 100,000 confirmed cases in 114 countries around the world (Leal Filho et al, 2020). Following this surge, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this new disease a pandemic on March 1, 2020 (WHO, 2020b).

To respond to the emergency caused by the pandemic many countries around the world, advised by the WHO, implemented various plans, including social distancing strategies (dubbed “lockdown” by the media) (Primc & Slabe-Erker, 2020). These government restrictions have caused numerous devastating effects, including a general decrease in production, consumption, employment, and the supply chain (Fernandes, 2020). In fact, due to the blockade on transportation and travel imposed by government restrictions, the complexity about the procurement of seeds, feed and pesticides has increased. This has resulted in an increase in unsold and stockpiled items greatly reducing quality and increasing production costs (FAO, 2020). Therefore, lockdowns have affected all stages of the food supply chain including distribution and food quality (Poudel, 2020).

On the other hand, in terms of declining employment rates only a small percentage of work can be done from home. Dingel and Neiman (2020) showed in their study how in the United States only 34 percent of jobs can be practiced remotely. There are workers, in fact, such as those employed in the transportation, construction, retail, service, and hospitality sectors who are prevented from remote working (Dingel & Neiman, 2020). In addition, many of these sectors are dominated by women, which has meant that the crisis triggered by the pandemic has had a greater impact on this category of the population (Alon et al, 2020; ILO, 2020; OECD, 2020; United Nations, 2020). Therefore, the professional careers of many women were hindered significantly by reducing the achievements that many women had made up to that point. In addition, the fact that many couples were forced into domestic confinement by government restrictions increased the likelihood of domestic violence incidents. As many as 7 out of 10 women said during the pandemic situations of both physical and verbal violence by their partners became more common (Women U.N. and Count, 2021).

The crisis of the entire production chain and rising unemployment rates has caused an economic crisis even more severe than the financial crisis of 2008 (Grasso et al, 2021). While the effects of that crisis have had a severe impact on more developed economies, they have also profoundly undermined emerging and developing economies by making a significant dent in the poverty rates of these nations (Barbier & Burgess, 2020; Ju, 2020; Shulla et al,2021). Indeed, it was estimated that as many as 20 million households during 2020 had difficulty getting enough food and paying rent (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022).

Forced domestic confinement combined with the economic and social crisis has fostered an increase in mental illness, the phenomena of self-harm and suicide (Bar, 2021). This economic crisis has spilled over into one of the primary elements of economic well-being: education (Ciacci et al, 2021). In fact, the pandemic has resulted in the forced digitization of the entire school and university system. This has resulted in the exclusion from learning of about 1/3 of students worldwide (UNESCO, 2022). Also due to the social distancing measures there has been a loss of international students and scholars, and this has gone to the detriment of academic research (Shrestha et al, 2020).

However, the most visible effects were undoubtedly at the health care level. Due to the accelerated proliferation of the Covid-19 pathogen, health care facilities quickly found themselves in an overloaded situation. In addition, the growing fear of possible infection reduced the use of medical care, putting many Covid-19-infected individuals at risk (Leal Filho et al, 2020).

Trying to cope with Covid-19 additionally has resulted in the deployment of resources previously invested in combating other diseases. This has caused a reduction in prevention programs for diseases other than Covid-19 (Leal Filho et al, 2020).

Finally, in terms of environmental effects, the pandemic has caused both positive and negative effects. On the positive side due to government restrictions there was a decrease in CO2 levels which caused an improvement in air quality (Shulla et al, 2021). However, domestic confinement and national measures have caused on the other hand a considerable increase in water and wastewater consumption coupled with a reduction in energy consumption and a slowdown in the construction of new infrastructure useful to the international economy (Elavarasan, 2022). Table 1 shows the main effects of Covid-19 on sustainable development analyzed.

3. Methodology

3.1. Material and objectives

Sustainable development, therefore, is a complex system. To measure this complexity, it becomes necessary to use social indicators, ad hoc tools that help researchers understand social phenomena (Brulè & Maggino, 2017). Social indicators, in fact, make it possible to identify and guide the course of social change (Ferriss, 1988).

