IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i4p533-d787683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Sustainability Performance of Eco-Engineering Measures in the Mediterranean Region

Author

Listed:
  • Slobodan B. Mickovski

    (BEAM Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK)

  • Alejandro Gonzalez-Ollauri

    (BEAM Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK)

  • Craig Thomson

    (BEAM Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK)

  • Caroline Gallagher

    (BEAM Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK)

  • Guillermo Tardio

    (School of Forestry Engineering and Natural Resources, Technical University of Madrid, 28031 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Eco-engineering has a crucial role in defining and achieving the sustainability credentials of a civil engineering project. Better eco-engineering practices would help better in reducing the adverse impacts on the environment and society, but also on the financial performance of the project. However, the assessment of the sustainability effects of eco-engineering strategies can be challenging, as the treatment of this topic has been neglected in the scientific literature. The challenges lie in balancing the project delivery objectives with the sustainable design that will ensure appropriate and satisfactory environmental and financial performance and deliver social benefits such as ecosystem services. In order to achieve better practice and advance the knowledge in the field, there is a need for broader analysis of completed eco-engineering projects applied at different spatio-temporal scales. The aim of this study was to critically analyse 23 eco-engineering case studies provided by the ECOMED project partners using a life cycle analysis through a single sustainability framework based on a relatively small set of key performance indicators (KPIs), which reflect the principles of sustainability, and which are not contextual for eco-engineering projects. The objectives of this study are twofold: (i) to highlight areas of best practice and potential enhancement in the application of eco-engineering strategies, and (ii) to propose refinement and enhancement of the existing framework with KPIs contextual to eco-engineering projects. The results of the study suggest that the feasibility, mobilisation, and the long-term stages of an eco-engineering project are the most sustainable project stages, while the award, construction, and monitoring stages could generally benefit from a range of enhancements including benefits stemming from double-loop learning and a common basis for the specification and quantification of the financial resources needed to apply eco-engineering strategies. The outcomes of this study will benefit decision makers and eco-engineering practitioners alike in terms of not only raising the sustainability profile of the projects they are involved in, but also in terms of more efficient and cost-effective application of eco-engineering strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Slobodan B. Mickovski & Alejandro Gonzalez-Ollauri & Craig Thomson & Caroline Gallagher & Guillermo Tardio, 2022. "Assessment of the Sustainability Performance of Eco-Engineering Measures in the Mediterranean Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:533-:d:787683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/533/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/4/533/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slobodan B. Mickovski, 2021. "Re-Thinking Soil Bioengineering to Address Climate Change Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Bromley, Daniel W., 1998. "Searching for sustainability: The poverty of spontaneous order," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 231-240, February.
    3. Laddyla Bezerra & Osvaldo de Freitas Neto & Olavo Santos & Slobodan Mickovski, 2020. "Landslide Risk Mapping in an Urban Area of the City of Natal, Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Slobodan B. Mickovski, 2021. "Sustainable Geotechnics—Theory, Practice, and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-4, May.
    2. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    3. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    4. Jeroen van den Bergh & John Gowdy, 2000. "Evolutionary Theories in Environmental and Resource Economics: Approaches and Applications," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 37-57, September.
    5. Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
    6. Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
    7. Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Giving voice to the future in sustainability: Retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-6.
    8. Stefano Bartolini, 2014. "Building sustainability through greater happiness," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 25(4), pages 587-602, December.
    9. Scott, Antony, 1999. "Trust law, sustainability, and responsible action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 139-154, October.
    10. Green, Tom L., 2013. "Teaching (un)sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of introductory economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 135-142.
    11. Frank Ackerman & Kevin Gallagher, "undated". "Getting the Prices Wrong: The Limits of Market-Based Environmental Policy," GDAE Working Papers 00-05, GDAE, Tufts University.
    12. Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. "Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Achim Schlüter & Sarah Wise & Kathleen Schwerdtner Mánez & Gabriela Weber De Morais & Marion Glaser, 2013. "Institutional Change, Sustainability and the Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    15. Bromley, Daniel W., 2007. "Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond "market failure"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 676-683, September.
    16. Daniel Bromley, 2004. "Reconsidering Environmental Policy: Prescriptive Consequentialism and Volitional Pragmatism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(1), pages 73-99, May.
    17. Gerardo Marletto, 2009. "Heterodox Environmental Economix: Theoretical Strands in Search of a Paradigm," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 25-33.
    18. Nate Kauffman & Kristina Hill, 2021. "Climate Change, Adaptation Planning and Institutional Integration: A Literature Review and Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-28, September.
    19. Paavola, Jouni & Adger, W. Neil, 2005. "Institutional ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 353-368, May.
    20. Gerlagh, Reyer & Keyzer, Michiel A., 2003. "Efficiency of conservationist measures: an optimist viewpoint," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 310-333, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:533-:d:787683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.