Generic sustainability assessment themes and the role of context: The case of Danish maize for German biogas

被引:28
作者
Gasso, Vicent [1 ]
Oudshoorn, Frank W. [1 ]
de Olde, Evelien [1 ]
Sorensen, Claus A. G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Aarhus Univ, Dept Engn, Aarhus, Denmark
关键词
Sustainability; Themes; Issues; Objectives; Context; Generic; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS; SYSTEMS; IMPACT; TOOLS; STATE; GAP;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.10.008
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
The choice of context-generic or-specific themes and subthemes (goals and objectives) for sustainability assessment implies a number of tradeoffs; for instance, benchmarking and resource efficiency vs. coverage and engagement. Analyses of the potentials and limitations of generic assessment themes and sub-themes within specific contexts may help to develop frameworks that minimise the tradeoffs between generic and specific assessment approaches. The aim of this study was to analyse the effectiveness of generic themes and sub-themes of existing frameworks for covering the key sustainability issues of a specific case study the case of Danish maize for German biogas. The results indicate that generic frameworks can effectively cover context-specific issues related to the environmental dimension of sustainability. Conversely, generic frameworks can be unable to identify context-specific issues related to social and economic dimensions. This study suggests that the coverage gap of generic themes is mainly an issue of framework incompleteness that can be advanced with additional research. A one-size-fits-all specificity-level for sustainability assessment is not applicable, and the specificity-level should be tailored to the assessment purpose. A certain degree of stakeholder participation is recommended not only in the assessment process, but also during the framework design to support stakeholders' sustainability education and action. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:143 / 153
页数:11
相关论文
共 56 条
  • [1] Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science
    Alrøe H.F.
    Kristensen E.S.
    [J]. Agriculture and Human Values, 2002, 19 (1) : 3 - 23
  • [2] Althaus H-J., 2007, Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods
  • [3] [Anonymous], CONS RSB EU RED PRIN
  • [4] [Anonymous], COOL FARM TOOL US GU
  • [5] [Anonymous], GLOB REP IN SUST REP
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2013, SUST ASS FOOD AGR SY
  • [7] [Anonymous], METH SHEETS 31 SUBC
  • [8] Development of agri-environmental indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec, Eastern Canada
    Belanger, Valerie
    Vanasse, Anne
    Parent, Diane
    Allard, Guy
    Pellerin, Doris
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2012, 23 : 421 - 430
  • [9] BFH, 2012, RISE RESP IND SUST E
  • [10] 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