It was decided in this paper that 17 indicators from Eurostat’s database, taken for three different years: 2015, 2018, 2020, would be selected (table 2). The choice to use so many indicators illustrate the complexity and challenge of understanding the sustainable development phenomenon through the use of limited conceptual frameworks only (Alaimo et al.,2021). For data descriptive statistics, consult Appendix table 5.

This study aims to analyze the sustainable development levels of some countries on the European continent. These countries were selected on the basis of the completeness of data provided by Eurostat. The European case was chosen for two reasons:

• It is one of the continents most affected by the Covid-19 pandemic;
• It has an important territorial divide between the countries of Northern Europe, which are highly developed and have low levels of inequality, and the countries of the South, which have high public debts and the presence of both economic and social inequalities.

3.2. Adjusted Mazziotta and Pareto Index (AMPI)

The AMPI is a variant of the MPI (Mazziotta & Pareto,2007) that is based on a Min-Max transformation instead of standardized deviations. The above transformation is based on two goalposts: a minimum and a maximum, which represent the possible range of variation of each indicator for all units and time considered (Mazziotta & Pareto, 2017). The first step to follow in constructing the index is to standardize the variables:

At this point it is possible to proceed with the calculation of the reference goalposts:

The values will be roughly in the range (70;130).

Finally, we proceed with the calculation of the index:

The +/- sign indicates the sign of the relationship between the j-th indicator and the phenomenon to be measured. In our case, some indicators show positive polarity, while others show negative polarity. Therefore, before proceeding with the index calculation, the polarity of the negative indicators was transformed to a positive sign. Once the indicators were transformed, it was possible to aggregate the index using the.

The AMPI was chosen because it allows absolute temporal comparison. In fact, temporal comparison can be of two types: absolute and relative (Mazziotta & Pareto, 2013). Relative comparison occurs when the values of the composite index at time t depend on one or more endogenous parameters such as the mean and variance; consequently, absolute comparison occurs when the index values depend on exogenous values such as the minimum and maximum of the individual variables analyzed (Mazziotta & Pareto,2017). Moreover, the comparability of an index depends first and foremost on the normalization method used. In fact, methods such as standardization-used in the MPI-allow only relative comparisons since they are based solely on the values of individual indicators at time t. In contrast, methods such as the Min - Max transformation-used in the AMPI-since they require goalposts allow for absolute comparisons of indices (Tarantola,2008). However, to have indices comparable over time it becomes necessary to aggregate indicators with different variability (Mazziotta & Pareto,2017).

3.3. Cluster analysis

Cluster analysis is a tool used in various research fields that enables the classification of large amounts of information into manageable sets (OECD, 2008).There are several clustering techniques. In this study we will make use of the so-called Ward’s method (Ward, 1963), one of the hierarchical clustering techniques (Johnson, 1967; Everitt, 1979).

This technique originates from the cluster and from it the pair of clusters that most

minimizes the increment is chosen. The latter is the sum of the quadratic differences between the averages of the cluster indicators divided by the total reciprocals of their cardinality (Młodak, 2020). Therefore, optimal clustering is achieved when the distance of clusters exceeds an arbitrarily established threshold (Młodak, 2020).

Different cluster analysis techniques have both strengths and weaknesses. The benefits of such tools consist in their ability to provide insight about the structure of the dataset and the possibility of clustering different spatial realities. However, such tools are purely descriptive and, in some cases, lack transparency (OECD, 2008).

Cluster analysis can be used for different purposes. In this study it will be used to be able to better represent the change in sustainable development levels that occurred between 2015 and 2020. Indeed, as pointed out by OECD (2008) “visualization of the results should receive proper attention given that the visualization can influence or help to enhance interpretability.”

4. Results and Discussion

This section will analyze the results obtained from the construction of sustainability indices (SIs).

