Reconceptualising sustainability assessment

被引:114
作者
Pope, Jenny [1 ,2 ]
Bond, Alan [2 ,3 ]
Huge, Jean [4 ,5 ]
Morrison-Saunders, Angus [2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Integral Sustainabil, POB 79, South Fremantle, WA 6162, Australia
[2] North West Univ, Res Unit Environm Sci & Management, Potchefstroom Campus,Private Bag X6001, ZA-2520 Potchefstroom, South Africa
[3] Univ East Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, Norwich Res Pk, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England
[4] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Syst Ecol & Resource Management Unit, Av Franklin Roosevelt 50, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
[5] Fund Sci Res FNRS, Rue Egmont 5, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
[6] Murdoch Univ, Environm & Conservat Sci, South St, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
关键词
Sustainability assessment; Conceptual framework; Pluralism; Discourse; Sustainability; Decision-making context; IMPACT ASSESSMENT; DECISION-MAKING; FRAMEWORK; INDICATORS; REFLECTIONS; PERSPECTIVE; INTEGRATION; RESILIENCE; OBJECTIVES; PURPOSES;
D O I
10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Sustainability assessment as an ex ante tool for directing decision-making towards sustainability has emerged in a diverse range of forms across the world over the past decade or so. This broad practice of sustainability assessment embraces a wide and continually evolving range of processes, making the field potentially conceptually confusing and difficult to navigate. In recognition of this, there have been numerous attempts to develop conceptual frameworks to make sense of the diversity of practice. Through a process of literature review and reflection upon practice, this paper builds on earlier work, including our own, to develop a new descriptive conceptual framework for sustainability assessment. The conceptual framework distinguishes two dimensions of sustain ability assessment, each with several sub-dimensions: sustainability concept (with sub-dimensions of underpinning sustainability discourse and representation of sustainability) and decision-making context (with sub dimensions of subject of assessment, decision-question and responsible party). Drawing upon further literature, several examples of different approaches are then identified for each sub-dimension, demonstrating the range of approaches evident within current and emerging global practice. Within the 'sustainability concept' dimension, the first sub-dimension calls for critical reflection upon what the normative goal of the sustainability assessment is, while the second refers to how the concept of sustainability is represented in the decision-making process through the use of indicators. Although these two sub-dimensions are closely related their distinction is a key feature of the conceptual framework. The second dimension describes the practical context of a sustainability assessment. The proposed new conceptual framework enables a particular body of practice to be located within the broader field, as we demonstrate by categorising five examples of sustainability assessment according to the framework. We believe this framework has value to both researchers and practitioners, as a structure to guide sustainability assessment research and analysis and as the basis for comparing bodies of sustainability assessment practice within the range of possibilities defined by the contours of the framework. The framework encourages reflective practice, particularly in relation to how the concept of sustainability is understood and embedded within the process, and what the practice might deliver. This new conceptual framework is presented as a relatively simple road map and guide as sustainability assessment theorising and practice enters its second decade. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:205 / 215
页数:11
相关论文
共 92 条
[1]   From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world [J].
Ahern, Jack .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2011, 100 (04) :341-343
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2007, IMPACT ASSESS PROJ A
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Sustainability Assessment: criteria, processes and applications
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1992, LIMITS POSTMILLS
[5]  
Audouin M., 2015, HDB SUSTAINABILITY A
[6]  
Binder C. R., 2010, Building sustainable rural futures: the added value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty. 9th European IFSA Symposium, Vienna, Austria, 4-7 July 2010, P801
[7]   A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy? [J].
Bond, Alan ;
Pope, Jenny ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus ;
Retief, Francois .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2016, 57 :187-194
[8]   Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management [J].
Bond, Alan ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus ;
Gunn, Jill A. E. ;
Pope, Jenny ;
Retief, Francois .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2015, 151 :97-104
[9]   Sustainability assessment: the state of the art [J].
Bond, Alan ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus ;
Pope, Jenny .
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL, 2012, 30 (01) :53-62
[10]   Learning How to Deal with Values, Frames and Governance in Sustainability Appraisal [J].
Bond, Alan J. ;
Dockerty, Trudie ;
Lovett, Andrew ;
Riche, Andrew B. ;
Haughton, Alison J. ;
Bohan, David A. ;
Sage, Rufus B. ;
Shield, Ian F. ;
Finch, Jon W. ;
Turner, Martin M. ;
Karp, Angela .
REGIONAL STUDIES, 2011, 45 (08) :1157-1170