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
  • [31] Sustainability and the scientist's burden
    Lele, S
    Norgaard, RB
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1996, 10 (02) : 354 - 365
  • [32] Index 98 Workshop - Introduction and overview
    Lenz, R
    Malkina-Pykh, IG
    Pykh, Y
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2000, 130 (1-3) : 1 - 11
  • [33] Development of indicators for assessment of the environmental impact of livestock farming in Ireland using the Agri-environmental Footprint Index
    Louwagie, Geertrui
    Northey, Greg
    Finn, John A.
    Purvis, Gordon
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2012, 18 : 149 - 162
  • [34] The role of common local indicators in regional sustainability assessment
    Mascarenhas, Andre
    Coelho, Pedro
    Subtil, Eduarda
    Ramos, Tomas B.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2010, 10 (03) : 646 - 656
  • [35] Mineur E, 2007, RES REPORT
  • [36] Making 'dirty' nations look clean? The nation state and the problem of selecting and weighting indices as tools for measuring progress towards sustainability
    Morse, S
    Fraser, EDG
    [J]. GEOFORUM, 2005, 36 (05) : 625 - 640
  • [37] Categorising tools for sustainability assessment
    Ness, Barry
    Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin
    Anderberg, Stefan
    Olsson, Lennart
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 60 (03) : 498 - 508
  • [38] OECD Environmental Indicators, 2003, DEV MEAS US REF PAP
  • [39] Pagh-Schlegel P., 2012, DANSK LANDMND, P10
  • [40] Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based communities: A mixed-method approach
    Parkins, JR
    Stedman, RC
    Varghese, J
    [J]. SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 2001, 56 (01) : 43 - 72