4.1. Sustainable policies of the most virtuous countries: Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland

European countries have shown increasing attention to sustainable issues over the years. Therefore, they have implemented various national measures to achieve the goals set at the international level. Table 3 shows the values of SI2015, SI2018 and SI2020. As can be seen, Sweden (SI2020=109,219) emerges as the most sustainable state, confirming the 2015 position (SI2015=110,550). In fact, in 1967, Sweden was the first to enact a law for environmental protection (SWEDEN.SE., 2021). Moreover, most of the energy produced comes from renewable energy sources, and in addition as a national goal to be pursued in the coming years is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (SWEDEN.SE., 2021). In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, another goal is the elimination of fossil fuels by 2045 and the total production of renewable energy (SWEDEN.SE., 2021). To better implement these ambitious goals, a special governmental body was established in 2015: the Scientific Council for Sustainable Development (Kingdom of Sweden,2017). Also in the top 5 are France (SI2020=108,572), the Netherlands (SI2020=108,507), Germany (SI2020=106,925) and Finland (SI2020=106,348). Like Sweden, France has established an ad hoc body.

Indeed, it created a special interministerial representative in 2004: the Interministerial Delegate for Sustainable Development (DIDD). The DIDD is in charge of coordinating all those issues that concern sustainable issues (France Diplomacy - Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2017). In 2016, the DIDD also contributed to the first French report on the achievement of the SDGs (Republic of France, 2016). Also, with a view to the SDGs, France has allocated €4 billion of which as much as €2 billion has been earmarked for the fight against climate change (France Diplomacy - Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2017). Another area in which the French government is making a special effort is social inclusion. In fact, two forums have been created to make decision-making processes more inclusive: the National Council for Development and International Solidarity (CNDSI) and the National Council for Ecological Transition (CNTE)(France Diplomacy - Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2017).

Third among the most virtuous countries is the Netherlands, which has among its strengths the high participation of civil society in decision-making processes. In fact, the “Building Change: Global Goals at Home and Abroad” project has been established through the years. Via this team, civil society can express itself freely on the achievement of the goals that the United Nations has set. In additional, the year before the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, that team introduced the “SDG Test” project. This project aims to include feedback and requests from civil society in proposals for Sweden’s new sustainable policies (SDG WATCH EUROPE, 2019b). Finally, like Sweden, the Netherlands is also making a strong commitment to combating climate change by promoting ecological transition and biodiversity protection as national priorities (Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2017).

Another country that, like Sweden and the Netherlands, is paying special attention to environmental issues is Germany. Indeed, it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 percent since the 1990s (Federal Government, 2022). Much attention is also being paid to marine biodiversity. In fact, in 2016, the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development promulgated a special action plan with the aim of preserving and conserving marine biodiversity and encouraging sustainable fishing (European Environment Agency,2020).

Finally, in the top 5 most sustainable European countries we find Finland. As in the case of the Netherlands, Finland is working hard on the inclusion of civil society in decision-making processes. Moreover, unlike the previous countries, one of Finland’s priority goals is the reduction of inequality. For this reason, networks composed of young people, women, trade unions, and environmentalists have been created over the years, the purpose of which is information sharing and advocacy planning (SDG WATCH EUROPE,2019a). Finally, Finland also has a dedicated body for sustainable development, the National Commission for Sustainable Development, through which policy dialogues on these issues are organized on a regular basis (SDG WATCH EUROPE,2019a).

From the table 3 also it can be seen that the top 5 countries tend to confirm the results by changing at most one position in the European ranking. Same goes for the last positions in the ranking where we find Greece (SI2020=91,070), Lithuania (SI2020=89,551), Latvia (SI2020=89,079), Bulgaria (SI2020=87,374) and in the last position Romania (SI2020=83,833).

4.2. Spain and Italy: a comparison

As for the other European countries, in order to better analyze the progress and deterioration between 2015 and 2020, it was decided to calculate the variance from the mean value of the ranks (table 4). This method was chosen because, in addition to ensuring high replicability, it is a highly popular and well-known method. However, this method, being an absolute index of variability, is strongly affected by the unit of measurement of the phenomenon being analyzed.

