1 Introduction

For more than forty years it has been investigated

the impact on the physical-natural environment that

has been created by the human life development and

the man's needs satisfaction to improve their quality

of life. For this reason it has created the concept of

sustainable development as Hák and others (2007)

as scheme of human, social and economic

development that is able to stay indefinitely in

harmony with the planet's biophysical systems. To

measure and evaluate it, indicators have been

formulated that provide information on each of the

following dimensions: social, environmental,

institutional and economic [3].

The objective of this research is to design a social

sustainability indicator for Venezuela, and there will

be used 17 state-level variables for the years 2007,

2008 and 2009 which will assess the social

dimension of sustainable development.

To formulate the social sustainability indicator

(SSI), a statistical methodology was applied, using

multivariate analysis techniques as the principal

components, which are added using a sum of the

scores of the principal components [1]. It´s also

used Cluster analysis which allows to observe the

similarity between the states and to form

homogeneous groups according to social

characteristics included in the study.

2 Methodology

Originally when referring to development, it was

only considered the economic growth to improve

the quality of human life; however, this growth has

led to changes with negative effects on the

environment, and that is why the concept of

sustainable development has emerged, based on a

Social Sustainability measurement for Venezuela during 2007–2009

1JOSSENY CIARROCHI, ANNA GABRIELA PÉREZ

2,3,4FRANCKLIN RIVAS-ECHEVERRÍA

1Universidad de Los Andes.

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Departamento de Estadística

Mérida – VENEZUELA

2Laboratorio de Sistemas Inteligentes

Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida, Edo. Mérida

VENEZUELA

3Escuela de Ingeniería

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador-sede Ibarra, Ibarra, Provincia Imbabura

ECUADOR

4Programa Prometeo

Secretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación

Quito, Provincia Pichincha

ECUADOR

Abstract: - In this research an indicator of social sustainability for Venezuela was designed using a

statistical methodology, using information from the sustainable development social dimension for each

of the Venezuelan states during 2007-2009. For building the social sustainability indicator (SSI) it was

used the first two principal components obtained from the analysis for each year and as aggregation

method the sum of components was used. The resulting values of social sustainability indicator is

decomposed into 5 levels in similar way to the sustainability barometer and federal entities with the

corresponding SSI level were assigned.

Key-Words: - sustainability indicators, sustainable development, sustainability barometer, principal

components.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022

system of balance between social, environmental

and economic.

Since the completion of the First Earth Summit, and

the adoption of Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of

action for the benefit of sustainable development,

the use of indicators is established as a mechanism

to measure this type of development. An indicator is

simply the measurement of a phenomenon through a

set of variables that are associated to this

phenomenon. A formal definition was proposed by

Schuschny and Soto (2009), which define it as a

measuring instrument built theoretically to be

applied to a set of analysis units in order to produce

a number that quantifies the concept associated with

that group [10].

Quiroga (2007) conducted a research based on

experiences carried out in Latin America for this

type of development measure using indicators. This

research highlights the participation of some

countries of the region in the pilot sustainable

development indicators proposed by the UN

committee concerned with the topics and subtopics

framework [8]. Some countries follows the

proposed scheme presented by the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development scheme

(OECD) Pressure-State-Response (PSR), others use

a system of sustainable development indicators

(SIDES) funded by the World Bank and other

international organizations.

With regard to the social dimension of sustainable

development, it can be highlighted the investigation

presented by Kronemberger (2009) in Brazil, in

which a set of indicators of social cohesion is

presented, with aims to formulate policies towards

sustainable development. This study defines social

cohesion as the capacity of a society to ensure the

welfare of all citizens, minimizing disparities and

avoiding polarization [4].

The selected indicators for Brazil's experience was

made according to the following criteria: data

validation availability, specification, reliability, and

communicability. In this research, socioeconomic

gaps are analyzed in two ways: gaps compared to

the average and gaps compared to reference values,

and an adaptation of the sustainability barometer

presented by Prescott Allen (1997), which is that

each variable used in the social cohesion indicator is

transformed to a performance scale [7].

