# Evaluation of Sustainable Development in European Union Countries
## 6 Sensitivity Analysis  
The sensitivity analysis allows the relative importance of the criteria to be identified, through the variation in the weightings. This was done by changing the weighting of each criterion, assigning values of \(\pm\)5% and \(\pm\)10% with respect to the base weighting, which means that, since the model comprises nine criteria, eighteen new studies must be performed for each period. Nevertheless, given that countries did not experience great changes in their evolution over time, the sensitivity analysis was only carried out for the most recent year (2015). The results of the sensitivity analysis for each criterion are shown in Figures 13-21 for variations of \(\pm\)10%. The values for the countries are quite close, and so the small differences in the weightings of the criteria can lead to a country's classification varying its position to a higher or lower one, but quantitatively it is seen that the variations in sustainable development would be \(\pm\)0.1 with variations in the weightings of the criteria of \(\pm\)10%. Figure 13: Sensitivity analysis for Socio-economic development: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis for Sustainable consumption and production: (**a**) variation –10%; (**b**) +10%. Figure 15: Sensitivity analysis for Social inclusion. (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). Figure 16: Sensitivity analysis for Demographic change: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) +10\(\%\). Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis for Public health: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). Figure 18: Sensitivity analysis for Climate change and energy: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) +10\(\%\). Figure 19: Sensitivity analysis for Sustainable transport: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). Figure 20: Sensitivity analysis for Global alliance for development: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). Figure 21: Sensitivity analysis for good policies: (**a**) variation \(-10\%\); (**b**) \(+10\%\). For modifications in the weightings of the criteria of \(\pm 5\%\), we see that the three leading countries, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, do not change position by varying Socio-economic development, Social inclusion, Demographic change, Public health, Sustainable transport, and Good policies; in Sustainable consumption and production, Norway and the United Kingdom keep their positions, although Luxembourg passes Sweden with an increase of \(5\%\) in this criterion. With increases of \(5\%\) in the weighting of Global alliance for development, Norway, United Kingdom, and Sweden tie for first place. Thus, Norway is still the country with the highest sustainability in all cases. The three leading countries, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, do not change position with variations in the weightings of the criteria of \(\pm 10\%\) in Socio-economic development, Demographic change, Public health, and Good policies. Norway, the United Kingdom, and Malta, with increases of \(10\%\) in Sustainable consumption and production, would have the same result, and only Luxembourg would surpass these countries. Norway is still the leader with a variation of \(-10\%\) in this criterion. With a decrease of \(10\%\) in Climate change and energy, the United Kingdom surpasses Norway, while Sweden passes the United Kingdom for increases of \(10\%\), with Norway still in first place. In Sustainable transport, the United Kingdom and Sweden would be equal in the classification for increases of \(10\%\), with Norway still in first place. In Social inclusion, Iceland overtakes Sweden for third place and ties with the United Kingdom for increases of \(10\%\), but Norway is still in first place. It should be remembered that a variation of \(\pm 10\%\) in the weightings of the criteria leads to great variation, and, even so, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Sweden are still in first place, a few specific exceptions.