As can be seen from table 4 the country to show the highest variability in sustainable development levels is Spain (variance=2.889). In fact, it can be seen that from 2015 to 2020 there has been a deterioration of as many as 4 positions. This deterioration could be due to two reasons: the phenomenon of desertification and Spanish socioeconomic conditions before and after Covid-19. Regarding the phenomenon of desertification, Spain, in fact, along with Portugal, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria and Romania constitutes one of the European countries that will see its natural resources shrink in the coming years (Valdivia, 2019). Among the countries mentioned, however, Spain shows the most worrying data: 74 percent of Spanish territory is at risk of desertification and 18 percent of it is at high risk of reaching the point of no return (ECA, 2018). The most high-risk territorial areas (90% desertification risk) are the regions of Murcia, Valencia, and the Canary Islands (ECA, 2018). Contrary to popular belief, the lack of water - the main reason behind the desertification phenomenon - is not due to drought (WWF, 2019), but rather to 3 different reasons (Ecologistas en Acción, 2007):

1. Excessive urbanization: this phenomenon combined with infrastructure construction is the main cause of irreversible land destruction;
2. Excessive construction of transportation infrastructure: together with urbanization it is one of the main factors in the irreversible loss of fertile land;
3. Unsustainable water use: the use of poor irrigation techniques combined with inefficient Spanish policy since the 1960s has fostered the phenomenon of erosion of natural sources.

The phenomenon of desertification in Spain has worsened significantly from 2000 until now due to global warming and the territorial imbalance present between rural/urban and inland/coastal areas. These two drivers are significantly changing Spain’s natural landscapes (Martínez-Valderrama, 2022). Moreover, Spain along with Italy was the country most affected by the effects of Covid-19 in Europe. In fact, the economic impact of the pandemic has been devastating: as much as minus 10.8 percentage points. This recession constitutes the most severe economic crisis in 80 years and the worst in Europe (Real Instituto Elcano, 2021). The main reason for such a devastating impact of the pandemic lies in the collapse of tourism. In fact, the tourism and hospitality sector weighs as much as 26 percent of the national GDP. For this reason, government restrictions combined with a freeze on international tourism have caused a collapse of about 60 million tourists in 2020 (Real Instituto Elcano, 2021). In addition to this, the already high unemployment rate (14 percent at the beginning of the pandemic) was further aggravated by as much as 2.2 percentage points (Real Instituto Elcano, 2021). This condition, coupled with a fiscal deficit of 2.8 percent of GDP and a public debt of 95.5 percent of GDP further aggravated Spain’s already precarious situation (Real Instituto Elcano, 2021).

Moreover, Spain’s political situation in recent years has also been problematic. In fact, from 2015 to 2020, the Iberian Peninsula has seen as many as 3 governments. This has meant a lack of effective plans to implement sustainable goals and to reduce the growing economic and social inequalities present within the country. However, the 2020 coalition government has shown a focus on sustainable issues and this could lead to increased levels of sustainable development in the future (Boto-Álvarez & García-Fernández, 2020).

In second position with a variance of 1,556 we find Hungary, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. These countries although having an equal variance show different results over the years. In the case of Hungary, we can see an improvement of as many as 3 positions between 2015 and 2018 and a worsening of one position between 2018 and 2020. For Luxembourg on the contrary, we note a worsening between 2015 and 2018 of 3 positions and an improvement of 2 positions between 2018 and 2020. Similar discourse applies to Slovakia: between 2015 and 2018 we see a worsening of 2 positions and an improvement of 1 position between 2018 and 2020.

Furthermore, from table 4 the case of Italy emerges interestingly, which despite being one of the countries most affected by the covid-19 pandemic shows an improvement of one position between 2018 and 2020. This could have two possible explanations:

• The effects of measures taken over the years are beginning to be seen;
• The full devastating effects of Covid-19 are not yet visible in the short term.