In Venezuela experiences have been made to

measure sustainable development through the use of

indicators, and these experiences are summarized in

Table 1. The social dimension of sustainable

development is included in most of the experience,

but has not been obtained an index for social

sustainability for some dimensions but has been

obtained synthetic or composite indicators.

Table 1. Experiences on sustainable development held in

Venezuela

Source: Own preparation

2.1. Social Sustainability indicator for

Venezuela

To obtain social sustainability indicator (SSI) for

Venezuela in the period 2007-2009, an extensive

process of information gathering was conducted

with reference to the themes and sub-themes

proposed in the UN framework. It managed to cover

5 topics 10 subtopics and 17 variables, as shown in

Table 2, and information is available at State level.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022

Table 2. Variables selected for construction of the ISS

Source: Own preparation from Quiroga (2009).

Once consolidated databases for the study period, it

was proceed to perform the descriptive statistical

analysis. Also it was decided to standardize all

variables included in the study to eliminate the

effect of measurement units and magnitudes of

value before performing the principal component

analysis.

To perform the principal component analysis it was

decided to decompose the correlation matrix R. To

determine whether this analysis is appropriate,

measures KMO sampling adequacy and Bartlett's

test of sphericity are examined. The results for the

period 2007 - 2009 indicates that the data are

suitable for the principal components analysis, the

KMO is greater than 0.5 and with the sphericity test

the null hypothesis is rejected concerning no

correlation between the considered variables [5],

that is, the variables are correlated as shown in

Table 3.

Table 3. Measures of sampling adequacy

Source: Own preparation

Based on the experiences of Castro and Morillas,

Azqueta and Escobar (2004), and Peña - Trapero

(2009) for the methodological approach of social

sustainability indicator (SSI), it is taken as a starting

point the analysis of principal components, for this

[2,1,6]. It will consider the first three principal

components, which explain the percentage of

variation that is shown in Table 4 in the three years

included in the study, the largest percentage is

during 2007.

Table 4. Percentage of variance explained by the three

components retained

Years Accumulated %

2007 71,326

2008 62,879

2009 67,586

Source: Own preparation

To define an indicator based on principal

components there are several proposed procedures,

Castro and Morillas (2002) explain that one of the

ways is adding these components considering the

scores and the interpretation of the components. For

this reason from the first three components the

interpretation of SSI will be expressed as follows:

 = 

− ||+ 

The interpretation of the first three principal

components for the period under study is as follows:

First Component: is a shape component and it can

be defined as a component of human development

and well-being, in which two groups of States are

opposed with the following features: A group of

States that relates directly and positively with those

variables associated with better living conditions,

because in them there is a greater proportion of

households with access to basic services and

increased access to health services because they

have more hope distinguishes at birth and higher

infant survival rate, the greater the average age of

mother at first birth, there is generally a higher

human development index, higher employment and

equality between female and male average salary

average. The percentage of households that exceed

the basic food basket, are generally the most

populated states. This group opposes those States

associated with higher percentages of people living

in extreme poverty and in which higher infant

mortality rate and percentage of deaths from

malnutrition in children under four years is

recorded.

Second Component: This component is a form

component, which is mainly and directly associated

with those states in which the percentage of people

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022

living in extreme poverty, the highest percentage of

deaths from malnutrition in children under four

years is higher and mortality rate under the age of

four years old, so the negative sign is justified in the

expression for SSI.

Third Component: is a form component, and can

be expressed as a component of equity in the

distribution of income, as it is related to the Gini

coefficient, and virtually any other relevant variable

can be found in this component.

To improve the outcome of the SSI, it is first

necessary to calculate the optimum value for each

year of the study period. This optimum value of the

indicator represents the ideal situation of social

sustainability, where the negative effects of some

variables are minimized (such as poverty) and

maximize the positive effects of other variables

(living conditions, health education, among others).

