An Identification Key for Selecting Methods for Sustainability Assessments

被引:45
作者
Zijp, Michiel C. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Heijungs, Reinout [2 ,4 ]
van der Voet, Ester [2 ]
van de Meent, Dik [1 ,3 ]
Huijbregts, Mark A. J. [3 ]
Hollander, Anne [1 ]
Posthuma, Leo [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Publ Hlth & Environm RIVM, Dept Sustainabil Environm & Hlth, NL-3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands
[2] Leiden Univ CML, Inst Environm Sci, NL-2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Environm Sci, NL-6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Econometr & Operat Res, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
DECISION-MAKING; FRAMEWORK; TOOLS; INDICATORS; SYSTEMS; IMPACT; LCA;
D O I
10.3390/su7032490
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Sustainability assessments can play an important role in decision making. This role starts with selecting appropriate methods for a given situation. We observed that scientists, consultants, and decision-makers often do not systematically perform a problem analyses that guides the choice of the method, partly related to a lack of systematic, though sufficiently versatile approaches to do so. Therefore, we developed and propose a new step towards method selection on the basis of question articulation: the Sustainability Assessment Identification Key. The identification key was designed to lead its user through all important choices needed for comprehensive question articulation. Subsequently, methods that fit the resulting specific questions are suggested by the key. The key consists of five domains, of which three determine method selection and two the design or use of the method. Each domain consists of four or more criteria that need specification. For example in the domain "system boundaries", amongst others, the spatial and temporal scales are specified. The key was tested (retrospectively) on a set of thirty case studies. Using the key appeared to contribute to improved: (i) transparency in the link between the question and method selection; (ii) consistency between questions asked and answers provided; and (iii) internal consistency in methodological design. There is latitude to develop the current initial key further, not only for selecting methods pertinent to a problem definition, but also as a principle for associated opportunities such as stakeholder identification.
引用
收藏
页码:2490 / 2512
页数:23
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, OECD ENV INDICATORS
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, OJ L, V124/1, P1
[3]  
Bailey K.D., 1994, TYPOLOGIES TAXONOMIE
[4]  
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
[5]  
Blok K., 2013, A Novel Methodology for the Sustainability Impact Assessment of New Technologies. Projeto prosuite (encerrado)
[6]   Measuring the immeasurable -: A survey of sustainability indices [J].
Boehringer, Christoph ;
Jochem, Patrick E. P. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 63 (01) :1-8
[7]   Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice [J].
Bond, Alan J. ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2011, 31 (01) :1-7
[8]   Comparison of energy flow accounting, energy flow metabolism ratio analysis and ecological footprinting as tools for measuring urban sustainability: A case-study of an Irish city-region [J].
Browne, David ;
O'Regan, Bernadette ;
Moles, Richard .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2012, 83 :97-107
[9]   A guide for choosing the most appropriate method for multi-criteria assessment of agricultural systems according to decision-makers' expectations [J].
Carof, M. ;
Colomb, B. ;
Aveline, A. .
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 2013, 115 :51-62
[10]   Similarities, differences and synergisms between HERA and LCA - An analysis at three levels [J].
de Haes, Helias A. Udo ;
Sleeswijk, Anneke Wegener ;
Heijungs, Reinout .
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2006, 12 (03) :431-449