Regarding the first explanation in early 2020, the Ministry for the South and Territorial Cohesion issued a measure to reduce the historical territorial gap present within the Italian Peninsula: the Plan for the South 2030 (Ministro per il Sud e la Coesione territoriale, 2020). In fact, Italy is characterized by a polarization between the levels of the North-Central Regions, the most sustainably developed and with high levels of GDP per capita and low inequalities, and the Southern Regions with low levels of sustainability, low levels of GDP per capita and high inequalities (Bartiromo et al, 2022). For this reason, in order to bridge this territorial gap, the Plan for the South has been structured around five priority missions: 1) a youth-focused South; 2) a connected and inclusive South; 3) a South for the ecological turnaround; 4) a South for the frontier of innovation; and 5) a South open to the world in the Mediterranean (Ministro per il Sud e la Coesione territoriale, 2020). To achieve these five missions, the government will try to intervene with an effort of 123 billion euros over ten years, which will be guaranteed by the 34 percent clause to the Mezzogiorno. According to this clause, 34 percent of all public funding will have to be allocated to investments in infrastructure, economic development, tourism revitalization and ecological transition for Southern Italy. And it is precisely this last type of investment, the one inherent in ecological transition, that is one of the primary objectives of the plan. Indeed, the idea is to put into practice the commitments made in the European Green Deal in the South, but especially in the most inland and backward areas. The goal of ecological transition can in turn be broken down into five points (Ministro per il Sud e la Coesione territoriale, 2020): 1) the possibility for households to achieve significant savings in their bills through energy income and thus through self-consumption; 2) the experimentation of a circular economy through the placement of smart bins i.e., digital and sustainable devices for separate waste collection; 3) the enhancement of sustainable transportation, a decrease in CO2 emissions and a reduction in travel time; 4) the increase in competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural and agribusiness enterprises through the development of contracts in the agribusiness sector; and 5) sustainable forest management aimed at decreasing hydrogeological disruption and stimulating wood-energy system supply chains.

Regarding, however, the second explanation, Italy, in the context of the Next Generation EU, has adjusted the so-called National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) to try to curb the economic, social and environmental effects for the medium to long term of the pandemic. The PNRR as can be read on the website of the Ministry of Economy and Finance “is part of the Next Generation EU program, the €750 billion package, about half of which consists of grants, agreed by the European Union in response to the pandemic crisis.” The total funds provided for the NGEU are around 248 billion euros of which 26 billion euros are earmarked for the implementation of specific works and to replenish the resources of the Development and Cohesion Fund. This plan starts from three strategic axes (MEF, 2021): 1) digitalization and innovation; 2) ecological transition; and 3) social inclusion. To achieve these goals, the PNRR is developed into six missions:

1. Digitalization, innovation, competitiveness and culture: this mission aims to promote digital transformation, support the innovation of the entire production system and invest in tourism and culture;
2. Green Revolution and Ecological Transition: this mission aims to improve the sustainability and resilience of the Italian economic system and achieve a complete equitable and inclusive environmental transition;
3. Infrastructure for Sustainable Mobility: this mission aims to create a modern, sustainable and extended transportation infrastructure throughout the country;
4. Education and Research: this mission aims to strengthen the education system, technical-scientific and digital skills, and especially research and technology transfer;
5. Inclusion and cohesion: this mission wants to facilitate labor market participation;
6. Health: this mission aims to strengthen regional health systems particularly those in Southern Italy and to modernize and strengthen the national one and ensure that everyone gets the care they need.

Finally, with a variance from the mean value of the ranks equal to 0 we find Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Poland, and Romania.

4.3. European policies against the effects of Covid-19: the Next Generation EU

As anticipated in the previous section, in order to better represent the results and variability of the phenomenon of sustainable development, a clustering of the European countries analyzed was performed (Appendix, figure 3). Once the clustering was done, SI2015 and SI2020 were represented through a cartogram (figure 2). As can be seen from figure 2 the Northeast and Eastern countries show consistent levels of sustainable development over the years. Different is the case of the Central and Southwestern countries which show a deterioration between 2015 and 2020. In addition to the Spanish case, highlighted above, the deterioration of Germany is interesting, which, although it remains in the top positions over the years, shows a relevant deterioration between 2015 and 2020. Bucking the trend is the Netherlands, which shows a significant improvement between 2015 and 2018.