The optimum values are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Optimum value of ISS

2007 4,16

2008 4,19

2009 4,84

Source: Own preparation

Once determined the scores for each state, an

adaptation of the sustainability barometer with the

aim of establishing a scale for classifying each State

at a sustainability level is done. SSI classification

depends on the score for a particular state, that is, if

there is a positive and close to the optimum value

rating means it has high social sustainability, as if

the state has a negative score means it is socially

unsustainable. The ranges for each level of

sustainability and for each year is presented in Table

Table 6. SSI values score based on sustainability

barometer

Sustainability

Level 2007 2008 2009

Sustainable

(Very Good) 3,375≤ISS≤4,5 3,375≤ ISS≤

4,5 3,75 ≤ ISS≤

5,0

Quasi

Sustainable

(Good)

2,25 ≤

ISS<3,375 2,25 ≤

ISS<3,375 2,5 ≤

ISS<3,75

Intermediate 1,125 ≤ ISS<

2,25 1,125 ≤

ISS< 2,25 1,25 ≤ ISS<

2,5

Quasi

Unsustainable

(Poor)

0 ≤ ISS< 1,125 0 ≤ ISS<

1,125 0≤ ISS<

1,25

Unsustainable

(Bad) ISS≤ 0 ISS≤ 0 ISS≤ 0

Source: Own preparation

Table 7 shows the classification of the states of

Venezuela at a particular sustainability level for the

period 2007 - 2009. It is noteworthy that only one

state ranks as sustainable in 2007 and corresponds to

the state of Miranda, while the other states are

classified in other sustainability levels, except for

the quasi sustainable level that no state is classified.

Another interesting finding is related to the large

number of States that during the three years of the

study were classified as unsustainable, where

Amazonas, Apure, Barinas, Guárico, Lara,

Portuguesa, Sucre and Trujillo have been

unsustainable the three consecutive years.

Table 7. Comparative table using the sustainability

barometer for 2007 to 2009.

Sustainability

level 2007 2008 2009

Sustainable

(Very Good) Miranda

Quasi

Sustainable

(Good)

Intermediate Aragua

Carabobo,

Distrito

Capital,

Vargas

Distrito

Capital,

Miranda

Quasi

Unsustainable

(Poor)

Anzoátegui

, Bolívar,

Carabobo,

Distrito

Capital,

Falcón,

Monagas,

Zulia,

Bolívar,

Mérida,

Miranda,

Nueva

Esparta,

Táchira,

Yaracuy

Anzoátegui,

Carabobo,

Cojedes,

Falcón,

Monagas,

Nueva

Esparta,

Yaracuy,

Táchira,

Vargas,

Unsustainable

(Bad)

Amazonas,

Apure,

Barinas,

Cojedes,

Delta

Amacuro,

Guárico,

Lara,

Mérida,

Nueva

Esparta,

Portuguesa,

Sucre,

Táchira,

Trujillo,

Vargas,

Yaracuy

Amazonas,

Anzoátegui,

Apure,

Aragua,

Barinas,

Cojedes,

Delta

Amacuro,

Falcón,

Guárico,

Lara,

Monagas,

Portuguesa,

Sucre,

Trujillo,

Zulia,

Amazonas,

Apure,

Aragua,

Barinas,

Bolívar,

Delta

Amacuro,

Guárico,

Lara,

Mérida,

Portuguesa,

Sucre,

Trujillo,

Zulia,

Source: Own preparation

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022

3 Conclusions

Based on the importance of sustainability in

Venezuela, this study refers to the social dimension

of sustainable development. Specifically this

dimension seeks to measure the living conditions of

citizens, including aspects such as health, education,

access to services, gender equality, security,

poverty, population changes, among others.

In this paper a social sustainability indicator (SSI)

for Venezuela is presented, obtained through a

statistical methodology that uses as input the

principal component analysis. Importantly, al the

moment of the development of this research, for

Venezuela was not reported any indicator of this

type, and it should be promoted the use of indicators

as monitoring instruments.

In the proposed methodology, information analysis

begins with a comprehensive exploratory data

analysis, in order to highlight the most important

features of states and detecting outliers. In social

studies, statistics orders as maximum and minimum

are relevant, because can be used for identifying

those states that are better or worse compared with

some variable.