Thus, the Covid-19 pandemic has caused a serious economic and social crisis and a general deterioration in sustainable development levels. For this reason, the countries of the European continent belonging to the European Union have issued national plans to try to cope with all the harmful effects of the pandemic. All these national plans have been included in the larger and more ambitious European project: the Next Generation EU (NGEU). This instrument consists of a series of temporary allocations worth 800 billion euros. These funds aim at a greener, digital, resilient Europe prepared for both past and future challenges (European Commission, 2022). Being such an ambitious project, the NGEU is composed of broad and diverse measures. The most important of it is the Recovery and Resilience Facility. It financed by 732.8 billion euros divided into loans and grants will help all member states emerge from the crisis generated by the pandemic (European Commission, 2022). Another centerpiece of the NGEU is undoubtedly the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU). It, funded by 1074.3 billion euros, devotes special attention to green and digital transition among its many objectives (Consilium Europe,2022).

5. Conclusion

This paper analyzed in a time perspective the levels of sustainable development in the European Continent between 2015 and 2020. It showed how, despite the efforts made through the 2030 Agenda, there has been a gradual and steady deterioration in the levels of sustainable development achieved by countries over the years. In addition, the study demonstrated the presence of different territorial specificities. This fact was confirmed by comparing Spain and Italy. These countries although experiencing a similar economic and social situation, in fact, show different levels of sustainable development. Italy shows itself to be much more resilient than the Spanish reality thanks perhaps to the greater number of attempts made to recover from the crisis. Spain, therefore, should try to take as an example the most virtuous states, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland, to try to promote sustainable policies and, above all, find a solution to the growing phenomenon of desertification, which-as we have seen-is a concern throughout the Iberian Peninsula. In addition, the study highlighted the presence of countries (Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Poland and Romania) that have not improved their levels of sustainable development over the years. This underscores the need for action both at the national level, but more importantly at the European and international levels to try to encourage the promulgation of sustainable policies in these countries that are attentive to the needs of future generations.

The strength of this work lies in the fact that it has created 3 different sustainability indices useful for measuring the phenomenon from a time perspective. In fact, the chosen method, the AMPI, allows absolute temporal comparison and high replicability of results. However, in order to be temporally comparable, this method aggregates indicators with different variability (Mazziotta & Pareto, 2017). Moreover, this study could be replicated at the national level in order to better analyze individual territorial specificities and how they were affected by the effects of the pandemic. In addition, one approach to follow in future studies could be partial correlations. This symmetrical approach would allow the variance within each country to be measured. Finally, this study could be repeated years later in order to analyze the effects of policies implemented over the years.

Responsible reporting and conflict of interest

All authors undertake to disclose any existing or potential conflict of interest in relation to the publication of their article. Likewise, for articles with more than one author, the tasks carried out by each of them will be indicated.

REFERENCES

Alaimo L., Ciacci A., & Ivaldi E. (2021). Measuring sustainable development by non-aggregative approach Social Indicator Research, 157, 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02357-0

Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality. Working paper [26947], National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26947

Bar, H. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown: animal life, ecosystem and atmospheric environment. Environment, development and sustainability, 23(6), 8161-8178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01002-7

Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2020). Sustainability and development after COVID-19. World Development, 135, 105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105082

Bartiromo, M., Ciacci, A., & Ivaldi, E. (2022). Measuring Sustainable Development at the NUTS2 Level: Differences and Future Prospects. In R. Chandra Das (Ed.) Globalization, Income Distribution and Sustainable Development (95-116). Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-870-920221014

Boto-Álvarez, A., & García-Fernández, R. (2020). Implementation of the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals in Spain. Sustainability, 12(6), 2546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062546

Brulé, G., & Maggino, F. (2017). Towards More Complexity in Subjective Well-Being Studies. In G. Brulé, & F. Maggino (Eds.) Metrics of Subjective Well-Being: Limits and Improvements. Happiness Studies Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61810-4_1

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2022). Tracking the COVID-19 Economy’s Effects on Food, Housing, and Employment Hardships. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-economys-effects-on-food-housing-and

Ciacci, A., Ivaldi, E. & González, R. (2021). A Partially Non-Compensatory Method to Measure the Smart and Sustainable Level of Italian Municipality. Sustainability, 13, 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010435

Consilium Europe (2022, 30 March). COVID-19: la risposta dell’UE alle ricadute economiche. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/coronavirus/covid-19-economy/

Das, R.C., Chatterjee, T., & Ivaldi, E. (2021) Sustainability of Urbanization, Non-Agricultural Output and Air Pollution in the World’s Top 20 Polluting Countries. Data, 6, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/data6060065

Dingel, J. I., & Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public Economics, 189, 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

Ecologistas en Acción (2007). La Desertificación en el Estado español. https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/8776/la-desertificacion-en-el-estado-espanol/

Elavarasan, R.M., Pugazhendhi, R., Shafiullah, G.M. et al. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on Sustainable Development Goals and effective approaches to maneuver them in the post-pandemic environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 29, 33957–33987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17793-9

European Commission (2022). Recovery plan for Europe. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en

European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2018). Special Report: Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action. https://Op.Europa.Eu/Webpub/Eca/Special-Reports/Desertification-33-2018/En/Index.Html.

European Enviroment Agency (2020). Germany country profile - SDGs and the environment. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/sustainable-development-goals-and-the/country-profiles/germany-country-profile-sdgs-and

Everitt, B. S. (1979). Unresolved Problems in Cluster Analysis. Biometrics, 35(1), 169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529943

FAO (2020). How is COVID-19 affecting the fisheries and aquaculture food systems.

Federal Government (2022, March 29). Germany’s National Sustainable Development Strategy. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/sustainability/germany-s-national-sustainable-development-strategy-354566

Fernandes, N. (2020). Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak on the world economy. IESE Business School Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557504

Ferriss, A. L. (1988). The Uses of Social Indicators. Social Forces, 66(3), 601. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579568

France Diplomacy - Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs (2017). 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: How is France doing? https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/development-assistance/the-international developmentagenda/article/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development-how-is-france-doing-may-2017

Giovannini, E. (2018). L’utopia sostenibile (Italian Edition). Editori Laterza.

Grasso, M., Klicperová-Baker M., Koos S., Kosyakova Y., Petrillo A., & Vlase I. 2021. The impact of the coronavirus crisis on European societies. What have we learnt and where do we go from here? Introduction to the COVID volume. European Societies 23: S2–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1869283

ILO (2020). ILO monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Third edition, Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/impacts-and-responses/WCMS_743146/lang-zh/index.htm

Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289588

Ju, J. (2022, 28 March). What will COVID-19 do to the sustainable development goals? UN Dispatch. https://www.undispatch.com/what-will-COVID-19-do-to-the-sustainable-development-goals/

Kingdom of the Netherlands (2017). Report on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Netherlands.

Kingdom of Sweden (2017). Agenda 2030, Kingdom of Sweden.

Kuznets S. (1955), Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, XLV (1), pp. 1-28.

Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., Lange Salvia, A., Rayman-Bacchus, L., & Platje, J. (2020). COVID-19 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Threat to Solidarity or an Opportunity? Sustainability, 12(13), 5343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135343

Martínez-Valderrama, J., del Barrio, G., Sanjuán, M. E., Guirado, E., & Maestre, F. T. (2022). Desertification in Spain: A Sound Diagnosis without Solutions and New Scenarios. Land, 11(2), 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020272

Mazziotta M., & Pareto A. (2013). RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa’ Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 67(2), pp. 67-80, April-Jun.

Mazziotta, M., & Pareto A. (2007). Un indicatore sintetico di dotazione infrastrutturale: il metodo della penalità per coefficiente di variazione. Paper presented at Lo Sviluppo Regionale nell’Unione Europea-Obiettivi, Strategie, Politiche, Atti Della XXVIII Conferenza Italiana di Scienze Regionali, Bolzano, Italy, September 26–28.

Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2017). Measuring Well-Being Over Time: The Adjusted Mazziotta–Pareto Index Versus Other Non-compensatory Indices. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 967–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1577-5

Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (MEF)(2021). Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza. #NEXTGENERATIONITALIA. PNRR_0.pdf (governo.it)

Ministro per il Sud e la Coesione territoriale (2020). Piano Sud 2030. Sviluppo e Coesione per l’Italia. http://www.ministroperilsud.gov.it/media/2003/pianosud2030_documento.pdf.