Reducing the information in the original data matrix

through principal component analysis, allows the

use of principal components scores to define a

composite indicator. This indicator is an aggregative

indicator, and aggregations are performed in

accordance with the interpretation of the

components. For Venezuela the SSI has been

obtained using the principal components analysis for

three successive years.

Another interesting issue is related to determining

the optimal values of the SSI for three years under

study, which were similar, indicating that the

methodology is consistent. The results for the years

2007, 2008 and 2009 indicate that the priority states

in social care aspects are: Amazonas, Apure,

Barinas, Guarico, Lara, Portuguesa, Sucre and

Trujillo.

The time-based classification for the states is

interesting to analyze. Improved social sustainability

was expected, and this research stagnation or

decline of social sustainability in Venezuela is

evident. It was expected that scores on the SSI will

increase from year to year, however, has not

happened and this represents an alarming fact.

Venezuela was part of the countries that signed or

agreed to Agenda 21 at the Summit of the Earth, a

global action plan for the reduction of extreme

poverty and aiming to increase the living conditions

of citizens and the Millennium Development Goals,

and in this research is not really evidence the

commitment made over 20 years ago.

Policies must be implemented at the state level to

improve the score of each entity in the SSI, through

the fight against extreme poverty and social

exclusion related to improving areas such as

education, access to health, also improvements in

access to basic services, prioritizing the states with

levels of social sustainability poor or bad.

For further studies it’s recommended to propose the

use of distance-based indicators to assess the social

sustainability in Venezuela.

Finally, it’s recommended using the SSI to measure

social sustainability in Venezuela and take it into

account when making decisions for the design of

policies and programs that yields to social

sustainability.

Acknowledgment: Authors want to thanks the

support given to this project by the Secretaría de

Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e

Innovación of Ecuador and Prometeo Program.

References:

[1] Azqueta, D. Escobar, L. (2004). Calidad

de Vida Urbana. Ekonomiaz 57:216 – 239.

Disponible en:

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?co

digo=1373292

[2] Castro, M., Morillas, R. (2002).

Indicadores de desarrollo sostenibles

Urbano. Una aplicación para Andalucía.

Universidad de Málaga. España.

[3] Hák, T., Moldan, B., Lyon Dahl, A., eds.

(2007). Sustainability Indicators. A

scientific Assessment, Scientific Committe

on Problems of the Environment (Scope

67). Island Press, Washinton.

[4] Kronemberger, D. (2009). Indicadores de

Cohesión Social en Brasil: Análisis de las

Brechas Socioeconómicas para Informar

las Políticas Hacia el Desarrollo

Sostenible. Instituto Brasileño de

Geografía y Estadística. II Internatinal

Conference on Sustainability

Measurement and Modelling. Barcelona –

España.

[5] Malhotra, N (2008). Investigación de

mercados. 5ta edición. Pearson educación.

México.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022

[6] Peña – Trapero, B. 2009. La Medición del

Bienestar Social: una revisión crítica.

Estudios de Economía Aplicada 27:2:299

– 324. Disponible en:

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=301

17056001

[7] Prescott-Allen, R. 1997. Barómetro de la

sostenibilidad. Medición y comunicación

del bienestar y el desarrollo sostenible.

UICN. Costa Rica

[8] Quiroga, R. (2007). Indicadores

ambientales y de desarrollo sostenible:

avances y perspectivas para América

Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile.

[9] Quiroga, R. (2009). Guía metodológica

para desarrollar indicadores ambientales y

de desarrollo sostenible en países de

América Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL.

Santiago de Chile.

[10] Schuschny, A. Soto, H. (2009). Guía

Metodológica: Diseño de Indicadores

Compuestos de Desarrollo Sostenible.

División de Desarrollo Sostenible y

Asentamientos Humanos (DDSAH) de la

Comisión Económica para América Latina

y el Caribe (CEPAL). Santiago de Chile –

Chile.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE

DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.7

Josseny Ciarrochi, Anna Gabriela Pérez,

Francklin Rivas-Echeverría

E-ISSN: 2732-9984

Volume 2, 2022