Młodak, A. (2020). k-Means, Ward and Probabilistic Distance-Based Clustering Methods with Contiguity Constraint. Journal of Classification, 38(2), 313–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-020-09370-5

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop, OECD. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. (Pap/Ado ed.). OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop, OECD (2020). Women at the core of the fight against COVID-19 crisis. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/women-at-the-core-of-the-fight-againstcovid-

Primc, K., & Slabe-Erker, R. (2020). The Success of Public Health Measures in Europe during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 12(10), 4321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104321

Poudel, P. B., Poudel, M. R., Gautam, A., Phuyal, S., Tiwari, C. K., Bashyal, N., & Bashyal, S. (2020). COVID-19 and its global impact on food and agriculture. Journal of Biology and Today’s World, 9(5), 221-225.

Real Instituto Elcano (2021). Challenges and opportunities for Spain in times of COVID-19. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/work-document/challenges-and-opportunities-for-spain-in-times-of-covid-19/

Republic of France (2016). Report on the Implementation by France of the Sustainable Development Goals,France. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/10726Report%20SDGs%20France.pdf

Sachs, J.D. (2014). The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press.

SDG WATCH EUROPE (2019a). Finland. https://www.sdgwatcheurope.org/finland/ (Accessed on: 29 March 2022)

SDG WATCH EUROPE (2019b). The Netherlands. https://www.sdgwatcheurope.org/the-netherlands/ (Accessed on: 29 March 2022)

Shrestha, N., Shad, M. Y., Ulvi, O., Khan, M. H., Karamehic-Muratovic, A., Nguyen, U. S. D., Baghbanzadeh, M., Wardrup, R., Aghamohammadi, N., Cervantes, D., Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Zaki, R. A., & Haque, U. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on globalization. One Health, 11, 100180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100180

Shulla, K., Voigt, B. F., Cibian, S., Scandone, G., Martinez, E., Nelkovski, F., & Salehi, P. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Discover Sustainability, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00026-x

Steger, M. B. (2017). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001

Steinbrink, L. (2019, March 25). What Is Sustainable Development and Why Is It so Important?Https://Www.Emeraldbe.Com/Ebe-Home. https://blog.emeraldbe.com/new_blog/sustainable_development_important

SWEDEN.SE. (2021). Sweden and sustainability. (2021, November 29). Sweden.Se. https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/sweden-and-sustainability

Tatem, A. J., Hay, S. I., & Rogers, D. J. (2006). Global traffic and disease vector dispersal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(16), 6242–6247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508391103

UNESCO (2022). Education: From disruption to recovery. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

United Nations (2020). Policy brief: the impact of COVID-19 on women. New York. http://www.un.org/

sites/un2.un.org/files/policy_brief_on_covid_impact_on_women_9_april_2020.pdf

Valdivia, A. G. (2019, July 31). Desertification: A Serious Threat To Southern Europe. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/anagarciavaldivia/2019/07/30/desertification-a-serious-threat-to-southern-europe-lands/?sh=522dc1953021 (accessed on: 30 May 2022)

Vercelli, A. (2003). Globalizzazione e sostenibilità dello sviluppo. Economia Politica, Fascicolo 2, agosto 2003.

Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845

WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.

WHO (2020a). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report-51. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200311-sitrep-51-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=1ba62e57_10 (accessed on 11 March 2022).

WHO (2020b). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report-135. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200603-covid-19-sitrep-135.pdf?sfvrsn=39972feb_2

Women, U. N., & Count, W. (2021). Measuring the shadow pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-19. UN Women Data Hub.

WWF (2019). WWF alerta de sequías más graves en España si no hay un cambio radical. https://www.wwf.es/informate/biblioteca_wwf/?50880/WWF-alerta-de-sequias-mas-graves-en-Espana-si-no-hay-un-cambio-radical-en-la-gestion-del-agua. https://wwfes.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/cronica_de_una_sequia_anunciada_1.pdf

APPENDIX